A couple of weeks ago one of the conservative radio talk show hosts was really getting on my nerves with his mischaracterization of a progam we have in Texas. There is a university fund which is managed by the State--the money comes from mineral rights and land use rights--and this fund just issued a new program offering to cover the tution cost at various universities in the State for famlies with lower income. Note: this type of program is *not* "socialism" but is *is* "responsible capitalism", which is why it works--it is an investment in the future. Anyway, he was making it sound like "omg they are giving free college to poor people" and this got on my nerves so much I actually called his show to correct him. The number one way for families to climb the economic ladder is for the kids to stay in school and manage to get into university; this program will pay their way...and it does to raise anyone's taxes because they money is already there!
Did he happen to mention where he thinks the money should go instead?? If the state is charging for mineral rights and land-use rights, the money exists and ostensibly must be used for SOMETHING, so I would think if you are going to make this argument, you'd at least have to have some alternative idea for where the money should go.
Note: If a child can't get INTO college in the first place, I'm they are not going to be recipients of what amounts to a grant. So it's impossible to say they haven't "earned" it. It's not like they are mailing checks to high school drop-outs or kids getting a D- in English. And what is this obsession lately with the idea that college SHOULD cost alot of money?? Who in their right mind thinks it should be harder and more costly for kids to go to college?? It strikes me as nothing but gatekeeping. Underneath it all, this guy doesn't WANT poor kids going to college, or if they do, to make sure they sufficiently "earn" it according to his arbitrary personal scale.
I for one never said University or College should be expensive. I frankly think it's totally ridiculous what they charge now. Ans these are 'supposedly' liberal institutions! Instead of free college for all, whuch will allow those damned colleges to charge the taxpayers whatever they want, how about doing something about their predatory pricing instead?
So have the government regulate how much each institution can charge in tuition fees?
Sounds like socialism too me. Which party would be dead set against regulations against businesses for the greater good of society... let me ponder for a minute.
A couple of weeks ago one of the conservative radio talk show hosts was really getting on my nerves with his mischaracterization of a progam we have in Texas. There is a university fund which is managed by the State--the money comes from mineral rights and land use rights--and this fund just issued a new program offering to cover the tution cost at various universities in the State for famlies with lower income. Note: this type of program is *not* "socialism" but is *is* "responsible capitalism", which is why it works--it is an investment in the future. Anyway, he was making it sound like "omg they are giving free college to poor people" and this got on my nerves so much I actually called his show to correct him. The number one way for families to climb the economic ladder is for the kids to stay in school and manage to get into university; this program will pay their way...and it does to raise anyone's taxes because they money is already there!
Did he happen to mention where he thinks the money should go instead?? If the state is charging for mineral rights and land-use rights, the money exists and ostensibly must be used for SOMETHING, so I would think if you are going to make this argument, you'd at least have to have some alternative idea for where the money should go.
Note: If a child can't get INTO college in the first place, I'm they are not going to be recipients of what amounts to a grant. So it's impossible to say they haven't "earned" it. It's not like they are mailing checks to high school drop-outs or kids getting a D- in English. And what is this obsession lately with the idea that college SHOULD cost alot of money?? Who in their right mind thinks it should be harder and more costly for kids to go to college?? It strikes me as nothing but gatekeeping. Underneath it all, this guy doesn't WANT poor kids going to college, or if they do, to make sure they sufficiently "earn" it according to his arbitrary personal scale.
I for one never said University or College should be expensive. I frankly think it's totally ridiculous what they charge now. Ans these are 'supposedly' liberal institutions! Instead of free college for all, whuch will allow those damned colleges to charge the taxpayers whatever they want, how about doing something about their predatory pricing instead?
So have the government regulate how much each institution can charge in tuition fees?
Sounds like socialism too me. Which party would be dead set against regulations against businesses for the greater good of society... let me ponder for a minute.
