(Yet.)
2016 Election Clusterfun
- Thread starter Colonel Thunder
- Start date
As someone who leans more conservative and who's family is extremely conservative and pretty religious, I can maybe offer a perspective on that:
Basically Hillary represents all of the hypocrisy of the left. She lies and is caught out in lies constantly and only Fox ever reports on it because every news station is biased and most stations are biased in Hillary's favor. She is ridiculously un-progressive but is hailed as a hero for women by the progressive left. Mitt Romney got called out extensively for flip flopping during the 2012 race when Hillary changes stances like she changes clothes and rarely gets called out for it aside from right wing sources. The perception is that she owns the entire democratic party and can do whatever the Hell she wants and they'll still love her (which based on this election probably isn't too far from the truth). It doesn't help that her husband is basically the Ronald Reagan of the left. And finally the fact that she is under investigation by the FBI for a crime she is basically confirmed to have committed and is still considered a viable candidate for president is seen as ridiculous.
My mom also especially has a huge problem with how she basically called Monica Lewinsky trailer trash and slut when the most powerful man in the world wanted to have sex with her and she accepted.
Basically Hillary represents all of the hypocrisy of the left. She lies and is caught out in lies constantly and only Fox ever reports on it because every news station is biased and most stations are biased in Hillary's favor. She is ridiculously un-progressive but is hailed as a hero for women by the progressive left. Mitt Romney got called out extensively for flip flopping during the 2012 race when Hillary changes stances like she changes clothes and rarely gets called out for it aside from right wing sources. The perception is that she owns the entire democratic party and can do whatever the Hell she wants and they'll still love her (which based on this election probably isn't too far from the truth). It doesn't help that her husband is basically the Ronald Reagan of the left. And finally the fact that she is under investigation by the FBI for a crime she is basically confirmed to have committed and is still considered a viable candidate for president is seen as ridiculous.
My mom also especially has a huge problem with how she basically called Monica Lewinsky trailer trash and slut when the most powerful man in the world wanted to have sex with her and she accepted.
Quick rundown on the minimum wage issue (disclaimer: I'm not much of an economist. I'm doing a bunch of parroting here).
-The current national minimum wage is 7.25 an hour
-Most states have made their wages higher, saying that 7.25 is too low
-Some cities (California) have gone even further
-There are concerns that minimum wage increases hurt employment. If it costs more to hire a burger flipper, you will hire less burger flippers
-Alan Krueger, a very very good economist, co-authored a study which concluded that moderate increases to the minimum wage does not hurt employment
-"moderate increases" is not a super well defined term
-The official Democratic Party Platform (and more famously, Bernie) calls for a $15 national minimum wage
-If you don't know what an official party platform is, basically it's just the list of the "official" stances that the party has on issues. This represents the political structure, not necessarily individuals
-It would be really nice to have a $15 national minimum wage because then people who work for minimum wage could make more money
-$15 may not fit in that "moderate increases" thing we talked about earlier. Ergo, it's considered "risky" by many economists (including Alan Krueger)
-Keep in mind, that doesn't mean we know for sure it'll be bad, it's uncharted waters. We don't know the exact point where an increase goes from good to bad.
-The highest minimum wage that we know for sure is okay is $12 an hour. This is a gradual increase plan that would not hit $12 until like 2020 or so.
-Gradual increases are required because otherwise you're being dumb with the economy. Please do not be dumb with the economy, it is fragile and breaks easily, and it costs waaaaaay too much to get fixed
-We used to talk about a 10.10 minimum wage. It was something we could've had by now if we actually did it in 2014, because it would be phased in much quicker (for obvious reasons). But it didn't happen. So now, naturally, we talk about higher numbers.
-There's also indexing the minimum wage to inflation or the consumer price index.
-The idea is basically regressing us to the bartering system. One hour of work is worth four gallons of milk. If the price of milk goes up, you get paid more.
-Dairy farmers will then become the most powerful sector of the economy
-The whole national thing is really what makes things complicated.
-The cost of living (a measure of how poor or rich a place is) varies a lot across the country
-This is important because it influences, among other things, how well a place can afford a minimum wage increase, and how useful that increase is
-Basically, do you live in a Whole Foods town, or a Walmart town?
