American Politics

[B]War is good for business[/B]:

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943462]Putin was going to move until Ukraine no matter what. The question is what type of resistance would he face. There had been an ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine for years.[/QUOTE][U]IMPLIED UPSIDE OVER SEPT. 3 CLOSE[/U]

General Dynamics Corp. (ticker: GD) 16.9%.

Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC) 13.2%.

TransDigm Group Inc. (TDG) 18.1%.

Howmet Aerospace Inc. (HWM) 23.6%.

Curtiss-Wright Corp. (CW) 10.2%.

Embraer SA (ERJ) 21.9%.

Joby Aviation Inc. (JOBY) 103.2%.

I out of principle I do not buy defense stocks. But you cannot argue with those performance numbers. Plus many of them pay dividends.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2943387][B]Timeline: Threats and stalemate one year after Trump last met North Korea's Kim.
June 26, 2020[/B]

[URL]https://www.reuters.com/article/world/timeline-threats-and-stalemate-one-year-after-trump-last-met-north-koreas-kim-idUSKBN23X09P/[/URL]

I forget. Was Joe Biden president in June 2020?

Maybe Kim's launches went "way, way down" later in 2020 at the height of Trump's Pandemic. If so, perhaps a Million American Deaths is a tad more "Ass-Kissing" to please our stated enemies than a Love-Sick so-called potus ought to engage in.[/QUOTE]Sorry, I read the link below below sometime ago, but forgot what exactly what it said. You're right, they were still testing short range missiles, which I figured was just business as usual. But the long range missile tests stopped after the announcement of the meeting with Kim in March, 2018. No ICBM's, capable of hitting the USA Mainland, were launched after the meeting, until 3/16/2022.

Here's a time line for missiles identified in the link with ranges over 1,000 km, being medium and long range ballistic missiles, from 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2022. I could have gone on into 2023 and 2024 but I'm lazy.

Only one was launched between the announcement of the Singapore meeting and the end of Trump's term, on 10/2/2019, and while it was a medium range missile, it only flew 450 kilometers.

If you want to duplicate what I did you'll need to google some of the names of the rockets.

2/11/2017.
3/6/2017.
4/4/2017.
4/28/2017.
5/13/2017.
5/21/2017.
7/4/2017.
7/28/2017.
9/15/2017.
11/28/2017.
10/2/2019.
9/11/2021.
1/5/2022.
1/10/2022.
1/25/2022.
1/30/2022.
3/5/2022.
3/16/2022.
3/24/2022.
5/25/2022.
10/4/2022.
10/12/2022.
11/3/2022.
11/18/2022.
12/18/2022.

An interesting bit of trivia from this exercise. North Korea tested its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, capable of hitting most of the United States, on July 4, 2017. Do you think that's a coincidence, July 4? That's a rhetorical question.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests[/URL]

BTW, about Lichtman, I believe I read somewhere he changed his story to say he was forecasting electoral votes instead of the popular vote after 2016, and none of his "Keys to the Whitehouse" target states. Feel free to research if you wish, not something I want to spend time on.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943483]I read the first one earlier today. The best part, which I agree with, is this. The writer is a moderate Democrat.

[B]People like the red model more than the blue model. The fastest-growing states by population are mostly governed by Republicans, including Florida, Texas, Idaho and Montana. The fastest-shrinking or -stagnating states are mostly governed by Democrats, including New York, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania and Hawaii.[/b] The red model gives you low housing costs, lower taxes and business vitality. The blue model gives you high housing costs, high taxes and high inequality.

Democrats want to expand the welfare state so that our social insurance system would look more like Europe's. But Europe is economically stagnant and falling behind. In 2021, households in the European Union enjoyed, on average, only 61 percent of the disposable income Americans enjoyed. By this measure, rich European countries like Norway are behind poor American states like Mississippi. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, large European corporations invested 60 percent less than American corporations in 2022 and grew at two-thirds the pace. For a decade, Europe has been falling behind on capital development, research and development, and productivity growth. Even the vaunted German economy has basically flatlined since 2018.

