If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[sys]

Hi sys,

Do you have any law to support that sweeping proposition?

Thanks

Mark

 

to support that california is a state?  i'm sure i could google it if you really want.  if you are asking if i have support for the idea that ineligible voters aren't automatically registered to vote in california, i think you could probably assume that since: 1) about half the people in the us are outraged at the idea of possible voter fraud by immigrants, 2) california is a state with millions of people in it, 3) it's illegal for non-citizens to vote in the united states and 4) you're only hearing of the possibility of this massive and completely unconcealed illegal voting effort on conspiracy journalism websites and some random investing message board - it's probably not true.

 

if you actually would find it more compelling than the use of logical induction, i can share that i live in california.  i am a citizen, my wife is not.  we both have state issued id, but only i am registered to vote.

[rb]

These conspiracy theories about voting are getting really ridiculous. Everything is rigged now. Rigged I tell you! I wonder why those illegals who hate donald trump so much didn't commit voter fraud and vote against him in the RIGGED! republican primary?

[EliG]

Trump is losing big to Clinton among white college-educated women

 

Donald Trump is losing an important constituency to Hillary Clinton by huge margins — and it doesn't seem to be a matter of party affiliation.

 

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, trailed Clinton by 30 points among white women with a college degree in a Monmouth University poll released Monday. Trump had only 27% of the vote among that segment of the electorate, while Clinton, the Democratic nominee, had 57%.

 

While that might not look surprising on its face, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee in 2012, won that voter group by 6 points.

 

Trump's reaction? Muse openly about Clinton assassination. Of course! That's brilliant. College-educated women love that kind of talk.

 

[Guest MarkS]

Hi sys,

 

Thanks for your response.  I will try to address your responses in order.

 

As I understand the act,  if you are "eligible" you are in fact automatically registered unless you act to opt out. 

 

The fact that half of the country is outraged by the idea of illegals voting seems to cut both ways as the other halfof the country may not be particularly bothered by illegals voting.  Please remember that Bernie Sanders, a self proclaimed socialist who advocates for a non militarized border has rabid support from about half of the Democratic Party. 

 

California does in fact have a large population - so what. 

 

Although it may be illegal for illegals to vote, the California act goes out of its way to protect illegals caught attempting to vote.  Specifically,  from the bill itself:

 

"The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person’s registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote."

 

In other words, if you're caught voting act dumb.

 

Notwithstanding your claims to the contrary,  reputable sources are reporting on the bill,including but not limited to The San Diego Union Tribune, The Washington Times, along with various non partisan voter watchdog organizations.  The thrust of the arguments being that California does not have the data base to monitor for voter fraud. In fact, the ACLU has specifically criticized the California system as being out dated and archaic. 

 

Considering that the act hasn't yet been implemented your wife's current voting status is irrelevant.   

 

All things considered, you really don't have any support for your sweeping assertions. Just a lot of sound and fury ....

 

Thanks

Mark

 

[sys]

mark, the point is that if california had passed a law that directly conflicts with federal law it would be a pretty big deal.  you'd see coverage of it everywhere.  of course you seem to realize this and have now switched to the idea that the law will enable fraud, rather than that it will allow immigrants to legally vote.  i hope you at least realize that you are changing the argument?

 

 

this conversation makes me wish the right to vote could be dramatically curtailed, to be honest.

[Guest MarkS]

Hi sys,

Thanks you, but I haven't changed my argument.  Notwithstand your claim to the contrary.  Thanks also for the rather juvenile insult. Let's just agree to disagree and get on with our lives.  Hopefully, someone will start a new board and you can avoid being sullied by the great unwashed.

[sys]

it wasn't your argument to start with.  you changed muscleman's argument (more an expression of concern, really).

 

 

the new law does not change the ways in which a potential voter may satisfy the requirement of citizenship, but i agree with you that there is nothing to be gained by continuing our discussion.

[DCG]

Does Trump suggesting that someone assassinates Hillary destroy his campaign? It seems like he can say whatever he wants and his supporters could care less.

