• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
We may not have polls, but we have Facebook.

5X7rMhK.jpg

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/facebook-primary/
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Man, if that the best Cruz can do against Chuck fucking Todd he's in for a bumpy ride if that's the hill he's going to die on.
And for real, it boggles the mind how stupid the GOP are, even if you intend to block any person Obama put forward, tactically it makes so much more sense to not announce it ahead of time and just find a specific reason to reject any person Obama nominate.

Fucking clown shoes.

I think they probably know that a theoretical generic liberal justice is easier to fight against than a real one. Polls generally say that people are more likely to say the court is too liberal than too conservative. But when it turns into a real debate against a real liberal judge, what are they going to latch onto?

The polls still show americans supporting the SC decisions on things like Gay Marriage, Roe v Wade, and upholding Obamacare, and still show Americans opposed to Citizens United. Liberals are politically on the right side of every big individual SC issue. There's nothing for the republicans to latch onto that can withstand a year's worth of delays.
 
You would think the Democrats know better, but they clearly don't since they have been giving Republicans more than they wanted for decades now--even when they had substantial congressional majorities. McConnell's plan is essentially do only what he wants, as apparent by the fact that he wants use to wait 9-11 months to fill a currently vacant SCOTUS seat in hopes his party wins the Presidency.



They proposed what they thought would pass, and at its core the ACA is still based heavily on the Heritage Foundations HC Reform from the 80's/90's. It was the Conservative solution to Healthcare Reform for 20 years before Obama got it implemented, and now they hate it because a Democrat actually passed it.

This isn't actually true. The main thing the ACA and the Heritage Foundation has in common is an insurance mandate. Beyond that, there are many differences.

ACA2-300x278.png


Obama was handed the most favorable position for an incoming President since LBJ in 1964, he still couldn't pass his health care plan, let alone anything else in his campaign promises. That's not a criticism, it's just a fact. (LBJ couldn't pass half the Great Society either and he didn't bunch Congress' panties.)

I get your general point, but this isn't actually true.
 
Because $15 is actually happening in places across the country. People defend it saying "oh its just a starting point" just as you did, but that's hogwash. It's very much the intentional endgame of a number of organizations bankrolling the push.

"IT HAPPENED TO SEATTLE, IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU!" isn't really something you want on the campaign trail, and if you don't actually want it as policy, why push it out there?

It's a live-action economics experiment. But it's one that even a lot of liberal economists are worried about.

Yup. $15/hr minimum wage would be over 50% of median wages, which research suggests would cause a fair amount of job losses. Trying reading about it in the Economist.

Unfortunately politicians have an emotional attachment to minimum wages when research and theory have shown something like a tax credit would be better.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I get your general point, but this isn't actually true.
I don't find the PolitiFact thing very convincing at all really.

The Kukones book apparently counts "good faith" efforts that failed due to "outside factors" as keeping a pledge according to another book that uses it as a source. That seems questionable to me lol

"Promised to pass a tax cut, but nuclear war annihilated civilization*. Campaign pledge kept!"

*the joke is political scientists aren't a part of civilization much like they aren't scientists
 
Yup. $15/hr minimum wage would be over 50% of median wages, which research suggests would cause a fair amount of job losses. Trying reading about it in the Economist.

Unfortunately politicians have an emotional attachment to minimum wages when research and theory have shown something like a tax credit would be better.

That article provides zero sources for its allegations. While claiming that there are reams of studies.

Hrm.

fwiw i still hold a grudge against them for this drek.
 

kirblar

Member
If anything, the fact that $15 minimum wage already exists in pockets of the country dispels fear rather than builds on it. We saw the same thing happen with gay marriage and are watching it happen with weed legalization as well. Legal weed in Colorado hasn't caused huge pushback on the national stage, it's actually helped progress the issue.
Cost of living varies wildly across the US.

You set the national wage to $15, you are going to cripple many areas of the country.

The national minimum is the floor- it has to be set to something that accommodates the lowest common denominator. That's why you don't say "Lets go to $15!" - because it's showing reckless disregard for reality.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Cost of living varies wildly across the US.

You set the national wage to $15, you are going to cripple many areas of the country.

The national minimum is the floor- it has to be set to something that accommodates the lowest common denominator. That's why you don't say "Lets go to $15!" - because it's showing reckless disregard for reality.

so it would kill businesses in certain parts of MS?
 
Cost of living varies wildly across the US.

You set the national wage to $15, you are going to cripple many areas of the country.

The national minimum is the floor- it has to be set to something that accommodates the lowest common denominator. That's why you don't say "Lets go to $15!" - because it's showing reckless disregard for reality.

Which is why the argument, again, is to eventually get there by 2020.
 

Makai

Member
How many Republicans are Constitutionalists? I'm getting worried the Scalia situation will hurt Trump if it becomes the defining issue.
 
What the hell was wrong with establishing a lowest common denominator and then letting individual markets go higher as necessary? Does anybody think a town in South Dakota with 1,000 people should have the same minimum wage as Manhattan and San Francisco? This approach is literally backwards in the sense that it's taking the highest end of the range and applying it down. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
 
4 years is nothing- especially when we have near-zero inflation right now.
And from nothing to nothing you've been stuck at 7.25 since 2009.

What the hell was wrong with establishing a lowest common denominator and then letting individual markets go higher as necessary? Does anybody think a town in South Dakota with 1,000 people should have the same minimum wage as Manhattan and San Francisco?
What? No. One should get way more money for having to live in that kinda hellhole.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
How many Republicans are Constitutionalists? I'm getting worried the Scalia situation will hurt Trump if it becomes the defining issue.

The fact that Trump is leading shows that most republicans don't give a rat's ass about the philosophy.
 

kirblar

Member
What the hell was wrong with establishing a lowest common denominator and then letting individual markets go higher as necessary? Does anybody think a town in South Dakota with 1,000 people should have the same minimum wage as Manhattan and San Francisco?
Unions push for the $15/hr wage because when their rates are tied to the minimum wage, an increase in it boosts their pay.
 
What the hell was wrong with establishing a lowest common denominator and then letting individual markets go higher as necessary? Does anybody think a town in South Dakota with 1,000 people should have the same minimum wage as Manhattan and San Francisco? This approach is literally backwards in the sense that it's taking the highest end of the range and applying it down. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

It is backwards.
 
Should I be surprised that you two have no valid rebuttal to these basic facts?

Should i be surprised that you are completely unable to get a very obvious joke?


But if you want a rebuttal, fine, here's a flowchart.

X starts by saying that 15 for all is totes awesome
Y comes and sez 15 is totes ridic. 12 is mucho awesome tho, because a collective set of stuff that we'll call *safe*
X then goes "hmm, safe is a good point" and then goes balls deep with safe and settles for 10, which is still an increase, but saferer.
Y can then agree with X or try to defend 12. If he agrees, the discussion ends here (unless X decides to be a bigger dick and push for 9, since saferest). If he defends 12, then X is very likely to just straight lift the argument for danger 12 and apply to danger 15, because why the hell not.

Repeat until Y comes up with some very specific data to support his very specific magic safe number.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Should i be surprised that you are completely unable to get a very obvious joke?

It can get hard to tell these, high unholy days of the apocalypse.

We are all going crazy. Scalia is dead. Hillary in dissaray. Sanders surging. Rubio comeback

We have no proof for like 3 of those things.

Everyone's just going crazy with a caucus coming up and a distinct lack of numbers.

SOMEONE GET US NUMBERS!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom