Election 2017 Thread

[visionary]

 

[thebluefood]

2 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

My problem is with all the middlemen that screw the farmers AND the consumers. Cooperative ventures that allow dairy farmers for instance to process and market their goods see a substantial increase in the $$$ in the farmers pockets without jacking prices. Large scale agricultural corporations are designed to maximize profits, you can't look at what passes for a tomato in the store and tell me they give one small **** about quality, while at the same time the workers doing the actual labor get seriously screwed.

 

The concept in this country that any and everything is a commodity to be cornered and squeezed for maximum return is the root of a great many of our issues.

 

 

 

We couldn't agree with you more. 

 

 

Quote

Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.

 

 

[No Excuses]

Virginia HD-94 flips after recount to Democrats. Democrat candidate Simmonds wins by 1 vote!!

 

The Virginia House of Delegates is now split 50-50.

[DogofWar1]

Yo but voting doesn't make a difference:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrat-wins-va-house-seat-in-recount-by-single-vote-creating-50-50-tie-in-legislature/2017/12/19/3ff227ae-e43e-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.cc7e6063faec

[The Sisko]

5 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

There are dirt poor immigrants busting their asses and making a living in places where jobs exist in America. Most of the time, they don't even speak English properly.

 

We really ought to be asking what is preventing the low skill working poor in rural and rust belt America from migrating into areas that have job availability.

The public teat. Time for it to go. Slash and burn baby!

 

Quote

Did you know in rural America, disability benefit rates are twice as high as in urban areas?

By Terrence McCoy

July 22, 2017 at 3:25 PM

Between 1996 and 2015, the number of working-age Americans who subsist on federal disability benefits grew rapidly, becoming one of the country's most hotly debated social benefits. The rise has become another indicator of the divide between urban and rural America, where disability benefit rates are nearly twice as high...

 

3 hours ago, Bang said:

3. is a load of crap, no matter who wants to slice it whichever way they want. I always say when folks say "americans don't want that work"..  well, the person who used to do it does, but he can't afford to work for what the employer will pay the immigrant under the table, (and if he's illegal, that is even less.)

 

American workers are sold out by their employers who give away their jobs to people willing to work it for less than the legal minimum wage.

And our country has hung them out to dry by pretending they have too much arrogance to do the work they used to do before getting priced out by the immigrant and sold out by their boss.

This is the part of the illegal immigration problem that doesn't make sense to me. It seems that to clean up a mess, you have to find out what is causing it and shut off the problem..  and the American companies who have perpetrated this on American workers don't ever seem to have any of this stick to them.

 

~Bang

Really? Given all the produce rotting in the fields, I’mma have to disagree with you somewhat. It’s not the pay either. According to this article, they could earn upwards of $20/hour if they bust their asses. Mind you, the guys that quit in the article were ex-cons, probably the least employable group. If they’re not willing to do it for $20/hour, I doubt others would.

 

The elephant in the room is automation. That’s what’s really killing Cleatus’ jurbs. But keep telling him it’s the fureinurs’ fault. It gets GOP’ers elected, demonizes POC and keeps Cleatus poor. Everybody wins!!

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 hours ago, Zguy28 said:

Ask a person with a family with kids and makes less than $50k about cheap produce. Especially when you don't want them to be obese.

Perhaps that person should have thought about their income and costs of living before having children.  Just a thought.  

 

I hate that people seem to forget that it takes a conscious effort to perform the act required to procreate.  And then when to complain about the costs of performing that act 9 months later.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, DogofWar1 said:

Yo but voting doesn't make a difference:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrat-wins-va-house-seat-in-recount-by-single-vote-creating-50-50-tie-in-legislature/2017/12/19/3ff227ae-e43e-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.cc7e6063faec

 

 

Boom!  The rout is complete. 

[No Excuses]

7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

Boom!  The rout is complete. 

 

Not yet. There is a recount taking place in HD-28. There might be a revote as well because wrong ballots were distributed in some precincts. 

 

The GOP winner in HD-28 has an 82 vote lead. A recount probably won't change that but a revote definitely could.

[PleaseBlitz]

Mother****!

[Larry]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Perhaps that person should have thought about their income and costs of living before having children.  Just a thought.  

 

I hate that people seem to forget that it takes a conscious effort to perform the act required to procreate.  And then when to complain about the costs of performing that act 9 months later.

 

"If they would rather die, then they had better do it, and reduce the surplus population."  

 

 

---

 

18 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

Not yet. There is a recount taking place in HD-28. There might be a revote as well because wrong ballots were distributed in some precincts. 

