Trump Supporters?

[JohnJack]

If you support Trump, I would love to know why? I am a conservative myself and this isn't me trying to bait people into a debate, but I actually want to know why people are supporting this man. I understand that to many his rhetoric is very attractive, but I cannot find a single reason to like the man. I would love to not republican in the upcoming election, but may, unfortunately, find myself voting for Hillary.

[Stronk Serb]

If you support Trump, I would love to know why? I am a conservative myself and this isn't me trying to bait people into a debate, but I actually want to know why people are supporting this man. I understand that to many his rhetoric is very attractive, but I cannot find a single reason to like the man. I would love to not republican in the upcoming election, but may, unfortunately, find myself voting for Hillary.

Hillary? Umad bro? Anyways, back on the question:
He wishes to increase relations with us and treat us better. I also think the whole 2016 elections are a joke. When you look at the top three candidates, in my opinion, Trump seems like the least bad.

[JohnJack]

I would not say that I want to support any of the two presumptive nominees because we really are determining who is least bad. I am struggling to decide who is least bad, however. Hillary is generally untrustworthy, but Trump seems like a lunatic. His history of such crooked businesses as Trump University really question whether I can vote for him as president.

[Vlerchan]

It's a protest vote against the establishment and - in particular - it's endorsement of globalisation (free-trade: immigration: cosmopolitan-interventionism).

I'd also vote Clinton. Like I said in another thread: at least we can be reasonably sure of what that crook is going to do. Trump - on the other hand - is a populist and unpredictable.

[JohnJack]

These are exactly my sentiments. With Clinton it seems to be that we will be ensuring the current useless government maintains the status quo, but you never know what lunacy Trump would come up with.

I would, however, say that a vote for Trump is a vote for isolationism and against globalization. His economic policies are protectionist and he condemns most of our free trade agreements.

[LRSSS02]

he's the republican nominee thats why

[JohnJack]

he's the republican nominee thats why

Though I am a devoted conservative, this is an unacceptable reason. Our country needs to consider the quality and character of the nominee rather than voting for a candidate based solely on the party they allegedly support.

[LRSSS02]

Though I am a devoted conservative, this is an unacceptable reason. Our country needs to consider the quality and character of the nominee rather than voting for a candidate based solely on the party they allegedly support.

would you rather have a criminal, a man who will break the economy worse than obama, or a rich man who lightly curses for emphasis

get told

and what does it have to do with you anyway, your from canada

no but really why care about the US problems and our elections, eh

Posts merged. Use the edit button. ~Giygas

[Vlerchan]

would you rather have a criminal, a man who will break the economy worse than obama, or a rich man who lightly curses for emphasis
Which one of these isn't applicable to Donald Trump?

[Vlerchan]

the first two smart-ass
Trumps business has been fined for hiring illegal immigrants - and Trump himself has ties to the mob.

There is no reason to believe that starting trade-wars and cleaving open the deficit - at this moment in time - are optimal economic strategies.

[StoppingTom]

Only reminder to keep this thread civil.

[LRSSS02]

show me the facts, or did you get them from a six y/o's post on wikipedia

[JohnJack]

the first two smart-ass

I have a problem calling Hillary a criminal because Benghazi was a terrible, terrible event, which I absolutely think she should take a lot of blame for, but there was nothing criminal. Her email scandal was careless, but not illegal. Trump could also be called a criminal. In fact, Trump University, which I have already mentioned, seems as though it may have had law breaking aspects to it. I probably wouldn't call him a criminal either, but both of them are untrustworthy people.

His protectionist economic policies could potentially damage the US economy, but I would be very opposed to the changes Bernie proposes as you also say.

I also respectfully note that I am a citizen of the United States and will be voting in 2016.

[LRSSS02]

cut the bullshit, if you were a true conservative you would say she should be charged as well

[JohnJack]

show me the facts, or did you get them from a six y/o's post on wikipedia

As a mod has noted, please be civil so that we can keep this thread going nicely.

Also, most wikipedia articles are fairly reliable, but it would be interesting to see you cite your sources.

cut the bullshit, if you were a true conservative you would say she should be charged as well

Conservatism has nothing to do with the law. Which laws has she broken?

