cosmicway

Apart from NE, PA I don't see much swinging. And as for the national vote yesterday's poll says Trump 49%, Harris 48%. He seems to be winning it. So far what saves the world from racism is the moderate attitude of the various conservatives. If those are commandeered, hijacked by Trump and similar entities it looks pretty awful. Even the Japanese will remember their empire and they will go for Australia, Corrigedor.

Yeah ok. Ohio too used to be dem and it was the main swing state in the Carter-Ford election in 1976. Now it's Trump's, locked. What about the three states I mentioned ? Are they enough to give Harris the victory ?

In Nevada and Penn Harris seems to have the narrowest of leads right now. Bigger lead in Michigan. Would it be enough for her if she clings on to those ? If not it's Trump.

Be365 gives odds for indivudual states as well. Most states are virtually decided and the chances of them changing hands are either infinitessimal or very small. For example it says for California 26.00 rep - 1.01 dem and for Florida 1.12 rep - 6.00 dem. Only six states seem to be contested. With rep price first they are: Arizona 1.61-2.20 Georgia 1.53-2.37 Michigan: 2.37 - 1.53 Nevada: 1.83 - 1.83 North Carolina: 1.53 - 2.37 Pennsylvania: 1.83 - 1.83 So it's one dem likely win (Michigan), two dead heats (Nevada - Pennsylvania) and three go Trump's way. Looks favourable to Trump I 'm afraid. What do you make of it ? If Harris wins Pennsylvania and Nevada plus Michigan as expected does she win ?

Yesterday's national poll says Turmp is 1 pt ahead. So her momentum has slowed down while Trump seems to have weathered the storm. It seems to me that pointing the various Trump's misdeeds all the time is preaching the converted. The Magas and any remaining neutrals would n't care less. To win over voters in an election one needs more than that.

Bet365 today: Trump 1.72 Harris 2.10 The picture for Biden in bet365 before Biden's poor performance in the debate was slightly better ! A few days ago it was 1.90 - 1.90. You may tell me what oddshecker.com says because I don't have access.

Look m8. I 've been electoral representative for the state once and they paid me 200 quid for my efforts. I deseved more because apart from being a representative I also had to vote myself and they made an error in my street name and I had to go up a mountain to vote and then return to my assgined position. So I did n't sleep for 36 hours, but still 200 quid. I know how the system works. We count. The invalid ballots are discarded and we pass them around to the party representatives so they all agree they are invalid. Then we write down the result. Me, the commie representative, the other one from New Democracy and the socialist. Then I take the result to the fax room and send to the ministry of interior. Friendly atmosphere, a candidate walked in at one stage and I talked him into ordering us a chinese dinner. This means there can be no cheat and there was no such thing as postal votes. I don't remember the party representatives having to sign anything or me having to sign anything for them, but surely they could use their computers to check everything. This did n't happen in Venezuela because in most election centres the opposition representatives were shown the door. But not everywhere, hence their claim that they counted many Gonzales wins. Now, why Maduro is n't showing to anybody the full records of the voting process ? And we are no longer living in the days of Aristides the Athenian with the voting shards. It's a mere USB we are talking about.

Ok, he is the best thing since Lenin, Stalin and the three Stooges in beer and pretzels. I asked why he made a mess with the election returns.

So why Maduro fluffed his lines you think ?

Leave her out to die you sill berk.

Why is Maduro shy to release precinct level results ? He can cook them like he cooked the general result. Can't he ? It looks to me like typical socialist incompetence. The opposition representatives were not allowed to be present in every polling station yet they were allowed in some. So apparently there are local results that show Gonzales as the winner and apparently those have been verified by the opposition and countersigned by Maduro's representatives. But after the fraud the idiots have lost track and they don't know which is which. So if they publish, the election theft will become obvious. Ahmadinejad - Papadopoulos - Franco - Salazar would never have done that. Yet another demonstration of socialist failure.

Socialism in one wod:

We 've been having forest fires ever since I can recall. I remember them from the eighties as a matter of fact, when I took part in extinguishing a fire as an airman. But must have been happening always. It's auto-inflection in most cases but there are other causes too and a number of people have been accused for arson. Does n't look like "climate change". To be honest I don't remember about fires before 1980. Can it be because it was then they started for real or just because I don't remember ? In England it does n't happen. The English rain saves the forests.

It is over geological ages.

Climate change is a lie. Over several billion years yes, there will be new age of the dinosaurs and what have you. But the Thunberg myth is a lie.