I'm also not sure what makes universities "liberal institutions". I understand that's the pejorative framing that US conservatives use about them. But there's nothing fundamentally liberal in these institutions -- at least in the modern usage of the word liberal.
Universities exist across the globe and have existed for millennia. I really wish US conservatives would take pause realize the serious problem of looking at so many core social institutions as being fundamentally hostile to them. It says a lot about the increasing radicalization of the party and movement.
@Balrog99 So, what is the free crap you constantly go on about? I've never seen a single liberal in this thread talk about giving stuff away for free. I've seen a bunch of people talk about using taxes to fund healthcare. Is that what you mean? Because taxes aren't free, we pay those. Not that I haven't asked this a bunch of times before and never got a response. I don't suppose you have some substance to your bias?
Free shit like the $20/hr minimum wage proposed, reparations, free college, pay off everybody's college loans, "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" (and Hoover was a Republican).
Its not free. People are trading their time, skills, and labor for a wage. The whole purpose of a wage is to be able to live on and support your family. You're not getting anything for free, its stopping companies from ripping off their workers. Having to work 3 jobs and still living paycheck to paycheck is NOT normal. The minimun LIVING wage was instituted by the government after countless workers protested, rioted, died, and some murdered their bosses for not paying them. Somewhere along the line, employers stopped paying out and the government never corrected them.
And as for college, its NOT a handout. Its an investment in the future of the country. You need skilled workers (doctors, engineers, etc.) and by making college unavailable for the majority of Americans, we ar eliterally crippling our own country.
I'm just jumping in here to say that I am watching the Netflix Documentary series Wild Wild Country.
It is an amazing documentary about religious freedom and the bigotry that surrounds non Christianity faiths when it comes to upholding the constitution of the United States.
A couple of weeks ago one of the conservative radio talk show hosts was really getting on my nerves with his mischaracterization of a progam we have in Texas. There is a university fund which is managed by the State--the money comes from mineral rights and land use rights--and this fund just issued a new program offering to cover the tution cost at various universities in the State for famlies with lower income. Note: this type of program is *not* "socialism" but is *is* "responsible capitalism", which is why it works--it is an investment in the future. Anyway, he was making it sound like "omg they are giving free college to poor people" and this got on my nerves so much I actually called his show to correct him. The number one way for families to climb the economic ladder is for the kids to stay in school and manage to get into university; this program will pay their way...and it does to raise anyone's taxes because they money is already there!
Did he happen to mention where he thinks the money should go instead?? If the state is charging for mineral rights and land-use rights, the money exists and ostensibly must be used for SOMETHING, so I would think if you are going to make this argument, you'd at least have to have some alternative idea for where the money should go.
Note: If a child can't get INTO college in the first place, I'm they are not going to be recipients of what amounts to a grant. So it's impossible to say they haven't "earned" it. It's not like they are mailing checks to high school drop-outs or kids getting a D- in English. And what is this obsession lately with the idea that college SHOULD cost alot of money?? Who in their right mind thinks it should be harder and more costly for kids to go to college?? It strikes me as nothing but gatekeeping. Underneath it all, this guy doesn't WANT poor kids going to college, or if they do, to make sure they sufficiently "earn" it according to his arbitrary personal scale.
I for one never said University or College should be expensive. I frankly think it's totally ridiculous what they charge now. Ans these are 'supposedly' liberal institutions! Instead of free college for all, whuch will allow those damned colleges to charge the taxpayers whatever they want, how about doing something about their predatory pricing instead?
So have the government regulate how much each institution can charge in tuition fees?
Sounds like socialism too me. Which party would be dead set against regulations against businesses for the greater good of society... let me ponder for a minute.
I'm also not sure what makes universities "liberal institutions". I understand that's the pejorative framing that US conservatives use about them. But there's nothing fundamentally liberal in these institutions -- at least in the modern usage of the word liberal.
Universities exist across the globe and have existed for millennia. I really wish US conservatives would take pause realize the serious problem of looking at so many core social institutions as being fundamentally hostile to them. It says a lot about the increasing radicalization of the party and movement.