[Vlerchan]

show me the facts, or did you get them from a six y/o's post on wikipedia
Use of illegal immigrants:

When Marco Rubio attacked Donald Trump on the debate stage this week for using undocumented Polish workers to build Trump Tower, the developer shrugged it off.

"He brings up something from 30 years ago," Trump shot back. "It worked out very well. Everybody was happy."

But a look into the history of the Trump Tower, the crown jewel of the real-estate mogul's empire, reveals the beginnings of the 68-story building were, in fact, rooted in the back-breaking labor of 150-odd Polish immigrants — most working illegally, some without full pay.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-says-controversy-over-his-tower-was-trumped-n397821

He ended up getting fined for this. It's also clear from his response that he doesn't see an issue when it's him displacing the heroic white proletariat from their rightful employment.

Connections with the mob.

Cruz said, "There have been multiple media reports about Donald's business dealings with the mob, with the mafia."

While it’s important to note that these connections were not atypical in the real estate and casino businesses in the 1980s, Cruz’s statement is accurate. Media reports have linked Trump to mafia bosses and mob-connected business associates for decades.

We rate the claim True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/ted-cruz/yes-donald-trump-has-been-linked-mob/

That ones a tad unfair but I felt like being sensational.

I'm not going to waste time - it's 2.30am here - gathering evidence to support the claim that trade-wars and large deficits can have a deleterious impact on economies. I feel like that being a point of debate is testament enough in itself.

[lyhom]

can't speak for anyone but I wouldn't be surprised to see some people reluctantly supporting him because they think that he would be better than hillary

(also lmfao at "true conservative")

[Judean Zealot]

cut the bullshit, if you were a true conservative you would say she should be charged as well

Question: Do you give a damn about the Constitution? I ask because the Tea Party (which your overall ignorant and crude tone in this thread suggests you identify with) has been attacking Obama's "excessive" usage of executive power for about six years now, and Trump has shown both an astonishing ignorance of the Constitution as well as considerable support of a strong executive.

Basically, every "true conservative" who whined about Obama being "unconstitutional" and now supports Trump is an absolute hypocrite.

---------

Additionally, what part of being Conservative necessitates considering negligent handling of semi-classified materials a criminal affair?

[Uniquemind]

Question: Do you give a damn about the Constitution? I ask because the Tea Party (which your overall ignorant and crude tone in this thread suggests you identify with) has been attacking Obama's "excessive" usage of executive power for about six years now, and Trump has shown both an astonishing ignorance of the Constitution as well as considerable support of a strong executive.

Basically, every "true conservative" who whined about Obama being "unconstitutional" and now supports Trump is an absolute hypocrite.

---------

Additionally, what part of being Conservative necessitates considering negligent handling of semi-classified materials a criminal affair?

The human emotion of blind utter rage, which can originate from any narrative that gets past the logical filter of the neocortex, enough to stimulate the limic system and cause a fatal error in those running a subpar operating system, and did not do critical thinking updates.

[LRSSS02]

As a mod has noted, please be civil so that we can keep this thread going nicely.

Also, most wikipedia articles are fairly reliable, but it would be interesting to see you cite your sources.



Conservatism has nothing to do with the law. Which laws has she broken?

she released classified information and caused the events leading to Benghazi

[Judean Zealot]

she released classified information

Do you mean she was negligent in handling (then) unclassified documents? Because that isn't criminal.

and caused the events leading to Benghazi

I never knew she was affiliated with Al-Qaeda. But seriously, Congress grilled her for 8 hours(!) about Benghazi and came up with nothing at all.

Not so Donald Trump, who is facing charges of fraud. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-university-fraud-suit-to-go-to-trial-judge-rules-1461707442)

[sqishy]

Not so Donald Trump, who is facing charges of fraud. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-university-fraud-suit-to-go-to-trial-judge-rules-1461707442)

Some respite for those of us preferring if he wasn't around.

________________

That aside, is there any correlation between 'Trump & Co.' and recent news of the US Senate passing legislation for victims of 9/11 be allowed to sue Saudi Arabia?

[LRSSS02]

Do you mean she was negligent in handling (then) unclassified documents? Because that isn't criminal.



