Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
She is not an extremist, same as Obama.
Ha! You keep thinking that.:)
Obama never took any rights away
Not because he didn't want to...
She won't get anything done in her term because of intransigence in congress. No disasters, but no improvements either, a four year holding period.
Oh, THAT is what we should all be hoping for... That is your great hope and change?
Clinton is evil, why can't you see it?
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Finally, do you really think that your right to own a gun is more important than providing universal heathcare?
Yes... without a doubt, it is...
Now you might not agree, and that's ok, you have the right to disagree with me, and I with you... but to answer the question, yes it is...
Remind me where in the bill of rights it mentions health care. Remind me how you'll keep that healthcare as soon as you elect the "wrong person" in 20 or 40 years?
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
But how do you know Trump is a good candidate if so far he hasn't proposed a single policy, good or bad.
By that standard, neither has anyone else in the race, on either side.
Listen to Clinton's speech after NH, it is full of the same sort of general "I'll fight for you" platitudes that mean nothing.
At least Trump has actually said something:
1. I'll build a wall.
2. I'll kick out the illegals.
3. I'll ban Muslim immigration.
Now you might agree or disagree with those, but at least those are specific things. As for paying for the wall, yes, actually he HAS said how he would get them to do it, but most people (including the media) don't want to hear it because it isn't politically correct to say it.
In short, it may appear that Mexico and The United States of America have each other over a barrel... but it just appears that way... They are far more dependent on us and NAFTA than we are of them. But it takes a leader with some actual leadership skills (along with a really big pair of Cojones) to meet with the President of Mexico and put it like this:
"One way or another, the wall is going to be built. It can be built where the border stands now, it can be built 50 miles further into Mexico to provide a secure buffer for America, patrolled by the 1st armored division.
It can be built together as a team with join US/Mexican forces patrolling it, or alone with America doing it... but one way or another, it will be built.
Now, which would you like, lube or no lube?"
That is a very crass way of putting it, but in the end, this is not a contest of equals.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
What about it?
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I'd like to see Sanders get in, but don't think America is mature enough for him.
The implication of your statement is... disturbing... it also calls into question your other statements because what you're REALLY saying is:
"Americans are immature and stupid and can't be trusted to be smart".
Yea, thanks, we only saved the world twice in the past 100 years, thank you very much...
Re:shifted to corrupt union bosses, yes
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
And employers don't generally just go out of business just because there's a union.
Generally no, but ask how the former employees of Hostess are doing...
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
But what if Kasich+Bush decided to run as a third party and grab the center?
That has less than zero chance of happening, Bush is deep into the establishment, that is his source of money.
Hillary is more likely to take away more of your rights than Trump is. Trump might do it anyway, but at least he has a chance. You have no chance with her.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Part of the issue here is that if corporate tax is low, I as a contractor simply register as a company, put everything I own in the company name and only pay myself a pittance to minimise income tax.
But you can ALREADY do that... and you'd be shocked at how little tax you'd end up paying under the current system. I already pay a very low tax rate. My top marginal rate is 33%, but I don't pay anything close to that percentage of my income in total taxes, thanks to a favorable tax code.
The type of corporate tax rate that we're talking about are not the type of companies that most companies operate as. There are S and C corps, and many different rules apply to each.
The problem is Google and Apple are subject to the 35% rate and there is little they can do about it, other than keeping their profits off-shore. Only lowering the rate to 20% (or maybe 15%, the exact amount is debatable) will motivate them to bring it back here.
I'm no tax expert, but I understand that the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden and they are exactly the people who are in a position to start companies to minimise their tax if desired.
It doesn't work the way you think it does... They would have to stop getting a paycheck and become self-employed. Most people don't want to do that, many can't... Forming a business won't remove income tax burden from a W2.
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
Unless you are in the top 0.1%, any vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against your own interest.
It isn't that black and white... Republicans are at least *more likely* than Democrats to be willing to protect my gun rights.
Not as much as they should, but more likely...
Even if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, you can still write in Bernie Sanders' name. It's not a wasted vote: its a statement of support that may affect future politics.
It is a wasted vote if it means that she gets in and Trump doesn't... If she would have won anyway, then it isn't, but if it costs him the election, then it would be a terrible idea.
And thus the problem we have, with how our elections work, which aren't remotely modern or fair.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I would be open to all that you suggested as well, it is another approach to the issues at hand.
---
Side note: While most of my life I've been against "handouts", I will say that as I've grown up and had kids of my own, I have come to see the world a bit differently.
