Some unconventional surprise,... Mohnish Pabrai likes Pres. elect Trump

[berkshiremystery]

Some unconventional surprise and endorsement, Mohnish Pabrai likes "President elect" Trump !!!

 

Like it or don't like it,... but I sense Mohnish's courageous thoughts are well reasoned.

Cheers!!!

 

~~~

 

Trump may be the very best thing that happened to the US and the world: Mohnish Pabrai, Investor & Philanthropist

 

 

--> Mohnish says President-Elect Trump understands quite a bit about the way business and the economy works. He is definitely better than presidents who have never run a lemonade stand in their lives.

 

--> I was not much of a fan of candidate Trump, I am a bigger fan of president-elect Trump. This is a global phenomenon.

 

--> Though I did not vote for him, as I analyse the way info is unfolding, I believe Trump election may be the very best thing that happened to the US and the world

 

Full Article ==>>

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/expert-view/trump-election-may-be-the-very-best-thing-that-happened-to-the-us-and-the-world-mohnish-pabrai-investor-philanthropist/articleshow/55471612.cms

 

 

http://www.know72.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[berkshiremystery]

Here's the full interview with Mohnish Pabrai @YouTube:

 

 

Punita Kumar Sinha In Conversation With Mohnish Pabrai | Global Insights

 

 

Published on Nov 17, 2016Not a fan of candidate Trump, but a fan of President-elect Trump; Trump win is the best possible medicine for US economy, says Mohnish Pabrai - Managing Partner Pabrai Investment Funds in an exclusive conversation with Punita Kumar Sinha of Pacific Paradigm Advisors in this edition of Global Insights on ET NOW. Listen in.

 

 

 

 

[valcont]

He is just cloning the ass kissing that is going on in the hedge fund community after Trump got elected.

[investor-man]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

There is some good stuff in there that I think almost every American agrees with, like term limits on members of congress, and banning them from becoming lobbyists for 5 years. It's refreshing to have an elected official talking seriously about this, and if he pulled that off along with the "pass 1 law only if you lose 2 laws", I'd honestly call him the best president of my lifetime. But I believe term limits would require 2/3 vote from congress because it requires a constitutional amendment, and I just can't see them voting themselves out of a job. And the "pass one 1 law..." amendment probably isn't something that would see wide popular appeal. I think in order to pull these things off he'd have to become EXTREMELY popular and given he just went on another Twitter rant last night that made no sense, I don't think he's going to gain that kind of popularity.

[arcube]

+1.

And so the wind blows.....

 

He is just cloning the ass kissing that is going on in the hedge fund community after Trump got elected.

[augustabound]

He runs his business with the utmost ethics, befriend Guy Spier for similar reasons, idolizes Buffett and Munger for those same reasons but now supports someone who is racist, sexist and is known to use the most underhanded business practices,(so much so that no U.S. financial institution will lend he or his organizations a dime) for his own personal gain to run the country he lives?!

 

Two weeks ago Pabrai said airlines are good businesses and they're cheap in response to someone tweeting to him about Berkshire's buys.

 

Is he feeling OK?

[jeffmori7]

He runs his business with the utmost ethics, befriend Guy Spier for similar reasons, idolizes Buffett and Munger for those same reasons but now supports someone who is racist, sexist and is known to use the most underhanded business practices,(so much so that no U.S. financial institution will lend he or his organizations a dime) for his own personal gain to run the country he lives?!

 

Two weeks ago Pabrai said airlines are good businesses and they're cheap in response to someone tweeting to him about Berkshire's buys.

 

Is he feeling OK?

 

All those value investors who admire Buffett, including many on this board, praising his integrity, are completely out of their mind by supporting a guy like Trump. I must admit that I am still completely shocked that someone can want a guy like this as a President. His knowledge on so many subjects are so thin and he bahaves like an impulsive teenager so often. USA is looking like a banana republic from the outside.

