But you know what, fuck it.
If people “on the right” want trump as the nominee, Sander’s popularity isn’t the only warning sign that this country is twisted up and straight headed for doom.
As embarrassing as an admitted socialist doing this well in America is, Trump doing this well is equally embossing and depressing.
I need a drink.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
But you know what, fuck it.
If people “on the right” want trump as the nominee, Sander’s popularity isn’t the only warning sign that this country is twisted up and straight headed for doom.
As embarrassing as an admitted socialist doing this well in America is, Trump doing this well is equally embossing and depressing.
I need a drink. [/quote]
Cheers, mate!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, the point about the quantum leap is that we’ve had minimum wage standards since the 1930s and such standards have not impaired the economy’s ability to grow, and indeed, transform.[/quote]
You are right of course, but we don’t know how much more we could have grown without this make believe “minimum” do we?
[/quote]
We also don’t know if we would have grown less during that time without a minimum wage law. That speaks to the point of causation (or lack of it)- the economy is driven by many factors other than minimum wage laws.
But the one thing we do know is that minimum wage laws clearly did not prevent the economic quantum leap we have enjoyed since the inception of those laws.
[/quote]
C’mon man, don’t embarrass yourself here with this Pittbulllian logic. You of all people surely haven’t been taking night courses at his online university, have you?[/quote]
There’s no “Pitbullian logic” at work. Point is, minimum wage laws haven’t stood in the way of economic expansion, so you just can’t assume as right the claim that minimum wage laws hurt the economy or that economies are always better off without them.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, the point about the quantum leap is that we’ve had minimum wage standards since the 1930s and such standards have not impaired the economy’s ability to grow, and indeed, transform.[/quote]
You are right of course, but we don’t know how much more we could have grown without this make believe “minimum” do we?
[/quote]
We also don’t know if we would have grown less during that time without a minimum wage law. That speaks to the point of causation (or lack of it)- the economy is driven by many factors other than minimum wage laws.
But the one thing we do know is that minimum wage laws clearly did not prevent the economic quantum leap we have enjoyed since the inception of those laws.
[/quote]
C’mon man, don’t embarrass yourself here with this Pittbulllian logic. You of all people surely haven’t been taking night courses at his online university, have you?[/quote]
There’s no “Pitbullian logic” at work. Point is, minimum wage laws haven’t stood in the way of economic expansion, so you just can’t assume as right the claim that minimum wage laws hurt the economy or that economies are always better off without them.
[/quote]
I’m not 100% opposed to the minimum wage; however, I think you’re a bit off base TB. While I agree that the minimum wage hasn’t stood in the way of economic expansion, it has in part dictated where that expansion is occurring. There are two main reasons companies are outsourcing and/or offshoring. One is corporate tax rates (3rd highest in the world) and the other is employment costs.
Long story short, the company I work for recently consolidated warehouses. We had four and two used union labor. We now have two warehouses. Which two do you think we closed? We spent millions of dollars to expand one of the remaining two warehouses to accommodate for the volume rather than keep a third or fourth union warehouse open. I can also tell you that the minimum wage hike in MD impacts us by millions of dollars over the next few years.
There is no doubt that minimum wage laws limit employment opportunities and are a factor in economic growth; however, it is certainly debatable whether a regulatory minimum wage is preferable to a net loss of job opportunity.
I’ve decided I’d like to see a Dr. Ben Carson / Carly Fiorina nomination.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve decided I’d like to see a Dr. Ben Carson / Carly Fiorina nomination. [/quote]
There’s only one* way to top that ticket: Two black women.
*Of course, we will only truly be an open-minded people when we are ready to elect conjoined twins: one of whom is transgender, African American, and an avowed Marxist, and one of whom is Mexican American, gay, and atheist.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve decided I’d like to see a Dr. Ben Carson / Carly Fiorina nomination. [/quote]
There’s only one* way to top that ticket: Two black women.