I never knew she was affiliated with Al-Qaeda. But seriously, Congress grilled her for 8 hours(!) about Benghazi and came up with nothing at all.

Not so Donald Trump, who is facing charges of fraud. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-university-fraud-suit-to-go-to-trial-judge-rules-1461707442)

Again with the other countries getting into Americas shit, STOP!

[Judean Zealot]

Again with the other countries getting into Americas shit, STOP!

America gets involved enough in our shit, so I see no reason not to reciprocate.

That aside, is there any correlation between 'Trump & Co.' and recent news of the US Senate passing legislation for victims of 9/11 be allowed to sue Saudi Arabia?

Nah, that's been an issue for years. In any event I believe Congress overstepped their bounds; such decisions of policy are the prerogative of the Executive.

[sqishy]

Nah, that's been an issue for years. In any event I believe Congress overstepped their bounds; such decisions of policy are the prerogative of the Executive.

Alright.
'Tis true that Obama was reeling in his seat, so to speak. Perhaps it's just too high a fraction of (I presume) republicans and/or conservatives for opposition to resist unified opinion, but maybe that's an issue with the system.

[LRSSS02]

America gets involved enough in our shit, so I see no reason not to reciprocate.



Nah, that's been an issue for years. In any event I believe Congress overstepped their bounds; such decisions of policy are the prerogative of the Executive.

The only reason we help is because y'all always ask for it

[Judean Zealot]

The only reason we help is because y'all always ask for it

So consider my comments here as a Satrap musing about his masters. That out of the way, would you like to actually address any of my points?

[LRSSS02]

she released classified information and caused the events leading to Benghazi

here's your citation

[Porpoise101]

here's your citation
The fact you aren't willing to even consider another person's point of view... It's not good, especially on the internet. People all across the world can understand our politics just as we can understand theirs. Since that's the case, maybe you should at least think about what the others are saying before blocking them out. The world is bigger than the US, so you should act accordingly.

If you want an American's opinion: Trump is bad, Hillary is less bad

[Hideous]

I have deleted unnecessary posts. If this continues, there will be further consequences. Again, keep this thread/discussion civil.

[Uniquemind]

she released classified information and caused the events leading to Benghazi

First off, why do you believe they were classified information that was released?

You've told people to cite their sources but from your earlier statement it is apparent you didn't do your fact checking about your beliefs and opinions on this topic.

True opinions are just personal views on something, but you're playing in a context of factual claims and reports.

-

The way I see it, is that those who support Trump are basically angry people who aren't really using logic to decide their vote, they're just angry citizens who want to rattle the cage of the political arena, and Trump being the opportunist that he is exploiting that with both selfish intentions and some altruistic ones.

But regardless he's unqualified and gives off a vibe that it's okay for a person to learn on the job, of what a President does.

Need I remind conservatives with tried that with George W Bush, and when he learned of 9/11 he had a brain lag of a few minutes.

Trump I predict would react faster but even less cautious and more reckless.

The conservatism platform is tried, tested, subsequently broken and unsustainable, and acts a a guise for discrimination and racism which Trump is beginning to expose out of sheer bluntness and statistical analysis of where his support is coming from within the Republican brand.

[phuckphace]

The way I see it, is that those who support Trump are basically angry people who aren't really using logic to decide their vote, they're just angry citizens who want to rattle the cage of the political arena[...]

politics is more or less about personal/collective self-interest, and all camps (Clinton's, Sanders' and Trump's) are voting according to what they see as being in their self-interest and against what they believe is not.

if you believe that the current political establishment acts in a coordinated way against your interests (and it's very difficult to claim otherwise) then rattling the cage is the obvious and lawgical reaction.

But regardless he's unqualified[...]

I disagree. as a reality TV star he has the experience and the cred to participate in America's biggest and longest-running reality TV show of all time: our national politics.

The conservatism platform is tried, tested, subsequently broken and unsustainable[...]

I find it very problematic that the antics of pseudo-conservatives are used as proof that conservatism in general can't work, but sadly this is to be expected. start by reading here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3363488#post3363488) for what I hope is an accessible explanation of why modern "conservatism" has failed us.