[Travis Wiedower]

All those value investors who admire Buffett, including many on this board, praising his integrity, are completely out of their mind by supporting a guy like Trump. I must admit that I am still completely shocked that someone can want a guy like this as a President. His knowledge on so many subjects are so thin and he bahaves like an impulsive teenager so often. USA is looking like a banana republic from the outside.

 

In defense of a lot of people (not myself because I didn't vote), them "supporting" Trump was just them thinking Trump could help their personal situation more than Hillary could. Unfortunately, there was no "candidate with integrity" option in this election.

[watsa_is_a_randian_hero]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical.  So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies.  After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad".  How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies? 

 

[rkbabang]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical.  So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies.  After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad".  How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies? 

 

 

Because your vote will not decide the election.  It won't even decide who gets the electoral votes in your state, never mind who wins the presidency.  It is a waste of effort to do a lot of research on a situation in which you are powerless to change.

 

How much effort do you put into researching the ins and outs of Russian politics or Cambodian politics?  Why would you?  But you have about the same likelihood of effecting US politics as you do some foreign country's (Approximately 0%).  People are doing the logical thing when they spend their time and effort elsewhere.

 

Once someone _is_ elected however, it might be a good idea to see where he stands because that is what you will be dealing with.

 

Edit: I just wanted to add that whenever I say stuff like this I inevitably get a response that goes something like "but what if everyone behaved like this?" The answer of course is that almost everyone does.

 

 

 

[wachtwoord]

 

Edit: I just wanted to add that whenever I say stuff like this I inevitably get a response that goes something like "but what if everyone behaved like this?" The answer of course is that almost everyone does.

 

And there we have the prisoner's dilemma ;)

[wachtwoord]

All those value investors who admire Buffett, including many on this board, praising his integrity, are completely out of their mind by supporting a guy like Trump. I must admit that I am still completely shocked that someone can want a guy like this as a President. His knowledge on so many subjects are so thin and he bahaves like an impulsive teenager so often. USA is looking like a banana republic from the outside.

 

He's likely the best US president in my lifetime. Is that because he's so good? Nah, it's just that all the other ones have been complete crap. 1 foot hurdles ;)

[investor-man]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical.  So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies.  After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad".  How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies?

 

Not taking it personally. That contract was posted only a week or two before the election, so I didn't see it. And frankly Trump did a terrible job of articulating his positions during the debates. I'm still not sold on him. He's a terrible person, but I see promise in the document. Hopefully he gets the parts that I like done :)

[investor-man]

All those value investors who admire Buffett, including many on this board, praising his integrity, are completely out of their mind by supporting a guy like Trump. I must admit that I am still completely shocked that someone can want a guy like this as a President. His knowledge on so many subjects are so thin and he bahaves like an impulsive teenager so often. USA is looking like a banana republic from the outside.

 

He's likely the best US president in my lifetime. Is that because he's so good? Nah, it's just that all the other ones have been complete crap. 1 foot hurdles ;)

 

Yes

[rkbabang]

All those value investors who admire Buffett, including many on this board, praising his integrity, are completely out of their mind by supporting a guy like Trump. I must admit that I am still completely shocked that someone can want a guy like this as a President. His knowledge on so many subjects are so thin and he bahaves like an impulsive teenager so often. USA is looking like a banana republic from the outside.

 

He's likely the best US president in my lifetime. Is that because he's so good? Nah, it's just that all the other ones have been complete crap. 1 foot hurdles ;)

 

Yes

 

More like 2-inch hurdles.

 

[DCG]

Trump quote aside, I don't understand this board's fascination with Mohnish Pabrai.

 

 

What are his long term returns? From all that I've seen, he's just another average investor that doesn't do any better than an index fund.

[SnarkyPuppy]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical.  So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies.  After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad".  How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies? 

 

 

Because your vote will not decide the election.  It won't even decide who gets the electoral votes in your state, never mind who wins the presidency.  It is a waste of effort to do a lot of research on a situation in which you are powerless to change.

