2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
berbatrick said:
He is an old-fashioned leftist. Which means for him all issues are an offshoot of economic issues. Which is why (IMO) he has a more relaxed attitude to guns than most other Dems, and why, even though he has been arrested for civil rights, and was an early fighter for gay rights, his stump speech even when speaking to minorities is, and always has been, on economics.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree with this. On the left, old fashioned or not, there´s always been a certain degree of morality when considering issues like civil rights and especially the environment and foreign policy, i.e civil rights over intervening and/or bombing third world countries. Concerning the environment, leftists take a far more "spiritual" or "non business" attitude over contaminating the earth, whereas conservative are always pounding away that economic concerns and ridding business of bothersome regulations and the epa take precedent over climate change and contamination. Just look at Flint - leftists questioning the morality of poisoning citizens while conservatives were "saving money." Leftists are rarely associated with "business."

In fact, if anything, it´s right wing conservative America that is beholden to economic issues. The worship of corporations, free market, anti regulatory, heroic billionaire "job creator" bollocks, the whole "prosperity doctrine" pregnating their right wing christianity spirituality, wars for US special interest (i.e. economic interest). The right wing guided by Saint Ronnie´s "greed is good" and their god of money and business is the party of economic issues.
 
Nobby style said:
Totally disagree with this. On the left, old fashioned or not, there´s always been a certain degree of morality when considering issues like civil rights and especially the environment and foreign policy, i.e civil rights over intervening and/or bombing third world countries. Concerning the environment, leftists take a far more "spiritual" or "non business" attitude over contaminating the earth, whereas conservative are always pounding away that economic concerns and ridding business of bothersome regulations and the epa take precedent over climate change and contamination. Just look at Flint - leftists questioning the morality of poisoning citizens while conservatives were "saving money." Leftists are rarely associated with "business."

In fact, if anything, it´s right wing conservative America that is beholden to economic issues. The worship of corporations, free market, anti regulatory, heroic billionaire "job creator" bollocks, the whole "prosperity doctrine" pregnating their right wing christianity spirituality, wars for US special interest (i.e. economic interest). The right wing guided by Saint Ronnie´s "greed is good" and their god of money and business is the party of economic issues.
Click to expand...

Yes, leftists are always moral and always do the very best for the people. The fact that there are centrist and rightist politicians recurrently in office around the world must be some global scale brainwash. :rolleyes:
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Yes, leftists are always moral and always do the very best for the people. The fact that there are centrist and rightist politicians recurrently in office around the world must be some global scale brainwash. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not always, but seriously, which party is associated with business, corporations and wall street ass lick? Environmentalism anyone? Civil rights? Go right wing! How does it affect their bottom line?
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Yes, leftists are always moral and always do the very best for the people. The fact that there are centrist and rightist politicians recurrently in office around the world must be some global scale brainwash. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The right wing in Europe would have been considered very left wing in US. Merkel in Germany is right wing, but she isn't more right wing than Obama (who might be the most left wing-ish president in the history of the states).

There aren't many - if any - countries in the world who are as right wing as US under a Republican president.
 
Nobby style said:
From the department of Labor:

http://www.dol.gov/featured/minimum-wage/mythbuster

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

Myth: Small business owners can't afford to pay their workers more, and therefore don't support an increase in the minimum wage.

Not true: A July 2015 survey found that 3 out of 5 small business owners with employees support a gradual increase in the minimum wage to $12. The survey reports that small business owners say an increase "would immediately put more money in the pocket of low-wage workers who will then spend the money on things like housing, food, and gas. This boost in demand for goods and services will help stimulate the economy and help create opportunities."
Click to expand...

Yeah. Economists have been surprised that employment hasn't been much depressed following the introduction of minimum wage laws, contrary to what basic theory might suggest. I suspect the demand for goods and services produced by low wage labour is relatively inelastic or price insensitive, so that, for this and other reasons, the demand for low wage labour is itself inelastic - an increase in the price of labour produces only a small drop in demand for labour.

The most obvious explanation is the ability of employers to pass on virtually all the increase in their costs, represented by higher wages, directly to their customers without greatly reducing their sales - that's where the inelasticity of demand for their products becomes an important factor.

