I read the title, and my first thought was "this is he guy who thought Obama was going to take over Texas isn't it?" Read to the end of the article and was pleased
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
I read the title, and my first thought was "this is he guy who thought Obama was going to take over Texas isn't it?" Read to the end of the article and was pleased
Saw the Chron head line and was thinking Chron Disease and then read the article. Notice it was "That Guy"
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
Could always donate sperm.
You know, in this hypothetical sci-fi scenario where we can only save a certain percentage of the human race by shooting them off to a space colony. I'm just gonna file that one next to the slowly-ticking WMD hidden in a major metropolis, the location of which is only known by a terrorist with low pain tolerance.
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?
but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?
but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.
I'm glad that we have reached the point during which we throw a bunch of chemicals into a tube, create DNA from scratch, build our own humans, and just watch them grow.
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?
but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.
I'm glad that we have reached the point during which we throw a bunch of chemicals into a tube, create DNA from scratch, build our own humans, and just watch them grow.
You just better hope that you get born into the Alphas or the Betas... being an Epsilon would definitely suck.
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?
but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.
Now we're getting somewhere. We've got a space ship with the last remnant of humanity on it and super-people-making technology. Just pick the 'best possible person', clone them seventy-nine times, and ship them off. No need to worry about inbreeding or genetic bottleneck - heck, no need to worry about homosexual vs. heterosexual couples, they're all clones anyway. There's nothing far-fetched, dystopian, or horrifying about this scenario, and it absolutely needs to be referenced when determining policy affecting actual people on Earth where we have no ark-type spaceship, insta-test-tube people, or Martian colony plans.
C'mon, Fraz. Get the weiner dogs to vote this guy out already.
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?
but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.
Now we're getting somewhere. We've got a space ship with the last remnant of humanity on it and super-people-making technology. Just pick the 'best possible person', clone them seventy-nine times, and ship them off. No need to worry about inbreeding or genetic bottleneck - heck, no need to worry about homosexual vs. heterosexual couples, they're all clones anyway. There's nothing far-fetched, dystopian, or horrifying about this scenario, and it absolutely needs to be referenced when determining policy affecting actual people on Earth where we have no ark-type spaceship, insta-test-tube people, or Martian colony plans.
C'mon, Fraz. Get the weiner dogs to vote this guy out already.
Actually cloning and test tubes are the way of exploration considering the distance and time to travel to other stars it would be pointless, furthermore any major extrasteller disaster which would effect the Earth would most likely have an impact on Mars which is currently the only planetary body near us to potentially support life, which would remove that as an option, which leaves distance solar systems which would take forever to reach.
problem with this is invitro fertilization pretty much ixnays this, so yes Lesbian couples I can see helping prolonging the human race, male gay couples though?
You know Gay Men still produce sperm, right?
but still not needed, heck its at the point women are not even needed, test tube babies rule.
I'm glad that we have reached the point during which we throw a bunch of chemicals into a tube, create DNA from scratch, build our own humans, and just watch them grow.
You forgot the dinosaurs to...mammoths.....Dire Wolves...Giant Sloths...Dodo bird......
Unless Hillary, Trump, or another US politician are trying to use space exploration as part of their platform/policy, we're done with that topic in the politics thread. Thanks
Gary Johnson, the former Republican governor of New Mexico, on Sunday won the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party, a sliver group hoping to make an outsized impact in this election year.
Johnson came within a half-point of scoring an outright first-ballot victory at the party's nominating convention in Orlando, Florida; a second ballot put him over the top, with 56 percent.
"I tell the truth, I am not a liar," Johnson told the group, insisting that his frank approach would appeal to disaffected voters and help the long-marginal Libertarians achieve "major-party status."
Prestor Jon wrote: "The system"? Are you referring to the economy or what? Might just be one of those things were different locales and nationalities have different terminology/slang but I've never heard it explained like that. We don't have a system that just doles out money like we're all playing slot machines in a casino.
Not just the economy, by the vast network of systems and institutions that support that economic activity. All those things play a huge role in deciding how productive each individual can be.
The simplest way to think of this is to consider a lawyer, in your country or mine if he's gifted and very hard working he might earn a very healthy salary - let's say $200,000 a year. Now consider that same guy working in a small village in Bangladesh, he might be on something more like $20,000 a year. Not because he's less hard working or less talented, but just because he's part of a system which is nowhere near as good at supporting and enabling the economic activity of everyone single person in the system.
The tax code doesn't sit outside or separate to the rest of the system, which establishes and enforces property and contract laws, or the government institutions that build roads, provide education and encourage research.
And yeah, not many people anywhere think of it in those terms, and that's a shame because it would help to improve understanding greatly.
We have the discussion about "fair" tax rates all the time. It always boils down to the fact that "fair" is a subjective idea that varies with each individual. Some people think some tax brackets should have higher rates but nobody wants their own taxes to go up. Some people want the govt to do/spend more but everybody always pays the smallest amount of taxes they legally can. Everyone is free to pay more taxes to the govt but I've never seen an example of a rich person, especially a rich politician that voluntarily pays a higher rate because doing so is more "fair."
Sure, it's pretty typical that most people think everyone above them should pay more tax, and everyone beneath them should get less benefits. Humans are selfish, afterall. And yeah, exactly what is fair is pretty subjective. But what I am saying is that just looking at what is taxed is misleading in and of itself - fairness isn't about what you put in, but about what you have in total - and that means what we should look at is people's incomes after tax.
But it doesn't make much sense to argue that people's belief in a collective action is only okay when they personally are giving more. Because government is on such a scale that one individual's personal sacrifice means nothing - consider Warren Buffet, who earned a quite ludicrous $13 billion last financial year - if he was to give every penny he made last year to the federal government then total government revenue would increase 0.4%. And that's talking about one of the richest men in the world, who had their biggest single year, and who had most of that growth only on paper through increasing capital values. And it still rounds down to zero.
Campaign ads aren't meant to prompt meaningful policy discussions they're meant to motivate party bases, reinforce party differences (real or imagined) and get the electorate worked up over partisan wedge issues in the hope of increasing turnout and that's just the ads that aren't outright mud slinging negative ads.
Absolutely. And unfortunately most people think of politics only in terms of those slogans. Or in terms of arguing with those slogans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: "Rich" people aren't the only ones that benefit from civil society and infrastructure. Infrastructure is built by the government, the government is funded by taxes, in our progressive income tax system "rich" people pay the most income tax that funds the government. So "poor" people should be mad at "rich" people for funding government projects that benefit society? Or is it that "rich" people shouldn't benefit from civil society and a stable economy created by a government funded by their taxes?
No, the point is that everyone benefits from society. And if a single guy makes $200,000 a year from his job, he will still have $150,000 left after federal taxes, and maybe something like $130,000 left after state taxes. That will still leave the guy with about 2.5 times the average median income. From there it is clear that it is completely bonkers for him to complain that it is unfair that he pays a higher rate of tax than other people, because he is still a massive beneficiary from the overall system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Exalted. The whole,"You didn't build this", is one of the most loaded, asnine phrases I have heard. Sure, there are those who are born into wealth that just lounge about, but I know far more well off people who started by risking everything to make their business work. They would work consistent long days that carried them well into the night, keep things running off credit cards along with having everything they owned mortgaged to the hilt. This is why that whole statement met with such derision from these people.
I think most people met the quote with derision because they were too busy working long in to the night to read the full quote. Or possibly that lots of people thought it was easier to just be pretend outraged at Obama, instead of stop and realise that their personal success wasn't just because they personally are super-awesome, but because they exist in a system which creates and supports economic opportunity.
Anyway, here's the actual quote. Note there's nothing in there about inherited wealth, but just about the reality that success doesn't come in a bubble.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: I look at it this way, its a messed up society when the top 1% of people are paying about 70-90% of the taxes
But if their net incomes are higher than they've ever been, exactly what are they complaining about?
our unemployment is thru the roof
You have no idea what you're talking about.
That said, I agree with you on the California statewide $15 minimum wage - it makes sense in a couple of California markets, but across the state it seems way too high.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made?
Why are you talking about 'most'? The current highest rate in the US right now is 39.6%. That's what you pay on each dollar you earn north of $415,000. Upping that tax rate to 45% will just about wipe the deficit. But you can even decide that the guy on $500,000 is paying enough, and just look at the 1 million biggest earning households in the US, which earn an average $2.1 million. Put their taxes up to 45% and you'd generate $276 billion, which would just about take out most of the deficit, it'd certainly be back to a level that, along with growth, would mean debt to GDP would start falling quite quickly.
And this is really the issue - people seem to hear any talk about raising taxes on the wealthy and respond with hyperbole about what happens when they are taxed at 90%. But if you just look at returning US top tax rates to something close to their historic norm, and it's amazing how much of the deficit problem just goes away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No... the OIG report changed the conversation, as the media enmass can't ignore/spin this.
And you're falling back on the old story that the media is this collective entity that makes decision on what it will cover - so that anytime it doesn't cover exactly what stories you want it to cover in the manner you think it should, it must be because the media is biased. But the Trump debacle should have finally killed that myth once for all by showing what the media really is - a collection good looking idiots who basically don't care about anything but what stories produce ratings.
If the Clinton story rated and got lots of interest it'd be the lead story every night.
It certainly adds into Trump's meme of 'Crooked Hillary'.
I think Trump's names have been less imaginative as the campaign has gone on. Little Marco was genius, the rest since then... meh.
So, to answer to your question: Yes. I've seen that while most don't believe Trump would ever be a "Good President", they simply abhor the idea of HRC in the WH. These folks are traditional Democrat voters mind you. (I'm still not voting for Trump anyways as I'm on Calvinball mode).
That wasn't my question! We all know there's plenty of Democrats who don't like Clinton. My question is whether anyone who likes or is neutral to Clinton is treating the email thing as a big deal. Any friends of yours saying 'I like Clinton and want to vote Democrat, but this email thing has me worried'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: The problem is when politicians use taxes as a political football. Politicians promise more govt spending and then promise to make those other people, the "rich" people, pay for it when basic math shows that the govt already spends far more than it could collect in taxes no matter where the rates are set.
What basic math is that? Right now the generates $3.2 trillion in revenue, and spends $3.7 trillion. There is no 'basic math' that would stop taxes closing that gap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: yes but what about the small business owner, who now has to pay his employees more money then he/she makes themselves? I have a friend who has had a McDonald's franchise for over 30 years, he is going to have to close it down why? because it is not worth running it because he estimates he will be making less then $8 an hour himself thanks to the "Government" telling him he has to pay unskilled laborers a skilled wage,
If your friend can only make $8 an hour out of owning and running a McDonalds franchise, and on top of that is so bad at business that they don't even think of selling the franchise instead of closing it down, then to be perfectly frank capitalism is probably better off without your friend.
you do realize those numbers are based on people still collecting unemployment, the actual unemployed numbers are much further north then those numbers.
That said, I agree with you on the California statewide $15 minimum wage - it makes sense in a couple of California markets, but across the state it seems way too high.
Actually those markets had already placed a $15 minimum wage increase into their systems, meanwhile the bulk of California cannot sustain such an increase and not sure the state as a whole can sustain the increase, we are talking 6 years of $1 increase, when previous increases were no where near that much in consecutive years. the market as it stands cannot handle consecutive increases without dissolving.
Asterios wrote: so that brings us back to what is a good tax system? charge the rich a higher percentage of taxs? then why bother being rich if most of your money you cannot keep? why bother building businesses that hire lots of employees if you don't get to keep the money you made?
Why are you talking about 'most'? The current highest rate in the US right now is 39.6%. That's what you pay on each dollar you earn north of $415,000. Upping that tax rate to 45% will just about wipe the deficit. But you can even decide that the guy on $500,000 is paying enough, and just look at the 1 million biggest earning households in the US, which earn an average $2.1 million. Put their taxes up to 45% and you'd generate $276 billion, which would just about take out most of the deficit, it'd certainly be back to a level that, along with growth, would mean debt to GDP would start falling quite quickly.
And this is really the issue - people seem to hear any talk about raising taxes on the wealthy and respond with hyperbole about what happens when they are taxed at 90%. But if you just look at returning US top tax rates to something close to their historic norm, and it's amazing how much of the deficit problem just goes away.
that would be a nice fairy tale, except our government as it stands has a habit of spending more then it will ever bring in and our current deficit is edging up to 20 trillion, thats a billion times 20K hell just last year alone the deficit increased by about 600 billion, and if the Government gets more money they will still spend that much more.
also obviously you have never owned a franchise before which is evident by your statement.
Prestor Jon wrote: Yes. The whole reason we have deductions is to lower the effective rates because the rates are set too high in order to score political points and help politicians win elections.
No, the reason deductions exist is because total revenue is not an indication of what the store was actually able to give its owner in income. A legal practice might generate $1 million in a year, but it'd be a nonsense to tax the owner on the full million - he had to pay staff and rent a premises, so he might actually take home something closer to $500,000. Whereas a supermarket might have $1 million turnover, but he's got even more in costs, because he's got the cost of all his inventory - on a million dollar turnover he might not clear more than $100,000.
That's what deductions do - they establish a system where people are taxed not just on revenue, but on revenue less all the necessary business costs.
Now, there is an issue from there, because deductions are also used to encourage certain kinds of behaviour - 150% deductions on R&D, deductions for interest on home mortgages even though it's unrelated to income and so on. Those kinds of things are potentially okay but in practice are frequently very problematic. But they're instances on the margin, and they shouldn't cause you to misunderstand the entirety of the basic concept of why deductions exist, and need to exist.
A general economic rule is that the more you make something cost the less of it you'll have, yet the govt keeps increasing the cost of legal domestic labor in response to high unemployment, low wages and widespread use of illegal labor. It's a counter productive solution. But it plays well on tv and in speeches so politicians embrace it even though it hurts their constiuents.
First up, unemployment isn't high.
Second up, this is more 101ism. You can't just go back to that one demand and supply graph and think you have any kind of economic analysis. There's extensive work in to the actual impact of minimum wages in different places, and while the results are subjective and heavily debated, the most common impact is an impact on overall employment that's so low it's close to impossible to measure. There's lots of reasons for this (market forces might drive wages below $x but productivity might be north of $x, or you might see increased agg D, as the money is shifted to people with a greater marginal propensity to consume).
Now, personally I think the California state wide $15 is pushing it too far, but you are simply wrong in saying that is known to be true, and certain to hurt constituents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: You're kidding right??? The decades of the 1950s and 1960s were the most economically prosperous for the US in our history, and that didn't lead directly to a crash of the proportions of the 1929 crash. It was during the 50s and 60s that a household could literally be the nuclear ideal family on one blue-collar income.
Over the course of Eisenhower's presidency the US economy grew just under 28%. That 3% per year. That happens to be pretty much bang on the US historical average. It was a perfectly good period of economic development in US history, nothing more and nothing less.
Second up, this is more 101ism. You can't just go back to that one demand and supply graph and think you have any kind of economic analysis. There's extensive work in to the actual impact of minimum wages in different places, and while the results are subjective and heavily debated, the most common impact is an impact on overall employment that's so low it's close to impossible to measure. There's lots of reasons for this (market forces might drive wages below $x but productivity might be north of $x, or you might see increased agg D, as the money is shifted to people with a greater marginal propensity to consume).
Now, personally I think the California state wide $15 is pushing it too far, but you are simply wrong in saying that is known to be true, and certain to hurt constituents.
Actual unemployment is high and very high at that, you base your numbers on those who are on unemployment insurance, it does not take into account those who are unable to find jobs after their unemployment insurance wears off.
as to minimum wage increases, yes there will be a definit job impact from the current round in California, you and others say, people been saying this for awhile every time minimum wage is increased and yet, minimum wage has never been increased with consecutive increases of $1 a year, go look here is California's minimum wage increase by year.
Asterios wrote: look at our Social Security system, as it stands it will be gone in 10-15 years, those who are putting into it now will get nothing when they retire since there will be nothing,
You don't understand how social security works. The government is required to pay SS, if there is insufficient funds in SS then government will put more money in. SS is just an accounting entity within government, if they don't have the funds to cover mandatory expenses then government has to provide more funding.
The actual issue here is that government has been able to cover shortfalls in other areas through SS, as it has collected more than it pays. But in future SS will pay out more than it pays in, which will have an impact on the overall budget that will need to be adjust for somewhere.
the government debt is at its highest it has ever been
Only if you use the nominal amount, which is a very silly thing to do. If you instead look at debt to gdp, you get reality;
in the 30's? we had no national debt to speak of
Completely wrong, look at the graph above.
the reason why this country hasn't gone into another depression is because the government spends more money then we could ever hope to cover.
Actually its due to a host of reasons, most of which were leaned the hard way through the depression. Gold standard, bank runs and austerity all played a part in making the depression considerably worse.
if a normal household was ran the way the government is, we would be on the streets now.
Economics doesn't work that way. A household is a single actor, while an economy is millions of actors, and the interactions between all of them. If I cut my spending then I save money, if everyone cuts their spending then everyone's incomes drop (because income is the product of someone else's expenditure). Read your Keynes.
Asterios wrote: look at our Social Security system, as it stands it will be gone in 10-15 years, those who are putting into it now will get nothing when they retire since there will be nothing,
You don't understand how social security works. The government is required to pay SS, if there is insufficient funds in SS then government will put more money in. SS is just an accounting entity within government, if they don't have the funds to cover mandatory expenses then government has to provide more funding.
The actual issue here is that government has been able to cover shortfalls in other areas through SS, as it has collected more than it pays. But in future SS will pay out more than it pays in, which will have an impact on the overall budget that will need to be adjust for somewhere.
the government debt is at its highest it has ever been
Only if you use the nominal amount, which is a very silly thing to do. If you instead look at debt to gdp, you get reality;
the reason why this country hasn't gone into another depression is because the government spends more money then we could ever hope to cover.
Actually its due to a host of reasons, most of which were leaned the hard way through the depression. Gold standard, bank runs and austerity all played a part in making the depression considerably worse.
if a normal household was ran the way the government is, we would be on the streets now.
Economics doesn't work that way. A household is a single actor, while an economy is millions of actors, and the interactions between all of them. If I cut my spending then I save money, if everyone cuts their spending then everyone's incomes drop (because income is the product of someone else's expenditure). Read your Keynes.
you really have no clue about how Social Security is ran, as it goes I'm calling your bluff, show me where it says Social Security is ran like that, also show me where Social Security is taking in more money then its paying out, I'll be here waiting, and not too worried, since its obvious you haven't kept up with the news. and i'm talking federal SS not state run SS. which is a running joke right now in California.
heres the words you will most likely find:
"Payments to current retirees are financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages"
also 16 mil. debt is not much to speak of which is what our debt was in the 30's, nowhere near our almost 20 trillion debt now. (thats like a thousand times a thousand more and then some.)
dethork wrote: That said, any tax brackets would probably have to be progressive within the tax brackets themselves, not just overall. Tax brackets are exceptionally craptacular for the lower end of the bracket. If our theoretical brackets are [X-$44k] = 5% and [45K-Y] = 10%, the guy making 44k pays $2200 in taxes and keeps $41,800 while the guy making $45k pays $4500 and keeps $40,500. If I made $44k per year and my boss offered me a raise, it would be stupid to accept anything less than $46,500 as otherwise I'd be making less money than before (and actually, only getting an extra $50/year with the $2500 raise).
In the current system progressive taxes don't work as you're assuming. You only pay the higher rate on additional money, income up to that point is taxed at the lower level. To use your numbers, the guy making $45k is taxed $2300 ($2200 on his first $44k, and 10% on his pay over that $1000).
So your problem has already been considered and is accounted for in the current tax system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'd advocate for a tier'ed flat tax system.
Classify income as all "new money", not simply from your employment wages.
No deduction, credits or any other "social engineering".
The only difference between the current system and your proposed rates are that your rates are unsustainably low.
As to the deductions and credits you want to get rid of, see my answer above. Deductions are a basic part of deciding how much a person or company actually earned in a year. A business that generates $1m in revenue but has $600k in rent, salaries and inventory should not be taxed the same rate as a business that makes $1m in revenue, but has $900k in rent, salaries and inventory.
There are issues with targeted deductions and the like, but it isn't that simple a fix because assessing where genuine deductions end and too generous, social engineering deductions begin is a very complex thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: American economy floats on illegal labour. I very much doubt the wall will be built.
I have no problem believing that a wall will be built. There's already elements of a wall in place along the border. If you consider the double barrel of Republicans unwilling to oppose their own successful presidential candidate, and everyone's willingness to accept federal dollars spent in their state, I can see the stupid wall thing getting the numbers.
The bigger point is that the wall won't do anything. Mexican illegal immigration is already in decline, mostly driven by improving economic conditions in Mexico. Increasingly the illegal immigrants are coming from Asia. They get a temporary visa, then don't leave.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
I think you need to spend some time thinking about the deeply ridiculous position you have put yourself in, where you complain about the size of government debt, but then cheer for a completely ineffective spending program because 'jobs'.
Asterios wrote: and I repeat you have no idea how much jobs are very much needed.
I think you need to spend some time thinking about the deeply ridiculous position you have put yourself in, where you complain about the size of government debt, but then cheer for a completely ineffective spending program because 'jobs'.
"The dollar level of the Trust Funds is projected to be drawn down
beginning in 2025 until assets are exhausted in 2037. Individually, the DI fund is projected to be exhausted in 2018 and the OASI fund in 2040."
oh and here is SS's response to where SS monies come from:
don't see nothing from the Government adding money there.
and there is so much more just from the SS site, even they said the trust fund will run out of money in 2033 now.
The Social Security Trust Fund continued declining in 2012 and 2013, and this state of affairs is projected to continue until the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2033
Ahtman wrote: Sears has had issues for decades now and isn't the beginning of the end of anything.
Brilliantly, Sears is basically collapsing under the weight of one man's ego. It's been in trouble for a long time, but it's the really dramatic dive it's now entered in to is entirely in the hands of its primary investor and CEO, Ed Lampert. He make an insane amount of money at Wall Street, first at Goldman Sachs, then in his own investment firm, using the old model of buying underperforming business with loads of debt, fixing up the profitability then selling the asset again at huge profit.
He tried that with Sears and it didn't work because the problem wasn't with the structure or practice of the company, Sears' problems are all because conventional department stores are a declining business. Unable to admit he made a bad call, Lampert doubled down and took active control of the company himself. Because he is an avid follower of Ayn Rand, he then put in place his principle of absolute compeitition at all times, including within the company. He made different department compete and fight for space within the catalogue, he encouraged areas to steal good workers from other areas, that kind of thing.
Obviously, it really, really didn't work.
Someone trying to use Sears as an argument against minimum wage is so wrong it's almost poetic.
Asterios, Sebster's description of how SS is run is actually spot on. (It's the reason Gore was going in and on about lock boxes when he was running). Where he is a bit off is his idea that SS is currently taking in more that it pays out. It did in fact for thirty years or so after it was restructured by congress in 1983 in order to plan for the coming Baby Boomer influx. The extra money was put into trusts. The govt. has been skimming off that trust money to pay other things. Since 2010 that excess has become a shortfall.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Asterios, Sebster's description of how SS is run is actually spot on. (It's the reason Gore was going in and on about lock boxes when he was running). Where he is a bit off is his idea that SS is currently taking in more that it pays out. It did in fact for thirty years or so after it was restructured by congress in 1983 in order to plan for the coming Baby Boomer influx. The extra money was put into trusts. The govt. has been skimming off that trust money to pay other things. Since 2010 that excess has become a shortfall.
The Social Security Trust Fund continued declining in 2012 and 2013, and this state of affairs is projected to continue until the Trust Fund is exhausted in 2033
which is why this year Congress decided to not allow DI to drain money from the SSR so as to extend the life of the retirement benefits.
LordofHats wrote: I don't think that graph says what you think it says.
learn to read:
Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go program. Most of the payroll taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay benefits to today's recipients. In 2014, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds collected $884.3 billion in revenues. Of that amount, 85.5% was from payroll tax contributions and reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury and 3.4% was from income taxes on Social Security benefits. Interest earned on the government bonds held by the trust funds provided the remaining 11.1% of income. Assets increased in 2014 because total income exceeded expenditures for benefit payments and administrative expenses.
you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.
Asterios wrote: you do realize those numbers are based on people still collecting unemployment, the actual unemployed numbers are much further north then those numbers.
Actually it's from people who tell the BLS that they are actively looking for work, whether they're on unemployment or not. So you're even wrong in your defence of your earlier incorrect statement.
And please don't use the call for this phantom real figure. It comes up whenever anyone really wants to believe something that flies in the face of actual facts and figures on the issue. Like to believe inflation is 'really' higher than the figures - just make up some nonsense about the 'real' rate! Have a personal belief that needs unemployment to be higher than it is, make up a 'real' number!
But actual thinking doesn't work like that. If a number isn't as high as you'd like it to be, you don't get to just ignore it. That's just playing make believe.
Actually those markets had already placed a $15 minimum wage increase into their systems
No. The law is in place, but they won't reach $15 for a few years yet. They have increases locked in to place over several steps. I think it's 2018 that the rates will finally get there..
that would be a nice fairy tale, except our government as it stands has a habit of spending more then it will ever bring in
Typically revenue is short of expenditure that's true. But to argue that as an unyielding law is very silly. And it leads to a very warped kind of nonsense where you claim to be very worried about the deficit, but then claim that taxes can't resolve that because people will just spend more, but then claim that spending cuts can do the job. Which is nonsense because if there exists the ability to cut expenditure, then there also exists the ability to keep expenditure down even though tax revenue is increased.
also obviously you have never owned a franchise before which is evident by your statement.