 

How much effort do you put into researching the ins and outs of Russian politics or Cambodian politics?  Why would you?  But you have about the same likelihood of effecting US politics as you do some foreign country's (Approximately 0%).  People are doing the logical thing when they spend their time and effort elsewhere.

 

Once someone _is_ elected however, it might be a good idea to see where he stands because that is what you will be dealing with.

 

Edit: I just wanted to add that whenever I say stuff like this I inevitably get a response that goes something like "but what if everyone behaved like this?" The answer of course is that almost everyone does.

 

I agree with everything you wrote and have articulated similar thoughts to people - but what's the solution?  The current voting system gives everyone an equal vote irrespective of their prejudice or ignorance.  As long as voting remains as easy and mindless as picking your nose, the ignorant and selfish public (George Carlin was right) will continue to vote nonsensically.  It's quite apparent that a large percentage of the voting population cannot name one senator or one house representative up for election prior to entering the voting booth - arguably this is more important than the president himself. 

 

How do we solve this?  Unfortunately I agree, there's very little an individual can do simply due to population size and immateriality.  But it seems to me that something to the effect of a reading comprehension test designed to ensure that voters understand the system and politicians they are voting for should be a bare minimum.  An exam of sorts whereby a reading prompt provides an elementary level explanation of the US government branches, explains each of the candidates views (documented and audited by multiple third parties) without naming the candidates names/genders/race/religion, and then a quiz asking very simple and basic questions about the reading prompts to verify the reader has a simple understanding of the structure of the system / candidates views irrespective of high level ideologies that excuse people from reading/thinking (republican/democrat choices).  Voting should then occur based on anonymous labels consistent with the reading prompts - e.g. candidate x, candidate y, candidate z.  You'd obviously get into complexities surrounding fairness - but there's no question that something IQ-independent could be developed to partially mitigate the mindlessness and ignorance surrounding the majority of the public. 

 

It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable.  The test would take time, two hours?  Make the day a national holiday.  Don't want to spend two hours to take the test?  You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you.  Don't vote. 

 

Then again, this could be an arrogant and elitist view and I'm not detached from that.  Happy for a reality check here if someone thinks I'm totally off base.  But the fact of the matter is, it's evident that the majority of voters do not have a clue (whether it's rational/irrational to "have a clue" is a separate debate). 

 

Ultimately, I (and likely most people on this board) stand by the mantra of accepting personal responsibility and working hard on activities within the realm of individual control.  I don't think doing so is mutually exclusive with watching/caring about the countries politics though. 

[rkbabang]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical.  So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies.  After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad".  How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies? 

 

 

Because your vote will not decide the election.  It won't even decide who gets the electoral votes in your state, never mind who wins the presidency.  It is a waste of effort to do a lot of research on a situation in which you are powerless to change.

 

How much effort do you put into researching the ins and outs of Russian politics or Cambodian politics?  Why would you?  But you have about the same likelihood of effecting US politics as you do some foreign country's (Approximately 0%).  People are doing the logical thing when they spend their time and effort elsewhere.

 

Once someone _is_ elected however, it might be a good idea to see where he stands because that is what you will be dealing with.

 

Edit: I just wanted to add that whenever I say stuff like this I inevitably get a response that goes something like "but what if everyone behaved like this?" The answer of course is that almost everyone does.

 

I agree with everything you wrote and have articulated similar thoughts to people - but what's the solution?  The current voting system gives everyone an equal vote irrespective of their prejudice or ignorance.  As long as voting remains as easy and mindless as picking your nose, the ignorant and selfish public (George Carlin was right) will continue to vote nonsensically.  It's quite apparent that a large percentage of the voting population cannot name one senator or one house representative up for election prior to entering the voting booth - arguably this is more important than the president himself. 

