Fellow Republicans: Move on From This Dangerous and Diminished Man

[Winston]

.

I want to address a few things here. First, the two candidate bit, which is due to our two party system and the inability of a third party to make a significant impact other than to be the "spoiler" as it were, Teddy Roosevelt or Ross Perot, the only thing either achieved was to swing the election to Wilson and Clinton. And they were the most successful third party candidates in our history. Teddy probably did it on purpose.

But the problem begins with a lack of voter participation, especially in the primaries. Republican efforts to further restrict access to voting will only exacerbate the problem. But in the status quo, only the motivated base bothers to vote in primaries. So the primary winner is usually the person furthest to the left or the right. Then they have to swing to the middle. If there was greater participation during the primaries that problem could be curtailed. Maybe open primaries could be the answer. But then you have yahoos who would attempt to sabotage a particular candidate. Which points to a deeper problem, many voters see this as a damn game instead of the serious business that it is.

Now, to the test. Actually, there is one group of voters that have already passed a test. Quite frankly, from some of the posts I see here, a test that many posters could not pass. The citizenship test and naturalized citizens. And yeah, if someone can't pass that test they probably should not be eligible to vote, for at least two years. You get one shot, and 60% is passing.

But one of our biggest problem is the Senate. The founders never intended for Senators to be elected, and they should not be. The job of a representative is to represent their district. But a senator's job is to seek the best solution for the country, not necessarily their state. When elected, they are dependent on their constituents, and there in lies the problem. From the nomination of justices, to something as important as an infrastructure bill, for the last decade the Senate has been little more than a cesspool. Time we revoked the 17th amendment.

And since I am on the subject, George Mason argued quite forcible, that no member of Congress should be eligible for re-election. I am not advocating term limits, a senator or a representative can be elected as many times as they can win, they just can't serve back to back terms. The founders never intended for Congress to be filled with "professional" politicians. It was meant to be a "citizens council". Today, representatives and senators are little more than over-payed telemarketers. They spend hours and hours each week attempting to raise money for their re-election. Time for that to end.

Finally, to the press. The solution is simple, albeit probably impossible. When the press was limited to newspaper journalist and three television networks they maintained a type of gentleman's agreement, certain things were off limits when it came to politicians. In today's environment a Kennedy, or a Eisenhower, or even a Roosevelt, could have never negotiated through the incessant press. The solution is for the consumer to kick these asshole, and quite honestly, worthless partisan news sites, to the curb. When they violate that gentleman's agreement from back in the day, consumers boycott them and their advertisers.

I'll start of with the last part of your statement first. What can you do to the press? Nothing except quit buying their papers, going to their news sites or blogs. But the government can't do a thing to them under our Constitution which as I previously mentioned, cannot be changed. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are two things that will never be amended in this document.

The Senate was designed to give states equal power unlike the House that has one representative for X amount of people. That was to insure we don't have mob rule in our federal government and we don't have a pure democracy. We are a republic. It's also the reason for electoral colleges. I'd rather the people pick the Senators instead of the Governors. We have enough back room deals and back scratchingh as it is. We don't need to open the doors to more.

The easier you make it to vote, the more stupid and politically ignorant voters you will draw in. This last election was a perfect example. Donald Trump was the best President we've had since Reagan, and he was voted out and replaced with a dementia patient? Even his own party wanted to strip him of exclusive powers over our nuclear arms because his mental condition is so concerning. The guy has used his political positions to enrich his family, his son was under FBI investigation for a matter he too was involved in, he spent nearly a half-century in the federal government and accomplished nothing, and people voted for him over a very successful President? That can only happen if you have a bunch of stupid and politically ignorant voters which Democrats are doing everything in their power to try and keep it that way, because stupid people and the politically ignorant will most always vote Democrat.

Well, it appears we agree with how to handle the press. The power of the consumer can alleviate the problem of the press, but how can we educate the consumer? The simple solution is through our public education system and yet that is just one of the many points of contention between the two opposing factions that dominate the American public. Our society has degraded to the point that we can't even agree as to what should be taught in our schools. State legislatures are taking the unprecedented step of actually banning certain concepts from being taught. That is indicative of a despotic government, not a democracy.

Regarding senators, it was not the governor that selected the senators, it was the state legislatures. Forcing that appointment process to be approved by the governor, with the requirement of a supermajority from the state legislature, should alleviate the problem of backroom dealings that you addressed. Additional protection could come from Mason's proposal, that no congressional delegate or senator serve subsequent terms. Your complaint about backscratching ignores the reality, that under the status quo congressional representatives actively solicit that backscratching for the purpose of fund raising

But your final paragraph morphs into a partisan rant that eloquently demonstrates the "ignorance" that you attempt to complain about. A president, like a CEO, has one major responsibility. In effect, they are a cheerleader, first and foremost. Regardless of any accomplishment that you wish to attribute to Trump, from the very beginning of his campaign to the catastrophic end, he divided this nation. Leaders unite, they do not divide. Reagan, as much as I opposed his positions, bought this nation together and performed the cheerleading function to great effect. Bush Jr., same thing, he united this nation after 9/11 even though he was put into office after a contentious election.

Most presidential scholars rate Buchanan as the worst president in history. Why? Because he did precisely what Trump did, he divided this nation further at a time when it was already fracturing. I have no doubt, he will displace Buchanan as the worst president in history. And the bit about Biden accomplishing little while enriching himself is laughable. Almost every senator, and dozens of representatives, have a much higher net worth than Biden. Trump, on the other hand, refused to divest himself from his business, actively sought to use his position to enrich himself and family members, and completely weaponized the justice department like it was his personal goon squad.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When a major party is dying the indy party becomes a reality for winning. We are close to that in the very near future. You Party of the Rumpsters can't survive politically without Rump. And the GOP can't survive without you.

No party is coming close to dying and won't for the remainder of our life on this planet. Third party candidates get like what, 2% of the vote if that? I don't know where you see these signs of either party falling prey to a third party.

The Republicans will be fine without Trump just like we were fine after Reagan left office. There will be the usual bickering back and forth between the establishment and the constitutionalists, but that took place before Trump, and it will still be the case if he comes back or if he doesn't.

Reagan was a middle of the road Actor but an above average Political Player even before he threw his hat into the ring you are familiar with. HE was not a phenomina. You need to read Asimov's Foundation about the Mule which may explain Rump.

When you have one candidate go off and claim that anything that is reported or printed about them (even if it's true or not) is fake and has the power to convince half the population of that then we need to rethink the truth in advertising in political adverts.

As I already stated, we have constitutional protections to lie if we feel like it, and only an amendment can change that which will never happen. Your better bet is on the power ball. The clown before Trump screwed up our entire medical system making claims everybody will be covered, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, you will save $2,000 a year., all plans will be quality and easily affordable. Now that none of it came true, what could we do to DumBama? Nothing.

We still need to finish the job instead of screwing it up. Medicare for all is necessary. You and I are both under that type of program. Yes, it's called something else but that is exactly what it amounts to. And it works.

The Voters (Electors) only get the choice between the two candidates that a handful of power brokers offer them. It's the normal choice between Satan and Lucifer.

That's how people vote for them in the primaries. The people made the choice, not some power broker.

The choice is made before the names are added to the primaries.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, it appears we agree with how to handle the press. The power of the consumer can alleviate the problem of the press, but how can we educate the consumer? The simple solution is through our public education system and yet that is just one of the many points of contention between the two opposing factions that dominate the American public. Our society has degraded to the point that we can't even agree as to what should be taught in our schools. State legislatures are taking the unprecedented step of actually banning certain concepts from being taught. That is indicative of a despotic government, not a democracy.

