The election

[Cadanance00]

I've been doing some thinking.

There's a real good chance Trump won't get the nomination. Lotsa reasons. What if Hillary gets indicted before the convention. Then Bernie's there to step in. That means neither of them run. Maybe that's not bad since they're the two most unpopular candidates in history.

Could be Cruz vs. Bernie. Strange things happen!

Hey, you think trump's a weirdo, check out Cruz. The guy's really scary.

[Moriya]

I don't think Trump's getting the nomination either. Let's just hope the GT's smart enough to not promote him.

Also, I heard that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, so...

[Leprous]

I've been doing some thinking. (okay, Clara, no smart remarks!)

There's a real good chance Trump won't get the nomination. Lotsa reasons. What if Hillary gets indicted before the convention. Then Bernie's there to step in. That means neither of them run. Maybe that's not bad since they're the two most unpopular candidates in history.

Could be Cruz vs. Bernie. Strange things happen!

Hey, you think trump's a weirdo, check out Cruz. The guy's really scary.

Didn't Cruz give up?

[lyhom]

tbh I don't see hillary getting indicted, and even if she did it would probably be after the convention when her vp pick is confirmed

I could kind of see trump being refused the nomination, but frankly I'd rather that not happen because that probably would piss off too many people and divide the party more

[Flapjack]

I hope Bernie gets to run. He is much more likely to beat Trump.

[Bull]

Bernie is scary as Cruz. Just let HC beat the tar out of Trump and then we can all say, in unison, YOU'RE FIRED!

[Flapjack]

Bernie is scary as Cruz.
IKR!! He will hurt us all with that equality and stuff:o *sarcasm*

[Bull]

Sorry Bernie. I am an old fashioned American capitalist. Our country is great, it could be better, but it is great. Our tax structure is way out of wack. Strong unions, public and private, would help the middle class gain monetarily and improve working conditions. I am bewildered as to why workers reject unionism. Are they just not willing to challenge management? Unionism has an important history of protecting workers from management who wants high production at minimal cost. Why, so they and their shareholders can get richer. They care little for the people who slave for them, they care only for themselves. It is past time for the working people to stand up for themselves. Unionism works, but only when workers put it to use. Sorry for the rant but I am tired of people wanting someone else to do it, whatever, for them. Come on people, together we can be mightier than the one percenters!

[DriveAlive]

Sorry Bernie. I am an old fashioned American capitalist. Our country is great, it could be better, but it is great. Our tax structure is way out of wack. Strong unions, public and private, would help the middle class gain monetarily and improve working conditions. I am bewildered as to why workers reject unionism. Are they just not willing to challenge management? Unionism has an important history of protecting workers from management who wants high production at minimal cost. Why, so they and their shareholders can get richer. They care little for the people who slave for them, they care only for themselves. It is past time for the working people to stand up for themselves. Unionism works, but only when workers put it to use. Sorry for the rant but I am tired of people wanting someone else to do it, whatever, for them. Come on people, together we can be mightier than the one percenters!

While I also disagree with Bernie, this is where we differ. I see unions as too powerful today. Just look at what the Chicago public school teachers union has done to the state. Workers used to be abused, but now the pendulum has swung too far the other way and workers rights have gone too far.

I do not see them denying Trump the nomination or endicting Hillary.

[Bull]

DriveAlive excuse me but had the state been fair in the treatment of Chicago teachers the problem would not have existed in the first place. Unions today are not as powerful as they once were and as result workers wages and working conditions have retreated. States, influenced by big business, pass laws that are detrimental to unionism and thereby detrimental to workers. Business management hate that they have to provide workers with living wages and safe working conditions: it cuts into their greed.
I agree: Trump will face Clinton in November and most likely America will elect its first female president. Lesser of two poor choices.

[mattsmith48]

The problem with the US is rich white people most of the time dont get arrested for crimes if done by regular people would be thrown in jail with out question. People still think she will be indicted shes too powerful for that just like Trump will not have to face any consiquences for all his crimes. Also I see alot of people say hillary might be indicted but almost no one talk about Trump being arrested for what he did, like using money from his charity to buy a Tim Tebow helmet, inciting violance, Trump university, raping his ex wife.

[Devinsoccer]

I've been doing some thinking.

