Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

The media wants elections to be close and they want Hillary to compete in red states so there's something worth talking about in those states. But Democrats have a solid path to victory even without the traditional swing states like Ohio and Florida.

Grade-A political hackery by saying Obama had "narrower" paths to victory than Bill did. I mean... not by much, EV wise. And he won a larger share of the popular vote both overall and in the swing states.

well he and her kinda does. Bill Clinton won the same states that Obama won and then more in his 92' and 96' campaign. The only states Obama has on Clinton is IN, VA and NC. GA went for Clinton in 92' and AZ in 96'.

 

[PhoenixDark]

My problem with drastic increases to the minimum wage is the potential negative impact on small businesses. I think liberals are often intellectually deceptive when pointing at "multi-billion dollar" fast food corporations paying employees poorly. In reality, fast food places are usually franchised. We're not talking about multi million dollar owners in many cases.

I support a gradual rise in the rate, and certainly believe an increase is a net benefit (more money in your pocket=more money to spend at businesses) for the economy.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

They'll do that regardless as soon as they possibly can. That they still haven't done it, even in places like Australia and the nordic countries, where average fast food wages are considerably higher than in the US (and in the case of australia, way higher than 15 usd), is evidence that they simply cannot currently do so.

If they stay open fewer hours, they cut directly into their revenue.

Businesses will do what businesses have always done: cut costs and maximize profit whenever and wherever they can. They do nothing out of concern for their employees in the lower strata.

I fail to see why the government should keep subsidizing their payroll when it has clearly only resulted in more accrual of wealth at the top.

If thats the case then how do you account for very low labor productivity growth in the US:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-productivity-falls-3-1-in-first-quarter-1433421086

And the UK (which has an economy that is much more similar to the US than either Australia or Scandinavia):

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/17/productivity-growth-living-standards-mark-carney

I think a reasonable theory is that cheap labor has reduced incentives for business to invest in new technology, which means more jobs in the short term. Quickly making labor more expensive would encourage investment and lower the number of jobs as a result. There may be a point where that is a worth-while trade off but now is not that time.

 

[Coriolanus]

I think a reasonable theory is that cheap labor has reduced incentives for business to invest in new technology, which means more jobs in the short term. Quickly making labor more expensive would encourage investment and lower the number of jobs as a result. There may be a point where that is a worth-while trade off but now is not that time.

About that.

I think a far more reasonable theory is that well-paid people in the lower rungs are more likely to be productive.

Your concerns that rising the cost of labour in the US would encourage investments into alternatives continues to ignore that these companies are international monstrosities that already avidly pursue those avenues anyway.

Either way, even trying to focus the argument around productivity is a red herring since CEO pay in the US is an anomaly unto itself, and most certainly not easily related to productivity in any way, shape or form when taken in a global context.

As usual, the apparently ideal way to attack these kinds of things is to point out that the current minimum wage employment model is intensely subsidized by the government, and thus frame it as "why should your taxes go towards walmart and mickey d's? let them pay for their own employees. They got the profits, they should shoulder the expenses".

I support a gradual rise in the rate, and certainly believe an increase is a net benefit (more money in your pocket=more money to spend at businesses) for the economy.

Everybody supports a gradual rise. Problem is that a gradual rise would've implied yearly adjustments which have obviously failed to materialize. Thus the current dilemma.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

My problem with drastic increases to the minimum wage is the potential negative impact on small businesses. I think liberals are often intellectually deceptive when pointing at "multi-billion dollar" fast food corporations paying employees poorly. In reality, fast food places are usually franchised. We're not talking about multi million dollar owners in many cases.

I support a gradual rise in the rate, and certainly believe an increase is a net benefit (more money in your pocket=more money to spend at businesses) for the economy.

Which is a way for them to pretend they don't run these stores. Its a bullshit model in the fast food (and hotel) industry. Mcds can reduce the costs of the franchise or reimburse them. Let's not let a technically muddy up the discussion. It doesn't have any real world impact. Mcds is their employer and has he ability to pay.