Regarding senators, it was not the governor that selected the senators, it was the state legislatures. Forcing that appointment process to be approved by the governor, with the requirement of a supermajority from the state legislature, should alleviate the problem of backroom dealings that you addressed. Additional protection could come from Mason's proposal, that no congressional delegate or senator serve subsequent terms. Your complaint about backscratching ignores the reality, that under the status quo congressional representatives actively solicit that backscratching for the purpose of fund raising

But your final paragraph morphs into a partisan rant that eloquently demonstrates the "ignorance" that you attempt to complain about. A president, like a CEO, has one major responsibility. In effect, they are a cheerleader, first and foremost. Regardless of any accomplishment that you wish to attribute to Trump, from the very beginning of his campaign to the catastrophic end, he divided this nation. Leaders unite, they do not divide. Reagan, as much as I opposed his positions, bought this nation together and performed the cheerleading function to great effect. Bush Jr., same thing, he united this nation after 9/11 even though he was put into office after a contentious election.

Most presidential scholars rate Buchanan as the worst president in history. Why? Because he did precisely what Trump did, he divided this nation further at a time when it was already fracturing. I have no doubt, he will displace Buchanan as the worst president in history. And the bit about Biden accomplishing little while enriching himself is laughable. Almost every senator, and dozens of representatives, have a much higher net worth than Biden. Trump, on the other hand, refused to divest himself from his business, actively sought to use his position to enrich himself and family members, and completely weaponized the justice department like it was his personal goon squad.

I would say you have it quite backwards. It's the Democrats who create these dichotomies, not Republicans: Rich vs poor, black vs white, Christian vs secular, labor vs management, criminals vs police, anti-gunners vs pro-gunners, and my all time favorite, the Republican war on women, and the list goes on and on. Who did Trump ever separate? Everybody did better under him. Because of that, he had a 50% increase in black votes in 2020 than he did in 2016. He also had gains in the Asian and Hispanic votes.

We can't agree on anything anymore, and here's why: The Democrats went from being Democrats to liberals, from liberals to progressives, now it's from progressives to Socialist Democrats whatever the hell that is. Of course we can't agree on anything. Where is the middle-ground between constitutionalism and Communism? There is none.

Trump weaponized the justice system? Can you explain to me how CNN ended up at Roger Stone's house in the middle of the night with heavily armed FBI agents to record the event? Can you explain to me how Hunter lied on a federal firearms application form and never even got a slap on the hand? Or how his GF threw the gun he got with that application in a dumpster near a school and everybody turned a blind eye? How about having sex with children he recorded on his laptop that the FBI has had in their possession for well over a year now, and nothing happened to him? How nobody even got fined for lying on a federal warrant application to spy on Trump and his team? How Hillary sent confidential and classified emails to her aid, and her husband used that very same computer they were sent to that he was using to send nude pictures of himself to strange women all over the world and nothing happened to Hillary or her aid?

Yeah, Trump made so much money while President according to you, but NBC disagrees with you totally.

Trump's personal fortune has shrunk by $1B since his presidential bid

Some wealthy patrons are steering clear of Trump properties, saying the country club experience is now ruined "by metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs."

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We still need to finish the job instead of screwing it up. Medicare for all is necessary. You and I are both under that type of program. Yes, it's called something else but that is exactly what it amounts to. And it works.

I am not under Medicare and won't be for another year. Commie Care offers no reasonable plans for my care givers, the nationally and even globally renown Cleveland Clinic. If you don't believe me, check it out yourself.

Every American should have a new car and home in a safe neighborhood, but given the fact we are nearly 30 trillion in debt with Democrats prepared to put us trillions more in debt for more Democrat pork, we can't afford it. The experts that ran Sander's numbers for Medicare for all supported my claim. I see no advantage in giving government more control over our lives.

The choice is made before the names are added to the primaries.

That's conspiracy, and I don't debate conspiracies. It's like debating Santa Clause. You say his nose is red because he snorts coke, and I say his nose is red because he drinks too much. It doesn't matter because Santa Clause isn't real, he's made up.

 

[lennypartiv]

Democrats are delusional on this. Fund raising is a key part of politics. Trump is one of the best at fund raising. Republicans wisely embrace Trump. They would be fools to push him away.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We still need to finish the job instead of screwing it up. Medicare for all is necessary. You and I are both under that type of program. Yes, it's called something else but that is exactly what it amounts to. And it works.

I am not under Medicare and won't be for another year. Commie Care offers no reasonable plans for my care givers, the nationally and even globally renown Cleveland Clinic. If you don't believe me, check it out yourself.

Every American should have a new car and home in a safe neighborhood, but given the fact we are nearly 30 trillion in debt with Democrats prepared to put us trillions more in debt for more Democrat pork, we can't afford it. The experts that ran Sander's numbers for Medicare for all supported my claim. I see no advantage in giving government more control over our lives.

The choice is made before the names are added to the primaries.

That's conspiracy, and I don't debate conspiracies. It's like debating Santa Clause. You say his nose is red because he snorts coke, and I say his nose is red because he drinks too much. It doesn't matter because Santa Clause isn't real, he's made up.

So much for trying to have an honest discussion.

 

[Winston]

I will admit that Democrats have some responsibility in the division of the American public. The truth is, both parties are dominated by sackless individuals with no courage. Rich verses poor, commonly called class warfare, has consistently been a Republican strategy.

Republicans and the Return of Class Warfare

Black verses White, Trump has fanned that divide despite the meager economic benefits he initially delivered. And even those he pissed away with his woefully inadequate response to the Covid pandemic. Come on, the community of color got less from the economic increase and was impacted more by the Covid pandemic. But democrats need to step back a little, condemn the rampages of the BLM movement supporting blacks that resist arrest, like this past week in Rock Hill, SC.

Christian verses secular, nothing demonstrates that more than this talk of preventing Biden from receiving mass. And that is being proposed by Republican priests that are driven more by their politics than the responsibility of being a shepherd to their flock. In fact, if adopted it may signal the end of the Catholic church as a functioning institution within the American political system as membership will nosedive.

And no, not every group benefited under the Trump administration. Farmers were hit hard by the tariffs, and the amount of payoff provided them eclipsed Obama's auto bailout. In fact, those tariffs were a direct contradiction to normal conservative values. It was a perfect example of picking winners and losers, something that Republicans normally wailed against.

And no president as actively sought to divide this nation to the extend Trump has, even going so far as to seek to punish those that voted against him.

Trump Takes Dividing the Nation to a New Level

The president of the United States says he wants to intentionally harm Americans who didn't vote for him, for no reason other than retribution. We have never seen anything like it in our lifetimes.

prospect.org

 

[dblack]

Voting for someone you don't actually believe is a far greater "waste" than voting for someone who doesn't win.

Do you always just vote for whoever you think is going to win? Do you just lick your finger and see which way the wind is blowing?

Let's relate this to something current like covid. We have an experimental vaccine out there that hasn't had FDA approval we are giving to the public. Your only two choices are to take the vaccine or don't. If you don't, you may catch this thing, become very ill and even risk death. If you take the vaccine, you don't know what the ramifications will be down the road ten years from now, however there is a much greater chance that if in contact, this virus won't effect you. There is no viable third option.

Mkay. An election isn't covid. Not sure what point you're making here.

Can you tell me the last candidate that ran in which you believed every single stance of his or hers? I can't. So you get as close as you can, again, no other options. Even if I don't care for the candidate of my party, no matter who he or she is, they are still better than allowing a Communist to take a seat in the Congress or White House. I will vote against such people.

With our current system you can't vote against anyone. Nothing about your vote will record how you feel about the other candidates. It will only go down as a show of support for one candidate. Again, that's why ranked choice voting is so much better. Under RCV, you can effectively vote against a candidate - by ranking them dead last, or not ranking them at all. And you can still show your support for the best candidate (even if you think they won't win) by ranking them first.

By not voting for them we are rejecting third party candidates.

If you were voting honestly, you could make that claim. But you're not. You've admitted that you won't vote for some candidates because you believe that they don't have a chance to win. Because you believe the polls or whatever forecasters you trust. Not because you're rejecting them, not because you think they're bad candidates, but because, for one reason or another, you think other people won't vote for them.

