Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So umm........Trump just announced his plan for 6 week paid maternity leave to be required...............
Im suddenly not so scared.
What if, WHAT IF, we where all duped? That trumps insane pandering was just a bid and he knows how to work people?
I will say that the only reason my wife doesn't work is because child care for our 3 kids would cost more then she'd bring in. Would be interesting to see if this would change that.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok, So, Aftermath of Thursdays protests near my house. 1: One old man(around 50) got pulled off his Harley, beaten and the Harley got destroyed. 2: Teachers where punched and assaulted. 3: Police cars where Keyed, Vandilized and Tires Slashed. 4: Nearly 200 students missed or walked out of class( in my district) - Quite a few of those got suspended or expelled. 5: One man, after making a withdrawel from his bank, Got assaulted by a coupld of local mexican gang yelling "#$%# Trump" and got his wallet taken.
This is starting to sound a lot like the 2011 riots in London and elsewhere in England. A political/politicised event that sparked a series of occasionally violent protests but quickly descended into opportunistic rioting with people exploiting the unrest to cover their own unrelated criminal acts motivated by personal gain such as robbery, random assaults (some even resulting in murders), arson and the looting of shops.
A little context for non-Brits. The 2011 Riots were sparked by the highly controversial Police shooting of a black [i](suspected) drug dealer and gang member. The Police alleged he drew a gun on the arresting officers. A public Inquest was held and the Jury delivered a "Lawful Killing" verdict. Basically, they believed that the man was indeed armed.[/i]
Edit: As for the incidents listed by HotSauceMan, 3 & 4 are understandable. People are angry, and want to protest. I can even understand vandalizing Police cars (the Police being representatives of the State), though this does NOT extend to engaging in violence against Police Officers themselves.
But 1, 2 and 5 are fething inexcusable and are in no justified by the election. Robbing people of their money and stealing cars is just blatent opportunism. I hope those b******s are all caught. Like I said, this reminds me of 2011 when people started looting shops and burning down houses and businesses.
2nd Edit: Why is "bastards" not blocked by the profanity filter? Is that an acceptable word for Dakka, or am I gonna get one of those "Don't bypass the profanity filter!" warnings?
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/11/13 03:41:41
Yeah, the fact that day care costs more than what most people make always seemed weird to me. Same to as why school doesnt operate on the same average schedules adults do. Which is why I liked the Boys & girls club because it cost so little for care.
There really should be GOVT pre-schools IMO. or GOVT subsidized. Because it seems that there is so little to actually care about from 1-5. But then again, our society still works on the assumption of 1 parent home, one parent working.
I will say that the only reason my wife doesn't work is because child care for our 3 kids would cost more then she'd bring in. Would be interesting to see if this would change that.
It's not quite that bad for us, but it's still pretty significant. Almost half of my wife's paycheck goes to daycare, but we got one hell of a deal: great price for each of our kids, and we only pay for the days that they need daycare rather than paying per week. But even with that it's a big chunk of money. My wife will go part time after her contract is up, and our take home pay will be the same as working full time and paying day care.
Workers benefits is one of those areas where I truly think the US is worlds behind any other western country, and workers here just don't realize it. I took 8 weeks paternity leave for both kids (could have taken 12) and I know how unusual that is in the USA.
Relapse wrote: To discount in any way those that voted for Clinton is foolishness. The object of the game should be to reunite the country and respect each other in order to build something worth having for us and our children.
I'm not discounting anybody, I'm just expressing my astonishment at how long its taking. As a Brit I'm used to an election being done and dusted with all votes counted in a single day, two at most.
The physical size and population of the US is significantly larger than the UK. There's somewhere around 318 million people in the US to the UK's 64 million, that's a lot of stuff to count and verify by hand, additionally you have to allow time for mail in votes for citizens and military who are serving overseas. They are able to calculate the general votes pretty quickly with a good degree of accuracy, but an exact count can take a while. Since late votes and unverified votes are just a tiny fraction of the total elections typically project one candidate as a clear winner even before voting is fully completed which is why there's usually a concession shortly after the close of the polls or the morning after rather than waiting the days or weeks it takes for a complete & final tally. After 18 months of campaign everyone wants it out of the way and done asap and the concession helps speed that process up so the winner can get their things rolling and the rest of us can stop getting bombarded with political ads and nastiness.
