Donald Trump

[waitforufo]

Jobs did not become less skilled.

Well then perhaps more people acquired that skill. More supply equals less pay. Ask me about H1B visa holders and the "shortage" of engineers.

[overtone]

Well then perhaps more people acquired that skill. More supply equals less pay.

Jobs for skilled workers go unfilled while wages remain low, in my area. At the same time, compensation for CEOs and other executives doubles and triples despite a line around the block to take the work.

 

One of the difficulties visible is that the employers and employees of skilled labor have been caught in an overtime/health care trap in many industries. They can't afford to raise wages while paying so much overtime, they can't afford to hire and train more people when they pay so much for health care per employee, there is disincentive to expand when they haven't got any slack in their current work force, the employee has to work overtime to pay the mortgage and health care share at these wages, the prospective new employee has no job offer or wages to justify the investment in skill, and so forth.

 

What everyone would prefer is a larger workforce of skilled employees working more productively for higher wages at normal hours (overtime is much less productive). But that would require health care reform and fronting skill training and raising wages for current employees, while their competition runs lean and mean. So they're stuck.

 

Exactly what the single-payer folks and liberal advocates of union or government-subsidized skill training said would happen, all those years ago. Remember?

Edited February 27, 2016 by overtone

[waitforufo]

Jobs Americans won't do? I thought that is why we had undocumented Democrats.

[Phi for All]

Well then perhaps more people acquired that skill. More supply equals less pay.

 

In every sector? For 50 years?!

 

Do you realize what's being called for is a rollback to taxation and regulation plans that have unfairly been influenced by too much money? That nobody is suggesting money and land be taken from you as compensation? You seem to think socialism is going to storm your bastille or something. Calls for your head have been greatly exaggerated. We're just tired of you saying, "Let them eat shit!"

 

Hey, did you know Obama grew the government THE LEAST of any president since Eisenhower? That makes him a token Republican, right? Why does he honor your planks but nobody in your party does?

[waitforufo]

oh yeah, I forgot this one.

That's not what he actually said, though, is it.

 

He said: This is not your money, and not even your God's money. It's Ceasar's. Was he wrong?

 

The images on your money are government officials, of the same government that issues the money and levies the taxes.

What did Jesus actually say? He said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" So to a religious person what things are god's, the creator of all things both seen and unseen?

 

 

In every sector? For 50 years?!

 

Do you realize what's being called for is a rollback to taxation and regulation plans that have unfairly been influenced by too much money? That nobody is suggesting money and land be taken from you as compensation? You seem to think socialism is going to storm your bastille or something. Calls for your head have been greatly exaggerated. We're just tired of you saying, "Let them eat shit!"

 

Hey, did you know Obama grew the government THE LEAST of any president since Eisenhower? That makes him a token Republican, right? Why does he honor your planks but nobody in your party does?

 

Yes, in every sector for 50 years. As a mater of fact in every sector since the dawn of civilization. People have been ingenious and competitive for all time. If you can't keep up you are left behind. Yes, socialism is all consuming. That is why people are always throttling it back. Societies that fail end up like Venezuela. Obama grew the government THE LEAST, because the legislature is full of Republicans doing what their voters asked them to do.

Edited February 27, 2016 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Apologies for the interruption, everyone. Not my intent to be rude, and don't mean to interrupt waitforufo's regular insertion of sticks into the proverbial hornets nest, but want to offer a quick tangent back to the actual thread topic:

 

 

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey and recent GOP candidate for president, endorsed Donald Trump fir president today.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-president/story?id=37220435

Former presidential candidate and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump for president today.

 

“I’m proud to be here to endorse Donald Trump,” Christie said at a campaign rally in Fort Worth, Texas, adding later, “I’m happy to be on the Trump team.”

 

Christie suspended his presidential campaign after finishing sixth in the New Hampshire primary, and announced he was supporting his former rival for a number of reasons.

 

“First is that Donald and I along with Melania and Mary Pat have been friends for over a decade. He has been a good and loyal friend to our family,” Christie said. “Secondly, I've been on that stage. I've gotten to know all the people on that stage. And there is no one who is better prepared to provide America with strong leadership that it needs both at home and around the world than Donald Trump.”

[overtone]

What did Jesus actually say?

He said: This is not your money: It's Ceasar's. Was he wrong?

 

 

Yes, in every sector for 50 years. As a mater of fact in every sector since the dawn of civilization.