 

 

Trump is going to get obliterated in the debates as long as Hillary tries to not say a whole lot, and just let Trump dig his own grave.

[jeffmori7]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

[DCG]

Dan Rather's comments: http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/10/media/dan-rather-donald-trump/index.html?sr=fbCNN081016dan-rather-donald-trump0123PMStoryLink&linkId=27514150

[/size]New York Daily News is calling for Trump to end his campaign: http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/10/media/new-york-daily-news-donald-trump-campaign/index.html?iid=EL

[/size]What would be the process to have Trump removed from the race? Would it need to be done by the GOP? This is the biggest joke of a campaign ever ran on this level. He is truly dangerous to society.

[muscleman]

mark, the point is that if california had passed a law that directly conflicts with federal law it would be a pretty big deal.  you'd see coverage of it everywhere.

 

Efficient market hypothesis: If a company is so good, then the price would have already gone up to reflect that and you'd see analysts' buy rating coverage of it everywhere.

 

Your mentality seems to be exactly that. Why are you on a value investing board? :D

[DonFanucci]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

 

While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

[jeffmori7]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

 

While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right!

[jeffmori7]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

 

While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right!

 

Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[tooskinneejs]

Does Trump suggesting that someone assassinates Hillary destroy his campaign? It seems like he can say whatever he wants and his supporters could care less.

 

 

Trump is going to get obliterated in the debates as long as Hillary tries to not say a whole lot, and just let Trump dig his own grave.

 

Hillary made a similar comment about Obama in 2008 (she was going to stay in the race in case someone assassinated him) and even Biden said in 2008 that if Obama tried to take his guns Obama would "have a problem."  Neither Hillary nor Biden were really threatening Obama and no one with integrity claimed they were.  But when Trump makes a similar joke, all bets are off and its a suggestion to assassinate someone.

[Guest longinvestor]

Does Trump suggesting that someone assassinates Hillary destroy his campaign? It seems like he can say whatever he wants and his supporters could care less.

 

 

Trump is going to get obliterated in the debates as long as Hillary tries to not say a whole lot, and just let Trump dig his own grave.

 

Hillary made a similar comment about Obama in 2008 (she was going to stay in the race in case someone assassinated him) and even Biden said in 2008 that if Obama tried to take his guns Obama would "have a problem."  Neither Hillary nor Biden were really threatening Obama and no one with integrity claimed they were.  But when Trump makes a similar joke, all bets are off and its a suggestion to assassinate someone.

 

Whether it is a suggestion or not is not so much the media's take on it. There's one guy sitting behind Trump facing the camera whose reaction tells it clearly "did you just hear what he said?". It would be interesting to note what the rest of the crowd at that venue were thinking and feeling! Trump was addressing that crowd. What any of them will do is all that matters.

[rb]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

 

While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right!

 

Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What surprises me is the kind of opposition to clean energy from certain quarters. I can understand oil or coal companies cause it's their living. But what about the rest? Even leaving aside whether climate change is real or not. (I believe in science so I think it's real) Does anyone actually believe that the stuff that comes out from the coal plants' smoke stacks or the stuff that comes out of exhaust pipes is good for you?

 

To me it seems that getting rid of pollution is reason enough to switch to clean energy.

[boilermaker75]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

 

While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right!

 

Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What surprises me is the kind of opposition to clean energy from certain quarters. I can understand oil or coal companies cause it's their living. But what about the rest? Even leaving aside whether climate change is real or not. (I believe in science so I think it's real) Does anyone actually believe that the stuff that comes out from the coal plants' smoke stacks or the stuff that comes out of exhaust pipes is good for you?

 

To me it seems that getting rid of pollution is reason enough to switch to clean energy.

 

You would think any sane person would be supportive of clean energy. The only thing I can conclude is these people are insane,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

 

I was "attacked" once riding my bike back from work by one of these coal rollers. A blast of black soot in my face and I almost fell off my bike.