You must add all the monies you are targetting and then divide them with the population total. Otherwise it is becoming like Buckingham palace. The peoples commissars take it, open the corridors to the tourists and then what ? I would probably not even go there. I prefer the strip tease clubs in Piccadilly. The idea of supertaxation has flaws in it. It does n't work. Governments are more interested in the lifetime of money. So every euro coin that comes out of your pocket has a lifetime. You buy chewing gum, 10% goes to the government. With the remaining you buy something else and again a percentage goes to the government. Ultimately the one euro returns to it's base, the government and the faster this happens the more happy they are. My problem is simply why they want to tax people out of business and then get nothing from them.

I never liked facebook all that much. The reason is we can't have debates. When something like a debate starts it dies in a few hours. In a forum I can start a thread and it stays for ever. It may even be revived two years from now. Anyway when writing sums of money, you should tell us what you 'd like to do with it (and if you say I 'd like them for myself it does n't count).

The government has to find money somewhere. Let's talk about something we all agree, across the political spectrum. Weapons. We need F35s and F16s and submarines fitted with electronic equpment capable of evading detection and antisubmarine traps. So it's "δει δη χρημάτων ω άνδρες Αθηναίοι", is the truth. With this in mind there are gross injustices and the socialists like to tax the poor in an absurd way. Back in 1994 there was the propaganda about the doctors of Kolonaki (the posh district) who were "tax evading". Whether they were doing or not and whether doctors who had their surgeries in working class neighbourhoods were not doing it, I have no idea. But after the socialists won the heavy tax fell not only on the doctors as the stupid masses believed it would, but on the doctors as well as the chestnut vendors and the poor scuba divers who collect sponges in the islands ! Then in 2010 the same propaganda again against the doctors of Kolonaki again, to justify new taxes. I was surprised because it was the same as before, but the stupid masses had forgotten all about it - to them it was new propaganda ! Yet the effect was that many people declared bankruptcy so after that they were paying no tax at all. That tells us it's not only about money but also social engineering. I don't care about the big companies and the multinationals. Some say they should be taxed more, some others say they should be taxed less so as to encourage investment. All I know is I 'm destroyed by the governments (socialist and other) while at the same time companies Citroen, Opel, Mercedes Benz never hurt me - not directly at least. If I could I would go to Australia. The Aussies are soft hearted and if I cry they will let me stay there.

Look. If I want to see a minister of finance is it possible you think ? Yes it is. I go to the secretary and she fixes me a date. Done this in the past with government ministers about sports related matters. But what can I take to him ? Six cokes and six eggs from the nearby supermarket, Nikis and Xenofontos corner. At the same time the big boys will go see him with two suitcases and it won't be eggs. So all this you say is coals to Newcastle. But the way socialists think overtaxing will cure everything is misplaced and archaic. Furthermore the socialists tax the poor (but not trade unionists) mostly.

Harry Maquire to captain the defense: https://www.sportbible.com/football/england/breaking-england-republic-of-ireland-team-news-lee-carsley-715961-20240906?fbclid=IwY2xjawFI9M1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHVp_h66gBe_DjgoF_jdjvY2ZHNwv_85du3_IOpOl_uc9nn7FD3ZN7Q3F6A_aem_KIMqGbZb_GNpgKLs1Mpe8A

Fraud gone, I forgot. Madueke player-manager is the best idea.

Fraud against Rep of Ireland. You reckon he wins ?

I 've been to Crete only once, in 1976 with my dad. We went to Heraklion and Knossos, then Retimo then to a small village in the mountains, then Chania. Chania is an impessive city. Now I am in the island of Ikaria and the plumbing system is old (worksthough). But it's a house built in the 19th century.

Brexit is the biggest win of the extremer right wing forces since 1933. If we count coup d' etats, the biggest win since Papadopoulos. Labour shamefully plays ball. Brexit support was at first pretty high, because we have to count the Cameronite Tory turncoats. Now it's no longer the majority. And what problem do the European citizens pose - reasonably that is ? Those are German, French, Swiss ..., they 're not even economic immigrants, nomadic peoples in distress.