The Bush Gore election took a while to resolve as well due to FL mucking things up massively.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/13 03:45:26
I will say that the only reason my wife doesn't work is because child care for our 3 kids would cost more then she'd bring in. Would be interesting to see if this would change that.
My only issues is the numbers that he gives make it matter very little to most people. Running some quick numbers on people making 30k or less a year the tax relief equals about $800, which is something but when the average cost of daycare is roughly $2000 yearly it is little more than nothing so people like me that even with the tax relief still will not be able to afford daycare. This is my problem with mostly all of Trumps economic plans, they are percentage based which exponentially helps the rich while does little for the working class and poor.
For example his tax rates of 15% of 30k is nothing next to 15% of 200k. I know these are just rough numbers thrown around and we will have to wait and see but I am disheartened that the government no longer has a check and balance system due to Republicans controlling the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and soon the Supreme Court. I am hopeful for the best, but my realistic expectations are that these changes will negatively effect my family financially, will set back some of the social progress we have had over the past few years, and put us on the path to paying for a truly stupid waste of tax payer money in the form of a wall that will do nothing but make a few people "feel" better. Hopefully Trump can do some good on his claims to rework the tax system to prevent the corporate tax loopholes he claims to be an expert on but I feel like any token attempt he makes on that will be shot down by a Republican control government. Honestly, the idea of Pence being in higher government scares me more than Trump as President. I can trust Republicans with finance and spending management, I can not trust them on social issues.
Is it true that she hid herself away for several hours and didn't address her team/supporters until dawn or thereabouts? I think I've read people criticising her (possibly in this thread) for not addressing her people immediately. Also seen the media describing her as inconsolable after the results were announced.
My only issues is the numbers that he gives make it matter very little to most people. Running some quick numbers on people making 30k or less a year the tax relief equals about $800, which is something but when the average cost of daycare is roughly $2000 yearly it is little more than nothing so people like me that even with the tax relief still will not be able to afford daycare.
Where the feth is childcare only $2000 per year?? Bloody hell, we pay $1000 a month for two kids, and that is actually one of the lesser expensive centers in my area.
Yeah was going to say I remember reading the child care thing does jack squat for the poor and works more for the rich (go figure the republicans helping the rich)
My only issues is the numbers that he gives make it matter very little to most people. Running some quick numbers on people making 30k or less a year the tax relief equals about $800, which is something but when the average cost of daycare is roughly $2000 yearly it is little more than nothing so people like me that even with the tax relief still will not be able to afford daycare.
Where the feth is childcare only $2000 per year?? Bloody hell, we pay $1000 a month for two kids, and that is actually one of the lesser expensive centers in my area.
A Tax relief of 800$ would be a boon I think for people.
And maybe he meant 20000$? and mistyped
My only issues is the numbers that he gives make it matter very little to most people. Running some quick numbers on people making 30k or less a year the tax relief equals about $800, which is something but when the average cost of daycare is roughly $2000 yearly it is little more than nothing so people like me that even with the tax relief still will not be able to afford daycare.
Where the feth is childcare only $2000 per year?? Bloody hell, we pay $1000 a month for two kids, and that is actually one of the lesser expensive centers in my area.
You know that is a good point, I only looked at the numbers based on income and the proposed percentages and they were so bad that I didn't even consider the fact that $2000 a year for child care is crazy cheap. My wife has basically stopped working as a substitute teacher because if she were working full time the cost of daycare would pretty much negate her income...so why even bother?
