Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
No shit, Sherlock. I suppose having it confirmed makes it more impactful, but it's not like we didn't know that stuff was going on.
On minimum wages: study after study has found no statistically significant effect on employment or business solvency from increases in the wage to as much as $15/hour or the local equivalent. They increase prices somewhat to compensate for the higher labor costs, and the swell in consumption from people earning more income more than makes up for the rest.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Superdelegates aren't ignoring the popular vote, they've never been intended as people who should follow the popular vote on a state by state level, many of them aren't even tied to states, plus they can still change their minds.
DC has been fixed and is fine now, paperwork screw ups happen.
The Bill thing I agree on, it's dirty tactics and getting pretty close to voter intimidation.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe Superdelagates were always a way for the establishment to point the election in their favor. I really hope the Democrats eventually get rid of them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP add more superdelagates to there system, to prevent anymore Trumps in the future.
edited 30th Mar '16 9:00:46 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.They do, RNC members in several states get to act as delegates, however it's a lot fewer then the Dems, only 3 per state/territory and not even always that (well everywhere but Florida it's 3 with it being 0 in Florida).
edited 30th Mar '16 9:21:59 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHardly, the Dems insist on proportional splitting of delegates (the most democratic aproch) while the Republicans have multiple winner take all states that rig the primary in favour of whoever can get a plurality.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Yeah, but the Democrats have a far larger number - to the point where it's seriously possible that the Democratic nomination will be decided by the supers.
Then again, the Republican nomination is looking like it'll be decided by a full circus of uncommitted delegates and by desperate meetings in back rooms, but Trump will have had his chance. There's been less outright sabotage on the Republican side - probably because Trump would not have shut up about it if there had been. Sanders, by contrast, isn't going to go for a third-party run just because Schultz' dog ate his votes.
So about that corporate bribery expose, here's why it's even more a huge deal.
Oh, and Hillary Clinton was informed of the whole corruption issue in the Middle East while she was Secretary of State, and she dismissed it. See, this sort of thing is why I can't trust anything she says.
@Minimum wage: what's the minimum wage (if any) over there at the states (per hour)? For comparison, minimum wage here is roughly 6.6US$/hour, and it's customary to tip waiters (and deliverymen), though "we pay you with the tips" is a massive problem here too.
On empty crossroads, seek the eclipse -- for when Sol and Lua align, the lost shall find their way home.Minimum wage varies by state to state (and occasionally city to city), but the federally-mandated minimum wage is $7.25/hour, which is not even close to a living wage at 40 hours/week for the vast majority of the country. (You might be able to live on that in a rural area where cost of living is really low, but that's about it.) For reference, the highest state minimum wages is around $10, though a number of cities have passed laws raising theirs to $15 (none of which have actually gone into effect yet, as the increase is phased in over several years to reduce the shock of having a single huge increase).
The $15/hour thing would be huge. It would more than double the federal minimum wage, and it would bring the actual purchasing power (as in, in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars) to the highest it's ever actually been.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Nationwide, it's $7.25 per hour. Obama made a push to raise it to $10, and naturally Republicans shot it down. State level Democrats were able to push their own increase for their states though, so the result is that almost 30 states have higher minimum wages than the nationally mandated minimum, and sometimes cities within those states have higher ones set for city workers.
Edit: What
said.
edited 31st Mar '16 4:39:04 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Yes, and it's possible via these natural experiments to determine the harmful effect, if any, on businesses from higher minimum wages. Needless to say, there isn't any, and there have not been mass exoduses from these places to ones with cheaper labor pools.
Well it seems that she wasn't actually part of it but she did condone it.
So using this against her would involve having to admit that the entire Iraq war and restructuring was bullshit, there were no valid reasons for invading, and that the act of bribery was bad.
Which I'm not sure they're willing to do.
Oh really when?It still goes against Republican orthodoxy big time, especially since they're still defensive over W. Bush and the events that went on under him. They could make a big deal of Clinton shrugging off the evils Haliburton and the Iraq invasion, (most likely shrugging the whole thing off in a "Well, the horse is already out the barn door, what the hell are we going to do about it now" sort of way, not to mention that the entire Obama Administration's official position was "Lets just get past the Iraq shit already and move on") but then they have to take responsibility for allowing it all to happen in the first place.
Trump might try to do it, because he doesn't really have any association with events, but I'd be pretty surprised if anyone else tried that. (Well, maybe Cruz...)
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |

edited 30th Mar '16 8:00:15 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.