2016 Election
Quote: rxwineWell, Hillary should be prepared for a refugee vs. terrorism question tonight. I can guess at answers she might give, but have no idea what she will say. I will be disappointed if they don't ask her that. They won't be doing their job, if they don't.
They've changed the entire debate tonight from domestic issues to Paris and terrorism and policy. Supposedly the candidates are briefing and rewriting their statements, and the moderators are writing new questions.
MIght be worth watching.
Quote: SanchoPanzaCertainly not someone who rips into Dr. Carson's autobiography.
Tell that to Donald Trump.
Quote: SanchoPanzaCertainly not someone who rips into Dr. Carson's autobiography.
Trump just ripped into Carson.
The knives are out and Trump is taking no Prisoners
He compared Carson to a Child Molester.
You cant make this stuff up. Amazing. Even the left doesn't go there.
The attacks on Carson from the right are just brutal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/13/trump-rips-ben-carson-backstory-in-marathon-iowa-speech/
They can discuss the Paris attacks substantively and offer their ideas for how to handle ISIS.
.....while some of the Republican candidates just spew hateful nonsense about how the French should have had guns on Twitter.
Quote: HowManyGreat timing indeed! No doubt, Hillary will tie the terrorist attacks in Paris to Global Warming.
How much $$ are you willing to bet? I'll take that action!
Did they not do camera tests to see how the background would look on TV?!
It looks like one of those old videos that was filmed before HDTV and doesn't fill out the full TV screen.
It was BERNIE that linked terrorism to global warming. This is DAMN FUNNY ! ! ! !
They say things like "you can't raise a family off current minimum wager pay. Well guess what, you are not supposed to. There are some job, fast food workers, many type of retail that are supposed to be low income, starter type jobs. High-schoolers working part-time. A mother working parttime, maybe a father working a second job. No one is supposed to support a family off of working the French fry machine at McDonald's.
If you raise the minimum wage of these type of jobs, the costs of these goods will go up. They have to in order to cover the increased costs. I am not just talking the price of a Big Mac or Whopper. Prices at CVS and Walmart and the grocery store will HAVE to increase to cover higher cost of wages.
So that's great, the low income folks get a raise and prices go up. What about the rest of us. Maybe those that already are making $15, $20 and hour (and supporting a family) or our seniors on a very fixed budget or even those of us self-employed. We won't be getting the raise, but WILL have to endure higher prices associated with it.
The vendors have to play it safe, after all.
The inevitable result will be that those currently making $15 (or less) per hour will have it slightly worse, and those making more than that will have it much worse as the non-zero increase to prices will take a huge bite of their presumed zero increase in income.
Aside from the oft-cited fast food and grocery stores example, some more examples are other food-service workers, (waiters, Waitresses, busboys, dishwashers, hosts and hostesses) gas station employees, video Poker parlor attendants, hotel desk clerks...the list goes on.
The problem is that minimum wage is not something that should be nationalized in the first place because, even if you wanted to effectuate a minimum livable income for full-time workers, there are still going to be significant disparities in cost of living from one locale to the next.
This is a matter much better left to States who can also delegate some of that responsibility to municipalities (think NYC) that may have a cost of living exceeding that of the State at-large.
That's not to say that there couldn't or shouldn't be Federal guidelines. Once a cost of living index can be determined, then I think FT workers should make a reasonable percentage of the average income for that jurisdiction as compared to the cost of living. Perhaps 75%, or so. In that sense, there should certainly be some measure of wage equality, but an across-the-board near doubling of the minimum wage is definitely not the answer.
2 comments. You said "those making $15 or less will have it slightly worse. Those making more than $15 will have it much worse". I agree, but you know who will have it worst of all? Seniors on a fixed income, particularly seniors who's only or majority income is SS. They get no income bump but will absorb the cost of that bump for others (in the cost of higher goods and services).
Also near the end, you talk about 75% of average income? I assume you mean some sort of indexed low income standard of living, but again, I go back to there are some jobs that are not supposed to be jobs where people are supporting a family. They are supposed to be low income "starter" or part-time type jobs.
That first year will be terrible for them, though.
KewlJ, with respect to the 75%, I was referring strictly to full-time employees. In order to prevent abuse, I would stipulate that a certain percentage of a company's employees are required to be full-time employees.