I'm not saying that a third party would all of a sudden win under ranked choice voting. But we'd get an honest read on voters' values. If people weren't afraid to vote honestly, we'd find out what they really believe in. And that would make for much better government.

Donald Trump was an outsider. He ran the office of the presidency more conservatively than even Ronald Reagan although he never once referred to himself as a conservative. The Democrats hated him, and even many members of his party hated him. He wasn't part of the club.

I don't know how you see Trump as "conservative". It's a broad term I suppose, but when it comes to the aspects of conservatism that I value - limited government, individual rather than collective rights, non-interventionist, etc ..., he was neutral at best. Often leaning heavily on statist and corporatist interventions that painted him as exactly the opposite of a conservative in my book.

I understand the catharsis of electing a boorish, tactless "white guy" in the face of all the PC hand wringing. Trump was a giant middle finger to all the do-gooder, virtue-signalling weenies. But the job of leading the greatest nation on earth deserves more. We need a leader who can build consensus and lead us in a productive direction. Trump did exactly the opposite of that.

So let's create a scenario based on your third party fantasy. We decide to get this third party person in. WTF is going to work with him or her? What will they get passed? Nothing. The Republicans will not work with them unless they are conservative, and the Nazis won't work with them unless they are way to the left. They will serve one term and out because they won't be able to accomplish anything. A third party candidate would be every much of an outsider and even more so than Donald Trump who ran as a Republican.

That's not my "third party fantasy". Meaningful change can only happen when there is broad consensus. Ranked choice voting won't suddenly vault third parties into the limelight. It might not ever. But it will give an honest representation of how much the public supports their views. Under the current rules, voters are so busy gaming the system and second guessing what everyone else will do that we get no clear picture of what people really want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I will admit that Democrats have some responsibility in the division of the American public. The truth is, both parties are dominated by sackless individuals with no courage. Rich verses poor, commonly called class warfare, has consistently been a Republican strategy.

Republicans and the Return of Class Warfare

Black verses White, Trump has fanned that divide despite the meager economic benefits he initially delivered. And even those he pissed away with his woefully inadequate response to the Covid pandemic. Come on, the community of color got less from the economic increase and was impacted more by the Covid pandemic. But democrats need to step back a little, condemn the rampages of the BLM movement supporting blacks that resist arrest, like this past week in Rock Hill, SC.

Christian verses secular, nothing demonstrates that more than this talk of preventing Biden from receiving mass. And that is being proposed by Republican priests that are driven more by their politics than the responsibility of being a shepherd to their flock. In fact, if adopted it may signal the end of the Catholic church as a functioning institution within the American political system as membership will nosedive.

And no, not every group benefited under the Trump administration. Farmers were hit hard by the tariffs, and the amount of payoff provided them eclipsed Obama's auto bailout. In fact, those tariffs were a direct contradiction to normal conservative values. It was a perfect example of picking winners and losers, something that Republicans normally wailed against.

And no president as actively sought to divide this nation to the extend Trump has, even going so far as to seek to punish those that voted against him.

You really got the commie talking points down, don't you. But let's talk about your links:

The first one calls class warfare the idea that people should return to work since there are jobs nobody is taking because they are living like a king on the government. Maybe you can explain how getting people back to work is class warfare. Unemployment compensation is there to supplement your losses because you are not working, not replace it with even more income so you don't have to go to work.

Your second link is total stupidity, and nothing they wrote about has anything to do with separating people. Trump divided people by those who support him and those that don't? Well no shit, can you tell me one politician that hasn't? At least he didn't say you're really not black unless you vote for me, or they (the Republicans) want to put ya'all back in chains Then they move on to Trump's tax plan by limiting deductions on mortgage interest. You could still take deductions, but only on interest up to a million dollars. Well if targeting people who have million dollar homes is separating the people, what do you call Dementia's plan on increasing taxes on anybody making over $450,000 a year? I guess he wants to separate Americans as well.

Then they go on to complain that Trump wanted to bus illegals that the Democrats were fighting for to sanctuary cities. If voters approved of being a sanctuary city or state, then what's the problem? Apparently they want those illegals in their city, and Trump was happy to comply with their desires. At least he told people up front, not like Dementia who is busing untested illegals to places like Tennessee in the middle of the night and not telling anybody. I guess Dementia wanted to separate people quietly, huh?

Yes, the black community got less than others. But oh, wait! Where do most blacks reside and have businesses? That's right, in Democrat areas that shutdown and stopped those black businesses from creating wealth.

There are no Democrat or Republican priests, there are only priests. Trust me, I went to private Catholic school and even was an altar boy for our church. He was never denied mass, he was denied Holy Communion. You see, in that religion, they believe you must confess your sins to a priest and get absolution before receiving Communion, and that you must repent for your sins. Supporting baby killing doesn't qualify.

"Folks, if you ever want to know what the Democrats are up to, just take note what they accuse the Republicans of."
Rush Limbaugh

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mkay. An election isn't covid. Not sure what point you're making here.

The point that like Covid, you only have two real choices. There is no third realistically.

With our current system you can't vote against anyone. Nothing about your vote will record how you feel about the other candidates. It will only go down as a show of support for one candidate. Again, that's why ranked choice voting is so much better. Under RCV, you can effectively vote against a candidate - by ranking them dead last, or not ranking them at all. And you can still show your support for the best candidate (even if you think they won't win) by ranking them first.

Oh yes, you can vote against anyone. I didn't like McCain, but I voted for him to keep DumBama out. I hated Romney, but I believed he'd be a little better than DumBama. In fact I'd be willing to bet most voters do vote against the opposing candidate. How do you explain the last election? Morons that vote for a representative with the same criteria they used for their favorite American Idol contestant: how they speak, how appealing they are, how they dress, how they smile........ None of those who supported Dementia voted on how fantastic our country was doing before the Chinese flu hit, which Trump had no way to control in a constitutional republic.

If you were voting honestly, you could make that claim. But you're not. You've admitted that you won't vote for some candidates because you believe that they don't have a chance to win. Because you believe the polls or whatever forecasters you trust. Not because you're rejecting them, not because you think they're bad candidates, but because, for one reason or another, you think other people won't vote for them.

I'm not saying that a third party would all of a sudden win under ranked choice voting. But we'd get an honest read on what people really believe in. If people weren't afraid to vote honestly, we'd find out what voters really believe in. And that would make for much better government.

The only way you can tell what people are voting on is by asking them, not changing your election system. In the primaries you vote for who you would like to represent your party. In the general you usually vote for your party even if your primary candidate is somebody you didn't vote for.

I don't know how you see Trump as "conservative". It's a broad term I suppose, but when it comes to the aspects of conservatism that I value - limited government, individual rather than collective rights, non-interventionist, etc ..., he was neutral at best. Often leaning heavily on statist and corporatist interventions that painted him as exactly the opposite of a conservative in my book.

I understand the catharsis of electing a boorish, tactless "white guy" in the face of all the PC hand wringing. Trump was a giant middle finger to all the do-gooder, virtue-signalling weenies. But the job of leading the greatest nation on earth deserves more. We need a leader who can build consensus and lead us in a productive direction. Trump did exactly the opposite of that.

Let's see, the best economy in 50 years wasn't a productive direction? Making efforts and successes with keeping illegals out wasn't a productive direction or conservative for our country? Lowering taxes on our job creators wasn't conservative or a positive direction for the country? Having the lowest unemployment for women and every minority group since records were kept was not a positive direction? A new median household income high was not a positive direction? Nominating pro-life judges was not conservative enough for you?

We must have completely different definitions on what conservative or positive direction means in this country.

