|
Your Dunkle Sans posted:Hypothetical: What if Sanders were to die in office suddenly? 74 is a pretty ripe age to start a 4-8 year stint as President. He ascends to Valhalla and Killer Mike takes his place as the second black President.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
I think the minutes spent on each candidate figures speak for themselves. Though it may simply be that, yes, Hillary and Trump are overshadowing everyone to such an absurd extent that it's more about them than it is about Bernie. And I don't think there's a conspiracy, though I think he's intimidating to the corporate interests that are behind each major news network management.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I'm pretty safe in assuming this. Whoever it is will be vetted with this very question, and if they ever get to the position to assume the presidency it means they will have a mandate from the people to follow through. I ask since it seems like Sanders is the only avowed socialist in Congress who also has an eye for the White House.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
NPR earlier tried their best to run a "truth is in the middle" puff piece on 13 Hours, but the guest they brought on got side tracked bashing the private military dudes the movie follows over and over again as basically gung-ho genocidal maniacs. Turns out if you want a piece to stay neutral when it's glorifying PMC guns for hire you shouldn't bring on vets who served in Iraq for the first few years. It ended with, "just because a movie says, 'This is a True Story', do you feel that the movie should follow the events accurately?" and the guy just responded with a weak, "uh, yeah I think that's safe to say."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
MechaFrogzilla posted:Honestly. I'm an undecided voter. So tell me: what does this mean? I've seen him all over WaPo/NYT/CNN. I've seen him on the internet far more extensively than Hillary. What do you mean "the media"? Is there a platform for Bernie besides "the MSM is ignoring us"? Because I've seen this attitude all over, I frankly don't believe it's true, and I think it's off-putting. He has when compared to Trump. Who hasn't though and this was since December. Talk of him has picked up since the Democrat race has become tighter. Do I think there is a conspiracy? Yes and no. Yes I think those in power of the DNC want Hillary to be the nominee and see Sanders as a threat. They fear a leftist candidate becoming the new McGovern. No I do not think it is a conspiracy because the media, establishment, and "grassroots" are not as coordinated as the Republicans are/were. Edit: I also think him being an Independent will be a hindrance and will lose some (if minuscule amount of) votes in the general. I think the amount of these votes lost would increase if Bloomberg joins the race and would cause Sanders to lose the election to Trump. This is presuming a lot at this point though. Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
/\/\/\Fair enough. I get that fear. I also get why people would fight back against that. I just wish people wouldn't call me a "corporate shill" for not immediately supporting their favorite candidate. Apoplexy posted:I think the minutes spent on each candidate figures speak for themselves. Though it may simply be that, yes, Hillary and Trump are overshadowing everyone to such an absurd extent that it's more about them than it is about Bernie. And I don't think there's a conspiracy, though I think he's intimidating to the corporate interests that are behind each major news network management. So wait, is Trump for or against the corporate interests that are behind each major news network management, and is this different from Hillary, or Bernie? Is the anti-establishment candidate dominating coverage, or the pro-establishment candidate? There are so many crossed wires here. I just don't get this perpetually aggrieved attitude that Bernie supporters have. I realize I'm venting due to my fb friends, but this is driving me nuts. I feel like I should support Sanders based on a lot of my views, but his supporters seem like they're already looking for justifications as to why he lost. shirts and skins fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Here you go: From a few pages back, but can we just appreciate this graph some more?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
MechaFrogzilla posted:So wait, is Trump for or against the corporate interests that are behind each major news network management, and is this different from Hillary, or Bernie? Is the anti-establishment candidate dominating coverage, or the pro-establishment candidate? There are so many crossed wires here. Just vote for who you agree with. Every candidate has insufferable supporters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
badatom posted:From a few pages back, but can we just appreciate this graph some more? I appreciate that Black and Asian are virtually indistinguishable in color, and also somehow starting from different positions in 1996 despite both being 53.0%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Abraham Lincoln supporters got most of the blame in 1860 for secession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
badatom posted:From a few pages back, but can we just appreciate this graph some more? Black people and women will save us. From bad charts, hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
So why should the minimum wage follow the growth in productivity? Is that productivity growth shared equally across all jobs including burger flipping? Has mopping floors and taking out the trash become significantly more efficient?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
The media is pushing Bernie for a story. He is benefiting from the media as much as Trump. I actually like Bernie but I do not have faith in his ability to work the system. I don't want the best person to be President, I want the best politician.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:there is a system of healthcare that works very well in most countries. there was a system of education in America that worked more or less fine from the 70s on, but then went to poo poo because rich people started tearing it apart for their own gain. these plans are verifiable. slavery reparations is something that I don't think any country has ever done before, so figuring out how to do it and have it actually help people instead of just being a symbolic act is kinda important? There were 5 million students in college in 1968, out of a population of 200 million. There were 20 million students in college in 2015, out of a population of 320 million. Did you ever stop to think that there being 4x the college students when the population is only 1.6x larger might have affected the viability of education funding, even if the state funding hadn't been cut? Even ~45 years ago, college was still a thing that a lot fewer people even started. It was most especially aimed towards the rather well off already, especially since even by 1970 less than 60% of adults over 25 had finished high school. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:So why should the minimum wage follow the growth in productivity? Why should any one part of the process of burger creation and distribution expect every single bit of profit at the expense of the rest of the machine? "Burger flippers" work hard and create wealth for a company just as much as any "stuffed suit" possibly could. I know there's a lot of ventures in the US where you don't have to have a product to sell it, but they aren't in it and without burger flippers they're out of the job. So the question isn't why should wages increase with productivity, it's why shouldn't they? Isn't this fundamental to the promise of the American dream?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
MechaFrogzilla posted:/\/\/\Fair enough. I get that fear. I also get why people would fight back against that. I just wish people wouldn't call me a "corporate shill" for not immediately supporting their favorite candidate. It's a campaign strategy that his supporters are repeating. Whether its PP, HRC, media coverage or the data theft. You'll probably see similar claims about Iowa/Caucuses if he loses Iowa. It's effective at galvanizing his supporters. Considering the media, if you were around on Dec 24th in 2008 you would probably say that Sanders has received much more media coverage than Obama did at this point (in days until Iowa). Especially if you adjust for Obama's money and party support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There were 5 million students in college in 1968, out of a population of 200 million. Are you seriously implying that public funding for education is not viable. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There were 5 million students in college in 1968, out of a population of 200 million. Damnit south you suck is about all I got from this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:
Yes! Hillary was the presumptive nominee for ages in 2008. Obama's strategy on Super Tuesday was about "surviving", not winning. He didn't start to gain momentum until the Washington State caucuses and the Chesapeake primaries. I get that it's annoying that your candidate is an underdog, but can't you see why that is so? I could see why Obama was an underdog in 2008, despite his eventual victory. The "MSM" is talking about Bernie a lot more than it did about Obama at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Are you seriously implying that public funding for education is not viable. No, guy who can't read, I'm saying the only reason our old system "worked" was that there was way less college students as a portion of the country and of the college-age population. And a whole lot of the people who were even going to college were going to private schools. Tons of people weren't even finishing high school, let alone even starting college. If we had merely kept that system in place, students would still be screwed even without states cutting back on funding, because the system could only "support"a small fraction of current student populations. The system needs major overhauling, but not to be like the past system, because the past system kept most college age people out of college! Like seriously, the "old system" was "if you can mange to pass high school and have the free time, you can get a cheapish education if you can get in to a state funded college". And that meant near-zero chance for a lot of people who would go to college now, to get into college then. Especially if they were a minority, or poor. fishmech fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
So the Desmoiens register endorsed clinton and rubio, and cory booker is out on the trail in iowa with clinton. I wonder how close its actually going to be. The register has a really mixed history with endorsements.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
MechaFrogzilla posted:Yes! Hillary was the presumptive nominee for ages in 2008. Obama's strategy on Super Tuesday was about "surviving", not winning. He didn't start to gain momentum until the Washington State caucuses and the Chesapeake primaries. I get that it's annoying that your candidate is an underdog, but can't you see why that is so? I could see why Obama was an underdog in 2008, despite his eventual victory. The "MSM" is talking about Bernie a lot more than it did about Obama at this point. You have to remember dude that any talk about "candidates" and "MSM" is rendered moot due to Trump. His candidacy and rise are literally unprecedented in every form. Correct me if wrong guys. bird cooch posted:So the Desmoiens register endorsed clinton and rubio, and cory booker is out on the trail in iowa with clinton. I wonder how close its actually going to be. The register has a really mixed history with endorsements. In the Trump circle jerk thread, which is the best thread, it was pointed out that candidates historically get a 3% boost from it. It might matter for Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Why should any one part of the process of burger creation and distribution expect every single bit of profit at the expense of the rest of the machine? "Burger flippers" work hard and create wealth for a company just as much as any "stuffed suit" possibly could. I know there's a lot of ventures in the US where you don't have to have a product to sell it, but they aren't in it and without burger flippers they're out of the job. But none of that explains why minimum wage should grow with the growth of productivity. You've just spent a whole bunch of words explaining that you want burger flippers to be paid more but absolutely nothing about why that pay should be tied to productivity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
