Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sebster, that RCP trend poll that Whembly posted a link to that shows Clinton pulling away from Sanders recently is an aggregate of many polls and it is interesting because it shows that CA is the outlier (the race seems to be tightening there) States that have already voted must have seen the writing on the wall. To me it implies that Clinton is already consolidating the democratic vote.

538's own national trend poll shows a similar Clinton bump, though much less drastic than RCP's (perhaps 538 vets the pollsters' more stringently). http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/

 whembly wrote:
RNC had their chance...

They could've listed to the more "bourgeoisie" Tea Party movement.

Listen to the Tea Party how? Those guys were worried made lots of noise about the deficit, and about socialist takeover of health. Trying to run on that would have got you dead and buried in the 2016 Republican primary. Trump came along and talked about all kinds of nonsense that'd sink the budget, and he differentiated himself from the rest of the field by promising to protect medicare and all the other 'socialist' health stuff.

The Republican party has a basic problem that 'low taxes and growth' just doesn't cut it as a primary message anymore. They're fishing around for something different. Despite every effort to avoid they've got stuck with Trump in this election, so they'll have to run with his nationalistic stuff, but going forward who knows? Probably depends on how Trump does in November.

I have a pet theory that support for Trump might collapse about September or October, and Johnson might benefit massively from that. Right now Trump is holding the GOP vote together with two elements. The first are the 40% or so of Republican voters who really think Trump is good - the crazies basically. Then there's the rest who are basically holding their noise and agreeing to support Trump, because they're team red, and because the other side is blue and horrible and also because they really hate Clinton.

But how will that 60% continue to think if it becomes clear Trump is not going to win? If Clinton holds strong leads month and after month, and in to September or October? Will they still be willing to hold their nose and vote Trump, or will they start looking at maybe throwing their vote to Johnson, who afterall is the only guy in the field who's held office as a Republican. Add in the Republican concern about down ticket effects if Trump can't win, and they might start encouraging people to get to the ballot and vote Johnson, but stay to vote Republican for the rest of the ballot.

Not saying that will happen, or that it's more likely than anything else. But it is a possible outcome, especially if we consider that right now Clinton is possibly at her weakest, with the Democrats still split over Obama and Sanders, and she's still leading in polls.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
I don't think Jeb even wanted to run, or at least that is what it seemed like to me.

Bush certainly wanted to be president. He just didn't want to have to run in that Republican primary, where the audience seemed to crave crazier and nastier lies by the day. Trump in part created that environment, and then reveled in it. Bush never really figured out how bad things had gotten.

well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV, in reality TV people don't root for the stable person, they root for the insane maniac, which is why so many cause its good sense for networks, Trump is not an idiot he knows this and he uses it, HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on, and the way things stand Trump will win the election, he can say that disability should be cut to better regulate and fix it, and people will eat it up, they want the zany, they want the crazy, they want the loony tunes to win the show and that is all it is too them thanks to the networks.

I don't think reality tv show loving millennials were anywhere close to being a significant portion of Republican primary voters. I think the Republican Party's continued use of disjointed counter productive rhetoric and pandering over the last several years finally caught up with them. When party members put forth narratives and campaign platforms that actively hurt their base's opinion of the party establishment and senior representatives they end up encouraging voters to embrace an outsider candidate because they've destroyed the perception of their own party by their party members.

millenials have nothing to do with it, they are not the only ones who watch reality shows, in fact wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of the reality TV watchers are in their 30's and 40's

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
RNC had their chance...

They could've listed to the more "bourgeoisie" Tea Party movement.

Listen to the Tea Party how? Those guys were worried made lots of noise about the deficit, and about socialist takeover of health. Trying to run on that would have got you dead and buried in the 2016 Republican primary. Trump came along and talked about all kinds of nonsense that'd sink the budget, and he differentiated himself from the rest of the field by promising to protect medicare and all the other 'socialist' health stuff.

The Republican party has a basic problem that 'low taxes and growth' just doesn't cut it as a primary message anymore. They're fishing around for something different. Despite every effort to avoid they've got stuck with Trump in this election, so they'll have to run with his nationalistic stuff, but going forward who knows? Probably depends on how Trump does in November.