That's not my "third party fantasy". Meaningful change can only happen when there is broad consensus. Ranked choice voting won't suddenly vault third parties into the limelight. It might not ever. But it will give an honest representation of how much the public supports their views. Under the current rules, voters are so busy gaming the system and second guessing what everyone else will do that we get no clear picture of what people really want.

It won't change a thing. People will still vote to keep the opposing person out. You want to turn our elections into some sort of ranking system to see how much we like one person over another which accomplishes nothing. Our elections shouldn't be a popularity contest which is a problem we have already. This isn't a horse race. There is no show or place positions. There is only one winner in our election system, and it doesn't matter how much you liked or disliked the people that didn't win.

 

[dblack]

With our current system you can't vote against anyone. Nothing about your vote will record how you feel about the other candidates. It will only go down as a show of support for one candidate. Again, that's why ranked choice voting is so much better. Under RCV, you can effectively vote against a candidate - by ranking them dead last, or not ranking them at all. And you can still show your support for the best candidate (even if you think they won't win) by ranking them first.

Oh yes, you can vote against anyone. I didn't like McCain, but I voted for him to keep DumBama out. I hated Romney, but I believed he'd be a little better than DumBama. In fact I'd be willing to bet most voters do vote against the opposing candidate.

No doubt many voters tell themselves that. But it's delusional. A vote for McCain is counted as support for McCain, nothing more, nothing less. No one knows whether you secretly liked someone else more. Your true opinion is lost and the only thing recorded is that you supported McCain and his proposals.

How do you explain the last election? Morons that vote ...

Yep. I'll go with that. Morons that vote.

If you were voting honestly, you could make that claim. But you're not. You've admitted that you won't vote for some candidates because you believe that they don't have a chance to win. Because you believe the polls or whatever forecasters you trust. Not because you're rejecting them, not because you think they're bad candidates, but because, for one reason or another, you think other people won't vote for them.

I'm not saying that a third party would all of a sudden win under ranked choice voting. But we'd get an honest read on what people really believe in. If people weren't afraid to vote honestly, we'd find out what voters really believe in. And that would make for much better government.

The only way you can tell what people are voting on is by asking them, not changing your election system.

No, with ranked-choice voting we'd have a much better view of what voters really believed. It's not clear to me why you think that would be a bad thing, other than the fact that it would undermine blind partisanship and fear-based voting. Maybe you dig blind partisanship and fear-base voting.

Let's see, the best economy in 50 years wasn't a productive direction?

No. It was an artificial bump that increased the debt. In the long run, the opposite of productive.

Making efforts and successes with keeping illegals out wasn't a productive direction or conservative for our country?

No. There's nothing innately conservative about xenophobia. It's a populist speil that appeals to the worst in people.

Lowering taxes on our job creators wasn't conservative or a positive direction for the country?

No. In the face of growing deficits, it was fiscally irresponsible. And targeted tax cuts are simply social engineering - picking winners and losers by giving only certain factions a "break".

Having the lowest unemployment for women and every minority group since records were kept was not a positive direction?

No. Government isn't responsible for keeping us "employed".

A new median household income high was not a positive direction?

Only if you believe government is there to supply you with a high income.

Nominating pro-life judges was not conservative enough for you?

As I said, conservatism is a broad term. Government claiming sovereignty over the womb doesn't represent the aspects of conservatism I value. It's the opposite.

We must have completely different definitions on what conservative or positive direction means in this country.

That seems obvious.

It won't change a thing. People will still vote to keep the opposing person out. You want to turn our elections into some sort of ranking system to see how much we like one person over another which accomplishes nothing. Our elections shouldn't be a popularity contest which is a problem we have already. This isn't a horse race. There is no show or place positions. There is only one winner in our election system, and it doesn't matter how much you liked or disliked the people that didn't win.

This is a jumble of contradictory excuses I can't quite parse. It doesn't sound like you've actually looked at ranked-choice voting or taken the time to understand it. You've just decided to oppose it because it's a perceived threat to the partisan pissing match that you're so invested in.

 

[Winston]

I will admit that Democrats have some responsibility in the division of the American public. The truth is, both parties are dominated by sackless individuals with no courage. Rich verses poor, commonly called class warfare, has consistently been a Republican strategy.

Republicans and the Return of Class Warfare

Black verses White, Trump has fanned that divide despite the meager economic benefits he initially delivered. And even those he pissed away with his woefully inadequate response to the Covid pandemic. Come on, the community of color got less from the economic increase and was impacted more by the Covid pandemic. But democrats need to step back a little, condemn the rampages of the BLM movement supporting blacks that resist arrest, like this past week in Rock Hill, SC.

Christian verses secular, nothing demonstrates that more than this talk of preventing Biden from receiving mass. And that is being proposed by Republican priests that are driven more by their politics than the responsibility of being a shepherd to their flock. In fact, if adopted it may signal the end of the Catholic church as a functioning institution within the American political system as membership will nosedive.

And no, not every group benefited under the Trump administration. Farmers were hit hard by the tariffs, and the amount of payoff provided them eclipsed Obama's auto bailout. In fact, those tariffs were a direct contradiction to normal conservative values. It was a perfect example of picking winners and losers, something that Republicans normally wailed against.

And no president as actively sought to divide this nation to the extend Trump has, even going so far as to seek to punish those that voted against him.

You really got the commie talking points down, don't you. But let's talk about your links:

The first one calls class warfare the idea that people should return to work since there are jobs nobody is taking because they are living like a king on the government. Maybe you can explain how getting people back to work is class warfare. Unemployment compensation is there to supplement your losses because you are not working, not replace it with even more income so you don't have to go to work.

Your second link is total stupidity, and nothing they wrote about has anything to do with separating people. Trump divided people by those who support him and those that don't? Well no shit, can you tell me one politician that hasn't? At least he didn't say you're really not black unless you vote for me, or they (the Republicans) want to put ya'all back in chains Then they move on to Trump's tax plan by limiting deductions on mortgage interest. You could still take deductions, but only on interest up to a million dollars. Well if targeting people who have million dollar homes is separating the people, what do you call Dementia's plan on increasing taxes on anybody making over $450,000 a year? I guess he wants to separate Americans as well.

Then they go on to complain that Trump wanted to bus illegals that the Democrats were fighting for to sanctuary cities. If voters approved of being a sanctuary city or state, then what's the problem? Apparently they want those illegals in their city, and Trump was happy to comply with their desires. At least he told people up front, not like Dementia who is busing untested illegals to places like Tennessee in the middle of the night and not telling anybody. I guess Dementia wanted to separate people quietly, huh?

Yes, the black community got less than others. But oh, wait! Where do most blacks reside and have businesses? That's right, in Democrat areas that shutdown and stopped those black businesses from creating wealth.

There are no Democrat or Republican priests, there are only priests. Trust me, I went to private Catholic school and even was an altar boy for our church. He was never denied mass, he was denied Holy Communion. You see, in that religion, they believe you must confess your sins to a priest and get absolution before receiving Communion, and that you must repent for your sins. Supporting baby killing doesn't qualify.

"Folks, if you ever want to know what the Democrats are up to, just take note what they accuse the Republicans of."
Rush Limbaugh

Allow me to correct a couple of things. First, unemployment is not there just to "supplement your losses because you are not working". It is also there so that you can take the time to find a job in which you are qualified and not be forced to take any job that is available. I mean would you want an engineer working at McDonald's because he couldn't immediately find a job in his field? And the article was clear, few people are making more collecting the unemployment than they did working, especially now that the federal benefit is half what it once was. But what is happening is that few people are seeing the benefit of going back to work when weighed against the small marginal increase in income.

This is something I have spoke about before, marginal tax increases on those receiving public benefits. Sometimes it can be as high as 85%. Republicans moan incessantly about high tax rates preventing the rich from making investments, or working. But for the single mom on food stamps and getting the EITC, she can lose 85 cents in benefits for every dollar extra she earns. Who the hell wants to work for fifteen cents on the dollar. And you can cry and bitch about how losing benefits is not the same as paying taxes, the effect on the wallet is still the same.