If we can afford 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, 18 nuclear ballistic missile subs, 8,000+ main battle tanks, and thousands of fighter jets... then I submit that we can afford to feed all our citizens...
If we choose not to, then it says something very bad about us as caring human beings. But I agree with you, the "free food" should be very minimal and people should want to work for more, but provide enough to give people no reason to steal it. Or need to...
Re:trump independent can lead to no one getting 27
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
What do you think of a Trump/Sanders Oval Office?
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 2
If you would vote for a Socialist, the Republican party is not for you and you shouldn't be looking there in the first place.
That isn't as true as the parties would like you to think.
I can agree with Sanders that a national minimum wage of $15 is a good idea, while agreeing with Trump that we need to deploy the Army to the Mexican border and build a 20 foot wall.
I can agree with Sanders on national single-payer healthcare while agreeing with Trump that cutting the corporate tax rate would actually be good for most Americans.
And so on down the list it goes.
Re:And there was much rejoicing!
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
I have to say I agree with you...
Sanders or Trump, those are the two that I would most prefer to be President, but for very different reasons.
They each make good points, and they are both wrong on some things, partly out of need to pander to their base, partly based on their background and upbringing.
But then likely the same could be said for all of us.:)
My worst nightmare would be Cruz or Hillary, anyone but those two nuts...
Re:Might as well start calling him President Trump
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 2
He has to be the president-elect first, at least. If the Dems don't block Bernie from getting the nomination, Trump can be defeated
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Sanders, I'll give it a lot of thought and listen a lot before making up my mind.
I have never voted democrat in my life. Sanders would at least get my attention and I'd want to hear a lot more details on how and what he'd really do.
Re:trump independent can lead to no one getting 27
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 1
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
Re:Hammerheads in Vermont
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
For example, I've always leaned conservative and very much tended to vote Republican. From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets). I would even consider the idea of getting rid of it altogether. But instead of just blowing off the idea completely, I started looking into why people support it. Turns out, I also don't want many people dying of hunger or huge increases in homeless people in the streets and poverty-induced crime. So my current favorite solution is to satisfy both: direct government wealth redistribution from the richest to fund food, shelter, clothing, and other essentials for the poorest, combined with removing the minimum wage in order to increase employment and hence reinstate labor competition.
Likewise, I have often felt the minimum wage was a mistake, it implies that the waged listed is "acceptable" because it is "approved".
Without one at all, perhaps people might get more, but it leaves them free to take less if they wish. The problem with such a system is that it works in theory, but not always in the real world where companies have more power than people do.
I've also done some detailed math recently and been surprised to find what raising the wage does to prices. It isn't as bad as the Republicans imply, but not as good as the Democrats promise (big shocker).
So I support two things now:
Raise the minimum wage for people over 18 years old to $15/hr, no exceptions other than a few for disabled workers who otherwise wouldn't have jobs at all. This includes waitstaff at restaurants.
Make the government the "employer of last resort". If you do not have a job, and you are hungry, poof, the government will employ you to do... something... for $10/hr.
That is your incentive to not stay working for the government, you'll make more if you can find a private sector job. Maybe the government can employ you to clean up trash, dig ditches, stack books at the library, etc. If you find a part time job for 20 hours a week at $15/hr, great... you may continue working for the government for the other 20 hours at $10/hr, giving you an incentive to take ANY private work you can find, it won't cost you your existing "welfare" as it does today.
Unemployment would be shortened to 1-3 months max, a short time to find another job, but not the year or more it is in some places now. Right now, we're paying a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE to sit at home and do nothing. This is stupid.
I'm happy to provide for those who are hungry, but I do think they should work for it. It doesn't have to be fancy work, or even all that productive, it just has to be something. It is a way of saying, "no worries, we will not let you starve, here is work, here is food (maybe $3/hr of the $10/hr could be paid via food stamps)
He has a solid base of angry people who don't like what we currently have, but there is a decent chance that anyone who would support him, already does.
It may grow a bit, but can it grow to more than 50% of the population? Or at least the 50% in the states that count?
---
I watched their various speeches last night, the irony is that Trump was rather humble in accepting victory, a bit out of place for him. It is possible that he sees winning as a real possibility and now has to pay attention to the other 64% of Republican voters.
If he adjusts his message a bit and starts to come across as a bit more "Presidential", whatever that may be, then maybe he has a shot.
No one else running on the Republican side would win. I would probably vote for Rubio, while holding my nose. I'd never vote for Cruz (and I'm from Texas!). He is FAR too religious right wing for me.