We'll pretend that Bellaire, Ohio was governing itself and go to City-Data.com so I can give an example:
Median Household Income: $24695
Cost of Living: 88.6 (U.S. Mean = 100)
We would also need a base point for hourly wages, so I'm going to use $10.00/hour based on a cost of living score of 100.
If the cost of living is 88.6% of the US average, then 100% of the base point of $10/hour would be $8.86/hour for this jurisdiction.
Therefore, this jurisdiction could set a minimum wage of no less than $8.86/hour for full-time employees.
I would actually want to discourage part-time employment in my model because it hurts full-time employment for reasons aside from the obvious ones. Therefore, as long as 80% of a location's employees are Full-time, then the minimum hourly wage for this jurisdiction would be $8.86.
Again, that's based on a base of $10.00/hour for an average cost of living jurisdiction.
The problem is that these advocates for the $15/hour minimum are trying to enact a Federal Minimum Wage that would be applicable to everyone, but that makes no sense for jurisdictions with a lower Cost-of-Living average.
Quote: kewljI have a big problem with the democrats position on raising the minimum wager to $15/hr.
Hillary's position is $12 not $15. Bernies is $15. O'Malley, claimed to have actually successfully raised the minimum to $10 in his state with good results. He also supports $15.
Bye Jindal. What we down to now? 37 Repub candidates?
Quote: rxwineJindal is out. Was he really in? Did I even see his name enough to spell it right?
Bye Jindal. What we down to now? 37 Repub candidates?
His State is tanking
He hasn't goverened it in a year because he was too busy running for President
370 million deficit this year, huge for that state.
A republican running for Gov that he wont endorse
A solid republican state that might have a democrat for Gov. lol
Shows how much the people in LA think of Jindal.
That "success" would be quite difficult to proclaim, considering that the Maryland minimum wage is not scheduled to hit $10 (actually $10.10) for another three years. --ncslQuote: rxwineO'Malley, claimed to have actually successfully raised the minimum to $10 in his state with good results.
Trump wants a database of all Muslim Americans.
Insane. You can't make this stuff up....
Any righties here gonna try to defend this idea?
Quote: RonCNope. He says stuff just as silly as global warming causing terrorism.
I'd say his comments are way way more "silly" (RE: scary).
Quote: ams288http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
Trump wants a database of all Muslim Americans.
Insane. You can't make this stuff up....
Any righties here gonna try to defend this idea?
Not much different than certain liberal canidates calling for a database of gun owners.
Both are forced registration for following a constitutional right.
But, Trumps idea is impossible, there is no way you can know what people think and beleive to prove they are or are not a practicing Muslim. A database of Mosques funded by Saudi Arabia would be more helpful because that is where most extremist Muslims historically learn their ways.
Quote: ams288I'd say his comments are way way more "silly" (RE: scary).
Yep. They are scary and you have heard me say that I don't support him and I don't want him to be President.
He's not the only one who says silly/scary stuff and all that do don't reside on one side of the aisle...
Quote: RonCYep. They are scary and you have heard me say that I don't support him and I don't want him to be President.
He's not the only one who says silly/scary stuff and all that do don't reside on one side of the aisle...
I just think he loves those roaring crowds so much he will feed them all kinds of extreme conservative red meat just to get that huge roar
Quote: terapinedI just think he loves those roaring crowds so much he will feed them all kinds of extreme conservative red meat just to get that huge roar
That sounds good and may be true in many instances, but the narrative for this remark is a little different than that...
"But his comments are not quite as cut-and-dried as the headlines would make them seem."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/20/trump-causes-firestorm-with-muslim-registry-remarks-but-what-did-really-say.html
I am not saying that he didn't imply or say that he supported such a thing, but it doesn't look like it was part of a big loud campaign speech. It may even be a "gotcha" trap that he fell in to...
Okay...no matter...I still don't support him!
I don't have a problem with the idea of a 'registry' or database. The idea that everything has to be politically correct and I'll go a step further and say that everything has to be 'constitutional' has got to stop. It's a different day. We are at war and the other side IS NOT playing by the rules....our rules....or the rules of civilized society. Beheadings, suicide bombings, mass murders of civilian populations....that's not the rules of war. The rules are out the window and if we want to survive, so must the notion of political correctness. You can not win playing by the rules if the other side isn't. You gotta do what you gotta do.