So you are staying home and collecting, say $450 a week. You go to work making fifteen dollars and hour, forty hours. What are you going to bring home? Maybe $550 if you are only hit for the FICA tax and have no federal or state withholding. Who the hell wants to get up five days a week, drive to a job, have to pay for gas and food while at work, be there at least eight hours, and end up with twenty bucks a day? Hell, you would come out better panhandling an hour at a good intersection. The fact that politicians, and many voters, can't visualize that reality, indicates the lack of comprehension from the politicians about life for "normal" Americans, and a real lack of empathy from those voters.

And that article said nothing about the limit on the mortgage interest deduction. Hell, from my perspective, the entire mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated. That would be a "conservative" position, the tax deduction distorts the market and results in an ineffective allocation of resources. Libertarians would believe the same thing, the government should stay out of the mortgage market, period. The article was addressing the limit on the deduction for state and local taxes. That was specifically directed at the blue states and Trump made no bones about it.

Same as the placing of illegal aliens in sanctuary cities. In fact, I believe some cities called his bluff and said, "bring them on". But Trump's distorted view of those illegals, like many posters on this board, caused him to believe they were criminals, rapists, murderers, and gang bangers, and he made no bones about hoping they caused "damage" to those sanctuary cities. I mean wow, just wow. That is not leadership, not even close. It is vindictive, small minded, and petty.

And maybe you are Catholic. I know the Catholic's church position on abortion and to be frank, it is shallow and judgmental. I am a Methodist, the position of the Methodist church on abortion is that it should be legal and RARE. If you want to do something about abortion, you address the causes of abortion, not the act itself. Condemning the act is lazy, it takes no personal action. And I am pretty sure, on judgement day, we are not going to be asked what we thought other people should have done, we are going to be asked what WE DID.

Furthermore, if the Catholic church is preventing access to Holy Communion for the political views one holds, they might want to start with the Republicans that fail to support programs for the poor. After all, Jesus didn't say we would be judged on how we viewed pregnant mothers, he said we would be judged on how we treated the least among us.

 

[Bush92]

You're not a Republican.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I will admit that Democrats have some responsibility in the division of the American public. The truth is, both parties are dominated by sackless individuals with no courage. Rich verses poor, commonly called class warfare, has consistently been a Republican strategy.

Republicans and the Return of Class Warfare

Black verses White, Trump has fanned that divide despite the meager economic benefits he initially delivered. And even those he pissed away with his woefully inadequate response to the Covid pandemic. Come on, the community of color got less from the economic increase and was impacted more by the Covid pandemic. But democrats need to step back a little, condemn the rampages of the BLM movement supporting blacks that resist arrest, like this past week in Rock Hill, SC.

Christian verses secular, nothing demonstrates that more than this talk of preventing Biden from receiving mass. And that is being proposed by Republican priests that are driven more by their politics than the responsibility of being a shepherd to their flock. In fact, if adopted it may signal the end of the Catholic church as a functioning institution within the American political system as membership will nosedive.

And no, not every group benefited under the Trump administration. Farmers were hit hard by the tariffs, and the amount of payoff provided them eclipsed Obama's auto bailout. In fact, those tariffs were a direct contradiction to normal conservative values. It was a perfect example of picking winners and losers, something that Republicans normally wailed against.

And no president as actively sought to divide this nation to the extend Trump has, even going so far as to seek to punish those that voted against him.

You really got the commie talking points down, don't you. But let's talk about your links:

The first one calls class warfare the idea that people should return to work since there are jobs nobody is taking because they are living like a king on the government. Maybe you can explain how getting people back to work is class warfare. Unemployment compensation is there to supplement your losses because you are not working, not replace it with even more income so you don't have to go to work.

Your second link is total stupidity, and nothing they wrote about has anything to do with separating people. Trump divided people by those who support him and those that don't? Well no shit, can you tell me one politician that hasn't? At least he didn't say you're really not black unless you vote for me, or they (the Republicans) want to put ya'all back in chains Then they move on to Trump's tax plan by limiting deductions on mortgage interest. You could still take deductions, but only on interest up to a million dollars. Well if targeting people who have million dollar homes is separating the people, what do you call Dementia's plan on increasing taxes on anybody making over $450,000 a year? I guess he wants to separate Americans as well.

Then they go on to complain that Trump wanted to bus illegals that the Democrats were fighting for to sanctuary cities. If voters approved of being a sanctuary city or state, then what's the problem? Apparently they want those illegals in their city, and Trump was happy to comply with their desires. At least he told people up front, not like Dementia who is busing untested illegals to places like Tennessee in the middle of the night and not telling anybody. I guess Dementia wanted to separate people quietly, huh?

Yes, the black community got less than others. But oh, wait! Where do most blacks reside and have businesses? That's right, in Democrat areas that shutdown and stopped those black businesses from creating wealth.

There are no Democrat or Republican priests, there are only priests. Trust me, I went to private Catholic school and even was an altar boy for our church. He was never denied mass, he was denied Holy Communion. You see, in that religion, they believe you must confess your sins to a priest and get absolution before receiving Communion, and that you must repent for your sins. Supporting baby killing doesn't qualify.

"Folks, if you ever want to know what the Democrats are up to, just take note what they accuse the Republicans of."
Rush Limbaugh

Allow me to correct a couple of things. First, unemployment is not there just to "supplement your losses because you are not working". It is also there so that you can take the time to find a job in which you are qualified and not be forced to take any job that is available. I mean would you want an engineer working at McDonald's because he couldn't immediately find a job in his field? And the article was clear, few people are making more collecting the unemployment than they did working, especially now that the federal benefit is half what it once was. But what is happening is that few people are seeing the benefit of going back to work when weighed against the small marginal increase in income.

This is something I have spoke about before, marginal tax increases on those receiving public benefits. Sometimes it can be as high as 85%. Republicans moan incessantly about high tax rates preventing the rich from making investments, or working. But for the single mom on food stamps and getting the EITC, she can lose 85 cents in benefits for every dollar extra she earns. Who the hell wants to work for fifteen cents on the dollar. And you can cry and bitch about how losing benefits is not the same as paying taxes, the effect on the wallet is still the same.

So you are staying home and collecting, say $450 a week. You go to work making fifteen dollars and hour, forty hours. What are you going to bring home? Maybe $550 if you are only hit for the FICA tax and have no federal or state withholding. Who the hell wants to get up five days a week, drive to a job, have to pay for gas and food while at work, be there at least eight hours, and end up with twenty bucks a day? Hell, you would come out better panhandling an hour at a good intersection. The fact that politicians, and many voters, can't visualize that reality, indicates the lack of comprehension from the politicians about life for "normal" Americans, and a real lack of empathy from those voters.

And that article said nothing about the limit on the mortgage interest deduction. Hell, from my perspective, the entire mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated. That would be a "conservative" position, the tax deduction distorts the market and results in an ineffective allocation of resources. Libertarians would believe the same thing, the government should stay out of the mortgage market, period. The article was addressing the limit on the deduction for state and local taxes. That was specifically directed at the blue states and Trump made no bones about it.

Same as the placing of illegal aliens in sanctuary cities. In fact, I believe some cities called his bluff and said, "bring them on". But Trump's distorted view of those illegals, like many posters on this board, caused him to believe they were criminals, rapists, murderers, and gang bangers, and he made no bones about hoping they caused "damage" to those sanctuary cities. I mean wow, just wow. That is not leadership, not even close. It is vindictive, small minded, and petty.

And maybe you are Catholic. I know the Catholic's church position on abortion and to be frank, it is shallow and judgmental. I am a Methodist, the position of the Methodist church on abortion is that it should be legal and RARE. If you want to do something about abortion, you address the causes of abortion, not the act itself. Condemning the act is lazy, it takes no personal action. And I am pretty sure, on judgement day, we are not going to be asked what we thought other people should have done, we are going to be asked what WE DID.