An example might be fast food joints in a medium sized town. Prices are determined by competition. Any attempt by one outlet to unilaterally increase prices will quickly result in customers switching to the pizza joint down the street. But if they all simultaneously have to bear an identical increase in their costs resulting from a minimum wage increase, they can together pass this cost increase directly to their customers, without upsetting the balance of their commercial competition. Of course people will buy less fast food, but if a small price increase doesn't greatly affect demand for fast food (inelasticity of demand), the effect on sales will be small, and not much will change. Nobody will go out of business or lose their jobs.

The minimum wage will then represent a simple transfer of income, from those who buy low-wage products to those employed in low-wage industries.

If, on the contrary, demand for low-wage products is more elastic or variable, employers won't be able to pass on all the cost of the wage increase to customers without greatly reducing demand for their products, their margins will be affected, and some will be downsized or go out of business. Then the effect on employment will be greater.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Fair enough. But if she wins the nomination with her platform, which is looking fairly likely, then surely she has the will of the majority of her party. Even if her campaign funded partly by some special interests, a majority of her party would have chosen to overlook this and give her the nomination.
Click to expand...

She may very well have the will of the majority of the party but I wouldn't base that assumption on what is happening in the primaries, the delegate and super delegate scheme is a fecking joke.
 
Revan said:
The right wing in Europe would have been considered very left wing in US. Merkel in Germany is right wing, but she isn't more right wing than Obama (who might be the most left wing-ish president in the history of the states).

There aren't many - if any - countries in the world who are as right wing as US under a Republican president.
Click to expand...

Marcelo's point, unless I mistake him, is that there's more to political virtue than a race to the leftest. Moreover, the post he's quoting is only able to achieve its conclusion through a generous helping of confirmation bias. When Bill Clinton intervened in Kosovo, or Somalia, was he not a "leftist"? Did he not take criticism from the right for it, and did GWB not then win in 2000 on the basis of a "humble foreign policy" with no nation-building abroad?

More interestingly, was intervening in Kosovo or Somalia not the right decision? If not, is declining to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide considered a positive decision? Or what about Korea, or if you still disagree, what about WWII? Why then is dogmatic extremism against foreign intervention considered some kind of positive trait in leadership, when dogmatic extremism for it is reviled?

It so happens that that poster is right. The modern American right seems to have collectively lost its mind in foreign policy, mainly because they seem to be appealing to an ever more idiocratic section of the electorate. But to then extrapolate from that that "the left", selectively defined, are always the Rebel Alliance going up against the Right Wing Galactic Empire is helpful to no one.
 
naturalized said:
Marcelo's point, unless I mistake him, is that there's more to political virtue than a race to the leftest. Moreover, the post he's quoting is only able to achieve its conclusion through a generous helping of confirmation bias. When Bill Clinton intervened in Kosovo, or Somalia, was he not a "leftist"? Did he not take criticism from the right for it, and did GWB not then win in 2000 on the basis of a "humble foreign policy" with no nation-building abroad?

More interestingly, was intervening in Kosovo or Somalia not the right decision? If you disagree with this, what about Korea, or if you still disagree, what about WWII? Why then is dogmatic extremism against foreign intervention considered some kind of positive trait in leadership, when dogmatic extremism for it is reviled?

It so happens that that poster is right. The modern American right seems to have collectively lost its mind in foreign policy, mainly because they seem to be appealing to an ever more idiocratic section of the electorate. But to then extrapolate from that that "the left", selectively defined, are always the Rebel Alliance going up against the Right Wing Galactic Empire is helpful to no one.
Click to expand...

You do not mistake me, and elaborate brilliantly. You have my endorsement, sir! (or you might not want it, due to my earlier Kissinger comments)
 
Will Absolute said:
Yeah. Economists have been surprised that employment hasn't been much depressed following the introduction of minimum wage laws, contrary to what basic theory might suggest. I suspect the demand for goods and services produced by low wage labour is relatively inelastic or price insensitive, so that, for this and other reasons, the demand for low wage labour is itself inelastic - an increase in the price of labour produces only a small drop in demand for labour.

The most obvious explanation is the ability of employers to pass on virtually all the increase in their costs, represented by higher wages, directly to their customers without greatly reducing their sales - that's where the inelasticity of demand for their products becomes an important factor.