Not personally. And while it is going way back, I did manage tax returns for a few franchise owners. Nothing on the scale of a McDonalds, just food court operations. None of them had profits anywhere near the ridiculous $8 an hour figure you gave, and the minimum wage here is much higher than the proposed US figure.
You made up a silly example, its okay, we understand, this is the internet and it happens all the time. But what also happens all the time on the internet is that people dig themselves deeper. That never goes anywhere good. Don't dig deeper on this.
whembly wrote: No... the OIG report changed the conversation, as the media enmass can't ignore/spin this.
And you're falling back on the old story that the media is this collective entity that makes decision on what it will cover - so that anytime it doesn't cover exactly what stories you want it to cover in the manner you think it should, it must be because the media is biased. But the Trump debacle should have finally killed that myth once for all by showing what the media really is - a collection good looking idiots who basically don't care about anything but what stories produce ratings.
Seb... that's a cop-out.
It's one thing for a political party to point fingers at the opposition party to claim that it's "a manufactured outrage"... but, it's another when IG (who's independent AND was appointed by Obama) releases a damning report like this. I've posted SEVERAL pundits/newsites whom are known to treat the Clintons with kid's glove, but are simply hammering HRC now.
If the Clinton story rated and got lots of interest it'd be the lead story every night.
It's splashed across the news sites... such that, it makes you wonder if these journalist are *hoping* that Sanders wins the nomination.
It certainly adds into Trump's meme of 'Crooked Hillary'.
I think Trump's names have been less imaginative as the campaign has gone on. Little Marco was genius, the rest since then... meh.
Trump's names *works* because it's 8th grade schoolyard level. That's what sticks....
So, to answer to your question: Yes. I've seen that while most don't believe Trump would ever be a "Good President", they simply abhor the idea of HRC in the WH. These folks are traditional Democrat voters mind you. (I'm still not voting for Trump anyways as I'm on Calvinball mode).
That wasn't my question! We all know there's plenty of Democrats who don't like Clinton. My question is whether anyone who likes or is neutral to Clinton is treating the email thing as a big deal. Any friends of yours saying 'I like Clinton and want to vote Democrat, but this email thing has me worried'.
Yes, I know plenty of folks like that. One who has voted for Bill Clinton (life-long Democrat), but absolutely refuses to vote for HRC. (he won't vote for Trump either, as he told me he ain't interested anymore). He works for NGA, and if he did what she has done... he'd be in prison now.
So, yes... this "email thing" as you call it, does have legs.
The key you're looking for, is if this impact the regular votes (who doesn't understands the email scandal) during the General Election.
Asterios wrote: you do realize those numbers are based on people still collecting unemployment, the actual unemployed numbers are much further north then those numbers.
Actually it's from people who tell the BLS that they are actively looking for work, whether they're on unemployment or not. So you're even wrong in your defence of your earlier incorrect statement.
who is this BLS? I have been "unemployed" for several years now and no one asked me if I was looking for work or not?in fact only time they ask if you are looking for work is when you are on Unemployment Insurance. not after it expires, they don't care then.
sebster wrote: And please don't use the call for this phantom real figure. It comes up whenever anyone really wants to believe something that flies in the face of actual facts and figures on the issue. Like to believe inflation is 'really' higher than the figures - just make up some nonsense about the 'real' rate! Have a personal belief that needs unemployment to be higher than it is, make up a 'real' number!
actually that "phantom" number is a number, check the U6 number instead of the U3 number you like quoting
Actually those markets had already placed a $15 minimum wage increase into their systems
No. The law is in place, but they won't reach $15 for a few years yet. They have increases locked in to place over several steps. I think it's 2018 that the rates will finally get there..
I'm talking places like San Francisco which brought a minimum wage increase to $15 before California did, check the news out sometime. and the rates will be there in 2021 at $1 a year raise for the new California minimum wage.
that would be a nice fairy tale, except our government as it stands has a habit of spending more then it will ever bring in
Typically revenue is short of expenditure that's true. But to argue that as an unyielding law is very silly. And it leads to a very warped kind of nonsense where you claim to be very worried about the deficit, but then claim that taxes can't resolve that because people will just spend more, but then claim that spending cuts can do the job. Which is nonsense because if there exists the ability to cut expenditure, then there also exists the ability to keep expenditure down even though tax revenue is increased.
actually that goes by the yearly budget every year the government spends more and more money then it took in.
also obviously you have never owned a franchise before which is evident by your statement.
sebster wrote: Not personally. And while it is going way back, I did manage tax returns for a few franchise owners. Nothing on the scale of a McDonalds, just food court operations. None of them had profits anywhere near the ridiculous $8 an hour figure you gave, and the minimum wage here is much higher than the proposed US figure.
You made up a silly example, its okay, we understand, this is the internet and it happens all the time. But what also happens all the time on the internet is that people dig themselves deeper. That never goes anywhere good. Don't dig deeper on this.
A franchise is not a mall kiosk, a franchise is a contract that is entered in by a "buyer" and the parent company and is non-transferable. and like I said competition is tough we already lost a Long John Silvers that used to be by here and saw them tearing the building down. just like they did to a Burger King to make more parking spaces.
Asterios wrote: [you really have no clue about how Social Security is ran, as it goes I'm calling your bluff, show me where it says Social Security is ran like that, also show me where Social Security is taking in more money then its paying out, I'll be here waiting, and not too worried, since its obvious you haven't kept up with the news. and i'm talking federal SS not state run SS. which is a running joke right now in California.
I'll defer to Gordon Shumway's point, the tipping point came in 2010. I remember at the time that getting coverage, but many arguing that it was only temporary because of the poopy economy, and I admit to never checking to see if it actually returned to being a net inflow. That it didn't means we've probably gone past that tipping point and are there to stay. So that was my bad, something I said was about to happen had in fact, just happened.
But you, of course, are still completely wrong in understanding how the system works. It isn't a single bucket that can be exhausted. It's a federal government mandatory program. If the amount collected isn't sufficient, then government has to pay the rest. As I said earlier this has implications for federal deficits, but your idea that people would one day just stop getting SS checks is very silly.
also 16 mil. debt is not much to speak of which is what our debt was in the 30's, nowhere near our almost 20 trillion debt now. (thats like a thousand times a thousand more and then some.)
Actually it was 16 billion, not 16 million. So you're wrong by a factor of 1,000 there. And if you then factor in the GDP was about 60 billion at the time, then you're looking at debt of around 27% of GDP. GDP figures for the time vary, you'll see the source I gave above put debt to GDP greater than 30%. As 27 to 30% is not 'nothing', your statement that the debt was nothing 1930 was completely and utterly wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.
You continue to not understand. Just because government collects a tax specifically for a purpose doesn't mean that is the only government money that can ever be used for purpose. The obligation to pay SS exists no matter what government takes in, no matter what government has stored up in the past. THere is no mechanism by which government can say "SS is out of money so you'll just have to find something else to live on in retirement".
You are wrong about SS works, and what's more now you're getting rude and defensive about it. Don't do that. It will mean you will walk away from this conversation with as poor an understanding of SS as when you started. And that would be a waste of everyone's time.
Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go program. Most of the payroll taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay benefits to today's recipients. In 2014, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds collected $884.3 billion in revenues. Of that amount, 85.5% was from payroll tax contributions and reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury and 3.4% was from income taxes on Social Security benefits. Interest earned on the government bonds held by the trust funds provided the remaining 11.1% of income. Assets increased in 2014 because total income exceeded expenditures for benefit payments and administrative expenses.
you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.
I see you've engaged the time honored "l2p" defense. A bold strategy sir.
Except most of us can read, and being able to read we are able to see that it still doesn't say what you seem to think it says, and posting it over and over while insultingly telling people to "learn" isn't going to fix that problem.
Asterios wrote: [you really have no clue about how Social Security is ran, as it goes I'm calling your bluff, show me where it says Social Security is ran like that, also show me where Social Security is taking in more money then its paying out, I'll be here waiting, and not too worried, since its obvious you haven't kept up with the news. and i'm talking federal SS not state run SS. which is a running joke right now in California.
I'll defer to Gordon Shumway's point, the tipping point came in 2010. I remember at the time that getting coverage, but many arguing that it was only temporary because of the poopy economy, and I admit to never checking to see if it actually returned to being a net inflow. That it didn't means we've probably gone past that tipping point and are there to stay. So that was my bad, something I said was about to happen had in fact, just happened.
But you, of course, are still completely wrong in understanding how the system works. It isn't a single bucket that can be exhausted. It's a federal government mandatory program. If the amount collected isn't sufficient, then government has to pay the rest. As I said earlier this has implications for federal deficits, but your idea that people would one day just stop getting SS checks is very silly.
one why am I debating American SS law with someone who is not in the US nor is familiar with how it is ran, back in 2015 even the SSA said that by 2034 they will only be able to cover 79% of expected program costs:
The Trustees estimate that the combined OASI and DI trust fund reserves will be depleted by 2034. At that point, payroll taxes and other income will flow into the fund but will be sufficient to pay only about 79% of program costs.
like I said go read the SSA site, it will tell you you are wrong.
also 16 mil. debt is not much to speak of which is what our debt was in the 30's, nowhere near our almost 20 trillion debt now. (thats like a thousand times a thousand more and then some.)
Actually it was 16 billion, not 16 million. So you're wrong by a factor of 1,000 there. And if you then factor in the GDP was about 60 billion at the time, then you're looking at debt of around 27% of GDP. GDP figures for the time vary, you'll see the source I gave above put debt to GDP greater than 30%. As 27 to 30% is not 'nothing', your statement that the debt was nothing 1930 was completely and utterly wrong.
my bad i'm wrong there, but thats still 1000 times plus more now.
Asterios wrote: you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.
You continue to not understand. Just because government collects a tax specifically for a purpose doesn't mean that is the only government money that can ever be used for purpose. The obligation to pay SS exists no matter what government takes in, no matter what government has stored up in the past. THere is no mechanism by which government can say "SS is out of money so you'll just have to find something else to live on in retirement".
You are wrong about SS works, and what's more now you're getting rude and defensive about it. Don't do that. It will mean you will walk away from this conversation with as poor an understanding of SS as when you started. And that would be a waste of everyone's time.
and I repeat go read the SSA site, that is what they are saying. the SS is collected thru the SECA tax on paychecks (85%) with some from reimbursement from the general fund that is owed when the government borrowed from it. 3.4% is gained from taxing some of those benefits and 11.1% is from interest gathered from the trusts, which are depleting fast.
Social Security is largely a pay-as-you-go program. Most of the payroll taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay benefits to today's recipients. In 2014, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds collected $884.3 billion in revenues. Of that amount, 85.5% was from payroll tax contributions and reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury and 3.4% was from income taxes on Social Security benefits. Interest earned on the government bonds held by the trust funds provided the remaining 11.1% of income. Assets increased in 2014 because total income exceeded expenditures for benefit payments and administrative expenses.
you know that line that says SECA on your paycheck? thats for SS.
I see you've engaged the time honored "l2p" defense. A bold strategy sir.
Except most of us can read, and being able to read we are able to see that it still doesn't say what you seem to think it says, and posting it over and over while insultingly telling people to "learn" isn't going to fix that problem.
then prove it. its as simple as that, prove it. show me where the government itself funds SS not SECA but the Government.
It's one thing for a political party to point fingers at the opposition party to claim that it's "a manufactured outrage"...
No, see, you've now spend so long not answering my question that you've forgotten the framing I put in place. To repeat all of that, I am not for one second talking about whether this is a real issue. I know your opinion, you know mine, doing that again would be a waste of time.
What I am talking about is whether this will actually impact votes. And the metric I asked is if you know of people who were going to vote for Clinton, or at least leaning that way who think the email thing is a major scandal and who's vote might be affected.
It's splashed across the news sites... such that, it makes you wonder if these journalist are *hoping* that Sanders wins the nomination.
Trump's names *works* because it's 8th grade schoolyard level. That's what sticks....
Of course, but even within that metric there's good and there's bad. Calling some kid that smells 'stinky' isn't much good, because everyone already knows, and it isn't going to change the opinions of people who aren't that bothered by the smell. This is why Crooked Hillary and Lyin' Ted are weak - there are no Clinton supporters who are unaware of the allegations against her, and there were no Cruz supporters who cared that he was a liar, because he was their liar for Jesus. But a good attack draws people's attention to some previously ignored problem - calling Rubio Little Marco was perfect for this - it drew attention to his minor, John Edwards style lack of substance.
Yes, I know plenty of folks like that. One who has voted for Bill Clinton (life-long Democrat), but absolutely refuses to vote for HRC. (he won't vote for Trump either, as he told me he ain't interested anymore). He works for NGA, and if he did what she has done... he'd be in prison now.
So, yes... this "email thing" as you call it, does have legs.
Okay, now we're getting to an answer on the question. Did he like Clinton before the email thing, or at least like her enough to consider voting for her?
Asterios wrote: who is this BLS? I have been "unemployed" for several years now and no one asked me if I was looking for work or not?
Bureau of Labor Statistics. How on earth can you happily giving off opinions on this stuff without even knowing what the BLS is?
And where did you get the idea that a national survey couldn't exist unless they personally asked you a question? They sample 60,000 households from across the whole country. The odds of you personally getting asked is very small.
in fact only time they ask if you are looking for work is when you are on Unemployment Insurance. not after it expires, they don't care then.
Holy gak man you're own link explains it to you.
"While the U-3 rate is the "official" unemployment rate, it measures only those looking for a job as a percentage of the total labor force"
Not people on unemployment, but anyone actively looking for work. The rest of the link goes on to explain underemployment and discouraged workers, which are other factors entirely.
I'm talking places like San Francisco which brought a minimum wage increase to $15 before California did, check the news out sometime.
Please do, you'll find it says exactly what I told you - that San Fran has put the law in place, but the $15 rate won't be reached for a few years yet. You said the $15 minimum was already in place... because you don't actually know what's going on.
actually that goes by the yearly budget every year the government spends more and more money then it took in.
I'm not sure if you're not reading or just not following. As I already said, government does pay more than it takes in almost all years. That is not in dispute, what I am doing is pointing out is the foolishness of your surrounding argument. You claim you're concerned about the deficit. You then say there's no point raising taxes, because government will just spend that money too. So only spending cuts can reduce the deficit. But this means you have to believe there is the government fiscal discipline to reduce spending, but not the discipline to hold spending level in a higher tax environment.
You are arguing government can't control spending, except when they can. It's ridiculous.
A franchise is not a mall kiosk, a franchise is a contract that is entered in by a "buyer" and the parent company and is non-transferable.
No. A food court operation can be a franchise, as were the food court operations I filed taxes for (there was a Bucking Bull and a Wendy's among them).
And while the franchise is usually established as 'non-transferable', this is merely a protection to ensure the franchiser retains some control over the operation, and that it gets a healthy share of the sale of any profitable franchise. In reality it is in everyone's best interest to ensure the franchise continues to operate - especially the franchisor who gets to continue selling produce and collecting franchise fees, and of course doesn't suffer the negative image of a closed down store.
With this is mind any franchisee
It's kind of ironic that someone who's voting for Trump doesn't understand how to negotiate on something like this.
The chart you're linking to is a basic explanation of where SS is currently getting it's money, most of which comes from payroll. The chart doesn't even remotely say that that's the only source of revenue for the program (in fact it says the opposite since only 85% of the program's funds come from payroll tax). I.E. that chart doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
For someone who keeps telling other people to learn to read, you really seem to be going out of your way to not read anything that is being said.
Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.
and those are lawyers
here is another link from a more reputable source:
your source on the other hand does not show where it gets its facts from, my facts can all be traced back to the SSA site, SS will always have money for retirement, but it won't be 100% unless Congress intervenes and that will most likely not happen since if they were, they would have by now.
Asterios wrote: who is this BLS? I have been "unemployed" for several years now and no one asked me if I was looking for work or not?
Bureau of Labor Statistics. How on earth can you happily giving off opinions on this stuff without even knowing what the BLS is?
was being facetious.
sebster wrote: And where did you get the idea that a national survey couldn't exist unless they personally asked you a question? They sample 60,000 households, or about 100,000 people.
so they asked people who still have phones and most likely jobs, most people without jobs cannot afford things like a house or phone.
Holy gak man you're own link explains it to you.
"While the U-3 rate is the "official" unemployment rate, it measures only those looking for a job as a percentage of the total labor force"
Not people on unemployment, but anyone actively looking for work. The rest of the link goes on to explain underemployment and discouraged workers, which are other factors entirely.
I'm talking places like San Francisco which brought a minimum wage increase to $15 before California did, check the news out sometime.
Please do, you'll find it says exactly what I told you - that San Fran has put the law in place, but the $15 rate won't be reached for a few years yet. You said the $15 minimum was already in place... because you don't actually know what's going on.
actually that goes by the yearly budget every year the government spends more and more money then it took in.
I'm not sure if you're not reading or just not following. As I already said, government does pay more than it takes in almost all years. That is not in dispute, what I am doing is pointing out is the foolishness of your surrounding argument. You claim you're concerned about the deficit. You then say there's no point raising taxes, because government will just spend that money too. So only spending cuts can reduce the deficit. But this means you have to believe there is the government fiscal discipline to reduce spending, but not the discipline to hold spending level in a higher tax environment.
You are arguing government can't control spending, except when they can. It's ridiculous.
no i'm saying the Government needs to control spending since raising taxs is not the answer.
also obviously you have never owned a franchise before which is evident by your statement.
A franchise is not a mall kiosk, a franchise is a contract that is entered in by a "buyer" and the parent company and is non-transferable.
No. A food court operation can be a franchise, as were the food court operations I filed taxes for (there was a Bucking Bull and a Wendy's among them).
And while the franchise is usually established as 'non-transferable', this is merely a protection to ensure the franchiser retains some control over the operation, and that it gets a healthy share of the sale of any profitable franchise. In reality it is in everyone's best interest to ensure the franchise continues to operate - especially the franchisor who gets to continue selling produce and collecting franchise fees, and of course doesn't suffer the negative image of a closed down store.
With this is mind any franchisee
It's kind of ironic that someone who's voting for Trump doesn't understand how to negotiate on something like this.
actually around here when a franchise goes under they tear the building down and extend the parking lot. (seen this happen with a couple franchises that closed this year. near me. also Franchisees around here only the majority franchisee owner can build any new franchises or add on to them, asked if they would ever get a new Burger king at thos one store and he told me they can't build any new ones since the company that owns 2 of them has priority over them.
also only voting for Trump because the other candidate is even worse.
Asterios wrote: one why am I debating American SS law with someone
Why are you trying to debate anything on economics, when you don't know the difference between a million and a billion, you don't know what the BLS is, you thought US debt in 1930 was zero, you thought unemployment was high?
back in 2015 even the SSA said that by 2034 they will only be able to cover 79% of expected program costs:
You're really not following. No-one is saying that SS will always cover all payments under the current payment system. What we are telling you is that your understanding of how that will play out is totally wrong. If coffers of SS run completely dry, then future shortfalls will be covered by general Fed expenditure.
my bad i'm wrong there, but thats still 1000 times plus more now.
As a measure of debt to gdp its about 3 times higher now than it was then.
Again I'll ask you to please stop falling for the mistake of using the nominal figure. Inflation is a thing. Population growth is a thing. Productivity increases happen. Comparing nominal debt in 1930 to nominal debt in 2015 is beyond stupid. It's like saying that two guys with $500,000 mortgages are under just as much pressure, when the first guy is a VP at a F500 company, and the second guy is working part time at McDonalds.
and I repeat go read the SSA site, that is what they are saying. the SS is collected thru the SECA tax on paychecks (85%) with some from reimbursement from the general fund that is owed when the government borrowed from it.
Yes, we all know this. What you have to understand is that SS is basically an accounting fiction. It is a part of government that receives the money that government decides, and pays out the money that government tells it to pay out. Pretending it is a distinct thing is an accounting convenience, because the reality is that the Federal govt is wholly responsible for SS.
You're trying to lecture people on economics while pretending inflation doesn't exist, as evident by your continued comparison of nominal debt in the 30's with today's level.
Asterios wrote: one why am I debating American SS law with someone
Why are you trying to debate anything on economics, when you don't know the difference between a million and a billion, you don't know what the BLS is, you thought US debt in 1930 was zero, you thought unemployment was high?
Like I said was making a joke about the BLS and yeah was my bad about the million/billion goof
back in 2015 even the SSA said that by 2034 they will only be able to cover 79% of expected program costs:
You're really not following. No-one is saying that SS will always cover all payments under the current payment system. What we are telling you is that your understanding of how that will play out is totally wrong. If coffers of SS run completely dry, then future shortfalls will be covered by general Fed expenditure.
actually think we may have had a cross in words, I did not mean SS would be totally out of money, just that their trust funds are running out of money which would reduce SS payments drastically. (and yes 21% or more is drastic)
my bad i'm wrong there, but thats still 1000 times plus more now.
As a measure of debt to gdp its about 3 times higher now than it was then.
Again I'll ask you to please stop falling for the mistake of using the nominal figure. Inflation is a thing. Population growth is a thing. Productivity increases happen. Comparing nominal debt in 1930 to nominal debt in 2015 is beyond stupid. It's like saying that two guys with $500,000 mortgages are under just as much pressure, when the first guy is a VP at a F500 company, and the second guy is working part time at McDonalds.
not comparing, and never said there was no debt in 1930, only said it was minimal and yes I'm, aware 16 billion back then is about 22 trillion now a days.
and I repeat go read the SSA site, that is what they are saying. the SS is collected thru the SECA tax on paychecks (85%) with some from reimbursement from the general fund that is owed when the government borrowed from it.
Yes, we all know this. What you have to understand is that SS is basically an accounting fiction. It is a part of government that receives the money that government decides, and pays out the money that government tells it to pay out. Pretending it is a distinct thing is an accounting convenience, because the reality is that the Federal govt is wholly responsible for SS.
and yet on paperwork it is still seperate, taxs are seperately collected for it and used for it.
Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.
Read your link. "and without an infusion of money from another source"
Who do you think that other source would be? Do you think the SS has a team out chasing down leprechauns, hoping that catching one of them and taking their pot of gold will finally restore stability to SS?
Or do you think that maybe they're talking about the Fed taking up responsibility for the shortfall? Which is what we've telling you from the beginning.
was being facetious.
Really? You gave the incorrect method for claiming unemployment, I explained how the BLS did it, you then asked who the BLS was and went on to doubt that because you personally hadn't been asked if you were looking for work.
Why would you be facetious about that one bit of the answer?
so they asked people who still have phones and most likely jobs, most people without jobs cannot afford things like a house or phone.
Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.
no meant that the increase was passed.
Fair enough.
no i'm saying the Government needs to control spending since raising taxs is not the answer.
Yes, and you're arguing that through hopelessly inconsistent reasoning. Because an increase to revenue of about $400b would cover the current deficit. The exact same maths that says a decrease in spending on $500b would resolve the deficit will also tell you that an increase in revenue of $500b will also solve the problem.
The reason you claim government the revenue solution won't work is because government can't control spending... and so you argue that government has to cut spending. One of those things makes the other impossible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You're trying to lecture people on economics while pretending inflation doesn't exist, as evident by your continued comparison of nominal debt in the 30's with today's level.
There is this one brief period when timezones cross and I'm not posting on stuff people said 12 hours ago
Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.
You should have read all the way to the bottom; "In the United States, prefunding is being considered, and so are other solutions like infusions from general revenue and increases to payroll tax." SS is mandatory spending. The article from Time is actually the most insane, concluding that the fund only having enough money to pay 79% of benefits means that 21% of benefits will go unpaid, ignoring that the government has to fund the benefits regardless of whether the fund has enough money in it or not. The government already uses discretionary spending to cover some of the costs of Social Security;
Like it did in 2012 (and every year since). The very chart you linked to actually says the exact same thing. Note that 3.4% of the funds are marked "taxation and benefits." You, and the articles you link too, all confuse talk about the Social Security Fund (proper noun) running out of money with Social Security running out money. Social Security can't run out of money, because the government has to fund it. There is no question that SS will be funded. The question is how it will be funded, and how much discretionary spending has to be spent to fill in shortfalls (and whether or not eligibility and benefits will be altered to reduce spending).
Economically speaking, this shortfall is not sustainable for the long term, and without an infusion of money from another source, the Social Security benefit retirement system will face problems within the next 20 or so years. Current predictions indicate that the Social Security trust fund will run out in 2035 if nothing is done. After this point, retirees can generally expect about 75 cents on every dollar of their scheduled benefits. Thats because once the trust fund is depleted, there will be no surplus left. From that point on, the amount thats paid out in the form of benefits can only match what's coming into the Social Security system through employment taxes.
Read your link. "and without an infusion of money from another source"
Who do you think that other source would be? Do you think the SS has a team out chasing down leprechauns, hoping that catching one of them and taking their pot of gold will finally restore stability to SS?
Or do you think that maybe they're talking about the Fed taking up responsibility for the shortfall? Which is what we've telling you from the beginning.
not going to happen already Congress will not approve even DI dipping into SS which it has been doing so in a couple years(2018) DI will get reduced.
