2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...p-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-n2140487

Trump's henchman has been charged. Interesting to see how this plays out now. Trump has been bitching like a little kid all day about unfair press coverage, especially on CNN. I bet he's gonna flip over this. After all nobody saw anything and she made it up didn't she?

Trump's crew have already released a statement saying he wasn't arrested and is looking forward to his day in court.
 
Last edited:
berbatrick said:
It's still a really really strange thing to bring up. Bernie rightfully got a lot of criticism when he started talking about turning superdelegates (though I'm still unclear if he means that only for states he has won, because that is the part he has been repeating).
Imagine if he said he's in the race because FBI. Then imagine he said because she might die. He'd be buried.
Click to expand...
I'd hazard a guess that since Bobby Kennedy's assassination happened in her formative years, it left a big impression and she was more inclined to bring it up to prove her point, you know, old people and their 'back in my time'. Everyone then got that and didn't make a meal out of that in March, but as Obama lead the race and the historic prospect of his candidacy became more and more apparent, and the bad blood between the two campaigns intensified, it was imprudent of her to repeat that comment. It was more a matter of context than anything else. Now, if you brought up her birther attacks, that'd be entirely legit. There were plenty of insinuations about how 'un-American' Obama was from her campaign back then, and that was straight up dirty politics.
 
Ubik said:
If you scroll down to "The shape of past endorsement primaries" here - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/ - you can see the Dem 08 race in nominations. They aren't the whole story of superdelegates as they relate only to members of Congress and Governors, not taking into account "distinguished party leaders" and the DNC, but gives you a good idea of Obama's trend. He had a decent number already by Iowa, at which point he shot up.

Also found this article mentioning him narrowing her lead by a lot in late Feb, before primaries in Ohio and Texas had taken place - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/23/uselections2008.barackobama
Click to expand...
Thanks. Will have a good look!
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'd hazard a guess that since Bobby Kennedy's assassination happened in her formative years, it left a big impression and she was more inclined to bring it up to prove her point, you know, old people and their 'back in my time'. Everyone then got that and didn't make a meal out of that in March, but as Obama lead the race and the historic prospect of his candidacy became more and more apparent, and the bad blood between the two campaigns intensified, it was imprudent of her to repeat that comment. It was more a matter of context than anything else. Now, if you brought up her birther attacks, that'd be entirely legit. There were plenty of insinuations about how 'un-American' Obama was from her campaign back then, and that was straight up dirty politics.
Click to expand...
Her campaign in 08 was generally a bit of a clusterfeck, laughed at it quite a bit at the time. They took a long time to realise it wasn't about state wins, it was about delegates. Speaking of which...





So this guy's either incompetent or they were never seriously trying to win.
 
Ubik said:
So this guy's either incompetent or they were never seriously trying to win.
Click to expand...

They had nowhere to go after NV. Winning states and keeping themselves in the headlines is the only way to keep their fundraising up. Kinda hard to sell the candidate's viability to their base if they keep losing state after state (albeit, being a bit better off delegate-wise).

At the end of the day, an insurgent campaign must rely on their candidate to do the heavy lifting for them, and Bernie Sanders is no Barrack Obama, even Donald Drumpf. The fact that they made it this far is in itself quite commendable.
 
ravi2 said:
I just cannot understand how one can hear both Hillary and Bernie and want to vote for Hillary, but hey, Bush won (twice) so what do I know?
Click to expand...
I don't get to vote, but surely one has to realize Bernie's policies are simply unrealistic.

It's all very well making promises, but there's no way he can deliver.
 
adexkola said:
Sanders will concede the nomination once the New York primary is over. Don't see him avoiding a crushing defeat here.

Clinton to her credit has been really gracious about Bernie staying this long in the race.
Click to expand...
A big win for Hillary in NY (as the polls show) should really be the end of it, if Sanders tries to drag things out after it. He's quickly lose the goodwill he's generated.
 
Cal? said:
I don't get to vote, but surely one has to realize Bernie's policies are simply unrealistic.

It's all very well making promises, but there's no way he can deliver.
Click to expand...
Oh and Hillary can deliver on all the promises she has made? She has made quite a few similar ones you know. No politician ever delivers on his/her promise. But Bernie is a straight shooter and will at least try unlike the rest.
 
Red Dreams said:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-minimum-wage-deal-20160328-story.html

$15.00 an hour...a boost for Sanders.
Click to expand...

Excellent.

B3In1q3IQAAR2Tk.png
 
Cal? said:
A big win for Hillary in NY (as the polls show) should really be the end of it, if Sanders tries to drag things out after it. He's quickly lose the goodwill he's generated.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There will be immense pressure for him to bow out after NY, although in today's age, candidates seem to want to stay in for more leverage later on...never mind that they are doomed.
 