[Jurgis]

You would think any sane person would be supportive of clean energy. The only thing I can conclude is these people are insane,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

 

I was "attacked" once riding my bike back from work by one of these coal rollers. A blast of black soot in my face and I almost fell off my bike.

 

I've seen couple of these on the road. I'm very surprised that this is legal (IIRC they did have local MA license plates).

[rb]

Thanks boilermaker,

 

I wanted to reference rolling coal in my post but I forgot the name of that abomination. The fact that someone would spend money and effort to purposely create more pollution boggles the mind. One parallel to these sort of attitudes is akin to someone who has indoor plumbing going like "screw that! I'm gonna use an outhouse. Including during the winter!." If someone said that you would think that person isn't 100% there.

[Jurgis]

"screw that! I'm gonna use an outhouse. Including during the winter!."

 

More like "screw that! I'm gonna crap on neighbor's doorstep".

[EliG]

It's hard to get 83% of Americans to agree on anything. Way to go, Don.

 

context

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/10/people-love-it-when-donald-trump-makes-fun-of-journalists-except-one-in-particular/

[DonFanucci]

As a Quebecois, I must admit I find unbelievable that trump even stand a chance of being elected president. And I find scary that as many as 40% could vote for him. It tells a lot about the level of education in the country...really, democracy is the lesser evil, but you have as good a democracy as the level of education in a country...

 

And from a personal point of view, as a scientist, I can't even understand why the GOP is so entrenched on its stand about climate change and science in general, that's is really really sad.

 

It's pretty simple - there's a lot of oil and coal money that supports the GOP that is at risk if we make a dramatic shift to renewables.

 

While it's pretty easy to dismiss people that disagree with you by smearing their motives, there is actually a reasoned, thoughtful argument against the prevailing leftist view of climate change.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with left or right!

 

Just some reading Don Fanucci: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What surprises me is the kind of opposition to clean energy from certain quarters. I can understand oil or coal companies cause it's their living. But what about the rest? Even leaving aside whether climate change is real or not. (I believe in science so I think it's real) Does anyone actually believe that the stuff that comes out from the coal plants' smoke stacks or the stuff that comes out of exhaust pipes is good for you?

 

To me it seems that getting rid of pollution is reason enough to switch to clean energy.

 

You would think any sane person would be supportive of clean energy. The only thing I can conclude is these people are insane,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

 

I was "attacked" once riding my bike back from work by one of these coal rollers. A blast of black soot in my face and I almost fell off my bike.

 

Haha, just because someone disagrees with you and you don't understand why doesn't make them insane. If you look at fossil fuels in the big picture, both the positives and negatives, and evaluate them against a standard of human flourishing, they are overwhelmingly a good thing that everyone should be using more of. There's more to fossil fuels than pollution, and an honest evaluation of them requires carefully looking at the negatives AND positives. This is actually a point Munger made regarding Coke at the BRK annual meeting this year. "We ought to have a law ... where these people shouldn't be allowed to cite the defects without citing the advantage. It's immature and stupid."

[boilermaker75]

 

 

You would think any sane person would be supportive of clean energy. The only thing I can conclude is these people are insane,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

 

I was "attacked" once riding my bike back from work by one of these coal rollers. A blast of black soot in my face and I almost fell off my bike.

 

Haha, just because someone disagrees with you and you don't understand why doesn't make them insane. If you look at fossil fuels in the big picture, both the positives and negatives, and evaluate them against a standard of human flourishing, they are overwhelmingly a good thing that everyone should be using more of. There's more to fossil fuels than pollution, and an honest evaluation of them requires carefully looking at the negatives AND positives. This is actually a point Munger made regarding Coke at the BRK annual meeting this year. "We ought to have a law ... where these people shouldn't be allowed to cite the defects without citing the advantage. It's immature and stupid."

 

I'm willing to listen and change my mind if the facts warrant it.

 

Tell me, what are the positives of a truck pulling in front of me while I am riding my bike and blasting black soot on me?