2016 US Presidential Election Thread - VIII

[BigMacPhisto]

Why would the cost of living be driven down when the average worker is earning an extra $1,000 a month and many are earning more than that since their jobs now have to give incentive for people to do them instead of earning just the minimum income?

Do we see the cost of living go downward in our country whenever the poorest start making less money? No. So why would anything change?

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

That's one way to decrease the surplus population.

Yes, equate a progressive and intelligent proposal put into practice by the most liberal members of city governments across the country with eugenics and the like because it's yet another way to slam a Sanders supporter in this thread. You're so sharp!

Do you not support people's right to control their own lives and destiny? Are you against death with dignity? Remember when that dying guy in the debate asked Clinton about her position and she wouldn't give one because it's probably politically unpopular to support hospice care? Good times!

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Yes, equate a progressive and intelligent proposal put into practice by the most liberal members of city governments across the country with eugenics and the like because it's yet another way to slam a Sanders supporter in this thread. You're so sharp!

Do you not support people's right to control their own lives and destiny? Are you against death with dignity? Remember when that dying guy in the debate asked Clinton about her position and she wouldn't give one because it's probably politically unpopular to support hospice care? Good times!

Get over yourself.

The way you stated it was very Dickensian.

There's a slight difference between the rights of the terminally ill to end their life on their own terms vs an alcoholic drinking themselves to death. Not exactly the clean cut argument you're presenting it as.

You're a Sanders supporter. Great. Good for you. So are a lot of people. Not enough to win the nomination, but I digress. You're throwing out some statements as facts that are anything but, and anyone who dares disagree is simply bashing a Sanders supporter?

Right.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

It's twelve thousand times more money earned for the homeless and destitute than the zero dollars they're receiving now.

 

12,000 x 0 = 0.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Why would the cost of living be driven down when the average worker is earning an extra $1,000 a month and many are earning more than that since their jobs now have to give incentive for people to do them instead of earning just the minimum income?

Do we see the cost of living go downward in our country whenever the poorest start making less money? No. So why would anything change?

Every model that incorporates a plan similar to yours depends on the cost of living going down. Go back to your original post before backtracking on certain social welfare programs and realizing a 1000 a month won't get you anywhere; the only way your plan is even remotely feasible is if the cost of living goes down.

Your "plan" gives everyone a 1000 a month, but takes away their restaurants, will require rentals to come down in order to accommodate those that couldn't rent before and those that will now rent for longer. So most neighborhoods will drop in price. This is just basic economics, no matter what theory you subscribe to...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Sanders rolls in Oregon yesterday, loses by a half percent in Kentucky.

Mrs. Clinton beat Obama by over 30 percent in the '08 Kentucky primary.

[mikal]

Good to see the Democratic party getting fed up with Sanders, though I'm sure that will just divide the party and anti establishment nuts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salome]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

My point is, her stance on TPP is a bold faced lie because there's no way in hell that Clinton isn't going to enter us into that agreement if we're still active in negotiations when Obama leaves office. She'll just say a few modifications have made it "a gold standard" and that will be the end of it while she can drum up extra support saying it's the final bullet point in "Obama's legacy"

Well, apparently, the way the text is now Europe also wouldn't sign the TTP.
So, according to you, if after further negotiations they come to a text that both parties can sign they have both been selling "bold faced lies"?

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Plenty of studies showing that minimum wage increases don't lead to an increase in the unemployment rate along with studies showing that lower tax rates on the rich only increase economic inequality and benefit nobody else. And it's not like we don't have evidence at our disposal, we have years of both of these things being put into effect and always leading to the same results...

My point was that you have no evidence whatsoever for your claim that "The lowest paying jobs tend to be in the service industry, but those areas will have a lot of extra income arriving thanks to higher wages."
Your apparent assumption here that an overall increase in salary will translate to a similar increase in business for the service industries seems highly doubtful to me.

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

As for the minimum wage, no, most people earn more than that (and far more than that, even), but bumping up the many making below $10 an hour to $15 (and there's a huge swath of people at $7-14 that immediately benefit) would have a huge effect on getting a ton of people out of the welfare rolls and stemming poverty.

And according to you these people on the $7-14 wages mostly work for companies who finance the Clinton campaign?
Because otherwise you wouldn't claim:

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Clinton doesn't want a lower minimum wage hike because there's some economic reasoning for it...she wants a lower hike because the people footing her bills don't want to pay $15 an hour to employees. End of.

