• Trump picks opponent of higher minimum wage for Labor Dept
    248 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51507017]maybe the democrats should've gone out and voted then lmao[/QUOTE] Have you payed any attention to the popular vote? No?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51507043]Have you payed any attention to the popular vote? No?[/QUOTE] have you? because to be completely fair I'm pretty sure the youth vote went and bailed out of voting so he kind of has a point. if they got up off their ass to vote for Hillary like they did Bernie then the dem stronghold would've been blue and we wouldn't have P.E Trump?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51507050]have you? because to be completely fair I'm pretty sure the youth vote went and bailed out of voting so he kind of has a point. if they got up off their ass to vote for Hillary like they did Bernie then the dem stronghold would've been blue and we wouldn't have P.E Trump?[/QUOTE] More like if the Dems hadn't backed a horrible candidate people would have gotten out and voted for them if you ask me
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51507050]have you? because to be completely fair I'm pretty sure the youth vote went and bailed out of voting so he kind of has a point. if they got up off their ass to vote for Hillary like they did Bernie then the dem stronghold would've been blue and we wouldn't have P.E Trump?[/QUOTE] he didn't say youth vote he said democrats they did vote sure, I'm not going to argue the voter turnout was shit because the US chose to field two legendarily bad candidates, that is true
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51507055]he didn't say youth vote he said democrats they did vote sure, I'm not going to argue the voter turnout was shit because the US chose to field two legendarily bad candidates, that is true[/QUOTE] youth and democrat are pretty much the same thing except for the fringe minority like Chonch and Derek who grew up in safe space homes.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51507055]he didn't say youth vote he said democrats they did vote[/QUOTE] [thumb]http://i.imgur.com/TOGIbcP.jpg[/thumb] [url=http://rebrn.com/re/i-made-a-chart-showing-the-popular-vote-turnout-in-and-hillary-d-2951070/]source[/url] [b]maybe democrats should have gone out and voted.[/b]
People didn't vote because they felt they couldn't decide which option was better between the two. Now they are getting a proper illustration of what voting Trump into power means.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51507182]People didn't vote because they felt they couldn't decide which option was better between the two. Now they are getting a proper illustration of what voting Trump into power means.[/QUOTE] Guarantee you if we had a second vote Trump would lose handily but hindsight is 20/20
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;51507274]Guarantee you if we had a second vote Trump would lose handily but hindsight is 20/20[/QUOTE] I'm not sure really. The takeaway from the election is that Trump wasn't a particularly popular or great candidate, it was that in terms of Democrats Clinton was a [I]legendarily [/I]bad one. I still think he would win enough states to carry an EC victory. It would be interesting to see how high the popular vote discrepancy could reach though. Never imagined it could have reached 2.6 million in favor of Clinton.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51507309]I'm not sure really. The takeaway from the election is that Trump wasn't a particularly popular or great candidate, it was that in terms of Democrats Clinton was a [I]legendarily [/I]bad one. I still think he would win enough states to carry an EC victory. It would be interesting to see how high the popular vote discrepancy could reach though. Never imagined it could have reached 2.6 million in favor of Clinton.[/QUOTE] More important, Trump could have appointed a council of inhuman, cloaked figures as his cabinet, and he probably still would win because all most his supporters care about is a fantasy of Trump, and if the reality didn't bother them, it won't now.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51507129][thumb]http://i.imgur.com/TOGIbcP.jpg[/thumb] [url=http://rebrn.com/re/i-made-a-chart-showing-the-popular-vote-turnout-in-and-hillary-d-2951070/]source[/url] [b]maybe democrats should have gone out and voted.[/b][/QUOTE] Even on mobile I could tell that chart was off - it was probably made the day after election day. Clinton has ~65.700.000 votes now. Only 200.000 off Obama in 2012. Not trying to defend Clinton here, but that chart is completely off, simply because it doesn't include all the ballots. Trump also got 2 million more votes than Romney.
If you want people to vote, maybe get rid of the Electoral College and stop fucking disenfranchising people?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51507647]Even on mobile I could tell that chart was off - it was probably made the day after election day. Clinton has ~65.700.000 votes now. Only 200.000 off Obama in 2012. Not trying to defend Clinton here, but that chart is completely off, simply because it doesn't include all the ballots. Trump also got 2 million more votes than Romney.[/QUOTE] Just backing you up here with a [url=https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19]source[/url] Trump won because he had higher margins in 3 or 4 states. He won in very specific areas and by narrow margins.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51500532]Should people be allowed to be paid well below a living wage?[/QUOTE] raising wages without letting them be the result of increased aggregate demand or productivity will (and has historically) forced firms to finance the wages with higher prices, leading to inflation that will essentially destroy the purchasing power that was gained for the short time. in the end you're left where you started, but with crippling inflation. wanna raise wages without destroying the economy? let's boost productivity through investment. not this short-sighted nonsense that's gonna destroy the recovery we've been in for the past 7 years.
[QUOTE=stupid10er;51519752]raising wages without letting them be the result of increased aggregate demand or productivity will (and has historically) forced firms to finance the wages with higher prices, leading to inflation that will essentially destroy the purchasing power that was gained for the short time. in the end you're left where you started, but with crippling inflation. wanna raise wages without destroying the economy? let's boost productivity through investment. not this short-sighted nonsense that's gonna destroy the recovery we've been in for the past 7 years.[/QUOTE] No. Productivity is already at record high levels. Wages have not kept up with the increase in productivity, nor with the raising costs of goods, and services.
[QUOTE=stupid10er;51519752]raising wages without letting them be the result of increased aggregate demand or productivity will (and has historically) forced firms to finance the wages with higher prices, leading to inflation that will essentially destroy the purchasing power that was gained for the short time. in the end you're left where you started, but with crippling inflation. wanna raise wages without destroying the economy? let's boost productivity through investment. not this short-sighted nonsense that's gonna destroy the recovery we've been in for the past 7 years.[/QUOTE] [IMG]https://images.angelpub.com/2014/24/24955/wages-vs-productivity.png[/IMG] Still waiting on that increased productivity to trickle down into better wages.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.