MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
Poppa
Footballguy
Very much rooting for indictment. It is my sincere hope that history will judge the Clinton's era of high office for sale, access, and personal enrichment as the highwater mark of money and corruption in American politics.
Hillary was asked a very simple question if Bernie was qualified. All she had to say was yes. Instead she gave several reasons to suggest he wasn't. Hillary was the original demogage in this exchange. Bernie overreacted based on news report spin, and later apologized. BTW, no one needs to make up anything about Hillary. She has provided enough material to last decades.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston
Footballguy
Is Hillary qualified? If a Sales Manager never hit his numbers is he qualified to be VP of sales because he works in sales? Hillary has held public positions but has virtually no success stories...none...I see nothing on her resume that indicates she would be a good Chief Executive...
squistion
Footballguy
Great point. I don't know how many times I have heard it said that being a good Sales Manager is analogous to being a good Chief Executive.
squistion
Footballguy
Despite losing 56% to 44% to Bernie in votes, Hillary split the delegates.
Sahil Kapur @sahilkapur 39m39 minutes ago
WYOMING final results (updated)
Sanders 56% (+7 delegates)
Clinton 44% (+7 delegates)
Sahil Kapur
WYOMING final results (updated)
Sanders 56% (+7 delegates)
Clinton 44% (+7 delegates)
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Actually as I understand it Hillary comes out ahead because three slots are reserved for party leaders.... who of course support Hillary. So Sanders wins WY 56-44 and loses in delegates 7-10.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Neofight
Footballguy
Not that it's a huge deal, considering this is only a handful of delegates, but this caucus will likely go along the lines of Nevada. If, as has been reported, Hillary won Laramie and a few other counties based primarily on the surrogate voting numbers, then she may have a hard time keeping those delegate totals when it goes to the state convention. It wouldn't surprise me if Bernie walks away with 9 or 10 delegates from Wyoming
The Commish
Footballguy
I think I'm willing to bet a billion dollars that one of those GOP idiots does, in fact, bring up something along the lines of "He shouldn't make all these giveaway promises. They are unrealistic" should he win the nomination.squistion said:
.
squistion
Footballguy
Trey
Footballguy
I'm as ashamed of this Wyoming result as I am the Nevada (after) result. The whole system is antiquated and dumb.
Anthony Borbely
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
Not historically:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders (some excerpts).
While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League (the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America),
While with the APHS, he made a 30-minute documentary about American Socialist leader and presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs.[32][52]
During his mayoralty, Sanders called himself a socialist and was so described in the press.
Sanders' 1990 victory was heralded by The Washington Post and others as the "First Socialist Elected" to the United States House of Representatives in decades.
Gr00vus
Footballguy
As mentioned previously, this Wyoming thing may very well go down the same as the Nevada one. Wyoming still has to go to the state convention where the delegate count may change.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'm not sure that's the road Clinton supporters want to pave for Sanders supporters.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
So what. He called himself a Socialist and ran for President five times for the Socialist Party of America:
Eugene Victor "Gene" Debs (November 5, 1855 – October 20, 1926) was an American union leader, one of the founding members of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW or the Wobblies), and five times the candidate of the Socialist Party of America for President of the United States.[1]
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
There was no "so" I just think that's an interesting point in US history. Sanders talks about Euro democratic socialism parties but I think he is also maybe largely inspired by Debs and the SDP. The Liberty Union Party in VT and its founder is also interesting.
However you can't really call someone a socialist fairly unless you recognize the difference between socialists and Democrats. And there are real and important differences. There is a different party now just as there was in Debs' time, do you know why?
Last edited by a moderator:
skol asylum
Footballguy
You Shillary guys can focus on meaningless labels all you want, i'll look at a candidate's character, judgment, past accomplishments, and vision. That Socialist Obama doesn't seem so scary to me. Remember how the term liberal has been demonized to the point where it's been abandoned for the word progressive? So dumb.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
It doesn't matter if I recognize the difference, I am not the average voter. I have been saying for over a year there is not enough time to educate the American public that Democratic Socialist is not the same thing as Socialist. To exemplify that, taken from a recent post on this page:
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Earlier this week California passed a $15 minimum wage increase, the sort both Hillary and Bernie favor (I think Bernie actually wants more.) As a result, a restaurant guy I've been working with for months just cancelled an expansion he's been planning. He simply can't afford the added expense on top of everything else.
Beyond my my own personal frustration with this, I have felt for a long time that Hillary and Bernie are wrong; that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for this very reason: we need small businesses to grow, and this stifles that growth. Corporations can afford to absorb the added cost and pass it on to the consumer, but small businesses can't. It's always been incredibly ironic to me that so many liberals who view corporations as the enemy continually push for laws which restrict small businesses and end up making corporations stronger. This is one of the few issues in this election, IMO, in which Republicans have it right- even Donald Trump.
Beyond my my own personal frustration with this, I have felt for a long time that Hillary and Bernie are wrong; that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea for this very reason: we need small businesses to grow, and this stifles that growth. Corporations can afford to absorb the added cost and pass it on to the consumer, but small businesses can't. It's always been incredibly ironic to me that so many liberals who view corporations as the enemy continually push for laws which restrict small businesses and end up making corporations stronger. This is one of the few issues in this election, IMO, in which Republicans have it right- even Donald Trump.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
Precisely it. I'd love to spend an afternoon with Tim over beers, just to understand him. Seems like he's an imperialist. Just wants the monarchy to be enlightened - or at least minimally cruel.