Really? You gave the incorrect method for claiming unemployment, I explained how the BLS did it, you then asked who the BLS was and went on to doubt that because you personally hadn't been asked if you were looking for work.
Why would you be facetious about that one bit of the answer?
was being facetious about asking who is this BLS you speak of, like I said in my entire life I have never heard from them.
no i'm saying the Government needs to control spending since raising taxs is not the answer.
Yes, and you're arguing that through hopelessly inconsistent reasoning. Because an increase to revenue of about $400b would cover the current deficit. The exact same maths that says a decrease in spending on $500b would resolve the deficit will also tell you that an increase in revenue of $500b will also solve the problem.
The reason you claim government the revenue solution won't work is because government can't control spending... and so you argue that government has to cut spending. One of those things makes the other impossible.
its simple math, you spend less then you bring in, that means a surplus to pay down the debt. but like I said it does not matter how much the government takes in they will always spend more then that.
Asterios wrote: actually think we may have had a cross in words, I did not mean SS would be totally out of money, just that their trust funds are running out of money which would reduce SS payments drastically. (and yes 21% or more is drastic)
What SS pays out is mandatory, set by government. In order to cut back by 21% congress would have to pass a bill changing the current formula for calculation. It is fairly close to 0% likely they will do this, because old people vote in big numbers.
WHat is more likely is that congress will change the SS rate (possibly just remove the cap on payments). Or they will just accept it is what it is, and the shortfall will be made up by paying out of general revenue.
And that, again, is the real problem. What had been a net money earner to the Fed is now a money drain. It had offset the deficit in other areas, now it's adding to it, making the budget position worse.
not comparing, and never said there was no debt in 1930, only said it was minimal and yes I'm, aware 16 billion back then is about 22 trillion now a days.
You've even got this year's figure wrong! It's 19 trillion now.
and yet on paperwork it is still seperate, taxs are seperately collected for it and used for it.
Yep, that's what an accounting fiction is. When there's a bunch of paperwork making out that two things are seperate, but they are basically one and the same thing.
Asterios wrote: actually think we may have had a cross in words, I did not mean SS would be totally out of money, just that their trust funds are running out of money which would reduce SS payments drastically. (and yes 21% or more is drastic)
What SS pays out is mandatory, set by government. In order to cut back by 21% congress would have to pass a bill changing the current formula for calculation. It is fairly close to 0% likely they will do this, because old people vote in big numbers.
WHat is more likely is that congress will change the SS rate (possibly just remove the cap on payments). Or they will just accept it is what it is, and the shortfall will be made up by paying out of general revenue.
And that, again, is the real problem. What had been a net money earner to the Fed is now a money drain. It had offset the deficit in other areas, now it's adding to it, making the budget position worse.
not comparing, and never said there was no debt in 1930, only said it was minimal and yes I'm, aware 16 billion back then is about 22 trillion now a days.
You've even got this year's figure wrong! It's 19 trillion now.
earlier said they were nearing 20 trillion and meant that, give it a year or two and it will be there.
also like I said Congress has already said they will not allow DI to dip into SS so that means disability SS recipients will get a reduction.
Asterios wrote: earlier said they were nearing 20 trillion and meant that, give it a year or two and it will be there.
Sure, it will get there. The five year estimate would certainly go past 20 trillion, and almost certainly put it well above 22 trillion. But it is still 19 trillion right now. That is the number that it is right now.
Thing is, one day it will hit 100 trillion. That's just how it works. The point is that by the time it gets there, hopefully GDP will have grown to be a lot more than 100 trillion. It isn't about the number, it's about how manageable that number is given the GDP at that point in time.
also like I said Congress has already said they will not allow DI to dip into SS so that means disability SS recipients will get a reduction.
Sure, but that's something else entirely. Congress telling one group that they can't use SS funds to offset their shortfall doesn't say that SS isn't part and parcel of government. That the question was even asked is evidence that SS is part of government.
And the disabled getting a bad deal is probably as reliable a rule as the retired never, ever getting a bad deal. All about voting power. Mind you the number of disabled in the US is growing...
sebster wrote: Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.
and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.
sebster wrote: Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.
and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.
Well that just blows that whole "Landing on the Moon" thing right up.
Asterios wrote: earlier said they were nearing 20 trillion and meant that, give it a year or two and it will be there.
Sure, it will get there. The five year estimate would certainly go past 20 trillion, and almost certainly put it well above 22 trillion. But it is still 19 trillion right now. That is the number that it is right now.
Thing is, one day it will hit 100 trillion. That's just how it works. The point is that by the time it gets there, hopefully GDP will have grown to be a lot more than 100 trillion. It isn't about the number, it's about how manageable that number is given the GDP at that point in time.
also like I said Congress has already said they will not allow DI to dip into SS so that means disability SS recipients will get a reduction.
Sure, but that's something else entirely. Congress telling one group that they can't use SS funds to offset their shortfall doesn't say that SS isn't part and parcel of government. That the question was even asked is evidence that SS is part of government.
And the disabled getting a bad deal is probably as reliable a rule as the retired never, ever getting a bad deal. All about voting power. Mind you the number of disabled in the US is growing...
actually DI is part of SS its handled separately, but still part of it and about to get screwed since they lost access to that money, just like the Retired people on Medicare got a screw over with the ACA it cut into their medical coverage big time, furthermore I know for a fact SS benefits do get reduced wholesale, especially in California a friend of my Wife has had her SSI (the state portion) reduced pretty much every year by a percentage.
sebster wrote: Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.
and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.
and where is the evidence these surveys take place?
really where is this utopia where you live? I see a bunch of 20 somethings with no homes and no means around here(Stockton,Ca.)?
The United States? I'm sure there are a bunch of homeless 20 somethings, but I'm also willing to bet they are massively outnumbered by the 20 somethings with a support network.
really where is this utopia where you live? I see a bunch of 20 somethings with no homes and no means around here(Stockton,Ca.)?
The United States? I'm sure there are a bunch of homeless 20 somethings, but I'm also willing to bet they are massively outnumbered by the 20 somethings with a support network.
and yet there are still many without that so called support network which was my point, can't call or contact someone who has no home or phone.
and yet there are still many without that so called support network which was my point, can't call or contact someone who has no home or phone.
"So called support network"? Really? I'm not talking about much, here. I'm talking about having parents, or other relatives, that aren't complete donkey-caves. Hell, even just a friend that will let you couch surf for a bit and spot you 30 bucks for a prepaid phone.
If you don't have those connections, then life is gonna suck, because being homeless sucks in general. But that is a problem which has to be tackled from multiple angles, with job creation being way down the line in terms of priority.
and yet there are still many without that so called support network which was my point, can't call or contact someone who has no home or phone.
"So called support network"? Really? I'm not talking about much, here. I'm talking about having parents, or other relatives, that aren't complete donkey-caves. Hell, even just a friend that will let you couch surf for a bit and spot you 30 bucks for a prepaid phone.
If you don't have those connections, then life is gonna suck, because being homeless sucks in general. But that is a problem which has to be tackled from multiple angles, with job creation being way down the line in terms of priority.
you would be surprised, homelessness is running rampant with people in Sacramento fighting for right to camp in open, Stockton talking about building a temporary shelter and so on, hell in my town we have a large plot of land where people are camped out in. and many of the younger homeless are not from the area but moved out here looking for work or whatnot not realizing it is just as bad here.
you would be surprised, homelessness is running rampant with people in Sacramento fighting for right to camp in open, Stockton talking about building a temporary shelter and so on, hell in my town we have a large plot of land where people are camped out in.
Homelessness is not "running rampant" in Sacramento. You're talking about ~3000 people in a county of ~1.5 million.
you would be surprised, homelessness is running rampant with people in Sacramento fighting for right to camp in open, Stockton talking about building a temporary shelter and so on, hell in my town we have a large plot of land where people are camped out in.
Homelessness is not "running rampant" in Sacramento. You're talking about ~3000 people in a county of ~1.5 million.
and many of the younger homeless are not from the area but moved out here looking for work or whatnot not realizing it is just as bad here.
So they abandoned their support networks. Out of curiosity, how many of them wanted to work in entertainment?
maybe not rampant but growing. right now homelessness across the country is below 1%, but still we should be doing something about our own problems instead of worrying about other countries, our government is willing to help people from other countries before helping ours.
but still we should be doing something about our own problems instead of worrying about other countries, our government is willing to help people from other countries before helping ours.
Yeah, that's not even remotely true. The amount of money put into social security and medicaid absolutely dwarfs the amount of money put into foreign aid.
It's more than not even remotely true. It's so wildly incorrect, it borders on comedy;
Spoiler:
Medicare and SS make up more than half of Federal Spending. Foreign Aid is such a small expenditure relatively that it doesn't even get a spot on the pie chart! It just gets lumped in with "Remainder."
Lets also note that Stockton, CA is not a terribly great place to measure the rest of the nation or typical standards for most people by, a place with historically high crime, high unemployment, lower than average levels of higher education, and a median family income that is ~25% lower than the national average and more than 40% lower than the CA statewide average.
That said, there's also some truth in the fact that many people don't have support networks to give them minimal aid like phones and whatnot, though the lack of even a phone is becoming increasingly rare.
LordofHats wrote: Medicare and SS make up more than half of Federal Spending. Foreign Aid is such a small expenditure relatively that it doesn't even get a spot on the pie chart! It just gets lumped in with "Remainder."
Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"
LordofHats wrote: Medicare and SS make up more than half of Federal Spending. Foreign Aid is such a small expenditure relatively that it doesn't even get a spot on the pie chart! It just gets lumped in with "Remainder."
Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"
Int'l Affairs covers the HRC/Merkel femfic I'm working on. It's a pretty big budget sensation.
I would assume international affairds is the cost of our embassies and such, but yeah I guess they could be in there. Even then, it's still a miniscule % of the budget lumped in with a bunch of other costs. Doesn't even come close to what we spend on SS, or Medicare and is less than what we spend on education and veterans.
sebster wrote: Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.
and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.
and where is the evidence these surveys take place?
Just to summarize, when confronted with numbers on what unemployment actually is, you claim there is no evidence of what the rate actually is, that there is no evidence that any actual sampling or surveys take place since no one you know has been surveyed, and as a result, you are free to just make up a number that feels right to you via your anecdotal evidence.
sebster wrote: Nope, the sample is selected, and if people don't have a phone then a live interview is arranged.
and I repeat nobody I know has ever been asked and thats a lot of people.
I don't believe I've ever seen anyone use this metric to gauge the veracity of a given statistic before. By this method, I can claim that there is no such thing as outer space, because I don't personally know anyone who is an astronaut.
and where is the evidence these surveys take place?
Just to summarize, when confronted with numbers on what unemployment actually is, you claim there is no evidence of what the rate actually is, that there is no evidence that any actual sampling or surveys take place since no one you know has been surveyed, and as a result, you are free to just make up a number that feels right to you via your anecdotal evidence.
\_(ツ)_/¯ Shine on, you crazy diamond.
It's like watching a wacky waving inflatable arm tube man, powered by anger and frustration. If only that passion could be channeled to something productive!
LordofHats wrote: I would assume international affairds is the cost of our embassies and such, but yeah I guess they could be in there. Even then, it's still a miniscule % of the budget lumped in with a bunch of other costs. Doesn't even come close to what we spend on SS, or Medicare and is less than what we spend on education and veterans.
Agreed, although some aspects of those costs would be under defense spending (since, unless things have suddenly changed, it is the Marines who typically guard embassies). And I guess my point was that IF aid is lumped into the category of "international affairs," then the aid budget is ridiculously small, since I know that much of that budget would be spent on securing, maintaining or establishing embassies and their facilities around the globe.
Asterios wrote: really where is this utopia where you live? I see a bunch of 20 somethings with no homes and no means around here(Stockton,Ca.)?
As someone currently living in Oakland, it baffles me that you'd attempt to use any areas in the Sacramento-Bay Area as a standard for how the US works in general.
You're aware that the SF Bay Area out to Sacramento has one of the highest wealth inequality distributions in the country?
I'm looking forward to seeing how all the homeless people in the neighborhood who cannot be reached by any means because they have no support network of any kind will be able to pack up and travel throughout the country to apply for these jobs we will create by building a wall in New Mexico.
Vaktathi wrote: The US has economic problems and is experiencing major social changes, but we're still wayyy ahead of most of the rest of the planet and almost all of US history. The economic issues the US faces are not unique either. We're not on the brink of an implosion anymore than we were in 2008, 2001, the early 90's, the 80's S&L collapze, 70's stagflation, 30's depression, etc.
I disagree our "Actual" unemployment rate is exceedingly high and expected to get higher, this country is running out of jobs and the unskilled demanding higher wages is forceing companies to look at other avenues, already Carl's Jr, Wendy's and Mcdonalds and so forth plan on placing robotic/computerized units in their establishments and thereby removing jobs from the market, already a Chinese business has replaced 50K jobs with Robotics, we are not far behind doing that, yes this country is ready to implode.
Here's the thing though. The Second a Touchscreen can do it cheaper, regardless of what the Minimium Wage is, a Human will be replaced. We've seen it happen with Self Check out lines already with the Minimum wage as low as it is.
Most American jobs are to help other Americans. John the DirecTV guy doesn't want to cook, so he takes his family to Burger King where Steve the Cashier takes his money and gives his order to Susie the Cook, who makes the Food. Steve and Susie take the money from their tax Returns and place an order with Home Depot for New Flooring, Home Depot sends the order to Joe the Tile Installer, who lays new Tile Planks in their Studio apartment because they're sick of cleaning carpets. Joe the Tile guy takes the Money given from Susie and Steve and uses it to purchase a DirecTV Subscription from DJ in Sam's Club, Who with the Help of Josh in a Call Center many miles away, builds the order and assigns the Install to John who goes out to install the service.
And many many more transactions like that happen every day and it's just about the only reason anyone has a job. Somewhere along the line however Steve and Susie's lives became Irrelevant regardless of the fact that they both have Master's Degrees in The Medical field and are just not lucking out getting a job in that field because at the end of the day, SOMEONE has to flip burgers, stock shelves, those other "unskilled" jobs.
When I worked in Fast food, about 5 years ago I spoke with someone from the Corporate Office during one of those stupid "pep rally state of the company things that every store has to send an employee from" things who told me that, despite the fact that he has never made a single sub for this company or even knew how to use the register, he made 900% more than I did every payday.
Instead of looking at the Major Corporations replacing those Minimum wage jobs with machines to keep costs down, despite the executives bringing home significantly more as much as their average worker, as inevitable and the worker being the downfall of the system, why not look at those same executives to take a small hit in their pockets to allow their workers to eat more than ramen noodles every day?
It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.
Just to summarize, when confronted with numbers on what unemployment actually is, you claim there is no evidence of what the rate actually is, that there is no evidence that any actual sampling or surveys take place since no one you know has been surveyed, and as a result, you are free to just make up a number that feels right to you via your anecdotal evidence.
\_(ツ)_/¯ Shine on, you crazy diamond.
and my question is still sidestepped, all i'm asking is where does it say that BLS does phone surveys asking people who are not collecting Unemployment if they are looking for work? its a simple question and if true should be easy to prove.
Relapse wrote: It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.
never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.
Vaktathi wrote: The US has economic problems and is experiencing major social changes, but we're still wayyy ahead of most of the rest of the planet and almost all of US history. The economic issues the US faces are not unique either. We're not on the brink of an implosion anymore than we were in 2008, 2001, the early 90's, the 80's S&L collapze, 70's stagflation, 30's depression, etc.
I disagree our "Actual" unemployment rate is exceedingly high and expected to get higher, this country is running out of jobs and the unskilled demanding higher wages is forceing companies to look at other avenues, already Carl's Jr, Wendy's and Mcdonalds and so forth plan on placing robotic/computerized units in their establishments and thereby removing jobs from the market, already a Chinese business has replaced 50K jobs with Robotics, we are not far behind doing that, yes this country is ready to implode.
Here's the thing though. The Second a Touchscreen can do it cheaper, regardless of what the Minimium Wage is, a Human will be replaced. We've seen it happen with Self Check out lines already with the Minimum wage as low as it is.
Most American jobs are to help other Americans. John the DirecTV guy doesn't want to cook, so he takes his family to Burger King where Steve the Cashier takes his money and gives his order to Susie the Cook, who makes the Food. Steve and Susie take the money from their tax Returns and place an order with Home Depot for New Flooring, Home Depot sends the order to Joe the Tile Installer, who lays new Tile Planks in their Studio apartment because they're sick of cleaning carpets. Joe the Tile guy takes the Money given from Susie and Steve and uses it to purchase a DirecTV Subscription from DJ in Sam's Club, Who with the Help of Josh in a Call Center many miles away, builds the order and assigns the Install to John who goes out to install the service.
And many many more transactions like that happen every day and it's just about the only reason anyone has a job. Somewhere along the line however Steve and Susie's lives became Irrelevant regardless of the fact that they both have Master's Degrees in The Medical field and are just not lucking out getting a job in that field because at the end of the day, SOMEONE has to flip burgers, stock shelves, those other "unskilled" jobs.
When I worked in Fast food, about 5 years ago I spoke with someone from the Corporate Office during one of those stupid "pep rally state of the company things that every store has to send an employee from" things who told me that, despite the fact that he has never made a single sub for this company or even knew how to use the register, he made 900% more than I did every payday.
Instead of looking at the Major Corporations replacing those Minimum wage jobs with machines to keep costs down, despite the executives bringing home significantly more as much as their average worker, as inevitable and the worker being the downfall of the system, why not look at those same executives to take a small hit in their pockets to allow their workers to eat more than ramen noodles every day?
because those CEO's jobs entail much more then pushing buttons on a screen or making a sandwich, i have never worked a Subway, but can run the register and make sandwiches, its not rocket science nor does it require a degree, unlike being a CEO does.
and then there is the CEO's of average corporations which make up maybe 1% of the entire companies workforce if even that much. in larger corporations maybe .0001%, executives maybe .01%
I worked in fast food. Had a solid 2 week orientation period and received additional orientation when I was moved from kitchen to register, and then additional orientation when I was promoted to trainer, and additional orientation when I becae the maintenance person. I was hired after verifying my references and experience (which consisted of one previous job at the time). The majority of the people I worked with have been there for at least a year.
Maybe "that's not my personal experience" isn't a very good model to use as a base for your entire understanding of economics across the US.
d-usa wrote: I worked in fast food. Had a solid 2 week orientation period and received additional orientation when I was moved from kitchen to register, and then additional orientation when I was promoted to trainer, and additional orientation when I becae the maintenance person. I was hired after verifying my references and experience (which consisted of one previous job at the time). The majority of the people I worked with have been there for at least a year.
Maybe "that's not my personal experience" isn't a very good model to use as a base for your entire understanding of economics across the US.
that does not sound like a fast food establishment like McDonald's and such (maintenance person? Trainer?) I think we have 2 different ideas of what is fast food.
also all fast food jobs I've seen they show you how to do everything in the first hour of starting. if it took you 2 weeks to learn that, welll.
d-usa wrote: I worked in fast food. Had a solid 2 week orientation period and received additional orientation when I was moved from kitchen to register, and then additional orientation when I was promoted to trainer, and additional orientation when I becae the maintenance person. I was hired after verifying my references and experience (which consisted of one previous job at the time). The majority of the people I worked with have been there for at least a year.
Maybe "that's not my personal experience" isn't a very good model to use as a base for your entire understanding of economics across the US.
that does not sound like a fast food establishment like McDonald's and such (maintenance person? Trainer?) I think we have 2 different ideas of what is fast food.
Do you honestly think that McDonald's does zero training and no maintenance?
d-usa wrote: I worked in fast food. Had a solid 2 week orientation period and received additional orientation when I was moved from kitchen to register, and then additional orientation when I was promoted to trainer, and additional orientation when I becae the maintenance person. I was hired after verifying my references and experience (which consisted of one previous job at the time). The majority of the people I worked with have been there for at least a year.
Maybe "that's not my personal experience" isn't a very good model to use as a base for your entire understanding of economics across the US.
that does not sound like a fast food establishment like McDonald's and such (maintenance person? Trainer?) I think we have 2 different ideas of what is fast food.
Do you honestly think that McDonald's does zero training and no maintenance?
Depends on the McDonald's. I'd hate to eat at whichever one Asterios is thinking about.
d-usa wrote: I worked in fast food. Had a solid 2 week orientation period and received additional orientation when I was moved from kitchen to register, and then additional orientation when I was promoted to trainer, and additional orientation when I becae the maintenance person. I was hired after verifying my references and experience (which consisted of one previous job at the time). The majority of the people I worked with have been there for at least a year.
Maybe "that's not my personal experience" isn't a very good model to use as a base for your entire understanding of economics across the US.
that does not sound like a fast food establishment like McDonald's and such (maintenance person? Trainer?) I think we have 2 different ideas of what is fast food.
Do you honestly think that McDonald's does zero training and no maintenance?
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period, and any maintenance required is brought in from outside of the place, in fact they tell you specifically if anything breaks tell the manager and the manager calls the repair guy once getting approval from the owner, I've been an assistant manager and manger at a couple fast food places, but when I worked there we usually had 3 people working the night shift, one front and drive thru and expediting orders, one on the fryer and one on the grill.
Tell me then, which school did Steve Jobs and Bill Gates graduate from? How about Matt Mullenweg, Arash Ferdowsi, Mark Zuckerberg, David Karp, or Daniel Ek... where did they graduate from? Guess David Neeleman, founder of Jet Blue... didn't really do that, since he also didn't graduate from college.
I mean, I could keep going, but I'll just put up a link, and let you educate yourself, if you so choose:
d-usa wrote: I worked in fast food. Had a solid 2 week orientation period and received additional orientation when I was moved from kitchen to register, and then additional orientation when I was promoted to trainer, and additional orientation when I becae the maintenance person. I was hired after verifying my references and experience (which consisted of one previous job at the time). The majority of the people I worked with have been there for at least a year.
Maybe "that's not my personal experience" isn't a very good model to use as a base for your entire understanding of economics across the US.
that does not sound like a fast food establishment like McDonald's and such (maintenance person? Trainer?) I think we have 2 different ideas of what is fast food.
Do you honestly think that McDonald's does zero training and no maintenance?
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period, and any maintenance required is brought in from outside of the place, in fact they tell you specifically if anything breaks tell the manager and the manager calls the repair guy once getting approval from the owner, I've been an assistant manager and manger at a couple fast food places, but when I worked there we usually had 3 people working the night shift, one front and drive thru and expediting orders, one on the fryer and one on the grill.
Weird, my old McDonald's in Elk City, Oklahoma has online job postings for maintenance workers. And I have no idea why they paid me an extra buck an hour when I was promoted to a trainer just in case I happened to have someone to train for 30 minutes on any random day. I would hate to see the McDonald's that is busy enough to train someone how to open a store, close a store, prep, cook the breakfast and lunch menu, switch over from breakfast to lunch, inventory, rotate stock, unload the truck, break down equipment, clean it, reassemble it, and do all that consistently in only 30 minutes.
Maybe I'm just the Forrest Gump of McJobs, or maybe my experience is just completely out of the ordinary and I happened to work at the one McDonald's that cares (even though that has been my experience at all my fast food jobs through college), or maybe you just need to stop thinking you have a lot of factual knowledge based on your personal experience and realize that there is more to the world than "the government never called me, so unemployment statistics are useless".
Tell me then, which school did Steve Jobs and Bill Gates graduate from? How about Matt Mullenweg, Arash Ferdowsi, Mark Zuckerberg, David Karp, or Daniel Ek... where did they graduate from? Guess David Neeleman, founder of Jet Blue... didn't really do that, since he also didn't graduate from college.
I mean, I could keep going, but I'll just put up a link, and let you educate yourself, if you so choose:
how many of those are CEO's of their company's? and not just an honorary title, furthermore they are ones who created their companies, you think a company is going to hire someone to be their CEO without schooling?
d-usa wrote: I worked in fast food. Had a solid 2 week orientation period and received additional orientation when I was moved from kitchen to register, and then additional orientation when I was promoted to trainer, and additional orientation when I becae the maintenance person. I was hired after verifying my references and experience (which consisted of one previous job at the time). The majority of the people I worked with have been there for at least a year.
Maybe "that's not my personal experience" isn't a very good model to use as a base for your entire understanding of economics across the US.
that does not sound like a fast food establishment like McDonald's and such (maintenance person? Trainer?) I think we have 2 different ideas of what is fast food.
Do you honestly think that McDonald's does zero training and no maintenance?
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period, and any maintenance required is brought in from outside of the place, in fact they tell you specifically if anything breaks tell the manager and the manager calls the repair guy once getting approval from the owner, I've been an assistant manager and manger at a couple fast food places, but when I worked there we usually had 3 people working the night shift, one front and drive thru and expediting orders, one on the fryer and one on the grill.
Weird, my old McDonald's in Elk City, Oklahoma has online job postings for maintenance workers. And I have no idea why they paid me an extra buck an hour when I was promoted to a trainer just in case I happened to have someone to train for 30 minutes on any random day. I would hate to see the McDonald's that is busy enough to train someone how to open a store, close a store, prep, cook the breakfast and lunch menu, switch over from breakfast to lunch, inventory, rotate stock, unload the truck, break down equipment, clean it, reassemble it, and do all that consistently in only 30 minutes.