Trump? Meh, sure... he is either brilliant, or nuts, or both, and I'm not sure which.
---
Back to the Democrats, I watched Hillary last night, ugg, I wanted to throw up. I really hate that women, she comes across as a used car sales person to me. I would never vote for her and if she becomes President, then we will get nothing done, because the Republicans in Congress will not work with her.
Sanders? I don't mind him so much. I don't agree with everything he says, but he comes across as honest about it. I would rather have him than Clinton.
If we get Clinton, then I'll ignore her and just ask the Republicans to stonewall and do nothing for 4-8 more years, she is toxic as far as I'm concerned.
If the Democrats had any brains, they would actually want Trump to win. Trump will walk right across the isle and work with Democrats in a way that no one else will do, and that'll get stuff done. He is pragmatic in a way that most of them aren't, even if he is a bit of a walking ego trip.
Back before I had a kid, I voted for every tax increase for schools and libraries that came up on the ballot. There was a particularly large one to reduce class sizes, and I happily voted for it. Then, when my kid got old enough, class sizes were back to what they were. The story of my life: stuff I pay for tends to be gone by the time I personally want to use it. Oh well.
Yea, I hear you... When my 10 year old son started in school, class sizes were about 20 to 1. My 7 year old daughter now has 27 total kids in her class, for 1 teacher. In 2nd grade!
I'm not happy about this at all. That is way too high for that age, it shows in her work compared to my older son when he had fewer kids in class at that age.
My options however, are quite limited. I can home school him, or move. We live far enough outside of the city center that private school options are sparse and far enough away that it would be a challenge to get the kids to them every day. Doable, but moving would be easier.
If we move to another area that has lower class sizes, nothing assures me that will hold for any amount of time.
I was using "right" a little loosely there. There's stuff I have the right to buy, stuff I have the right to (public education for my kid, for example), stuff that happens that I'm billed for, stuff I have the right to do personally, and stuff I have no right to. Around here, I have the right to have an electric line run to my house, and the right to get power by paying the electric company. I do not have the right to buy fat-free mozzarella, and no grocery store is required to stock it. (Don't knock it; it's just fine on a pizza made on french bread.)
Fair enough... I just see "rights" tossed around like candy sometimes and I think people forget about what a "right" actually is. But clearly you understand, so moving on.:)
The idea behind the ACA is that the government creates a competitive market, and the only way this works is to get everyone to participate. It's a really clunky system, and I really prefer single-payer, but it's a move in the right direction.
I get the idea, and it sounds great on paper. But it only works if multiple companies are honestly competing for your business. At least in the case of Texas, that is largely no longer true.
I had coverage last year, it was about $90 a month out of pocket (with a lot more from our friends at Uncle Sam), and the coverage was decent, if you had a major medical emergency. We went through multiple primary care providers, trying to find one that could get us a reasonable appointment schedule. That is harder than you think when so few accept the insurance.
You see, Blue Cross/Blue Shield sells policies on the ACA exchanges, then they sell "other policies" off the ACA exchanges. My wife accepts the latter type, but not the former. If you have a healthcare marketplace policy, you can't go see her, she won't accept the reimbursement rates they offer. She gets nearly twice as much money from the non-marketplace policies.
Now the hospitals and emergency rooms don't get that choice, but my wonderful ACA exchange policy had a $500 co-pay for an ER visit. No big deal to me, but to a lot of people, that isn't affordable (it should be, but that is another conversation).
The family annual deductible on the policy last year was just over $11,000, with $5,500 per person. The co-pay was 20%, until the deductible was met. Those are not affordable to many people, and that was the silver plan.
The ACA sounds nice in principle, but I suspect as people try to actually use the policies and discover how much additional out of pocket you end up having to spend, combined with fewer doctors accepting the policies, you'll see a backlash trend. Sure, young people who don't use many medical services will take time to figure this out, but it will happen.
Side note: In case you were curious. My wife is cons
You seem to be missing the idea about date rape. The woman doesn't have to be physically restrained and beaten half to death for it to be rape; it has to be sexual penetration without consent.
I do understand that... the challenge is, how do you prove consent?
Too many cases end up he said/she said...
There is actually now an "app for that", for people to consent beforehand, so there is no doubt (talk about a kill joy, but I'm married and old, so what do I know) after the fact.
That is what I meant about the "woman who changes her mind the next day and decides it was rape.". You can't withdraw consent AFTER the sex. If it was consensual at the time it happened, regret is not rape.