G
Guest
Guest
Somehow in this country making a blue collar living has been equated with not trying hard enough, and seeking entitlement. I think it's a travesty that those carrying much of the labor burden are so poorly regarded and treated. And with technology and robotics, we'll marginalize this class even further. Begs the questions for me: Is this who we are? Is this what we want?
Last edited:
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
fossdboss
Footballguy
Do you think that wage increase will not find its way back into the economy?
If we go to 15 an hour I guess the fast food workers who have zero disposable income at the moment will take their newfound wealth and sock it away in a Panamanian shell company.
No offense to them but isn't it more likely that the person whose life choices (errors in long-term planning/ lack of delaying gratification) have led to them working a minimum wage job will buy a new TV or take their family out to eat and keep the cycle going.
I really don't know much about the economy but I like to think I know a little about human nature. I don't think many people who go from 11 bucks an hour to 15 will start socking away their 4 dollar raise in retirement savings either.
The economy is better when the little guy has some money to spend.
G
Guest
Guest
I work in tech and the power of exponentials is just beginning to reshape industries with data and robotics. So the changes we've seen gradually (decades long decline in Rust Belt for example) will accelerate very, very quickly -- but across all industries and in the heart of the Middle Class. (Certainly in one or two profound cycles over the next 8 years). The only way we avoid dealing with massive poverty and alienation of tens of millions after the problems hit smack dab in the Middle Class is to have a philosophy and strategy to ensure worker rights and living wages. Left to the free economy, some very scary things will happen in the next 8 years and because fixing them won't benefit Goldman Sachs, Hillary and certainly any Republican will ignore or villainize the afflicted as lazy hangers on. Only Bernie clearly states that he would be at the helm ensuring that the Middle Class survives and participates.
If we let the free economy's winds take us where they will, American exceptionalism will disappear. Children in other countries are studying much longer and harder and their parents are willing to work longer for less, because their governments by-and-large have no regard for propping up anything, and we're essentially competing with Feudalism. If this is the standard we try to compete wth, we will lose badly and the Middle Class is toast. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum (and I am further right than Bernie), we are fools to ignore the fact we need to acknowledge these forces and have a proactive strategy.
This is but another reason having a woman who cannot work email as our President at a time when technology will be perhaps the most important determinant of our socio-economic future. We will need to modernize the economy in lock-step or it will swallow us whole.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
The new board makes it near impossible to edit a post on on iPad. Realizing that the last paragraph of my last posts sounds sexist since I specifically called out "a woman." If it's Hillary versus Trump or Cruz, I'm writing in "Ginni Rometty", even though I've never seen any indication she's even interested in politics. There's a woman who would lead us.
timschochet
Footballguy
I understand the arguments for increasing the minimum wage very well. But my point, which none of you chose to specifically refute, is that doing so creates an imbalance in which small businesses are hurt much greater than big businesses because the former are much more unable to absorb the cost.
Solve this imbalance and I'd be much more in favor. Perhaps you could limit the increase to employers with over 100 employees. Or small businesses could receive a tax credit of some sort. Something that would alleviate the burden.
But in the meantime please spare me the lectures about how I'm against people earning a basic living wage, how I'm an imperialist, etc, simply because I'd like to see small businesses like restaurants who pay minimum to many employees continue to expand in our economy and not have to face so many burdens.
Solve this imbalance and I'd be much more in favor. Perhaps you could limit the increase to employers with over 100 employees. Or small businesses could receive a tax credit of some sort. Something that would alleviate the burden.
But in the meantime please spare me the lectures about how I'm against people earning a basic living wage, how I'm an imperialist, etc, simply because I'd like to see small businesses like restaurants who pay minimum to many employees continue to expand in our economy and not have to face so many burdens.
shadrap
Footballguy
shadrap
Footballguy
bagger
Footballguy
If margins were so tight that the restaurant owner could not expand due to a minimum wage increase then he should not have been expanding anyway and may want to consider exiting the restaurant business.
These claims are made by people who are either disingenuous or ignorant with respect to what drives their income statement.
timschochet
Footballguy
Thanks. I'm going to call the guy I'm working with today and tell him that.
"Hey, somebody on the internet told me that you can afford the wage increase and it shouldn't stop you from expanding. He says you're either being disingenuous or ignorant!"
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
If you want to maintain a decent living standard for unskilled workers, the way to do that is with a direct transfer, like a negative income tax or BIG. Nearly doubling the minimum wage is arguably one of the single worst ways to achieve this outcome. It's hard to imagine how this could be anything other than wildly distortionary in regions of the country that don't already have high wage scales.
As an outside observer, I'm going to be fascinated to see how this experiment plays out in rural/downscale parts of CA and in upstate NY. Those regions are more representative of much of the US than NYC or the bay area.
As an outside observer, I'm going to be fascinated to see how this experiment plays out in rural/downscale parts of CA and in upstate NY. Those regions are more representative of much of the US than NYC or the bay area.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Why would you like to see businesses whose employees need public assistance while working full time profit to the point of expansion without altering their wage scale?
- Status
Similar threads