I have a pet theory that support for Trump might collapse about September or October, and Johnson might benefit massively from that. Right now Trump is holding the GOP vote together with two elements. The first are the 40% or so of Republican voters who really think Trump is good - the crazies basically. Then there's the rest who are basically holding their noise and agreeing to support Trump, because they're team red, and because the other side is blue and horrible and also because they really hate Clinton.

But how will that 60% continue to think if it becomes clear Trump is not going to win? If Clinton holds strong leads month and after month, and in to September or October? Will they still be willing to hold their nose and vote Trump, or will they start looking at maybe throwing their vote to Johnson, who afterall is the only guy in the field who's held office as a Republican. Add in the Republican concern about down ticket effects if Trump can't win, and they might start encouraging people to get to the ballot and vote Johnson, but stay to vote Republican for the rest of the ballot.

Not saying that will happen, or that it's more likely than anything else. But it is a possible outcome, especially if we consider that right now Clinton is possibly at her weakest, with the Democrats still split over Obama and Sanders, and she's still leading in polls.

problem is you keep missing the Easter egg, an option that has probably not been considered, what if Sanders runs as an independent? its very possible, especially the way hes still sticking in the race, instead of bowing out, hes like 800 points behind Clinton and she only needs like 71 points, he has no chance but hes sticking in, which means if he fails to get the Democrat ticket, he will go rogue.

Asterios wrote:
well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV

None of your argument there really works at all. For starters it isn't only the most recent generation voting. And any president who was banking on the youth vote is walking in to a disaster, their participation rate is woeful. And on top of that reality tv viewing correlates with poverty... and poverty also correlates with crappy participation in elections.

And lastly, of course, the reason people support awful but entertaining people on reality tv is because none of it matters, it's just stupid tv. But running a country actually matters. There are a lot of stupid people who don't understand this, and that's probably enough to get you 40% of the vote in a congested primary... but as a general election campaign... well its not a strategy I'd like to rely on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
and none of that is new, that is the same line politicians have been using for years now, so no he is still disconnected from reality, which is also why hes losing the race.

First up, if your argument is that Sanders losing is proof that his message is disconnected, then Clinton winning must mean her message is connecting. Given you're also arguing that Clinton's message isn't connection you might want to check your lazy conclusions.

Anyhow, Sanders is losing because he hasn't been able to appeal outside of white voters. It's meant Sanders has been able to perform well in states with really high white populations, but has struggled elsewhere.

It's a problem Trump shares with Sanders, of course.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well, can't blame Trump really he is the result of this generation which has been brought up on reality TV

None of your argument there really works at all. For starters it isn't only the most recent generation voting. And any president who was banking on the youth vote is walking in to a disaster, their participation rate is woeful. And on top of that reality tv viewing correlates with poverty... and poverty also correlates with crappy participation in elections.

And lastly, of course, the reason people support awful but entertaining people on reality tv is because none of it matters, it's just stupid tv. But running a country actually matters. There are a lot of stupid people who don't understand this, and that's probably enough to get you 40% of the vote in a congested primary... but as a general election campaign... well its not a strategy I'd like to rely on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
and none of that is new, that is the same line politicians have been using for years now, so no he is still disconnected from reality, which is also why hes losing the race.

First up, if your argument is that Sanders losing is proof that his message is disconnected, then Clinton winning must mean her message is connecting. Given you're also arguing that Clinton's message isn't connection you might want to check your lazy conclusions.

Anyhow, Sanders is losing because he hasn't been able to appeal outside of white voters. It's meant Sanders has been able to perform well in states with really high white populations, but has struggled elsewhere.

It's a problem Trump shares with Sanders, of course.

and you still look at the picture thru your eyes, look outside of the box, it will be a 3 way race in the big election between Trump, Clinton and Sanders.

Yeah, I highly doubt the millennials are streaming a whole lot of reality tv. I think your claim about "this generation that has been brought up by reality tv" is implies millennials though, and Trump isn't exactly setting fire to them. His base is poorly educated white voters who are disenfranchised and its that disenfranchisement he is feeding and tapping into. And Sanders won't run. He is positioning for more power and a greater voice, not an independent presidential run. You can see this just by looking at the way he is running through his campaign money. Plus, I think he just likes the attention and is having fun on the trail. The three way race will be Clinton, Trump, and Johnson.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
As a moderate who leans liberal, I am totally OK with that.