I am also concerned about his plan for health care, subsidizing it through taxes once again instead...Cross state markets sound nice but look at how Comcast and Time Warner compete, or more accurately DON'T, and this is likely how insurance will end up. Corporations carving out territories and agreeing not to compete with one another to fix prices. Before someone comes running to the plate with the old sing and a miss, "But we have laws against that!" Again, consider Comcast and Time Warner...they even argued in court that it is not a monopoly because they do not even compete with one another in their markets....
Before anyone thinks I am all doom and gloom though I want to make it clear that I feel nothing is bound to change all that much in the next four years except for a cementing of a conservative/socially regressive supreme court. If Trump turns out to be half as efficient as he claims he is going to be, good. I am open to the possibility. If he ends up being the nightmare that so many people are perceiving him to be, it is going to be a real hard election for the Republicans when 2020 rolls around. That is why I am none to worried, Republicans can't do some of the things they campaigned on because it would be political suicide. Reversing Roe vs Wade would bring out such an anti-Republican sentiment that they would likely lose the next few elections by landslides and many of them would forever be lost in politics because THEIR names would be on it. Life will go on, America will go on. America is still the America we all love and want it to be, this election was not a statement that racist, bigots, and hateful people control the country. It is a statement that when two truly awful candidates are in the running people will not turn out to vote. The DNC may have put their weight behind Hillary, but the Democrats of the country just didn't like her enough to turn out to vote for her. Even Trump had terrible numbers when it comes down to it, he just motivated elements of his base a lot more.
Relapse wrote: To discount in any way those that voted for Clinton is foolishness. The object of the game should be to reunite the country and respect each other in order to build something worth having for us and our children.
I'm not discounting anybody, I'm just expressing my astonishment at how long its taking. As a Brit I'm used to an election being done and dusted with all votes counted in a single day, two at most.
That statement wasn't meant for you, but was just me more or less thinking out loud. Sorry for the wrong signal I sent.
Relapse wrote: To discount in any way those that voted for Clinton is foolishness. The object of the game should be to reunite the country and respect each other in order to build something worth having for us and our children.
I'm not discounting anybody, I'm just expressing my astonishment at how long its taking. As a Brit I'm used to an election being done and dusted with all votes counted in a single day, two at most.
That statement wasn't meant for you, but was just me more or less thinking out loud. Sorry for the wrong signal I sent.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Was there a concession this time around?
Or did it come later then everybody thought it would. I cant remember
You probably just missed it, most of her speech was spent patting herself on the back and praising the efforts of her campaign managers.
She deserted her supporters when it was obvious she was going to lose and left an underling to tell the crowd that was there for her to go home. She crawled out from under her rock the next day to give the speech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So umm........Trump just announced his plan for 6 week paid maternity leave to be required...............
Im suddenly not so scared.
What if, WHAT IF, we where all duped? That trumps insane pandering was just a bid and he knows how to work people?
This is a very good thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/13 05:12:44
My honest opinion of trump is this.
We got duped by both the media and him.
We got duped by the media because al they showed us was Trump the Racist, Trump the Sexist, Trump the Crazy RightWing Loon. When in reality they where twisting his words, using clever editing and ommiting things. All in an effort to get hillary elected because she was the one buying ad space and so forth.
And Trump duped us by just being insane and a big feth YOU to the establishment. But in reality this was all calculated. ALL OF IT. and now that he is in, he is going to be different.
hotsauceman1 wrote: We got duped by the media because al they showed us was Trump the Racist, Trump the Sexist, Trump the Crazy RightWing Loon. When in reality they where twisting his words, using clever editing and ommiting things.
Uh, no. Trump clearly said the racist/sexist/etc things. That's who he is. The only difference of opinion here is whether the other things he says are enough to justify supporting him.
All in an effort to get hillary elected because she was the one buying ad space and so forth.
I don't think you understand how this works. The media wants the story of the election to be close, so that people pay attention and generate advertising revenue. They want it as close to 50/50 as possible to maximize interest and excitement. If either candidate opens a significant lead the last thing they want to do is make the opposition look even worse. That turns the race into a boring one-sided formality and people stop paying attention to the election coverage. So, given that Clinton appeared to be in the lead for most of the election, the media's selfish interest is to make Trump look better.