Maybe I'm just the Forrest Gump of McJobs, or maybe my experience is just completely out of the ordinary and I happened to work at the one McDonald's that cares (even though that has been my experience at all my fast food jobs through college), or maybe you just need to stop thinking you have a lot of factual knowledge based on your personal experience and realize that there is more to the world than "the government never called me, so unemployment statistics are useless".
sounds like you had an assistant managers job, or managers job, thats the same stuff I did, but we are not talking about assistant managers or managers we are talking a basic employee, also open a store? close a store? you mean your fast food joints open and close? out of curiousity how many employees work at any given time at your store?
Sorry, I didn't realize I actually worked for you and that I didn't really know what my actual job was, where I worked, and what our actual policies and positions were.
sounds like you had an assistant managers job, or managers job, thats the same stuff I did, but we are not talking about assistant managers or managers we are talking a basic employee, also open a store? close a store? you mean your fast food joints open and close?
I work nights, usually getting off my shift at two in the morning. There's a Taco Bell between my work and my house, and I'd be in serious trouble if it didn't close at midnight.
Ironically, the only local fast food place open past that is a McDonald's.
sounds like you had an assistant managers job, or managers job, thats the same stuff I did, but we are not talking about assistant managers or managers we are talking a basic employee, also open a store? close a store? you mean your fast food joints open and close?
I work nights, usually getting off my shift at two in the morning. There's a Taco Bell between my work and my house, and I'd be in serious trouble if it didn't close at midnight.
Ironically, the only local fast food place open past that is a McDonald's.
around here, if you get the munchies at 2 am or even 3 am you can go by a McDonald's and get a big mac or a breakfast sandwich, or you can make a run for the Border at Taco Bell or a lot of other places
as it goes when I worked fast food we had 3 people on at night and not much more in the morning, when I go into a fast food place now a days they have like 12 or more employees working at a time, and thats even at their not busy times, surprised they can even fit that many employees in there, d-usa sounds like the places he worked for had very few employees if any since he seemed to be doing everything. around here, you have one position and that is it, one job to do.
just checked with my wife my local McDonald's has 20 people working there at any given time, cashiers only work as cashiers, cooks only work as cooks and they have cleaning staff and maintenance is called in. all training is done in first day from watching videos, filling out paper work, being trained on the register or whatever position you are placed on.
d-usa your McDonalds may have much fewer employees, but then again when I worked at a BurgerKing back int he 80's we only had 3 employees at night and if something broke it was shut down for the night till a person could be called in, so not sure why your fast food place is ran different then just about any fast food place I have seen or gone too around here.
My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.
Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.
Asterios wrote: and where is the evidence these surveys take place?
Just for everyone to get a full scope of what's happened here, one day ago Asterios thought the unemployment rate was just calculated based on the number of people collecting unemployment. He has since learned that it's based on survey figures collected by the BLS.
Instead of just accepting this however, he has instead decided to create a new fantasy in which the BLS isn't actually running these surveys in co-ordination with Census Bureau. He's actually creating this vast conspiracy in which the thousands of people directly employed in collecting this survey information just... don't exist, or possibly they do exist but are instructed to just make up survey answers each month or something.
Exactly why he's created a conspiracy bigger and more elaborate than anything the JFK or 911 Truthers could ever have imagined is a pretty good question. Is it just because he wants to believe that unemployment is a bigger number than the figures say? Or is it as simple as Asterios really, really not wanting to admit he made a claim that was wrong - better to invent the largest conspiracy in the history of man, than admit that he didn't know an economic stat.
Who knows? But it's probably worth taking a second to stop and realise how ridiculous Asterious has gotten on this one minor point, to maybe keep in mind how much or how little value there is in pushing him on any other issue.
My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training.
Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse.
not made up, this is from the manager of the store themself, all training, paperwork, video watching and so forth is done the first day, if it takes longer then that, well what can I say.
Asterios wrote: and where is the evidence these surveys take place?
Just for everyone to get a full scope of what's happened here, one day ago Asterios thought the unemployment rate was just calculated based on the number of people collecting unemployment. He has since learned that it's based on survey figures collected by the BLS.
Instead of just accepting this however, he has instead decided to create a new fantasy in which the BLS isn't actually running these surveys in co-ordination with Census Bureau. He's actually creating this vast conspiracy in which the thousands of people directly employed in collecting this survey information just... don't exist, or possibly they do exist but are instructed to just make up survey answers each month or something.
Exactly why he's created a conspiracy bigger and more elaborate than anything the JFK or 911 Truthers could ever have imagined is a pretty good question. Is it just because he wants to believe that unemployment is a bigger number than the figures say? Or is it as simple as Asterios really, really not wanting to admit he made a claim that was wrong - better to invent the largest conspiracy in the history of man, than admit that he didn't know an economic stat.
Who knows? But it's probably worth taking a second to stop and realise how ridiculous Asterious has gotten on this one minor point, to maybe keep in mind how much or how little value there is in pushing him on any other issue.
and once again you misquote me, I said you are going by one number when its not the factual number, and this so called survey you claim and have yet to prove(just checked their site, they do a survey, but not for who is working or seeking work, but for who bought what and where (its called TPOPS) every other source says that the unemployment rate announced by the government is taken from U3 line, when the most up to date information is on the U6 line for unemployment.
@Asterios, here is a link to BLS where it answers pretty much all of your questions, including sample selection methodology and the exact questions asked. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#questions
In particular, they ask "Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:
What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:
Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed."
It was literally the first hit on a Google search for "how is the unemployment rate calculated."
Asterios wrote: and where is the evidence these surveys take place?
Just for everyone to get a full scope of what's happened here, one day ago Asterios thought the unemployment rate was just calculated based on the number of people collecting unemployment.
Well, a couple of pages ago, he was saying that businesses were going down at a record rate because of the high minimum wage. Now on this page, it's
Asterios wrote: as it goes when I worked fast food we had 3 people on at night and not much more in the morning, when I go into a fast food place now a days they have like 12 or more employees working at a time, and thats even at their not busy times, surprised they can even fit that many employees in there.
I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: not made up, this is from the manager of the store themself, all training, paperwork, video watching and so forth is done the first day, if it takes longer then that, well what can I say.
I'm telling you that I know people who have worked there, and they don't do all their training in the first 30 minutes. No, I'm not going to let you slowly move the goalposts to "the first day". The people I know who have worked at McDonalds train to do various things at various times over the course of a few days. Of course, by continuing this argument with you, I'm the donkey-cave.
In particular, they ask "Have you been doing anything to find work during the last 4 weeks?
For those who say "yes," the next question is:
What are all of the things you have done to find work during the last 4 weeks?
If an active method of looking for work, such as those listed at the beginning of this section, is mentioned, the following question is asked:
Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
If there is no reason, except temporary illness, that the person could not take a job, he or she is considered to be not only looking but also available for work and is counted as unemployed."
It was literally the first hit on a Google search for "how is the unemployment rate calculated."
you missed this part here:
Who is counted as unemployed?
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work. Actively looking for work may consist of any of the following activities:
so by your own link you posted you validated everything I have said, since many unemployed are not looking for work cause there is none to be found. my point has been and always is that what the BLS says are unemployed are not the actual numbers of unemployed, and that is because they put descriptions where they say what is unemployed, furthermore as stated in the "survey" portion (thank you for pointing that out, since it is what I have been asking for) they phone 60,000 households out of how many in the US? and those numbers can be used up to 4 consecutive months, furthermore the survey is not mandatory, and unlike some evidently someone calls here for a survey i tell them not interested and hang up, i'm sure there are a few more who do that too.
Asterios wrote: and where is the evidence these surveys take place?
Just for everyone to get a full scope of what's happened here, one day ago Asterios thought the unemployment rate was just calculated based on the number of people collecting unemployment.
Well, a couple of pages ago, he was saying that businesses were going down at a record rate because of the high minimum wage. Now on this page, it's
Asterios wrote: as it goes when I worked fast food we had 3 people on at night and not much more in the morning, when I go into a fast food place now a days they have like 12 or more employees working at a time, and thats even at their not busy times, surprised they can even fit that many employees in there.
I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: not made up, this is from the manager of the store themself, all training, paperwork, video watching and so forth is done the first day, if it takes longer then that, well what can I say.
I'm telling you that I know people who have worked there, and they don't do all their training in the first 30 minutes. No, I'm not going to let you slowly move the goalposts to "the first day". The people I know who have worked at McDonalds train to do various things at various times over the course of a few days. Of course, by continuing this argument with you, I'm the donkey-cave.
no, training is still 30 minutes, training on what you are working on and will be assigned too, you watch video's for a couple hours, and fill out paperwork, this is from the Manager at McDonald's and I will believe them over you or your friend or whatever.
Relapse wrote: It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.
never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.
I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.
Relapse wrote: It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.
never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.
I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.
fast food places seem to be dropping like flies around here lately, well a couple of them in past couple of months and that is just in my part of town, the Burger King I worked for the owner hardly ever showed up if at all, he hired the managers to handle the job and he collected his money and signed paperwork and that was it. it was a good store, but ugh it got busy on weekend nights (we were at a popular cruise turn around) and think I hustled more in that job then any other job and this was back in the late 80's where work was available, if you were breathing, you were hired, and sometimes you didn't need to be breathing to be hired.
Anyways, I am currently unemployed. Any time I want to collect my benefits for unemployment, I have to fill out a survey. It asks me if I was able to work in the last two weeks, if I sought work and various other questions.
Also, I live in the state(IL) with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. There are tons of factories doing hiring events in the area all the time. Looking to pick up a factory job in the next two weeks in a nearby town. So, not sure what Asterios is talking about really.....
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"
I'm not sure where it sits on that chart, but the US spends about $35 billion a year on foreign aid, whereas welfare spending is $1,066 billion (more than half is medicaid).
So the claim that the government looks after foreign countries before it looks after it's own people is wrong many times over.
My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.
Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.
The safety training alone would easily eat up more than half an hour, I would think. This is just me, thinking though, as I imagine people working around fries and grills as well as handling hot food. Surely they must have hygiene and food handling training in these MacDonald's that would eat up a fair chunk of time as well as how to deal with the public, company policies, etc. etc. If I am correct in my imaginings, my hat is off to anyone who can effectively teach all of that in half an hour, because they are a god among trainers.
Relapse wrote: It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.
never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.
I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.
fast food places seem to be dropping like flies around here lately, well a couple of them in past couple of months and that is just in my part of town, the Burger King I worked for the owner hardly ever showed up if at all, he hired the managers to handle the job and he collected his money and signed paperwork and that was it. it was a good store, but ugh it got busy on weekend nights (we were at a popular cruise turn around) and think I hustled more in that job then any other job and this was back in the late 80's where work was available, if you were breathing, you were hired, and sometimes you didn't need to be breathing to be hired.
That goes right along with what I am saying about proper training and treatment of people. A business that does both is more likely to do well while most that go the opposite way might as well not even open their doors.
My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.
Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.
I can assure you it takes more than 30 minutes to explain food standards and prep to a new employee. Whether or not the location actually takes the time to bother training anyone is another matter (I've worked jobs where I was supposed to be trained but no one bothered). I'm not really sure why we're using Macy D's as a bar for standards. That's about as low a bar as you can set without getting into trash pits that will fail their first health inspection.
My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.
Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.
The safety training alone would easily eat up more than half an hour, I would think. This is just me, thinking though, as I imagine people working around fries and grills as well as handling hot food. Surely they must have hygiene and food handling training in these MacDonald's that would eat up a fair chunk of time as well as how to deal with the public, company policies, etc. etc. If I am correct in my imaginings, my hat is off to anyone who can effectively teach all of that in half an hour, because they are a god among trainers.
all health and safety is covered on the video you watch alone, whether you watch it or not is on you and
Relapse wrote: It makes for a stronger company if at all possible,those people at the checkout that get replaced when machines come in are redistributed elsewhere in the company and cross trained.
Just about any business I know of that invests in it's people instead of treating them like interchangable parts does better. It saves money on training, scrap, hiring procedures, orientation, etc., and ends up with a highly skilled core that can more readily innovate the businesses methods.
Where I work, for instance, people had to be laid off because of market conditions, but others were put in other areas of the company in order to maintain skill levels. The company followed up with the ones laid off and helped most of them get other jobs.
Several people that worked on the line where I do ended up in management positions at better pay elsewhere because of the things they were taught.
One man I trained in Job Instruction went to a local supermarket chain to apply as a stocker. At the end of the interview he was instead offered a job as general manager because of all the things he had been taught where I work.
When a company sees fit to invest in people, there is a positive ripple effect that not only affects that company, but the surrounding community and far beyond.
never worked fast food I take it? one of the jobs with the highest turnover rate(outside of Security) since it does not take much to teach one to do any of the tasks there.the amount of training is about 15 minutes to an hour, orientation? doesn't exist, hiring procedures? minimal at best.
I have a son working in a fast food joint, so I have an idea of what it's like. A friend of mine also managed a Burger King, and before that a franchise truck stop joint where the workers were treated as interchangable cogs, due to the way the owners ran their franchises. There were huge problems with shrinkage at the truck stop because the people working felt no loyalty to the place and had the get while the getting's good mentality. Food quality at both became spotty the more the owners interfered and after he left the Burger King in disgust with the owners, it dropped several places in the ratings against other Burger Kings in the state and garnered some health code violations.
Treat people like gak, gak is what you will reap.
fast food places seem to be dropping like flies around here lately, well a couple of them in past couple of months and that is just in my part of town, the Burger King I worked for the owner hardly ever showed up if at all, he hired the managers to handle the job and he collected his money and signed paperwork and that was it. it was a good store, but ugh it got busy on weekend nights (we were at a popular cruise turn around) and think I hustled more in that job then any other job and this was back in the late 80's where work was available, if you were breathing, you were hired, and sometimes you didn't need to be breathing to be hired.
That goes right along with what I am saying about proper training and treatment of people. A business that does both is more likely to do well while most that go the opposite way might as well not even open their doors.
yes, that describes pretty much all fast food businesses it seems.
My stepson's friend worked at McDonalds, and he was in training for 3 or 4 days. I can't imagine very nearly any job that only has 30 minutes of training. This was a few years ago. My wife worked for Mcdonalds when she was a teenager and she said training was ongoing for the first week on various roles.
Man, I thought the last version of this thread was crap, but turns out, could have been worse. At least people weren't just making up crazy gak left and right.
I can assure you it takes more than 30 minutes to explain food standards and prep to a new employee. Whether or not the location actually takes the time to bother training anyone is another matter (I've worked jobs where I was supposed to be trained but no one bothered). I'm not really sure why we're using Macy D's as a bar for standards. That's about as low a bar as you can set without getting into trash pits that will fail their first health inspection.
thats what I have been saying Mickey D's is on par with any and all fast food, low skilled, low trained workers that can be replaced easily whether with another worker or a robotic/computer station.
@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.
ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"
I'm not sure where it sits on that chart, but the US spends about $35 billion a year on foreign aid, whereas welfare spending is $1,066 billion (more than half is medicaid).
So the claim that the government looks after foreign countries before it looks after it's own people is wrong many times over.
Lol, that was the claim that I was backing up with my lumped in comment.... I fully recognize (unlike some here) that there are documents and facts out there, ready to be read by those who care to.
I recall a meeting that I had a number of months back with one of the political science professors at my school, and the issue of "foreign aid" was a hot button issue, both in the news, and in class. I forget my question, but her response was basically, "look at the countries that we send food, money or "aid" to, and you will see the majority of the time, there is something for us in return."
Asterios wrote: and my question is still sidestepped, all i'm asking is where does it say that BLS does phone surveys asking people who are not collecting Unemployment if they are looking for work? its a simple question and if true should be easy to prove.
What exactly is your means of thinking, that you'd question this? Exactly what is that you doubt? Do you think I'm just making up the BLS, or the survey work that it does? If so, why didn't you go and look this up for yourself?
"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.
Other people think that the government counts every unemployed person each month. To do this, every home in the country would have to be contacted—just as in the population census every 10 years. This procedure would cost way too much and take far too long to produce the data. In addition, people would soon grow tired of having a census taker contact them every month, year after year, to ask about job-related activities.
Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information.
There are about 60,000 eligible households in the sample for this survey. This translates into approximately 110,000 individuals each month, a large sample compared to public opinion surveys, which usually cover fewer than 2,000 people. The CPS sample is selected so as to be representative of the entire population of the United States. In order to select the sample, all of the counties and independent cities in the country first are grouped into approximately 2,000 geographic areas (sampling units). The Census Bureau then designs and selects a sample of about 800 of these geographic areas to represent each state and the District of Columbia. The sample is a state-based design and reflects urban and rural areas, different types of industrial and farming areas, and the major geographic divisions of each state."
Read through that. Read more on the link, if you want. Then take a long think about how silly you've been in this thread, why you've been that silly, and what you might do differently in future. It really shouldn't be up to other people to establish with you something a simple as the existence of a government survey on unemployment.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Unless of course, they are lumping it in with "international affairs"
I'm not sure where it sits on that chart, but the US spends about $35 billion a year on foreign aid, whereas welfare spending is $1,066 billion (more than half is medicaid).
So the claim that the government looks after foreign countries before it looks after it's own people is wrong many times over.
Lol, that was the claim that I was backing up with my lumped in comment.... I fully recognize (unlike some here) that there are documents and facts out there, ready to be read by those who care to.
I recall a meeting that I had a number of months back with one of the political science professors at my school, and the issue of "foreign aid" was a hot button issue, both in the news, and in class. I forget my question, but her response was basically, "look at the countries that we send food, money or "aid" to, and you will see the majority of the time, there is something for us in return."
problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often, or are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even? or certain Serbian immigrant situations ?
Asterios wrote: and my question is still sidestepped, all i'm asking is where does it say that BLS does phone surveys asking people who are not collecting Unemployment if they are looking for work? its a simple question and if true should be easy to prove.
What exactly is your means of thinking, that you'd question this? Exactly what is that you doubt? Do you think I'm just making up the BLS, or the survey work that it does? If so, why didn't you go and look this up for yourself?
someone beat you to directing me there, and I thanked them for something you just couldn't do earlier since I was asking for said information before.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.
ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.
That really depends on the survey. I haven't been called by BLS (they must be made up and aren't really contacting people based on my personal experience ), but if I were, I would take the time as it is important information for a govt. to know. I'm taking the time to discuss something on a Dakka forum with someone who doesn't seem to want to learn anything though, so I might be a bad example.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.
ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.
That really depends on the survey. I haven't been called by BLS (they must be made up and aren't really contacting people based on my personal experience ), but if I were, I would take the time as it is important information for a govt. to know. I'm taking the time to discuss something on a Dakka forum with someone who doesn't seem to want to learn anything though, so I might be a bad example.
I usually don't get that far I hear the words survey and say no thanks and hang up.
Asterios wrote: problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often, or are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even? or certain Serbian immigrant situations ?
There are projections and estimates... A number of my professional acquaintances have worked in government agencies like the USGS and the like, where their job was to use historical data combined with "up to the minute" data (think, volcanic activity, fault line readings, that sort of thing).
This is why, on a state level, in a state like Colorado, you may hear a negative news report in January stating that the upcoming blizzard will be especially bad, because the blizzard in November used too much of the state's "snow money."
As for reacting to foreign natural disasters, I know from those same people that the USGS works with most other nation's similar bureau's to project disasters, and when things like the Nepal quakes, or flooding/tidal waves around Bali happen, we have some sort of fund that is annually budgeted for, which is in part why we do not always send aid to every single disaster area.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce. Those numbers are recorded as well. The rest of your post there really just speaks to either your complete lack of knowledge to how scientific polls and surveys are run or your willful disregard. But, hey, I'm sure you know more than people professionally trained. Maybe you should try getting a job with them and teach them a few things.
ok answer this someone calls you with a survey, do you take time out to answer it? especially if they call around dinner time like most survey takers do? if so you are doing a lot more then I would.
That really depends on the survey. I haven't been called by BLS (they must be made up and aren't really contacting people based on my personal experience ), but if I were, I would take the time as it is important information for a govt. to know. I'm taking the time to discuss something on a Dakka forum with someone who doesn't seem to want to learn anything though, so I might be a bad example.
Well, I know back during the 08 economic thing, my dad lost his job, and was on unemployment... Part of the unemployment agreement was, aside from actively looking for work, was also to answer those phone surveys if called.
Asterios wrote: because those CEO's jobs entail much more then pushing buttons on a screen or making a sandwich, i have never worked a Subway, but can run the register and make sandwiches, its not rocket science nor does it require a degree, unlike being a CEO does.
Except historically CEO pay was a fraction of what it is today. For a long time CEO pay was about 20 times the average company worker. Then it started trending up, before exploding in the 1990s, and is now more than 200 times the average worker. Exactly what changed that made a CEO 10 times more valuable than he used to be?
Thing is, we can point at degrees and other professional qualifications, at hard work and genuine talent for leadership, and sure those things should command a greater rate of pay. But how much? We pretty just shrug and say the market decides, so it must be right. But we also know that the price of labour in any market is heavily controlled by expectations and norms (finance is very well paid more through an expectation that finance is very well paid, than actual demand and supply, for instance). And we know that CEO remuneration boards are screwed, they set the pay for their own CEO based on 'peer' companies that generally include companies much bigger than their own, often an order of magnitude or two bigger.
So yeah, that's the state of executive remuneration. Pretending it's normal or as it should be is a real head in the stand position.
Asterios wrote: problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often
Do you happen to have anything to back that claim up? I know it's easy to just throw gak against the wall to see what sticks, but it's a pretty nasty habit.
are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even?
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. Where did you come up with that?
Asterios wrote: problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often
Do you happen to have anything to back that claim up? I know it's easy to just throw gak against the wall to see what sticks, but it's a pretty nasty habit.
are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even?
I don't think that's what he was saying at all. Where did you come up with that?
he is going by his little pie chart which I ignore since it does not come from a reputable site, but says so much is put towards foreign aid thereby indicating that is all that is put towards foreign aid, so if a natural disaster happens over seas or any number of things, that means our government will say sorry no money in the budget for that?
here is a counter from his site, watch as foreign aid goes:
Unless we want 5 more pages of someone pulling stuff out of their rear, it is really for the benefit of everyone to just walk away and ignore the obvious.
Asterios wrote: and once again you misquote me, I said you are going by one number when its not the factual number,
Nope. that's nonsense. There are many measures, because underemployment and discouraged workers are also measured. But to claim that the unemployment rate, the number of people who are actively looking for a job but don't have one isn't a factual number is just ridiculous.
and this so called survey you claim and have yet to prove(just checked their site, they do a survey, but not for who is working or seeking work, but for who bought what and where
They survey many things. They are one of the primary sources of economic information for the country. It is what they do, it is what the survey is about. How and why you are trying to deny this is beyond me. You are being utterly ridiculous.
d-usa wrote: Unless we want 5 more pages of someone pulling stuff out of their rear, it is really for the benefit of everyone to just walk away and ignore the obvious.
yes that you are wrong, you seem to think fast food jobs are skilled jobs and require what was it 2 weeks you said to train for?
Asterios wrote: and once again you misquote me, I said you are going by one number when its not the factual number,
Nope. that's nonsense. There are many measures, because underemployment and discouraged workers are also measured. But to claim that the unemployment rate, the number of people who are actively looking for a job but don't have one isn't a factual number is just ridiculous.
and this so called survey you claim and have yet to prove(just checked their site, they do a survey, but not for who is working or seeking work, but for who bought what and where
They survey many things. They are one of the primary sources of economic information for the country. It is what they do, it is what the survey is about. How and why you are trying to deny this is beyond me. You are being utterly ridiculous.
oh it is a real number, but it is not the actual number of people who do not have jobs in the US. it is a guestimate at best, and thats only on a select few who qualify under their parameters.
Ouze wrote: I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.
Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.
In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.
Asterios wrote: I ignore since it does not come from a reputable site
You have a penchant for ignoring anything that doesn't confirm what you think you already know so that's not very surprising.
says so much is put towards foreign aid thereby indicating that is all that is put towards foreign aid, so if a natural disaster happens over seas or any number of things, that means our government will say sorry no money in the budget for that?
Most likely.
There are lots of natural disasters across the globe every year and we don't help with every single one of them. If something major were to happen (like a massive earthquake or tsunami) even if there was no money left in the, I'm sure we would still offer as much assistance as we could because you know... We're a global leader?
At some point we just need to realize that we cannot win an argument with a learned 40something year old unemployed former assistant manager of various fast food operations. That level of knowledge takes a lifetime to earn, and none of our fancy schooling and training can beat that even if it was more than a week of videos.
Ouze wrote: I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.
Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.
In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.
actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.
Ouze wrote: I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.
Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.
In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.
actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.
Can I ask what your secret is? How does one not work and still have enough money to survive? I have yet to crack this life riddle.....
Ouze wrote: I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.
Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.
In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.
actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.
Can I ask what your secret is? How does one not work and still have enough money to survive? I have yet to crack this life riddle.....
Don't you know? His bank account, his hands, or anything else are more than large enough.
The only places I have ever worked at which had anything close to a 30 minute training period were canvassing offices, and even then we're talking at least a day of training. In an industry which is noted for being "sink or swim".
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce.
No seriously, they're still counted as unemployed.
"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. "
Ouze wrote: I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.
Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.
In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.
actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.
Can I ask what your secret is? How does one not work and still have enough money to survive? I have yet to crack this life riddle.....