By liberal, I meant more as bastions of free thought, not necessarily political liberalism. Guess I should have been more clear in a politics forum...
I for one refuse to give up my identity as liberal to those who'd hide their authoritarian selves behind this name while looking down upon everything it stands for.
I for one refuse to give up my identity as liberal to those who'd hide their authoritarian selves behind this name while looking down upon everything it stands for.
What about libertarian?
I an a right libertarian.
IMO
Those who not produce should't regulate those who produce.
No crime without victim should be punished(automatic gun ownership, prostituition, possessing drugs, etc)
Taxation = Theft
Democracy is far worse than monarchy
Conscription = Slavery
Income tax = Slavery(forced to work against your will) + theft + violation of due process(forced to produce proof against yourself) and should be abolished
The gold standard should come back
The French revolution made everything worse on Europe and the rest of the world.
The government should be color blind if exist(but should't exist)
Private discrimination should be allowed but not encouraged socially
FDR was the worst US president(new deal, NFA, betrayal of Poland, pressure for unconditional surrender, etc)
Any type of identity politics enforced by government or not will lead to subjectivity and arbitrarily
I for one refuse to give up my identity as liberal to those who'd hide their authoritarian selves behind this name while looking down upon everything it stands for.
What about libertarian?
I an a right libertarian.
IMO
Those who not produce should't regulate those who produce.
No crime without victim should be punished(automatic gun ownership, prostituition, possessing drugs, etc)
Taxation = Theft
Democracy is far worse than monarchy
Conscription = Slavery
Income tax = Slavery(forced to work against your will) + theft + violation of due process(forced to produce proof against yourself) and should be abolished
The gold standard should come back
The French revolution made everything worse on Europe and the rest of the world.
The government should be color blind if exist(but should't exist)
Private discrimination should be allowed but not encouraged socially
FDR was the worst US president(new deal, NFA, betrayal of Poland, pressure for unconditional surrender, etc)
Any type of identity politics enforced by government or not will lead to subjectivity and arbitrarily
So, basically, Rapture from Bioshock. Define what "produce" means. How do you imagine roads are going to be built and maintained without taxes?? Is every individual going to be responsible for their own 10 foot section of the street in front of their house?? What happens if they don't perform the upkeep and everyone else does?? But then again, I suppose the king in this hypothetical scenario can just ORDER everyone to do upkeep in their neighborhood. So what is the punishment for not doing so?? Who is going to pay for things?? What rights do those who "don't produce" have?? Any??
The fact is, taxes pay for things that people are either unwilling or unable to pay for. Without them, you have this, which is simply ONE small town in Texas. It devolved into disrepair and chaos:
A true libertarian governing philosophy (if you can even call it that) applied across the board in a society of hundreds of millions of people would be a recipe for abject disaster that would be so readily apparent in day to day functions that it would take maybe a 1 or 2 weeks to start turning into total anarchy.
I for one refuse to give up my identity as liberal to those who'd hide their authoritarian selves behind this name while looking down upon everything it stands for.
What about libertarian?
I an a right libertarian.
IMO
Those who not produce should't regulate those who produce.
No crime without victim should be punished(automatic gun ownership, prostituition, possessing drugs, etc)
Taxation = Theft
Democracy is far worse than monarchy
Conscription = Slavery
Income tax = Slavery(forced to work against your will) + theft + violation of due process(forced to produce proof against yourself) and should be abolished
The gold standard should come back
The French revolution made everything worse on Europe and the rest of the world.
The government should be color blind if exist(but should't exist)
Private discrimination should be allowed but not encouraged socially
FDR was the worst US president(new deal, NFA, betrayal of Poland, pressure for unconditional surrender, etc)
Any type of identity politics enforced by government or not will lead to subjectivity and arbitrarily
So, basically, Rapture from Bioshock.
