• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kamala Harris Election Campaign

A certain poster has previously written that he voted for Trump in 2016 because he wasn't Hilary. He has availed himself of the "lesser evil" apologetic when it suits him. It's not a good-faith argument.
I am of course not the poster you are referring to but I voted for Trump because he was not Hilary. Now I will vote for Harris because she is not Trump. Lesser of two evils in both cases.
 
I am of course not the poster you are referring to but I voted for Trump because he was not Hilary. Now I will vote for Harris because she is not Trump. Lesser of two evils in both cases.

What if Harris turns out to be Hillary in disguise?
 
The solution that everyone knows is the real answer is to just remove the waitstaff exemption from minimum wage laws. The entire restaurant industry is going to scream bloody murder at the first mention of that, because too many of them rely on screwing their employees out of a living wage, so it's more of a sitting-president kind of controversy. Anything less than this solution should be taken as simple pandering to one group or another.

But just because it's pandering doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. That was Clinton's mistake when campaigning in the Rust Belt. A lot of people want politicians to come through and blow sunshine up their ass. Even if the ideas are clearly terrible it shows that the candidate understands the day to day predicaments that those local voters face and cares enough to suck up to them.


Less that one percent of the population receive a wage that low. DQYDJ
And most of those are in prison, where there's not much to spend on. Wages
Most state wages are much higher anyway.Dol

I'd rather have them pay a living wage, about $15.00 rather than a minimum wage of $7.50 an hour.

But it's kind of moot anyway. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop and they limit CEO salaries to $300,000 a year. Then they'll discover they cannot fund the government that way, and have to implement a fair tax or VAT tax of 30% on everything you buy.

Sigh. The so called fairer tax.
 
There’s a meme that says: “Universal health care is such a complex beast that only 32 of the world's 33 developed nations have been able to make it work.”

Admittedly, not all of those 32 developed nations have been able to make it work well. Great Britain in particular seems to have major issues.
But as I said, it should be aspirational to find a way towards it that works. Too many Americans can’t afford the care or medications they need, leading to poor outcomes down the road. Or even early death. Let’s at least try.
That would be due to politicians who tried to destroy the system.
 
Why would limiting CEO salaries reduce government funding?
Maybe they're thinking "CEOs are in a high tax bracket so they pay lots of income tax"? (Which would of course ignore the fact that a lot of CEO pay is in the form of things like stock options, which aren't necessarily subject to income tax.)
 
I am of course not the poster you are referring to but I voted for Trump because he was not Hilary. Now I will vote for Harris because she is not Trump. Lesser of two evils in both cases.

I'm really curious why you would think Trump was the lesser of two evils between him and HRC. Was it because you hadn't figured out that Trump is a mentally ill, pathological liar and sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder yet?
 
I'm really curious why you would think Trump was the lesser of two evils between him and HRC. Was it because you hadn't figured out that Trump is a mentally ill, pathological liar and sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder yet?

She's also not a traitor to the USA that steals and sells secrets to adversarial governments.
 
Why would limiting CEO salaries reduce government funding?


Let's say the Walmart CEO gets 300 million a year. The government gets, a third of that, about 100 million in taxes. So limiting CEO pay would cost the government billions.

Aside, I was thinking about the movie titled, "Cop give waitress a million dollar tip." Just what sort of limits on tipping are we talking about here. Oh, and can you tip a CEO? Just how far?

What about FICA taxes? Do social security, medicare, medicade, and other programs lose funding? Do the tipped employees lose retirement income?

Lots to think about.
 
I'm really curious why you would think Trump was the lesser of two evils between him and HRC.

I've seen that same comment made by a surprising number of people and don't get how it's even possible to suggest it.

Hillary might have a been a silly old cuckqueen but she wasn't a racist, misogynist criminal, unlike her opponent.

She wasn't Snow White, but she sure as hell wasn't Donald J Trump.
 
Let's say the Walmart CEO gets 300 million a year. The government gets, a third of that, about 100 million in taxes. So limiting CEO pay would cost the government billions.