There's a real good chance Trump won't get the nomination. Lotsa reasons. What if Hillary gets indicted before the convention. Then Bernie's there to step in. That means neither of them run. Maybe that's not bad since they're the two most unpopular candidates in history.

Could be Cruz vs. Bernie. Strange things happen!

Hey, you think trump's a weirdo, check out Cruz. The guy's really scary.

The GOP will elect Trump, he has most of the delegates, Cruz isn't running in the GOP, Trump is now the lone runner, I'm predicting Trump vs. Hillary vs. Bernie or Cruz, with one of the two turning independent. Hillary will get indicted most likely, she committed treesen. If Obama grants her wishes to not go to jail, the Democratic party comes to an end. If Bernie or Cruz doesn't become an independent, Trump will win the election.

[Vlerchan]

Hillary will get indicted most likely, she committed treesen[.]
No case, of similar facts, that has ever been tried, has resulted in an actual conviction.

He will hurt us all with that equality and stuff:o *sarcasm*
Where his charge to equality is blind, it stops him from realising all the other issues that arise with his policies.

---

Billy: do you still consider yourself a Republican, or did you ever?

[Judean Zealot]

The problem with the US is rich white people most of the time dont get arrested for crimes if done by regular people would be thrown in jail with out question.

Bernie Maddof? Libby Scooter? Sheldon Silverman? Any of the other corrupt rich people who've been caught doing actual crimes?
Billy

The Teachers' Union are responsible, more than any other group, for the reprehensible state of American public education today. I hope you realise that "making a teacher's job easier" is simply code for lowering their professional standards and dumbing down curricula.

[DriveAlive]

DriveAlive excuse me but had the state been fair in the treatment of Chicago teachers the problem would not have existed in the first place. Unions today are not as powerful as they once were and as result workers wages and working conditions have retreated. States, influenced by big business, pass laws that are detrimental to unionism and thereby detrimental to workers. Business management hate that they have to provide workers with living wages and safe working conditions: it cuts into their greed.
I agree: Trump will face Clinton in November and most likely America will elect its first female president. Lesser of two poor choices.

This probably deserves a spinoff thread because it addresses a much larger issue about the reasons for business, but from what I have seen, unions are more powerful than ever and states are desperately trying to regain control of their state. Unions have superpacs and lobbyists too. Just look at what they are doing to the Illinois budget.

[Cadanance00]

This probably deserves a spinoff thread because it addresses a much larger issue about the reasons for business, but from what I have seen, unions are more powerful than ever and states are desperately trying to regain control of their state. Unions have superpacs and lobbyists too. Just look at what they are doing to the Illinois budget.


Total, utter and complete bullshit! Only some simple-minded conspiracy theory website would publish something like that.

[Bull]

Billy: do you still consider yourself a Republican, or did you ever?

I am a registered Republican, but I put America ahead of party.

[Porpoise101]

This probably deserves a spinoff thread because it addresses a much larger issue about the reasons for business, but from what I have seen, unions are more powerful than ever and states are desperately trying to regain control of their state. Unions have superpacs and lobbyists too. Just look at what they are doing to the Illinois budget.
I doubt it. Ever since Reagan came, unions in general have weakened. NAFTA also offshored the jobs of union members so that killed off the industrial unions. At least this is what happened in Michigan (Land of the Automobile). Only service based unions have any sway, and in many states (like mine), they have added right-to-work provisions in recent years.

All of this means that unions are fairly weak, and if there are any strong unions they are probably service jobs, like teaching. In fact, the teachers' union is the only one I see even affecting Congress nowadays. Of course, Rust Belt states (like Illinois) still have some industry left, so that is probably why you see them with influence there. Also, Illinois is one of the more corrupt states anyways.

To even say that unions are on par with business interests is overestimating them.

Edit: I had a crazy idea. What if Trump wins, and then he directs the FBI to hunt down Clinton?

[Cadanance00]

Trump's trailing in OH, which a republican has to carry to get elected. That gives the never-trump people a lot more ammunition. Don't rule out a brokered convention. He owes the long-time Republicans nothing and they owe him nothing.

There are a lot of conservative republicans in the FBI. If they can get Billary indicted before the election, they will. And then where will the Dems turn - Bernie, of course, who leads Trump by a lot more than her.