Wrong, rapture was anti religious, i an neutral in therms of religion. Rapture prohibited people from leave, i an completely against it, Bioshock was just an critique against Ayn Rand Objectivism and she would classify me as an "right wing hippie".
The Director Of National Intelligence, Dan Coates, was fired so that Trump can put someone personally loyal to himself in the position presumably to be his republican yes-man so that he can use the intelligence agencies to attack American citizens who are his political enemies.
Trump also wants to label antifa as a terrorist organization - despite Right wing Violence being the number one cause of political murders last couple years and antifa never killing anyone. It's almost like he doesn't believe in facts, just lies.
Anyway, Antifa isn't really an organized movement. "Antifa" is just a term applied to people who self-identify with being against fascism. It means "anti-fascist". There's no antifa address or web site, there's no one in charge. It is a label that any group can attach to themselves, should they so wish.
But- and this is the best part as far as the right-wingers are concerned- labels work both ways.
If no one's antifi you can label anyone as being "antifa".
So why is Trump pretending that antifa is a threat more than all the right wing violence that is actually killing people?
Here's how it's going to go down:
- Trump declares "antifa" a terrorist organization.
- People who Trump doesn't like such as those who protest Trump's policies and actions, like concentration camps at our southern border, are labeled "antifa".
- Now you can arrest anyone you want as long as you just say the magic words: "They are Antifa terrorists!".
It's a free pass to arrest and imprison anyone you don't like for any reason.
And it's really easy to false flag such a decentralized group bound only by ideology. It is like the Russian apartment bombings that were coordinated by the Russian state security services and brought Putin into the presidency.
Calling income tax slavery is a complete failure to understand what slavery was. And shows that someone is not a serious thinker in matters of politics.
How do you imagine roads are going to be built and maintained without taxes??(...) What happens if they don't perform the upkeep and everyone else does??
And note, if you live in a Area, you probably signed an contract showing what you can and cannot do. "Gated communities" can enforce this type of things aka if you trowed trash in your street.
The fact is, taxes pay for things that people are either unwilling or unable to pay for. Without them, you have this, which is simply ONE small town in Texas. It devolved into disrepair and chaos:
Wrong, if you wanna an better example, read the book "not so wild, wild west"
And lets be honest, the worst examples of """"anarchy"""" during the history are far less deadly than the best examples of centralized government. I an not kidding. Centralized modern state is the worst thing ever created. Monarchy isn't perfect but is far closer to the natural order.
Forgive me if this is in the article, my phone doesn't let me read the whole thing (for whatever reason).
I recently saw polling information that Trump was 2 points underwater in Macomb county. Which is significant because he won that same county by 16 points in 2016.
And then expect to be charged out the bum for the "privelege" of using roads. Hope anyone isn't poor.
In my country, roads are owned by the state just like most everything in a semi socialist country and ... Most roads are "toll roads" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_road ) so you are charged by using roads. And charged two times. One in taxes and other when traveling... Not mentioning, in order to protect an non existent automobile industry, there are heavy taxes. Not mentioning, train are an far more economic cheap alternative to transport goods but politicians hate since they can spend a lot of money maintaining roads and get a lot of money from tax infractions.
This that i an not talking about gun control making transport much unsafer since armed scout become much more expensive and less effective, limit on armor thickness on "bank cars", prohibition on foreign investment on air industry, completely arbitrary rules, etc. Transport is chaotic due the government interference.
Forgive me if this is in the article, my phone doesn't let me read the whole thing (for whatever reason).
I recently saw polling information that Trump was 2 points underwater in Macomb county. Which is significant because he won that same county by 16 points in 2016.
I believe the poll results, but I'd take it with a grain of salt. It's hard to predict how people here will vote on election day. Polling isn't as reliable as it used to be...
@Balrog99: Why would it be less reliable instead of more? It's easier to collect large amounts of data these days, statistics has advanced over time, and, unlike previous decades, there's a smaller portion of the population that can't be reached by phone or online, reducing the selection bias of older polls.