[...]and acts a guise for discrimination and racism[...]

I don't care, and you shouldn't either.

hand-wringing about these "issues" is the leftoid equivalent of rightists obsessing over abortion and gay marriage - it's a way to signal your strongly-held opinions on the topic while being completely unable to do anything about it.

[Body odah Man]

Hillary? Umad bro? Anyways, back on the question:
He wishes to increase relations with us and treat us better. I also think the whole 2016 elections are a joke. When you look at the top three candidates, in my opinion, Trump seems like the least bad.

I disagree. Sander is the only reason that this election has any dignity; he would make a great president IMHO

[Stronk Serb]

I disagree. Sander is the only reason that this election has any dignity; he would make a great president IMHO

Nobody would make a good president, to be honest. Sanders would do bad, Hillary will turn the US into a corporate police state, while Trump would build a wall on the Mexican border and curb on immigration. The only reason I'm pro-Trump is because in several accounts he talked good about Serbia, wishing better relations between the two, and just pissing off the Bushs and dissing on Hillary.

[sqishy]

as a reality TV star he has the experience and the cred to participate in America's biggest and longest-running reality TV show of all time: our national politics.

Nicer that we agree on that part :D .

Putting out a big 'what if' here, but what if candidates for presidency did a sort of presentation outlining their manifesto (if that term is used there) of similar style to university paper presentations? It's a suggestion to attempt something which looks more at the thinking/reasoning part of this all, rather than the sort of sensationalist picture we got going on a lot of the time.

[LRSSS02]

The fact you aren't willing to even consider another person's point of view... It's not good, especially on the internet. People all across the world can understand our politics just as we can understand theirs. Since that's the case, maybe you should at least think about what the others are saying before blocking them out. The world is bigger than the US, so you should act accordingly.

If you want an American's opinion: Trump is bad, Hillary is less bad

I have a legitimate question, are you a Republican or a Democrat?

[DriveAlive]

Why I like Trump:
-Pro gun rights
-hard on crime
-hard on drugs
-hard on immigration
-hard on China
-hard on ISIS
-wants to lower taxes
-etc.

[Body odah Man]

Nobody would make a good president, to be honest. Sanders would do bad, Hillary will turn the US into a corporate police state, while Trump would build a wall on the Mexican border and curb on immigration. The only reason I'm pro-Trump is because in several accounts he talked good about Serbia, wishing better relations between the two, and just pissing off the Bushs and dissing on Hillary.

I agree with your views on Hillary and on Trump, but why would Sanders be a bad president? He wants to improve the American economy and health care.

[Stronk Serb]

I agree with your views on Hillary and on Trump, but why would Sanders be a bad president? He wants to improve the American economy and health care.

He wants to improve healthcare by ruining the economy. Essentially costing 6 million people their jobs and increasing taxes to cover the healthcare plan whose price will go through the roof.

[Vlerchan]

He wants to improve healthcare by ruining the economy. Essentially costing 6 million people their jobs and increasing taxes to cover the healthcare plan whose price will go through the roof.
I have explained before (and before that) that a move to socialised healthcare would save firms a significant amount through the elimination of their insurance schemes. It's unclear that the figures being referred to above hold when that is factored in.

Being as socialised healthcare results in less spending per capita - and freeing up of capital - it might even create jobs.

[Body odah Man]

I have explained before (and before that) that a move to socialised healthcare would save firms a significant amount through the elimination of their insurance schemes. It's unclear that the figures being referred to above hold when that is factored in.

Being as socialised healthcare results in less spending per capita - and freeing up of capital - it might even create jobs.

Yeah, that makes more sense (according to my limited economy knowledge) than Stronk Serb's hypothesis

[Vlerchan]

Yeah, that makes more sense (according to my limited economy knowledge) than Stronk Serb's hypothesis
Just to add, Stronk Serb is almost certainly in correct insofar as a number of policies that Sander's supports pose considerable distortions to economic markets, which should reduce economic efficiency (thus, employment and wage growth).

[dxcxdzv]

Just to add, Stronk Serb is almost certainly in correct insofar as a number of policies that Sander's supports pose considerable distortions to economic markets, which should reduce economic efficiency (thus, employment and wage growth).
Like what?