I think the lesson in this is the call for 15 isn't just pay us 15 bucks. Its 15 and a union. The union can fight things like automation, increased hours for less staff. Etc. There is no economic reason McDonald's can't provide a living wage and benefits for its workers.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Which is a way for them to pretend they don't run these stores. Its a bullshit model in the fast food (and hotel) industry. Mcds can reduce the costs of the franchise or reimburse them. Let's not let a technically muddy up the discussion. It doesn't have any real world impact. Mcds is their employer and has he ability to pay.

I think the lesson in this is the call for 15 isn't just pay us 15 bucks. Its 15 and a union. The union can fight things like automation, increased hours for less staff. Etc. There is no economic reason McDonald's can't provide a living wage and benefits for its workers.

Same with Walmart and a lot of other big size corporations who rake in billions each year. Simply Greed. We need progressive policy oriented people to rise up in these companies and take over these decision making positions. Maybe then we can get the wealth to "trickle down".

I have no doubt if Aaron Strife was the CEO of McDonalds he would be floored to give away his money to his workers. It just seems like a bunch of Republicans run these companies and are heavily fiscally conservative and bootstrap oriented.

 

[Wilsongt]

Why are conservatives such snarky cunts?

This showed up on my Facebook feed.

http://qpolitical.com/maine-just-pu...see-what-happened-next/#.VXAGHsRVLnh.facebook

Republicans in Maine are celebrating an epic victory with their successful welfare reformation and Democrats are not happy about it. This is incredible.

Governor Paul LePage of Maine passed a measure last year that requires recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program to complete a certain number of work, job-training, or volunteer hours in order to be eligible for assistance. The new requirement has resulted in a dramatic decline in food stamp enrollment, resulting in a logical win-win for all of Maine.

Instead of just giving welfare applicants an easy way out, Maine is forcing people to explore every opportunity for employment before allowing capable adults to take advantage of the system and the people of Maine. Of course Democrats are insisting that the program targets those in poverty or rural areas but their argument is invalid. The individuals benefitting from the new food-stamp law are the ones who really need the assistance and aren’t just lazy parasites to society who suck the vitality out of American taxes.

Congratulations Maine Republicans! Now we just need other states to follow the trail you have blazed so that we can utilize the leeches of society in a beneficial way to the community and actually assist those in need. Share this article to celebrate this Republican victory!

 

[Trouble]

Why are conservatives such snarky cunts?

This showed up on my Facebook feed.

http://qpolitical.com/maine-just-pu...see-what-happened-next/#.VXAGHsRVLnh.facebook

Putting shitty memes in an article gives it such an air of legitimacy.

 

[ChoklitReign]

His fringe beliefs in a measurement system using base 10 are far too radical for the American political palate.

Bobby Jindal didn't detect the sarcasm and used this to attack Chafee:

But Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has already incorporated it into an attack. In an email to POLITICO, his spokesman Michael Reed said Chafee is a "Typical Democrat — wants to make America more European. Governor Jindal would rather make the world more American."

He is truly the dumbest politician since Palin. Both the English and metric systems have European origins but both are used outside of Europe. Metrication is not a European act as much as it is just another form of change that Republicans can't fathom. Of course, the closest America has gotten to using metric was the brainchild of a Republican president.

 

[JesseEwiak]

My problem with drastic increases to the minimum wage is the potential negative impact on small businesses. I think liberals are often intellectually deceptive when pointing at "multi-billion dollar" fast food corporations paying employees poorly. In reality, fast food places are usually franchised. We're not talking about multi million dollar owners in many cases.

I support a gradual rise in the rate, and certainly believe an increase is a net benefit (more money in your pocket=more money to spend at businesses) for the economy.

If you want the positives of having the Quizno's name on your shop instead of Steve's Subs, you get to have the "negatives" of actually paying your employees a living wage.

