Trump election panel asks all 50 states for voter roll data

[euphemia]

Yeah, I'm not sure this is a big deal anyway. Even if they pull your voting record, what does it tell them? They don't know who you voted for and that's seems to me to be the most important thing.

In Tennessee they can see if you voted in the Democratic or Republican primary. But name, address, and phone are there, and some of that can be cross checked with other public info like tax rolls or SS death indexes.

 

[Madison320]

LOL!

You must not read his posts.

 

[Ender]

LOL!

You must not read his posts.

Backatcha!

 

[timosman]

Backatcha!

Ender, the voice of sanity on RPF.

 

[Ender]

Ender, the voice of sanity on RPF.

Glad you finally noticed!

 

[timosman]

 

[Madison320]

Backatcha!

Would you say most libertarians support QE like TheCount?

That's true, an increase in the base of 10%, 20% even 50% could easily be hidden by other factors and we might not ever notice it. But we increased it by something like 400-500%. It will get noticed.

If this is an economic fact, then the effects would have happened already.

Plus I believe we are going to print more.

People have been repeating that continuously on this forum since the end of the last round of QE. Anything is possible, of course, but the economy is performing very well and there's no reason to think that they would do so without a major change in economic conditions.

Don't you think the markets have tripled because of QE?
Not in the way that you mean, no. If the markets had tripled solely due to inflation, then it would be extremely apparent in all aspects of the market.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Would you say most libertarians support QE like TheCount?

You got it right, 320. These kinds of posts from TheCount are everywhere. Here's another (bolding is mine):

My primarily interests in this regard are foreign policy and the military. As I said above, I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will. In that area, spending on nuclear weapons would be my number one target - cut modernization and maintenance programs and reduce the arsenal to perhaps 300 weapons at the most. Likewise axe the vast majority of our military bases located overseas and associated spending. After that, the Marine Corps, quantity of aircraft carriers, and the like. I'd need a map and a compass to puzzle my way through all of the intelligence agencies and unfuck them into something reasonable.

Other departments I'd have to go through one by one. Many of them I think should continue to exist but in a dramatically reduced capacity. As an example, a Department of Education which is restricted to facilitating coordination among the departments of education of the various states in addition to providing reports and such to the executive and legislative branches. Would such a thing still be named a department? I suppose. Regardless, it would be a hundredth of its current size. The nuke changes I mentioned above would sure cut a lot of the DoE. So on through the rest of them.

Realistically, entitlement programs and in particular social security would need a phased rather than immediate end end.

Read between the lines. TheCount thinks that government is going to somehow gut itself. He thinks that states and locales should spend their time writing reports "and such" to the federal government. The US Dept of Education telling your grade school what to do is what TheCount calls "coordination." He thinks your local high school principal doing federal paperwork is a way to "nuke" the Dept of Education. That "magic wand" he cited says that report writing is going to reduce an agency to 1% of what it is now. His "primarily [sic] interests" is military cutting, even though welfare spending far outpaces it and has grown the most dramatically.

This guy presents today's mundane liberal view. He adds some vague and eggheaded nonsense to sell it on this forum, and some here think he is in lockstep with Ron Paul.

 

[Madison320]

You got it right, 320. These kinds of posts from TheCount are everywhere. Here's another (bolding is mine):

Once I asked him why he only criticizes republicans and not democrats. He said something like he wants to show the "opposing view". Since this is a Ron Paul, free market, libertarian website what exactly is the "opposing view" other than the "authoritarian socialistic view"? Which is fine but it's annoying because he pretends to be a libertarian.

 

[TheCount]

Would you say most libertarians support QE like TheCount?

Relating facts is not the same as supporting.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Relating facts is not the same as supporting.

It is in your case.

 

[Ender]

It is in your case.

How about if I say Trump's a bag of shit?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

How about if I say Trump's a bag of shit?

I would agree, but you are not TheCount. It's obvious and easy to see who is sincere and who is full of crap. Just because somebody is against D Trump doesn't mean they support liberty.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Relating facts is not the same as supporting.

“'Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on. 'I do,' Alice hastily replied; 'at least—at least I mean what I say— that's the same thing, you know.' 'Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. 'Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!' ” ―Lewis Carroll

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

 

[Ender]

“'Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on. 'I do,' Alice hastily replied; 'at least—at least I mean what I say— that's the same thing, you know.' 'Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. 'Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!' ” ―Lewis Carroll

“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.

"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."

"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.

"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

 

[timosman]

“But I don’t want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.

"Oh, you can’t help that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."

"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.

"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”

Any sane people around here? Zippy?

 

[timosman]

Let's be optimistic.

 

[Madison320]

How about if I say Trump's a bag of $#@!?

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure I've seen you post negative things about both parties. Most people here do. If you're a libertarian it's pretty hard not to find anything wrong with a political party whose core belief is theft.

What they say:

"We're going to ask that the most fortunate pay their fair share"

Reality:

"We're going to take at gunpoint from the most productive, way more than anyone else to buy your votes"

 

[TheCount]

“'Then you should say what you mean,' the March Hare went on. 'I do,' Alice hastily replied; 'at least—at least I mean what I say— that's the same thing, you know.' 'Not the same thing a bit!' said the Hatter. 'Why, you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!' ” ―Lewis Carroll

I did say what I meant. I was explaining (some of) the reasons why QE had not created a level of inflation equal to the level of monetary expansion. Anyone can see that a 3x expansion in the supply of money did not cause a 3x increase in prices over the same period of time. Why did that not happen? Because there are other factors that influence the market besides monetary policy.


jllundqu was in that thread too, pointing out another reason why QE hadn't had the effects on the economy that Madison320 had expected. Does mentioning the importance of money velocity make him a liberal democrat?

Any discussion about inflation without discussing velocity is fruitless. The stock market is NOT an indicator of health of the economy. Megabanks and corporations that get 0% interest money that buy their own stocks and maybe some commodities isn't great for main street. Dow 20,000 doesn't mean shit to the vast majority of people in the US.

I'm not even sure what the argument is here. Is there some sort of emotional attachment to the topic of monetary policy and the Federal Reserve such that discussion of facts is undesirable? What is the benefit to pretending that a increase of X in the money supply will always cause a predictable increase of Y in prices, whether stock prices or otherwise? It's simple and from the point of view of philosophy it may feel good, but it's not an convincing argument for anyone who bothers to look at the actual changes in the market because it will never pan out to be a direct 1-for-1 correlation.