Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 1:15 pm

Nope Brad I poll the jury just to make every juror agrees with the verdict. Besides, I want every juror to own the verdict--they have to stand up and say that it's their verdict.

George, Republicans love to show how morally superior to Democrats they are--money is not the issue here. I am not sure how that squares with supporting the party of big business which cares little for the plight of the poor and working-class, but human beings are very, very good at rationalization...ergo, the poor and working-class deserve their plight because they are lazy or they are actually doing even better than everyone else--somehow--by cheating the system!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 2:28 pm

"Which is a legal action protected by law. "
and I said it was legal, I complained that it was stupid and made the Democrats look like cry babies and sore losers.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 3:24 pm

freeman3 wrote:George, Republicans love to show how morally superior to Democrats they are--money is not the issue here. I am not sure how that squares with supporting the party of big business which cares little for the plight of the poor and working-class, but human beings are very, very good at rationalization...ergo, the poor and working-class deserve their plight because they are lazy or they are actually doing even better than everyone else--somehow--by cheating the system!


Sorry, freeman3 but in one paragraph you have summed up why Democrats lost this election--and the elections of 2014, 2010, and have lost a ton of seats across the country in State legislatures (and governorships) since Obama was inaugurated. It has been the Democrats proclaiming their moral superiority--even concerning bathroom usage--over the past 8 years. It has been Democrats who have become the party of the corporations (Clinton was a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America). There is a group of people who have become sick of being lectured at and talked down to--when they aren't being taken for granted.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 3:33 pm

geojanes wrote:
GMTom wrote:The last time Democrats lost, they demanded recounts, here we go again. If I were a Democrat, I would worry a bit about this sore loser label being applied to my party. Recounts every time you lose followed by protests of "not my president" makes Dems look like cry babies. Part of it I can blame on the millennial generation that does not understand losing (participation trophies and not keeping score, etc) and the Dems DO have more than their share of such millennials but c'mon man, the older crowd is taking part in this too and it just aint pretty!

I am a Republican, I did not like losing to Obama (twice) but I did not protest, I did not complain I would move to Canada, I did not demand recounts, I accepted the loss and moved on waiting for the next time. (Hell, I'm not all that happy the Republican won this time around either. I am no fan of Trump but that's who was elected, that's who we now need to deal with.) This is getting a bit sad to be honest...


If people want to spend their money this way, let them spend their money. What's the problem? Do you complain when people blow their cash on a yacht? It's just a stupid, but whatever, it's a free country. And in this case it can help to show the legitimacy of the President Elect and the electoral process, which is not a bad thing. Can you try a different argument that doesn't sound so silly?


Hey, all: It's not about the money. It's simply to wait until the last minute and push a law suit through to make sure Wisconsin does not have time to do a hand-count of the entire state. With the expected "loss" of 10 electoral votes when they can't make the deadline, the election is tossed into the House. So it seems.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 3:42 pm

freeman3 wrote:Nope Brad I poll the jury just to make every juror agrees with the verdict. Besides, I want every juror to own the verdict--they have to stand up and say that it's their verdict.

George, Republicans love to show how morally superior to Democrats they are--money is not the issue here. I am not sure how that squares with supporting the party of big business which cares little for the plight of the poor and working-class, but human beings are very, very good at rationalization...ergo, the poor and working-class deserve their plight because they are lazy or they are actually doing even better than everyone else--somehow--by cheating the system!


Not sure I follow, Freeman. Besides, it has been the Democrats who have always claimed the moral high ground, indicting the Republicans for their supposed "money and class are all" philosophy, all the while ignoring the Big Money that keeps the Democratic Part and its candidates moving along. And apparently ignoring the poor, working class this time around.

I'm not sure where your discussion of the attitude about the poor/w-c as deserving their plight. I'm sure I never wrote that. It might be that some Republicans believe what you say, just as there are Democrats who believe that "equal outcomes" is the only fair basis on which to build society.

So, Republicans will tend to diss the $15 min wage, as Democrats will support it, even though it makes little economic sense and is a poor philosophic/social construct. Min wage jobs are starting jobs, not careers. It seems Democrats are happy to throw a $15 sop at these people instead of encouraging them to do what many of the rest of us have done in life: get more education, get more skills, and get better jobs. Unless you're a single, unmarried person in their 20s, it's not likely a $15/hr wage is going to make much of an impact on your life if you have a family to support. But I think I'm digressing.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 3:44 pm

georgeatkins wrote:Hey, all: It's not about the money. It's simply to wait until the last minute and push a law suit through to make sure Wisconsin does not have time to do a hand-count of the entire state. With the expected "loss" of 10 electoral votes when they can't make the deadline, the election is tossed into the House. So it seems.