Fiscal equity underpins democracy. Without sufficient tax revenues, governments cannot guarantee adequate services such as education, healthcare and social protection, nor can they respond to much larger problems such as the climate crisis (which is already destabilising many countries around the world). Given the dire consequences of inaction in these areas, it is imperative that the wealthiest pay their fair share of taxes. Important milestone The Rio declaration is an important milestone. For the first time since the G20 was established in 1999, all members agreed that the way the super-rich were taxed must be fixed and they committed themselves to doing it. But this consensus did not come out of nowhere. Advocates of tax fairness covered much ground in the months leading up to the summit. Brazil occupies the G20’s rotating presidency this year and in late February the country’s finance minister, Fernando Haddad, invited me to speak at a high-level meeting in São Paulo. I was commissioned to write a report on tax fairness and taxation of the super-rich (the focus of my work as founder and director of the EU Tax Observatory in Paris), which I submitted in late June, to inform the July summit discussion. In the report, A Blueprint for a Coordinated Minimum Effective Taxation Standard for Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals, I advanced a proposal for a new effective taxation standard which included a co-ordinated minimum tax of 2 per cent of wealth for such individuals—the world’s 3,000 billionaires. This standard would not only generate significant revenue (around $200-250 billion per year). It would also correct the structural injustice of contemporary tax systems, whereby billionaires’ effective tax rates are lower than for middle-class individuals. Overwhelming support The global public overwhelmingly supports fair taxation of the ultra-rich. According to an Ipsos poll in G20 countries, released in June, 67 per cent agree that there is too much economic inequality and 70 per cent support the principle that wealthy people should pay higher income-tax rates. The Rio declaration signals a significant shift: world leaders can no longer support a system in which the ultra-rich get away with paying less in taxes than the rest of us. Finance ministers have already agreed to important preliminary steps to improve tax transparency, enhance tax co-operation and review harmful tax practices. True, there was no political consensus to include the 2 per cent minimum tax on billionaires in the final text. The declaration had to be approved unanimously and some countries still have reservations about some aspects of the proposal. For example, while the United States administratiion under Joe Biden supports a billionaire minimum tax domestically, it has been reluctant to advance the issue on the international stage. No going back But there is no going back. The minimum tax is now on the agenda and, looking at the history of international tax negotiations, there are concrete reasons to be optimistic about the proposal’s future. In 2013, the G20 acknowledged multinational companies’ rampant tax avoidance, giving political momentum to address the issue. Its initial action plan included improving tax transparency, enhancing tax co-operation and reviewing harmful tax practices—the same wording now used in Rio. Then, in October 2021, 136 countries and territories (now 140) adopted a 15 per cent minimum corporation tax. Fortunately, we do not need all countries to adopt a 2 per cent minimum tax on billionaires (or on centi-millionaires, if that is what policy-makers decide). We simply need a critical mass of countries to agree on a set of rules to identify and value the wealth of the ultra-rich and to adopt instruments to impose effective taxation, regardless of the billionaires’ tax residency. This way, we can avoid a scenario where the ultra-rich flee to fiscal havens, thus ending the race to the bottom among countries competing to offer billionaires the lowest tax rate. Over the last ten years or so, international co-operation on taxation has improved significantly. The introduction of automatic exchanges of bank information, for example, has greatly reduced the possibility of tax avoidance. We already have the tools needed to make the world’s billionaires pay their fair share of taxes. It’s now up to the governments to act quickly and effectively. When you "tax the rich" there is always the danger of taxing the ... superpoor. Why ? Because the tax is immediately passed on to the consumer as price increase. It's the law. Also you cannot tax a business so as to make it close down. The commies - commie fellow travelers like to do that and in many cases have succeded (but they have their reasons). We the public lose the goods or whatever services are provided and the workers lose their jobs. Suppose you are one of the cronies of a super rich billionaire, like Elon Musk. You have opened some little shops called "heels express" in every tube stations. They fix ladies shoes - that's what they do. At the end of the year you go to the boss and say "boss, those heels express have done nothing the whole year - one thing is the mayor has fixed all the pavements and no one breaks a leg, the other is the new socialist taxes". What will happen ? The mother company has enough money to subsidize these little shops till kingdom come, but no - they will close down. So that's why the socialists lose their marbles when they talk about tax increases. Do you know what was my monthly allowance as a freshman back in the eighties ? 100 quid it was. In Greek money the nominal equivalent of today's 20 euros ! That was strictly enforced because there were capital controls in place. When they increased it to 200 quid (40 today's euros) it felt great - quantum leap into the jet set ! Now 40 quid is barely enough for one month's supply of fags (if I follow the doctor's orders to become a light smoker). Why money is losing it's value progressively ? My estimate is 70% due to socialist etc taxes, 30% due to other reasons (profiteering - raw materials).