@Balrog99: Why would it be less reliable instead of more? It's easier to collect large amounts of data these days, statistics has advanced over time, and, unlike previous decades, there's a smaller portion of the population that can't be reached by phone or online, reducing the selection bias of older polls.
I have a theory: I myself don't ever answer phone calls or e-mails from unknown sources and almost everybody I know tells me they do the same thing. This leads me to believe that it's hard to conduct a scientific survey anymore. Only a certain sub-set of people are going to trust a polling company (or any random contact) with all the scams and data-mining out there.
I believe the poll results, but I'd take it with a grain of salt. It's hard to predict how people here will vote on election day. Polling isn't as reliable as it used to be...
As was said above - Polling is more accurate than it has ever been. 2018 was a phenomenal year for polling. 2016 was a good year too - it was the interpretation of polling that was bad.
I'll fully agree that polling today in Macomb county is not predictive of how Trump will do in November of 2020 there, but that doesn't make it bad.
I suspect Trump will win Macomb, probably comfortably. However, if his margin there is something like 7 or 8 (rather than 16, as he had in 2016) - it speaks to a bad night in Michigan for him. A bad night in Michigan probably means a bad night in the Midwest, and probably means a 2020 defeat.
And then expect to be charged out the bum for the "privelege" of using roads. Hope anyone isn't poor.
Hope you don't need a road to your house either. Why would a private company do anything other than rip people off and try to make money off of them.
The roads near your house should be an propriety of those who live in your neighborhood
What happens when Mike, Michelle and Bill are pitching in for repair and upkeep and Howard, Trish and Bob refuse to do so?? And when you multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands of streets??
And then expect to be charged out the bum for the "privelege" of using roads. Hope anyone isn't poor.
Hope you don't need a road to your house either. Why would a private company do anything other than rip people off and try to make money off of them.
The roads near your house should be an propriety of those who live in your neighborhood
What happens when Mike, Michelle and Bill are pitching in for repair and upkeep and Howard, Trish and Bob refuse to do so?? And when you multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands of streets??
Again, roads would be managed in the same way as gated communities. But please. Don't say that the government do an good job with anything.
And then expect to be charged out the bum for the "privelege" of using roads. Hope anyone isn't poor.
Hope you don't need a road to your house either. Why would a private company do anything other than rip people off and try to make money off of them.
The roads near your house should be an propriety of those who live in your neighborhood
What happens when Mike, Michelle and Bill are pitching in for repair and upkeep and Howard, Trish and Bob refuse to do so?? And when you multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands of streets??
Again, roads would be managed in the same way as gated communities. But please. Don't say that the government do an good job with anything.
There would be a rule against that, and the response to breaking the rule would be doing something to punish Howard, Trish, and Bob. That would either involve forcibly taking the funds or inflicting some unrelated punishment until they contributed to the neighborhood. In order to do that, Mike, Michelle, and Bill need to be physically stronger than Howard, Trish, and Bob, but then, what if the physically stronger side refuses to pay? In that case, you would need a neutral body that was strong enough to enforce the rules.
In other words, a government. And the best way to pick who gets to control that neutral body is to have all six neighbors vote for a separate leader, to make sure that no one of them can dominate the others uncontested.
In other words, a democracy.
Government is simply a means of solving problems that aren't solving themselves. People are selfish and the vast majority of folks will not lift a finger or spend a dollar to help the community unless everyone is required to do the same.
semiticgod, using your definition of government, private associations, an company, an church, an tribe and almost every type of authority are governments... And i agree that people are selfish, so people in charge of the government.
And then expect to be charged out the bum for the "privelege" of using roads. Hope anyone isn't poor.
Hope you don't need a road to your house either. Why would a private company do anything other than rip people off and try to make money off of them.
The roads near your house should be an propriety of those who live in your neighborhood
So people should pool their money, like as a tax, in order to build the roads to their neighborhood - this is what happens already.