 

[kess]

Bobby Jindal didn't detect the sarcasm and used this to attack Chafee:

He is truly the dumbest politician since Palin. Both the English and metric systems have European origins but both are used outside of Europe. Metrication is not a European act as much as it is just another form of change that Republicans can't fathom. Of course, the closest America has gotten to using metric was the brainchild of a Republican president.

Ironic coming from a guy who hails from a place named after King Louie

 

[Metaphoreus]

If you want the positives of having the Quizno's name on your shop instead of Steve's Subs, you get to have the "negatives" of actually paying your employees a living wage.

Have there been any analyses showing that such a mandate would be economically feasible? I.e., could a franchise system be successful if it required franchisees to pay a living wage? Could franchisees generally be successful under such a mandate? Or is this all just pie-in-the-sky liberal utopianism?

Easier question if the above can't be answered (or if there are no such analyses): are there any nationwide franchise systems that require franchisees to pay a living wage? What are they, if so?

 

[Wilsongt]

#hotgaystove

WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) said Sunday that he supports a constitutional amendment that would bar the Supreme Court from granting marriage equality rights nationwide.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this month that could grant, for once and for all, same-sex couples the right to wed across the country. But Walker said on ABC's "This Week" that he would support amending the constitution to protect states that still want to ban same-sex marriage.

"I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman," Walker, a prospective GOP presidential candidate, said. "If the court decides that, the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

He added that "the decision on defining marriage should be left up to the states."

 

[pigeon]

Have there been any analyses showing that such a mandate would be economically feasible? I.e., could a franchise system be successful if it required franchisees to pay a living wage? Could franchisees generally be successful under such a mandate? Or is this all just pie-in-the-sky liberal utopianism?

I mean, who cares, though? What would be the general negative consequence of a system which replaced franchises with personalized small businesses?

 

[Poodlestrike]

I mean, who cares, though? What would be the general negative consequence of a system which replaced franchises with personalized small businesses?

Short term? Probably a not-inconsiderable fallout from the drastic size reduction in the larger chains.

 

[thepotatoman]

#hotgaystove

And yet I still think Walker gives republicans their best chance in the general, given how bad all the other choices are. Unless maybe Rand Paul?

Seriously, there's no chance for a republican to win without a foreign policy crisis or severe economic downturn.

 

[pigeon]

Short term? Probably a not-inconsiderable fallout from the drastic size reduction in the larger chains.

Well, now we've really jumped the gun. I interpreted "economically infeasible" to mean "attrit away," not "all close overnight." Like, McDonald's is still a business. No matter what laws get passed, they have an economic interest in not abruptly going out of business. Seattle is not suffering from a sudden lack of franchise businesses in town. It's suffering from a lawsuit from the International Franchise Association. But the McDonald's's are all still there.

 

[Frank the Great]

Same with Walmart and a lot of other big size corporations who rake in billions each year. Simply Greed. We need progressive policy oriented people to rise up in these companies and take over these decision making positions. Maybe then we can get the wealth to "trickle down".

I have no doubt if Aaron Strife was the CEO of McDonalds he would be floored to give away his money to his workers. It just seems like a bunch of Republicans run these companies and are heavily fiscally conservative and bootstrap oriented.

It has nothing to do with the CEO's political party. Corporate law is set up to prevent any penny going to workers that isn't completely necessary for the maintenance of profit for shareholders. It is not simply greed, it is the law.

This is why I hate when liberals criticize big corporations, expecting them to change their practices voluntary. That is barking up the wrong tree. Either the regulation hammer needs to drop or the corporate laws elevating shareholder profit above all else must change. Those are the only two options.

 

[BertramCooper]

#hotgaystove

Yeah, SCOTUS allowing SSM nationwide is going to reignite conservative cries for a definition of marriage amendment.

I expect it to come up frequently in the GOP debates.

Will any of them have the balls to say, "No the issue is settled. Let's move on"?

 

[Cheebo]

Yeah, SCOTUS allowing SSM nationwide is going to reignite conservative cries for a definition of marriage amendment.