Furthermore, if the Catholic church is preventing access to Holy Communion for the political views one holds, they might want to start with the Republicans that fail to support programs for the poor. After all, Jesus didn't say we would be judged on how we viewed pregnant mothers, he said we would be judged on how we treated the least among us.

Jesus preached for his followers to give of themselves, not for government to forcibly take from people to give to the poor. He wanted any charity to come from the heart--not at the point of a gun, or a spear perhaps during his time. The Catholic church views abortion as murder so it has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with murder being on Gods top ten list of no-no's.

My neighbor was on unemployment here during the recession. He stayed on it until his very last day. Then he went to work for his brother-in-law which was always an option for him during his two years on unemployment. He was getting a little over $400.00 a week after taxes. At least in our state, if you accept that amount in state unemployment and add another $300.00 on top of it, that's over $45,000 a year when you consider all the other payroll taxes you don't have to pay. Yes, there are a lot of people that work for 45K or less a year, so it makes no sense to work under those conditions. That's why our Governor was one of 17 Governors who cut federal unemployment because businesses were having a hard time getting workers.

Your article cited Trump's tax plan which they claim targeted blue state people, as if nobody outside of a blue state has a million dollar mortgage. They had to be talking about the write-offs for mortgages since that's the only one I'm familiar with.

Given the fact you have no ability to read Trump's mind, it wasn't about illegals all being criminals. It's the fact that those illegals cost the city and state money to have them there. It was their party that was trying to keep the door wedged open for them, so why shouldn't the people that support that party be the benefactors of their party leaders? Oh sure, they want the illegals in this country, just as long as they don't end up in their city and state where taxpayers have to fund the education of their kids or price increases of their hospitals from the illegals getting their care from them and not paying. Most of all, Trump just wanted to show the country what utter hypocrites the Democrats are, which he did as some of them held protests with signs screaming at the buses coming into their town to stop them from getting off.

 

[Winston]

If denying Biden had nothing to do with politics, and instead was based on "murder", then the Catholic church would have prevented Barr from communion because of the reestablishment of the federal death penalty. Peddle that horseshit to someone less informed. No, it is straight up political, and short sighted as hell because it result in a massive decline in memberships.

And to the labor market. I got to be honest, the labor market, at the low end of the pay scale, is completely off the chain insane. I mean it is pretty telling that Republican legislatures have a problem with a $300 a week federal benefit when a Democrat is president, no problem with a $600 a week benefit when a Republican is president. But even fifteen dollars an hour is a laughable wage in most entry level positions. Take Walmart and the Fresh area, starting pay is $11.50 an hour. Stupid. Starting pay for a online shopper is $14. Profit margin, in meat, is around 23%, for produce it is close to 50%. In both areas, profit per hour of labor is in excess of $200. The cold reality, the Walmart family makes more per hour for every employee working in fresh than the employee makes. They own half the outstanding stock, they make about a $100 per hour for every hour worked in fresh.

I seem to remember that you drove a truck. I mean that industry has been decimated after deregulation, drivers are paid a pittance. Is it any surprise that there is a shortage of drivers? In 1977 the average unionized truck driver made right at six figures in 2018 dollars.

Truck driver salaries have fallen by as much as 50% since the 1970s — and experts say a little-known law explains why

Truck drivers' salaries have decreased by as much as 50% since the 1970s. Economists say The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 is partially to blame for the devaluation of one of America's most dependable blue collar jobs.

www.businessinsider.com

I started my career as a meat cutter, and that was in the early 1980's. Same thing happened to that industry. Hell, I made more per hour then that I would now. And that was forty years ago. And that is in "real" dollars, not inflation adjusted. And it is sad really, because there is no better job in the world than being "on the block" all day. Super clean, forty degrees, and you are producing something. You never get sick and you can get a woman pregnant by looking at them. But that is another story.

So I don't have an ounce of pity for employers who want to pay employees anything less than twenty bucks an hour. Bank of America is going to a $25 an hour minimum by 2025. The truth is, if you can't pay your employees at least twenty bucks an hour, close up the damn shop. But don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me you can't. I have worked in a multitude of industries and I see the P and L, I know the numbers. I can estimate how much volume a grocery store is doing by the number of carts they have, and a fast-food chain by the number of cars going through the drive thru, and I will be within ten percent.

Finally, you are totally wrong about the illegal aliens. They don't cost a city or state money, they make them money.

New Study Shows Immigrants Boost Wages And Productivity

Andrea Nill: The study conclusively states, “there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”

www.laprogressive.com

That is a study from the Federal Reserve, I wouldn't attempt to spin it as bias. Which is probably why some of those communities told Trump to "bring it on". In fact, as I have mentioned, farmers took a huge hit from Trump's policies. So much so that my family sold out, hundreds of acres, sold to an immigrant that employees dozens of illegals. I have lived the reality, and I see it on a daily basis. The truth is, those immigrants, both legal and illegal, are more American than any damn Trump supporter could hope to be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If denying Biden had nothing to do with politics, and instead was based on "murder", then the Catholic church would have prevented Barr from communion because of the reestablishment of the federal death penalty. Peddle that horseshit to someone less informed. No, it is straight up political, and short sighted as hell because it result in a massive decline in memberships.

And to the labor market. I got to be honest, the labor market, at the low end of the pay scale, is completely off the chain insane. I mean it is pretty telling that Republican legislatures have a problem with a $300 a week federal benefit when a Democrat is president, no problem with a $600 a week benefit when a Republican is president. But even fifteen dollars an hour is a laughable wage in most entry level positions. Take Walmart and the Fresh area, starting pay is $11.50 an hour. Stupid. Starting pay for a online shopper is $14. Profit margin, in meat, is around 23%, for produce it is close to 50%. In both areas, profit per hour of labor is in excess of $200. The cold reality, the Walmart family makes more per hour for every employee working in fresh than the employee makes. They own half the outstanding stock, they make about a $100 per hour for every hour worked in fresh.

I seem to remember that you drove a truck. I mean that industry has been decimated after deregulation, drivers are paid a pittance. Is it any surprise that there is a shortage of drivers? In 1977 the average unionized truck driver made right at six figures in 2018 dollars.

Truck driver salaries have fallen by as much as 50% since the 1970s — and experts say a little-known law explains why

Truck drivers' salaries have decreased by as much as 50% since the 1970s. Economists say The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 is partially to blame for the devaluation of one of America's most dependable blue collar jobs.

www.businessinsider.com

I started my career as a meat cutter, and that was in the early 1980's. Same thing happened to that industry. Hell, I made more per hour then that I would now. And that was forty years ago. And that is in "real" dollars, not inflation adjusted. And it is sad really, because there is no better job in the world than being "on the block" all day. Super clean, forty degrees, and you are producing something. You never get sick and you can get a woman pregnant by looking at them. But that is another story.

So I don't have an ounce of pity for employers who want to pay employees anything less than twenty bucks an hour. Bank of America is going to a $25 an hour minimum by 2025. The truth is, if you can't pay your employees at least twenty bucks an hour, close up the damn shop. But don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me you can't. I have worked in a multitude of industries and I see the P and L, I know the numbers. I can estimate how much volume a grocery store is doing by the number of carts they have, and a fast-food chain by the number of cars going through the drive thru, and I will be within ten percent.

Finally, you are totally wrong about the illegal aliens. They don't cost a city or state money, they make them money.

New Study Shows Immigrants Boost Wages And Productivity

Andrea Nill: The study conclusively states, “there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”

www.laprogressive.com

That is a study from the Federal Reserve, I wouldn't attempt to spin it as bias. Which is probably why some of those communities told Trump to "bring it on". In fact, as I have mentioned, farmers took a huge hit from Trump's policies. So much so that my family sold out, hundreds of acres, sold to an immigrant that employees dozens of illegals. I have lived the reality, and I see it on a daily basis. The truth is, those immigrants, both legal and illegal, are more American than any damn Trump supporter could hope to be.