Many American voters might envy the long European vacations, but they want economic dynamism more. For years voters in swing states had been telling pollsters that the economy and inflation were their top issues. They looked around the country and concluded that the Republican approach seemed better at generating dynamism and growth, or at least better than Harris's pitch for and defense of Bidenomics.[/QUOTE][B]Red state economies are surging under Biden. Here's why.
Red states make up an overwhelming majority of top performers, ABC found.[/B]

[URL]https://abcnews.go.com/Business/red-state-economies-surging-biden/story?id=107222293[/URL]

[QUOTE]Instead, they added, the dynamic owes in large part to the appeal of warm weather states for workers and businesses, as well as the combination of company-friendly state policies and Democrat-leaning cities that attract young, educated workers.[/QUOTE][B]At its two-year anniversary, the bipartisan infrastructure law continues to rebuild all of America.[/B]

[URL]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/at-its-two-year-anniversary-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-continues-to-rebuild-all-of-america/[/URL]

[QUOTE]For example, the share of all awards slightly favors Republican-leaning states by both the presidential election measure (46%) and in-state political composition (43%).[/QUOTE]Now, who is going to tell those Red State Wingers that, as has been the case with virtually every Great Dem Economic Recovery from a Great Repub Crash and Great Repub Depression / Recession, Biden's recovery measures favored Red States and the Wingers who live in them? Because, of course, those are the states that are ALWAYS damaged most by those Great Repub Crashes and Great Repub Depressions / Recessions.

LOL. Will it be the Red State Winger Congressman or Senator who didn't support the emergency aid but is happy to show up for the ribbon cuttings like he had anything whatsoever to do with them? LOL.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943483]I read the first one earlier today. The best part, which I agree with, is this. The writer is a moderate Democrat.

People like the red model more than the blue model. The fastest-growing states by population are mostly governed by Republicans, including Florida, Texas, Idaho and Montana. The fastest-shrinking or -stagnating states are mostly governed by Democrats, including New York, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania and Hawaii. The red model gives you low housing costs, lower taxes and business vitality. The blue model gives you high housing costs, high taxes and high inequality.

Democrats want to expand the welfare state so that our social insurance system would look more like Europe's. But Europe is economically stagnant and falling behind. In 2021, households in the European Union enjoyed, on average, only 61 percent of the disposable income Americans enjoyed. By this measure, rich European countries like Norway are behind poor American states like Mississippi. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, large European corporations invested 60 percent less than American corporations in 2022 and grew at two-thirds the pace. For a decade, Europe has been falling behind on capital development, research and development, and productivity growth. Even the vaunted German economy has basically flatlined since 2018.

Many American voters might envy the long European vacations, but they want economic dynamism more. For years voters in swing states had been telling pollsters that the economy and inflation were their top issues. They looked around the country and concluded that the Republican approach seemed better at generating dynamism and growth, or at least better than Harris's pitch for and defense of Bidenomics.[/QUOTE]I'd disagree with you here. The majority prefer the blue model. The only reason the Republicans stand a chance is the electoral college. Without it they would have to change their platform significantly. The majority of the United States population does not favor Christian nationalism. And when you look at job creation it has been significantly better under democratic presidents this century.
Economic growth is not the end all of endos and one of the reasons Europe has a problem, if not the biggest reason, is there aging demographic, which except for immigration would be affecting the United States as well.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943498]I'd disagree with you here. The majority prefer the blue model. [b]The only reason the Republicans stand a chance is the electoral college. Without it they would have to change their platform significantly. [/b]The majority of the United States population does not favor Christian nationalism. And when you look at job creation it has been significantly better under democratic presidents this century.
Economic growth is not the end all of endos and one of the reasons Europe has a problem, if not the biggest reason, is there aging demographic, which except for immigration would be affecting the United States as well.[/QUOTE]
Correct Again!