Someone already figured this out literally hundreds of years ago.
Is voluntary. Move from another neighbor if you dislike the """""tax""""", is far different than leave an country and there are people advocating for an world wide tax...
Comments
So have the government regulate how much each institution can charge in tuition fees?
Sounds like socialism too me. Which party would be dead set against regulations against businesses for the greater good of society... let me ponder for a minute.
I'm also not sure what makes universities "liberal institutions". I understand that's the pejorative framing that US conservatives use about them. But there's nothing fundamentally liberal in these institutions -- at least in the modern usage of the word liberal.
Universities exist across the globe and have existed for millennia. I really wish US conservatives would take pause realize the serious problem of looking at so many core social institutions as being fundamentally hostile to them. It says a lot about the increasing radicalization of the party and movement.
Its not free. People are trading their time, skills, and labor for a wage. The whole purpose of a wage is to be able to live on and support your family. You're not getting anything for free, its stopping companies from ripping off their workers. Having to work 3 jobs and still living paycheck to paycheck is NOT normal. The minimun LIVING wage was instituted by the government after countless workers protested, rioted, died, and some murdered their bosses for not paying them. Somewhere along the line, employers stopped paying out and the government never corrected them.
And as for college, its NOT a handout. Its an investment in the future of the country. You need skilled workers (doctors, engineers, etc.) and by making college unavailable for the majority of Americans, we ar eliterally crippling our own country.
It is an amazing documentary about religious freedom and the bigotry that surrounds non Christianity faiths when it comes to upholding the constitution of the United States.
By liberal, I meant more as bastions of free thought, not necessarily political liberalism. Guess I should have been more clear in a politics forum...
What about libertarian?
I an a right libertarian.
IMO
So, basically, Rapture from Bioshock. Define what "produce" means. How do you imagine roads are going to be built and maintained without taxes?? Is every individual going to be responsible for their own 10 foot section of the street in front of their house?? What happens if they don't perform the upkeep and everyone else does?? But then again, I suppose the king in this hypothetical scenario can just ORDER everyone to do upkeep in their neighborhood. So what is the punishment for not doing so?? Who is going to pay for things?? What rights do those who "don't produce" have?? Any??
The fact is, taxes pay for things that people are either unwilling or unable to pay for. Without them, you have this, which is simply ONE small town in Texas. It devolved into disrepair and chaos:
https://www.texasobserver.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-freest-little-city-in-texas/
A true libertarian governing philosophy (if you can even call it that) applied across the board in a society of hundreds of millions of people would be a recipe for abject disaster that would be so readily apparent in day to day functions that it would take maybe a 1 or 2 weeks to start turning into total anarchy.
Wrong, rapture was anti religious, i an neutral in therms of religion. Rapture prohibited people from leave, i an completely against it, Bioshock was just an critique against Ayn Rand Objectivism and she would classify me as an "right wing hippie".
Trump also wants to label antifa as a terrorist organization - despite Right wing Violence being the number one cause of political murders last couple years and antifa never killing anyone. It's almost like he doesn't believe in facts, just lies.
Anyway, Antifa isn't really an organized movement. "Antifa" is just a term applied to people who self-identify with being against fascism. It means "anti-fascist". There's no antifa address or web site, there's no one in charge. It is a label that any group can attach to themselves, should they so wish.
But- and this is the best part as far as the right-wingers are concerned- labels work both ways.
If no one's antifi you can label anyone as being "antifa".
So why is Trump pretending that antifa is a threat more than all the right wing violence that is actually killing people?
Here's how it's going to go down:
- Trump declares "antifa" a terrorist organization.
- People who Trump doesn't like such as those who protest Trump's policies and actions, like concentration camps at our southern border, are labeled "antifa".
- Now you can arrest anyone you want as long as you just say the magic words: "They are Antifa terrorists!".
It's a free pass to arrest and imprison anyone you don't like for any reason.
