-Cynthia- Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Bernie Sanders has missed quite a few opportunities for making some strong points on foreign policy again, it seems. That's really the only area he has trouble with, though, he always does pretty well talking about wealth and income inequality issues, but he always seems to jump back to that... Watching the democratic debate gets sort of painful though, because no matter how much Hillary screws up in these neither Bernie sanders or any other candidate for that matter really has a chance to make up ground against her. Hmm, why do you say that? In theory, a strong Sanders performance(or O'Malley I guess) could reduce her lead in the polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) Man those ABC moderators were pretty shit. Impossible to take any of this seriously as a debate; just a bunch of random jumping back and forth talking points with no room for a coherent discourse. Edited December 20, 2015 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Rose: Baseball Legend Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 We desparately need a new debate format. Nobody wants to watch them and I can definitely see why. I wonder if ABC will write any "Dominent Performance by Hillary" articles and lie about the poll numbers like CNN did with the first debate. No matter how well Sanders does, it's gonna be an uphill battle against all the corporate funding Hillary gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted December 20, 2015 Author Share Posted December 20, 2015 Man those ABC moderators were pretty shit. Impossible to take any of this seriously as a debate; just a bunch of random jumping back and forth talking points with no room for a coherent discourse. yeah i dont like cnn but i miss anderson cooper. he slammed all the candidates pretty hard the first around. this round was a tea party Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 No matter how well Sanders does, it's gonna be an uphill battle against all the corporate funding Hillary gets. Calling it an uphill battle is ... quite an understatement I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flamma Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 We desperately need a new debate format. Nobody wants to watch them and I can definitely see why. I wonder if ABC will write any "Dominant Performance by Hillary" articles and lie about the poll numbers like CNN did with the first debate. No matter how well Sanders does, it's gonna be an uphill battle against all the corporate funding Hillary gets. But who exactly will be meeting up to discuss standardizing the system? They made alot of money off of a domineering performance by Hillary, because that's what makes them the most money, so they'll continue doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 so wouldnt increasing the minimum wage lead to inflation? not really a business buff though I slowly am learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Well the argument is that businesses that have to pay higher wages pass those extra costs to customers, and rise of costs => inflation. But people also argue that the current minimum is outdated because of inflation that happened from between when it was set and now. I dunno, I did study economics, but my conclusion was that it's all a bunch of bullshit that's just used by lobbyists to justify whatever policies they want passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Well the argument is that businesses that have to pay higher wages pass those extra costs to customers, and rise of costs => inflation. But people also argue that the current minimum is outdated because of inflation that happened from between when it was set and now. I dunno, I did study economics, but my conclusion was that it's all a bunch of bullshit that's just used by lobbyists to justify whatever policies they want passed. I don't think anyone really argues that higher minimum wages would cause prices to rise except indirectly. If stores could raise their prices and get more revenue, they would, regardless of how much they pay their employees; forcing them to pay their employees more doesn't add any extra incentive to raising prices. Rather, the argument is that a higher minimum wage is a disincentive to hiring new workers and might encourage businesses to get rid of some of their minimum wage workers. It might also cause small businesses that are barely profitable to go under. This argument is extremely sound. It's pretty basic in economics that if you force people to pay more for something (in this case labour) they will buy less of it. The only problem is that it's hard to find evidence for it actually working that way in the real world and in fact there is some evidence that seems to show that it has little or no effect on employment, in defiance of what seems to be fairly basic economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 That's basically all economics. A bunch of theories that sound neat and plausible in theory, but don't have much empirical evidence to back it up. The whole "science" is just a bunch of wrong assumptions and wrong conclusions; usually only looking certain factors and forgetting about others to confirm whatever theory a lobbyist wants to confirm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I don't think anyone really argues that higher minimum wages would cause prices to rise except indirectly. If stores could raise their prices and get more revenue, they would, regardless of how much they pay their employees; forcing them to pay their employees more doesn't add any extra incentive to raising prices. Rather, the argument is that a higher minimum wage is a disincentive to hiring new workers and might encourage businesses to get rid of some of their minimum wage workers. It might also cause small businesses that are barely profitable to go under. This argument is extremely sound. It's pretty basic in economics that if you force people to pay more for something (in this case labour) they will buy less of it. The only problem is that it's hard to find evidence for it actually working that way in the real world and in fact there is some evidence that seems to show that it has little or no effect on employment, in defiance of what seems to be fairly basic economics. yep. number wise, huge corporations wouldn't even take as big a hit as small businesses. (depending on revenues, but let's assume they're all doing well.) corporations can almost certainly afford a several-dollar increase for all full-time, minimum wage employees. small businesses can't keep us as well, but i'm willing to bet they could still keep up. something drastic like $7-$15 wouldn't work, but increasing the federal wage from $7.25-$10 would generally not be too bad anywhere. ------- in those states with high costs of living, the min. wage needs to be increased such that a person could actually survive doing the job (california, new york, etc.) lots of people like to argue that an unskilled position shouldn't bring with it a livable wage, based on false premises like "they aren't working hard enough," "they're lazy," and similar bs. "there's always something else" is a malarkey