The is essentially why, the Trump/Vance campaign, are running a campaign to win with a "minority of voters". [b]And why Repubs have only won the popular vote, once in 35 years. [/b]

They're not running a typical "national" campaign, that would appeal to the majority Americans, with issues left or right of center, but instead are courting the voters at the extremes, in minority red states and key battle ground states, that would give them a "minority path" to victory.

Again, this of course is largely in part, because of how our electoral college (and Senate) elections work. Which do not offer a proper, fare, just and equitable democratic distribution of power of representation, where the share of power is correctly proportionally represented in relation its state populous.

They know they don't have to change their extremist platform or policies, because the electoral college (and Senate) are tilted/rigged in their favor.

This is why you see JD Vance, isn't afraid to go on stage with Tucker Carlson, just 3-days after a much maligned interview with a Nazi apologist and holocaust denier, or fear being seen having dinner with Nao-Nazi sympathizers, which would instantly kill/ruin any nationally ran campaign, if they were legitimately and truly, trying to win the national popular vote.

IMHO, getting rid of the electoral college would dramatically help to de-radicalize the Republican Party and may even put them on a more "Christian" nationalist path? Well that, and the ousting of Trump?

[QUOTE=Spidy;2943533]Correct Again!

The is essentially why, the Trump/Vance campaign, are running a campaign to win with a "minority of voters". [b]And why Repubs have only won the popular vote, once in 35 years. [/b]

They're not running a typical "national" campaign, that would appeal to the majority Americans, with issues left or right of center, but instead are courting the voters at the extremes, in minority red states and key battle ground states, that would give them a "minority path" to victory.

Again, this of course is largely in part, because of how our electoral college (and Senate) elections work. Which do not offer a proper, fare, just and equitable democratic distribution of power of representation, where the share of power is correctly proportionally represented in relation its state populous.

They know they don't have to change their extremist platform or policies, because the electoral college (and Senate) are tilted/rigged in their favor.

This is why you see JD Vance, isn't afraid to go on stage with Tucker Carlson, just 3-days after a much maligned interview with a Nazi apologist and holocaust denier, or fear being seen having dinner with Nao-Nazi sympathizers, which would instantly kill/ruin any nationally ran campaign, if they were legitimately and truly, trying to win the national popular vote.

IMHO, getting rid of the electoral college would dramatically help to de-radicalize the Republican Party and may even put them on a more "Christian" nationalist path? Well that, and the ousting of Trump?[/QUOTE]With the Senate and the electoral college small states with sparse population have way too much say in our government. In truth be told those smaller States contribute very little economically. I think the Senate is a fantastic idea but it's time we threw away the relic that is the electoral college and elect the president from the straight popular vote. That being said I wouldn't mind going with ranked choice voting across the board so that we can get rid of this insidious two party system. We need more viewpoints represented.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943498]I'd disagree with you here. The majority prefer the blue model. The only reason the Republicans stand a chance is the electoral college. Without it they would have to change their platform significantly. The majority of the United States population does not favor Christian nationalism. And when you look at job creation it has been significantly better under democratic presidents this century.
Economic growth is not the end all of endos and one of the reasons Europe has a problem, if not the biggest reason, is there aging demographic, which except for immigration would be affecting the United States as well.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943547]With the Senate and the electoral college small states with sparse population have way too much say in our government. In truth be told those smaller States contribute very little economically. I think the Senate is a fantastic idea but it's time we threw away the relic that is the electoral college and elect the president from the straight popular vote. That being said I wouldn't mind going with ranked choice voting across the board so that we can get rid of this insidious two party system. We need more viewpoints represented.[/QUOTE]David Brooks wrote that, not me, although I agree with him.