Don't you have any reliable sites? I mean, the LA Progressive?

Let me ask, when you need major plumbing work done and get three or four estimates, do you always choose the highest one? How about a major automobile repair? What about lawn care service?

So what is an employee actually worth? You are worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do the same quality work as you do. That's all you're worth, and all that anybody is worth.

So what you're saying is that employers should pay people more than their services are worth. Do you do that? I didn't think so. Neither do I, and most people don't. So why complain when employers do the exact same thing most of us do when we hire people to do jobs for us?

If you are not worth as much as you'd like to make, don't look for any employer to change that, look to yourself. It's up to you to make yourself worth more--not our employers. But while on the subject, our transportation industry is loaded with foreigners legal and illegal. Employers can't find American drivers for what they want to pay, so they import these foreigners that can't even speak English yet alone read our English signs. They lower wages for all American drivers. If they were not here, an employer would have no choice but to increase his offer to attract American workers to his company. This is yet another way Americans lose money.

The worst part about it is that they have no training, no experience, and basically never been behind the wheel of a tractor-trailer in their lives. They buy some CDL kind of license in their country for what's equal to a five dollar bill and perhaps a pack of cigarettes, and our government gives them reciprocity here no questions asked. Do you know what it's like to have to take a tractor-trailer test in the US? I do, because in the company I worked for, my employer would advance our straight truck drivers; people who have been driving for years. In spite of the training we give them, in spite of how hard they studied and practiced, many of them fail the test the first time around. It isn't easy.

Driving is like anything else, you can work for better pay or work for worse pay. it depends on what you're willing to do for it. It depends on what your driving record is. Here is a pre-covid story I saved.

Walmart to hire hundreds of truck drivers, raise salary to nearly $90,000

Walmart has announced it will hire “hundreds” of truck drivers and raise driver pay in 2019. Last year, the company saw same-store comp sales hit three percent, “which is leading …

fox8.com

 

[Winston]

If denying Biden had nothing to do with politics, and instead was based on "murder", then the Catholic church would have prevented Barr from communion because of the reestablishment of the federal death penalty. Peddle that horseshit to someone less informed. No, it is straight up political, and short sighted as hell because it result in a massive decline in memberships.

And to the labor market. I got to be honest, the labor market, at the low end of the pay scale, is completely off the chain insane. I mean it is pretty telling that Republican legislatures have a problem with a $300 a week federal benefit when a Democrat is president, no problem with a $600 a week benefit when a Republican is president. But even fifteen dollars an hour is a laughable wage in most entry level positions. Take Walmart and the Fresh area, starting pay is $11.50 an hour. Stupid. Starting pay for a online shopper is $14. Profit margin, in meat, is around 23%, for produce it is close to 50%. In both areas, profit per hour of labor is in excess of $200. The cold reality, the Walmart family makes more per hour for every employee working in fresh than the employee makes. They own half the outstanding stock, they make about a $100 per hour for every hour worked in fresh.

I seem to remember that you drove a truck. I mean that industry has been decimated after deregulation, drivers are paid a pittance. Is it any surprise that there is a shortage of drivers? In 1977 the average unionized truck driver made right at six figures in 2018 dollars.

Truck driver salaries have fallen by as much as 50% since the 1970s — and experts say a little-known law explains why

Truck drivers' salaries have decreased by as much as 50% since the 1970s. Economists say The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 is partially to blame for the devaluation of one of America's most dependable blue collar jobs.

www.businessinsider.com

I started my career as a meat cutter, and that was in the early 1980's. Same thing happened to that industry. Hell, I made more per hour then that I would now. And that was forty years ago. And that is in "real" dollars, not inflation adjusted. And it is sad really, because there is no better job in the world than being "on the block" all day. Super clean, forty degrees, and you are producing something. You never get sick and you can get a woman pregnant by looking at them. But that is another story.

So I don't have an ounce of pity for employers who want to pay employees anything less than twenty bucks an hour. Bank of America is going to a $25 an hour minimum by 2025. The truth is, if you can't pay your employees at least twenty bucks an hour, close up the damn shop. But don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me you can't. I have worked in a multitude of industries and I see the P and L, I know the numbers. I can estimate how much volume a grocery store is doing by the number of carts they have, and a fast-food chain by the number of cars going through the drive thru, and I will be within ten percent.

Finally, you are totally wrong about the illegal aliens. They don't cost a city or state money, they make them money.

New Study Shows Immigrants Boost Wages And Productivity

Andrea Nill: The study conclusively states, “there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.”

www.laprogressive.com

That is a study from the Federal Reserve, I wouldn't attempt to spin it as bias. Which is probably why some of those communities told Trump to "bring it on". In fact, as I have mentioned, farmers took a huge hit from Trump's policies. So much so that my family sold out, hundreds of acres, sold to an immigrant that employees dozens of illegals. I have lived the reality, and I see it on a daily basis. The truth is, those immigrants, both legal and illegal, are more American than any damn Trump supporter could hope to be.

Don't you have any reliable sites? I mean, the LA Progressive?

Let me ask, when you need major plumbing work done and get three or four estimates, do you always choose the highest one? How about a major automobile repair? What about lawn care service?

So what is an employee actually worth? You are worth as much as your employer can pay somebody else to do the same quality work as you do. That's all you're worth, and all that anybody is worth.

So what you're saying is that employers should pay people more than their services are worth. Do you do that? I didn't think so. Neither do I, and most people don't. So why complain when employers do the exact same thing most of us do when we hire people to do jobs for us?

If you are not worth as much as you'd like to make, don't look for any employer to change that, look to yourself. It's up to you to make yourself worth more--not our employers. But while on the subject, our transportation industry is loaded with foreigners legal and illegal. Employers can't find American drivers for what they want to pay, so they import these foreigners that can't even speak English yet alone read our English signs. They lower wages for all American drivers. If they were not here, an employer would have no choice but to increase his offer to attract American workers to his company. This is yet another way Americans lose money.

The worst part about it is that they have no training, no experience, and basically never been behind the wheel of a tractor-trailer in their lives. They buy some CDL kind of license in their country for what's equal to a five dollar bill and perhaps a pack of cigarettes, and our government gives them reciprocity here no questions asked. Do you know what it's like to have to take a tractor-trailer test in the US? I do, because in the company I worked for, my employer would advance our straight truck drivers; people who have been driving for years. In spite of the training we give them, in spite of how hard they studied and practiced, many of them fail the test the first time around. It isn't easy.

Driving is like anything else, you can work for better pay or work for worse pay. it depends on what you're willing to do for it. It depends on what your driving record is. Here is a pre-covid story I saved.

Walmart to hire hundreds of truck drivers, raise salary to nearly $90,000

Walmart has announced it will hire “hundreds” of truck drivers and raise driver pay in 2019. Last year, the company saw same-store comp sales hit three percent, “which is leading …

fox8.com

You reveal your amateurism when complaining about the source, because the source was not the LA Progressive, which merely provided a synopsis of the data from the real source.

The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity - San Francisco Fed

The effects of immigration on the total output and income of the U.S. economy can be studied by comparing output per worker and employment in states that have had large immigrant inflows with data from states that have few new foreign-born workers. Statistical analysis of state-level data shows...

www.frbsf.org

I just wanted to prevent you from having to deal with the formal white paper from the Federal Reserve.

And I never said someone should be paid more than they were worth. In fact, I was clearly advocating that employees at the low end of the pay scale are worth more, in some cases, much more, than what they are being paid. If an employee generates two hundred dollars in profit for every hour worked they are worth much more than even fifteen dollars and hour.