I expect it to come up frequently in the GOP debates.

Will any of them have the balls to say, "No the issue is settled. Let's move on"?

No because it's way easier to support the amendment, they get points for being on the right side for the base and know it has no chance of ever happening or even coming close to happening so they can avoid the backlash from the mainstream public.

 

[Farmboy]

No because it's way easier to support the amendment, they get points for being on the right side for the base and know it has no chance of ever happening or even coming close to happening so they can avoid the backlash from the mainstream public.

Articulating a clear anti-gay marriage position can certainly result in mainstream backlash though. Im guessing most of the GOP candidates just wish this issue would go away. I expect lots of vague statements in the debates.

 

[HylianTom]

Yeah, SCOTUS allowing SSM nationwide is going to reignite conservative cries for a definition of marriage amendment.

I expect it to come up frequently in the GOP debates.

Will any of them have the balls to say, "No the issue is settled. Let's move on"?

I honestly doubt it, except for maybe Pataki?

I'd love for a debate moderator to point-out the remarkably low chances of this kind of amendment before asking his/her marriage question. Too often, they let candidates get away with pie-in-the-sky, fairies-&-unicorns-&-lollipops-for-all fantasy answers on this question. (I'd say that the same goes for politicians pushing campaign finance amendments)

"Senator/Governor, you and I both know that there's next to no chance of a constitutional amendment on this issue. What do you realistically have to say about this issue?"

I'm guessing that the candidates would try to shift over to religious liberty, but that would speak volumes, too.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Have there been any analyses showing that such a mandate would be economically feasible? I.e., could a franchise system be successful if it required franchisees to pay a living wage? Could franchisees generally be successful under such a mandate? Or is this all just pie-in-the-sky liberal utopianism?

Easier question if the above can't be answered (or if there are no such analyses): are there any nationwide franchise systems that require franchisees to pay a living wage? What are they, if so?

What does economically feasible mean? what does it it put primacy on, some numbers on a spread sheet or peoples lives? would it put some businesses out of business? probably but I don't think that's a bad thing. I'll go back to a FDR quote

In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

why are we allowing a business model which forces people to give their labor and lives but doesn't allow them to live? What should we be ok with franchising if its entire purpose is to skirt laws we have a society have deemed important like safety, minimum wage laws, collective bargaining rights, etc.

We don't cry when a restaurant is shut down for health and safety violations, when a front business for a criminal enterprise is shut down, etc Why should we cry over a business who is making money off keeping his workers in poverty?

Yeah, SCOTUS allowing SSM nationwide is going to reignite conservative cries for a definition of marriage amendment.

I expect it to come up frequently in the GOP debates.

Will any of them have the balls to say, "No the issue is settled. Let's move on"?

Yes, they're gonna go to the "freedom to discriminate"

they'll pay lip service to letting them have benefits and legal recognition, just don't force god fearing americans to do it.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Yeah, SCOTUS allowing SSM nationwide is going to reignite conservative cries for a definition of marriage amendment.

I expect it to come up frequently in the GOP debates.

Will any of them have the balls to say, "No the issue is settled. Let's move on"?

I figured this would happen before the religious freedom firestorm in Indiana surely that showed the GOP that this is a losing issue for them? There may be some calls for an amendment in the primary but I expect those to die down before the general.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Most exciting part of the Indiana debacle (for me) was the signs of major rifts opening up between the religious and business right. It's always been a sort of awkward alliance, and it might finally start coming apart... drool.

 

[BertramCooper]

I figured this would happen before the religious freedom firestorm in Indiana surely that showed the GOP that this is a losing issue for them? There may be some calls for an amendment in the primary but I expect those to die down before the general.

It's a losing issue for them in the presidential election, but it's a winning issue for them in the presidential primaries and in a huge number of congressional races.

I don't think it's going to have nearly as much staying power for them as the abortion issue, but I think they'll keep fucking that chicken for at least the next 5-10 years.