Don't you know? His bank account, his hands, or anything else are more than large enough.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Lol, that was the claim that I was backing up with my lumped in comment.... I fully recognize (unlike some here) that there are documents and facts out there, ready to be read by those who care to.
Sorry, my bad. I was meaning to add on to your comment by giving you the figure, I didn't think you were supporting Asterios, but can see how it sounded like that.
I recall a meeting that I had a number of months back with one of the political science professors at my school, and the issue of "foreign aid" was a hot button issue, both in the news, and in class. I forget my question, but her response was basically, "look at the countries that we send food, money or "aid" to, and you will see the majority of the time, there is something for us in return."
Definitely. Foreign Aid is part of geo-politics. And in shaping the world in to what best suits the US, it probably delivers a lot more bang for buck than military spending.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often, or are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even? or certain Serbian immigrant situations ?
A very small portion of foreign aid is disaster relief. And even if a large event occurred, then budgets contain contingencies, and if an absolutely massive event happened then you'd see a smoothing effect, where funds are given now and drawn from future year allocations.
someone beat you to directing me there, and I thanked them for something you just couldn't do earlier since I was asking for said information before.
You have google. If you're going to go around rejecting basic bits of economic knowledge, maybe try using google search at least once before hand.
It is not the obligation of dakka to provide you with the most basic information on the topic.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce.
No seriously, they're still counted as unemployed.
"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. "
I'm not sure about that, Seb. I think they are counted similar to retirees and people in school if they quit looking for over four weeks.
From the same page, spoiler end for size:
Spoiler:
"As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job.
A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include the following (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers).
Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?
What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the last 4 weeks?
Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
These questions form the basis for estimating the number of people who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be marginally attached to the labor force. These are individuals without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as marginally attached to the labor force, they must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of the following types of reasons:
They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.
They had previously been unable to find work.
They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.
Employers think they are too young or too old, or
They face some other type of discrimination."
Ultimately, though, they are still are still counted, but not considered part of the labor force, so don't count to unemployment as per the number officially used. There is a separate number A6, (as opposed to 3) I believe that does include them. At least that's how I read it.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not sure about that, Seb. I think they are counted similar to retirees and people in school if they quit looking for over four weeks.
Sorry, I misread what you were saying. Thought you were talking about people on UI, not people who were no longer working. My bad.
But yes, people who are no longer actively looking for work are not counted in the standard measure. This is why, like I said earlier, there are different measures of unemployment. The standard is just counting people who don't have jobs and are actively looking. But then there's people who have been discouraged, given up on trying to find work and are instead looking after the kids full time or something like that. And there's also the underemployed, people who are in part time work when they want full time work, and people who have low skills jobs when they have qualifications and amibitions for something greater.
The issue, I think, is that people get a loose understanding of these different measures and think that there's somehow some kind of con going on. That government is tricking people by using the lowest figure. But the measures all move in line, certainly in the short term. It'd be a nonsense to list every single measure of unemployment every time you wanted to mention what direction the job market is heading in. So you pick one measure, and it makes sense to use the simplest and most direct measure.
It still makes sense to track all the others because they answer important structural questions about the economy. But they don't need to be brought up every single time someone wants to talk about employment.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not sure about that, Seb. I think they are counted similar to retirees and people in school if they quit looking for over four weeks.
Sorry, I misread what you were saying. Thought you were talking about people on UI, not people who were no longer working. My bad.
But yes, people who are no longer actively looking for work are not counted in the standard measure. This is why, like I said earlier, there are different measures of unemployment. The standard is just counting people who don't have jobs and are actively looking. But then there's people who have been discouraged, given up on trying to find work and are instead looking after the kids full time or something like that. And there's also the underemployed, people who are in part time work when they want full time work, and people who have low skills jobs when they have qualifications and amibitions for something greater.
The issue, I think, is that people get a loose understanding of these different measures and think that there's somehow some kind of con going on. That government is tricking people by using the lowest figure. But the measures all move in line, certainly in the short term. It'd be a nonsense to list every single measure of unemployment every time you wanted to mention what direction the job market is heading in. So you pick one measure, and it makes sense to use the simplest and most direct measure.
It still makes sense to track all the others because they answer important structural questions about the economy. But they don't need to be brought up every single time someone wants to talk about employment.
No disagreement there, just making sure we weren't talking past each other
What I have learned from this thread is that I have a headache.
30 minutes of training for any job, my ass. Having seen nothing of value posted by one member, I think it's time to use the ignore function. If everyone does that to him, he won't be able to dominate the thread anymore...
When I worked at Selfridges I had a week's training -- company history, ethos and policy, basic consumer law, how to operate the till and take different card payments, the best way to approach and help customers, security and so on. This was before the days of diversity training.
I was employed for three months as extra help at Christmas.
no, training is still 30 minutes, training on what you are working on and will be assigned too, you watch video's for a couple hours, and fill out paperwork, this is from the Manager at McDonald's and I will believe them over you or your friend or whatever.
Are you genuinely unable to imagine an experience that is not your own, or are you simply unemployed and bored and looking for lulz?
Anyway, to try and drag this trainwreck thread back OT:
Trump recently called Obama's speech on Hiroshima "pathetic" and "incompetent".
Is this effective campaigning or is Trump's game slipping since the heady days of calling for the murder of terrorist's families?
I give the edge to Trump now actually. The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy. My only hope is the Hillary Viper Assassination Squad, the best political murder company in the business takes him out.
The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy. My only hope is the Hillary Viper Assassination Squad, the best political murder company in the business takes him out.
Donnie will take himself out... there's no way that his rhetorics works in the General Election.
McDonalds has a 30 minute training period, and any maintenance required is brought in from outside of the place, in fact they tell you specifically if anything breaks tell the manager and the manager calls the repair guy once getting approval from the owner,
<---- Was married to an actual McDonald's Store Manager, multi-store supervisor, and then corporate training manager for 13 years.
While individual franchise owners differ, what you posted is a-typical. Training does not stop with McD or any major corporation. You do get videos and a 30 minute training for your first assignment, generally dropping fries, so they can see if you're a feth up. After that, the training is pretty constant. Training on new positions, training for assistant managers, food safety training, how to order gak, etc.
Is it the majority of your time? Certainly not. You still have to DO stuff.
Is it 30 minutes, a video, and a slap on the ass? No.
A little bit of my experiance,training is nearly constant for awile at my jobs. You cant learn to do everything in a half an hour. Granted, I went into my most recent job, skipped training day and became my bosses favorite worker and the only employee to get a thank you from the park's manager.
In the end though, I do believe you get what you put out in a job. You work hard no matter the job, people will take notice. The people who constantly complain about gak jobs and how their boss is promoting other people over them, arethe people who have no work ethic or drive for improvement.
whembly wrote: Donnie will take himself out... there's no way that his rhetorics works in the General Election.
I said that about 20 times in the primary too. Since he won that he has continued to control the media narrative. Further HRC hasn't come around to taking the wind out of his arguments by addressing those legitimate concerns realistically.
I do hope you are correct though. I had previously thought she would stomp him in debates, and her machine would go through him like the 3rd Army through the Wehrmacht in 44. Lately I have been having concerns. She's just such a bad candidate. Why did the Democrats put their eggs behind her?
For my part I can't vote for either in good conscience.
<---- Was married to an actual McDonald's Store Manager, multi-store supervisor, and then corporate training manager for 13 years.
Wow three McDonald's employees? You must REEEEEAAAALLLLLY likie the McGriddle...
Is it 30 minutes, a video, and a slap on the ass? No.
My experiences jives with this actually. I have worked for multiple big box retailers, a so called amusement park, hunting mastadons etc. There was no such thing as ongoing training.
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
Things to make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Dare we hope, that Sanders can win now? We all know we want an aging Socialist vs aging Capitalist General Election!
"the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors"
kronk wrote: "the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors"
Mmm... talk dirty to me, Huffington. Yeah.
Either he knows somebody in the FBI, but cannot divulge the source yet, or he's pulling this from his nether region.
kronk wrote: "the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors"
Mmm... talk dirty to me, Huffington. Yeah.
Either he knows somebody in the FBI, but cannot divulge the source yet, or he's pulling this from his nether region.
The brief snippet bio at the bottom of the story describes how "He draws on his research in the fields of combination of psychology, physics, wisdom traditions, sociology and history". The "documentaries" he is responsible for sound similar to "The Secrect" so I am guessing his nether region is a safe place to assume.
Throughout this primary season, I’ve had an ongoing fight with a co-worker about whether Donald Trump could win the general election. I was pretty firmly in the “if the economy collapses, maybe, but he is much more likely to drag the entire Republican field down with him” camp.
To resolve this, my co-worker invited me to set up some benchmarks: what we would have to see in order to believe that Trump really could win the election – not just that he had some sort of outside shot in a perfect storm, but that he had a legitimate, realistic chance of winning.
To cover my bases, I tried to set benchmarks that I thought would be really difficult for Trump to meet: He would have to pull within five points of Hillary Clinton in the RCP Average within a month of wrapping up the GOP race (this was back when he was down by 10), and then he would have to prove that he could lead her in a polling average (rather than in the occasional outlying poll) by the end of the Republican convention.
So, here we are. Last week, Trump was up by 0.2 percent in the RCP Average, meeting both of my goalposts two months ahead of schedule. I still believe that he is the underdog, but I have to concede that he can win. I would put his chances more around 30 percent today. If at some point he establishes a durable lead (he returned to trailing Clinton Friday morning), or if he can push his average up into the high forties, I will revise things accordingly.
Why might this continue? Here are a five reasons:
1. Their unfavorables cancel out.
For much of this campaign, we’ve focused relentlessly on Trump’s high unfavorable ratings. This is appropriate, given that he has the highest unfavorables of any presidential nominee in years for which we have data.
What’s received far less attention is that he is running against the nominee with the second-highest unfavorables of any presidential nominee in years for which we have data.
This gap also has been shrinking. Trump’s average rating runs 35.2 percent favorable and 58 percent favorable. Clinton’s are 36.3 percent favorable and 56.3 percent unfavorable. That’s not a huge difference.
Even if we take into account individual polls showing higher spreads, we might ask ourselves “Does this really matter?” and reasonably conclude, “No, it does not.” Think of it this way: Assume that the base for both parties is about 40 percent of the electorate. You can make a case for it being a bit larger or a bit smaller, but just assume this is where “yellow dog Democrats” and their Republican counterparts begin.
If this is more or less correct, then Clinton and Trump probably have maxed out their unfavorables among opposing partisans, among Independents, and are now cutting into his/her own base. But these voters will ultimately hold their nose and vote for their candidate (witness the ever-shrinking faction of #NeverTrump voters on the Republican side, and the fact that Trump’s -- and Clinton’s -- vote shares are considerably higher than their favorables). I’m not saying this makes no difference, as voters can stay home. I’m just saying both Clinton and Trump are probably past the point where they receive a diminishing penalty for their unfavorable ratings.
If you’re still unconvinced, think of it yet another way: If the 2004 presidential election had been held when George W. Bush had a 90 percent job approval rating, it is unlikely he’d have received anywhere near 90 percent of the vote. We can be reasonably certain about this, given Franklin Roosevelt’s re-election results with job approval ratings north of 70 percent.
2. Candidates don’t matter much.
Taking this a step farther, it is almost axiomatic among political scientists that candidate effects don’t matter much. That’s not to say they don’t matter at all, just that they are overstated. When I built my Senate model several years ago, I found that controversial candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck probably only cost Republicans a couple of points (O’Donnell’s vote share actually closely mirrored the president’s unfavorable ratings). What you’re basically left with are what we call “fundamentals”: job approval, economic growth, and the like.
Right now, the fundamentals point to a close race: President Obama’s tepid job approval combined with mediocre economic growth and second-term fatigue probably create a roughly even playing field between the parties. The polling right now actually reflects that more closely than the polling from a month ago did.
3. Trump might do better with nonwhites than you think.
My operating assumption has long been that Trump would run about as poorly as John McCain and Mitt Romney among African-Americans, and also would run significantly worse among Hispanics. This would require Trump to secure about 64 percent of the white vote in order to win – a tough haul. But Trump’s numbers among nonwhites have actually been relatively decent. If we assume that undecided voters are ultimately representative of decided voters (within groups), Fox News has him winning 7 percent of African-Americans and 27 percent of Hispanics – roughly Romney’s showing in 2012. ABC News has him winning a little bit more than 20 percent of the nonwhite vote – a bit better than Romney (Fox News also has him eventually winning 64 percent of the white vote).
This has led some to question the accuracy of these polls. You can (and should) read a more fulsome response from Jon Cohen and Mark Blumenthal of SurveyMonkey here, but I’ll just fall back upon a saying from one of my favorite law professors: When someone’s argument boils down to “it cannot be,” it means that it probably is.
Furthermore, it’s entirely possible that the media’s single-minded focus upon Hispanics as immigration reform advocates is simply wrongheaded. I’ve written about this at much greater length here and here, but it could be the case that Romney’s showing in 2012 represents a floor, that immigration isn’t as high-salience an issue among Hispanics as many assume, that some of Trump’s appeal to working-class whites translates to working-class Hispanics and African-Americans, and that he will perform surprisingly well (or at least surprisingly not poorly) on Election Day.
4. Both candidates have room to grow.
The common rejoinder is that these polls represent the state of the race with Trump having wrapped up the Republican nomination, while Clinton is stuck in a nasty race with Bernie Sanders. Once she nails down the nomination, the race should shift back to her (under this argument).
First, I’m not entirely certain the assumption that she will win over all of the Sanderistas is correct. While she will certainly win the overwhelming majority of them, Trump’s strategy for this election – coming at the traditional right/left line orthogonally on issues like trade and foreign policy – could result in some of these voters backing Trump; we would expect these voters to be disproportionately represented in the ranks of people resisting Clinton today.
But more to the point, the ABC News poll finds that Trump is, in fact, pulling in 11 percent of Democrats to Clinton’s 8 percent of Republicans, but that only 3 percent of Democrats are undecided, while 7 percent of Republicans haven’t made up their minds. The Fox News poll has similar findings, with Clinton and Trump both taking an equal number of voters from the other party, and showing a similar number of undecided partisans.
You may say “Sean, Sanders’ supporters aren’t Democrats. They’re independents.” Fair enough. One way to get at this would be to look at ideology, since they are presumably self-described liberals. The Fox News poll shows Trump winning 12 percent of liberal voters, while Clinton wins 13 percent of very conservative voters and 27 percent of somewhat conservative voters, and similar numbers of undecided voters. The ABC News poll shows Trump doing a bit better among liberals than Clinton is doing among conservatives, but this is offset by the fact that there are more liberals than conservatives in the poll.
In other words, there is probably room to grow for both Clinton and Trump. We can debate whether more liberals will come home to her than conservatives for Trump, but it isn’t an open-and-shut case.
5. Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate running a bad campaign with bad commercials.
It’s no great secret that Clinton isn’t a natural politician. What’s been more surprising to me is how bad her campaign has been run. Part of this is that it is still early; Team Clinton is probably still feeling Trump out.
But part of it is probably that Team Clinton is experiencing the frustrations that the various Republican campaigns encountered in the winter and fall: Trump is a tough candidate to run against because he doesn’t fit into the typical categories.
Think of it this way: From 1968 to 1988, Republicans basically ran cookie-cutter campaigns against their Democratic opponents: They are liberal. It worked magnificently, until 1992, when they suddenly encountered a candidate against whom the shoe didn’t really fit. Democrats moderated their positions on certain issues and flipped the narrative. For the next 20 years, the generic Democratic campaign became one where Republicans were depicted as agents of the rich, of social conservatives, and of reckless foreign policy adventurists. It was effective, in part because the shoe often fit.
It’s become obvious that, at least for now, Clinton is running the same sort of campaign against Trump. It isn’t clear, however, how well it works against someone with such a strong nouveau riche affect (at best). Trump isn’t campaigning (anymore) on massive tax cuts for the rich. He’s against free trade, and is arguably more of a dove on foreign policy than Clinton. And the two obvious themes against Trump -- that he doesn’t know what he’s doing/is erratic/is inconsistent and that he is actually a right-wing ideologue – are actually in tension with each other. Because Trumpism is such an odd mishmash of beliefs, it’s hard to run the generic Democratic campaign against him.
Even the details of the Clinton campaign have been off. This started with her launch, but has continued into the advertising. Tom Edsall has an excellent piece describing an advertisement hitting Trump on his comments about women, but also explaining how it falls flat, especially among men. Her “woman card” response – e-mailing woman cards to supporters – was odd. I thought the point was that there wasn’t a woman’s card to play?
Other advertisements have been problematic, from the one asserting that Trump always keeps his promises (a key attribute for non-ideological undecided voters) to another that features a flat-toned, emotionless, near-scowling Clinton making pronouncements against Trump that would instead appeal to a wide range of the electorate (the public is actually favorably inclined toward requiring citizens to learn English and, much as I hate to say it, the use of waterboarding). Again, part of this is just the difficulty running against a malleable candidate without a voting history.
Finally, it isn’t clear how well equipped the Democrats are to handle an all-out beer house brawler like Trump. Every utterance of “surely he won’t go there” has been proved wrong. The instinct that this will catch up with him eventually is a tempting one, but at this point, an awful lot of what we might call the “OMG Trump” reaction is baked into the existing numbers.
Again, none of this should be taken as a prediction of a Trump victory. There’s a fair amount of devil’s advocacy built into the foregoing. But I can’t say, objectively, that he’s a heavy underdog anymore.
America is so boned...
EDIT: I did laugh at the writer's: Finally, it isn’t clear how well equipped the Democrats are to handle an all-out beer house brawler like Trump. Every utterance of “surely he won’t go there” has been proved wrong.
Whembly, get back to me when Trump can actually flip any states on the Obama/Romney Electoral map. Until I see consistent proof that he can, the rest is typical election bullgak.
Easy E wrote: Whembly, get back to me when Trump can actually flip any states on the Obama/Romney Electoral map. Until I see consistent proof that he can, the rest is typical election bullgak.
Hopefully. However many of the rustbelt states could turn.
I'm one of the few people who voted for Clinton in the primaries who wouldn't be afraid of Trump winning. I actually kind of look forward to the possibility!!
timetowaste85 wrote: I'm one of the few people who voted for Clinton in the primaries who wouldn't be afraid of Trump winning. I actually kind of look forward to the possibility!!
Asterios wrote: actually if Sanders decides to run as an independent, yeah Trump will win.
Sanders won't do that. He is well aware a Drumpf Presidency would be disastrous.
you sure? he is till running even though he has pretty much lost the primary.
Pretty much =/= definitely. I'm sure he'll concede once math smacks him down. Until then, he'll continue to make noise and draw attention to his causes.
timetowaste85 wrote: I'm one of the few people who voted for Clinton in the primaries who wouldn't be afraid of Trump winning. I actually kind of look forward to the possibility!!
in other words anyone but Sanders ?
In a word: yup.
Longer version: I don't dislike. I have nothing against him. But he's too old for office and his ideas sound great in a perfect world. But we don't live in that world. He's too much of an idealist, and I don't think he'll actuall accomplish anything more than having a heart attack in office.
timetowaste85 wrote: I don't think he'll actuall accomplish anything more than having a heart attack in office.
I dunno man... have you seen the youtube videos of him running around?? There's one of him literally running through an airport to catch his bus
Whereas I'm sure Drumpf's diet consists largely of alternating NY style pizza and Chicago style pizza, extra grease. Maybe some cheese steaks when he's around Philly or somethin.
I think Trump would like be a fairly poor president, but not the usher in the apocalypse, hitler clone he's been made out to be. He just doesn't seem to understand how government actually works, which is why I think he'd be more ineffective than anything else - Congress isn't a group of recalcitrant employees you can fire.
I don't think the Hitler comparison has to do with his ability to use government so much as a comparison of his use of anger and fear, but it is still a bad comparison to make as he is an idiot without being compared to Hitler. That and the comparison is pretty old hat with all sides making the leap. People have done the same with Hillary Clinton as well.
But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.
But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.
While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)
But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.
While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)
Indeed, this is one of the more coherent excuses I've heard to support Trump. Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.
But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.
While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)
And yet that still doesn't make the Hitler comparison a good idea. Reading what was written it doesn't seem that I said he will have no impact whatsoever just that it won't be radical as some have presented.
Indeed, this is one of the more coherent excuses I've heard to support Trump. Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.
Because Obama Hillary will take away our guns, don't'chaknow!
I dunno, I would not be surprised if the CIA or FBI was having secret operational planning taking place of some deep covert internal ops if Trump were to win. Wait, lemme adjust my hat a bit, it's disrupting my pacemaker. But seriously, I bet someone has a file somewhere. Hell, we had a file on John Lennon and he just wanted to "Give Peace a Chance"
But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.
While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)
And yet that still doesn't make the Hitler comparison a good idea.
There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.
Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.
You can argue that both Hitler and Trump are drawing from that same primal feelings in the population and have similar electoral tactics without arguing that Trump would be the same kind of leader that Hitler was or that the US would turn into the same kind of country that Germany turned into. But as soon as you say "like Hitler" people complete "...Trump will kill all the Muslims/start wars/commit genocide/build concentration camps/whatever" in their heads, regardless of what the actual comparison is.
But yes, he won't destroy the country as his ability to affect change will be limited by the power of the Presidency within the governmental framework as well as what appears to be a deficiency in how things work. It would still make the USA look like a bunch of idiots both home and abroad though and most likely be a low point.
While true, some of the areas that he could affect change could have long-term affects on us. Particularly in the SCOTUS nominations that would undoubtedly come up during that 4 years. (or 3 years, if we want to use GOP logic)
And yet that still doesn't make the Hitler comparison a good idea.
There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.
Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.
You can argue that both Hitler and Trump are drawing from that same primal feelings in the population and have similar electoral tactics without arguing that Trump would be the same kind of leader that Hitler was or that the US would turn into the same kind of country that Germany turned into. But as soon as you say "like Hitler" people complete "...Trump will kill all the Muslims/start wars/commit genocide/build concentration camps/whatever" in their heads, regardless of what the actual comparison is.
Have an exalt for that, d-usa! Those are precisely the kinds of comparisons that can, and should, be made.
d-usa wrote: There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.
Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.
I don't disagree in general but at the same time using a Hitler comparison doesn't really help. Just say he's a demagogue that preys on peoples fear, the worst elements on nationalism, ect ect. When someone brings up Hitler they get the people who already agree to agree but those who don't will just stop listening. Come to think of it the latter probably wouldn't listen anyway and the former may be starving for it.
feeder wrote: Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.
Aren't they generally the same people that thought, every election, that President Obama would take away all the firearms as well?
The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.
The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.
Not arbitrarily though... AFAIK, they'd have to have a case brought before them to alter the interpretation of law.
The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.
Not arbitrarily though... AFAIK, they'd have to have a case brought before them to alter the interpretation of law.
And most of these instances where people whine about SCOTUS legislating from the bench, have only their elected representatives to blame. If Congress did their jobs right, half of the cases that go to the SC wouldn't happen to begin with.
Nah, Presidents are a lot less important than they're made out to be, as many have reminded us with their strident defenses of Congress regarding the Supreme Court.
feeder wrote: Some people are really afraid that HRC will appoint only gun-hating judges.
Aren't they generally the same people that thought, every election, that President Obama would take away all the firearms as well?
The SCotUS conceivably has that power, though, right? Judgeship is for life AFAIK, too. Could be part of a long con to steal all the guns. Can't take any chances.
Not really, they would have to overrule a previous SCOTUS ruling. I believe it would be more realistic for Congress to amend the constitution and the 2nd amendment.
Theoretically SCOTUS could do it if something made it to them, but I find that to be highly unlikely. Not all liberal judges think the same way, nor are they all out to take away the second amendment. Being liberal does not make you a part of a hive mind. *gasp* I know I just blew some peoples minds with that comment!
I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?
Perhaps a challenge to one of my state's recent gun laws could bring *A* case up to the SCOTUS... though I doubt it would necessarily bring about a significant change to how things are already.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?
the problem is the second amendment was created so that the government was being created if it ever got too powerful it could be toppled by the people, during the time private citizens if they could afford it could stock any military item available to the military, it sounds good on paper, but did not take into account mans propensity to create even more stronger and more dangerous weapons, now a days we have nukes, missiles with long range and destructive power and so forth, these things were never taken into account when the second amendment was created, but laws have already removed these from the playing field already, what it comes down to is automatic weapons and pistols and such, most laws on these things are only recent (very recent) and I myself believe they do not adhere to what the second amendment meant, don't get me wrong I don't think your average Joe really needs a fully auto rifle and such, but they should be able to get them if they so choose, now california has passed some new laws that make me say WTF ? like you have to jump thru hoops to even get ammunition now (background checks, seriously?), and they claim on a that these laws are to protect citizens and keep weapons out of the hands of Criminals, problem is it is doing the exact opposite, all his is doing is removing weapons from law abiding citizens, this is two fold, the government wants control and by removing weapons from those who would protest government control it allows the government more power.
this brings why I will vote for Trump, his presidency will be a lame duck presidency with the government actually doing nothing and not taking away more of our rights as they stand on a whole, now states screwing over the people is another matter.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?