And yes, Walmart is paying drivers well. Which stands to reason, they can pay productive workers well. Conservatives and Republicans are often pointing to "supply and demand". If you are paying shit, then let me throw it back at you, it is supply and demand. Pay more and, like magic, workers will start showing up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And I never said someone should be paid more than they were worth. In fact, I was clearly advocating that employees at the low end of the pay scale are worth more, in some cases, much more, than what they are being paid. If an employee generates two hundred dollars in profit for every hour worked they are worth much more than even fifteen dollars and hour.

And yes, Walmart is paying drivers well. Which stands to reason, they can pay productive workers well. Conservatives and Republicans are often pointing to "supply and demand". If you are paying shit, then let me throw it back at you, it is supply and demand. Pay more and, like magic, workers will start showing up.

Walmart pays most of their people well. Their managers and assistant managers do okay. I've been to their warehouse. Their warehouse people do just fine. Their office personnel are not complaining. And of course, their truck drivers have no problem either.

You are not worth what your company makes off your labor. If you want a job like that, find one that pays piece work or has profit sharing as a benefit. If they don't have such benefits, some companies will offer stock at a discounted price you can buy and you can share in those profits. What your employer makes off of your labor is not really your business, nor does it determine your worth. What determines your worth is what other people are willing to do the job for. If you walk off the job because you are only making $15.00 an hour, and your employer has somebody to replace you for that same wage the next day, you were not worth a dime more regardless how much profit from that job they make.

 

[Winston]

million And I never said someone should be paid more than they were worth. In fact, I was clearly advocating that employees at the low end of the pay scale are worth more, in some cases, much more, than what they are being paid. If an employee generates two hundred dollars in profit for every hour worked they are worth much more than even fifteen dollars and hour.

And yes, Walmart is paying drivers well. Which stands to reason, they can pay productive workers well. Conservatives and Republicans are often pointing to "supply and demand". If you are paying shit, then let me throw it back at you, it is supply and demand. Pay more and, like magic, workers will start showing up.

Walmart pays most of their people well. Their managers and assistant managers do okay. I've been to their warehouse. Their warehouse people do just fine. Their office personnel are not complaining. And of course, their truck drivers have no problem either.

You are not worth what your company makes off your labor. If you want a job like that, find one that pays piece work or has profit sharing as a benefit. If they don't have such benefits, some companies will offer stock at a discounted price you can buy and you can share in those profits. What your employer makes off of your labor is not really your business, nor does it determine your worth. What determines your worth is what other people are willing to do the job for. If you walk off the job because you are only making $15.00 an hour, and your employer has somebody to replace you for that same wage the next day, you were not worth a dime more regardless how much profit from that job they make.

Well I have to disagree with you. You strategy is pay the employees as little as possible. That was not exactly Henry Ford's concept. But if that is how you feel, then why all the complaining about unemployment benefits and people staying home. From your perspective, the solution is simple, everyone should stay the hell home until pay increases significantly. And I will not argue, Walmart managers are paid handsomely, but even in that area the pay is extremely distorted. A 95 million dollar a year supercenter manager is going to be looking at a compensation package in excess of a quarter of a million dollars a year. No other manager, or coach, or store lead, is going to be making six figures in that store.

Some quick googling and the use of a calculator provided the following numbers. 2019 Walmart had 2.2 million employees. That year their operating cash flow was 27.8 billion dollars. Average employee pay, that is all employees, was $14.24 an hour, around 25 grand a year. Those employees generated $12,636 each in cash flow. Just in stock buybacks alone, each employee delivered over six grand. So, the workers got a dollar, the company got fifty cents in cash, and of that, the stockholders got a quarter.

Now, I hear you. My clients have made out very well with their Walmart stock, I have been bullish for years. But not any more. They are bleeding money into the online channel and their restructuring is destroying operating conditions. They are penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to employee pay, management structure, supplies, and equipment. Their management incentive pay structure is dysfunctional and results in poor decision making at the store level. But more than anything, that dollar, fifty cent, quarter arrangement is unsustainable and I see no effort to improve it. If anything, they are attempting to further exploit those employees.

And I hear you about piece work, profit sharing is alright, but I paid my employees a percentage of revenue generated, that is "fair". And the reality is the labor market is just like any other market, you get what you pay for. If you pay shit, you get shit. I mean when is the last time you went in a Walmart? The store in this town is dirty, the employees look like they were swept in off the street, and the shelves are almost bare. Then walk into a Publix, gleaming floors, full shelves, and sharp dressed employees. Publix is employee owned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well I have to disagree with you. You strategy is pay the employees as little as possible. That was not exactly Henry Ford's concept. But if that is how you feel, then why all the complaining about unemployment benefits and people staying home. From your perspective, the solution is simple, everyone should stay the hell home until pay increases significantly. And I will not argue, Walmart managers are paid handsomely, but even in that area the pay is extremely distorted. A 95 million dollar a year supercenter manager is going to be looking at a compensation package in excess of a quarter of a million dollars a year. No other manager, or coach, or store lead, is going to be making six figures in that store.

Some quick googling and the use of a calculator provided the following numbers. 2019 Walmart had 2.2 million employees. That year their operating cash flow was 27.8 billion dollars. Average employee pay, that is all employees, was $14.24 an hour, around 25 grand a year. Those employees generated $12,636 each in cash flow. Just in stock buybacks alone, each employee delivered over six grand. So, the workers got a dollar, the company got fifty cents in cash, and of that, the stockholders got a quarter.

Now, I hear you. My clients have made out very well with their Walmart stock, I have been bullish for years. But not any more. They are bleeding money into the online channel and their restructuring is destroying operating conditions. They are penny wise and pound foolish when it comes to employee pay, management structure, supplies, and equipment. Their management incentive pay structure is dysfunctional and results in poor decision making at the store level. But more than anything, that dollar, fifty cent, quarter arrangement is unsustainable and I see no effort to improve it. If anything, they are attempting to further exploit those employees.

And I hear you about piece work, profit sharing is alright, but I paid my employees a percentage of revenue generated, that is "fair". And the reality is the labor market is just like any other market, you get what you pay for. If you pay shit, you get shit. I mean when is the last time you went in a Walmart? The store in this town is dirty, the employees look like they were swept in off the street, and the shelves are almost bare. Then walk into a Publix, gleaming floors, full shelves, and sharp dressed employees. Publix is employee owned.

I complain about unemployment benefits paying more than jobs do because it encourages people to stay home. Government should not be in business of doing that, especially as they put this country deeper and deeper into the hole. It has nothing to do with what I feel, it has to do with the nature of things. Very few people overpay others who work for them. I don't, you don't, your neighbors and family don't, and neither does industry.

After the last recession I can't tell you how many stories I read about people who stayed on unemployment to it's last day or close to it not being able to find a job. Employers look down on stuff like that. They look at such people as lazy and opportunists who will take advantage of any given situation, and they don't want people like that working for them. So not only is government making people fat and lazy, they are destroying their chances at meaningful employment once the gravy train stops and they have no choice but to find a job.

You seem to be obsessed between what a company makes compared to what they pay their employees. Again, one has nothing to do with the other. You applied for X job. X job pays X money. When the job was offered to you, your choice was to accept X pay or decline it. Nobody is taking advantage of anybody else. If an employer is happy with substandard workers who will work for cheap, that's his business. If an employer makes $500 an hour off your labor, or $20.00 an hour off your labor, that too is his business and not yours.

When I got out of school I worked at a car wash for minimum wage. From there I went to a factory a friend of mine worked at for again, minimum wage. The singer in our band got me a job where he worked, again, for minimum wage. To make a long story short, it was those minimum wage jobs that drove me to better myself. If any of those jobs paid outstanding money, I'd still be at one of them today as a flunky with just about no experience at anything. But anytime I became unhappy with my circumstance, I didn't blame the employers, I blamed myself. Because I held myself responsible instead of anybody else, I took measures to improve my income and lifestyle.