And it's really easy to false flag such a decentralized group bound only by ideology. It is like the Russian apartment bombings that were coordinated by the Russian state security services and brought Putin into the presidency.
"who would build the roads" was an JOKE but spoiler : the private initiative deals with infrastructure in a much more efficient way than the state https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Private_infrastructure
And note, if you live in a Area, you probably signed an contract showing what you can and cannot do. "Gated communities" can enforce this type of things aka if you trowed trash in your street.
Wrong, if you wanna an better example, read the book "not so wild, wild west"
And lets be honest, the worst examples of """"anarchy"""" during the history are far less deadly than the best examples of centralized government. I an not kidding. Centralized modern state is the worst thing ever created. Monarchy isn't perfect but is far closer to the natural order.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/29/politics/2020-election-michigan-voters/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
Forgive me if this is in the article, my phone doesn't let me read the whole thing (for whatever reason).
I recently saw polling information that Trump was 2 points underwater in Macomb county. Which is significant because he won that same county by 16 points in 2016.
"
And then expect to be charged out the bum for the "privelege" of using roads. Hope anyone isn't poor.
In my country, roads are owned by the state just like most everything in a semi socialist country and ... Most roads are "toll roads" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_road ) so you are charged by using roads. And charged two times. One in taxes and other when traveling... Not mentioning, in order to protect an non existent automobile industry, there are heavy taxes. Not mentioning, train are an far more economic cheap alternative to transport goods but politicians hate since they can spend a lot of money maintaining roads and get a lot of money from tax infractions.
I suggest this article > https://mises.org/library/railway-socialism-and-safety
This that i an not talking about gun control making transport much unsafer since armed scout become much more expensive and less effective, limit on armor thickness on "bank cars", prohibition on foreign investment on air industry, completely arbitrary rules, etc. Transport is chaotic due the government interference.
I believe the poll results, but I'd take it with a grain of salt. It's hard to predict how people here will vote on election day. Polling isn't as reliable as it used to be...
I have a theory: I myself don't ever answer phone calls or e-mails from unknown sources and almost everybody I know tells me they do the same thing. This leads me to believe that it's hard to conduct a scientific survey anymore. Only a certain sub-set of people are going to trust a polling company (or any random contact) with all the scams and data-mining out there.
As was said above - Polling is more accurate than it has ever been. 2018 was a phenomenal year for polling. 2016 was a good year too - it was the interpretation of polling that was bad.
I'll fully agree that polling today in Macomb county is not predictive of how Trump will do in November of 2020 there, but that doesn't make it bad.
I suspect Trump will win Macomb, probably comfortably. However, if his margin there is something like 7 or 8 (rather than 16, as he had in 2016) - it speaks to a bad night in Michigan for him. A bad night in Michigan probably means a bad night in the Midwest, and probably means a 2020 defeat.
Hope you don't need a road to your house either. Why would a private company do anything other than rip people off and try to make money off of them.
The roads near your house should be an propriety of those who live in your neighborhood
What happens when Mike, Michelle and Bill are pitching in for repair and upkeep and Howard, Trish and Bob refuse to do so?? And when you multiply that scenario by hundreds of thousands of streets??
Again, roads would be managed in the same way as gated communities. But please. Don't say that the government do an good job with anything.
Again, roads would be managed in the same way as gated communities. But please. Don't say that the government do an good job with anything.
In other words, a government. And the best way to pick who gets to control that neutral body is to have all six neighbors vote for a separate leader, to make sure that no one of them can dominate the others uncontested.
In other words, a democracy.
Government is simply a means of solving problems that aren't solving themselves. People are selfish and the vast majority of folks will not lift a finger or spend a dollar to help the community unless everyone is required to do the same.
So people should pool their money, like as a tax, in order to build the roads to their neighborhood - this is what happens already.
Someone already figured this out literally hundreds of years ago.
Is voluntary. Move from another neighbor if you dislike the """""tax""""", is far different than leave an country and there are people advocating for an world wide tax...