And Trump duped us by just being insane and a big feth YOU to the establishment.
This is just wishful thinking. Trump has shown, for his entire career, that he's an obnoxious narcissist who will say anything if it gets him attention. He's a firm believer in the theory that any publicity is good publicity, and he's shown himself to be very good at making grand statements of how awesome he is without ever having much of a plan beyond that. That's why his business ventures have been so underwhelming, he gets all the initial hype with his relentless self-promotion, but once the excitement wears off there's little substance left for the hard work of making a business succeed. And Trump himself cashes out, leaving someone else to deal with the failure.
But in reality this was all calculated. ALL OF IT.
I seriously doubt it. Trump has done too perfect a job of looking like someone who stumbled into a winning position purely by accident and had no idea what to do with it. I think the much more likely answer is that Trump entered the race to do the usual fringe-candidate thing of using the election to gain publicity for himself, with the intent of turning it into Trump TV (or something similar, if that rumor wasn't accurate). And then he kept winning because nobody actually liked any of his opponents. Remember that Trump won the election with fewer votes than losing republican candidates had in previous presidential elections. If the democrats don't fail with low turnout Trump's "calculated" strategy becomes a joke.
and now that he is in, he is going to be different.
Remember that, whatever you think of Trump himself, the republican party still controls congress. And the republican party has shown no signs at all of being anything other than the truly awful organization that it promises to be.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: They want it as close to 50/50 as possible to maximize interest and excitement. If either candidate opens a significant lead the last thing they want to do is make the opposition look even worse.
Ha! That backfired rather badly.
What do people think the chances are of Trump resigning his presidency and handing it over to his Vice President on grounds of "ill health" at some point in the next 4 years? Rather high I suspect.
Trump has done too perfect a job of looking like someone who stumbled into a winning position purely by accident and had no idea what to do with it.
Donald "The Accidental President" Trump.
Political scientists will be studying this election for centuries to come.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/11/13 06:08:07
Peregrine wrote: They want it as close to 50/50 as possible to maximize interest and excitement. If either candidate opens a significant lead the last thing they want to do is make the opposition look even worse.
Ha! That backfired rather badly.
What do people think the chances are of Trump resigning his presidency and handing it over to his Vice President on grounds of "ill health" at some point in the next 4 years? Rather high I suspect.
Trump has done too perfect a job of looking like someone who stumbled into a winning position purely by accident and had no idea what to do with it.
Donald "The Accidental President" Trump.
Political scientists will be studying this election for centuries to come.
Ustrello wrote:Oh boy look at those false equivalences
Breotan wrote:It isn't just him. If we removed all the logic fallacies from this thread, it would only be eight or nine pages long, or at least it seems like it would.
So where is the false equivalency? Was a law in place in every instance? Yes. Were there clear ramifications for breaking said law? Yes. Is one group being basically advocated to have an "out" for their punishment, an elimination of them having committed the crime in the first place, AND getting tax payer backed help that some people who never BROKE that law get? Absolutely. So I don't see a false equivalency. I wonder if Casey Chadwick or Kathryn Steinle would, other than the fact that they are both dead now.
Because you somehow think that illegally entering a country is on par with the worst crimes humans can commit and why you were called out for it by both sides
Well, he did mention stealing a car is like entering the country illegally. That is about the same, monetarily speaking. The average illegal alien in this country has a net impact of about $6000 per year on the US. That's the price of a sub-par used car every year they are here.
Source?
And then there's the other side of the story.
Most arguments against illegal immigration begin with the premise that the illegal don't pay income taxes, and that they therefore take more in services than they contribute. However, IRS estimates that about 6 million unauthorized immigrants...more than half the estimated total in the U.S....file individual income tax returns each year. Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 70 percent and 80 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes. Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security. Over the years, undocumented workers have contributed up to $300 billion, or nearly 10 percent, of the $2.7 trillion Social Security Trust Fund. In addition, they spend millions of dollars per year, which supports the US economy and helps to create new jobs. The Texas State Comptroller reported in 2006 that the 1.4 million illegal immigrants in Texas alone added almost $18 billion to the state's budget, and paid $1.2 billion in state services they used.