*Of course, we will only truly be an open-minded people when we are ready to elect conjoined twins: one of whom is transgender, African American, and an avowed Marxist, and one of whom is Mexican American, gay, and atheist.[/quote]
Nick, they would need to be pregnant with Kayne’s baby. (what a f’d up world)
usmc, I had that same thought also.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A fine analysis of why those self-proclaimed “true conservatives” who have brooked no compromise on “conservative” principles that support Trump now look like fools.[/quote]
But, in reality that’s always the way it has been for the masses. Do you really think the country suddenly fell in love with conservatism back in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected? No way! It was Reagan that they fell in love with. Just like when Obama was elected. Do you really think the country took that wide of a left turn? No, it was Obama they fell in love with.
If Trump can actually survive the next debate after being attacked gang style (that is a possibility) then he has a good chance of becoming the nominee. And not because he’s a wanna be conservative. It will be for the same reason every other President has won in the media age (beginning 1960)…personal style, looks and charisma.
This is how the average person votes.
You and I may not like it but it is an undeniable fact![/quote]
That’s all irrelevant to the point the article is making. The issue is not low-information, largely non-ideological voters - the issue is hardcore “true conservatives” who pay close attention to politics, have uncompromising principles and litmus tests (“no RINOs! That’s why we keep losing!”), and then start backing a candidate who has been clear he doesn’t agree with them on these non-negotiable principles and on paper, is well to the left bif purported RINOs.
Next time, read the article.
[/quote]
Read it first time around. It doesn’t matter who they are. It is the man that they follow.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If Trump can actually survive the next debate after being attacked gang style (that is a possibility) then he has a good chance of becoming the nominee. [/quote]
Which would be an utter disaster.
Unmitigated and utter fucking disaster.
Trump v Clinton - Clinton wins in a Nixon-esk landslide. Probably not 49 states, but 40-44 for sure.
Trump v Sanders - Sanders wins similar to Romney Obama.
There isn’t a single Democrat that will lose to trump currently considering running. Jeb could switch parties tomorrow and kick Trumps ass. (Wouldn’t be much of a change in Jeb’s positions either.) Turn out in a general won’t be low enough for Trump to not get his ass kicked. [/quote]
I disagree about Bernie winning. He’s not going to win in a one on one race vs Trump.
Beyond that is anyone’s guess and Trump is certainly not my first choice for the republicans. I am a Kasich/Rubio (ticket) fan.
But, I will predict that if Trump is the nominee he will garner more votes than you think especially against Hillary. There is a very strong anti government sentiment out there and Hillary is part of the establishment. Would he beat her? Who knows?
At this point I’m not convinced Trump will be the nominee. I think he and Bush will take each other out and someone else will benefit.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve decided I’d like to see a Dr. Ben Carson / Carly Fiorina nomination. [/quote]
There’s only one* way to top that ticket: Two black women.
*Of course, we will only truly be an open-minded people when we are ready to elect conjoined twins: one of whom is transgender, African American, and an avowed Marxist, and one of whom is Mexican American, gay, and atheist.[/quote]
LMAO!
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’ve decided I’d like to see a Dr. Ben Carson / Carly Fiorina nomination. [/quote]
There’s only one* way to top that ticket: Two black women.
*Of course, we will only truly be an open-minded people when we are ready to elect conjoined twins: one of whom is transgender, African American, and an avowed Marxist, and one of whom is Mexican American, gay, and atheist.[/quote]
I just like them…
Jeb’s tax plan, thoughts?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jeb’s tax plan, thoughts?
[/quote]
It was difficult to get past this line:
“Under President Obama, Americans have now endured six years of tax increases, endless regulation, vast new federal programs and $8 trillion in added debt”
For the Obama lovers on this site how do you defend that?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jeb’s tax plan, thoughts?
[/quote]
It was difficult to get past this line:
“Under President Obama, Americans have now endured six years of tax increases, endless regulation, vast new federal programs and $8 trillion in added debt”
For the Obama lovers on this site how do you defend that? [/quote]
You know the response will be, “But Bush…”
Personally, I’d rather focus on the future. President Obama’s time is essentially up.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jeb’s tax plan, thoughts?
[/quote]
It was difficult to get past this line:
“Under President Obama, Americans have now endured six years of tax increases, endless regulation, vast new federal programs and $8 trillion in added debt”
For the Obama lovers on this site how do you defend that? [/quote]
You know the response will be, “But Bush…”
Personally, I’d rather focus on the future. President Obama’s time is essentially up. [/quote]
Of course you are correct my friend. But, if historians are fair at all they will rank Obama as one of the worst, perhaps the worst, President of all time.