Raoul said:
Excellent.

B3In1q3IQAAR2Tk.png
Click to expand...

Saw a story the other day (it might have been old), but it showed a number of Burger Kings and McDonald's in Florida had already replaced much of their front counter staff with automated order machines (multi-lingual of course). They would have one or two people working behind the counter whose sold job was to hand people their orders. No fuss about staff handling money, the machines take cash or card. Obviously it is not just the $15 wage driving the switch to these, but it will be interesting to see if the pace pick ups in states that go to the $15/hr rate.

Reminded me of when it was found out that at some drive-thru's the person you spoke to when you placed the order was actually a call center operator, who took the order, it was then sent to the restaurant where it was filled and delivered to you at the pick up window.
 
Raoul said:
Agreed. There will be immense pressure for him to bow out after NY, although in today's age, candidates seem to want to stay in for more leverage later on...never mind that they are doomed.
Click to expand...

Well in any math done from day 1, Bernie had to know his chances in NY were slim, so if he is still hoping for a chance to win the nomination he has to be looking at other states. But yeah the pressure will build on him, but if he is still polling well in the states that follow NY, he would have ample reason to stay in the game.
 
JustAFan said:
Saw a story the other day (it might have been old), but it showed a number of Burger Kings and McDonald's in Florida had already replaced much of their front counter staff with automated order machines (multi-lingual of course). They would have one or two people working behind the counter whose sold job was to hand people their orders. No fuss about staff handling money, the machines take cash or card. Obviously it is not just the $15 wage driving the switch to these, but it will be interesting to see if the pace pick ups in states that go to the $15/hr rate.

Reminded me of when it was found out that at some drive-thru's the person you spoke to when you placed the order was actually a call center operator, who took the order, it was then sent to the restaurant where it was filled and delivered to you at the pick up window.
Click to expand...

I'm amazed that people don't see the basic economics behind why such drastic increases won't work. Businesses will simply fire employees and automate more.
 
Red Dreams said:
yeeeha..

another GOP cartoon .



err not true of course.
Click to expand...

Why would any business not reduce employees when they are losing money on wages. Also, why wouldn't they simply automate their business model to reduce the need for as many employees. Its simple common sense.
 
berbatrick said:
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf

Why Does the Minimum Wage Have No Discernible Effect on Employment?
John Schmitt February 2013
(meta-analysis)

http://www.frbsf.org/economic-resea...cember/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/

http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

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

They are talking about doubling the minimum wage, which is a massive difference than a small incremental increase that much of hte literature is based on.
 
Raoul said:
They are talking about doubling the minimum wage, which is a massive difference than a small incremental increase that much of hte literature is based on.
Click to expand...


A sub-living minimum wage means taxpayers have to foot the part of the bill that corporations don't.
A living wage=minimum wage will stimulate the economy since low earners have a high marginal propensity to consume rather than save.
See, I'm not an economist, and can also make statements like that which seem obvious. It's best to let the data speak for itself.



Also, the increase in California will be gradually implemented in 2022. And the current min wage is 10.0, so it's not a doubling. It's a gradual increase to 1.5, over 6 years.
 
berbatrick said:
A sub-living minimum wage means taxpayers have to foot the part of the bill that corporations don't.
A living wage=minimum wage will stimulate the economy since low earners have a high marginal propensity to consume rather than save.
See, I'm not an economist, and can also make statements like that which seem obvious. It's best to let the data speak for itself.



Also, the increase in California will be gradually implemented in 2022. And the current min wage is 10.0, so it's not a doubling. It's a gradual increase to 1.5, over 6 years.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about Sanders' proposal - he supports a $15 minimum wage and Hillary supports a 12.
 
Raoul said:
Why would any business not reduce employees when they are losing money on wages. Also, why wouldn't they simply automate their business model to reduce the need for as many employees. Its simple common sense.
Click to expand...

Raoul. I cannot understand how you choose to argue this in a vacuum. People living in poverty/near poverty is a bigger burden to the tax payer. And I still reject your argument. I have first hand working knowledge of looking at the books of many small businesses. They are simply maximizing their profits. They will pay what the market pays.
 
Red Dreams said:
Raoul. I cannot understand how you choose to argue this in a vacuum. People living in poverty/near poverty is a bigger burden to the tax payer. And I still reject your argument. I have first hand working knowledge of looking at the books of many small businesses. They are simply maximizing their profits. They will pay what the market pays.
Click to expand...

Its not rocket science really - we are quickly moving away from low wage positions toward automation. Why on earth would any small business owner keep as many employees on staff when they are forced to pay higher wages. They will simply can the extra employees who are reducing their bottom line. Manufacturing jobs will automate and reduce staff that way. Also, 30k (15/hr) is hardly a respectable livable wage these days in most places. 60k or above and you're talking a reasonable salary that is sufficient for a small family - 80k or more for home ownership.
 