 

[ivysaur12]

Only one opinion today, no opinions to be issued this Thursday.

Zivotofsky, DC court affirmed. "President has the exclusive power to grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign. And because the power to recognize foreign states resides in the executive, the statute here infringes on the executive's consistent decision to withhold recognition." Kennedy wrote the opinion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-628_l5gm.pdf

5-4, Kennedy siding with the more liberal justices.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Only one opinion today, no opinions to be issued this Thursday.

Zivotofsky, DC court affirmed. "President has the exclusive power to grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign. And because the power to recognize foreign states resides in the executive, the statute here infringes on the executive's consistent decision to withhold recognition." Kennedy wrote the opinion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-628_l5gm.pdf

5-4, Kennedy siding with the more liberal justices.

Good. Disappointed its so close. Its blatant how the court would have been so united had this been a liberal congress trying to limit the power of a republican president

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Good. Disappointed its so close. Its blatant how the court would have been so united had this been a liberal congress trying to limit the power of a republican president

SCOTUSblog has it 6-3, with two dissents. One dissent is Alito and Roberts, other is Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

SCOTUSblog has it 6-3, with two dissents. One dissent is Alito and Roberts, other is Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

Thomas has a weird I agree but don't opinion.

 

[HylianTom]

It's a losing issue for them in the presidential election, but it's a winning issue for them in the presidential primaries and in a huge number of congressional races.

I don't think it's going to have nearly as much staying power for them as the abortion issue, but I think they'll keep fucking that chicken for at least the next 5-10 years.

So long as they fuck that chicken long enough to cost them 2016 and SCOTUS, that's fantastic.

This might be the first election in my lifetime where the winds of cultural issues are at the Democrats' back. After decades of watching the GOP smartly make the Dems squirm with uncomfortable questions, I'd love to see the favor returned. Hillary's strategists had better have some clever shit planned.

..

And only one (admittedly fascinating) opinion this morning? Wow. The next three Monday's are going to be wowzas!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So long as they fuck that chicken long enough to cost them 2016 and SCOTUS, that's fantastic.

This might be the first election in my lifetime where the winds of cultural issues are at the Democrats' back. After decades of watching the GOP smartly make the Dems squirm with uncomfortable questions, I'd love to see the favor returned. Hillary's strategists had better have some clever shit planned.

..

And only one (admittedly fascinating) opinion this morning? Wow. The next three Monday's are going to be wowzas!

What cases are left. The subsidies and gay marriage. Any more?

 

[NeoXChaos]

What cases are left. The subsidies and gay marriage. Any more?

Arizona redistricting.

 

[HylianTom]

What cases are left. The subsidies and gay marriage. Any more?

Here's the SCOTUSblog stats page -
http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

We also have the big death penalty case and a license plate case in Texas (regarding "viewpoint discrimination" in the issuing of custom plates).

 

[BertramCooper]

Oh yeah, the Confederate license plates case. That one should be interesting.

I kind of hope the state of Texas loses and states react by getting rid of customizable and specialty license plates. They're dumb. Everyone should get standard issue plates.

 

[AndyD]

Oh yeah, the Confederate license plates case. That one should be interesting.

I kind of hope the state of Texas loses and states react by getting rid of customizable and specialty license plates. They're dumb. Everyone should get standard issue plates.

I like the official varieties that fund various causes like wildlife or education but some are just odd.

 

[BertramCooper]

I like the official varieties that fund various causes like wildlife or education but some are just odd.

I know it will have a pretty big financial impact on a lot of charities that rely on those plates for funding, but governments shouldn't be letting outside organizations put their logos on what are essentially government documents.

And if a state government insists on issuing specialty plates, then they shouldn't be picking and choosing what organizations are and are not allowed to have them, no matter how repugnant one might find them. What if a Republican-led state government refuses to let Planned Parenthood have a specialty plate?