 

How do we solve this?  Unfortunately I agree, there's very little an individual can do simply due to population size and immateriality.  But it seems to me that something to the effect of a reading comprehension test designed to ensure that voters understand the system and politicians they are voting for should be a bare minimum.  An exam of sorts whereby a reading prompt provides an elementary level explanation of the US government branches, explains each of the candidates views (documented and audited by multiple third parties) without naming the candidates names/genders/race/religion, and then a quiz asking very simple and basic questions about the reading prompts to verify the reader has a simple understanding of the structure of the system / candidates views irrespective of high level ideologies that excuse people from reading/thinking (republican/democrat choices).  Voting should then occur based on anonymous labels consistent with the reading prompts - e.g. candidate x, candidate y, candidate z.  You'd obviously get into complexities surrounding fairness - but there's no question that something IQ-independent could be developed to partially mitigate the mindlessness and ignorance surrounding the majority of the public. 

 

It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable.  The test would take time, two hours?  Make the day a national holiday.  Don't want to spend two hours to take the test?  You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you.  Don't vote. 

 

Then again, this could be an arrogant and elitist view and I'm not detached from that.  Happy for a reality check here if someone thinks I'm totally off base.  But the fact of the matter is, it's evident that the majority of voters do not have a clue (whether it's rational/irrational to "have a clue" is a separate debate). 

 

Ultimately, I (and likely most people on this board) stand by the mantra of accepting personal responsibility and working hard on activities within the realm of individual control.  I don't think doing so is mutually exclusive with watching/caring about the countries politics though. 

 

 

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

[ScottHall]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical.  So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies.  After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad".  How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies? 

 

 

Because your vote will not decide the election.  It won't even decide who gets the electoral votes in your state, never mind who wins the presidency.  It is a waste of effort to do a lot of research on a situation in which you are powerless to change.

 

How much effort do you put into researching the ins and outs of Russian politics or Cambodian politics?  Why would you?  But you have about the same likelihood of effecting US politics as you do some foreign country's (Approximately 0%).  People are doing the logical thing when they spend their time and effort elsewhere.

 

Once someone _is_ elected however, it might be a good idea to see where he stands because that is what you will be dealing with.

 

Edit: I just wanted to add that whenever I say stuff like this I inevitably get a response that goes something like "but what if everyone behaved like this?" The answer of course is that almost everyone does.

 

I agree with everything you wrote and have articulated similar thoughts to people - but what's the solution?  The current voting system gives everyone an equal vote irrespective of their prejudice or ignorance.  As long as voting remains as easy and mindless as picking your nose, the ignorant and selfish public (George Carlin was right) will continue to vote nonsensically.  It's quite apparent that a large percentage of the voting population cannot name one senator or one house representative up for election prior to entering the voting booth - arguably this is more important than the president himself. 

 

How do we solve this?  Unfortunately I agree, there's very little an individual can do simply due to population size and immateriality.  But it seems to me that something to the effect of a reading comprehension test designed to ensure that voters understand the system and politicians they are voting for should be a bare minimum.  An exam of sorts whereby a reading prompt provides an elementary level explanation of the US government branches, explains each of the candidates views (documented and audited by multiple third parties) without naming the candidates names/genders/race/religion, and then a quiz asking very simple and basic questions about the reading prompts to verify the reader has a simple understanding of the structure of the system / candidates views irrespective of high level ideologies that excuse people from reading/thinking (republican/democrat choices).  Voting should then occur based on anonymous labels consistent with the reading prompts - e.g. candidate x, candidate y, candidate z.  You'd obviously get into complexities surrounding fairness - but there's no question that something IQ-independent could be developed to partially mitigate the mindlessness and ignorance surrounding the majority of the public. 

 

It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable.  The test would take time, two hours?  Make the day a national holiday.  Don't want to spend two hours to take the test?  You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you.  Don't vote. 

 

Then again, this could be an arrogant and elitist view and I'm not detached from that.  Happy for a reality check here if someone thinks I'm totally off base.  But the fact of the matter is, it's evident that the majority of voters do not have a clue (whether it's rational/irrational to "have a clue" is a separate debate). 

 

Ultimately, I (and likely most people on this board) stand by the mantra of accepting personal responsibility and working hard on activities within the realm of individual control.  I don't think doing so is mutually exclusive with watching/caring about the countries politics though. 

 

 

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

If I buy one share of Sytestar does that count?

[rkbabang]

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

 

Also localization is important.  Important decisions should be made at the level of government closest to the voter as possible.  The federal government should take care of foreign policy and not much else.  This way you have people deciding locally on how they want to live, how they want their children educated, and what they want their government to do/not do.  There should need to be a damn good reason to take power away from the town/city and give it to the state, and an extraordinary reason to take it from the state and give it to the feds.  The problem is that the federal government has been growing and taking on more and more and with a population of well over 300M it is too far removed to be responsive.

 

[rkbabang]

I also didn't vote for Trump and had similar thoughts after the election was over when I read Trump's "Contract with the American Voter" https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

 

Don't take this personally, but I wanted to call this out because I find this is so typical.  So many people are so entranced by the mainstream media mudslinging that they didn't evaluate the candidates on their proposed policies.  After the fact, the elections over, and now people are saying "I didnt vote for the guy, but when I look at his proposed policies they're not that bad".  How can you cast a vote and without having evaluated the candidates actual policies? 

 

 

Because your vote will not decide the election.  It won't even decide who gets the electoral votes in your state, never mind who wins the presidency.  It is a waste of effort to do a lot of research on a situation in which you are powerless to change.

 

How much effort do you put into researching the ins and outs of Russian politics or Cambodian politics?  Why would you?  But you have about the same likelihood of effecting US politics as you do some foreign country's (Approximately 0%).  People are doing the logical thing when they spend their time and effort elsewhere.

 

Once someone _is_ elected however, it might be a good idea to see where he stands because that is what you will be dealing with.

 

Edit: I just wanted to add that whenever I say stuff like this I inevitably get a response that goes something like "but what if everyone behaved like this?" The answer of course is that almost everyone does.

 

I agree with everything you wrote and have articulated similar thoughts to people - but what's the solution?  The current voting system gives everyone an equal vote irrespective of their prejudice or ignorance.  As long as voting remains as easy and mindless as picking your nose, the ignorant and selfish public (George Carlin was right) will continue to vote nonsensically.  It's quite apparent that a large percentage of the voting population cannot name one senator or one house representative up for election prior to entering the voting booth - arguably this is more important than the president himself. 

 

How do we solve this?  Unfortunately I agree, there's very little an individual can do simply due to population size and immateriality.  But it seems to me that something to the effect of a reading comprehension test designed to ensure that voters understand the system and politicians they are voting for should be a bare minimum.  An exam of sorts whereby a reading prompt provides an elementary level explanation of the US government branches, explains each of the candidates views (documented and audited by multiple third parties) without naming the candidates names/genders/race/religion, and then a quiz asking very simple and basic questions about the reading prompts to verify the reader has a simple understanding of the structure of the system / candidates views irrespective of high level ideologies that excuse people from reading/thinking (republican/democrat choices).  Voting should then occur based on anonymous labels consistent with the reading prompts - e.g. candidate x, candidate y, candidate z.  You'd obviously get into complexities surrounding fairness - but there's no question that something IQ-independent could be developed to partially mitigate the mindlessness and ignorance surrounding the majority of the public. 

 

It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable.  The test would take time, two hours?  Make the day a national holiday.  Don't want to spend two hours to take the test?  You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you.  Don't vote. 

 

Then again, this could be an arrogant and elitist view and I'm not detached from that.  Happy for a reality check here if someone thinks I'm totally off base.  But the fact of the matter is, it's evident that the majority of voters do not have a clue (whether it's rational/irrational to "have a clue" is a separate debate). 

 

Ultimately, I (and likely most people on this board) stand by the mantra of accepting personal responsibility and working hard on activities within the realm of individual control.  I don't think doing so is mutually exclusive with watching/caring about the countries politics though. 

 

 

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

If I buy one share of Sytestar does that count?

