POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Donnies Catch]

Drumpf was his name?

[Ad Bot]

[Ipquarx]

I don't get why you're still using this stale meme. Do you see anyone else using it? Plus, it feels petty anyway to use it as a substitution for his name in all situations rather than a quick jab at him inside a quip.

I don't get why people get so upset when I use it. It's a name, like jeez, get over it. I'll report to the stale meme police.

"Look at me I'm edgy and clever for using Jenner's first name before they legally changed it" - transphobe >:\

There are extremely few people that care about this, and I'm definitely not one of them.

this doesn't answer his question. regardless, if you support $12+ minimum wage you literally have to admit that inflation and a higher unemployment rate is A-OK

if you support free college you literally have to admit that increased taxes and lowered quality of education is A-OK

if you support the "fairness paycheck law" you literally have to admit that providing compensation for women instead of actually working towards ending any real discrimination is A-OK (effectively making you loveist against men)

I'm not sure which of Bernie's policies you support, so I picked a few. I'd elaborate on these, but I'm trying to make a point, not focus on the policies

It does answer his question, and the answer is "Don't kill innocent people"
And what you're pointing out is completely different from what I pointed out. What I pointed out was that he was using the same logic as terrorists. What you're pointing out is not similarities in logic. What you're trying to point out is actual consequences of actions, consequences which you have not proven will actually happen in any of the things you pointed out. Raising the minimum wage has not in the past raised inflation, in fact the minimum wage has been lagging behind inflation. Making education free does not lower the quality of education. The "fairness paycheck law" does not force employers to pay people more for less work like you're implying, it makes lowering their paycheck because they are a woman illegal, which was already illegal in the first place which is why it's a redundant turd of a bill.

Drumpf was his name?

Yes, his name was changed a few decades ago originally to escape discrimination.

[Nickpb 3.0]

(Also this is another thing that would be paid for with wall-street speculation tax)

Well thank god Bernie isn't actually a contender but just some crazy Socialist jew running around the country making young people believe that working for things is a myth

[$trinick]

Have you read the numbers on how far behind the US is in educated people? This is just trying to catch up. (Also this is another thing that would be paid for with wall-street speculation tax)

I don't understand the linkage here. We have an undereducated nation... so we should tax a very specific group of people who have nothing to do with education (or our lack thereof) to pay for it? Why is it the wall street speculators' job more than anyone else to pay for our education?

[Pecon]

I don't understand the linkage here. We have an undereducated nation... so we should tax a very specific group of people who have nothing to do with education (or our lack thereof) to pay for it? Why is it the wall street speculators' job more than anyone else to pay for our education?

Because they caused the '08 recession, maybe? Maybe because the government paid to bail them out, and now maybe they should need to pay that back in some way? Seems like a pretty non-intrusive way to do it.

Edit: More specifically it was the banks there, but they're closely related enough.

[Nickpb 3.0]

Because they caused the '08 recession, maybe? Maybe because the government paid to bail them out, and now maybe they should need to pay that back in some way? Seems like a pretty non-intrusive way to do it.

So because you think speculators are the sole reason for the 08 recession you believe they should be paying for america's education now? What the forget.

Edit: oh so since they both handle money they should be paying for it. My bad that makes sense ?

[beachbum111111]

Except that $12+ minimum wage won't have any significant impact on large corporations. Walmart makes a profit of $14 billion a year, don't you think they could afford to pay their workers more?

[Pecon]

The catch to that is that literally half of their workers are either part-time or temporary. So they only work about 20 hours a week, which isn't even close to 8 hours every day. They also only have about 1.2 million workers in the US, and we're talking about $12 here, not $15. There is a lot wrong with that infographic here.

[beachbum111111]

The catch to that is that literally half of their workers are either part-time or temporary. So they only work about 20 hours a week, which isn't even close to 8 hours every day. They also only have about 1.2 million workers in the US, and we're talking about $12 here, not $15. There is a lot wrong with that infographic here.

Sanders was promising a raise to 15 dollars an hour.

Letting more people get college education doesn't make it not worthwhile. Have you read the numbers on how far behind the US is in educated people?

And yet the U.S.A's GDP per capita is above most European countries and the unemployment rate is below most

[Pecon]

Sanders was promising a raise to 15 dollars an hour.

Let's do a better estimate, then.

We can probably safely assume that the median wage for their non-management and non-specialized workers is about $9/hr nationally. So the wage difference will be +6$/hr. In addition, management and specialized workers probably make up about 30% of their workforce, so we'll need to adjust the 1.2 million to 840 thousand to account only for people who are making less than the proposed minimum wage. Then we estimate that an average worker probably works ~30/hrs a week (this is probably a good amount less actually, but let's overestimate in their favor anyways). There are 52 weeks in a year, so 52 * 30 = 1560 hours per year. 1560 hours * $6 = $9360 extra per year per person. $9360 * 840 thousand workers = 7.8 billion dollars.