Which is why I ultimately believe that states should scrap specialty and custom plates. Just get a bumper sticker, folks.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Here's the SCOTUSblog stats page -
http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

We also have the big death penalty case and a license plate case in Texas (regarding "viewpoint discrimination" in the issuing of custom plates).

Oh god, a fair housing case.

 

[AndyD]

I know it will have a pretty big financial impact on a lot of charities that rely on those plates for funding, but governments shouldn't be letting outside organizations put their logos on what are essentially government documents.

And if a state government insists on issuing specialty plates, then they shouldn't be picking and choosing what organizations are and are not allowed to have them, no matter how repugnant one might find them. What if a Republican-led state government refuses to let Planned Parenthood have a specialty plate?

Which is why I ultimately believe that states should scrap specialty and custom plates. Just get a bumper sticker, folks.

I agree in terms of private charities. I never looking into it, but I assume the wildlife and education ones I mention are for the government funded portions.

Hmm, let me see.

Edit: they are.
http://www.tn.gov/revenue/vehicle/licenseplates/environmental/environmental.shtml

allocated to the Department of Agriculture to be used for funding education and awareness...

allocated to Tennessee State Parks to plant and care for native trees, shrubs...

and
http://www.tn.gov/revenue/vehicle/licenseplates/children/children.shtml

allocated to the Department of Children's Services to provide additional funding for child abuse prevention

etained by the County Clerk for remittance to the county's general school fund. The funds are allocated solely for supplies, equipment and training for students and certified employees

And so forth. So I would keep and support these, but get rid of private entities having their own.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I agree in terms of private charities. I never looking into it, but I assume the wildlife and education ones I mention are for the government funded portions.

Hmm, let me see.

Edit: they are.
http://www.tn.gov/revenue/vehicle/licenseplates/environmental/environmental.shtml



and
http://www.tn.gov/revenue/vehicle/licenseplates/children/children.shtml



And so forth. So I would keep and support these, but get rid of private entities having their own.

Why can't they just let you donate when you sign up and keep the plates standard.

 

[ivysaur12]

SCOTUSblog has it 6-3, with two dissents. One dissent is Alito and Roberts, other is Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

Yeah, I misread Thomas's concurrence.

 

[AndyD]

Why can't they just let you donate when you sign up and keep the plates standard.

I think you can donate whenever you want. I think they offer the plates as a "reward" for donating. Honestly some customization if OK with me, I sort of like looking at various plates from various states and seeing sights, wildlife and so forth.

 

[ivysaur12]

Shumlin will NOT run for re-election in 2016.

If a Democrat is elected, it would be the first time a Democrat has ever succeeded another Democrat as the Vermont governor.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I mean, who cares, though? What would be the general negative consequence of a system which replaced franchises with personalized small businesses?

I imagine the franchisors would care to see their market power stripped away, along with their ability to enter new markets with minimal investment. Franchisees would also probably care, since they would then be unable to buy into the goodwill associated with national chains, not to mention being deprived of the training typically provided by franchisors. Can't imagine customers would be too happy giving up their favorite national brands, either. I guess states that require registration of franchises would likely miss the revenues from such registrations. Just off the top of my head.

What does economically feasible mean? what does it it put primacy on, some numbers on a spread sheet or peoples lives? would it put some businesses out of business? probably but I don't think that's a bad thing. I'll go back to a FDR quote

why are we allowing a business model which forces people to give their labor and lives but doesn't allow them to live? What should we be ok with franchising if its entire purpose is to skirt laws we have a society have deemed important like safety, minimum wage laws, collective bargaining rights, etc.

We don't cry when a restaurant is shut down for health and safety violations, when a front business for a criminal enterprise is shut down, etc Why should we cry over a business who is making money off keeping his workers in poverty?

Everything's a conspiracy with you. The purpose of a franchise is not to skirt otherwise-applicable laws. Franchisors and franchisees remain subject to the laws you describe. And those "numbers on a spreadsheet" represent people's lives. Pretending those numbers are irrelevant to the well-being of the owners and employees of a business is simple ignorance.