It doesn't really matter though. The beauty of the United States is that it has a federal system. People in California and New York can elect Democrats at the state level, and Texas and Florida can elect Republicans. Austin, Texas can elect Democrats. The problem is when Democrats at the national level want to enforce their economic policies on people in red cities and states, and Republicans want to impose their social policies on blue cities and states. When feasible, power, authority and taxation of and by the government should be closest to the people, at the local and the state level, IMHO. That way the Californians get what they want and the Texans get what they want.

As to "The only reason the Republicans stand a chance is the electoral college", you need to look at the data. Pundits are able to say this because they or their sources cherry pick data. If you let me cherry pick, I'll go back to 1972, and count the number of candidates who won by [b]more[/b] than 50%. (Carter won by 50% in 1976 according to the link below.).

[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034688/share-electoral-popular-votes-each-president-since-1789/[/URL]

If you do that, only three of six Democrats won elections with more than 50% of the vote, while five of seven Republicans won by over 50%. You only have 13 data points though. That's not statistically significant. Trump's win in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% was a fluke, a black swan event. It's the only time something like that's happened since we've been awarding electoral votes solely based on the popular votes within the states. Bush/Gore was not a fluke. When the winning margin for the popular vote is less than a percent, either candidate can end up winning the electoral vote.

What is statistically significant is that, since World War II, Democrats have managed to elect more people to the House than justified by the popular vote. I suspect this is partly because of restrictions on gerrymandering placed on some southern states by the courts because of alleged selection of boundaries based on race, but don't know. This gave blue states the advantage in the "gerrymandering war. " See the last column here, "Difference between Democratic percentage of seats and votes won: [URL]https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch2_tbl2.pdf.[/URL] The data goes through 2016, but in each election in subsequent years, Democrats won slightly more seats (0. 7% to 1. 2%) than what they would have gotten if representation were proportional to popular vote.

As to the Senate, I haven't looked at the data but suspect you're right that Republicans get more representation than justified by the popular vote. And agree the Senate is a fantastic idea. I like the filibuster, and wish Reid and McConnell hadn't weakened it. Kudos to Manchin and Sinema for not allowing it to be further weakened. I also like you would like to see more 3rd party candidates elected, especially Libertarians.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943553]David Brooks wrote that, not me, although I agree with him.

It doesn't really matter though. The beauty of the United States is that it has a federal system. People in California and New York can elect Democrats at the state level, and Texas and Florida can elect Republicans. Austin, Texas can elect Democrats. The problem is when Democrats at the national level want to enforce their economic policies on people in red cities and states, and Republicans want to impose their social policies on blue cities and states. Power, authority and taxation of and by the government should be closest to the people, at the local and the state level, IMHO. That way the Californians get what they want and the Texans get what they want.

As to "The only reason the Republicans stand a chance is the electoral college", you need to look at the data. Pundits are able to say this because they or their sources cherry pick data. If you let me cherry pick, I'll go back to 1972, and count the number of candidates who won by [b]more[/b] than 50%. (Carter won by 50% in 1976 according to the link below.).

[URL]https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034688/share-electoral-popular-votes-each-president-since-1789/[/URL]

If you do that, only three of six Democrats won elections with more than 50% of the vote, while five of seven Republicans won by over 50%. You only have 13 data points though. That's not statistically significant. Trump's win in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% was a fluke, a black swan event. It's the only time something like that's happened since we've been awarding electoral votes solely based on the popular votes within the states. Bush/Gore was not a fluke. When the winning margin for the popular vote is less than a percent, either candidate can end up winning the electoral vote.

What is statistically significant is that, since World War II, Democrats have managed to elect more people to the House than justified by the popular vote. I suspect this is partly because of restrictions on gerrymandering placed on some southern states by the courts because of alleged selection of boundaries based on race, but don't know. This gave blue states the advantage in the "gerrymandering war. " See the last column here, "Difference between Democratic percentage of seats and votes won: [URL]https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch2_tbl2.pdf.[/URL] The data goes through 2016, but in each election in subsequent years, Democrats won slightly more seats (0. 7% to 1. 2%) than what they would have gotten if representation were proportional to popular vote.