Not sure what you mean. If all three flipped (which would cause a civil war), that would bring Clinton to 278. So, she would win.

The one that is just insane is Pennsylvania. There is no way you overcome a 70K vote disparity. That's just not possible.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 3:54 pm

Maybe those people--who are presumably not rich--should worry less about their feelings and more about their pocketbooks. Democratic presidents have been better than Republican presidents with regard to economic growth, a more broad-based economic growth, with regard to income for blacks and Latinos. Progressive policies are just better. We trot out our studies showing this and you guys come back with...nothing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5 ... residents/
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 4:09 pm

GA,

I think $15 is a fair minimum wage for an adult because that's about what it takes to live in most places in US if you work 2,000 hours. It could be adjusted for less expensive areas of the country. And you could allow for lower wages for workers under 25. And you get more skills so you're not just barely making it. But forget $15 where has any Republican politician advocated for...any raising of the minimum wage? I mean, come on.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 4:13 pm

I also don't think it wise to raise it that much all at once. Raise it gradually, see what happens, give businesses some time to adjust. See what the effects are.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 5:31 pm

freeman3 wrote:GA,

I think $15 is a fair minimum wage for an adult because that's about what it takes to live in most places in US if you work 2,000 hours. It could be adjusted for less expensive areas of the country. And you could allow for lower wages for workers under 25. And you get more skills so you're not just barely making it. But forget $15 where has any Republican politician advocated for...any raising of the minimum wage? I mean, come on.


I think you are losing sight of what they're talking about: which is entry-level jobs. The kind of jobs that have traditionally been done by teenagers, retired people, people looking for a second job for a bit more money, etc, or people willing to start out low and work their way up to a better job in the company. "Adults" are taking over these jobs in large part because they arrive with little education and few marketable skills. Sure, you can always find an out-of-work Middle Manager or college graduate flipping burgers, but that is not the norm.

You get more skills? One would hope so, and therefore, with increased employee worth, employees would normally get raises for their increased value to the job. So if these skills are the kind that make you a better worker and eligible for a better job, what's the beef (if you'll excuse the pun)? With more skill and more effort, you are normally going to earn more and move on to better jobs. And that's the way it should be. You shouldn't get a sudden bump in pay because the government says so (and I'm not talking about tax cuts). What about the employees who have been on the job for a few years, have put in the time and effort and now earn that $15/hr, only to now find out that everybody gets it automatically, without doing any more than they did the week before?

Pay is usually a matter of supply, demand, and risk. I remember how it was some 15 years or so ago when there was actually a lack of people to take entry-level jobs. Businesses not only advertised like crazy, but offered base pay way over what was the prevailing wage. After awhile, the job vacancies decreased. The point here is that the market drove wages, not some Central Committee, deciding by fiat.

I mean, since when did we switch our outlook to "equal outcomes" instead of equal opportunities? If you don't like your pay, get a better job if you can't score a raise. Get some education. Get better skills. That's how it was for me, and how it has been for most of us.

If you have a family and the best you can do is a minimum wage job, then perhaps you should have thought about not having a family until you could afford one. Easy to say, right? Maybe, but it's the right thing to say. That is what we should be telling people, rather than buying them off with "hey, no problem. We'll make the employers pay you more. You're entitled, after all! Why worry about more education and skills, anyway? We'll just keep jacking up the minimum wage for you. You deserve it. And thanks for your votes."

Nothing wrong with people striking for better pay, or asking for raises. But demanding that government mandate a wage is an appalling tactic and I think the minimum-wage people are being severely misled by special interest groups (advocate groups, unions, the Democratic Party, etc.) that are behind this.

When the minimum wage starts rising, so will business costs, as they always have. Business are in the business of making money. If there is less earnings, businesses will find ways to recoup: price increases, fewer employees, fewer working hours per employee, etc. You don't get something for nothing. In addition, income tax liability will likely increase for these people, as will their payroll deductions. They'll be lucky to see more than a few dollars net increase. But for the advocate groups, unions, and Democrats, it's still money in the bank. Their voting bank, anyway.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 5:39 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
georgeatkins wrote:Hey, all: It's not about the money. It's simply to wait until the last minute and push a law suit through to make sure Wisconsin does not have time to do a hand-count of the entire state. With the expected "loss" of 10 electoral votes when they can't make the deadline, the election is tossed into the House. So it seems.


Not sure what you mean. If all three flipped (which would cause a civil war), that would bring Clinton to 278. So, she would win.