As someone who thinks democracy works best when everyone is contributing substantial and intelligent discourse, as that leads to beneficial public policy, I really am not okay with this. The Republican party as it is today is not okay. It wasn't okay before Trump, and it's been shown to be even worse as its fallen in behind him.

Touche. I'm sure on some level I will regret the Republican party cratering if somehow the Democrats win the Senate, and - mindful of the ACA - start ramming through reconciliation-from-the-beginning legislature that bans barrel shrouds and pistol grips on firearms, adds a 30 cent surtax to plastic shopping bags, and a ban on styrofoam coffee cups.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
As a moderate who leans liberal, I am totally OK with that.

As someone who thinks democracy works best when everyone is contributing substantial and intelligent discourse, as that leads to beneficial public policy, I really am not okay with this. The Republican party as it is today is not okay. It wasn't okay before Trump, and it's been shown to be even worse as its fallen in behind him.

Touche. I'm sure on some level I will regret the Republican party cratering if somehow the Democrats win the Senate, and - mindful of the ACA - start ramming through reconciliation-from-the-beginning legislature that bans barrel shrouds and pistol grips on firearms, adds a 30 cent surtax to plastic shopping bags, and a ban on styrofoam coffee cups.

Why in the world do you use a styrofoam coffe cup? Buy an insulated mug. Hot coffee all day long (nene if you are like me and drink it in twenty minutes)

because I'm too lazy to wash it out.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Yeah, I highly doubt the millennials are streaming a whole lot of reality tv. I think your claim about "this generation that has been brought up by reality tv" is implies millennials though, and Trump isn't exactly setting fire to them. His base is poorly educated white voters who are disenfranchised and its that disenfranchisement he is feeding and tapping into. And Sanders won't run. He is positioning for more power and a greater voice, not an independent presidential run. You can see this just by looking at the way he is running through his campaign money. Plus, I think he just likes the attention and is having fun on the trail. The three way race will be Clinton, Trump, and Johnson.

Johnson? he won't be anything, like I said Sanders will go Rogue, he has nothing to gain right now by still running but hurting his party more, thats why Trumps contenders dropped out when they were even closer then Sanders, Trump has an advantage now to campaign for his candidacy, meanwhile Sanders is holding back Clinton from doing the same, she has to split herself between Trump and Sanders.

 whembly wrote:
That's pretty harsh...

He's the Speaker of the House AND the main man at the RNC Convention. So he's expected to try to work with whomever's the President.

Ben Sasse or Ted Cruz can afford to be #NeverTrump, while Ryan needed to "flex" his p90 muscle to remind Trump that he has to work with Congressional Leadership (McConnagal tacticly endorsed Trump a few days ago).

It isn't harsh, because there was no muscle flex. He announced he had problems with Trump, they had some meetings for show, Trump conceded nothing because he knew the game, and then Ryan said it's all good. He didn't leverage Trump on anything, he just gave a political performance pretending to make a deal with Trump over something, because that's what voters who like to believe in Ryan's pretend place in the politics wanted to see.

End of the day, remember that you're #neverTrump because you know what the guy is like. Ryan and the rest know what Trump is like and would be #neverTrump, except there's personal consequences for them, so forget about values and the country.

 Ouze wrote:
because I'm too lazy to wash it out.

So am I, but if your new coffee is hot enough, it should kill most of the bacteria. Don't tell me it doesn't, I don't want to know.

Asterios wrote:
and you still look at the picture thru your eyes, look outside of the box, it will be a 3 way race in the big election between Trump, Clinton and Sanders.

What? Now you're just declaring that Sanders is running third party, and also that Johnson is no longer running?

feth it, just make up whatever reality you want to believe. It doesn't matter.

Asterios wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Yeah, I highly doubt the millennials are streaming a whole lot of reality tv. I think your claim about "this generation that has been brought up by reality tv" is implies millennials though, and Trump isn't exactly setting fire to them. His base is poorly educated white voters who are disenfranchised and its that disenfranchisement he is feeding and tapping into. And Sanders won't run. He is positioning for more power and a greater voice, not an independent presidential run. You can see this just by looking at the way he is running through his campaign money. Plus, I think he just likes the attention and is having fun on the trail. The three way race will be Clinton, Trump, and Johnson.