$12 or $15 at the end of the day are neither of them living wage. It helps, but not a lot.

As for first hand knowledge, I'm just going to share this story. Minimum wage in Australia is A$ 16.87. A couple of years ago, I worked in this small diner, about 10 tables, seat 40 people at most. Open 11 a.m - 10 p.m. It's in a shopping area, but there are plenty of competing businesses there. Usual turnover per day is about $500, doubled that on the weekend, a bit more if we have a function. However, there are a couple of months in the year, most notably after New Year and Easter, that we had no business, the place stay open but we'd make only $300. Barely enough to cover the wage for the cook and waiter/cashier.

I stay a good friend with the owner to this day. You couldn't find a nicer guy, but he couldn't afford more than $13 an hour for his staffs, plus whatever tips we got (not a lot, Aussies don't tip well). All in all, he makes around 60-70k a year out of the place, and actually worked a side job after staying in the kitchen for 10 hours a day. Small businesses have if tough a lot of the time, and while $7.25 is laughably low, I'd imagine if a business in metropolitan Melbourne is that hard to run, one in Kansas or Alaska would have it worse.

Minimum wage jobs should only be treated as a learning experience, aiming at them as something to provide for your family is not something you want.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
Its not rocket science really - we are quickly moving away from low wage positions toward automation. Why on earth would any small business owner keep as many employees on staff when they are forced to pay higher wages. They will simply can the extra employees who are reducing their bottom line. Manufacturing jobs will automate and reduce staff that way. Also, 30k (15/hr) is hardly a respectable livable wage these days in most places. 60k or above and you're talking a reasonable salary that is sufficient for a small family - 80k or more for home ownership.
Click to expand...

The question I am asking is what happens to families until we move to the numbers you mention? What needs to happen is a higher progressive tax rate to fund education. The removal of health insurance companies, thereby getting rid of artificial costs and moving to single payer. This needs to happen fast.
 
Red Dreams said:
The question I am asking is what happens to families until we move to the numbers you mention? What needs to happen is a higher progressive tax rate to fund education. The removal of health insurance companies, thereby getting rid of artificial costs and moving to single payer. This needs to happen fast.
Click to expand...

They seek education and pursue higher paying jobs ?
 
Raoul said:
Its not rocket science really - we are quickly moving away from low wage positions toward automation. Why on earth would any small business owner keep as many employees on staff when they are forced to pay higher wages. They will simply can the extra employees who are reducing their bottom line. Manufacturing jobs will automate and reduce staff that way. Also, 30k (15/hr) is hardly a respectable livable wage these days in most places. 60k or above and you're talking a reasonable salary that is sufficient for a small family - 80k or more for home ownership.
Click to expand...

If they could automate things, what's stopping them from doing so with or without a higher minimum wage? Automation automatically reduces a ton of overhead in terms of managing books, tax preparation, HR etc and reduces human error. We are far ways away from the local McDonald's franchisee automating things and human resource is still a valuable commodity.
 
Raoul said:
I'm talking about Sanders' proposal - he supports a $15 minimum wage and Hillary supports a 12.
Click to expand...

Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years.
Click to expand...
 
Raoul said:
They seek education and pursue higher paying jobs ?
Click to expand...

yes. and they cannot afford it. so the government (which includes them) need to pay for it.

The key to an economy being prosperous is to increase demand at grassroots level. Eventually the investment in education and getting rid of unnecessary brokers like health insurance companies will drive growth.
 
Red Dreams said:
Raoul. I cannot understand how you choose to argue this in a vacuum. People living in poverty/near poverty is a bigger burden to the tax payer. And I still reject your argument. I have first hand working knowledge of looking at the books of many small businesses. They are simply maximizing their profits. They will pay what the market pays.
Click to expand...

Well let's not pretend that every small business is a cash cow to its owners either. Their financial situation is a varied as the businesses themselves and the marketplaces they serve.

Some will get along just fine, others will not. That is not saying the increase is a bad thing, just pointing out the reality.

My parents owned a small business, in a small town for about a decade, the number of people who assumed we were rich because of it was ridiculous. The business was profitable, but they were not immune to all the things that can affect a businesses financial health. Raise prices too much and people would drive the extra distance to go to a competitor or just do without.
 
berbatrick said:
What would the logic be for that?
Click to expand...

Its abundant and becoming less and less demanded. The economic equation might not add up to "living wage". To put it more practically, how exactly should an American doing the same job about 2 billion of the world's population can do expect to make more than the average of those 2 billion people?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.