-This is where the whole "states pick up the slack" thing really helps. They test shit out for us.
-If you like a $15 minimum wage, because who doesn't want more money, but want to prove that it's safe for the economy, watch California
-California is a great lab rat. It's really diverse, like a mini-country in its own right, it's rich enough to afford most things, and it's as willing to experiment as the porn industry which generates half its GDP
-And even if it's risky for a nationwide minimum wage right now, there are definitely places that can afford a gradual increase to $15. Some may try after California tests the waters. Seattle's already on the way.
-And while we're waiting to hit the 12 or 15 dollar point, there's other things we can do to help low-wage workers out, like the earned-income tax credit which UGH TAX POLICY
-Overall, raising the minimum wage is supported by the people in both parties
-Overall, raising the minimum wage is supported by the politicians of only one party
-This is why there are more election junkies than political junkies. Election junkies have fun watching the game, while political junkies tear their hair out
-Unless Donald Trump becomes president. Then everything will be hilarious
I think this is how I should do things like this from now on. Also Easy's not wrong that a higher minimum wage could help the deficit. Boosting the economy means people have more money which means people spend more money which means the government makes more money from taxes.
-The current national minimum wage is 7.25 an hour
-Most states have made their wages higher, saying that 7.25 is too low
-Some cities (California) have gone even further
-There are concerns that minimum wage increases hurt employment. If it costs more to hire a burger flipper, you will hire less burger flippers
-Alan Krueger, a very very good economist, co-authored a study which concluded that moderate increases to the minimum wage does not hurt employment
-"moderate increases" is not a super well defined term
-The official Democratic Party Platform (and more famously, Bernie) calls for a $15 national minimum wage
-If you don't know what an official party platform is, basically it's just the list of the "official" stances that the party has on issues. This represents the political structure, not necessarily individuals
-It would be really nice to have a $15 national minimum wage because then people who work for minimum wage could make more money
-$15 may not fit in that "moderate increases" thing we talked about earlier. Ergo, it's considered "risky" by many economists (including Alan Krueger)
-Keep in mind, that doesn't mean we know for sure it'll be bad, it's uncharted waters. We don't know the exact point where an increase goes from good to bad.
-The highest minimum wage that we know for sure is okay is $12 an hour. This is a gradual increase plan that would not hit $12 until like 2020 or so.
-Gradual increases are required because otherwise you're being dumb with the economy. Please do not be dumb with the economy, it is fragile and breaks easily, and it costs waaaaaay too much to get fixed
-We used to talk about a 10.10 minimum wage. It was something we could've had by now if we actually did it in 2014, because it would be phased in much quicker (for obvious reasons). But it didn't happen. So now, naturally, we talk about higher numbers.
-There's also indexing the minimum wage to inflation or the consumer price index.
-The idea is basically regressing us to the bartering system. One hour of work is worth four gallons of milk. If the price of milk goes up, you get paid more.
-Dairy farmers will then become the most powerful sector of the economy
-The whole national thing is really what makes things complicated.
-The cost of living (a measure of how poor or rich a place is) varies a lot across the country
-This is important because it influences, among other things, how well a place can afford a minimum wage increase, and how useful that increase is
-Basically, do you live in a Whole Foods town, or a Walmart town?
-This is where the whole "states pick up the slack" thing really helps. They test shit out for us.
-If you like a $15 minimum wage, because who doesn't want more money, but want to prove that it's safe for the economy, watch California
-California is a great lab rat. It's really diverse, like a mini-country in its own right, it's rich enough to afford most things, and it's as willing to experiment as the porn industry which generates half its GDP
-And even if it's risky for a nationwide minimum wage right now, there are definitely places that can afford a gradual increase to $15. Some may try after California tests the waters. Seattle's already on the way.
-And while we're waiting to hit the 12 or 15 dollar point, there's other things we can do to help low-wage workers out, like the earned-income tax credit which UGH TAX POLICY
-Overall, raising the minimum wage is supported by the people in both parties
-Overall, raising the minimum wage is supported by the politicians of only one party
-This is why there are more election junkies than political junkies. Election junkies have fun watching the game, while political junkies tear their hair out
-Unless Donald Trump becomes president. Then everything will be hilarious
I think this is how I should do things like this from now on. Also Easy's not wrong that a higher minimum wage could help the deficit. Boosting the economy means people have more money which means people spend more money which means the government makes more money from taxes.