+
There has been an enormous swing in just the last few years in terms of expanding the legal right to own firearms. For 200 odd years, it was sort of a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was linked to membership in a militia, or whether it was an intrinsic right to self defense. I personally fall into the militia camp - I do think people have a right to self defense, and I have no beef with owning firearms. I own 3 pistols, 2 rifles, and a shotgun, and have a concealed carry permit. However, I don't think there is a constitutional right to self defense the way the SCOTUS ruled in Heller v DC and then expanded upon with McDonald v Chicago- one which would then trump local restrictions on firearms. The amendment was written in a time in which we didn't have a permanent standing army - the founders hated the idea - and that citizens would own firearms in case the government needed to raise a militia. My interpretation, but anyway - the point is, the SCOTUS essentially overturned many, many years of precedent and invented a right out of thin air, much in the way conservatives bitterly complain they did in Roe v Wade.
I'm not trying to rehash any gun arguments - we've done that a bajillion times and it's off topic and stupid. The reason I bring it up, circling back to the topic, is that it's not at all impossible for a President to appoint two, or possible three, SCOTUS justices who might revisit Heller and decided to overturn it, thus again allowing localities to greatly restrict private gun ownership. I'm not saying it's likely, or it will happen, but what happened in the last decade was a huge, huge swing and it can totally go the other way too.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?
+
There has been an enormous swing in just the last few years in terms of expanding the legal right to own firearms. For 200 odd years, it was sort of a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was linked to membership in a militia, or whether it was an intrinsic right to self defense. I personally fall into the militia camp - I do think people have a right to self defense, and I have no beef with owning firearms. I own 3 pistols, 2 rifles, and a shotgun, and have a concealed carry permit. However, I don't think there is a constitutional right to self defense the way the SCOTUS ruled in Heller v DC and then expanded upon with McDonald v Chicago- one which would then trump local restrictions on firearms. The amendment was written in a time in which we didn't have a permanent standing army - the founders hated the idea - and that citizens would own firearms in case the government needed to raise a militia. My interpretation, but anyway - the point is, the SCOTUS essentially overturned many, many years of precedent and invented a right out of thin air, much in the way conservatives bitterly complain they did in Roe v Wade.
I'm not trying to rehash any gun arguments - we've done that a bajillion times and it's off topic and stupid. The reason I bring it up, circling back to the topic, is that it's not at all impossible for a President to appoint two, or possible three, SCOTUS justices who might revisit Heller and decided to overturn it, thus again allowing localities to greatly restrict private gun ownership. I'm not saying it's likely, or it will happen, but what happened in the last decade was a huge, huge swing and it can totally go the other way too.
I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm not even really sure how a case like that could come about. What would someone claim, the law is infringing upon my constitutional right to attempt to pass a law limiting guns? Wouldn't a law limiting guns have to be passed in congress first and then be struck down or upheld by the SC?
+
There has been an enormous swing in just the last few years in terms of expanding the legal right to own firearms. For 200 odd years, it was sort of a grey area as to whether or not the right to own a firearm was linked to membership in a militia, or whether it was an intrinsic right to self defense. I personally fall into the militia camp - I do think people have a right to self defense, and I have no beef with owning firearms. I own 3 pistols, 2 rifles, and a shotgun, and have a concealed carry permit. However, I don't think there is a constitutional right to self defense the way the SCOTUS ruled in Heller v DC and then expanded upon with McDonald v Chicago- one which would then trump local restrictions on firearms. The amendment was written in a time in which we didn't have a permanent standing army - the founders hated the idea - and that citizens would own firearms in case the government needed to raise a militia. My interpretation, but anyway - the point is, the SCOTUS essentially overturned many, many years of precedent and invented a right out of thin air, much in the way conservatives bitterly complain they did in Roe v Wade.
I'm not trying to rehash any gun arguments - we've done that a bajillion times and it's off topic and stupid. The reason I bring it up, circling back to the topic, is that it's not at all impossible for a President to appoint two, or possible three, SCOTUS justices who might revisit Heller and decided to overturn it, thus again allowing localities to greatly restrict private gun ownership. I'm not saying it's likely, or it will happen, but what happened in the last decade was a huge, huge swing and it can totally go the other way too.
I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents that all other courts then follow, and no lower court can ever supersede a Supreme Court decision. In fact, not even Congress or the president can change, reject or ignore a Supreme Court decision.
American law operates under the doctrine of stare decisis, which means that prior decisions should be maintained -- even if the current court would otherwise rule differently -- and that lower courts must abide by the prior decisions of higher courts. The idea is based on a belief that government needs to be relatively stable and predictable.
This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:
States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).
I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.
Just as Katz overturned Olmstead, I would suppose that another firearms related case could do that....
As I mentioned earlier, here in Washington (State) we have a new law that the fething morons passed a couple years back, so I suppose that if someone were to challenge it, and work it all the way through the lower courts to the supreme court, then they could see it and make their decision. Although, I suspect that in our case, we're just SOL due to vague wording and shenanigans.
Ouze wrote: I think Trump would like be a fairly poor president, but not the usher in the apocalypse, hitler clone he's been made out to be. He just doesn't seem to understand how government actually works, which is why I think he'd be more ineffective than anything else - Congress isn't a group of recalcitrant employees you can fire.
So if it's Drumpf v. Corrupt Clinton...
Would you rather have an incompetent nincompoop who may not be able to substantially accomplish anything? Or a corrupt bureaucrat who knows what she's doing, but the public will second/third-guess her agenda, especially over blatant quid pro quo?
Frazzled wrote: I give the edge to Trump now actually. The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy.
Obama very narrowly beat Clinton, that was a two horse race that really could have gone either way. So if Obama and Clinton are pretty tied, and you think Obama would have wiped Trump... then I don't know how you can predict a Trump win over Clinton.
Frazzled wrote: I give the edge to Trump now actually. The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy.
Obama very narrowly beat Clinton, that was a two horse race that really could have gone either way. So if Obama and Clinton are pretty tied, and you think Obama would have wiped Trump... then I don't know how you can predict a Trump win over Clinton.
I saw this classic from Nate Silver on twitter, pointing out how increasingly ridiculous the Sanders supporters are in complaining the race has been unfair;
"Clinton ‘strategy’ is to persuade more ‘people’ to ‘vote’ for her, hence producing ‘majority’ of ‘delegates.’”
Pretty much. More votes, more delegates, and now its enough that Sanders is heading in to a very unfavourable set of states needing to win more than 65% of the vote. But somehow it's unfair to think Clinton has the race won, because reasons.
BREAKING: Hillary Clinton to be indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges #RICO
I think this nonsense piece probably says everything that needs to be said about the standards at the Huffington Post and the mindset of many people - they have an absolute belief that 'Clinton is corrupt, based pretty much entirely on knowing other people who also believe Clinton to be corrupt, and they will believe any story as soon as it appears.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: There are valid Hitler comparisons that can be made, but the problem is that as soon as you compare someone to Hitler people think that you are arguing that the person is going to start WW3 and go on a genocidal rampage to wipe out an entire race.
Trumps comparison to Hitler would be appropriate when you compare their campaign, their arguments, their speeches, the themes they speak about, the fears and anger they draw from, the marginalizing of people groups, the role of foreigners and religions.
You can argue that both Hitler and Trump are drawing from that same primal feelings in the population and have similar electoral tactics without arguing that Trump would be the same kind of leader that Hitler was or that the US would turn into the same kind of country that Germany turned into. But as soon as you say "like Hitler" people complete "...Trump will kill all the Muslims/start wars/commit genocide/build concentration camps/whatever" in their heads, regardless of what the actual comparison is.
Sure, which is why it's probably just easier to use examples of world leaders who tapped in to those primal feelings without going on a genocidal rampage. Mussolini has been pointed out on dakka as a better comparison, but I'd think you've still got the WWII spectre there. Better examples are probably Berlusconi or Putin.
Berlusconi is probably the best example, there's the same pattern of minority scapegoating, villification of anyone who questions him, and the use of a great personal wealth to convince people he'd be good for the economy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Theoretically SCOTUS could do it if something made it to them, but I find that to be highly unlikely. Not all liberal judges think the same way, nor are they all out to take away the second amendment. Being liberal does not make you a part of a hive mind. *gasp* I know I just blew some peoples minds with that comment!
And any appointment still has to get through the senate. If there were 4 SC justices who believed in limiting the 2nd amendment, and a replacement nomination also believed in it, does anyone on this Earth or any alternate Earth believe that appointment would get 60 votes in the senate. Democrats are not that likely to take the senate, and they'd need a super-majority to get an appointment to the senate that'd be willing to restrict the 2nd amendment... because not one Republican will vote to let that nomination be heard. Even if the Democrats did somehow get a super-majority, they'd still have to get the support of every single Democrat and that's not going to happen, because there's plenty of Democratic senators who support gun right, and on top of that NRA money is everywhere.
This is just the same old Republican nonsense that turns up every presidential election.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: I get that, but doesn't there have to be a legitimate case brought before the courts that would even allow the SCOTUS to revisit the law? Or can they just decide to revisit what they want without a case that challenges it? If it's the former, my question is what kind of case would that be? I guess it could come from a lower jurisdiction (city or state) and work its way through that way. Wasn't there a somewhat recent case involving Chicago? If it's the latter, I rescind the question entirely.
At a guess I'd say a state would pass a law restricting one or more guns, and that law would be taken to court by people looking to protect their gun rights. It would then wander up through the various appeal courts until it hit this new, horrible, totally left wing and anti-gun Supreme Court.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Obama never had the baggages that Clinton has...
The only change in the Republican attacks from 2008 to 2012 is Benghazi and the emails. Which gets back to the point about how many people outside of the Republican faithful care about either of those things.
Oh I agree, if Clinton makes it and she has to nominate more SC justices, it will be an uphill battle the whole time. I honestly doubt she would get any through. Some sort of precedent would be made up saying no President has ever done this or that with justices in the SC and republicans will flock to that defense like it is scripture. *cough*whembly*cough*
Honestly, I have no idea how anybody would ever think Trump would be better than Clinton. I'm not even worried about the SC if Trump becomes president, I am more worried about our foreign relations. Which are very VERY important, but his supporters do not seem to think so. They seem to think we should continue to be bullies, instead of politicians.
Sebster, but remember, Even the Bengazi issue was tried during 2008. Remember the second debate where Romney falsely attacked Obama for not calling the attack an act of terror. Obama slapped him down (with the help of the moderator, and you know, facts) and pretty much put the nail in Romney's coffin. Romney was a meek kitten in the third debate. It was probably the most important moment of the election, not to say Romney wouldn't have lost anyways, but Obama was a totally different candidate after that moment. You could see him roping Romney in the whole way and Romney just crumbled.
Too bad facts won't play much of a role in this election cycle.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trumpo and his supporters aren't interested in facts. They are interested in an exciting narrative.
That pretty much sums it up and illustrates the amazing dichotomy between his and Clinton's supporters because if there is one thing her supporters couldn't possibly interested in, it's excitement.
Dreadwinter wrote: Oh I agree, if Clinton makes it and she has to nominate more SC justices, it will be an uphill battle the whole time. I honestly doubt she would get any through. Some sort of precedent would be made up saying no President has ever done this or that with justices in the SC and republicans will flock to that defense like it is scripture. *cough*whembly*cough*
Pretty much, yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sebster, but remember, Even the Bengazi issue was tried during 2008. Remember the second debate where Romney falsely attacked Obama for not calling the attack an act of terror. Obama slapped him down (with the help of the moderator, and you know, facts) and pretty much put the nail in Romney's coffin. Romney was a meek kitten in the third debate.
If there's ever any question about how overtly political Benghazi was from start to finish, note how much Romney was trying to pin it on Obama in 2012. Once Obama won though there was no point trying to drag him down, he wasn't a threat in future elections. Instead the focus shifted back to Clinton, because Republicans were worried about 2016.
Too bad facts won't play much of a role in this election cycle.
They didn't play much of a role in the Republican primaries, but that's been true of Republican primaries for a while now. A guy like Trump who lies with extraordinary ease flourishes in that environment. Your link gives a good indication on why Romney was never that comfortable a fit for the modern Republican party, because when he got caught saying something untrue he stutters, and tries to figure a way out. Trump would just double down on the lie and call everyone a loser.
I expect the Trump strategy will struggle pretty badly in the general, because you can't just play to the popular Republican myths.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: That pretty much sums it up and illustrates the amazing dichotomy between his and Clinton's supporters because if there is one thing her supporters couldn't possibly interested in, it's excitement.
Excitement is a good term to describe it. I don't think 'narrative' fits because the Trump campaign is all over the shop, it's a narrative in the same way that crazy guy on the bus is shouting a narrative.
But to understand it as excitement, well that actually works.
... never a filibuster around when you need one eh ?
fething idiot.
"Some Libertarians in the crowd seemed pretty angry at the whole shtick. The party, which had hours before chosen former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld as its presidential and vice presidential nominees, is trying to become a viable choice for people dissatisfied with the Republican and Democratic parties."
It's hard enough to get people to think 3rd party when one of the guys that was in the running for your third party does this gak... fething hell, people.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trumpo and his supporters aren't interested in facts. They are interested in an exciting narrative.
Well, now we know what Tom Kirby is doing now, working as a Trump advisor. "Don't worry about facts, just forge a narrative" "They are not valid concerns, those voters are just not in our target market".
Kilkrazy wrote: Trumpo and his supporters aren't interested in facts. They are interested in an exciting narrative.
Well, now we know what Tom Kirby is doing now, working as a Trump advisor. "Don't worry about facts, just forge a narrative" "They are not valid concerns, those voters are just not in our target market".
Dreadwinter wrote: I am more worried about our foreign relations. Which are very VERY important, but his supporters do not seem to think so. They seem to think we should continue to be bullies, instead of politicians.
It's funny, I've talked to a fair number of people from that side of the aisle, and I see 2 fairly distinct camps. One camp is as you say, we should be "international bullies" out for lunch money and continue our foreign adventures with the military. The other camp says that we should be moody teenagers and isolating ourselves in our bedroom for 4 years.
Why do I get the feeling Trump going to start charging nations rent money to maintain the UN building....or raise it...why do I get the feeling we (US of A) maintain that building...
Why do I get the feeling Trump going to bring back certain Generals to get their input on dealing with that turd of country Syria
Why do I get the feeling Trump going to exploit....woops...invest the country future in our natural oil and natural gas deposit in the US of A.
Why do I get the feeling Trump going to crank up a National Work Force to rebuild the infrastructure.
Why do I get the feeling Trump going bully the Senate and House of Congress.
Why do I get the feeling Trump going to be entertaining for four years if he wins.
Why do I get a feeling Trump Hip shooting the agenda's
Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
Easy E wrote: Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
Trump may actually win FL and some of the Rust Belt states.
It's the traditional red states he'd have to worry about. So far states like Georgia (!!!) is in play. (Conversely, he does have MS/LA locked down tho).
Easy E wrote: Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
True. Although with the way the MSM covers things nowadays if you were interested in knowing what was going on with Italian (or any EU nation) politics you'd have to google it yourself.
If Trump flips any blue states it will likely be more representative of HRC's inability to motivate a big Democrat turnout than of Trump's appeal to Democrat voters. My anecdotal experience has shown me that the two most common approaches to this election are either morbid fascination or disgusted indifference. I don't forsee record turnouts.
Easy E wrote: Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
True. Although with the way the MSM covers things nowadays if you were interested in knowing what was going on with Italian (or any EU nation) politics you'd have to google it yourself.
If Trump flips any blue states it will likely be more representative of HRC's inability to motivate a big Democrat turnout than of Trump's appeal to Democrat voters. My anecdotal experience has shown me that the two most common approaches to this election are either morbid fascination or disgusted indifference. I don't forsee record turnouts.
I actually see record voting LOWs this election. I don't know if that helps or hurts Trump/Clinton.
Speaking of Trump... anyone see Trump's press conf yesterday dissing the press? I gotta say, that was glorious. He just doesn't give a feth.
Easy E wrote: Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
True. Although with the way the MSM covers things nowadays if you were interested in knowing what was going on with Italian (or any EU nation) politics you'd have to google it yourself.
If Trump flips any blue states it will likely be more representative of HRC's inability to motivate a big Democrat turnout than of Trump's appeal to Democrat voters. My anecdotal experience has shown me that the two most common approaches to this election are either morbid fascination or disgusted indifference. I don't forsee record turnouts.
I actually see record voting LOWs this election. I don't know if that helps or hurts Trump/Clinton.
Speaking of Trump... anyone see Trump's press conf yesterday dissing the press? I gotta say, that was glorious. He just doesn't give a feth.
Trump is making things more interesting this time around.
Have you read the NYT article about their trouble adhering to the Fairness Doctrine because they cover everything Trump does and HRC avoids press conferences and debates? Trump is owning the media spotlight for good or ill.
Easy E wrote: Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
True. Although with the way the MSM covers things nowadays if you were interested in knowing what was going on with Italian (or any EU nation) politics you'd have to google it yourself.
If Trump flips any blue states it will likely be more representative of HRC's inability to motivate a big Democrat turnout than of Trump's appeal to Democrat voters. My anecdotal experience has shown me that the two most common approaches to this election are either morbid fascination or disgusted indifference. I don't forsee record turnouts.
I actually see record voting LOWs this election. I don't know if that helps or hurts Trump/Clinton.
Speaking of Trump... anyone see Trump's press conf yesterday dissing the press? I gotta say, that was glorious. He just doesn't give a feth.
Trump is making things more interesting this time around.
Have you read the NYT article about their trouble adhering to the Fairness Doctrine because they cover everything Trump does and HRC avoids press conferences and debates? Trump is owning the media spotlight for good or ill.
Yuppers on NYT. It's their fault... the can't NOT cover Trump when he's willing to talk to them.
If HRC talks to the press as much as Trump, that'll likely hurt HRC.
It's like the press' version of Stockholm Syndrome.
Easy E wrote: Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
True. Although with the way the MSM covers things nowadays if you were interested in knowing what was going on with Italian (or any EU nation) politics you'd have to google it yourself.
If Trump flips any blue states it will likely be more representative of HRC's inability to motivate a big Democrat turnout than of Trump's appeal to Democrat voters. My anecdotal experience has shown me that the two most common approaches to this election are either morbid fascination or disgusted indifference. I don't forsee record turnouts.
I actually see record voting LOWs this election. I don't know if that helps or hurts Trump/Clinton.
Speaking of Trump... anyone see Trump's press conf yesterday dissing the press? I gotta say, that was glorious. He just doesn't give a feth.
Trump is making things more interesting this time around.
Have you read the NYT article about their trouble adhering to the Fairness Doctrine because they cover everything Trump does and HRC avoids press conferences and debates? Trump is owning the media spotlight for good or ill.
Yuppers on NYT. It's their fault... the can't NOT cover Trump when he's willing to talk to them.
If HRC talks to the press as much as Trump, that'll likely hurt HRC.
It's like the press' version of Stockholm Syndrome.
More like Frankenstein's monster. Media covers Trump relentless as if everything he does is newsworthy. Now they can't stop covering him so he continues to get free air time and dictate topics and narratives. HRC continues to avoid media scrutiny and the math still says Bernie can't win so there's nowhere else for the media spotlight to go.
Easy E wrote: Burlusconi would be a good comparison to Trump, but the general American population has no idea who the Feth that guy is!
So far, I am seeing this race coming down to party lines, and I don't think Trump has unlocked a way to flip Obama states yet. Therefore, he has no chance.
Jihadin wrote: You all know you want to see a Trump/Hillary debate. Don't lie.
You got me.
I wanna see Trump destroy Hillary in an all-out beer house brawler cage match.
In a debate Hillary would clean his clock with facts and that whole "I'm not Archy bunker with bad hair" thing. In a cage match Hillary would eat his face Hannibal Lecter style.
to quote Argyle De Bruce
"Hillary is the most ruthless King to ever sit on the throne of England..."
Well just saw this and thought it looks like a good read, until it took a very hard turn into the twilight zone:
Spoiler:
Phil Alba
March 9 · Amityville, NY ·
Although I have some reservations about Donald Trump, this article below by Bill Bennett articulates unimpeachable realities and deserves a few of your minutes to read and consider....
BE CAREFUL OUT THERE
Written by the distinguished Bill Bennett about Donald Trump.
I think you will find it very interesting and alarming.
You might want to take the time to read it.
[cid:3D8E143E5278495885E4EE1F1D6DC3E8@LaptopHP]
PHD - Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan
Cultural studies at the distinguished and renowned Heritage Foundation
Interesting take on Trump.
William J. Bennett, Host of Bill Bennett's Morning in America Show, is one of America's most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.He has one of the strongest Christian worldviews of any writer in modern times.
What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
By Bill Bennett
They will try to kill him before they let him be president.
It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.
Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It's about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it's in all of their interests to protect one another. It's one for all and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It's no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It's because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors.
They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there's one man who isn't beholden to anyone.
There's one man who doesn't need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher's union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama?
Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
First, I'd guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.
Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.
Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump.
Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama's birth certificate. He questioned Obama's college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he's doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He's questioning our relationship with Mexico; he's questioning why the border is wide open; he's questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he's questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he's questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he's questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question!
I'm certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.
Trump will ask if Obamacare's architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama's widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama's college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?
Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant.
Trump's election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama's records, the game is over.
The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.
Yes, it's become open season on Donald Trump.
The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses and if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can't silence him. And they sure can't intimidate him.
The more they try, the more the public will realize that he's the one telling the truth.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw this and thought it looks like a good read, until it took a very hard turn into the twilight zone:
Spoiler:
Phil Alba
March 9 · Amityville, NY ·
Although I have some reservations about Donald Trump, this article below by Bill Bennett articulates unimpeachable realities and deserves a few of your minutes to read and consider....
BE CAREFUL OUT THERE
Written by the distinguished Bill Bennett about Donald Trump.
I think you will find it very interesting and alarming.
You might want to take the time to read it.
[cid:3D8E143E5278495885E4EE1F1D6DC3E8@LaptopHP]
PHD - Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan
Cultural studies at the distinguished and renowned Heritage Foundation
Interesting take on Trump.
William J. Bennett, Host of Bill Bennett's Morning in America Show, is one of America's most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.He has one of the strongest Christian worldviews of any writer in modern times.
What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
By Bill Bennett
They will try to kill him before they let him be president.
It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.
Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It's about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it's in all of their interests to protect one another. It's one for all and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It's no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It's because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors.
They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there's one man who isn't beholden to anyone.
There's one man who doesn't need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher's union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama?
Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
First, I'd guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.
Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.
Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump.
Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama's birth certificate. He questioned Obama's college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he's doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He's questioning our relationship with Mexico; he's questioning why the border is wide open; he's questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he's questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he's questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he's questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question!
I'm certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.
Trump will ask if Obamacare's architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama's widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama's college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?
Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant.
Trump's election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama's records, the game is over.
The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.
Yes, it's become open season on Donald Trump.
The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses and if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can't silence him. And they sure can't intimidate him.
The more they try, the more the public will realize that he's the one telling the truth.
Trump made that point very clearly at the beginning of his run. Even nailed Hillary about her attending his wedding due to his donation to her political organization
Asterios wrote: Well just saw this and thought it looks like a good read, until it took a very hard turn into the twilight zone:
Spoiler:
Phil Alba
March 9 · Amityville, NY ·
Although I have some reservations about Donald Trump, this article below by Bill Bennett articulates unimpeachable realities and deserves a few of your minutes to read and consider....
BE CAREFUL OUT THERE
Written by the distinguished Bill Bennett about Donald Trump.
I think you will find it very interesting and alarming.
You might want to take the time to read it.
[cid:3D8E143E5278495885E4EE1F1D6DC3E8@LaptopHP]
PHD - Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan
Cultural studies at the distinguished and renowned Heritage Foundation
Interesting take on Trump.
William J. Bennett, Host of Bill Bennett's Morning in America Show, is one of America's most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.He has one of the strongest Christian worldviews of any writer in modern times.
What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
By Bill Bennett
They will try to kill him before they let him be president.
It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.
Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It's about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it's in all of their interests to protect one another. It's one for all and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It's no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It's because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors.
They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there's one man who isn't beholden to anyone.
There's one man who doesn't need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher's union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama?
Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
First, I'd guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.
Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.
Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump.
Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama's birth certificate. He questioned Obama's college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he's doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He's questioning our relationship with Mexico; he's questioning why the border is wide open; he's questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he's questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he's questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he's questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question!
I'm certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.
Trump will ask if Obamacare's architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama's widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama's college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?
Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant.
Trump's election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama's records, the game is over.
The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.
Yes, it's become open season on Donald Trump.
The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses and if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can't silence him. And they sure can't intimidate him.
The more they try, the more the public will realize that he's the one telling the truth.
So...immediately, then?
:p
well he was right about both parties and most big businesses not liking Trump, then things got lost in translation. but the first part is why I like trump fro the Win, the politicians don't want him too, and if they hate him he must be someone to take note of.
Asterios wrote: Well just saw this and thought it looks like a good read, until it took a very hard turn into the twilight zone:
Spoiler:
Phil Alba
March 9 · Amityville, NY ·
Although I have some reservations about Donald Trump, this article below by Bill Bennett articulates unimpeachable realities and deserves a few of your minutes to read and consider....
BE CAREFUL OUT THERE
Written by the distinguished Bill Bennett about Donald Trump.
I think you will find it very interesting and alarming.
You might want to take the time to read it.
[cid:3D8E143E5278495885E4EE1F1D6DC3E8@LaptopHP]
PHD - Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan
Cultural studies at the distinguished and renowned Heritage Foundation
Interesting take on Trump.