As to the Senate, I haven't looked at the data but suspect you're right that Republicans get more representation than justified by the popular vote. And agree the Senate is a fantastic idea. I like the filibuster, and wish Reid and McConnell hadn't weakened it. Kudos to Manchin and Sinema for not doing away with it. I also like you would like to see more 3rd party candidates elected, especially Libertarians.[/QUOTE]As you can probably imagine I'm not a real fan of libertarians. I believe the only way a capitalist system can work is if the balance of power between labor and capital is insured by a strong federal government, including support of labor unions and a high marginal tax rate, mind you not to raise revenue but to ensure that the Lion's share of profit goes back into the company in the form of capital improvements, wages, or benefits for employees. I'm a big fan of the German system where 40% of the board of directors of any publicly health company must be made up of workers.

You mentioned gerrymandering which is a problem be it pro-democrat or pro-Republican.

In defense of my 13 data points, they are more indicative of the current American mindset.

As far as local and state governments, I tend to trust them significantly less and I'm way more inclined to have power concentrated at the federal level and that's because we end up with religious local yocals making decisions. And sorry I think the minute a religious organization gets involved in politics their tax exemption should end. Additionally one of the few things I like about the Chinese system is when they want to build infrastructure it gets done, quickly, and without a million different organizations and thousands of regulations getting involved driving cost up and wasting time.

Enjoying the exchange. Great to talk with someone and be able to disagree without the insane flaming that normally occurs.

One of the biggest problems with our current climate I believe.

And finally kudos to the EU. This just might pull them out of the doldrums.

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/09/draghi-report-weak-eu-growth-threatening-blocs-geopolitical-relevance.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Spidy;2943533]Correct Again!

The is essentially why, the Trump/Vance campaign, are running a campaign to win with a "minority of voters". [b]And why Repubs have only won the popular vote, once in 35 years. [/b]

They're not running a typical "national" campaign, that would appeal to the majority Americans, with issues left or right of center, but instead are courting the voters at the extremes, in minority red states and key battle ground states, that would give them a "minority path" to victory.

Again, this of course is largely in part, because of how our electoral college (and Senate) elections work. Which do not offer a proper, fare, just and equitable democratic distribution of power of representation, where the share of power is correctly proportionally represented in relation its state populous.

They know they don't have to change their extremist platform or policies, because the electoral college (and Senate) are tilted/rigged in their favor.

This is why you see JD Vance, isn't afraid to go on stage with Tucker Carlson, just 3-days after a much maligned interview with a Nazi apologist and holocaust denier, or fear being seen having dinner with Nao-Nazi sympathizers, which would instantly kill/ruin any nationally ran campaign, if they were legitimately and truly, trying to win the national popular vote.

IMHO, getting rid of the electoral college would dramatically help to de-radicalize the Republican Party and may even put them on a more "Christian" nationalist path? Well that, and the ousting of Trump?[/QUOTE]The insidious mental midget strikes again, "insidious crutch" aka the US Constitution.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943560]Enjoying the exchange. Great to talk with someone and be able to disagree without the insane flaming that normally occurs.

One of the biggest problems with our current climate I believe.[/QUOTE]Same here Goatscrot. While I don't weigh in very often anymore, as I haven't been to Thailand since before COVID, I'm a big fan of yours on the Bangkok board. Your posts there are interesting and levelheaded. Same for Tooms although he's not as diplomatic as you.

About the rest of your post, the USA is terrible with infrastructure. Things cost multiples of what they do in Europe and Asia. Yes, streamlining regulation would help a lot. As to social issues and whether they should be decided at the state/local or federal level, the Constitution helps. Basic human rights like freedom of speech are guaranteed throughout the country. How about prostitution and marijuana? You (I think) and I believe they should be legal, but if the population of Muskogee, Oklahoma wants them outlawed in their city, then I'd say let them do it. If you live in Muskogee and don't like it you can always move to Bangkok!