I don't know. You could be right. At least if these companies are funding the Clinton campaign we can find out about it, while no one knows where Sanders' money is coming from

[Headache in a Suitcase]

There are a lot of minimum wage employees on Wall Street.

[BEAL]

I'm starting to think because of Comrade Sanders, Trump will be our POTUS

It's starting to get nasty now between the leaders of the party and his campaign and supporters.

Violence, threats, and publishing phone numbers of leaders?? Guess we all thought Trump was a problem.

Gonna be ugly in Philly. All because one man can't accept the outcome, and has been pushing rhetoric towards violence.

Clinton is going to be so damaged after July. I don't really like her, but we need to get behind her because of Drumpf. My hope is that she's been so used to being attacked, she can handle it. Difference is, wasn't her own party.

Still hope by End of summer Dems start to realize the threat of the Donald and pull the lever for Clinton anyway


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Sanders rolls in Oregon yesterday, loses by a half percent in Kentucky.



Mrs. Clinton beat Obama by over 30 percent in the '08 Kentucky primary.

You're right, it really is striking how much race played a factor in 2008, and still today.

One thing we've learned this election cycle, contrary to assertions that no opposition to Obama and his policies is ever racist (and that what's really going on is the labeling "racist" of his opposition, which is of course worse than actual racism just read the old Trayvon Martin threads), race really did help Mrs Clinton out when she went on her string of victories in 08 in states with large percentages of working class whites.

Of course nothing ever repeats the same, and the dynamics are different between Clinton v Sanders than they were Clinton v Obama, but those differences highlight what a miracle it is that we've elected an African American president. The old saying was true: you have to be twice as good.

[Diemen]

As this election wears on, we're going to see more world leaders expressing their concerns about Trump, and then Trump petulantly responding, as he has done with David Cameron and London mayor Sadiq Khan. That's going to give pause to a whole lot more of the people in power when they realize that Trump (btw, isn't he supposed to be acting presidential and boring now?) seems perfectly willing to erode relationships with our strongest allies because he can't help his mouth shooting off. How many world leaders is he going to challenge to IQ tests?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Diemen

How many world leaders is he going to challenge to IQ tests?

Just like his birth certificate debacle I'd like someone to take him up on it and embarrass him once again on the world stage.

Or better yet; make a bet, if Trump loses he has to drop out of the race. He's been hanging out with Palin and his voters too long if he thinks he's winning any IQ test.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BEAL

I'm starting to think because of Comrade Sanders, Trump will be our POTUS

It's starting to get nasty now between the leaders of the party and his campaign and supporters.

Violence, threats, and publishing phone numbers of leaders?? Guess we all thought Trump was a problem.

Gonna be ugly in Philly. All because one man can't accept the outcome, and has been pushing rhetoric towards violence.

Clinton is going to be so damaged after July. I don't really like her, but we need to get behind her because of Drumpf. My hope is that she's been so used to being attacked, she can handle it. Difference is, wasn't her own party.

Still hope by End of summer Dems start to realize the threat of the Donald and pull the lever for Clinton anyway


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It shows that no matter what; left or right, extremes can be dangerous. And if you have both extremes working in cahoots(willingly or unwillingly) the results can be catastrophic and very well might give us someone who won't take nuking an allie off the table.

[Oregoropa]

I don't think The Trump crowd gives a damn what world leaders think. Of course they enjoy Putin giving Trump some admiration. When it comes to liberal Europa, of course they will be skeptical of Trump. He just counter-punches when attacked. Sometimes it's tongue and cheek, but those silly nicknames worked against 16 opponents so far.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

I don't think The Trump crowd gives a damn what world leaders think.

But they should. THIS is one in their long lists of not understanding the consequences of their vote.

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Of course they enjoy Putin giving Trump some admiration.

WHY?! Do they not know who he is? Are they this ignorant?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

I don't think The Trump crowd gives a damn what world leaders think.

Ignorance is not a virtue. And of course Trump's base isn't going to care. But he certainly isn't going to win independents who see him destroying relationships before he even enters office.

Sometimes it's tongue and cheek, but those silly nicknames worked against 16 opponents so far.

Again, I thought he was supposed to be all boring and presidential now? When is that going to kick in?

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BVS

WHY?! Do they not know who he is? Are they this ignorant?

Trump's most ardent supporters have always had a fondness for authoritarianism.

[BEAL]

To me, it seems like there's a hint of Anarchy in both camps, Trump and Sanders. It's a broken system, so instead of improve it (which they feel can't because it's rigged), it's best to just burn it down.

[LuckyNumber7]

When Trump becomes president, does he ban all political parties?