[DriveAlive]

I doubt it. Ever since Reagan came, unions in general have weakened. NAFTA also offshored the jobs of union members so that killed off the industrial unions. At least this is what happened in Michigan (Land of the Automobile). Only service based unions have any sway, and in many states (like mine), they have added right-to-work provisions in recent years.

All of this means that unions are fairly weak, and if there are any strong unions they are probably service jobs, like teaching. In fact, the teachers' union is the only one I see even affecting Congress nowadays. Of course, Rust Belt states (like Illinois) still have some industry left, so that is probably why you see them with influence there. Also, Illinois is one of the more corrupt states anyways.

To even say that unions are on par with business interests is overestimating them.

Edit: I had a crazy idea. What if Trump wins, and then he directs the FBI to hunt down Clinton?
While I was specifically speaking about the teachers union as being grossly powerful, I find that workers in general have excessive rights. The amounts of legal protections and policies where I work is insane. In the past, it was the opposite, but that pendulum has since swung in favor of workers.

[Bull]

DriveAlive You are confusing me: in your sig you identify as "Liberal" yet in your post you take a stand in favor of management. Be grateful that a union has insisted that you, a worker, have legal protection and a good, safe work environment. What may I ask is wrong with that? Are you, like Trump, thinking that there is no need to raise the minimum wage? Bernie would be displeased!

[Vlerchan]

There's a distinction to be made between the political properties of public- and private-sector unions - the former tend to be much more parasitical.

United States workers have a dearth of rights when placed into comparison with their European counterparts - at least in general: I'm sure state-level differences exist. I have no idea what one might propose getting rid of at this stage.

Liberalism isn't a religion - and I favour strong management rights on a number of issues too.

[DriveAlive]

DriveAlive You are confusing me: in your sig you identify as "Liberal" yet in your post you take a stand in favor of management. Be grateful that a union has insisted that you, a worker, have legal protection and a good, safe work environment. What may I ask is wrong with that? Are you, like Trump, thinking that there is no need to raise the minimum wage? Bernie would be displeased!

I am no Bernie supporter and do not think that the minimum wage should be raised. I am a liberal mainly socially or in the Barney Frank liberal sense, not this new left liberalism.

[Bull]

DriveAlive So, you are a liberal Republican? I am a moderate Republican. However, in no universe will I vote for an arrogant, self centered, racist, bully, who speaks before he speaks, if he even thinks. He calls his opponents crooks while he cheats vendors and their employees out of money he owes them by declaring bankruptcy. And not just once, but four times! Who is the crook here? I still believe in an American principal: innocent until proven guiltily.
Also, you seem to think it is ok to pay a worker less than a living wage, keeping him/her below the poverty level so the government has to support them. That creates a welfare state (socialism). You really think that is good?
Also, I just want to say that in no way do I feel animosity toward you as a person. You seem like a nice guy. I am just discussing our different ways of thinking, so please do take any of my posts as a personal attack on you. I am just enjoying the dialogue.

[SethfromMI]

I think it is very sad our choices for presidents looks like Trump or Clinton. The first year I get to vote is a presidential year, but I am not sure I want to vote for any of them. both are extreme on their ends of the spectrum and both I feel will cause more harm than good. I don't think Sanders would be the exact answer, though tbh, I kind of wish he was still somewhat in the picture these days. It is going to be a hard decision to try to make come election day

[DriveAlive]

DriveAlive So, you are a liberal Republican? I am a moderate Republican. However, in no universe will I vote for an arrogant, self centered, racist, bully, who speaks before he speaks, if he even thinks. He calls his opponents crooks while he cheats vendors and their employees out of money he owes them by declaring bankruptcy. And not just once, but four times! Who is the crook here? I still believe in an American principal: innocent until proven guiltily.
Also, you seem to think it is ok to pay a worker less than a living wage, keeping him/her below the poverty level so the government has to support them. That creates a welfare state (socialism). You really think that is good?
Also, I just want to say that in no way do I feel animosity toward you as a person. You seem like a nice guy. I am just discussing our different ways of thinking, so please do take any of my posts as a personal attack on you. I am just enjoying the dialogue.

Just to start, I am not offended by your posts in the slightest and I am on this forum to debate. You could call me a liberal Republican, convservative Democrat, or a centrist if you want. I lean to the right on most fiscal and domestic issues, while I tend to be more liberal when it comes to social issues (like gay marriage or abortion). Since I generally tend to side with democrats (mainly because of socially conservative republicans) I call myself a liberal.