I haven't heard anyone suggest rounding of decent, law abiding Muslim citizens and locking them up like we did with Japanese Americans during WW2, but the fact is that a segment of the Muslim religion has declared War on us and their idea of war isn't fighting fairly on the battlefield. Their idea of war is infiltration the civilian population, strapping a bomb to their chest and shooting and/or blowing up as many civilians as they can.
So if we need to have a registry to attempt to keep track of people to be as sure as we can that the bad guys aren't infiltrating the good Muslims, that's a sacrifice of privacy that has to be accepted. We are at war and sacrifices have to be made, even at the expense of some personal freedoms that this country is based on.
Quote: GandlerNot much different than certain liberal canidates calling for a database of gun owners.
Both are forced registration for following a constitutional right.
Which presidential candidate called for a database of gun owners???
I must have missed that one...
Quote: ams288Which presidential candidate called for a database of gun owners???
I must have missed that one...
"In the past, Clinton has proposed a national gun registry and called for the repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which grants immunity to firearms dealers and manufacturers."
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-gun-violence-national-emergency-396552
Quote: ams288http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
Trump wants a database of all Muslim Americans.
Insane. You can't make this stuff up....
Any righties here gonna try to defend this idea?
When the dust settles, the question and the answer are re-examined, I believe that you AMS will decide that that isn't exactly what was said. But wouldn't surprise me a bit if he says exactly that tomorrow. I am beyond being amazed this cycle....
Quote: kewljWe are at war and sacrifices have to be made, even at the expense of some personal freedoms that this country is based on.
Should any pol agree with this, I just found a hobby for the next year. That being destroy them and any remnants of this abhorrent idea. I don't care what fugees come, where they're from, or how many are coming. You could import the entire population of Turkey and I still will not sacrifice one mote of my freedom. Not for this reason, or any other.
The illusion of safety isn't worth the price of the pixels used to type this. A few hundred thousand bearded brown folks don't hold a candle to how scary this idea is.
Quote: RonC"In the past, Clinton has proposed a national gun registry and called for the repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which grants immunity to firearms dealers and manufacturers."
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-gun-violence-national-emergency-396552
Its an attempt by Clinton to prevent hundreds of Americans that get killed by Domestic terrorism.
Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, CO theater shooting, Oklahoma City bomb ect
What fascinates me is the right could care lees about hundreds of Americans killed by domestic terrorism but totally freak out when 1 American gets killed in an International terrorism incident.
Kind of sad.
Are American lives lost in this country to terrorism less valued then that the 1 life lost overseas?
Quote: terapinedIts an attempt by Clinton to prevent hundreds of Americans that get killed by Domestic terrorism.
Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, CO theater shooting, Oklahoma City bomb ect
What fascinates me is the right could care lees about hundreds of Americans killed by domestic terrorism but totally freak out when 1 American gets killed in an International terrorism incident.
Kind of sad.
Are American lives lost in this country to terrorism less valued then that the 1 life lost overseas?
"The right could care less"??? You've got to be flipping kidding me. I feel for every single innocent person killed by gun violence whether it be a mass shooting or a single death. I'm so tired of the sickening liberal-speak bull crap that says that just because we don't want to give up certain rights that we don't care. C'mon.
A gun registry, gun control, gun buybacks, etc. won't work because the damned criminals won't abide by the law. There may be answers that WILL help but the left keeps up the tired idea that taking all of the guns from law-abiding citizens will make a difference.
The left has gotten away with saying people who don't agree with them "don't care" for so long that they actually believe it. STOP!!!
Quote: RonC"In the past, Clinton has proposed a national gun registry and called for the repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which grants immunity to firearms dealers and manufacturers."
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-gun-violence-national-emergency-396552
Bolded the key phrase. Is she advocating for that today?
Had they all had weapons, he would not have needed a trial...or perhaps it wouldn't have happened at all!
Quote: ams288Which presidential candidate called for a database of gun owners???
I must have missed that one...
I answered:
Quote: RonC"In the past, Clinton has proposed a national gun registry and called for the repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which grants immunity to firearms dealers and manufacturers."