I'm currently checking on his official website but the list is pretty long, that'd be helpful if you could provide some specified ones.

[Vlerchan]

Like what?

I'm currently checking on his official website but the list is pretty long, that'd be helpful if you could provide some specified ones.
Doubling the minimum wage.

Essentially doubling Capital-gains taxation.

Increasing top-rate taxation of the wealthy. Here it should be remembered that the deadweight loss of taxation increases non-linearly.

Financial-transactions taxation, which his own source claims that in dynamic analysis will collect less than half of what's posed in static analysis (Pollin et al. 2016 (http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_401-450/WP414.pdf)). Though, the source also claims it will have a limited impact on 'productive' investment (I have no idea what the surrounding literature on this topic is like - I'd have a look but I'm running on superweak mobile broadband at the moment.).

----

I should add that I would have no issue with higher levels of taxation. But the specific problem here is how it's being done.

[dxcxdzv]

I'm currently reading your link.
Pretty interesting even if I didn't see any data yet.

What disturbs me a bit is:

We assumed in this memo (as we do in this current study) that trading levels would fall by 50 percent in all financial markets once the FTT was implemented at the rates established


I'd like to know what makes them assume that.
It seems like they based their estimates on the French and Italian cases.
French trading volume dropped by 20% with the instauration of an FFT-like and Italy didn't experience any significant change.

[Vlerchan]

What disturbs me a bit is:
We assumed in this memo (as we do in this current study) that trading levels would fall by 50 percent in all financial markets once the FTT was implemented at the rates established
I'd like to know what makes them assume that.
I had a look just there and the estimates are derived from elasticities documented in the literature (Table 3 and Table 4) and then fitted to modern U.S. data.

There's a significant amount of adaption from Wang and Yau (2000) and Wang et al. (1997) which analyses US data.

---

Edit., that link was also supplied by the Sanders campaign. Like I said, I'm really not the person to go to on the issue of financial taxation.

[LRSSS02]

Doubling the minimum wage.

Doing that would cause an economic crash.

[sqishy]

Doing that would cause an economic crash.

In what way?

[DerBear]

Maybe its because I'm British but if anyone does actually support trump then I honestly think that you must be mentally challenged. I mean come on....

The man is a disgrace.

[sqishy]

Maybe its because I'm British but if anyone does actually support trump then I honestly think that you must be mentally challenged. I mean come on....

The man is a disgrace.

You have returned! I hope for more than just this thread though :D .

- - - - - - - -

I'd gladly go for a 'disgrace' of a person who is not smart in the field of rhetoric and self-advertising (basically) for politics, than someone who is smart in them.

That's the problem - whatever opponents of him say he is stupid in (which I feel a lot of the points made are correct) and beyond reason, he is very good in other ways, he clearly would have to be if we want to use the more probable explanation appealing to the presence of a plan rather than the absence of it. His ability to gain popularity is one leading factor of why we're still talking about him and that he's where he is atm.

The other leading factor is the 'happenstance' (some hope for it but I don't see it as that) intellectual environment of the US populace where excess impressionability, unbalanced patriotism and an anger against the establishment seem pretty abundant.

It's not so much a surprise when you fuse these things together, so there's a sort of funny-ish capacity for reasoned explanation for this whole thing. I find the Trump movement nonsensical in so many ways, but you see the opposite when you suspend your hopes that society/politics can and should be much better than it is currently is. Things feel worriedly more comfortable when you remove the lens of (not necessarily completely excessive) naivety and the question "why can't we just all get along?".

Hope this makes sense.

[LRSSS02]

In what way?

businesses would have half the profits which would make it harder to survive in an already tough market

Maybe its because I'm British but if anyone does actually support trump then I honestly think that you must be mentally challenged. I mean come on....

The man is a disgrace.

I support him, yet I'm the top of my class at one of the best schools in the state. I wouldn't consider myself mentally challenged.



Posts merged. Next time, please use the multi quote button. -Alluring

[Vlerchan]

businesses would have half the profits which would make it harder to survive in an already tough market
If profits are halved the firm still runs a profit.

I presume revenue is intended.