I have stated many times before why I like Trump. Hard on immigration and drugs, pro-gun, and tough on China come to mind. He will be able to broker bipartisan deals, something that Hillary will not be able to do. Also, I am worried about the new left coalition of politicians (Sanders, Schumer, Warren) who are gaining momentum and could come to steer the Democrats in congress in a dangerous direction.

There is an argument to be made for adjusting minimum wages so that it matches or slightly outpaces a living wage. There is solid reasoning here becuase many companies (Walmart to name one) abuse the minimum wage system in order to avoid providing a living for its employees and let the government subsidize this policy through welfare.

The counterpoint to raising minimum wage is that it will cause a higher supply of workers seeking minimum wage jobs because they require less training and education while now offering more money. There would also be far less incentive for people to seek higher positions of employment. The increased demand for bottom jobs and lower turnover rates for these positions would lead to a glut of supply and ensure that wages stay at the bottom. Also, since low-cost goods bought by minimum wage earners are the most price elastic, they will be the first to go up, perpetuating the price-wage spiral. From my perspective, raising the minimum wage would just lead to a race to the bottom of the job market and keep people in perpetual poverty.

[Flapjack]

While I was specifically speaking about the teachers union as being grossly powerful, I find that workers in general have excessive rights. The amounts of legal protections and policies where I work is insane. In the past, it was the opposite, but that pendulum has since swung in favor of workers.
But yet millions still get exploited every day.

[Porpoise101]

Hard on immigration and drugs, pro-gun, and tough on China come to mind.
2/4 things Clinton can fulfill. Maybe 3. Essentially, Clinton will be slightly to the right of Obama policy-wise. So she will continue to expand American power in Asia. Clinton will probably follow through with TPP, which is a way to curb China's trade influence. She doesn't have a direct incentive to being tough on drugs, unless her party pressures her into it. But it's not like Trump is staunchly anti-drug either. What will likely happen is that grassroots support in the state governments will weaken drug restrictions. On immigration, Clinton will probably continue in Obama's footsteps. While this may seem lenient, Obama has deported tens of thousands of people to give you an idea. As for being pro-gun, there is too much party pressure on that issue. No Democrat politician can be pro-gun nowadays as that is the current "issue."

So with Clinton you get this. Plus all of the social issues that come to mind. Minus all of the bad things about Trump (unpredictability, poor foreign policy).

[Cadanance00]

2/4 things Clinton can fulfill. Maybe 3. Essentially, Clinton will be slightly to the right of Obama policy-wise. So she will continue to expand American power in Asia. Clinton will probably follow through with TPP, which is a way to curb China's trade influence. She doesn't have a direct incentive to being tough on drugs, unless her party pressures her into it. But it's not like Trump is staunchly anti-drug either. What will likely happen is that grassroots support in the state governments will weaken drug restrictions. On immigration, Clinton will probably continue in Obama's footsteps. While this may seem lenient, Obama has deported tens of thousands of people to give you an idea. As for being pro-gun, there is too much party pressure on that issue. No Democrat politician can be pro-gun nowadays as that is the current "issue."

So with Clinton you get this. Plus all of the social issues that come to mind. Minus all of the bad things about Trump (unpredictability, poor foreign policy).

Clinton will do what hubby did, implement the entire Reagan agenda.

[DriveAlive]

2/4 things Clinton can fulfill. Maybe 3. Essentially, Clinton will be slightly to the right of Obama policy-wise. So she will continue to expand American power in Asia. Clinton will probably follow through with TPP, which is a way to curb China's trade influence. She doesn't have a direct incentive to being tough on drugs, unless her party pressures her into it. But it's not like Trump is staunchly anti-drug either. What will likely happen is that grassroots support in the state governments will weaken drug restrictions. On immigration, Clinton will probably continue in Obama's footsteps. While this may seem lenient, Obama has deported tens of thousands of people to give you an idea. As for being pro-gun, there is too much party pressure on that issue. No Democrat politician can be pro-gun nowadays as that is the current "issue."