Now, that being said, yes, clearly plenty of women are raped when no overt violence was used. That is wrong, you will get no dispute from me. However, I also made the point that sometimes women put themselves into bad places due to poor judgement. The man isn't free from fault, but the women isn't 100% either. I am not condoning it, I'm explaining it, if that makes sense.
(A friend of a friend had a home intruder threaten her baby. In that position, the mother is likely to do anything she's told to do, no matter how badly it hurts, but I wouldn't call it consensual and neither does the law in my jurisdiction.)
I am generally, on principle, against the death penalty. I don't like the idea of government approved taking of life.
That being said, if I was there, if I had 100% absolute certainty that the man did what you just said, I could, without hesitation or moral dilemma, shoot him right in the head. I wouldn't torture him (I'm against torture in all cases, no matter what, I think it is evil), but I would end his life quickly and painlessly and remove him from human civilization.
What you described happens, and it is evil. Note that I said "100% absolute certainty". How many legal cases are REALLY that certain? That is why I'm against the death penalty, we're wrong too often to take lives over it. My personal example is more of a moral comment, than a practical one.
I approve of what you intend to teach your daughter, by the way. She absolutely has the right to refuse any sexual contact, but being in the right is sometimes less important than not getting badly hurt.
Thank you... She does have that right, but I will also teach her that once she consents, she can't withdraw that consent the next day after it is over. She has to live with her choices, so if there is any doubt, you can always have sex tomorrow, but you can't take away sex from yesterday.
As far as sex slavery goes, the best estimate I got with a quick Google was tens of thousands. I find one case a frighteningly large number, personally, but it's a much bigger problem than that.
Tens of thousands sounds like a lot, but it isn't an area I'm an expert in, so I'll leave it at your number.
Might I suggest that many sex slaves are afraid of the police, for fear of being locked up as prostitutes?
I'm strongly in favor of legalizing prostitution. It happens anyway, banning it hasn't made it go away, let them come out from the shadows, get drug and STD tests, pay taxes, be able to go to the police for protection if needed, and not live in fear.
Now, people who want to "sexually harass" a machine have their own set of issues, but as long as they keep it off the streets and don't scare the horses, that's their problem.
Consider that it is possible that if they DO have a machine to "sexually harass", then perhaps they won't have so much need to do it in real life?
There are people who kick puppies in real life too, I think they are mean crazy bastards, but if they could kick virtual puppies, then perhaps they'll leave the real ones alone.
Yes, I've been poor, I've been paycheck to paycheck... it sucks, no doubt about it...
Never again, but I worked my butt off to make that happen...
$20K +$3K = $23K
You said that 20% was too high for someone making $30K, which is $6K. So cut their tax rate to 10%, that reduces their taxes to $3K, but the other $3K has to come from somewhere, so "the rich", right? That would be me by that logic.
So raising my taxes to $23K *ONLY* raises my tax rate by 3%, but it cuts the poor's tax rate in HALF!
Sounds great, doesn't it? Sure, except it is exceptionally unfair to me and as you push more and more in that direction, sooner or later I might decide to take my marbles and play somewhere else (as thousands of French have done in the past two years, since the tax rates there were raised).
At any rate, income is not taxed below a certain level.
That is true, but it is wrong. Everyone benefits from the system, everyone should pay into it.
I *do* think that's fair, since it is more difficult for those with fewer means to make ends meet.
You can think it is fair all you like. It isn't. No amount of progressive or regressive taxes are remotely fair. The only fair tax is a flat tax, with no exceptions, no deductions, nothing.
And yes, I'm willing to give up my deductions if it means the poor give up theirs.
I might be okay with a flat tax rate if it were used to pay for other things such as single-payer health care, public education (including vo-tech and even public universities), and retirement benefits that allow seniors to live at something like the level they did in their working lives.
Slashdot Mirror
She is not an extremist, same as Obama.
Ha! You keep thinking that. :)
Obama never took any rights away
Not because he didn't want to...
She won't get anything done in her term because of intransigence in congress. No disasters, but no improvements either, a four year holding period.
Oh, THAT is what we should all be hoping for... That is your great hope and change?
Clinton is evil, why can't you see it?
Finally, do you really think that your right to own a gun is more important than providing universal heathcare?
Yes... without a doubt, it is...
Now you might not agree, and that's ok, you have the right to disagree with me, and I with you... but to answer the question, yes it is...