Conclusion: Walmart would lose about half of their insane profit, and still have a good 7 billion to spare.

And yet the U.S.A's GDP per capita is above most European countries and the unemployment rate is below most

Why do you think we're getting outsourced? Companies can get smarter workers from other countries on top of paying less for them. We should be fighting to make our workforce superior to other countries.

[Nickpb 3.0]

Pecon how much do you make a year

[$trinick]

Because they caused the '08 recession, maybe? Maybe because the government paid to bail them out, and now maybe they should need to pay that back in some way? Seems like a pretty non-intrusive way to do it.

Edit: More specifically it was the banks there, but they're closely related enough.

Still not seeing the connection. Because banks, institutions that hold people's money and make loans using their own assets, improperly handled money almost 10 years ago, we should tax the guys who work at investment firms, institutions that invest other people's money, now? Alright, let's pretend that made sense, like they were even similar or something. Why would that money go to education? They would be paying restitution to the government, not the people. Why wouldn't it go toward decreasing our national debt? I'm not seeing the connection to education at all.

Pecon how much do you make a year

Zero. He's a student, CS major. He'll be making 75k sitting comfortably in 5 years.

[Otis Da HousKat]

Why do you think we're getting outsourced? Companies can get smarter workers from other countries on top of paying less for them. We should be fighting to make our workforce superior to other countries.

The majority of jobs that have been outsourced are not ones that require college education. It's as simple as there are more people willing to work for less money in foreign countries, and those countries also have less strict regulations as well.

[shitlord]

The majority of jobs that have been outsourced are not ones that require college education. It's as simple as there are more people willing to work for less money in foreign countries, and those countries also have less strict regulations as well.

this also opens up workers to harder and more complex jobs in the market here at home, by removing simple jobs that require little skill, causing us to have a stronger and better educated workforce

[Zloff]

It does answer his question, and the answer is "Don't kill innocent people"

I saw no such statement or implication, just two questions and a prompt, but whatever

And what you're pointing out is completely different from what I pointed out. What I pointed out was that he was using the same logic as terrorists. What you're pointing out is not similarities in logic. What you're trying to point out is actual consequences of actions, consequences which you have not proven will actually happen in any of the things you pointed out.

My point was that he doesn't have to admit to agreeing with what you assume the terrorists are thinking, when you don't have to admit that you agree with some of the things I knew you wouldn't. You gave him an unfair ultimatum - "If you think this, then you literally have to admit to being no better than these evil people" - so I gave you unfair ultimatums.

Raising the minimum wage has not in the past raised inflation, in fact the minimum wage has been lagging behind inflation.

How would Wal-Mart pay for this? Fire less qualified workers to make room for fewer more qualified ones, sure, but that's not enough. Prices would have to go up. Even if for some reason that doesn't raise the prices, supply/demand would. Implying the employment rate stays the same, there are now a lot more people out there with a lot more cash in their pockets willing to buy higher quality or a higher quantity of products. Either price or production rises, but one is far more convenient than the other-- especially under a Sanders presidency. Rinse & repeat for other large companies, and next thing you know the overall cost of living has risen.

Making education free does not lower the quality of education.

Hypothetical situation:

A college has 1000 students, each class has 40 students. Now, let's subsidize this college with tax dollars and make it free to attend. You now have 2000 students with even more trying to get in, but that is all they will accept. 80 students per class. The workload on the professors is doubled and the amount of time they could spend helping an individual student is replaced with time spent grading papers and such. Answering every student's questions is no longer a wise decision as it would take up time to the point where professor may not finish the lesson, so they either don't answer or give a quick half-assed answer, leaving the students still confused. Now, to deal with all the students trying to get in, they college can allocate funds towards expanding. If they do, that's less money for supplies, labs, etc, and they end up needing to hire more faculty. To save money(remember they're running off of the government, have to save money wherever possible), they hire less experienced staff. Less experienced educators = lower quality education.

I could keep going but by now you should have a good grasp of cause-and-effect. I experienced such a scenario firsthand with my public(runs off of tax dollars) high school. People hear how great our school and community is, attendance rises drastically and abnormally in a short amount of time, we build a huge new building to handle the freshman and sophomores, hire a bunch of cheap young staff who the students all complain about, "unnecessary" expenditures are cut(supplies for labs, art classes, band/orchestra, etc), more ridiculous rules are set in place to more easily deal with the wider gap in the student:staff ratio and the overall high school experience is less enjoyable. The quality of education for me my senior year was lower when compared to the quality I had experienced my freshman year.