Johnson? he won't be anything, like I said Sanders will go Rogue, he has nothing to gain right now by still running but hurting his party more, thats why Trumps contenders dropped out when they were even closer then Sanders, Trump has an advantage now to campaign for his candidacy, meanwhile Sanders is holding back Clinton from doing the same, she has to split herself between Trump and Sanders.

No way it is going to happen. Clinton is too shrewd to let that happen. If it looks like he might, she will offer him a cabinet position or the VP slot, even if she is loathe to do it. More likely, she would offer Warren the VP slot, cutting off Sanders' support and rationale for running.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and you still look at the picture thru your eyes, look outside of the box, it will be a 3 way race in the big election between Trump, Clinton and Sanders.

What? Now you're just declaring that Sanders is running third party, and also that Johnson is no longer running?

feth it, just make up whatever reality you want to believe. It doesn't matter.

no i'm saying Johnson will not get enough votes to be a problem, and yes Sanders is ramping up to run third party, he doesn't want the VP spot, he wants the whole enchilada.

 Ouze wrote:
Touche. I'm sure on some level I will regret the Republican party cratering if somehow the Democrats win the Senate, and - mindful of the ACA - start ramming through reconciliation-from-the-beginning legislature that bans barrel shrouds and pistol grips on firearms, adds a 30 cent surtax to plastic shopping bags, and a ban on styrofoam coffee cups.

Okay, to take the ACA as an example - there were genuine problems with that legislation, administrative and technical stuff, much of which might have been resolved if there'd been sensible debate and discussion over the actual content of the bill. But by making all that stupid socialist and death panel nonsense, Republicans basically removed themselves from that debate. And they also made it much harder for democrats to discuss the bill in a sensible manner - its hard to review and discuss a potential medicare loophole at the state level... when there's people on the other side shouting about how this will be the death of freedom in America.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
No way it is going to happen. Clinton is too shrewd to let that happen. If it looks like he might, she will offer him a cabinet position or the VP slot, even if she is loathe to do it. More likely, she would offer Warren the VP slot, cutting off Sanders' support and rationale for running.

I don't think Sanders wants any cabinet position. He's more powerful in the senate.

What Sanders wants is to direct the DNC party platform. Make sure his issues are given priority. Much of the real blow out between Sanders and the rest of the party came after Sanders' people were shut out of the platform delegations. That was the real DNC shut out that he was pissed about (he shrewdly framed it as issues with the primary system even though he wasn't treated unfairly there... because he knew his voters would neither understand nor care about inter-party delegations for rules and policy committees).

He's probably pushed hard enough, and scared the DNC enough, that he'll get what he wants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
no i'm saying Johnson will not get enough votes to be a problem, and yes Sanders is ramping up to run third party, he doesn't want the VP spot, he wants the whole enchilada.

You're banking on two different things happening, both of which are extremely unlikely. You don't realise this, because you're describing both as things that will happen.

xraytango wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,

You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.

Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.

Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.

@sebster: You are probably right. Hell, I don't even think he really wanted to be president when it comes down to it, just get his message out. Turns out his message was more popular than the messenger thought.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

xraytango wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,

You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.

Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.

Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.

fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@sebster: You are probably right. Hell, I don't even think he really wanted to be president when it comes down to it, just get his message out. Turns out his message was more popular than the messenger thought.

Yeah, I think everyone has been surprised by Sanders appeal. I guess part of it is because Clinton's message is basically just 'more like what we've just had'. Nothing wrong with that message, but it was never going to shut everyone else out like people had expected.

Then the other part is that it turns out the electorate just isn't scared by 'socialism' as people generally thought. That's probably the part that will have lasting consequences going forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits

You don't set policy according to the economy you're 'meant' to have, you set it according the economy you actually have. And here in the real world the majority of people working in fast good are adults.

problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce

Actually the number and scale of businesses in the US is bigger than ever. The issue is that companies employ less people, because automation now dominates.

with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.

sbuh?

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

xraytango wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,

You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.

Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.

Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.

fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.

No, you are wrong. ANY job that pays minimum wage is supposed to provide a living wage.