Remind me where in the bill of rights it mentions health care. Remind me how you'll keep that healthcare as soon as you elect the "wrong person" in 20 or 40 years?
But how do you know Trump is a good candidate if so far he hasn't proposed a single policy, good or bad.
By that standard, neither has anyone else in the race, on either side.
Listen to Clinton's speech after NH, it is full of the same sort of general "I'll fight for you" platitudes that mean nothing.
At least Trump has actually said something:
1. I'll build a wall.
2. I'll kick out the illegals.
3. I'll ban Muslim immigration.
Now you might agree or disagree with those, but at least those are specific things. As for paying for the wall, yes, actually he HAS said how he would get them to do it, but most people (including the media) don't want to hear it because it isn't politically correct to say it.
In short, it may appear that Mexico and The United States of America have each other over a barrel... but it just appears that way... They are far more dependent on us and NAFTA than we are of them. But it takes a leader with some actual leadership skills (along with a really big pair of Cojones) to meet with the President of Mexico and put it like this:
"One way or another, the wall is going to be built. It can be built where the border stands now, it can be built 50 miles further into Mexico to provide a secure buffer for America, patrolled by the 1st armored division.
It can be built together as a team with join US/Mexican forces patrolling it, or alone with America doing it... but one way or another, it will be built.
Now, which would you like, lube or no lube?"
That is a very crass way of putting it, but in the end, this is not a contest of equals.
What about it?
I'd like to see Sanders get in, but don't think America is mature enough for him.
The implication of your statement is... disturbing... it also calls into question your other statements because what you're REALLY saying is:
"Americans are immature and stupid and can't be trusted to be smart".
Yea, thanks, we only saved the world twice in the past 100 years, thank you very much...
And employers don't generally just go out of business just because there's a union.
Generally no, but ask how the former employees of Hostess are doing...
But what if Kasich+Bush decided to run as a third party and grab the center?
That has less than zero chance of happening, Bush is deep into the establishment, that is his source of money.
Hillary is more likely to take away more of your rights than Trump is. Trump might do it anyway, but at least he has a chance. You have no chance with her.
Part of the issue here is that if corporate tax is low, I as a contractor simply register as a company, put everything I own in the company name and only pay myself a pittance to minimise income tax.
But you can ALREADY do that... and you'd be shocked at how little tax you'd end up paying under the current system. I already pay a very low tax rate. My top marginal rate is 33%, but I don't pay anything close to that percentage of my income in total taxes, thanks to a favorable tax code.
The type of corporate tax rate that we're talking about are not the type of companies that most companies operate as. There are S and C corps, and many different rules apply to each.
The problem is Google and Apple are subject to the 35% rate and there is little they can do about it, other than keeping their profits off-shore. Only lowering the rate to 20% (or maybe 15%, the exact amount is debatable) will motivate them to bring it back here.
I'm no tax expert, but I understand that the middle class bears the brunt of the tax burden and they are exactly the people who are in a position to start companies to minimise their tax if desired.
It doesn't work the way you think it does... They would have to stop getting a paycheck and become self-employed. Most people don't want to do that, many can't... Forming a business won't remove income tax burden from a W2.
Unless you are in the top 0.1%, any vote for a Republican candidate is a vote against your own interest.
It isn't that black and white... Republicans are at least *more likely* than Democrats to be willing to protect my gun rights.
Not as much as they should, but more likely...
Even if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, you can still write in Bernie Sanders' name. It's not a wasted vote: its a statement of support that may affect future politics.
It is a wasted vote if it means that she gets in and Trump doesn't... If she would have won anyway, then it isn't, but if it costs him the election, then it would be a terrible idea.
And thus the problem we have, with how our elections work, which aren't remotely modern or fair.
I would be open to all that you suggested as well, it is another approach to the issues at hand.
---
Side note: While most of my life I've been against "handouts", I will say that as I've grown up and had kids of my own, I have come to see the world a bit differently.
If we can afford 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, 18 nuclear ballistic missile subs, 8,000+ main battle tanks, and thousands of fighter jets... then I submit that we can afford to feed all our citizens...
If we choose not to, then it says something very bad about us as caring human beings. But I agree with you, the "free food" should be very minimal and people should want to work for more, but provide enough to give people no reason to steal it. Or need to...
What do you think of a Trump/Sanders Oval Office?
If you would vote for a Socialist, the Republican party is not for you and you shouldn't be looking there in the first place.
That isn't as true as the parties would like you to think.