 

LOL, I was thinking of majority ownership of a business, but maybe there could be a minimum percentage.  If you owned >10% of a business with net assets of at least $1M or something.  It would be just as easy to buy a small condo to be able to vote.  The point is you should be a contributor to society to be able to vote.  Anyone who owns a significant business or a home probably pays a net positive number in taxes anyway.

 

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

 

I'd be ok with that as long as there was legislation cutting a lot of the tax rebates allowed to lower/middle class individuals so that this doesn't discriminate against the 40% of the population that pays next to nothing in federal income tax. (Yes, I know - that's only Federal income tax, but I don't really count payroll taxes as those are "fees" for services that will be used by most within that populace).

 

It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable.

 

 

Yes. It is. But that is what we have, that is what a democracy inevitably ends up as, and it will end when it can go on no longer.

 

Realistically, the president SHOULDN'T be all that influential - the gov't operates in three branches and the executive branch was intended to be just the branch that enforces the laws and control the military. It was never intended to be a position where you can use your pen and phone to backdoor legislate when Congress doesn't do what you want, or for you to have the ability to involve yourself in international trade deals impacting private companies, or for you to bomb/invade countries Congress hasn't declared war on.

 

The first step to limiting the damage of an ignorant populace voting for presidency would be to go back to limiting the presidency and allowing the checks and balances to prevent most of the damage of trigger happy presidents and the ignorant populace who puts them there.

 

Make the day a national holiday. 

 

 

Yes. But the only thing this really accomplishes is increasing voter turnout for those that are even lazier than most now, right?

 

Don't want to spend two hours to take the test?  You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you.  Don't vote. 

 

You'll never get this passed. Voter disenfranchisement by laziness, intelligence, or by demographic (since poor people are less likely to have the flexibility to take off work to go vote, let alone take a 2 hour test), is not a way to really makes you appealing to said voters.

 

 

[SnarkyPuppy]

 

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

 

I'd be ok with that as long as there was legislation cutting a lot of the tax rebates allowed to lower/middle class individuals so that this doesn't discriminate against the 40% of the population that pays next to nothing in federal income tax. (Yes, I know - that's only Federal income tax, but I don't really count payroll taxes as those are "fees" for services that will be used by most within that populace).

 

It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable.

 

 

Yes. It is. But that is what we have, that is what a democracy inevitably ends up as, and it will end when it can go on no longer.

 

Realistically, the president SHOULDN'T be all that influential - the gov't operates in three branches and the executive branch was intended to be just the branch that enforces the laws and control the military. It was never intended to be a position where you can use your pen and phone to backdoor legislate when Congress doesn't do what you want, or for you to have the ability to involve yourself in international trade deals impacting private companies, or for you to bomb/invade countries Congress hasn't declared war on.

 

The first step to limiting the damage of an ignorant populace voting for presidency would be to go back to limiting the presidency and allowing the checks and balances to prevent most of the damage of trigger happy presidents and the ignorant populace who puts them there.

 

Make the day a national holiday. 

 

 

Yes. But the only thing this really accomplishes is increasing voter turnout for those that are even lazier than most now, right?

 

Don't want to spend two hours to take the test?  You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you.  Don't vote. 

 

You'll never get this passed. Voter disenfranchisement by laziness, intelligence, or by demographic (since poor people are less likely to have the flexibility to take off work to go vote, let alone take a 2 hour test), is not a way to really makes you appealing to said voters.

 

Do you have any proposed solutions?  Or is the system fine in your eyes?  You make valid points and I'm not negating them - I'm curious to see if you have any alternative views other than limiting the power of the executive branch.  Surely senators and house reps being voted simply due to D/R, male/female, black/white designation is a problem which warrants consideration?

[CorpRaider]

Man if they privatize medicare there are going to be a bunch of unconventionally surprised elderly tea partiers, but it would probably be a good/necessary thing overall.

[vox]

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

The homeownership rate of those under age 35 is 35%. It would be a terrible idea to redistribute the voting pool to make it much older when the government has natural tendencies to kick fiscal problems down the road and subsidize health and entitlement programs with the young and future workers.