Trump and Vance are at it again, lying about tariffs. Lying about what they are, lying about what they do, lying about who shoulders the burden, just lies from start to finish. The best defense against a torrent of lies is simply a reiteration of the truth:

1) Tariffs are a tax on imports, designed to [B]raise prices[/B] of a country's imports, as opposed to domestic products.

2) Tariffs are paid by the importer to the US Treasury.

3) The importer can either raise the price to cover the tariff, eat the entire tariff, or do some of both.

4) Elasticities of demand and income determine which a smart importer will do.

5) Only if the full tariff can be passed on to the customer WITHOUT affecting demand at all, is the importer not worse off.

6) And that will never happen since no product's demand is completely inelastic.

7) Which means some combination of the importer's shareholders suffering due to lower profits and its employees suffering due to less employment and fewer pay increases.

8) Which means general tariffs are just stupid and ignore the fundamental concept of "comparative advantage," and generally lead to retaliation.

Of course, Rs are monopolists at heart and monopolists have better luck passing tariffs on to customers. So there's that.

[QUOTE=Spidy;2943533]Correct Again!

The is essentially why, the Trump/Vance campaign, are running a campaign to win with a "minority of voters". [b]And why Repubs have only won the popular vote, once in 35 years. [/b]

They're not running a typical "national" campaign, that would appeal to the majority Americans, with issues left or right of center, but instead are courting the voters at the extremes, in minority red states and key battle ground states, that would give them a "minority path" to victory.

Again, this of course is largely in part, because of how our electoral college (and Senate) elections work. Which do not offer a proper, fare, just and equitable democratic distribution of power of representation, where the share of power is correctly proportionally represented in relation its state populous.

They know they don't have to change their extremist platform or policies, because the electoral college (and Senate) are tilted/rigged in their favor.

This is why you see JD Vance, isn't afraid to go on stage with Tucker Carlson, just 3-days after a much maligned interview with a Nazi apologist and holocaust denier, or fear being seen having dinner with Nao-Nazi sympathizers, which would instantly kill/ruin any nationally ran campaign, if they were legitimately and truly, trying to win the national popular vote.

IMHO, getting rid of the electoral college would dramatically help to de-radicalize the Republican Party and may even put them on a more "Christian" nationalist path? Well that, and the ousting of Trump?[/QUOTE]There is more to a nation than just people. Land and resources are best represented by the local population. If electoral college is eliminated, rural populations will basically have no politicians even attempt to appeal to them. All campaigning will be done in extremely liberal centers of urban populations.

Personally I believe you shouldn't even have a vote until your 30 years old or have done something like earn a college degree, start a business, or serve in the military to be eligible to vote at a younger age. Voting should also be merit based. The 19 year meth head convicted felon has the same voting strength as a 55 year old doctor who has dedicated his life to serving people and improving their health. Just doesn't seem logical their votes should count as the same. Convicted child molesters have the same vote as a military 5-star general. 18 year old video game kid with absolutely no real world experience has same vote as a 75 year retiree who worked his whole life and raised a multi-generational family.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2943687]Same here Goatscrot. While I don't weigh in very often anymore, as I haven't been to Thailand since before COVID, I'm a big fan of yours on the Bangkok board. Your posts there are interesting and levelheaded. Same for Tooms although he's not as diplomatic as you.

About the rest of your post, the USA is terrible with infrastructure. Things cost multiples of what they do in Europe and Asia. Yes, streamlining regulation would help a lot. As to social issues and whether they should be decided at the state/local or federal level, the Constitution helps. Basic human rights like freedom of speech are guaranteed throughout the country. How about prostitution and marijuana? You (I think) and I believe they should be legal, but if the population of Muskogee, Oklahoma wants them outlawed in their city, then I'd say let them do it. If you live in Muskogee and don't like it you can always move to Bangkok![/QUOTE]Many thanks for the compliment. It's been fun to report on Bangkok for the last couple of decades.

