heybruce

Wow! Benford's Law! Just how exactly does Benford's Law support your argument? Nothing in the link does so. Please show your work.

You are not just twisting facts but reality itself. Los Angeles county has over 10 million people, making it bigger than forty of the fifty states. Winning big counties easily allows for a small number of counties to outweigh the votes in a much larger number of small counties. North Dakota and South Dakota combined have a total of 119 counties but a population one third that of Los Angeles county. So in that case Biden could have lost every county in the Dakotas (and may have done so) but still have won far more total votes in Los Angeles county alone. Of course you can prove me wrong. Identify the counties that you think Biden didn't really win and explain how there was fraud there. Or you can identify the "several statisticians" and the work they did to come up with their conclusions. BTW: Biden did win his party's nomination. That's why he was the Democratic candidate.

Fox gave lots of prime air time to election deniers without ever pointing out that their disproven claims were nonsense and without giving time to contrary (real world) views. Fox's dimwitted viewers ate it up. It did this because presenting the truth was bad for ratings. So the big lie here is that Fox News is a news channel.

Ok, we seem to be getting there. It appears you now agree that linking currencies to gold is a bad idea. Now all you have to do is show that current policies are resulting in a decline of the dollar. Regarding suppression of gold prices, yes you did show that one bank had illegally attempted to manipulate the precious metals futures market, with no evidence of impacting the price of gold. You still haven't provided evidence to support your claim "there are several big banks that have interests in keeping the price down and at the moment they are able to mostly control the price." Your JPMorgan link does not support the claim about banks controlling the price of gold.

You don't refute that linking currencies to gold would severely restrain economic growth. You have no idea of how such a linkage would work. You don't dispute the fact that the value of the US currency is determined in a global free market, and if it were mismanaged its value would crash and it would cease to be the world's reserve currency. You just have links to news stories about JPMorgan playing illegal games in the precious metals futures market. Where do these stories state that the results had any measurable impact on the price of gold?

From the source: "In recent weeks, Donald Trump has discussed sending “special forces” and using “cyber warfare” to target cartel leaders if he’s reelected president and, per Rolling Stone, asked for “battle plans” to strike Mexico. Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) and Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) introduced a bill seeking authorization for the use of military force to “put us at war with the cartels.” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said he is open to sending U.S. troops into Mexico to target drug lords even without that nation’s permission." So much for all the high praise given to Trump for not starting any wars, he's clearly eager to do so now. Either these Republicans are complete idiots or they assume the majority of their base is.

Clearly you don't understand what I wrote. You also ignored or didn't understand my post that pointed out that the world economy has grown at a rate many times that of the gold supply, something which would be impossible if currencies were tied to the gold supply. Size and responsible economic policy has led the US dollar to being the world reserve currency. The US attempts to manage its money supply to keep it appropriate for the demand on the currency, and largely succeeds. All responsible countries do this, which is why the currencies of responsible countries are easily exchanged for other currencies around the world. Money is both a tool to facilitate commerce and a commodity subject to supply and demand. When a country mismanages the currency supply that country's currency, economy or both will crash. History has shown that repeatedly. What kind of linkage to gold supply do you suggest that will not restrain global economic growth to the much slower growth in global gold supplies? What evidence do you have of gold price suppression? Apparently you want the currencies tied to gold, and the price of gold to increase. How does that work? If a quarter is defined as a coin worth one quarter of a dollar, then if the value of the dollar increases so will the value of the quarter. The same thing holds if currencies are linked to gold. An increase in the value of gold will lead to an increase in the value of the currency which causes deflation and recession, depression, or economic collapse, depending on the magnitude of the increase. Instead of throwing out nonsensical suggestions, try refuting what I've posted.

I answered that question. If I earned the money in Thailand and that were the law, then I would pay the tax. What further support do you expect?

If I were earning money in Thailand I would expect to pay all the required taxes. Like many I just spend money in Thailand that I earned elsewhere. It appears Thailand finds that acceptable.

Do you understand what I mean when I state that an economy has difficulty growing faster than the money supply? Do you understand that just as too much money chasing too few goods causes inflation, too many goods competing after too little money causes deflation? That when this happens people have no incentive to invest in anything other than gold, causing an economy to freeze up? Do you understand that an economy freezing up is a very bad thing? One of the big drivers of the Great Depression in the 1930's was production exceeding the fixed money supplies. Before World War One much of the world's production capacity was in Europe. The war shut much of that down. During the war other parts of the world ramped up production to compensate. These new producers kept producing after the war ended and the European producers started producing again. Total global production increased dramatically, however with currencies fixed by the gold standard the money supply couldn't be increased to accommodate. Prices plummeted below the cost of production forcing producers out of business. It was very bad. That's why countries left the gold standard. If all this is beyond your grasp, you shouldn't be commenting here. BTW: The price of gold isn't being suppressed, it floats freely. If you think gold is better than money, then by all means buy gold. Nobody is stopping you.