William J. Bennett, Host of Bill Bennett's Morning in America Show, is one of America's most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.He has one of the strongest Christian worldviews of any writer in modern times.
What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
By Bill Bennett
They will try to kill him before they let him be president.
It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.
Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It's about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it's in all of their interests to protect one another. It's one for all and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It's no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It's because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors.
They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there's one man who isn't beholden to anyone.
There's one man who doesn't need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher's union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama?
Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
First, I'd guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.
Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.
Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump.
Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama's birth certificate. He questioned Obama's college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he's doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He's questioning our relationship with Mexico; he's questioning why the border is wide open; he's questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he's questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he's questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he's questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question!
I'm certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.
Trump will ask if Obamacare's architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama's widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama's college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?
Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant.
Trump's election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama's records, the game is over.
The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.
Yes, it's become open season on Donald Trump.
The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses and if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can't silence him. And they sure can't intimidate him.
The more they try, the more the public will realize that he's the one telling the truth.
So...immediately, then?
:p
well he was right about both parties and most big businesses not liking Trump, then things got lost in translation. but the first part is why I like trump fro the Win, the politicians don't want him too, and if they hate him he must be someone to take note of.
Lost in translation, buried beneath crazy rhetoric and wild accusations...potato, potahto, right?
It's not just 'politicians and big businesses' that don't like him, and they don't dislike him just because he's shaking things up in the political arena. He's a bully. He's a loudmouth. He's a bigot, or at the very least he's riding a wave of bigoted sentiment. He's a thin-skinned narcissist. He calls names and talks about the size of his genitals during debates (at least Lyndon Johnson would whip it out and back up what he was saying). And, maybe most importantly, he has no desire to fact-check or take a firm position. Whatever he says at that moment becomes the Official Trump Platform, until he changes his mind, is told he just called for a war crime, or wants to appeal to a different crowd.
He's a weathervane. He's the worst sort of career politician, but without the career and the small saving grace of experience that would bring. Why does ANYONE who claims to be looking for honesty or sending a message to the political establishment want to give him their support? The only message it sends is "We like mudslinging and pandering. More of that, please."
Asterios wrote: Well just saw this and thought it looks like a good read, until it took a very hard turn into the twilight zone:
Spoiler:
Phil Alba
March 9 · Amityville, NY ·
Although I have some reservations about Donald Trump, this article below by Bill Bennett articulates unimpeachable realities and deserves a few of your minutes to read and consider....
BE CAREFUL OUT THERE
Written by the distinguished Bill Bennett about Donald Trump.
I think you will find it very interesting and alarming.
You might want to take the time to read it.
[cid:3D8E143E5278495885E4EE1F1D6DC3E8@LaptopHP]
PHD - Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan
Cultural studies at the distinguished and renowned Heritage Foundation
Interesting take on Trump.
William J. Bennett, Host of Bill Bennett's Morning in America Show, is one of America's most important, influential, and respected voices on cultural, political, and education issues.He has one of the strongest Christian worldviews of any writer in modern times.
What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency
By Bill Bennett
They will try to kill him before they let him be president.
It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump.
Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few.
It's about the unholy dynamics between big government, big business, and big media. They all benefit by the billions of dollars from this partnership, and it's in all of their interests to protect one another. It's one for all and all for one.
It’s a heck of a filthy relationship that makes everyone filthy rich, everyone except the American people. We get ripped off. We’re the patsies. But for once, the powerful socialist cabal and the corrupt crony capitalists are scared. The over-the-top reaction to Trump by politicians of both parties, the media, and the biggest corporations of America has been so swift and insanely angry that it suggests they are all threatened and frightened.
Donald Trump can self-fund. No matter how much they say to the contrary, the media, business, and political elite understand that Trump is no joke. He could actually win and upset their nice cozy apple cart.
It's no coincidence that everyone has gotten together to destroy The Donald. It's because most of the other politicians are part of the a good old boys club. They talk big, but they won’t change a thing. They are all beholden to big-money donors.
They are all owned by lobbyists, unions, lawyers, gigantic environmental organizations, and multinational corporations – like Big Pharmacy or Big Oil. Or they are owned lock, stock, and barrel by foreigners like George Soros owns Obama or foreign governments own Hillary and their Clinton Foundation donations.
These run-of-the-mill establishment politicians are all puppets owned by big money. But there's one man who isn't beholden to anyone.
There's one man who doesn't need foreigners, or foreign governments, or George Soros, or the United Auto Workers, or the teacher's union, or the Service Employees International Union, or the Bar Association to fund his campaign.
Billionaire tycoon and maverick Donald Trump doesn’t need anyone’s help. That means he doesn’t care what the media says. He doesn’t care what the corporate elites think. That makes him very dangerous to the entrenched interests. That makes Trump a huge threat to those people. Trump can ruin everything for the bribed politicians and their spoiled slave masters.
Don’t you ever wonder why the GOP has never tried to impeach Obama? Don’t you wonder why John Boehner and Mitch McConnell talk a big game, but never actually try to stop Obama?
Don’t you wonder why Congress holds the purse strings, yet has never tried to defund Obamacare or Obama’s clearly illegal executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens? Bizarre, right? It defies logic, right?
First, I'd guess many key Republicans are being bribed. Secondly, I believe many key Republicans are being blackmailed. Whether they are having affairs, or secretly gay, or stealing taxpayer money, the National Security Agency knows everything.
Ask former House Speaker Dennis Hastert about that. The government even knew he was withdrawing large sums of his own money from his own bank account. The NSA, the SEC, the IRS, and all the other three-letter government agencies are watching every Republican political leader. They surveil everything.
Thirdly, many Republicans are petrified of being called racists, so they are scared to ever criticize Obama or call out his crimes, let alone demand his impeachment.
Fourth , why rock the boat? After defeat or retirement, if you’re a good old boy, you’ve got a $5 million-per-year lobbying job waiting. The big-money interests have the system gamed. Win or lose, they win.
But Trump doesn’t play by any of these rules. Trump breaks up this nice, cozy relationship between big government, big media, and big business. All the rules are out the window if Trump wins the Presidency. The other politicians will protect Obama and his aides but not Trump.
Remember: Trump is the guy who publicly questioned Obama's birth certificate. He questioned Obama's college records and how a mediocre student got into an Ivy League university. Now, he's doing something no Republican has the chutzpah to do. He's questioning our relationship with Mexico; he's questioning why the border is wide open; he's questioning why no wall has been built across the border; he's questioning if allowing millions of illegal aliens into America is in our best interests; he's questioning why so many illegal aliens commit violent crimes, yet are not deported; and he's questioning why our trade deals with Mexico, Russia and China are so bad.
Trump has the audacity to ask out loud why American workers always get the short end of the stick. Good question!
I'm certain Trump will question what happened to the almost billion dollars given in a rigged no-bid contract to college friends of Michelle Obama at foreign companies to build the defective Obamacare website. By the way, that tab is now up to $5 billion.
Trump will ask if Obamacare's architects can be charged with fraud for selling it by lying. Trump will investigate Obama's widespread IRS conspiracy, not to mention Obama's college records. Trump will prosecute Clinton and Obama for fraud committed to cover up Benghazi before the election. How about the fraud committed by employees of the Labor Department when they made up dramatic job numbers in the last jobs report before the 2012 election?
Obama, the multinational corporations and the media need to stop Trump. They recognize this could get out of control. If left unchecked, telling the raw truth and asking questions everyone else is afraid to ask, Trump could wake a sleeping giant.
Trump's election would be a nightmare. Obama has committed many crimes. No one else but Trump would dare to prosecute. He will not hesitate. Once Trump gets in and gets a look at the cooked books and Obama's records, the game is over.
The jig is up. The goose is cooked. Holder could wind up in prison. Jarrett could wind up in prison. Obama bundler Corzine could wind up in prison for losing $1.5 billion of customer money.
Clinton could wind up in jail for deleting 32,000 emails or for accepting bribes from foreign governments while Secretary of State, or for misplacing $6 billion as the head of the State Department, or for lying about Benghazi. The entire upper level management of the IRS could wind up in prison.
Obamacare will be de-funded and dismantled. Obama himself could wind up ruined, his legacy in tatters. Trump will investigate. Trump will prosecute. Trump will go after everyone involved. That’s why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Donald Trump.
Yes, it's become open season on Donald Trump.
The left and the right are determined to attack his policies, harm his businesses and if possible, even keep him out of the coming debates. But they can't silence him. And they sure can't intimidate him.
The more they try, the more the public will realize that he's the one telling the truth.
So...immediately, then?
:p
well he was right about both parties and most big businesses not liking Trump, then things got lost in translation. but the first part is why I like trump fro the Win, the politicians don't want him too, and if they hate him he must be someone to take note of.
Lost in translation, buried beneath crazy rhetoric and wild accusations...potato, potahto, right?
It's not just 'politicians and big businesses' that don't like him, and they don't dislike him just because he's shaking things up in the political arena. He's a bully. He's a loudmouth. He's a bigot, or at the very least he's riding a wave of bigoted sentiment. He's a thin-skinned narcissist. He calls names and talks about the size of his genitals during debates (at least Lyndon Johnson would whip it out and back up what he was saying). And, maybe most importantly, he has no desire to fact-check or take a firm position. Whatever he says at that moment becomes the Official Trump Platform, until he changes his mind, is told he just called for a war crime, or wants to appeal to a different crowd.
He's a weathervane. He's the worst sort of career politician, but without the career and the small saving grace of experience that would bring. Why does ANYONE who claims to be looking for honesty or sending a message to the political establishment want to give him their support? The only message it sends is "We like mudslinging and pandering. More of that, please."
no it means for all his faults, its not as bad as being a politician.
Except he IS a politican. He's showcasing all the traits that people who say they don't like politicians claim to hate. The one difference is that he has no experience - and apparently limited knowledge - of how government works.
Is that the message that people want to send? That it's not dishonest, self-centered jerks that they think are bad for the country, but people who have held some sort of political office? Because that's not going to encourage any kind of positive change.
Spinner wrote: Except he IS a politican. He's showcasing all the traits that people who say they don't like politicians claim to hate. The one difference is that he has no experience - and apparently limited knowledge - of how government works.
Is that the message that people want to send? That it's not dishonest, self-centered jerks that they think are bad for the country, but people who have held some sort of political office? Because that's not going to encourage any kind of positive change.
that is where you are wrong, he is not a politician, if he was his campaign would have been run so much different pandering to every self interest group out there or at least some of them, he is not, pandering to self interest groups and so forth is what a politician does, he does not, therefore he is not a politician he is just an egomaniac.
No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Good news: Trump's out of the country on June 23rd.
Bad news: he's decided to visit Britain on the day of the EU referendum vote to help the OUT campaign
As somebody who's voting out, this is as welcome as a knee to the groin, then getting a nipple twister from a giant clamp
Alright, that's just weird. Now Obama pushing our interests was to be expected (although I think he should have stayed out of it). But Trump isn't even in any sort of office yet. The feth is he doing?
Good news: Trump's out of the country on June 23rd.
Bad news: he's decided to visit Britain on the day of the EU referendum vote to help the OUT campaign
As somebody who's voting out, this is as welcome as a knee to the groin, then getting a nipple twister from a giant clamp
Alright, that's just weird. Now Obama pushing our interests was to be expected (although I think he should have stayed out of it). But Trump isn't even in any sort of office yet. The feth is he doing?
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p
so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p
so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.
I never called you a racist.
If you were calling for blocking all Muslims from entering the US, that would make you a bigot. If you were making thinly-veiled remarks about Mexican immigrants all being rapists and thieves, that would make you a racist. If you were calling for the executions of terrorists' families, that would make you a terrifyingly delusional potential war criminal. So far as I can tell, you have said none of those things - although someone has, and I have opinions about him. Please do not put words in my mouth, and please do not tell me that Donald Trump says things that I am afraid to.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p
so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.
Except that's not only what Drumpf has said regarding foreigners. he's called most Mexicans rapists, and he's called for a blanket ban on Muslims. That's outright racism. So while you may support him because he says he'll stop illegals, you have to also know he's walked way further down that road to Racistland.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p
so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.
I never called you a racist.
If you were calling for blocking all Muslims from entering the US, that would make you a bigot. If you were making thinly-veiled remarks about Mexican immigrants all being rapists and thieves, that would make you a racist. If you were calling for the executions of terrorists' families, that would make you a terrifyingly delusional potential war criminal. So far as I can tell, you have said none of those things - although someone has, and I have opinions about him. Please do not put words in my mouth, and please do not tell me that Donald Trump says things that I am afraid to.
I may not agree with all he says, but I agree at the heart of it, I do feel we should build a wall or add more security to our borders, I do believe in not allowing Muslim Terrorists into this country, but how do you weed them out from peaceful Muslims? that is the issue, you either let them in or don't, there is no win or lose in this or right or wrong, as to terrorists families not all their family members are terrorists but most are and those that are not usually the terrorists kill themselves, ISIS has no middle ground or not involved ground, you are either with them or dead. am I a racist in these remarks?
And the idea he doesn't pander is ludicrous. Did you somehow miss his speech to AIPAC or the NRA? Pure pandering. And yeah, they are special interest groups.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p
so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.
I never called you a racist.
If you were calling for blocking all Muslims from entering the US, that would make you a bigot. If you were making thinly-veiled remarks about Mexican immigrants all being rapists and thieves, that would make you a racist. If you were calling for the executions of terrorists' families, that would make you a terrifyingly delusional potential war criminal. So far as I can tell, you have said none of those things - although someone has, and I have opinions about him. Please do not put words in my mouth, and please do not tell me that Donald Trump says things that I am afraid to.
I may not agree with all he says, but I agree at the heart of it, I do feel we should build a wall or add more security to our borders, I do believe in not allowing Muslim Terrorists into this country, but how do you weed them out from peaceful Muslims? that is the issue, you either let them in or don't, there is no win or lose in this or right or wrong, as to terrorists families not all their family members are terrorists but most are and those that are not usually the terrorists kill themselves, ISIS has no middle ground or not involved ground, you are either with them or dead. am I a racist in these remarks?
You're certainly making some ridiculous hard-line assumptions. Nobody 'believes' in allowing terrorists into the country. We already have quite strict immigration screening in place, despite what watching other agencies such as the TSA might lead you to believe. You don't have to choose between 'seal the borders' and 'let in the terrorists'.
It's the middle part that worries me. Do you or do you not believe that the families of terrorists should be targeted by armed forces, on the assumption that if they were not terrorists, they would be dead already?
Whoa. We're on a touchy subject.
I agree with holding back the refugee's in Europe from the Middle East till a sure fire way can be found to identify who they really are.
As for the Illegal Immigrants coming across the southern border I do believe ICE is ramping up for mass deportation currently.
A upbeat of enlistment with DACA kids is happening.
Same as MAVNI kids.
We've a issue with the northern border of Canada but them pesky Canadians are stripping bare Costco of all items. Since I don't go to Costco it just mean more traffic for me to deal with going down 16 and I5.
It's the middle part that worries me. Do you or do you not believe that the families of terrorists should be targeted by armed forces, on the assumption that if they were not terrorists, they would be dead already?
if those family members are terrorists? yes. you should get out a little more and see how things are going down with ISIS since if you are a member of ISIS your family is an active member of ISIS or its your duty to kill them, ISIS has some very extreme views and such, there is no middle ground, you are part of them or an enemy, and all enemies must die.
Jihadin wrote: Whoa. We're on a touchy subject.
I agree with holding back the refugee's in Europe from the Middle East till a sure fire way can be found to identify who they really are.
As for the Illegal Immigrants coming across the southern border I do believe ICE is ramping up for mass deportation currently.
A upbeat of enlistment with DACA kids is happening.
Same as MAVNI kids.
We've a issue with the northern border of Canada but them pesky Canadians are stripping bare Costco of all items. Since I don't go to Costco it just mean more traffic for me to deal with going down 16 and I5.
did you know in California if you are here Illegally you can get a Drivers license?
Kids who parents are here illegally are joining US Military (they're born here (kids) = DACA
Anchor Babies can be applied loosely are young adults who join the US Military for faster Naturalization = MAVNI = they have a language skill the US Army want
Edit
Spinner...Asterio...there's a fine line between being stupid and being dumb. Ease back on the family killing
Edit
That state Law was passed to help ensure safe driving on the roads by illegals. So far that has little impact on safer roads. Road danger has not increase or decrease
Jihadin wrote: Kids who parents are here illegally are joining US Military (they're born here (kids) = DACA
Anchor Babies can be applied loosely are young adults who join the US Military for faster Naturalization = MAVNI = they have a language skill the US Army want
as far as i'm concerned if you serve in the US military and serve well you should be granted citizenship, but on the other hand it irks me when people enter this country illegally claiming to be escaping cruel and inhuman conditions back home then go waving their countries flag like they are proud of it, if they were so proud why don't they try to make their country better then?
I go back to my original remark, Trump is like a Stephanie Meyer protagonist, people just project themselves on to him.
There are no hypocrisies, no outright lies, inconsistencies, racism or bigotry that can be pointed out that will in any way shift away adoration for the man. It can all be easily dismissed by ignoring it. Not even his enviable failure as a POTUS will shift the view, it will just be rationalized to protect Trump, the savior.
....an to preempt it....HRC/Sanders supporters are basically the same.
It's the middle part that worries me. Do you or do you not believe that the families of terrorists should be targeted by armed forces, on the assumption that if they were not terrorists, they would be dead already?
if those family members are terrorists? yes. you should get out a little more and see how things are going down with ISIS since if you are a member of ISIS your family is an active member of ISIS or its your duty to kill them, ISIS has some very extreme views and such, there is no middle ground, you are part of them or an enemy, and all enemies must die.
See, but what Donald Trump said - and what I am asking about - isn't 'target family members who are also ISIS fighters' - it was just 'family members'. The implication was that it would be elderly Mom and Dad at home, or younger siblings; people who couldn't defend themselves or otherwise wouldn't be considered enemy combatants. A 'taste of their own medicine' sort of rhetoric. You don't have to single out the ISIS fighter's brother who is also a member of ISIS as a target. He already is one.
So is that something you would support? I'm asking because I would think that alone would be enough to turn off his supporters in droves, because holy crap that's a horrible, disgusting idea that solves nothing and drags us down to their level.
Muslim Terrorists into this country, but how do you weed them out from peaceful Muslims? that is the issue, you either let them in or don't,
Without going too deep in to the rest of what you have said, the assumption that you can single out Muslims as a group, and that it is fine to exclude 1.6 billion Muslims for the actions of a few people they share a religion with. The assumption that "Muslim" is a single monolithic block of people with the same beliefs, activities and culture is also a problem. If you believe in excluding Muslims in that way, why not Christians for the actions of the IRA continuity groups, who continue to be a threat to the UK and raise money in the US?
BrotherGecko wrote: I go back to my original remark, Trump is like a Stephanie Meyer protagonist, people just project themselves on to him.
There are no hypocrisies, no outright lies, inconsistencies, racism or bigotry that can be pointed out that will in any way shift away adoration for the man. It can all be easily dismissed by ignoring it. Not even his enviable failure as a POTUS will shift the view, it will just be rationalized to protect Trump, the savior.
....an to preempt it....HRC/Sanders supporters are basically the same.
#Optimus2016
oh Trump is not the savior in fact doubt he will get anything done, but he will do what he can to keep Illegals out unlike Hillary and many Republicans who would let them in with handouts.
It's the middle part that worries me. Do you or do you not believe that the families of terrorists should be targeted by armed forces, on the assumption that if they were not terrorists, they would be dead already?
if those family members are terrorists? yes. you should get out a little more and see how things are going down with ISIS since if you are a member of ISIS your family is an active member of ISIS or its your duty to kill them, ISIS has some very extreme views and such, there is no middle ground, you are part of them or an enemy, and all enemies must die.
See, but what Donald Trump said - and what I am asking about - isn't 'target family members who are also ISIS fighters' - it was just 'family members'. The implication was that it would be elderly Mom and Dad at home, or younger siblings; people who couldn't defend themselves or otherwise wouldn't be considered enemy combatants. A 'taste of their own medicine' sort of rhetoric. You don't have to single out the ISIS fighter's brother who is also a member of ISIS as a target. He already is one.
So is that something you would support? I'm asking because I would think that alone would be enough to turn off his supporters in droves, because holy crap that's a horrible, disgusting idea that solves nothing and drags us down to their level.
and you miss my point with ISIS there are no innocents at very(I mean very) young ages they are tought what to believe and how to kill the enemy.
Muslim Terrorists into this country, but how do you weed them out from peaceful Muslims? that is the issue, you either let them in or don't,
Without going too deep in to the rest of what you have said, the assumption that you can single out Muslims as a group, and that it is fine to exclude 1.6 billion Muslims for the actions of a few people they share a religion with. The assumption that "Muslim" is a single monolithic block of people with the same beliefs, activities and culture is also a problem. If you believe in excluding Muslims in that way, why not Christians for the actions of the IRA continuity groups, who continue to be a threat to the UK and raise money in the US?
actually I think the IRA is more Catholic, but I may be wrong, and you miss my point, it does not matter religion or race, if they are terrorists they should be kept out, but tell me this how many Irish Terrorists have destroyed buildings or committed terrorists plots in the US? how many Muslims?
It's the middle part that worries me. Do you or do you not believe that the families of terrorists should be targeted by armed forces, on the assumption that if they were not terrorists, they would be dead already?
if those family members are terrorists? yes. you should get out a little more and see how things are going down with ISIS since if you are a member of ISIS your family is an active member of ISIS or its your duty to kill them, ISIS has some very extreme views and such, there is no middle ground, you are part of them or an enemy, and all enemies must die.
See, but what Donald Trump said - and what I am asking about - isn't 'target family members who are also ISIS fighters' - it was just 'family members'. The implication was that it would be elderly Mom and Dad at home, or younger siblings; people who couldn't defend themselves or otherwise wouldn't be considered enemy combatants. A 'taste of their own medicine' sort of rhetoric. You don't have to single out the ISIS fighter's brother who is also a member of ISIS as a target. He already is one.
So is that something you would support? I'm asking because I would think that alone would be enough to turn off his supporters in droves, because holy crap that's a horrible, disgusting idea that solves nothing and drags us down to their level.
and you miss my point with ISIS there are no innocents at very(I mean very) young ages they are tought what to believe and how to kill the enemy.
The answer I'm getting here is "Yes, kill the kids, but I don't want to say it out loud."
Which says everything, really. I'm expecting a 'don't put words in my mouth' post right back at me, but if you want to say 'No, I do not believe in shooting the relatives of ISIS members unless they are active members of ISIS committing the atrocities that this horrible group of people is known for, as opposed to young children and elderly relatives of members of said terror group', you have every opportunity to do so.
I'd like to hear it, I really would.
And, what, Catholicism isn't a type of Christianity now? I have a roommate who would be very surprised to hear that.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p
so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.
Trump has declared a moratorium on Muslims-legal or illegal - entering the US. Thats bigotted and screamingly unconstitutional-not just inferred constitution, not just the Bill of Rights, but the original Constitution. If he tried it thats a prima facae impeachable offense ON DAY ONE.
Also something about Mexicans...but he's sure some are good people.
Its like Trump is being cast as the downfall of the US of A. Like Road Warrior Downfall or something.........hhmmmm.....Road Warrior or Zombies...which be first
Jihadin wrote: Its like Trump is being cast as the downfall of the US of A. Like Road Warrior Downfall or something.........hhmmmm.....Road Warrior or Zombies...which be first
The first Zombies movie was White Zombie, 1932. Bela Legosi.
The first Road Warrior Movie was 1979. Mel Gibson.
It's the middle part that worries me. Do you or do you not believe that the families of terrorists should be targeted by armed forces, on the assumption that if they were not terrorists, they would be dead already?
if those family members are terrorists? yes. you should get out a little more and see how things are going down with ISIS since if you are a member of ISIS your family is an active member of ISIS or its your duty to kill them, ISIS has some very extreme views and such, there is no middle ground, you are part of them or an enemy, and all enemies must die.
See, but what Donald Trump said - and what I am asking about - isn't 'target family members who are also ISIS fighters' - it was just 'family members'. The implication was that it would be elderly Mom and Dad at home, or younger siblings; people who couldn't defend themselves or otherwise wouldn't be considered enemy combatants. A 'taste of their own medicine' sort of rhetoric. You don't have to single out the ISIS fighter's brother who is also a member of ISIS as a target. He already is one.
So is that something you would support? I'm asking because I would think that alone would be enough to turn off his supporters in droves, because holy crap that's a horrible, disgusting idea that solves nothing and drags us down to their level.
and you miss my point with ISIS there are no innocents at very(I mean very) young ages they are tought what to believe and how to kill the enemy.
The answer I'm getting here is "Yes, kill the kids, but I don't want to say it out loud."
Which says everything, really. I'm expecting a 'don't put words in my mouth' post right back at me, but if you want to say 'No, I do not believe in shooting the relatives of ISIS members unless they are active members of ISIS committing the atrocities that this horrible group of people is known for, as opposed to young children and elderly relatives of members of said terror group', you have every opportunity to do so.
I'd like to hear it, I really would.