So with Clinton you get this. Plus all of the social issues that come to mind. Minus all of the bad things about Trump (unpredictability, poor foreign policy).
Which is why my signature says Trump/Clinton 2016. I have always been a strong supporter of both Clintons. I would be fine with either her or Trump in the White House. It is not her, but the Sanders/Schumer/Warren etc. leftist politicians vying for congressional control of the democrats that scares me. While I strongly agree with a lot of what Hillary has said in the past, she is unpopular amongst the new leftists (Milennials) and will be looking for reelection, so she might be forced into adopting the new left ideology.

Trump, on the other hand, will actively oppose efforts from the new left and since he owes the republican establishment nothing, he will not be intimidated by them into changing his stances. In fact, his meteoric rise shows that the republicans in congress might actually need to work with him for fear of losing their seats. I worry that a Clinton presidency will by mired in gridlock by a republican congress, just like Obama. I am hopeful that Trump can break the gridlock.

[Vlerchan]

[...] a higher supply of workers seeking minimum wage jobs because they require less training and education while now offering more money
Is there any sizeable empirical literature being referenced here? I understand that it intuitively flows from basic labour market models, but I haven't seen a definitive amount documenting how increases in the minimum wage interacts with human capital acquisition.

Links are appreciated. Thank you.

Full disclosure: I don't support a minimum wage and am asking because this surrounds the title of my bachelor's thesis.

[...] perpetuating the price-wage spiral.
I don't disagree - but I have never understood why this is an argument against increases in the minimum wage. The fact that the rise in income isn't lasting does not mean it ceases to be welfare improving in the long-run, all else equal.

Clinton will do what hubby did, implement the entire Reagan agenda.
I miss Bill, too. We should have appreciated his wonder more whilst we had him.

[DriveAlive]

Is there any sizeable empirical literature being referenced here? I understand that it intuitively flows from basic labour market models, but I haven't seen a definitive amount documenting how increases in the minimum wage interacts with human capital acquisition.

Links are appreciated. Thank you.

Full disclosure: I don't support a minimum wage and am asking because this surrounds the title of my bachelor's thesis.


I don't disagree - but I have never understood why this is an argument against increases in the minimum wage. The fact that the rise in income isn't lasting does not mean it ceases to be welfare improving in the long-run, all else equal.


I miss Bill, too. We should have appreciated his wonder more whilst we had him.

Let me attempt to drudge up some articles. I think it was from the Economist but I will have to check. I also get a lot of information from the McLoughlin Group, which you can obviously not cite.

[ethan-s]

The problem with the US is rich white people

Isn't that kinda racist?

[mattsmith48]

Isn't that kinda racist?

Takin out of context yes it sound kinda racist but read the entire thing its clearly not racist

[Flapjack]

Isn't that kinda racist?
The wording was bad but I do see his point. Many rich white people are buying American politicians and having laws passed that benefit themselves and harm the other 99% of the US population.

[ethan-s]

yeah I know i was only kidding.

[Flapjack]

yeah I know i was only kidding.
It's hard to tell with you:D

[DriveAlive]

The wording was bad but I do see his point. Many rich white people are buying American politicians and having laws passed that benefit themselves and harm the other 99% of the US population.

I am not saying that only rich white people buy politicians to pass laws, but I have never seen a minority do it.

[Flapjack]

I am not saying that only rich white people buy politicians to pass laws, but I have never seen a minority do it.
Does it matter who is buying the laws? We should focus on ending the corruption.

[Porpoise101]

I am not saying that only rich white people buy politicians to pass laws, but I have never seen a minority do it.
If a minority group was put in a position to do so, they would do it. In fact, it has happened somewhat already because of the influence of Silicon Valley. In SV, some of the CEOs, execs, and investors are Asian (either Indian or East Asian) and they have shown their power with the rest of the industry during the fight against anti-piracy acts.

Greed is universal. Or is it called self interest? Depends on the case I suppose.

[DriveAlive]

If a minority group was put in a position to do so, they would do it. In fact, it has happened somewhat already because of the influence of Silicon Valley. In SV, some of the CEOs, execs, and investors are Asian (either Indian or East Asian) and they have shown their power with the rest of the industry during the fight against anti-piracy acts.

Greed is universal. Or is it called self interest? Depends on the case I suppose.

I was just trying to make a joke. Of course there is corruption in all nationalities. In fact, it is especially bad in China.

[HUSTLEMAN]

Looking at this year's presidential election is very hilarious. These are the politicians that we the people are supposed to pick from as our next President. And they say America is not in decline.