An example might be fast food joints in a medium sized town. Prices are determined by competition. Any attempt by one outlet to unilaterally increase prices will quickly result in customers switching to the pizza joint down the street. But if they all simultaneously have to bear an identical increase in their costs resulting from a minimum wage increase, they can together pass this cost increase directly to their customers, without upsetting the balance of their commercial competition. Of course people will buy less fast food, but if a small price increase doesn't greatly affect demand for fast food (inelasticity of demand), the effect on sales will be small, and not much will change. Nobody will go out of business or lose their jobs.

The minimum wage will then represent a simple transfer of income, from those who buy low-wage products to those employed in low-wage industries.

If, on the contrary, demand for low-wage products is more elastic or variable, employers won't be able to pass on all the cost of the wage increase to customers without greatly reducing demand for their products, their margins will be affected, and some will be downsized or go out of business. Then the effect on employment will be greater.
Click to expand...

Good post. The highlighted might be a bit of a closed loop, at least partially. There's also the issue of low-wage products that can be imported substituting local production if wages are raised, although this has largely already happened in most developed countries we might find that there's still more to go if wages are raised enough.
 
Red-Jeff said:
She may very well have the will of the majority of the party but I wouldn't base that assumption on what is happening in the primaries, the delegate and super delegate scheme is a fecking joke.
Click to expand...
Delegates are just proportional relative to vote share, more or less.

The superdelegates are essentially what many other democracies have in giving their elected members a say in who's put forward to the de facto leadership position of their party.
 
Ubik said:
Delegates are just proportional relative to vote share, more or less.

The superdelegates are essentially what many other democracies have in giving their elected members a say in who's put forward to the de facto leadership position of their party.
Click to expand...

I realize what they are but it is a farce when a super delegate can support a candidate that the voters didn't choose. They may usually fall in line but to even have the option of not actually representing the people you... represent, is ridiculous and seems fairly undemocratic to me.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
You do not mistake me, and elaborate brilliantly. You have my endorsement, sir! (or you might not want it, due to my earlier Kissinger comments)
Click to expand...

Well... I come from a neck of the woods where Kissinger was and is seen very, very positively, because the North Vietnamese were seen (IMO, rightly) as an existential threat at the time. There's little disagreement between us there. :)

But I think it's fair enough that different people have different opinions, often strongly visceral reactions to the man, particularly I think there was a Bangladeshi poster who I think said his parents barely survived the partition of Pakistan, which obviously is fair enough. On these kinds of things our backgrounds will vary, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Red-Jeff said:
I realize what they are but it is a farce when a super delegate can support a candidate that the voters didn't choose. They may usually fall in line but to even have the option of not actually representing the people you... represent, is ridiculous and seems fairly undemocratic to me.
Click to expand...
It is an odd system. When you boil it down, I believe the system in the UK is like having superdelegates only? I don't track the UK system anymore so I'm not 100% certain.
 
senorgregster said:
It is an odd system. When you boil it down, I believe the system in the UK is like having superdelegates only? I don't track the UK system anymore so I'm not 100% certain.
Click to expand...

Don't follow UK politics much but I would like to know if that is the case, time to do some research! I don't think it would be such a problem if there weren't so many special interests attempting to influence the political process, it just seems like another overly complicated mechanism that could be used to undermine the will of the people.
 
senorgregster said:
It is an odd system. When you boil it down, I believe the system in the UK is like having superdelegates only? I don't track the UK system anymore so I'm not 100% certain.
Click to expand...
Differs for different parties. Tories essentially use the MPs to narrow it down to two candidates then put those two to a membership vote. In Labour you need 15% of MPs to nominate you before getting on the ballot (Corbyn only got on the ballot through misplaced charity), though before 2015 they had an extreme superdelegate-like system where MPs votes were 1/3 of the overall vote (union members and party members each got a further 1/3). As a result, maybe I'm just used to the concept of a party having a big say in who's elected/nominated.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Good post. The highlighted might be a bit of a closed loop, at least partially. There's also the issue of low-wage products that can be imported substituting local production if wages are raised, although this has largely already happened in most developed countries we might find that there's still more to go if wages are raised enough.
Click to expand...

The solution to this is pretty simple.

Just stop doing business with outsourced slavery companies.