 

The GOP winner in HD-28 has an 82 vote lead. A recount probably won't change that but a revote definitely could.

 

Therefore, odds that it happens are . . . . ?

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

"If they would rather die, then they had better do it, and reduce the surplus population."  

 

Something like this invariably gets said whenever I make the the point I posted.  Please tell me what is so wrong with expecting people to see if they can afford to reproduce before doing so?  

[bearrock]

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Something like this invariably gets said whenever I make the the point I posted.  Please tell me what is so wrong with expecting people to see if they can afford to reproduce before doing so?  

Responsible planning should be encouraged.  At the same time, aside from the moral aspect of locking that particular pursuit of happiness behind a financial wall, having children is a very valuable and necessary activity from a macro perspective.  There are countries like Japan where aging population without sufficient  influx of replacement population is a huge drag on the country and a major danger sign. 

 

US isn't worried about that because of immigration and higher birthrate (which would actually be insufficient without immigration).  But setting aside the morality of it all, discouraging responsible people from having kids (the type who will actually plan the cost) would be extremely poor governance.  The country should send the message that if you have kids and try reasonably hard, we'll try our best to ensure a reasonably good outcome for your family.

[gbear]

Lol. One vote ...it goes to show a single vote can be the difference.

[LadySkinsFan]

35 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Something like this invariably gets said whenever I make the the point I posted.  Please tell me what is so wrong with expecting people to see if they can afford to reproduce before doing so?  

 

If you want this, more actual sex education instead of abstinence, free birth control, and quit trying to restrict abortion. 

 

Oh, and no forced eugenics programs like sterilization of certain populations.

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Responsible planning should be encouraged.  At the same time, aside from the moral aspect of locking that particular pursuit of happiness behind a financial wall, having children is a very valuable and necessary activity from a macro perspective.  There are countries like Japan where aging population without sufficient  influx of replacement population is a huge drag on the country and a major danger sign. 

 

US isn't worried about that because of immigration and higher birthrate (which would actually be insufficient without immigration).  But setting aside the morality of it all, discouraging responsible people from having kids (the type who will actually plan the cost) would be extremely poor governance.  The country should send the message that if you have kids and try reasonably hard, we'll try our best to ensure a reasonably good outcome for your family.

The moral aspect I see no issue with but I also recognize that is because I hate children and don't understand why anyone would want them.  And Japan went too far in the way the encouraged not having children.  But there is a middle road like with most other things.  I'm not talking about discouraging responsible people from having children.  But part of that "responsibility" is making sure you can afford to raise them in a manner that is healthy.  The message the country should send is if you have kids and try hard, we will help.  And that applies to your first kid.  If you have another when you were struggling with the first, I'm going to judge you.

5 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

If you want this, more actual sex education instead of abstinence, free birth control, and quit trying to restrict abortion. 

 

Oh, and no forced eugenics programs like sterilization of certain populations.

I am all for more education.  I would also expand free birth control though.  Not sure why you are against that.  Abortion I have stated many times I don't like the thought of it but I still support it because I don't think it is my place to tell someone else not to do it and I realize it is necessary sometimes.

 

I would not be against forced sterilization in some instances but that would be a whole different discussion.  We could probably bump that health care thread I made a while back if you want to discuss that.  It would fit into that discussion close enough to keep us out of trouble with the angry mods.

[LadySkinsFan]

I am for free birth control. It was a positive clause.

[The Sisko]

26 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Responsible planning should be encouraged.  At the same time, aside from the moral aspect of locking that particular pursuit of happiness behind a financial wall, having children is a very valuable and necessary activity from a macro perspective.  There are countries like Japan where aging population without sufficient  influx of replacement population is a huge drag on the country and a major danger sign. 

 

US isn't worried about that because of immigration and higher birthrate (which would actually be insufficient without immigration).  But setting aside the morality of it all, discouraging responsible people from having kids (the type who will actually plan the cost) would be extremely poor governance.  The country should send the message that if you have kids and try reasonably hard, we'll try our best to ensure a reasonably good outcome for your family.

Beat me to it. Much, maybe all of the industrialized world has a population replenishment problem. We ducked it for years because immigration was part of our DNA. So Dump and Co. are destroying one of the secrets of our success while Mr. Ayn Rand wannabe calls for ‘Muricuns (translation: good wyht folks, except for single Moms, they’re just takers) to have more babies. Good luck with that brilliant policy statement Dingus. ?

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I am for free birth control. It was a positive clause.

Gotcha.  Sorry I misunderstood.  I don't know what they teach nowadays but I would like a lot more focused on the cost of children and how much of a pain in the ass they are.  When I was a kid, they just taught us the biology of making kids.  There wasn't much taught to discourage us from having kids.  