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-gun-violence-national-emergency-396552
Quote: ams288Bolded the key phrase. Is she advocating for that today?
She has spoken in favor of a gun buyback program recently and of a database in the past. She is a Presidential candidate and she has called for a registry. She has not said she is against one at this point...and she could say that, since one of her opponents is for one:
"Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has already put out a more sweeping plan. Among his proposals are:
banning the sale of assault weapons
requiring everyone who buys a gun to be fingerprinted and get a license
pushing gun-makers to install updated safety technology
making gun trafficking a federal crime
establishing a national firearms registry
requiring better home storage of guns
setting a minimum age requirement of 21 to own a handgun"
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/05/446015792/hillary-clintons-gun-proposals-expose-democratic-divide
Quote: RonCA gun registry, gun control, gun buybacks, etc. won't work because the damned criminals won't abide by the law.
It would stop some. It would save some lives.
That's why it always looks like conservatives "don't care." They use the false argument that if some form of gun control won't stop EVERY criminal or EVERY mass shooting, we should just forget about it. Of course there is nothing that could ever be done to stop every gun death. But we sure as hell shouldn't be having as many gun deaths in this country as we currently are.
And "more guns" is not the answer.
Quote: RonCShe has spoken in favor of a gun buyback program recently and of a database in the past.
Let me know when she starts advocating for a database this cycle.
I personally think it would be a good idea. It would certainly save more lives than a Muslim registry!
Quote: ams288Let me know when she starts advocating for a database this cycle.
I personally think it would be a good idea. It would certainly save more lives than a Muslim registry!
--No, you'll have to listen to her for yourself!!
Quote: RonC
She has spoken in favor of a gun buyback program
Asinine. I mean, I'm not against it as a rule. If someone wants to forego the open market and turn in a gun for $5 - $50 (the typical going rate, depending on type), that's their prerogative. But in order to be *ahem* "successful", they all do a "no check guarantee". No running of numbers, no database check, straight to the smelter they go.
RonC pisses me off, I grab my Ruger and off him, then 5-0 pays me to dispose of the murder weapon for me. And they look at this a solution. Asinine.
Quote: some idiot
banning the sale of assault weapons (already are)
requiring everyone who buys a gun to be fingerprinted and get a license (2nd amendment, gfy)
pushing gun-makers to install updated safety technology (ignorant)
making gun trafficking a federal crime (didn't know it wasn't, add it to my list of felonies)
establishing a national firearms registry (gfy)
requiring better home storage of guns (4th amendment, gfy)
setting a minimum age requirement of 21 to own a handgun (lol, just stop)
Quote: FaceShould any pol agree with this, I just found a hobby for the next year. That being destroy them and any remnants of this abhorrent idea. I don't care what fugees come, where they're from, or how many are coming. You could import the entire population of Turkey and I still will not sacrifice one mote of my freedom. Not for this reason, or any other.
The illusion of safety isn't worth the price of the pixels used to type this. A few hundred thousand bearded brown folks don't hold a candle to how scary this idea is.
Just to be clear, you know that i am not talking of a database of gun owners. I am talking about a database of muslims, which is what Trump 'hinted' at.
Quote: ams288It would stop some. It would save some lives.
That's why it always looks like conservatives "don't care." They use the false argument that if some form of gun control won't stop EVERY criminal or EVERY mass shooting, we should just forget about it. Of course there is nothing that could ever be done to stop every gun death. But we sure as hell shouldn't be having as many gun deaths in this country as we currently are.
And "more guns" is not the answer.
Liberals always say people who don't want the same things as they do "don't care about ________"...most of the time, it is a lie to make themselves feel good. Caring about something does not mean agreement with every idea put forth by the other side of the political aisle--it means wanting to do something about the issue.
Gun control has not worked very well in Chicago. You can make a statement that it "may" have saved one person or more, you are asking the other side to prove it didn't save "someone." That, of course, is impossible. The truth is there is gun control in Chicago and it has a high gun violence rate. Maryland has tough gun control laws, yet Baltimore is setting high numbers for murders.
A solution that considers our rights under the Constitution AND helps slow/stop gun violence may be to enhance sentencing for gun crimes. Long terms for use of a gun in the commission of a crime and even longer ones if the gun is discharged.