For example, tell Apple that in order for them to keep selling their phones in America, the people involved in the construction of the phone (the chinese guys in the factory) must receive wages equivalent to the minimum wage for americans (in relation to the PIB). If they don't comply, go and sell your phones elsewhere. Done.

simple as that. of course Apple pays millions of dollars to the congressmen every year to avoid any shit like this... but it is possible.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Don't follow UK politics much but I would like to know if that is the case, time to do some research! I don't think it would be such a problem if there weren't so many special interests attempting to influence the political process, it just seems like another overly complicated mechanism that could be used to undermine the will of the people.
Click to expand...
There are no primaries. I'm just unclear on who selects the leader. I believe it is MPs but others too? Party lifers, etc? I'm also a little unclear on when leadership changes can occur. I believe whenever. I'm OK with the system and I was OK with the US primary system until I understood these superdelegates and how powerful they are. It makes a mockery of the money and time devoted to the primary process.
 
George Owen said:
The solution to this is pretty simple.

Just stop doing business with outsourced slavery companies.

For example, tell Apple that in order for them to keep selling their phones in America, the people involved in the construction of the phone (the chinese guys in the factory) must receive wages equivalent to the minimum wage for americans (in relation to the PIB). If they don't comply, go and sell your phones elsewhere. Done.

simple as that. of course Apple pays millions of dollars to the congressmen every year to avoid any shit like this... but it is possible.
Click to expand...

I ran some quick math, and they already do. US GDP per Capita for 2014 (PPP, constant 2005 dollars) was 52.1k. China's was 12.6k. US is therefore 4.13x China. I found reports that workers get paid "a little over 3 dollars an hour". Let's call it $3, multiply by 4.13 and find that the equivalent US wages per your proposed math comes out to $12.40 / hour. That's above US min. wage.
 
naturalized said:
Marcelo's point, unless I mistake him, is that there's more to political virtue than a race to the leftest. Moreover, the post he's quoting is only able to achieve its conclusion through a generous helping of confirmation bias. When Bill Clinton intervened in Kosovo, or Somalia, was he not a "leftist"? Did he not take criticism from the right for it, and did GWB not then win in 2000 on the basis of a "humble foreign policy" with no nation-building abroad?

More interestingly, was intervening in Kosovo or Somalia not the right decision? If not, is declining to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide considered a positive decision? Or what about Korea, or if you still disagree, what about WWII? Why then is dogmatic extremism against foreign intervention considered some kind of positive trait in leadership, when dogmatic extremism for it is reviled?

It so happens that that poster is right. The modern American right seems to have collectively lost its mind in foreign policy, mainly because they seem to be appealing to an ever more idiocratic section of the electorate. But to then extrapolate from that that "the left", selectively defined, are always the Rebel Alliance going up against the Right Wing Galactic Empire is helpful to no one.
Click to expand...
Yep, good post, and I agree with you.

I am left wing, but surely, there are good arguments for the right wing position, and many times the left/right labelling is dogmatic.

What I was saying in my post is that the current Republican party have gone extremely right and that isn't healthy (the same can be said for Sanders, but he won't win anyway, and even if he does, it is virtually impossible to implement his policies).

I wouldn't care at all for the left/right as long as the winning president would serve the people and more importantly, would do something for things like global warming or people shooting each other each day. And other things like abort, gay rights etc. Frankly speaking, my life won't be effected anyway (unless I go to US which is quite unlikely) directly but it is nice to see a president of the most powerful state in the world not be a total nutter.
 
senorgregster said:
There are no primaries. I'm just unclear on who selects the leader. I believe it is MPs but others too? Party lifers, etc? I'm also a little unclear on when leadership changes can occur. I believe whenever. I'm OK with the system and I was OK with the US primary system until I understood these superdelegates and how powerful they are. It makes a mockery of the money and time devoted to the primary process.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. To emphasize that point let's look at the primaries so far.

Sanders has 70 delegates total with 19 being superdelegates. That leaves 51 delegates.

Clinton has 502 delegates total with 451 being superdelegates. That leaves 51 delegates.

The candidates will need 2383 delegates to win the nomination, Clinton already has almost a quarter of that JUST from superdelegates. These superdelegates can change their mind up until the convention, so this could change but we will see.
 
George Owen said:
The solution to this is pretty simple.

Just stop doing business with outsourced slavery companies.