As for Jeb Bush, I don’t like anything about him. It’s not just that the press will trash him (as they did GW) because his name is Bush, he is a moderate in conservative clothing. Don’t get me wrong if he could get elected I’d back him. Any republican candidate is better than Hillary Clinton. But I don’t believe Bush can win. There are far better candidates than Bush.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jeb’s tax plan, thoughts?
[/quote]
It was difficult to get past this line:
“Under President Obama, Americans have now endured six years of tax increases, endless regulation, vast new federal programs and $8 trillion in added debt”
For the Obama lovers on this site how do you defend that? [/quote]
You know the response will be, “But Bush…”
Personally, I’d rather focus on the future. President Obama’s time is essentially up. [/quote]
Of course you are correct my friend. But, if historians are fair at all they will rank Obama as one of the worst, perhaps the worst, President of all time.
As for Jeb Bush, I don’t like anything about him. It’s not just that the press will trash him (as they did GW) because his name is Bush, he is a moderate in conservative clothing. Don’t get me wrong if he could get elected I’d back him. Any republican candidate is better than Hillary Clinton. But I don’t believe Bush can win. There are far better candidates than Bush.
[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of Jeb myself, I was mostly curious what posters thought of his tax plan.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jeb’s tax plan, thoughts?
[/quote]
It was difficult to get past this line:
“Under President Obama, Americans have now endured six years of tax increases, endless regulation, vast new federal programs and $8 trillion in added debt”
For the Obama lovers on this site how do you defend that? [/quote]
You know the response will be, “But Bush…”
Personally, I’d rather focus on the future. President Obama’s time is essentially up. [/quote]
Of course you are correct my friend. But, if historians are fair at all they will rank Obama as one of the worst, perhaps the worst, President of all time.
As for Jeb Bush, I don’t like anything about him. It’s not just that the press will trash him (as they did GW) because his name is Bush, he is a moderate in conservative clothing. Don’t get me wrong if he could get elected I’d back him. Any republican candidate is better than Hillary Clinton. But I don’t believe Bush can win. There are far better candidates than Bush.
[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of Jeb myself, I was mostly curious what posters thought of his tax plan.
[/quote]
I like his plan makes a lot of sense, especially this part:
“Bush will also propose so-called full expensing for businesses. That means companies would be able to immediately write off the cost of their investments instead of having to drag those over a number of years”
Also, dropping the highest rate from 39%+ to 30% is also tremendous.
Naturally I want to hear how he is going to cut the debt.
Read more: Jeb Bush 2016: Tax plan hits Wall Street - POLITICO
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Jeb’s tax plan, thoughts?
[/quote]
It was difficult to get past this line:
“Under President Obama, Americans have now endured six years of tax increases, endless regulation, vast new federal programs and $8 trillion in added debt”
For the Obama lovers on this site how do you defend that? [/quote]
You know the response will be, “But Bush…”
Personally, I’d rather focus on the future. President Obama’s time is essentially up. [/quote]
Of course you are correct my friend. But, if historians are fair at all they will rank Obama as one of the worst, perhaps the worst, President of all time.
As for Jeb Bush, I don’t like anything about him. It’s not just that the press will trash him (as they did GW) because his name is Bush, he is a moderate in conservative clothing. Don’t get me wrong if he could get elected I’d back him. Any republican candidate is better than Hillary Clinton. But I don’t believe Bush can win. There are far better candidates than Bush.
[/quote]
I’m not a huge fan of Jeb myself, I was mostly curious what posters thought of his tax plan.
[/quote]
I like his plan makes a lot of sense, especially this part:
“Bush will also propose so-called full expensing for businesses. That means companies would be able to immediately write off the cost of their investments instead of having to drag those over a number of years”
Also, dropping the highest rate from 39%+ to 30% is also tremendous.
Naturally I want to hear how he is going to cut the debt.
Read more: Jeb Bush 2016: Tax plan hits Wall Street - POLITICO
[/quote]
I think the corporate rate dropping to 20% is also a big deal (The Wall Street Journal article appears to be locked to subscribers now).