Just taking something away from law-abiding citizens is not the way to fix criminals.
Quote: RonCJust taking something away from law-abiding citizens is not the way to fix criminals.
Except no one is advocating for "just taking something away" from anybody.
Quote: RonCA gun registry, gun control, gun buybacks, etc. won't work because the damned criminals won't abide by the law.
So, no point in having laws then -- about anything. Good citizens will be good anyway, and bad citizens will ignore them?
Quote: ams288Except no one is advocating for "just taking something away" from anybody.
If you restrict my right to sell a gun I own to my neighbor (both of us non-felons), you ARE taking something away.
Restricting rights provided by the Constitution is taking something away.
Quote: rxwineSo, no point in having laws then -- about anything. Good citizens will be good anyway, and bad citizens will ignore them?
Nice try. I support stiff penalties for the use of guns in criminal activities. Punish the criminals, not the good citizens.
Never heard of self-defense?Quote: rxwineSo, no point in having laws then -- about anything. Good citizens will be good anyway, and bad citizens will ignore them?
Quote: RonCPunish the criminals, not the good citizens.
But not when it comes to the refugees. Guilty until proven innocent, I suppose.
Quote: kewljJust to be clear, you know that i am not talking of a database of gun owners. I am talking about a database of muslims, which is what Trump 'hinted' at.
I do know. "Gun" didn't enter my head until RonC's post later.
Perhaps I spoke out of turn. I am admittedly very ignorant on fugees and the whole process. Do they have no rights, similar to a criminal on house arrest, only without the "arrest' part? Are they like any other visitor, a student on a visa, perhaps? I dunno, and I suppose some details might change my stance.
But I assume they would be treated similar to Dim Bhan Phuc, who left the Pacific Rim in search of higher learning. He may not be "American" or even a citizen, but he's still protected by and expected to uphold the laws and customs of the land, specifically, the Constitution. That's how we roll. That's how I roll. Doesn't matter if you're Gordy, the polite, middle aged Manitoban, or Mahmoud, the dark, harsh worded foreigner. I don't sacrifice honor out of fear, and I sure as hell don't sacrifice freedom for anything.
Perhaps if the Patriot Act was a wild success, I'd at least consider it. But as it happens, it is one of the most disrespectful, shameful pieces of legislation ever rammed home. I'll not stand by and attend a repeat.
That may not be too long in the offing. She has been flipping and flopping and "nuancing" the issue for decades. All anyone has to do is wait for the wind to change direction.Quote: ams288Let me know when she starts advocating for a database this cycle.
Quote: rxwineBut not when it comes to the refugees. Guilty until proven innocent, I suppose.
The refugee thing is an interesting topic. I believe that both sides are on "our" side but they disagree. The President's own FBI Director has said that we do not have the ability to do background checks on all of the potential refugees. Others say that the vetting process is good and sufficient.
Remember, of course, that these ARE NOT citizens or residents of the United States and they are not subject to our Constitution--that is, they can be considered as suspect until proven not to be...and should be. ANYONE we let in should be thoroughly checked out because we seem to have a real hard time getting, and staying, rid of those who have proven (by criminal actions, not simply by being here illegally) that they do not belong in our country. It has led to crime that we could have avoided had the criminals been kept out.
Okay...so the President makes all kinds of comments cutting down the opposition and does very little to show the populace (of which a large number have shown concern about the process) that we do have a process and how good he thinks it is. He goes for the cheap sound bite and not the proof of the process. It isn't just those nasty, ugly Republicans who oppose the refugees...fully 25% of his own party's folks in Congress voted FOR the bill to restrict entry into our country.
I don't know for sure if our process is "good enough" or not. The FBI Director says it is not. The President has not proven that it is, but he'd rather just be the Bully-In-Chief than actually prove he has a good point. So...I will err on the side of caution, and oppose entry and support aid for them where they are now.
Quote: RonCRemember, of course, that these ARE NOT citizens or residents of the United States and they are not subject to our Constitution--that is, they can be considered as suspect until proven not to be...and should be.
Although it's far more likely "we the people" as an aggregate will be victimized by our own citizens in murder or crime who are not screened being born here and all, than ever fall victim to the outsiders.
But whatever. It's not suppose to make sense.