It's on his "to do" list. Along with showing his tax returns, getting Mexico to pay for the wall, returning stolen documents, coming up with a better, cheaper healthcare plan than the Affordable Care Act....

Why do people assume that a hand count can not be corrupted? Weren't there hand counts after the 2020 election that verified the machine count, but were still rejected by the Trump fanatics?

Really? Where is gold currently being used as money? As already noted, it is difficult for an economy to grow faster than its money supply, and the global supply of gold has not come close to keeping up with the growth of the global economy. In other words, if we'd stuck with the gold standard we'd all be a lot poorer.

You have a point, but I'm not sure how much advance planning was possible given the unknowns at the time. My point is that, while there are definitely risks and disadvantages to moving away for precious metal based currencies, the benefits far outweigh those issues.

I think it will take a few elections for abortion to be less of an issue. By then the idiot red state officials making abortion almost impossible will be voted out of office, turning a number of red states blue.

Consider the alternative. It is difficult for an economy to grow faster than its money supply. About two thirds of the gold in the world has been mined since 1950, so the global gold supply is now three times what it was then. https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/how-much-gold However the global economy over 80 times as large now as it was in 1960. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/gdp-gross-domestic-product If the world had stuck with the gold standard, it would be a much, much poorer place than it is now.

Gold is a mystical metal from ancient times. You can't eat it, build with it or wear it (except as an ornament), but it's shiny! Gold is valuable because people value gold. While the dollar is valuable because, um, well pretty much the same. Currency exists to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. A well managed paper or electronic currency does this much better than a metal. But some people just can't get past their fascination with a heavy shiny metal.

Still trying to deflect to the west. The Thai people should have a say in how they are governed. Elections is how that is accomplished. There are many forms of democracy and none are perfect, but all are better than the "traditional" autocracy you favor for Thailand. Staging coups whenever the elected government upsets the elites is not a tradition worth keeping.

"Thankfully, the powers that be self-serving elite now keep Thailand on am even keel under their heal." Democracy be damned, right?

No source for your claim about tax revenue. While it is true that someone has to pay for healthcare, the fact remains that when governments do it through tax revenues it reduces the burden on their businesses. In the US that burden rests squarely on businesses, which puts them at a competitive disadvantage internationally. Also, the scattershot approach to paying for healthcare in the US results in the US spending significantly more on healthcare than any other wealthy nation. https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question, but yes, there is a problem with people able to get ballots from different states voting more than once. A number of snowbirds in Florida were caught voting both in Florida and in their home states where they also have an address. I suspect many more did the same without be caught. Since these are generally well-off conservative voters, Republicans don't make an issue of it. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/florida-three-arrested-vote-twice-the-villages-1271574/

Two points: 1. One of the "excessive demands" of the unions was for health care, a cost most of the car industries outside the US didn't have to worry about because their countries had universal health care in some form or another. The US's stubborn refusal to provide health care like every other rich country has put all of our industries at a competitive disadvantage. 2. I looked but could not find information on how much the US car industry was spending on R&D and how much on marketing. I'll wager far more went into marketing, while the reverse was true in Japan. Japan didn't have to spend much on marketing in the US, it let the quality of the product speak for itself. Not so Detroit. I remember that the car industry did have ample money for marketing and lobbying. Its response to foreign competition was a big "Buy American" campaign. That was money that could and should have been spent on improving their product. This is only peripherally related to the topic in that it illustrates how many of the country's problems are self-inflicted. Biden is trying to improve US competitiveness by improving infrastructure; not only roads and power but human infrastructure such as health and education. It's the kind of spending that responsible elected officials do even though most of the pay-off won't be apparent until several elections down the road. Republicans are more interested in instant gratification actions, such as tax cuts, with no regard to the long-term consequences.

Were you around in the '60's and '70's in America? Do you remember the crappy car culture, when it was just assumed that after four years or 50,000 miles a car would need major repairs to keep it on the road so you should buy a new one? It wasn't the unions that decided to market crappy cars rather than design and build good cars, it was the managers and stock holders. They liked cars that had to be replaced every four years. However during the energy crisis some people started experimenting with Japanese cars and learned, to their amazement, that it was possible to build cars that would last over 100,000 miles. That's what doomed the US auto industry; free market forces that led to a superior product replacing an inferior one. All this is getting off-topic, but one shouldn't blame unions for America's real and imagined economic ills. After World War II we could dominate the global free market for years because we were the only major manufacturing country to come out of the war with its industries intact. However our top managers got complacent and lazy, so eventually other countries figured out how to out design, out build, and out compete us, at least in certain industries. Many of these countries did so with stronger unions and much better social safety nets than the US. If you're looking for someone to blame for the fact that the rest of the world has been catching up with us economically, look somewhere other than unions and US workers.

Let the majority of Thais decide decide what is better in an election.

You don't want to acknowledging being an anti-democratic coup supporter, so you try to divert to the west. No ones falling for it.