"Economically feasible" means "economically feasible." If you can find an analysis that describes the consequences of the mandate you desire, then that would suffice for present purposes. FDR quotations aren't analysis. I could just as well quote the "cakewalk" comment from the last decade to explain how easy taking out Iran's leadership would be today.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Shumlin will NOT run for re-election in 2016.

If a Democrat is elected, it would be the first time a Democrat has ever succeeded another Democrat as the Vermont governor.

Patrick Leahy is the first and only Democrat elected to the Senate from Vermont in its 225 year history. Whenever Bernie goes and his seat elects a Democrat, Vermont will have 2 Democratic Senators for the first time.

@KyleKondik "Ds have tough holds in KY, MO, & WV, & potentially tough holds in MT, NH, & WV. Only truly vulnerable R-held gov is NC (maybe IN or ND?)"

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Everything's a conspiracy with you. The purpose of a franchise is not to skirt otherwise-applicable laws. Franchisors and franchisees remain subject to the laws you describe. And those "numbers on a spreadsheet" represent people's lives. Pretending those numbers are irrelevant to the well-being of the owners and employees of a business is simple ignorance.

"Economically feasible" means "economically feasible." If you can find an analysis that describes the consequences of the mandate you desire, then that would suffice for present purposes. FDR quotations aren't analysis. I could just as well quote the "cakewalk" comment from the last decade to explain how easy taking out Iran's leadership would be today.

How is it a conspiracy. The whole object of a franchise is to reduce legal liability of the franchiser.

And you haven't explained what you mean by economically feasible is. I think a model which requires millions to live in poverty isn't very feasible. But that's just me. You seem to think if you can increase the bottom line its feasible. I think there's a lot of externalities that your and other conservatives analysis misses (intentionally of course, because god forbid business has a social responsibility and obligation)

 

[ivysaur12]

Patrick Leahy is the first and only Democrat elected to the Senate from Vermont in its 225 year history. Whenever Bernie goes and his seat elects a Democrat, Vermont will have 2 Democratic Senators for the first time.

@KyleKondik "Ds have tough holds in KY, MO, & WV, & potentially tough holds in MT, NH, & WV. Only truly vulnerable R-held gov is NC (maybe IN or ND?)"

I don't really see the KY worry, since the Republican candidate is so bad and Jack Conway is polling very well. New Hampshire will be tough if/when Hassan decides not to run, but again -- 2016 is a good year as any for a Democrat.

The real problem with the governorship for Democrats is that most run on midterms.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

People are still paying Charles Murray to write about "races"

That is why I argue that the differences separating Yankees, Quakers, Cavaliers, and Scots-Irish at the Founding were at least as many and as divisive as those that separate different ethnic groups in America today. Ask yourself about the differences in quotidian culture that now separate whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians. In some respects, the differences are substantial—but seldom greater than the ones that separated the four original streams of Americans.

I swear to god...

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-united-states-of-diversity/

and his editor is horrible for never replacing his over use of quotidian

My proposition is that people in places other than the megalopolises need a lot less oversight from higher levels of government than they’re getting. Their municipal governments need a lot less supervision from state and federal government than they’re getting. For cities under 500,000, a compelling case can be made that their citizens should be given wide latitude to make their own decisions with only basic state and federal oversight. Once we’re down to cities under 25,000, I think that case becomes overwhelming, with access to a few block grants (carrying only the most basic bureaucratic strings) being nearly the only role that higher levels of government need to play.

lololololol

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Looks like Jeb is shaking up his national campaign team to get some momentum going:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/08/danny-diaz-to-be-jeb-bushs-campaign-manager/

 

[Poodlestrike]

People are still paying Charles Murray to write about "races"



I swear to god...

I might be giving him too much credit (never heard of the guy before), but it's an interesting line of thought; race is, ultimately, a social construct, and as such is subject to change, as old prejudices are forgotten and new ones conceived. Speaking relatively, to those groups he named, the differences would have been just as stark as the ones we have today.