phrase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 in those states with high costs of living, the min. wage needs to be increased such that a person could actually survive doing the job (california, new york, etc.) lots of people like to argue that an unskilled position shouldn't bring with it a livable wage, based on false premises like "they aren't working hard enough," "they're lazy," and similar bs. "there's always something else" is a malarkey phrase. The irony is that minimum-wage jobs are physically taxing. I'd love to see a minimum wage increase here, but I doubt that'll happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Dang, that Sanders surge in the polls is too awesome. Edited January 12, 2016 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skynstein Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I only take Trump seriously as threat if he not only wins the election but also manages to pass the bill to build the border wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) I think he's a credible threat now and he will likely steal the Republican nomination. His draw is his authoritarianism, more or less, and I find more people are willing to look towards policies like his when they're frightened - and the recent terrorist attacks play right into that. We just have to hope there's a bigger group of people who are frightened of Trump and they actually show up to vote. EDIT: Also glad that the Democratic side is no longer a bloody coronation. Edited January 18, 2016 by Crysta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tuvarkz Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I think that Trump does have a good chance at winning the election-his supporters have shown to be willing to go to rallies even under terrible climate, and he's likely to have a larger than normal amount of pro-Republican voters show up as well. Cruz has fallen back to second place in the Iowa polls according to RealClearPolitics, and there's no time for another republican nominee to become a credible opponent to Donald for the nomination. His links to Hillary may actually work out on his favour as he is likely to have dirt on her, that even if doesn't lead to anything (Or in a best case, has her be prosecuted) could give him a great advantage. Sanders also has the issue of being a socialist, which many americans often associate with communism (and their deep dislike of it). And as a nationalist, I'd be glad to see the resurgence of nationalism across the first world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) I think he's a credible threat now and he will likely steal the Republican nomination. His draw is his authoritarianism, more or less, and I find more people are willing to look towards policies like his when they're frightened - and the recent terrorist attacks play right into that. We just have to hope there's a bigger group of people who are frightened of Trump and they actually show up to vote. EDIT: Also glad that the Democratic side is no longer a bloody coronation. there was something on his appeal amongst white nationalist types last august, yes; more recently, george wallace's family spoke out on the similarities between trump's campaign today and wallace's campaign back in 1968—when he won the last third party EVs on a platform of hardline segregation and shit like his supporters beating up black protesters at his rallies or random mexican guys on the street (like in boston after a pats game), or that most of them are honest to god birthers (likewise with the larger republican electorate), reinforces just what kind of person makes the core of his base Edited January 18, 2016 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skynstein Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 What would boost Trump's chances is (sadly) a terrorist attack in American territory. The ISIS struck Paris and BAM! Front National had success in local elections. This issue is a lot more complex than "we must embrace them with open arms" vs "we must kick them out of our country". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I don't really get why people like Trump on national security, given that he has no experience in that field whatsoever- but the Republicans seem to trust him on that issue it's true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 republican primary voters who have been conditioned to like the guy who beats his chest the most about blowing up brown people in the middle east gravitate toward the guy who beats his chest and yells the most loudly over doing so, news at eleven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Ostrich Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) And no doubt Democrats have been conditioned to vote for the candidate that promises them the most free stuff. Health Care? Student Loans? Pensions? Daycare? No problem, we can pay for all of these things while only raising taxes on the top few percent. Sanders has the priorities and political literacy of millenials pegged. Establishment Democrats, who will actually bother to go out and vote, are still going to ultimately choose the Hillary Clintron 5000. I've heard with the latest software upgrade she can now almost convincingly emulate human behavior! Edited January 19, 2016 by Duff Ostrich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 And no doubt Democrats have been conditioned to vote for the candidate that promises them the most free stuff. Health Care? Student Loans? Pensions? Daycare? No problem, we can pay for all of these things while only raising taxes on the top few percent. Sanders has the priorities and political literacy of millenials pegged. Establishment Democrats, who will actually bother to go out and vote, are still going to ultimately choose the Hillary Clintron 5000. I've heard with the latest software upgrade she can now almost convincingly emulate human behavior! Nothing wrong with free stuff. I like free stuff. Although I will say that that last sentence was actually pretty funny. I really can't stand Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 And no doubt Democrats have been conditioned to vote for the candidate that promises them the most free stuff. Health Care? Student Loans? Pensions? Daycare? No problem, we can pay for all of these things while only raising taxes on the top few percent. generally speaking, wanting free things is better than beating people up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 (edited) that's a hilarious comeback lol "a massive portion of my party's voter base lusts for the blood and smoking guts of brown people in the middle east? well, uh, you guys want to...improve people's lives! yeah! i sure showed you!" Edited January 19, 2016 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyborgZeta Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 And as a nationalist, I'd be glad to see the resurgence of nationalism across the first world. Me too. There are other things, but I don't really want to get into that. My main concern with the Democrats, particularly Bernie, is the implementation of "free stuff". How to pay for it, among other things I won't get into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.