I can agree with Sanders that a national minimum wage of $15 is a good idea, while agreeing with Trump that we need to deploy the Army to the Mexican border and build a 20 foot wall.
I can agree with Sanders on national single-payer healthcare while agreeing with Trump that cutting the corporate tax rate would actually be good for most Americans.
And so on down the list it goes.
I have to say I agree with you...
Sanders or Trump, those are the two that I would most prefer to be President, but for very different reasons.
They each make good points, and they are both wrong on some things, partly out of need to pander to their base, partly based on their background and upbringing.
But then likely the same could be said for all of us. :)
My worst nightmare would be Cruz or Hillary, anyone but those two nuts...
He has to be the president-elect first, at least. If the Dems don't block Bernie from getting the nomination, Trump can be defeated
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Clinton, my vote is automatic Trump, without a second thought.
If the contest ends up being Trump vs. Sanders, I'll give it a lot of thought and listen a lot before making up my mind.
I have never voted democrat in my life. Sanders would at least get my attention and I'd want to hear a lot more details on how and what he'd really do.
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
For example, I've always leaned conservative and very much tended to vote Republican. From that I know why I don't support minimum wage increases (it causes unemployment increases and reduces incentive to learn the skills required for just-above-minimum-wage positions, while unfairly targeting low-skill labor markets). I would even consider the idea of getting rid of it altogether. But instead of just blowing off the idea completely, I started looking into why people support it. Turns out, I also don't want many people dying of hunger or huge increases in homeless people in the streets and poverty-induced crime. So my current favorite solution is to satisfy both: direct government wealth redistribution from the richest to fund food, shelter, clothing, and other essentials for the poorest, combined with removing the minimum wage in order to increase employment and hence reinstate labor competition.
Likewise, I have often felt the minimum wage was a mistake, it implies that the waged listed is "acceptable" because it is "approved".
Without one at all, perhaps people might get more, but it leaves them free to take less if they wish. The problem with such a system is that it works in theory, but not always in the real world where companies have more power than people do.
I've also done some detailed math recently and been surprised to find what raising the wage does to prices. It isn't as bad as the Republicans imply, but not as good as the Democrats promise (big shocker).
So I support two things now:
Raise the minimum wage for people over 18 years old to $15/hr, no exceptions other than a few for disabled workers who otherwise wouldn't have jobs at all. This includes waitstaff at restaurants.
Make the government the "employer of last resort". If you do not have a job, and you are hungry, poof, the government will employ you to do... something... for $10/hr.
That is your incentive to not stay working for the government, you'll make more if you can find a private sector job. Maybe the government can employ you to clean up trash, dig ditches, stack books at the library, etc. If you find a part time job for 20 hours a week at $15/hr, great... you may continue working for the government for the other 20 hours at $10/hr, giving you an incentive to take ANY private work you can find, it won't cost you your existing "welfare" as it does today.
Unemployment would be shortened to 1-3 months max, a short time to find another job, but not the year or more it is in some places now. Right now, we're paying a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE to sit at home and do nothing. This is stupid.
I'm happy to provide for those who are hungry, but I do think they should work for it. It doesn't have to be fancy work, or even all that productive, it just has to be something. It is a way of saying, "no worries, we will not let you starve, here is work, here is food (maybe $3/hr of the $10/hr could be paid via food stamps)
I hate to admit it, but I think you're right...
He has a solid base of angry people who don't like what we currently have, but there is a decent chance that anyone who would support him, already does.
It may grow a bit, but can it grow to more than 50% of the population? Or at least the 50% in the states that count?
---
I watched their various speeches last night, the irony is that Trump was rather humble in accepting victory, a bit out of place for him. It is possible that he sees winning as a real possibility and now has to pay attention to the other 64% of Republican voters.
If he adjusts his message a bit and starts to come across as a bit more "Presidential", whatever that may be, then maybe he has a shot.
No one else running on the Republican side would win. I would probably vote for Rubio, while holding my nose. I'd never vote for Cruz (and I'm from Texas!). He is FAR too religious right wing for me.
Trump? Meh, sure... he is either brilliant, or nuts, or both, and I'm not sure which.
---
Back to the Democrats, I watched Hillary last night, ugg, I wanted to throw up. I really hate that women, she comes across as a used car sales person to me. I would never vote for her and if she becomes President, then we will get nothing done, because the Republicans in Congress will not work with her.
Sanders? I don't mind him so much. I don't agree with everything he says, but he comes across as honest about it. I would rather have him than Clinton.