I will respond to the last part of your post. Unfortunately a large portion of the population don't have the wherewithal to move and many of them are stuck in places that they find repressive. I've always believed that states rights should work something like this; States should have the ability to legalize and permit things that are not permitted at the federal level but should not be able to restrict anything that is already permitted and legal at the federal level. Now that would give people the most freedom and the most choices. My argument with the mini so-called libertarians is there not actually for freedom of choice, they are constitutionalists. In my argument against the Constitution is that it hasn't seen a meaningful amendment in over 50 years. We certainly wouldn't endorse using science textbooks that were written over 50 years ago without being updated, yet we cling to a document and it's amendments that haven't been reviewed and updated in over half a century. The United States in the world is completely different than it was in the early 1970's in the structure of the government needs to reflect that.
I've always been a big believer intolerance. And let me define that by example, I have no problem with the religious worshiping in their choice of church, temple, or synagogue next to a brothel I'm being serviced in or a bar I am drinking in. Until they are able to extend the same tolerance towards me and my lifestyle then I have absolutely no reason to regard them. Religion is simply a lifestyle choice and should be given no more or no less consideration than any other lifestyle choice. When the Constitution was written it was really one of the few lifestyle choices one could make. That is definitely not the case now. In one area where the United States Constitution needs to be amended.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2943494][B]Red states make up an overwhelming majority of top performers, ABC found.[/B]

[URL]https://abcnews.go.com/Business/red-state-economies-surging-biden/story?id=107222293[/URL][/QUOTE]Excellent link Tooms! I'd say I'd welcome you to Texas with open arms, just as long as you don't vote, but I'll be leaving here soon. I'm sure Elvis will though in my place.

Here are some excerpts:

An examination of key economic measures -- including job and income growth -- found an overwhelming majority of red states among 18 top performers.

The disparity between red and blue states has little to do with anything Biden has done, experts interviewed by ABC News said, noting that federal policy typically holds minimal influence over state-by-state economic trends.

Instead, they added, the dynamic owes in large part to the appeal of warm weather states for workers and businesses, as well as the combination of company-friendly state policies and *leaning cities that attract young, educated workers.

Five states are currently enjoying better-than-average performance on four key metrics analyzed by ABC News: job growth, personal income growth, gross domestic product growth and gas prices, according to data from the USA Bureau of Economic Analysis, the USA Bureau of Labor Statistics and AAA.

Four of those five states delivered their electoral votes for Trump in the 2020 election, including Idaho, Texas, South Carolina and Utah. The fifth, Wisconsin, went to Biden.

Meanwhile, 13 states boast better-than-average performance on three of the four metrics. Nine of those states backed Trump, among them Florida and Nebraska.

One of the top-performing states, Texas, posts the nation's third-highest GDP growth, in part because the state added more people than any other last year, according to the USA Census Bureau. San Antonio, one of the largest cities in the state, carries an unemployment rate of 3. 1%, leaving it below the national average of 3. 7%, USA Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows.

KGBTexas, a marketing firm based in San Antonio, has undergone breakneck growth in recent years that has mirrored a citywide economic boom, Katie Harvey, the company's founder, told ABC News.

As the company gained new clients, Harvey rapidly added employees, expanding from about 35 to 55 workers in three years, or by nearly 60%, she said. The growth was made possible by an influx of people drawn to the city's affordable housing, educational offerings and business sector, Harvey added.

"We've had the best three years in our company's history," said Harvey, who founded KGBTexas in 1994. "What has helped us grow is recognizing the positive things that are happening in this city. ".

The strong performance of red states may result from the convergence of business-friendly state laws and attractive cities for young, educated * Edward Glaeser, a Harvard economist, told ABC News. The pool of skilled workers offers companies a ready source of employees, while companies benefit from state policies like low taxes and right-to-work laws, he added.

"That's just a very powerful combination," Glaeser said.