So, you are not telling me that fast food restaurants are not held to a certain speed "quota" in order to get orders out fast and accurate? Seriously, what kind of restaurant did you work at? You guys have like a 5% order accuracy?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

xraytango wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:
[HRC and Sanders are so disconnected from todays reality they have no clue still what is going on,

You must not have seen/heard any of Sanders' speeches... Sure, some on these boards think his ideas are "pie in the sky," but the majority of his statements are certainly grounded in reality.

Wage stagnation is a real thing. College tuition has sky rocketed, outstripping the potential earnings/salary once people leave school, etc. etc. etc.

Wage stagnation is a real thing and now all the hamburger flippers and grocery baggers want $15 an hour?
Those jobs aren't worth that, nor are they intended to be used to support oneself. Why is a hamburger flipper worth being paid just a little less than a skilled tradesman?

You want more money? Get skills. Simple as that.

Actually, they are intended to support oneself. That is literally what "minimum wage" means. It is kind of ridiculous thinking to say that you can work 40 hours a week flipping burgers in a hot high stress environment and it is not meant to support you. But people working in a factory, some of the easiest jobs I have ever had in my life, should be able to support themselves with it. Factories are not skilled labor, but we absolutely need factory workers to make things. Since it is not skilled, should they not be able to support themselves?

I assume since you did not know what "minimum wage" meant, you also do not know how inflation works. Inflation is why we need to raise minimum wage.

Now your issue with skilled tradesmen. They should be paid more than they are right now. They are being grossly underpaid for what they do. Just because people want the minimum wage to be raised, does not mean they do not think people making over the minimum wage are also being underpaid for their work. That is just a goofy argument.

fast food was never meant to be a living wage job, it was meant as an entry level job for kids and teens to learn work habits, problem is with many businesses leaving the country real jobs are becoming scarce, as to Manufacturing jobs being easier then Fast food, no they are not with Manufacturing jobs you have to meet certain quotas and such, fast food you don't.

No, you are wrong. ANY job that pays minimum wage is supposed to provide a living wage.

So, you are not telling me that fast food restaurants are not held to a certain speed "quota" in order to get orders out fast and accurate? Seriously, what kind of restaurant did you work at? You guys have like a 5% order accuracy?

my local McDonald's has like 20 workers working at any time, each employee has basically one job, and one job only, if they are working the register, they work the register and the register only, if they are working expediting then they expedite (usually the shift leader is expediting on the drive thru and is not the drive thru cashier since that is in another window before you drive up to get your food. they have a worker on the fryer, they have a worker who puts the burgers together and so on and so on.

now the real problem with jobs like fast food is employees maybe work like 18-20 hours a week if lucky, as to fast food needing to get food out in a timely manner, seriously have you been to any fast food places? speed is not their forte.

I have, unless I go in at an odd time I get my food in a timely manner and I leave. I generally get it even faster when I go through at a rush hour because they are trying to meet a demand, some would say, they are trying to make rate.

So are you saying that you worked at an oddly slow McDonalds?

Asterios wrote:
now the real problem with jobs like fast food is employees maybe work like 18-20 hours a week if lucky, as to fast food needing to get food out in a timely manner, seriously have you been to any fast food places? speed is not their forte.

We're now seeing an argument that fast food isn't supposed to be fast. Is this a new low? Probably not, and that's saying something.

 sebster wrote:
Okay, to take the ACA as an example - there were genuine problems with that legislation, administrative and technical stuff, much of which might have been resolved if there'd been sensible debate and discussion over the actual content of the bill. But by making all that stupid socialist and death panel nonsense, Republicans basically removed themselves from that debate. And they also made it much harder for democrats to discuss the bill in a sensible manner - its hard to review and discuss a potential medicare loophole at the state level... when there's people on the other side shouting about how this will be the death of freedom in America..

I understand that - I'm referencing the ACA as an example of indicating that a hypothetical Democratically controlled Senate and President would now recognize that as well. To use an analogy, there is no more killing the (proverbial) public option to try and salvage some GOP votes in the name of bipartisanship - they're going to know now that all they would be doing is throwing away parts of what they want in return for nothing. If the Democrats retake the Senate, there wouldn't be any more even pretenses of trying to work with the other side now - I think you're going to see an immediate usage of parliamentary maneuvers like reconciliation almost immediately, without any concessions to the other side at all; because they're going to know now that Lucy is never going to hold the ball. The Democrats are going to assume the GOP is never going to negotiate in good faith.