If we get Clinton, then I'll ignore her and just ask the Republicans to stonewall and do nothing for 4-8 more years, she is toxic as far as I'm concerned.
If the Democrats had any brains, they would actually want Trump to win. Trump will walk right across the isle and work with Democrats in a way that no one else will do, and that'll get stuff done. He is pragmatic in a way that most of them aren't, even if he is a bit of a walking ego trip.
Back before I had a kid, I voted for every tax increase for schools and libraries that came up on the ballot. There was a particularly large one to reduce class sizes, and I happily voted for it. Then, when my kid got old enough, class sizes were back to what they were. The story of my life: stuff I pay for tends to be gone by the time I personally want to use it. Oh well.
Yea, I hear you... When my 10 year old son started in school, class sizes were about 20 to 1. My 7 year old daughter now has 27 total kids in her class, for 1 teacher. In 2nd grade!
I'm not happy about this at all. That is way too high for that age, it shows in her work compared to my older son when he had fewer kids in class at that age.
My options however, are quite limited. I can home school him, or move. We live far enough outside of the city center that private school options are sparse and far enough away that it would be a challenge to get the kids to them every day. Doable, but moving would be easier.
If we move to another area that has lower class sizes, nothing assures me that will hold for any amount of time.
I was using "right" a little loosely there. There's stuff I have the right to buy, stuff I have the right to (public education for my kid, for example), stuff that happens that I'm billed for, stuff I have the right to do personally, and stuff I have no right to. Around here, I have the right to have an electric line run to my house, and the right to get power by paying the electric company. I do not have the right to buy fat-free mozzarella, and no grocery store is required to stock it. (Don't knock it; it's just fine on a pizza made on french bread.)
Fair enough... I just see "rights" tossed around like candy sometimes and I think people forget about what a "right" actually is. But clearly you understand, so moving on. :)
The idea behind the ACA is that the government creates a competitive market, and the only way this works is to get everyone to participate. It's a really clunky system, and I really prefer single-payer, but it's a move in the right direction.
I get the idea, and it sounds great on paper. But it only works if multiple companies are honestly competing for your business. At least in the case of Texas, that is largely no longer true.
I had coverage last year, it was about $90 a month out of pocket (with a lot more from our friends at Uncle Sam), and the coverage was decent, if you had a major medical emergency. We went through multiple primary care providers, trying to find one that could get us a reasonable appointment schedule. That is harder than you think when so few accept the insurance.
You see, Blue Cross/Blue Shield sells policies on the ACA exchanges, then they sell "other policies" off the ACA exchanges. My wife accepts the latter type, but not the former. If you have a healthcare marketplace policy, you can't go see her, she won't accept the reimbursement rates they offer. She gets nearly twice as much money from the non-marketplace policies.
Now the hospitals and emergency rooms don't get that choice, but my wonderful ACA exchange policy had a $500 co-pay for an ER visit. No big deal to me, but to a lot of people, that isn't affordable (it should be, but that is another conversation).
The family annual deductible on the policy last year was just over $11,000, with $5,500 per person. The co-pay was 20%, until the deductible was met. Those are not affordable to many people, and that was the silver plan.
The ACA sounds nice in principle, but I suspect as people try to actually use the policies and discover how much additional out of pocket you end up having to spend, combined with fewer doctors accepting the policies, you'll see a backlash trend. Sure, young people who don't use many medical services will take time to figure this out, but it will happen.
Side note: In case you were curious. My wife is cons
You seem to be missing the idea about date rape. The woman doesn't have to be physically restrained and beaten half to death for it to be rape; it has to be sexual penetration without consent.
I do understand that... the challenge is, how do you prove consent?
Too many cases end up he said/she said...
There is actually now an "app for that", for people to consent beforehand, so there is no doubt (talk about a kill joy, but I'm married and old, so what do I know) after the fact.
That is what I meant about the "woman who changes her mind the next day and decides it was rape.". You can't withdraw consent AFTER the sex. If it was consensual at the time it happened, regret is not rape.
Now, that being said, yes, clearly plenty of women are raped when no overt violence was used. That is wrong, you will get no dispute from me. However, I also made the point that sometimes women put themselves into bad places due to poor judgement. The man isn't free from fault, but the women isn't 100% either. I am not condoning it, I'm explaining it, if that makes sense.
(A friend of a friend had a home intruder threaten her baby. In that position, the mother is likely to do anything she's told to do, no matter how badly it hurts, but I wouldn't call it consensual and neither does the law in my jurisdiction.)