---

Doubling the minimum wage would increase labour costs.

The impact of this would differ amongst sectors. It depends on the relative size of labour costs as a component of overall costs. The overwhelming likelihood is that it would not lead to an economic crash:

Being as relative labour costs are higher in small firms and these possess worse access to credit for smoothing-purposes one would expect them to be hardest hit. Perhaps a number would fold. Demand would be channelled to larger firms better able to absorb an increase in labour costs. Those firms will be able to increase prices in the medium-run - this is garuanteed where there is increased demand and labour costs bound production . In the long-run one would expect greater investments made into automation - expansions in production and a fall in the price.

It would settle at a new equilibrium where [1] labour is paid more, [2] unemployment is higher, [3] prices are higher. It's difficult to be more exact and there's scope for aggregate demand increasing and those trends being reserved some amount. To the original question the best answer is: we aren't sure but based in prior experience of smaller increases we're expecting the equilibrium outlined prior.

For most people the world would continue spinning. The fact that minimum wage labourers are net beneficiaries of the welfare state - and this increase would push those that remain into incomes recognises as middle-income for taxation purposes (i.e. much higher) - means that the fiscal cost would be small.

[Body odah Man]

Just to add, Stronk Serb is almost certainly in correct insofar as a number of policies that Sander's supports pose considerable distortions to economic markets, which should reduce economic efficiency (thus, employment and wage growth).

My economic knowledge is pretty small, so would you mind clarifying your statement?

[sqishy]

businesses would have half the profits which would make it harder to survive in an already tough market

A counterpoint would be that employees have more money to spend for products and services of other businesses.

In addition to this, the money for the higher wage doesn't necessarily have to come just from the employers, higher taxation on those much better off financially can have a proportion of the money be directed to the raising of the wage.

I may not be an economist, but it seems sound to me.

[Vlerchan]

My economic knowledge is pretty small, so would you mind clarifying your statement?
When taxation is levied on productive activities such as investment or work it creates an incentive to engage in less of these activities. Whilst in a tax-free world, someone might have decided to invest their earnings - creating economic opportunities for other people - he might prefer to engage in consumption, in a world where taxation persists.

---

Now, technically where employment is a function of demand, increased consumption also 'creates' opportunities. But the marginal benefit here is much smaller.

A counterpoint would be that employees have more money to spend for products and services of other businesses.
This is what I referred to as the 'aggregate demand' effect above. It doesn't seem as if this fully offsets increased labour costs for firms.

In addition to this, the money for the higher wage doesn't necessarily have to come just from the employers, higher taxation on those much better off financially can have a proportion of the money be directed to the raising of the wage.
Increasing tax-credits for low-income households tends to be a more efficient means of redistributing wealth.

[Body odah Man]

When taxation is levied on productive activities such as investment or work it creates an incentive to engage in less of these activities. Whilst in a tax-free world, someone might have decided to invest their earnings - creating economic opportunities for other people - he might prefer to engage in consumption, in a world where taxation persists.

---

Now, technically where employment is a function of demand, increased consumption also 'creates' opportunities. But the marginal benefit here is much smaller.


This is what I referred to as the 'aggregate demand' effect above. It doesn't seem as if this fully offsets increased labour costs for firms.


Increasing tax-credits for low-income households tends to be a more efficient means of redistributing wealth.

I, kinda see what you mean here. Economy is not my thing and I'm very bad at it

[sqishy]

This is what I referred to as the 'aggregate demand' effect above. It doesn't seem as if this fully offsets increased labour costs for firms.

Point taken - people will also save more as a factor in this.


Increasing tax-credits for low-income households tends to be a more efficient means of redistributing wealth.

If it works then it sounds better.


If an increase 200% of the minimum wage leads to more issues than solutions, what do you think the maximum increase would be for overall benefit to not be lesser than other issues? Since it's different I'm guessing across countries because of different and varying value of what 1 unit of money it (e.g £1, 1$ etc.), how would it be for USD?. (I'm just curious, not intending to be demanding :P .)

