Politics Random, Random

[skatingfan]

Compromising my principles and values would cost many more millions.

Adams didn't compromise his principles & values - these are his principles & values.

[ponchi101]

Compromising my principles and values would cost many more millions.

Right now, my principles and values are going for mid to high six figures.
You are a much better person than I am

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

To the tune of "Waiting for the worms".

[ashkor87]

https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/market/202 ... n-markets/
The univ of iowa (where I was briefly a Prof) has a futures market on the election..where people bet real money..Harris has almost 90% implied probability of win.

[ponchi101]

And that is the reason why Kurt Vonnegut Jr called them "The casinos of Wall Street".
I understand futures when applied to commodities. But, in this case, what is the product? These are not futures, these are bets, as simple as that.

Also. The site makes it clear that this is based on the "popular vote". That one is easy to predict; the Dems have not lost the popular vote since the last Reagan administration (I think). So Kamala will get that vote.
But that matters little, because we know how the electoral college vote can be radically different.

[ashkor87]

Very true
Kamala will get that vote.

[ashkor87]

but I wonder hoe many people know how the elctoral votes distribution is decided! It isnt as arbitrary as some people think! basically 2 plus no. of congressional districts, the latter is roughly proportional to population.

[skatingfan]

but I wonder hoe many people know how the elctoral votes distribution is decided! It isnt as arbitrary as some people think! basically 2 plus no. of congressional districts, the latter is roughly proportional to population.

Congressional districts are proportional - though the US should have far more representatives than they do - the Senate is not, and when you have a number of states that have around a million people that have 3 votes each it starts to distort the result.

[ponchi101]

It was a good idea when it was implemented. Let have the people elect the smart ones amongst them to go and elect a smart person as president.
Nowadays, it is ridiculous.

[ti-amie]

The Editorial Board
@johnastoehr
At the VP debate, JD Vance perfectly distilled "Wilhoit’s law." A THREAD.









8. Most of us believe the law should be applied without fear or favor. Everyone is subject to the law. Everyone should be treated equally under it. When the law isn’t applied equally, we call that an injustice.

9. But most of us don’t understand how equality is seen by Vance, Trump and the rest of their maga movement. It's no virtue. It’s a vice. The in-group should never, ever, be treated the same way as the out-group. When the law is *applied equally*, they call that an *injustice*.

10. This debate moment is the perfect distillation of composer Frank Wilhoit’s old saying. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

11. Liberals and Democrats often call this hypocrisy, but we’re not talking about saying one thing and doing another. Maga does not pay lip service to equality. It opposes it. Vance was outraged by Brennan fact-checking him, but he’d have no problem with her fact-checking Walz.

12. It’s better to call this *impunity* – for the rule of law and the rest of the small-r republican principles that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

13. Everything about maga politics depends on everyone else honoring those values while maga subverts or violates them.

In other words, while maga cheats.

14. And this impunity is central to their idea of freedom.

If they are not free to break the rules, they are not free.

15. This was again perfectly distilled during another debate moment. Walz asked Vance directly if Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election. He paused before saying, “I’m focused on the future.”



17. Vance immediately asked Walz if “Kamala Harris censored Americans from speaking their minds in the wake of the covid situation?” He was referring to Trump and the Republicans who were spreading lies about the disease and to the vice president’s role in combating those lies.

18. Walz ignored him, but the answer is yes. Maga wants to lie and lie and lie, not only about the covid but about the election, and anyone like Harris who stands up for the truth violates their “freedom.”

19. The rules of decency ask us to at least try to be honest. That’s why Brennan, even though she wasn’t supposed to fact-check Vance, felt compelled to. His lies about Haitians were too ugly to overlook.

20. But asking maga to be honest violates their First Amendment rights, and holding them morally accountable for what they say is censorship.

“F you, CBS – how DARE YOU,” wrote Megyn Kelly last night.

21. The rules bind you, but they protect me. If they don’t, I’m free to break them. Indeed, my liberty depends on having impunity for the rules.

/end

[ti-amie]

[ashkor87]

It was a good idea when it was implemented. Let have the people elect the smart ones amongst them to go and elect a smart person as president.
Nowadays, it is ridiculous.

I used to read the Federalist Papers where Hamilton, Madison and Jay argued strenuously against trusting the majority...which is why the constitution is the way it is..it is almost like they foresaw a demagogue like Trump! Ironic that it has benefited Trump!!

[ashkor87]

Btw the u of iowa futures market - yes, it is a betting market, but so are all futures markets..the underlying commodity seldom actually changes hands.
The same site also has a vote share market which forecasts a win for Harris by about 7.5 points...that is more than enough to win even the electoral college.

[ponchi101]

Btw the u of iowa futures market - yes, it is a betting market, but so are all futures markets..the underlying commodity seldom actually changes hands.
The same site also has a vote share market which forecasts a win for Harris by about 7.5 points...that is more than enough to win even the electoral college.

Uhm, not the way I used to do them. The actual commodity gets sold sooner or later, or you would lose money (you have to sell/buy the future before it expires or you lose its value).