The one that is just insane is Pennsylvania. There is no way you overcome a 70K vote disparity. That's just not possible.


True, though that is not likely. The point about Wisconsin is the timing issue. It just happens to be worth 10 electoral votes. If Wisconsin can't complete a hand count of the entire state, it puts those 10 votes into limbo and there goes Trump's victory. Doesn't mean Hillary wins, but it is anti-Trump. The other states are a blind, I think. It is very unlikely that there would be enough miscounted votes in so many states as you noted. Why, that would almost be like admitting there was massive voting fraud.

If the courts agree with Wisconsin that they do not have to do a hand count, I bet this all goes away. If Clinton formally joins up with this suit, I think it will make her look as petulant and mean-spirited as Trump.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 7:25 pm

freeman3 wrote:Maybe those people--who are presumably not rich--should worry less about their feelings and more about their pocketbooks. Democratic presidents have been better than Republican presidents with regard to economic growth, a more broad-based economic growth, with regard to income for blacks and Latinos. Progressive policies are just better. We trot out our studies showing this and you guys come back with...nothing.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/28/these_5 ... residents/

Just stupid--not you, the whole idea.

Presidents can harm the economy, but the effects may not be immediate.

Furthermore, the idea that Bill Clinton did anything but benefit from a dot-com boom he had nothing to do with is nonsense.

Oh, and how about all the income growth the working class has experienced under Obama?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 7:28 pm

georgeatkins wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
georgeatkins wrote:Hey, all: It's not about the money. It's simply to wait until the last minute and push a law suit through to make sure Wisconsin does not have time to do a hand-count of the entire state. With the expected "loss" of 10 electoral votes when they can't make the deadline, the election is tossed into the House. So it seems.


Not sure what you mean. If all three flipped (which would cause a civil war), that would bring Clinton to 278. So, she would win.

The one that is just insane is Pennsylvania. There is no way you overcome a 70K vote disparity. That's just not possible.


True, though that is not likely. The point about Wisconsin is the timing issue. It just happens to be worth 10 electoral votes. If Wisconsin can't complete a hand count of the entire state, it puts those 10 votes into limbo and there goes Trump's victory. Doesn't mean Hillary wins, but it is anti-Trump. The other states are a blind, I think. It is very unlikely that there would be enough miscounted votes in so many states as you noted. Why, that would almost be like admitting there was massive voting fraud.

If the courts agree with Wisconsin that they do not have to do a hand count, I bet this all goes away. If Clinton formally joins up with this suit, I think it will make her look as petulant and mean-spirited as Trump.


Sorry, I don't understand at all. If Wisconsin goes into limbo, Trump is down at 296. That's more than the 270 required to win.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 29 Nov 2016, 8:26 pm

The main study covered in the article covered the period from 1947-2013. So Democratic presidents were just lucky in a given 66 year period? Look at the growth rates charted on pages 38-39 of the study. It cannot just be shrugged off. It's almost impossible to argue that Republican presidents are good for the economy given this information.

https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/pape ... ov2013.pdf
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 29 Nov 2016, 9:35 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
georgeatkins wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
georgeatkins wrote:Hey, all: It's not about the money. It's simply to wait until the last minute and push a law suit through to make sure Wisconsin does not have time to do a hand-count of the entire state. With the expected "loss" of 10 electoral votes when they can't make the deadline, the election is tossed into the House. So it seems.


Not sure what you mean. If all three flipped (which would cause a civil war), that would bring Clinton to 278. So, she would win.

The one that is just insane is Pennsylvania. There is no way you overcome a 70K vote disparity. That's just not possible.


True, though that is not likely. The point about Wisconsin is the timing issue. It just happens to be worth 10 electoral votes. If Wisconsin can't complete a hand count of the entire state, it puts those 10 votes into limbo and there goes Trump's victory. Doesn't mean Hillary wins, but it is anti-Trump. The other states are a blind, I think. It is very unlikely that there would be enough miscounted votes in so many states as you noted. Why, that would almost be like admitting there was massive voting fraud.

If the courts agree with Wisconsin that they do not have to do a hand count, I bet this all goes away. If Clinton formally joins up with this suit, I think it will make her look as petulant and mean-spirited as Trump.


Sorry, I don't understand at all. If Wisconsin goes into limbo, Trump is down at 296. That's more than the 270 required to win.


Eh, looks like my math was off a tad...! :( I see a judge rejected her suit to force hand-counts (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/11/29/judge-rejects-steins-request-hand-recount-wis/94644538/. She certainly cannot seriously believe there was such widespread errors in the voting across several states; and Clinton would be the ultimate hypocrite to go along with this. Perhaps I repeat myself.