I am generally, on principle, against the death penalty. I don't like the idea of government approved taking of life.
That being said, if I was there, if I had 100% absolute certainty that the man did what you just said, I could, without hesitation or moral dilemma, shoot him right in the head. I wouldn't torture him (I'm against torture in all cases, no matter what, I think it is evil), but I would end his life quickly and painlessly and remove him from human civilization.
What you described happens, and it is evil. Note that I said "100% absolute certainty". How many legal cases are REALLY that certain? That is why I'm against the death penalty, we're wrong too often to take lives over it. My personal example is more of a moral comment, than a practical one.
I approve of what you intend to teach your daughter, by the way. She absolutely has the right to refuse any sexual contact, but being in the right is sometimes less important than not getting badly hurt.
Thank you... She does have that right, but I will also teach her that once she consents, she can't withdraw that consent the next day after it is over. She has to live with her choices, so if there is any doubt, you can always have sex tomorrow, but you can't take away sex from yesterday.
As far as sex slavery goes, the best estimate I got with a quick Google was tens of thousands. I find one case a frighteningly large number, personally, but it's a much bigger problem than that.
Tens of thousands sounds like a lot, but it isn't an area I'm an expert in, so I'll leave it at your number.
Might I suggest that many sex slaves are afraid of the police, for fear of being locked up as prostitutes?
I'm strongly in favor of legalizing prostitution. It happens anyway, banning it hasn't made it go away, let them come out from the shadows, get drug and STD tests, pay taxes, be able to go to the police for protection if needed, and not live in fear.
And here we run into a disagreement that there is no objective way to resolve.
Sure, because at some point it devolves into the world of "opinion" and we're each entitled to our own opinions.
Even medical science doesn't 100% agree on when a collection of cells becomes a human being, so I get that.
The edge cases are easier, which is why I think people argue them, finding the line in the middle is harder.
And yet you're ok with the mother killing that same child?
When does it end? Are you ok with a mother killing a 2 year old child? 2 month old? 8 month old in the womb?
Now, people who want to "sexually harass" a machine have their own set of issues, but as long as they keep it off the streets and don't scare the horses, that's their problem.
Consider that it is possible that if they DO have a machine to "sexually harass", then perhaps they won't have so much need to do it in real life?
There are people who kick puppies in real life too, I think they are mean crazy bastards, but if they could kick virtual puppies, then perhaps they'll leave the real ones alone.
Ooh, sorry, not how the tax system works.
I didn't say it did, but from the various replies here, clearly reading is hard.
I said that is how it SHOULD work...
Flat 20% across the board, first dollar, millionth dollar.
You didn't examine the real point, now did you? What does 3K$ mean to one person, versus the other?
That doesn't matter.
If you think it does, then that same logic would justify stealing, if only from "rich people", who don't need it as much.
Ok, then how much?
The same percentage.
Nope, that's not even remotely close to establishing something as actually fair.
Yes it is. Your inability to see it doesn't make it not so.
And I did give a number, but you clearly didn't bother to read anything I posted. 20%
Have you tried?
Yes, I've been poor, I've been paycheck to paycheck... it sucks, no doubt about it...
Never again, but I worked my butt off to make that happen...
$20K +$3K = $23K
You said that 20% was too high for someone making $30K, which is $6K. So cut their tax rate to 10%, that reduces their taxes to $3K, but the other $3K has to come from somewhere, so "the rich", right? That would be me by that logic.
So raising my taxes to $23K *ONLY* raises my tax rate by 3%, but it cuts the poor's tax rate in HALF!
Sounds great, doesn't it? Sure, except it is exceptionally unfair to me and as you push more and more in that direction, sooner or later I might decide to take my marbles and play somewhere else (as thousands of French have done in the past two years, since the tax rates there were raised).
At any rate, income is not taxed below a certain level.
That is true, but it is wrong. Everyone benefits from the system, everyone should pay into it.
I *do* think that's fair, since it is more difficult for those with fewer means to make ends meet.
You can think it is fair all you like. It isn't. No amount of progressive or regressive taxes are remotely fair. The only fair tax is a flat tax, with no exceptions, no deductions, nothing.
And yes, I'm willing to give up my deductions if it means the poor give up theirs.
I might be okay with a flat tax rate if it were used to pay for other things such as single-payer health care, public education (including vo-tech and even public universities), and retirement benefits that allow seniors to live at something like the level they did in their working lives.
I would agree with all of that.