And, what, Catholicism isn't a type of Christianity now? I have a roommate who would be very surprised to hear that.
if the kids go out killing people? yes they are terrorists in and of themselves, you keep thinking there is a distinction, a bullet from a kid can kill you just as well as a bullet from an adult.
and no the Catholic church is not Baptist, Protestant or any other number of other groups you seem to link all into Christianity, I consider the Catholic religion more of a hypocritical religion then some others, but not so far as the one Tom Cruise is in, I believe religion has its place but also think religion is the major cause of most atrocities committed from the ISIS terrorists to the Catholic Crusaders.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No he just panders to the most base instincts, horrible ideas and daily whims of what he thinks the masses want to hear in order to be liked. He is the ultimate Twitter/Reddit candidate. That doesn't make for good policy.
maybe not good policy but a winning one, you are right he does pander to the most base instincts he says what people fear to say for fear of being labeled a racist and so forth.
Or he says what only some, actually little bit racist people are thinking but don't want to say. Not everyone. Either way, it's pandering.
I don't think it's a winning strategy in the least. Maybe in the Republican primaries, with a base that has been slowly shifting to crazier and crazier territory - a shift Trump himself has certainly helped along. Not in the national election.
Please, PLEASE not in the national election....:p
so you are calling me a racist cause I feel those who enter this country illegally should be stopped and kicked out? regardless of the fact I have no problem with those of any race who enter this country legally? but I am a racist? and that is why I am voting for Trump because I am tired of being labeled something I am not.
Trump has declared a moratorium on Muslims-legal or illegal - entering the US. Thats bigotted and screamingly unconstitutional-not just inferred constitution, not just the Bill of Rights, but the original Constitution. If he tried it thats a prima facae impeachable offense ON DAY ONE.
Also something about Mexicans...but he's sure some are good people.
Dammit Fraz... you owe me a beer.
You're wrong, the President has that power:
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
No. The distinction is that you're the only one, including Donald Trump, talking about self-defense. Or framing the answer that way, anyway. Like I said, I think the lack of an answer to the question answers it pretty solidly.
And I'd say Catholicism is pretty firmly Christian...seems to tick all the boxes from an outside viewpoint like mine...but all Muslims are Muslims, right? We can break Christianity down into fifty different branches without a sweat, just can't tell those gosh-darn extremists apart from the rest.
You're wrong, the President has that power:
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
You are right that it would be bigoted.
surprised such a law exists now a days, can see a reason for its implementation like keeping out all ISIS members but on a broad stroke of an entire religion?
Spinner wrote: No. The distinction is that you're the only one, including Donald Trump, talking about self-defense. Or framing the answer that way, anyway. Like I said, I think the lack of an answer to the question answers it pretty solidly.
And I'd say Catholicism is pretty firmly Christian...seems to tick all the boxes from an outside viewpoint like mine...but all Muslims are Muslims, right? We can break Christianity down into fifty different branches without a sweat, just can't tell those gosh-darn extremists apart from the rest.
and you ignore everything I said, lets see I said there are peaceful Muslims and there are Extremist Muslims not counting all factions in between, furthermore I said if that kid picks up a gun with a desire to kill non-ISIS people, then yes he is a terrorist in my books and should be stopped.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
You are right that it would be bigoted.
The Constitution wipes its ass with the US code. In a "who has the biggest dick" contest, guess which one wins?
The law itself cannot contravene the Constitution, nor is it written to do so.
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
You are right that it would be bigoted.
The Constitution wipes its ass with the US code. In a "who has the biggest dick" contest, guess which one wins?
The law itself cannot contravene the Constitution, nor is it written to do so.
How does it contravene the Constitution?
And really... have you not paid attention the the Supreme Court rulings lately?
There is US code for many things that are unconstitutional, that doesn't make them constitutional. Just look at the flag code as a prime example, you can write all the laws you want, it's still unconstitutional to make it illegal to burn it. We can't go a week without bringing up Citizens United or the DOMA, so why are we pretending that "having a law" = "the law is constitutional"?
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
It seems that the terrorism prohibition in section 3 would already bar the entry of anyone who is an ISIS member or is suspected of being an ISIS member or who is viewed as a risk to possibly commit an act of terrorism in the US. The only people that would be kept out of the US by a President Trump edict placing a moratorium on all Muslim immigration that aren't already barred from entry by existing federal immigration law would be Muslim who don't have any connection to terrorism whatsoever and aren't viewed to be a potential terrorist. Why would we need a new law to stop people that aren't dangerous? Trump is just being another pandering politician playing to the most base instincts of a segment of voters and offering to pass new federal law that amounts to nothing more than extraneous busy work and added regulations that solve a nonexistent problem. The nominee for the party of limited govt conservatives is proposing big govt solutions to nonexistent problem via additional federal laws.
1st Amendment, the Muhammad Ali of Amendments, the Smokin Joe Frasier of proclaimations, the Sonny Liston of provisions, will take that out in three rounds.
That Assumes ACW amendments and the Civil Rights Acts they empower don't decide to jump in, and like Thomas at Nashville, go through it like gak through a goose.
Try it and watch the SCOTUS march in column to the Whitehouse and slap that circus clown all the way back to New York City. And if he tries to resist, well that whole "enemies domestic" thing starts to rear its ugly head. or in Trumpite parlance...The Constitution and SCOTUS were mean to him, just mean and unfair.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
It seems that the terrorism prohibition in section 3 would already bar the entry of anyone who is an ISIS member or is suspected of being an ISIS member or who is viewed as a risk to possibly commit an act of terrorism in the US. The only people that would be kept out of the US by a President Trump edict placing a moratorium on all Muslim immigration that aren't already barred from entry by existing federal immigration law would be Muslim who don't have any connection to terrorism whatsoever and aren't viewed to be a potential terrorist. Why would we need a new law to stop people that aren't dangerous? Trump is just being another pandering politician playing to the most base instincts of a segment of voters and offering to pass new federal law that amounts to nothing more than extraneous busy work and added regulations that solve a nonexistent problem. The nominee for the party of limited govt conservatives is proposing big govt solutions to nonexistent problem via additional federal laws.
problem is that is not even guaranteed, look at the 9/11 terrorists, they got into the country, its not like terrorists have a sign saying they are terrorists, but I agree a blanket ban on all Muslims is not the answer, but it behooves one to wonder what is?
d-usa wrote: There is US code for many things that are unconstitutional, that doesn't make them constitutional. Just look at the flag code as a prime example, you can write all the laws you want, it's still unconstitutional to make it illegal to burn it. We can't go a week without bringing up Citizens United or the DOMA, so why are we pretending that "having a law" = "the law is constitutional"?
It's the law on the books.
Do some laws suck donkey's ass and should be obliterated? Yes.
Do some laws toe the grey-area where it'll split the populace's opinion 50/50? Of course...
Does it stop being the law? No.
If you don't like it, get congress-critters to change it or challenge it in court.
Frankly, if Obama banned Justin Beiber (Canadian Citizen) from re-entrying the US because he hated Beiber's last album... Obama could. The court generally loathes to get involved in statutory executive disputes... however, I can certainly see the Supreme Court neutering this to thy kingdom come, thus allowing 'the Beib' back in the states.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: 1st Amendment, the Muhammad Ali of Amendments, the Smokin Joe Frasier of proclaimations, the Sonny Liston of provisions, will take that out in three rounds.
That Assumes ACW amendments and the Civil Rights Acts they empower don't decide to jump in, and like Thomas at Nashville, go through it like gak through a goose.
Try it and watch the SCOTUS march in column to the Whitehouse and slap that circus clown all the way back to New York City. And if he tries to resist, well that whole "enemies domestic" thing starts to rear its ugly head. or in Trumpite parlance...The Constitution and SCOTUS were mean to him, just mean and unfair.
Dog I think I really hate that guy now.
Fraz. The 1st Amendment does jack and crap with respect to immigration functions.
I'll concede the usage of the Civil Rights Act (tenuous as it may be) as it's one argument the government is currently using in their case against Texas' DACA case.
Frazzled wrote: 1st Amendment, the Muhammad Ali of Amendments, the Smokin Joe Frasier of proclaimations, the Sonny Liston of provisions, will take that out in three rounds.
That Assumes ACW amendments and the Civil Rights Acts they empower don't decide to jump in, and like Thomas at Nashville, go through it like gak through a goose.
Try it and watch the SCOTUS march in column to the Whitehouse and slap that circus clown all the way back to New York City.
And if he tries to resist, well that whole "enemies domestic" thing starts to rear its ugly head.
or in Trumpite parlance...The Constitution and SCOTUS were mean to him, just mean and unfair.
Dog I think I really hate that guy now.
None of that would happen because none of those amendments would apply just like they didn't apply when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Scott Act of 1888, The Geary Act in 1892, the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903, the Immigration Act of 1907, the Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Quota Law of 1921, the National Origins Act in 1924 and 1929, and the Internal Security Act of 1950.
The Morning Consult survey polled 2,001 registered voters from May 27-30 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Among all voters, 48 percent view the emails as a “major problem,” while 24 percent see it as a minor problem. Just 18 percent of voters said it was no problem at all. But even among Democrats, a quarter of them think it is a major problem for Clinton, compared with 50 percent of self-identified independents and 78 percent of Republicans.
Also:
Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent) believe Clinton should release the transcripts, along with 67 percent of independents and 80 percent of Republicans.
We're now pretending that Catholicism, the single biggest denomination of Christianity on Earth, is not part of Christianity. What the heck happened to this thread?
I'll type it slower this time, to see if it helps:
Being a law on the books has absolutely zero impact on it being constitutional.
Right now there is a federal law that says it's illegal for me to not have a spotlight shining on the flag hanging in front of my house during the night.
The reason there are a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books is because:
a) idiot politicians pandering to idiot voters pass idiotic laws so that they can go back to the idiotic voters that voted for the idiotic politicians and tell them "I love the flag/hate the gays/whatever more than the other guys, look at this unconstitutional law I passed that says so".
b) non-idiot people working for federal agencies know that there is zero point trying to enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional and they would just cost money to enforce, so they remain on the books because there is never any opportunity to challenge them in court.
c) if they do get challenged, the idiot politicians just repeat step a.
Frazzled wrote: 1st Amendment, the Muhammad Ali of Amendments, the Smokin Joe Frasier of proclaimations, the Sonny Liston of provisions, will take that out in three rounds.
That Assumes ACW amendments and the Civil Rights Acts they empower don't decide to jump in, and like Thomas at Nashville, go through it like gak through a goose.
Try it and watch the SCOTUS march in column to the Whitehouse and slap that circus clown all the way back to New York City. And if he tries to resist, well that whole "enemies domestic" thing starts to rear its ugly head. or in Trumpite parlance...The Constitution and SCOTUS were mean to him, just mean and unfair.
Dog I think I really hate that guy now.
None of that would happen because none of those amendments would apply just like they didn't apply when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Scott Act of 1888, The Geary Act in 1892, the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903, the Immigration Act of 1907, the Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Quota Law of 1921, the National Origins Act in 1924 and 1929, and the Internal Security Act of 1950.
None of those excluded a specific religion which violates the First Amendment. Note also Trump is note even saying he has a law.
ALL were before civil rights legislation and the new era where we actually decided to abide the Constitution.
d-usa wrote: I'll type it slower this time, to see if it helps:
Being a law on the books has absolutely zero impact on it being constitutional.
Right now there is a federal law that says it's illegal for me to not have a spotlight shining on the flag hanging in front of my house during the night.
The reason there are a lot of unconstitutional laws on the books is because:
a) idiot politicians pandering to idiot voters pass idiotic laws so that they can go back to the idiotic voters that voted for the idiotic politicians and tell them "I love the flag/hate the gays/whatever more than the other guys, look at this unconstitutional law I passed that says so".
b) non-idiot people working for federal agencies know that there is zero point trying to enforce these laws because they are unconstitutional and they would just cost money to enforce, so they remain on the books because there is never any opportunity to challenge them in court.
c) if they do get challenged, the idiot politicians just repeat step a.
And I'll type my response slower as well:
The President has statutory authority to block any alien/immigrant/non-citizen for any reason. He/She just have to have "a reason".
The key to challenge the President's authority is what justification was used to block said alien/immigrant/non-citizen.
If it's "Imma block all Muslims from entering the states"... .then, I hope his/her ass get bitch slapped out the WH.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
well until it is decided by SCOTUS, it is, any and all laws whether sane or not are Constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise. we may feel they are unconstitutional but we are not the deciders SCOTUS is.
just like I cannot own a Nuke and say its Constitutional since there are laws saying I cannot.
At the same time you can argue that every single law is unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is constitutional.
It doesn't take a SCOTUS ruling to know a law is unconstitutional, which is why there are smarter people than politicians who are not enforcing many many laws.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.
Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?
d-usa wrote: At the same time you can argue that every single law is unconstitutional until SCOTUS says it is constitutional.
It doesn't take a SCOTUS ruling to know a law is unconstitutional, which is why there are smarter people than politicians who are not enforcing many many laws.
so by your very statement I can own a Nuke, since there is no Constitutional law saying I cannot and yet the 2nd. amendment would say I can.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.
Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?
and thats the key phrase, the Constitution protects American Citizens, not the world, we carry no control over others in the world only on our own citizens.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?
He changes his tune every 5 minute.
I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?
He changes his tune every 5 minute.
I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?
He changes his tune every 5 minute.
I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.
and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
well until it is decided by SCOTUS, it is, any and all laws whether sane or not are Constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise. we may feel they are unconstitutional but we are not the deciders SCOTUS is.
just like I cannot own a Nuke and say its Constitutional since there are laws saying I cannot.
Quit while you're behind already. It doesn't take SCOTUS to kick this out. Any fed judge can and will do it. I'm sure the ACLU will have writs prepped and on standby, like the Minutemen of old.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?
He changes his tune every 5 minute.
I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.
and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.
I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves. EDIT: I am going to quit posting on this thread for awhile. I feel I am about to lose my temper.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
Frazz... when are you going to stop take Trump's word at face value?
He changes his tune every 5 minute.
I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.
and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.
I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.
I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.
and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.
I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves.
EDIT: I am going to quit posting on this thread for awhile. I feel I am about to lose my temper.
but we would be getting rid of Miley Cyrus, Rosie O'Donnell, Lena Dunham, Al Sharpton too name a few.
If its' "Imma block all persons who lived in war-torn Syria until a viable vetting process is in place"... then, that's a stronger justification.
I can accept that judgement, but others will not.
That is NOT what Trump is arguing though. He's arguing the exclusion of ALL Muslims. Thats prima facae unconstitutional. No statute can over-ride it. Period. End of Story.
Frankly the concept that people think this is constitutional is, for lack of a better word, insulting to the divine greatness that is the Constitution.
well until it is decided by SCOTUS, it is, any and all laws whether sane or not are Constitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise. we may feel they are unconstitutional but we are not the deciders SCOTUS is.
just like I cannot own a Nuke and say its Constitutional since there are laws saying I cannot.
Quit while you're behind already. It doesn't take SCOTUS to kick this out. Any fed judge can and will do it. I'm sure the ACLU will have writs prepped and on standby, like the Minutemen of old.
guess you never heard of appeals to a higher court? you know how most if not all cases end up in the Supreme court.
I'll take his word 30 second after someone else is sworn in as President.
and if hes sworn in? i'm curious if all those people who said they would leave the US to go to Canada will if hes elected, cause some of them I wouldn't mind leaving, let Canada deal with them.
I would welcome a coup. We will have proven that we are not worthy of governing ourselves.
EDIT: I am going to quit posting on this thread for awhile. I feel I am about to lose my temper.
but we would be getting rid of Miley Cyrus, Rosie O'Donnell, Lena Dunham, Al Sharpton too name a few.
I'll take Miley. She breaks the fun/crazy scale. The rest can go to Alberta, which is where Hope Goes to Die (tm)
SCOTUS decides roughly 80 cases per year. It is petitioned to hear around 7000. And those are only the rulings that it is petitioned for. To say "most if not all cases end up at the Supreme Court" would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you think it.
Gordon Shumway wrote: SCOTUS decides roughly 80 cases per year. It is petitioned to hear around 7000. And those are only the rulings that it is petitioned for. To say "most if not all cases end up at the Supreme Court" would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you think it.
So what you are saying is that there is a better chance that SCOTUS will hear a case than there is of some people making a correct claim in this thread?
Gordon Shumway wrote: SCOTUS decides roughly 80 cases per year. It is petitioned to hear around 7000. And those are only the rulings that it is petitioned for. To say "most if not all cases end up at the Supreme Court" would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you think it.
meant most if not all cases that appear in the Supreme Court are from Appeals to a higher court.
Prestor Jon wrote: Trump is making things more interesting this time around.
Have you read the NYT article about their trouble adhering to the Fairness Doctrine because they cover everything Trump does and HRC avoids press conferences and debates? Trump is owning the media spotlight for good or ill.
Not to be pedantic, but do you mean the equal time rule? Fairness doctrine is gone. I haven't seen the article in question so I'm not sure.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.
Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?
It's hard to find an actual quote, but: "Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told The Associated Press that the proposal would apply to "everybody," including both Muslim tourists and those seeking immigration visas." (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-immigrants-2015-12)
I'm sure he's backed off some from the nomination-geared hyperbole, but even the more extreme position seems to apply only to those applying for visas - i.e., non-Citizens.
The big issue is going to be consular non-reviewability. Generally the judicial branch will not challenge the consular officer's decision. They could pretty much just say "all Muslims are potential terrorists until proven otherwise" in the same way that they currently assume every Southeast Asian woman is committing marriage fraud until she proves otherwise. When the person comes in for their visa interview the consular officer could ask them questions until they slip up somehow.
There might be some ancillary info in the Kerry vs Din case: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1402_e29g.pdf For the most part, it sounds like the Supreme Court is upholding their decision not to review consular decisions. Furthermore, it seems from that decision that denying a visa is not depriving anyone of life, property, or liberty (not taken or imprisoned) nor is it denying due process. Unless there are more recent decisions (since June 2015) regarding consular non-reviewability (and there could be, I am not a lawyer) any declaration that denying visas is unconstitutional is asinine.
PS - lest someone wishes to label me a bigot, I am not being flippant about this. I have a lot to lose personally if such a law were to come into effect and how broadly it is applied. This is why I know about immigration law as much as I do. (And every time I have to deal with the system I find out how little I actually know.)
You're wrong, the President has that power:
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
You are right that it would be bigoted.
surprised such a law exists now a days, can see a reason for its implementation like keeping out all ISIS members but on a broad stroke of an entire religion?
Spinner wrote: No. The distinction is that you're the only one, including Donald Trump, talking about self-defense. Or framing the answer that way, anyway. Like I said, I think the lack of an answer to the question answers it pretty solidly.
And I'd say Catholicism is pretty firmly Christian...seems to tick all the boxes from an outside viewpoint like mine...but all Muslims are Muslims, right? We can break Christianity down into fifty different branches without a sweat, just can't tell those gosh-darn extremists apart from the rest.
and you ignore everything I said, lets see I said there are peaceful Muslims and there are Extremist Muslims not counting all factions in between, furthermore I said if that kid picks up a gun with a desire to kill non-ISIS people, then yes he is a terrorist in my books and should be stopped.
I'm not asking that. The question is, and always has been, whether or not you are okay with retributive killings of noncombatants related to ISIS fighters. Not a child soldier, just a child. Donald Trump is, apparently, and I find that monstrous.
You're wrong, the President has that power:
Under U.S. Code, the president does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out of the country, for any reason he thinks best. Per 8 USC §1182
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
You are right that it would be bigoted.
surprised such a law exists now a days, can see a reason for its implementation like keeping out all ISIS members but on a broad stroke of an entire religion?
Spinner wrote: No. The distinction is that you're the only one, including Donald Trump, talking about self-defense. Or framing the answer that way, anyway. Like I said, I think the lack of an answer to the question answers it pretty solidly.
And I'd say Catholicism is pretty firmly Christian...seems to tick all the boxes from an outside viewpoint like mine...but all Muslims are Muslims, right? We can break Christianity down into fifty different branches without a sweat, just can't tell those gosh-darn extremists apart from the rest.
and you ignore everything I said, lets see I said there are peaceful Muslims and there are Extremist Muslims not counting all factions in between, furthermore I said if that kid picks up a gun with a desire to kill non-ISIS people, then yes he is a terrorist in my books and should be stopped.
I'm not asking that. The question is, and always has been, whether or not you are okay with retributive killings of noncombatants related to ISIS fighters. Not a child soldier, just a child. Donald Trump is, apparently, and I find that monstrous.
And I keep telling you there is no such thing as related Non-combatants when it comes to ISIS. if there was ISIS killed them already, as far as ISIS goes with family you are either helping them or you are dead.
Frazzled wrote: 1st Amendment, the Muhammad Ali of Amendments, the Smokin Joe Frasier of proclaimations, the Sonny Liston of provisions, will take that out in three rounds.
That Assumes ACW amendments and the Civil Rights Acts they empower don't decide to jump in, and like Thomas at Nashville, go through it like gak through a goose.
Try it and watch the SCOTUS march in column to the Whitehouse and slap that circus clown all the way back to New York City.
And if he tries to resist, well that whole "enemies domestic" thing starts to rear its ugly head.
or in Trumpite parlance...The Constitution and SCOTUS were mean to him, just mean and unfair.
Dog I think I really hate that guy now.
None of that would happen because none of those amendments would apply just like they didn't apply when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Scott Act of 1888, The Geary Act in 1892, the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903, the Immigration Act of 1907, the Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Quota Law of 1921, the National Origins Act in 1924 and 1929, and the Internal Security Act of 1950.
None of those excluded a specific religion which violates the First Amendment. Note also Trump is note even saying he has a law.
ALL were before civil rights legislation and the new era where we actually decided to abide the Constitution.
Please show me the section of the Civil Roghts Act of 1964 that deals with federal immigration law and how it prevents Congress or PotUS from deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the USA.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.
Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?
How do non US citizens that haven't immigrated into the US yet get protection from the constitution? They aren't citizens and they aren't in the US. Immigration quotas and bans wouldn't stop US citizens and residents from having freedom of religion.
Please show me the section of the Civil Roghts Act of 1964 that deals with federal immigration law and how it prevents Congress or PotUS from deciding who is allowed to immigrate to the USA.
me thinks people think the Constitution of the United States refers to everyone in the world, it does not It only refers to citizens of the United States.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.
Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?
and thats the key phrase, the Constitution protects American Citizens, not the world, we carry no control over others in the world only on our own citizens.
Yes, but it's too bad Trump suggested keeping even American ctizens out, and in any case it would still still a bigoted, unenforceable law.
So, unless there's something else that overrides this, the President does, indeed, have the power to block just about anyone (non-citizen that is).
Thank you. I've been hearing the "it's unconstitutional!!!!1!" screeching for months now and despite re-reading the document, I cannot for the life of me find out which Article (or which Constitution) they are referring to.
Freedom of Religion, most probably. There is some leway there, whether the US constitution applys to non-citizens is a weird subject, but Trump suggested blocking all Muslims, even US citizens (although he may have gone back on that), which violates the firsr amendment. It's also unenforceable, how do you test if a person is Muslim?
and thats the key phrase, the Constitution protects American Citizens, not the world, we carry no control over others in the world only on our own citizens.
Yes, but it's too bad Trump suggested keeping even American ctizens out, and in any case it would still still a bigoted, unenforceable law.
he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.
whembly wrote: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure
Yeah, and many wealthy people of that era thought that periodic war made for a good nation because if they or theirs had to serve it was usually from the back.
Guys... I think we're painting with a large brush here... I realize that the waters are muddied a bit, but simply looking at the 14th amendment in conjunction to 5th & 6th, non-citizen do benefit on many Constitutional protections, as they are "persons". (ie, due process / equal protection). But, that doesn't mean they're automatically citizens or get legal residency status just by "being here".
Also, it's easier to remember what non-citizens don't have under the US Constitution, such as they're prohibited to: default residency, vote, gun ownership, government jobs (some exceptions), etc....
Furthermore, anything related to immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not really criminal law. In most cases, immigration policies is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review, especially when Congress writes statutory laws.
Which is why it's interesting that the lower court ruled in favor of Texas in that DACA case... which, is now awaiting whether the Supreme Court would take this appeal.
whembly wrote: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure
Yeah, and many wealthy people of that era thought that periodic war made for a good nation because if they or theirs had to serve it was usually from the back.
nah they usually bought their way out of the draft, which was common practice during the Civil War.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The PGA just decided to move one of their tournaments hosted in Southern Fl at a Trump owned course. Its new location? Mexico City.
Asterios wrote: he made no mention of American Citizens, only foreign citizens, and the law is very enforceable as shown above.
He said "all Muslims". US citizens who are Muslim are very much part of that "all Muslims". Now he may have walked that back (I'm not sure), but until then it's unconstitutional.
Gordon Shumway wrote: The PGA just decided to move one of their tournaments hosted in Southern Fl at a Trump owned course. Its new location? Mexico City.
To be fair, PGA is really TRYING to push the sport in South America... what a great way to spur interest.
Trump, with his usual finesse, is blaming them for sending jobs to Mexico, but the reason they left is that they couldn't get sponsors because nobody wanted to be associated with Trump. It's beautiful.
that these laws are to protect citizens and keep weapons out of the hands of Criminals, problem is it is doing the exact opposite, all his is doing is removing weapons from law abiding citizens, this is two fold, the government wants control and by removing weapons from those who would protest government control it allows the government more power.