For example, tell Apple that in order for them to keep selling their phones in America, the people involved in the construction of the phone (the chinese guys in the factory) must receive wages equivalent to the minimum wage for americans (in relation to the PIB). If they don't comply, go and sell your phones elsewhere. Done.

simple as that. of course Apple pays millions of dollars to the congressmen every year to avoid any shit like this... but it is possible.
Click to expand...
That's simple alright. It's not a solution to anything though and the concept is actually absurd. Apple is also not a "slavery company" and it pays a fair wage. If it didn't, workers wouldn't work for it. Apple also doesn't need to pay anything to anyone to avoid any shit like this. Outsourcing is not illegal.
 
MarceloFalcon said:
I ran some quick math, and they already do. US GDP per Capita for 2014 (PPP, constant 2005 dollars) was 52.1k. China's was 12.6k. US is therefore 4.13x China. I found reports that workers get paid "a little over 3 dollars an hour". Let's call it $3, multiply by 4.13 and find that the equivalent US wages per your proposed math comes out to $12.40 / hour. That's above US min. wage.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Is that only for apple or for the whole Chinese companies?

I would feel much better knowing the guys that hand picked my favourite white tea are being treated fairly.
 
Scarecrow said:
That's simple alright. It's not a solution to anything though and the concept is actually absurd. Apple is also not a "slavery company" and it pays a fair wage. If it didn't, workers wouldn't work for it. Apple also doesn't need to pay anything to anyone to avoid any shit like this. Outsourcing is not illegal.
Click to expand...

Many people wish it were, and believe it would solve all of America's issues, as soon as they go back to making cheap electronics, toilet seats, steel, crap cars and t-shirts. Actually, since China already makes all of these, must be great living there!
 
Scarecrow said:
That's simple alright. It's not a solution to anything though and the concept is actually absurd. Apple is also not a "slavery company" and it pays a fair wage. If it didn't, workers wouldn't work for it. Apple also doesn't need to pay anything to anyone to avoid any shit like this. Outsourcing is not illegal.
Click to expand...

well, it should be (some cases at least).

ps. the first bolded part, is totally false. plenty people around the world works for shit wages (enough for a roof and bad quality food) without right to complain.
 
George Owen said:
Interesting. Is that only for apple or for the whole Chinese companies?

I would feel much better knowing the guys that hand picked my favourite white tea are being treated fairly.
Click to expand...

Just ran it on Apple based on the $3 an hour figure I found. http://blog.greenamerica.org/2015/0...e-apple-could-pay-its-workers-a-livable-wage/

The tea pickers probably make less than the iPhone makers, because that's the way the world works. China actually became a relatively expensive place to manufacture clothing in the last few years, and producers that had plants in SE Asia and Central America were better off. That means that the average Chinese worker is better off today than 10 years ago, and that's the slow climb that all developing countries have been trailing for 20 years or so. But for historical reason they were way way behind the US and Europe. There is no silver bullet to make them instantly be 30-40k per capita economies with comparable wages, its a process (calling it that probably lends my argument negative credibility in these parts)
 
Neutral said:
I swear I don't have it in for him...he and his campaign are disgusting.
Click to expand...

Ubik said:
He's cartoon character evil :lol:
Click to expand...

Not your fault, Ubik is right. The man is uniquely cnutish. I hate it that this is the showing liberal economics gets (even some of his economic proposals are insane/retarded), comes with christian conservatism turned on to the max, and absolutely no regard for rules and decency. The sooner Ted Cruz is out of national politics, the better. The problem is he's young, and popular enough to stick around for a long while.
 
Red-Jeff said:
Completely agree. To emphasize that point let's look at the primaries so far.

Sanders has 70 delegates total with 19 being superdelegates. That leaves 51 delegates.

Clinton has 502 delegates total with 451 being superdelegates. That leaves 51 delegates.

The candidates will need 2383 delegates to win the nomination, Clinton already has almost a quarter of that JUST from superdelegates. These superdelegates can change their mind up until the convention, so this could change but we will see.
Click to expand...
Those figures are excluding super tuesday?
 
Neutral said:
Don't forget Rubio was a Tea Party favorite...this is how far the GOP has fallen, Rubio is now the establishment candidate :lol:
Click to expand...
Was thinking the other day that he actually reminded me a little of Santorum. His glitch a couple of weeks back was the kind of thing Santorum would've said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.