Which doesn't lend itself to good governance.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
now the real problem with jobs like fast food is employees maybe work like 18-20 hours a week if lucky, as to fast food needing to get food out in a timely manner, seriously have you been to any fast food places? speed is not their forte.

We're now seeing an argument that fast food isn't supposed to be fast. Is this a new low? Probably not, and that's saying something.

It's functionally just noise at this point.

 Ouze wrote:
If the Democrats retake the Senate, there wouldn't be any more even pretenses of trying to work with the other side now - I think you're going to see an immediate usage of parliamentary maneuvers like reconciliation almost immediately, without any concessions to the other side at all; because they're going to know now that Lucy is never going to hold the ball. The Democrats are going to assume the GOP is never going to negotiate in good faith.

Which doesn't lend itself to good governance.

Yep. It isn't good governance in the short term because good legislation should come through robust and sensible national debate. And long term it is likely to lead Democrats further left, as dealing amongst yourselves alone is likely to produce an echo chamber effect.

One of the biggest problems with employers right now in the UK and the US is the belief that some jobs are not "worth" enough for someone to live. The company is saying that this persons time must be subsidized by someone else, either living with another person with a higher wage or by some form of government payment. That is just stupid and greedy, but then these are the same people that argue that their time and effort is worth thousands of times more than people who work for them and make dumb arguments about how people should "get skills" (as if it was that easy) or that the people doing minimum wage jobs, that are some of the hardest, dirtiest jobs going are doing easy jobs.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Please don't let cultural marxism cloud YOUR judgment.

I remember when the people shouting about cultural marxism were sure it was an evil conspiracy to put gay people on television. It's funny how the target changes, but the same terms are used to attack whoever happens to be in the firing line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sebster, that RCP trend poll that Whembly posted a link to that shows Clinton pulling away from Sanders recently is an aggregate of many polls and it is interesting because it shows that CA is the outlier (the race seems to be tightening there) States that have already voted must have seen the writing on the wall. To me it implies that Clinton is already consolidating the democratic vote.

538's own national trend poll shows a similar Clinton bump, though much less drastic than RCP's (perhaps 538 vets the pollsters' more stringently). http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/democratic/

Sorry mate, missed this post earlier. Interesting, I was in the habit of checking the state forecasts on 538, I didn't click on the national polls. That's interesting that numbers have moved away from Sanders, consolidation has begun as you suggested I guess.

Asterios wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Maybe you just made it up.

nope not made up was an exciting afternoon with a bunch of assorted agencies showing up there. (local PD, sheriff's, ICE and a couple others I couldn't make out.), and like you said maybe Frazzled made up his?

Yes clearly I am making it up. Look up Austin Syrian refugees and you'll se they are just the latest. We are part fo the hub network for refugee services, bringing refugees from all over the world and introducing them to quality Texmex. The wife took a Burundi couple around Austin a few months back, showing them how to use the bus and stuff like that.

Believe me or don't. Its amazing how little of a gak I give.
http://www.rstx.org/austin.html

http://www.episcopalmigrationministries.org/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
They can tighten the vetting process.

Yes but they cannot exclude persons because of their religous faith only. Thats what Trump has said he supports. I take him at his word, and the word of many of his mouth breathing brethren.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Is there any real point to this give and take that has been going on this past few days? It feels like seeing people whose opinions and intelligence I have a high respect for, even though we often disagree, are being drawn into a conversation that is going nowhere but huge circles.
My thoughts are that this has to be some type of social experiment and wonder how many sites this is happening in.

Fair point Moving back to general politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hillary Clinton's speech today was good:
http://time.com/4355797/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-transcript/

If this were "a generic Democrat", the speech would be a very effective contrast to Trump.

The trouble for Clinton is that... every criticism levied against Trump rebounds back to her...

problem is with that speech Benghazi will come back to haunt her.

Everytime I see Benghazi I think tigers.

 Frazzled wrote:


Everytime I see Benghazi I think tigers.

Nazi Tigers?