Since when do people in the South need to back something up to assume someone's a Muslim from Kenya?
That's actually not even what I was referring to. There's a more direct impact from removing the need for federal money to subsidize cost of living for minimum-wage workers that literally goes into the hundreds of billions, (conservatively). Worked out the math on that a while ago, but it's something not far under about $350 billion in federal savings.
Okay yeah that will also help
It was something like:
- ~35,000,000 US workers making under $10/hr
- ~2,000 work hours per year
- Estimating from the lower end, where their wages are increased by an average of $5/hr, that's a solid $350 billion per year that these people can use to pay their own health and living costs with.
It worked out the same after being a lot more thorough with the specifics, but it was a long while ago while settling a drunken dispute so I'm not sure where I ended up getting the finer data from exactly.
Of course, nothing in economics is ever so simple that this necessarily means quite so much in fed savings, or necessarily even more than a fraction of it, but still - that's pretty big money we're talking.
- ~35,000,000 US workers making under $10/hr
- ~2,000 work hours per year
- Estimating from the lower end, where their wages are increased by an average of $5/hr, that's a solid $350 billion per year that these people can use to pay their own health and living costs with.
It worked out the same after being a lot more thorough with the specifics, but it was a long while ago while settling a drunken dispute so I'm not sure where I ended up getting the finer data from exactly.
Of course, nothing in economics is ever so simple that this necessarily means quite so much in fed savings, or necessarily even more than a fraction of it, but still - that's pretty big money we're talking.
Last edited:
I suddenly hate Ted Cruz slightly less.
Don't read the worthless article, just watch the video. Ted Cruz now knows what it's like when people talk to him about climate change. Also, someone got an interview with that dumb ass. The protester I mean, not Cruz.
Don't read the worthless article, just watch the video. Ted Cruz now knows what it's like when people talk to him about climate change. Also, someone got an interview with that dumb ass. The protester I mean, not Cruz.
It's like watching the worst person in the world battle cancer.
...actually, it's pretty much exactly that.
I support Ted Cruz for Human President
I honestly can not wait for the debates.
I think he dropped out because this site went up. The truth hurts.
I don't dislike Cruz, I mean, he was basically a more mature version of Trump. But I'm very happy to hear this news. I think Trump is a lot smarter than he appears to be, I think he's talking a lot of shit because he knows that's what the people want. I think out of all the candidates, he's the most likely to do something if somebody fucks with us. I also think his presidency will result in some kind of auto-eugenics, where all the SJWs start a bunch of suicide pacts.
I think the funniest part of this isn't that he'll go up against his easiest debate opponent yet, Hilary (although I'd prefer he go up against Sanders, 'cause that would be legitimately informative), but that Kasich, fucking Kasich, is still running. What the fuck is he thinking?
I think the funniest part of this isn't that he'll go up against his easiest debate opponent yet, Hilary (although I'd prefer he go up against Sanders, 'cause that would be legitimately informative), but that Kasich, fucking Kasich, is still running. What the fuck is he thinking?
It's safe to say he's the smartest and easily the most charismatic candidate running. He's been playing 3D Chess while the other candidates have been playing checkers. Why would he invest in ad space and spend money when he can say controversial opinions and have the news cover his story for free? He's been performing "linguistic killshots" (to borrow the term from Scott Adams' video) on each candidate and toppled the Bush dynasty. He's placing a label that sticks to these candidates and defines them perfectly.
Low Energy Jeb.
Little Marco.
Lyin' Ted.
Crooked Hillary.
The Scott Adams' Video for those who want to watch it:
He's thinking he can sneak his way into the Republican nominee position.
An ad by a SuperPAC that supports Kasich:
I'm usually a very body positive person. I don't like to dog on people for their looks, something they can't change (unless they have tons of money for plastic surgery), but...
the fuck is wrong with Kasich's daughters' noses? Good lord. Noses are like my one thing and they've got some weird schnozzes. It's not even that they're big, they're just... weird.
the fuck is wrong with Kasich's daughters' noses? Good lord. Noses are like my one thing and they've got some weird schnozzes. It's not even that they're big, they're just... weird.