That's right, Illegal Immigrants pay taxes, unlike a certain POTUS-elect.
I see that you skipped what I posted. I specifically mentioned that illegal immigrants pay taxes, specifically income tax. Remember that of those 6 million illegals that "pay" income tax, very few actually pay (kind of like Trump). just because 6 million file taxes does not mean 6 million pay. It seems you totally ignored that the get more back than they ever pay in. 5.4 times the amount in fact. It would actually be better if they DIDN'T file income tax.
No, I noticed it, It's just that the presentation is so skewed to paint illegals as a giant, one-sided drag on our country that I thought some background needed to be presented to set the record straight.
Studies have shown that almost every dollar earned by undocumented workers goes right back into the economy. That's in the form of direct economic stimulation...consumption...and state/local taxes on those goods and services. Those taxes don't get refunded, but go directly to local government's operating budgets. As far as the federal taxes being refunded, that typically happens for the poor because THEY'RE POOR AND PAID A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THEIR INCOME RELATIVE TO THEIR TAX BRACKET. They contribute to SS, which they'll never see and, as noted, they do so in no small way.
I see there's no mention of the fact that there are entire sectors of the economy where undocumented workers are axiomatic to the viability of the industry. Agriculture, for example. Want to pay $10. for a carton of strawberries? How does that get factored into the equation of your presentation of the idea that they take more than they contribute? See, that's why most academics...the ones with real degrees that study this stuff for a life's work...pretty much come to the conclusion that making statements that they're a $XXXX. drag is impossible to accurately determine or measure, and probably flat-out wrong.
You also made a comment that they drive up rent. On what, the luxury condos downtown? On the whole, I'm pretty sure these people rent the absolute cheapest accomodations they can find because they make jack. If an American citizen, with all the inherent advantages that entails, feels pressure from people coming to this country who typically struggle with the language, have no safety nets, work the worst, most exhausting and undesirable jobs available, then all I can say is quite the bitching and look in the mirror for the problems' source, not at people who are enduring absurd hardships and working their asses off to better themselves. At the end of the day, that's really what this is about, isn't it? Not cutting hairs on tax liabilities and benefits for an extremely small minority of people.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/11/13 07:25:57
In his defence, Farage went to him, and was his greatest and most vocal supporter in British politics even to the point of attending and speaking at Trump's election rallies. What should Trump have done? Snubbed Farage and ignored him for several days or weeks until Trump's had time to fly to Britain to meet May first?
A much bigger faux pas would have to come to Britain, and meet with Farage first in Britain before seeing May.
And I doubt Farage had much face-to-face time with him, probably just enough for a quick chat and a photo op. Farage is just enjoying his 15 min of fame until he gets brushed aside in favour of the actual British government.
I will say that the only reason my wife doesn't work is because child care for our 3 kids would cost more then she'd bring in. Would be interesting to see if this would change that.
It'll make the absolutely unnecessary and unbelievably self-serving tax cut he's going to give himself a bit more palatable to the masses.
In his defence, Farage went to him, and was his greatest and most vocal supporter in British politics even to the point of attending and speaking at Trump's election rallies. What should Trump have done? Snubbed Farage and ignored him for several days or weeks until Trump's had time to fly to Britain to meet May first?
A much bigger faux pas would have to come to Britain, and meet with Farage first in Britain before seeing May.
And I doubt Farage had much face-to-face time with him, probably just enough for a quick chat and a photo op. Farage is just enjoying his 15 min of fame until he gets brushed aside in favour of the actual British government.
Farrage is a nerd.
I absolutely dislike people that cannot behave properly. See his last speech at the EU parliament.
The same goes for our foreign secretary of state, Steinmeier. He refused to congrat Trump for his win. And these guys want to be statesmen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/13 07:57:45
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