 

Today the cashier at Five Guys told me she had 6 kids.  She looked mid-20's at best.  And she was working as a cashier at Five Guys.  My first thought was how irresponsible that is to have that many kids without having a better source of income.  My second thought was she should have learned to like bringing guests in through the back door (hope that was a subtle enough euphemism to stay out of trouble).  

[Larry]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Something like this invariably gets said whenever I make the the point I posted.  Please tell me what is so wrong with expecting people to see if they can afford to reproduce before doing so?  

 

Perhaps you should have considered that, before choosing to express said position.  

[gbear]

16 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

Beat me to it. Much, maybe all of the industrialized world has a population replenishment problem. We ducked it for years because immigration was part of our DNA. So Dump and Co. are destroying one of the secrets of our success while Mr. Ayn Rand wannabe calls for ‘Muricuns (translation: good wyht folks, except for single Moms, they’re just takers) to have more babies. Good luck with that brilliant policy statement Dingus. ?

I was at a census mtg last year when the international division gave a presentation about workforce issues in the industrialized countries of the world. All but one has the baby boomer population aging problem. India and China have it the worst. China had its one baby plan for a few decades. Europe has our problem on steroids. The only country without the baby boom to worry about happens to be on our southern border frequently giving us a labor source to help keep some of our industries afloat.  

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Perhaps you should have considered that, before choosing to express said position.  

Possibly.

 

Or maybe a better point could be made for why expecting personal responsibility is a bad thing.  Care to throw out a Nazi reference also?  That usually comes up.  

 

We all judge someone for buying a car or house or whatever they can't afford.  Children are another expense.  And the costs should be considered before making one.  Care to explain why that is wrong without just throwing out a Scrooge quote?  

[The Sisko]

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Gotcha.  Sorry I misunderstood.  I don't know what they teach nowadays but I would like a lot more focused on the cost of children and how much of a pain in the ass they are.  When I was a kid, they just taught us the biology of making kids.  There wasn't much taught to discourage us from having kids.  

 

Today the cashier at Five Guys told me she had 6 kids.  She looked mid-20's at best.  And she was working as a cashier at Five Guys.  My first thought was how irresponsible that is to have that many kids without having a better source of income.  My second thought was she should have learned to like bringing guests in through the back door (hope that was a subtle enough euphemism to stay out of trouble).  

Quiverfull maybe? It’s different if you’re having babies to replenish God’s minions. In that case, use that thing like a clown car.

 

5 minutes ago, gbear said:

The only country without the baby boom to worry about happens to be on our southern border frequently giving us a labor source to help keep some of our industries afloat.  

 

So that’s what they mean down here when they say the south will rise again, yesno? ?

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, The Sisko said:

Quiverfull maybe? It’s different if you’re having babies to replenish God’s minions. In that case, use that thing like a clown car.

 

I have a half sister (whom I don't speak to anymore) who seems to be doing that.  She and her husband are some odd version of old Roman Catholic.  They live in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  She had 11 kids in like 13 years or something ridiculous like that.  Completely living off government subsidies.  Her husband works at Wendys and she hasn't had a job in her life.  I think that is wrong on so many levels.  It is the main reason we don't speak anymore.

[The Sisko]

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I have a half sister (whom I don't speak to anymore) who seems to be doing that.  She and her husband are some odd version of old Roman Catholic.  They live in Ann Arbor, Michigan.  She had 11 kids in like 13 years or something ridiculous like that.  Completely living off government subsidies.  Her husband works at Wendys and she hasn't had a job in her life.  I think that is wrong on so many levels.  It is the main reason we don't speak anymore.

I respect you keeping it real. Most of the time people make exceptions for behavior they’d otherwise condemn when there’s a mitigating factor to excuse it. The mitigating factor is often religion, but not always. I may not always agree with a viewpoint but I always respect consistency so good for you.

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

I respect you keeping it real. Most of the time people make exceptions for behavior they’d otherwise condemn when there’s a mitigating factor to excuse it. The mitigating factor is often religion, but not always. I may not always agree with a viewpoint but I always respect consistency so good for you.

Thanks.  

 

My wife actually hates that about me.  She calls it "right fighting".  She gets mad because I will go to war over something because I think it is right where letting it go would make things easier.  And I am always confused because I don't understand where fighting for "right" is a bad thing.  I once spent more than a few hours and actually held a mini-protest outside of a restaurant because they overcharge me $0.12.  I got my money back though.  She was not amused.