I can't imagine being a person to whom endorsements, newspapers or otherwise, matter. "Yep, my newspaper [editorial board, on which the rich owners sit] says this candidate is good, so they're good with me!" It must be a boomer thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:But none of that explains why minimum wage should grow with the growth of productivity. You've just spent a whole bunch of words explaining that you want burger flippers to be paid more but absolutely nothing about why that pay should be tied to productivity. I don't know if you've ever worked in fast food but burger flipping is actually a lot more efficient now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The idea is that more product is being produced per hour and, theoretically, more product is being sold per hour, and yet none of the monetary gains due to productivity are being passed on to the average worker anywhere. We're not saying all wages should be tied to productivity; we're saying that increases in profits due to gains in efficiency and productivity are not being passed on to workers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:But none of that explains why minimum wage should grow with the growth of productivity. You've just spent a whole bunch of words explaining that you want burger flippers to be paid more but absolutely nothing about why that pay should be tied to productivity. Because one of the big normative ideas, I think is the phrase, around wages is that you should get paid for the job you do, and what that job is worth. If "the job you do" goes from producing 20 to 30 burgers per hour, because per-worker productivity has increased, surely your wages should also increase at roughly the same rate. Although now that raises the question of why that increased revenue should go to the more-productive workers rather than more-effectively-exploited capital. ETA: ^^ What this guy said. ^^
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Or that for the better part of the 20th Century wages kept pace with productivity and that stopped starting in the mid-1970s. Wages matching productivity is short hand for wanting a return of a strong Middle Class and an explanation for why the Middle Class declined in the first place. (Or at least it's an explanation that doesn't hinge on racist fantasies)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/24/polit...linkId=20623313quote:ABC's "This Week" host Martha Raddatz asked Sanders about Blackstone CEO Steve Schwarzman's argument that financial markets are unsettled because of Sanders, China's slowdown and global geopolitical risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
But the measure of productivity that people bandy about to say that the minimum wage should be >$21/hr isn't the growth of burgers flipped per hour but rather the productivity of the aggregate economy. It seems like the wrong comparison. Show stagnating wages in aggregate against the growth in productivity and compare the increase in cost of living against the minimum wage. Like everyone here seems to be conflating overall wage stagnation with the minimum wage but guess what the people already making $15/hr now are still probably getting screwed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
I really hope people realize how odd Glass-Steagall was in the global context of financial institutions. The separation of investment from commerce was never an issue globally, even in democratic socialist countries like Germany and France.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Wages should increase to maintain a livable wage regardless of if productivity also rises, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
Doesn't matter what metric you pick to say people deserve more money the most important thing is that those "burger-flippers" make less then me so I have someone to look down on and justify my own meager existence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Wages should increase to maintain a livable wage regardless of if productivity also rises, imo. I'll risk a probate empty quoting. This is correct and everyone should be quoting it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Wages should increase to maintain a livable wage regardless of if productivity also rises, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Except increasing wages will, effectively, make certain labor illegal, because it's worth less than $15/hr or what have you. The correct answer is to separate the minimum standard of living from employment, preferably through a basic income. What labor is worth less than living wage and who decides it is?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Except increasing wages will, effectively, make certain labor illegal, because it's worth less than $15/hr or what have you. The correct answer is to separate the minimum standard of living from employment, preferably through a basic income. Then those businesses that rely on this labor are unsuccessful and should not be artificially propped up by exploitation of the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Except increasing wages will, effectively, make certain labor illegal, because it's worth less than $15/hr or what have you. The correct answer is to separate the minimum standard of living from employment, preferably through a basic income. I don't see why we should care about that. Burger flippers, to use the term, could be paid like 30 an hour tomorrow morning and the only thing that'd need to change is raising item prices by 50 cents. I really fail to see any jobs at risk of becoming illegal due to high wages. We'd probably need to pay every job minimum 80k a year to get to that but that's in today's dollars. In 10 years that point would probably be 100k
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Wages should increase to maintain a livable wage regardless of if productivity also rises, imo. Agreed. Although it'd be nice if current wages were increased to match historical productivity gains and then pinned there. Pick posted:Then those businesses that rely on this labor are unsuccessful and should not be artificially propped up by exploitation of the poor. I think you'll find that this means you hate the true job creators, small business owners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I don't see why we should care about that. Burger flippers, to use the term, could be paid like 30 an hour tomorrow morning and the only thing that'd need to change is raising item prices by 50 cents. How do you think money works exactly
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Except increasing wages will, effectively, make certain labor illegal, because it's worth less than $15/hr or what have you. The correct answer is to separate the minimum standard of living from employment, preferably through a basic income. A basic income of $15 would be great. But I also think its silly to say that any labor is worth less than it takes to feed and house oneself. Lotka Volterra posted:I think you'll find that this means you hate the true job creators, small business owners. Honestly my personal opinion and it might not be popular is that if you're business can't pay its employees enough to live it shouldn't be in business. Big, small, mom and pop. People cry about small business, but really, to me at least if your business is big enough to have employees its big enough to do the right thing and pay those employees enough to live and eat. Otherwise keep it owner run and operated and genuinely small. Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jan 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2016 05:02
|
|