[Vlerchan]

If an increase 200% of the minimum wage leads to more issues than solutions, what do you think the maximum increase would be for overall benefit to not be lesser than other issues?
The conventional wisdom is that the minimum wage should be set at ~ 50% - 60% of the median wage, I believe. Discussing the minimum wage in the terms it has been discussed thus far isn't a very useful exercise.

Though, whilst we're on the topic, I find the minimum wage a pretty horrible tool for dealing with poverty, anyways.

[sqishy]

The conventional wisdom is that the minimum wage should be set at ~ 50% - 60% of the median wage, I believe. Discussing the minimum wage in the terms it has been discussed thus far isn't a very useful exercise.

Alright.


Though, whilst we're on the topic, I find the minimum wage a pretty horrible tool for dealing with poverty, anyways.

What do you think would be a better system?


:yes::lap:

I'm not sure what you mean but if it's a "I told you so" then I think that's a bit far.

A 200% minimum wage increase won't directly mean a doubling of a burden on businesses, but if a lesser increase would be better then so be it.

[Vlerchan]

What do you think would be a better system?
I'm in favour of a minimum basic income and then tax credits for poor-households.

I'm not sure if there still should, or shouldn't, be a low-set minimum wage. I don't feel there will be a need for it, given the bargaining power that a minimum basic income offers.

I'm not sure what you mean but if it's a "I told you so" then I think that's a bit far.
It's very far. His original claim was that there would be an economic collapse.

[sqishy]

I'm in favour of a minimum basic income and then tax credits for poor-households.

I'm not sure if there still should, or shouldn't, be a low-set minimum wage. I don't feel there will be a need for it, given the bargaining power that a minimum basic income offers.

Before I respond inaccurately, I confess that I'm not seeing the difference between min basic income and min wage in my probably ignorance here. Are they effectively the same, but have differences in technicalities?


It's very far. His original claim was that there would be an economic collapse.

Ah - then I change my intention of that reply to that of euphemism.

[Vlerchan]

Before I respond inaccurately, I confess that I'm not seeing the difference between min basic income and min wage in my probably ignorance here. Are they effectively the same, but have differences in technicalities?
Minimum basic income refers to an monetary-allowance granted to all citizens regardless of their employment statues, by the government. It would replace all benefits.

[sqishy]

Minimum basic income refers to an monetary-allowance granted to all citizens regardless of their employment statues, by the government. It would replace all benefits.

I've heard of it already then but just without its name. Makes sense now.

[LRSSS02]

I'm not sure what you mean but if it's a "I told you so" then I think that's a bit far.

I agree with what you said for real.

[Porpoise101]

I have a legitimate question, are you a Republican or a Democrat?
I'm a liberal, so I lean towards the Democratic candidates. I would have also supported Kasich because I think everyone could support him. I guess it's obvious that I'm not Trump's #1 fan.

[LRSSS02]

I'm a liberal, so I lean towards the Democratic candidates. I would have also supported Kasich because I think everyone could support him. I guess it's obvious that I'm not Trump's #1 fan.

I know what a liberal is.

[dxcxdzv]

I know what a liberal is.
You sure?

[Porpoise101]

I know what a liberal is.
I answered your question, is this all you have to say?

[LRSSS02]

You sure?

yes, smart-ass I am because to beat the enemy, you have to know the enemy.

[Judean Zealot]

yes, smart-ass I am because to beat the enemy, you have to know the enemy.

Well you clearly don't recognise your friends, because Trump opposes virtually every traditionally conservative position there is (abortion, gay marriage, small government, free trade, as well as the not legislative yet still traditional conservative values of family and religion).

[LRSSS02]

Well you clearly don't recognise your friends, because Trump opposes virtually every traditionally conservative position there is (abortion, gay marriage, small government, free trade, as well as the not legislative yet still traditional conservative values of family and religion).

you don't get it do you, he is the guy that can beat Hillary Clinton and that is what we need right now

[Judean Zealot]

you don't get it do you, he is the guy that can beat Hillary Clinton and that is what we need right now

You people are so desperate to win that you've jettisoned everything you believed in so dearly since Saint Ronald. Admirable, that.

[LRSSS02]

You people are so desperate to win that you've jettisoned everything you believed in so dearly since Saint Ronald. Admirable, that.

No we didn't, that is just what we need right now