Instead of paying the CEO Walmart would invest that money, or pay other executives more or even pay their own employees more, or pay more profit taxes or cut prices to avoid the higher profit taxes, or give their investors a bigger dividend. All of which would be better than giving it to the CEO who probably pays a lower rate than anyone else in the company.

Aside, I was thinking about the movie titled, "Cop give waitress a million dollar tip."

I was thinking about SCOTUS ruling that payments made to a politician after the fact weren't bribery but more a sign of appreciation, like a tip.

Just what sort of limits on tipping are we talking about here. Oh, and can you tip a CEO? Just how far?

A tip is a transaction between a customer and an employee of the business. It's not from the business to its employee or contractor, so, no.

What about FICA taxes? Do social security, medicare, medicade, and other programs lose funding? Do the tipped employees lose retirement income?

Whatever Congress decides. (Personally, I think it should be tax free, but still pay Social and Medicare)
 
I'm really curious why you would think Trump was the lesser of two evils between him and HRC. Was it because you hadn't figured out that Trump is a mentally ill, pathological liar and sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder yet?
You nailed it. He was new, not a politician, seemed like like a breath of fresh air. Now I think it will be entertaining watching him trying to overturn the election from a position as a mere candidate. There is still a lot of time to go though.
 
I'm really curious why you would think Trump was the lesser of two evils between him and HRC. Was it because you hadn't figured out that Trump is a mentally ill, pathological liar and sociopath with narcissistic personality disorder yet?
HRC is the perfect example of what two years of a constant negative campaign can do. She had a very high approval rating as a Senator and Secretary of State. And when it was clear to the GOP that she was probably going to be the Democratic nominee, they went after that high opinion rating. We heard about Libya and her emails non-stop.

Almost no one offers a good reason why they didn't like Hillary. They just know that they didn't.
 
I've seen that same comment made by a surprising number of people and don't get how it's even possible to suggest it.

Hillary might have a been a silly old cuckqueen but she wasn't a racist, misogynist criminal, unlike her opponent.

She wasn't Snow White, but she sure as hell wasn't Donald J Trump.
There were so many things to dislike about Hilary. It's all moot now though, the issue is between him and Harris. I can't say I like her, she's a bit liberal for my tastes, but the choice is between her and that ******* trump. If moderates like myself vote for her she will win.
 
Scratch the "Lesser of two evils" hard enough and 90% of the time you find the same old, tired "Person A is good but not perfect, Person B openly wallows in their own crapulence, so Person A is somehow worse because they failing to live up to their own standards 100%."

Ever since Trump became a thing that primary mode of apologetics for him has always been some minor variation on this "I prioritize taking good but imperfect people 'down a peg' over stopping openly evil people" mindset.

It's why horrible, horrible, just oh so horrible people treat being dramatic or being pretentious or putting on airs or "not being as smart as you think you are" as the top veneal sin that all other sins have to be ignored to fight.
 
HRC is the perfect example of what two years of a constant negative campaign can do. She had a very high approval rating as a Senator and Secretary of State. And when it was clear to the GOP that she was probably going to be the Democratic nominee, they went after that high opinion rating. We heard about Libya and her emails non-stop.

Almost no one offers a good reason why they didn't like Hillary. They just know that they didn't.

The negative campaign against Hillary Clinton started long, long before. Back in the 90s even before Bill won his first election the right wing media machine was pumping out hate for Hillary. She was demonized before she even had a chance to do anything in government. It was just as vague back then, though, as to what precisely about her was so evil. Just that she was. And it stuck for thirty years.
 
There were so many things to dislike about Hilary. It's all moot now though, the issue is between him and Harris. I can't say I like her, she's a bit liberal for my tastes, but the choice is between her and that ******* trump. If moderates like myself vote for her she will win.
I don't even know what that means.

Hillary wasn't more liberal than 90 percent of any Democrat on the national stage. She certainly wasn't any more liberal than than Joe Biden. She's no Joe Manchin maybe. I've heard more Democrats accuse her of being Republican light.
 

Back
Top Bottom