Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar

View Single Post
Old 01-12-2018, 02:30 PM   #892
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Yeah. Your principles are admirably flexible. In one day you have thanked wal-mart for raising wages and closing stores, claimed that this reduces unemployment while mocking the idea of thousands losing their jobs, and thanked Republicans and the president for causing walmart to raise wages and close stores and then said that it is a bad thing except when Liberals force it.
It would appear that your principles are rather flexible, Whimbrel. How did Republicans and/or the president force Walmart to close these Sam's Clubs? According to the article you provided, the reason for the closing was this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Business Insider
"After a thorough review, it became clear we had built clubs in some locations that impacted other clubs, and where population had not grown as anticipated," Furner said in the email. "We will be closing some clubs, and we notified them today. We'll convert some of them into eCommerce fulfillment centers — to better serve the growing number of members shopping with us online and continue scaling the SamsClub.com business."
Furner claims it was due to location and points to the pivot to online shopping. This appears to be a business decision rather than the result of government increasing the burden on business, and an increased burden on business leading to lost jobs is often a hallmark of liberal policies. That's the difference.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
I know, right! Let's hope he won't be so damn lazy next time and can just support some of his claims or just admit he has no idea what he is talking about.

For the record, voter fraud = statistically insignificant problem for election results. Voter turnout actual problem worth addressing.
Voter fraud is an issue, having a larger effect with tighter races. Forbes:
Quote:
The latest revelations that illegal votes may have given Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) his 312-vote margin of victory in his 2008 Senate race—out of the nearly 3 million votes cast—gives one pause. The fact that 243 people have already been convicted or are awaiting trial on voter fraud underscores a persistent concern that, despite their small share of the vote, ineligible ballots can actually swing results.
If there were 2,700,000 votes in that election, 312 votes = 0.011555555555555555%. Far less than 1% of the votes cast could have been fraudulent, but may have decided the election. Other more recent elections have been decided by even closer margins, with this one as an example. Don't worry about not providing sources, just cite flexibility.

As for the rate of voter turnout, how is that a problem? If people choose not to vote, why is that an issue? I'd wager it's because you think it'd push result in more of your liberal policies getting passed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
Why would you think there is a massive problem with voter fraud? I'm assuming that there is a better reason than Trump said so. I have worked in elections for over a decade in the largest county in my state and the amount of fraud is negligible. Similarly, the amount of documentation that goes in to voter registration, signatures, etc, is pretty formidable, so what you are claiming seems absolutely false. Is there a tiny amount of fraud, sure. Is it enough to cause a problem with election results? I don't think so.
Flexibility again, I see. Here is are two different sources:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMU/ODU Study
Our exploration of non-citizen voting in the 2008 presidential election found that most non-citizens did not register or vote in 2008, but some did. The proportion of noncitizens who voted was less than fifteen percent, but significantly greater than zero. Similarly in 2010 we found that more than three percent of non-citizens reported voting.

These results speak to both sides of the debate concerning non-citizen enfranchisement. They support the claims made by some anti-immigration organizations that non-citizens participate in U.S. elections. In addition, the analysis suggests that non-citizens' votes have
changed significant election outcomes including the assignment of North Carolina's 2008 electoral votes, and the pivotal Minnesota Senate victory of Democrat Al Franken in 2008.

However, our results also support the arguments made by voting and immigrant rights organizations that the portion of non-citizen immigrants who participate in U.S. elections is quite small. Indeed, given the extraordinary efforts made by the Obama and McCain campaigns to mobilize voters in 2008, the relatively small portion of noncitizens who voted in 2008 likely exceeded the portion of non-citizens voting in other recent U.S. elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WAPO
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
My larger question would be more along the lines of given any social or economic issue in the US, do conservatives always blame the poorest and weakest as opposed to the wealthiest and most powerful? Are liberals the opposite?
I don't believe conservatives do. Of course, I don't think this is a real question, but allow me to ask one in the same vein as yours: why do liberals seem to want to place more hurdles in the way of the poorest and weakest, making their lives more difficult, while ensuring that the wealthiest and most powerful retain special privileges and protection?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
My guess is that the reason most liberals opposed this tax plan was that it was based on trickle down economics at a time of already extreme wealth inequality in the country. Having said that, I don't see the existence of a political reality that would have created a bipartisan tax bill that truly and primarily addressed the needs of American working families that both sides would have supported, and in terms of the immediate effects of this policy, it definitely could have been much, much worse. My gut says mot people just really wanted to see the GOP lose and lose big. When the dust settled, I think the left got off much better than it could have been if this was a make the rich richer and screw over everybody else plan only.
A source for your claims? No? Okay, flexibility it is. Do liberal policies not result in the rich richer and avoid screwing over everyone else? Well, lets look at Commiefornia California. According to the ultra right-wing Politifact said in 2017:
Quote:
TRUE: California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, when factoring in cost-of-living
The Sacremento Bee reported in 2014:
Quote:
California continues to have – by far – the nation’s highest level of poverty under an alternative method devised by the Census Bureau that takes into account both broader measures of income and the cost of living.

Nearly a quarter of the state’s 38 million residents (8.9 million) live in poverty, a new Census Bureau report says, a level virtually unchanged since the agency first began reporting on the method’s effects.

Under the traditional method of gauging poverty, adopted a half-century ago, California’s rate is 16 percent (6.1 million residents), somewhat above the national rate of 14.9 percent but by no means the highest. That dubious honor goes to New Mexico at 21.5 percent.

But under the alternative method, California rises to the top at 23.4 percent while New Mexico drops to 16 percent and other states decline to as low as 8.7 percent in Iowa.
California has long been a leader in liberal policies, with liberal policies being what you appear to champion, but their implementation reportedly has resulted in the highest rate of poverty in the country when silly things like the cost of living are accounted for.

The Middle Class is an essential cow to politicians of all parties with aspirations of really raising tax revenue, therefore leading them to being hit (along with the poor) with all of these policies, programs, etc. which are sold as being "help." You're not going to simply milk the upper class to pay for all these programs that liberals have decided we need.

You were, and I'd wager continue to be, a champion of the ACA:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewsMax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbes
These subsidies have to be paid for somehow. The Affordable Care Act has two main mechanisms for paying the bill: taxes and higher insurance premiums for some. There are a multitude of taxes to help pay for the subsidies. However, the taxes have been known for a while. What is a surprise to some people are the higher insurance premiums that ordinary, middle class Americans suddenly face so that other ordinary Americans can enjoy lower prices.
You've stated your belief (without sourcing it, mind you) that this tax bill would simply make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. Yet you've stated that you expect to receive a tax reduction yourself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whimbrel View Post
My family will get a very small tax cut, but I would expect that it will be more than offset by increases in other costs and expenses borne by cuts to programs that benefit my community.
What other costs and benefits that your receive will be cut by this tax bill? Will you and your community use that additional money to fill the gap to these supposed program cuts to your community?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
 

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:11 PM.