Simple Modern, a drinkware company in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, has benefited from that precise set of factors, Mike Beckham, the company's CEO, told ABC News.

The company nearly doubled its revenue last year, reaching almost $180 million in sales, Beckham said. Two years ago, the company had 60 employees; now it has 100.

A business-minded state government helped drive the growth, Beckham added, pointing to a recently launched manufacturing plant.

"If you're trying to spin up a factory, it's easy to get bogged down in red tape," Beckham said. "That wasn't our experience. ".

"Presidents don't really have a lot to do with state economic performance," Terry Clower, a professor of public policy at George Mason University, told ABC News.

Instead, experts said that relatively strong red state performance results in part from business-friendly policies.

[B]At its two-year anniversary, the bipartisan infrastructure law continues to rebuild all of America.[/B]

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2943494][URL]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/at-its-two-year-anniversary-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-law-continues-to-rebuild-all-of-america/[/URL]

[/QUOTE]Brookings is strongly biased towards your side. Therefore I refuse to read their articles, unless they appeal to my biases, like the Brookings link I posted recently showing Democrats have received a lot more House seats than justified by the popular vote.

[QUOTE=Goatscrot;2943739]Many thanks for the compliment. It's been fun to report on Bangkok for the last couple of decades.

I will respond to the last part of your post. Unfortunately a large portion of the population don't have the wherewithal to move and many of them are stuck in places that they find repressive. I've always believed that states rights should work something like this; States should have the ability to legalize and permit things that are not permitted at the federal level but should not be able to restrict anything that is already permitted and legal at the federal level. Now that would give people the most freedom and the most choices. My argument with the mini so-called libertarians is there not actually for freedom of choice, they are constitutionalists. In my argument against the Constitution is that it hasn't seen a meaningful amendment in over 50 years. We certainly wouldn't endorse using science textbooks that were written over 50 years ago without being updated, yet we cling to a document and it's amendments that haven't been reviewed and updated in over half a century. The United States in the world is completely different than it was in the early 1970's in the structure of the government needs to reflect that.
I've always been a big believer intolerance. And let me define that by example, I have no problem with the religious worshiping in their choice of church, temple, or synagogue next to a brothel I'm being serviced in or a bar I am drinking in. Until they are able to extend the same tolerance towards me and my lifestyle then I have absolutely no reason to regard them. Religion is simply a lifestyle choice and should be given no more or no less consideration than any other lifestyle choice. When the Constitution was written it was really one of the few lifestyle choices one could make. That is definitely not the case now. In one area where the United States Constitution needs to be amended.[/QUOTE]Hey Goatscrot, First, I largely agree with your post and think similarly. I've never thought about allowing individuals to exercise liberties, freedoms and rights in accordance with state or federal law, whichever is more liberal, but that makes good sense.

The Mises Caucus tried to take control of the Libertarian Party from the Gary Johnson wing a few years ago. And some of your criticisms, like intolerance and excessive Constitutionalism, are valid for them. However, they have since been booted to the ground like the scum they are. The Libertarian candidate for president this year, Chase Oliver, is a classical liberal from the Gary Johnson wing. He says he's armed and gay. And I suspect the only significant social policy you might disagree with Chase about is gun control.

The Libertarians would have to be closer to you on social issues than either of the major parties. The Progressive democrats might come closer than the rest, but they still condemn our lifestyle. On the other hand the Libertarians probably are farther from your beliefs on economic and foreign policy than the major parties. However the Gary Johnson Libertarians are kinder and gentler and stronger believers in a social safety net than the Mises Caucus, which again is probably history.

I don't have strong feelings about the Constitution, except that to the extent it protects individual liberties and rights and prevents a tyranny of the majority. I'm all on board with that.

I took a multiple choice test many years ago that would tell me which presidential candidates I should vote for. It came back with a tie, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Some would say they're as far apart on the political spectrum as two candidates can be. But on some issues they're like two peas in a pod. So it is with many of us.