Between 1933 and 1982, Americans grew more prosperous as they grew more skilled and more productive and harder working. Since 1982, Americans have been growing less prosperous as they grew more skilled and more productive and harder working.

Yes, socialism is all consuming. That is why people are always throttling it back

America expanded its socialism from 1933 until 1982, and has been throttling back its socialism since 1982. Now we have achieved Trump.

 

Do we need to draw you a little picture?

 

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey and recent GOP candidate for president, endorsed Donald Trump fir president today.

Game knows game.

Edited February 27, 2016 by overtone

[Arete]

Ask me about H1B visa holders and the "shortage" of engineers.

 

I'm a white, native English speaking H1B visa holder, currently going though the green card process. I love it when I encounter the 'H1B visa holders are evil' argument. It's fun to gently scratch away until you hit the racism part...

[dimreepr]

 

I'm a white, native English speaking H1B visa holder, currently going though the green card process. I love it when I encounter the 'H1B visa holders are evil' argument. It's fun to gently scratch away until you hit the racism part...

 

 

I don’t want to be pedantic but I’m going to be , the word is xenophobia (we don’t want to give the haters ammo), since a lot of the evil “H1B visa holders” are of the same race as the accusers.

[Willie71]

My money and property first.

Socialism, or democratic socialism still gas private property, and Bernie's tax plan is more conservative than the 1950s and 60s USA. So, he isn't something to fear then? Now that you are informed, you will change your mind?

[Phi for All]

Now that you are informed, you will change your mind?

 

Best laugh all day!

[dimreepr]

Now that you are informed, you will change your mind?

 

 

I’d have more chance of crapping in the Queens handbag.

[waitforufo]

 

I'm a white, native English speaking H1B visa holder, currently going though the green card process. I love it when I encounter the 'H1B visa holders are evil' argument. It's fun to gently scratch away until you hit the racism part...

Scratch away and welcome to the United States.

 

 

I don’t want to be pedantic but I’m going to be , the word is xenophobia (we don’t want to give the haters ammo), since a lot of the evil “H1B visa holders” are of the same race as the accusers.

I made no reference to race in my comment about H1B visa holders. Here was my comment.

 

Well then perhaps more people acquired that skill. More supply equals less pay. Ask me about H1B visa holders and the "shortage" of engineers.

H1B visas are permitted because of a claim that there is a shortage of engineers, computer scientist, and programmers in the US. There are plenty of all of these in the US. Employers just want to pay less than domestic US engineers, computer scientists and programmers are willing to accept. To employers this means their must be a shortage. As I said, more supply will equal less pay. The same goes for all fields.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/labor-shortage-pinches-home-builders-1444688976

 

There is nothing evil about H1B visa holds. I'm sure I would be looking to come to the US if I lived in another country as well, but H1B visa holders are just pawns in a game with at goal to lower wages.

 

 

He said: This is not your money: It's Ceasar's. Was he wrong?

 

 

Between 1933 and 1982, Americans grew more prosperous as they grew more skilled and more productive and harder working. Since 1982, Americans have been growing less prosperous as they grew more skilled and more productive and harder working.

America expanded its socialism from 1933 until 1982, and has been throttling back its socialism since 1982. Now we have achieved Trump.

 

As I said, for the religious person, Jesus clearly said all things belong to the creator. By the way, I was not the one who introduced the words of Jesus into this conversation. That was Overtone. I was just pointing out the errors in overtone's argument.

 

With regard to the US growing more prosperous between '33 and '82, this was the result of the rest of the industrial world taking until '82 to fully recover from wars that destroyed their industrial base. Once they caught up and could provide meaningful competition the decline you mention started to occur. That coupled with the US environmental movement gaining meaningful force in the '70s shutting down smokestack industries. Sure our environment is better, but at the expense of middle class jobs. A trade-off many are willing to accept, but not admit.

 

Apologies for the interruption, everyone. Not my intent to be rude, and don't mean to interrupt waitforufo's regular insertion of sticks into the proverbial hornets nest, but want to offer a quick tangent back to the actual thread topic:

 

 

Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey and recent GOP candidate for president, endorsed Donald Trump fir president today.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-president/story?id=37220435

A meaningful endorsement to Trump's campaign to secure the Republican nomination. Like I said, Trump is running a brilliant campaign. This endorsement could push Trump to meaningful victories on Super Tuesday. If it does, Trump could be unstoppable.

 

I think Peggy Noonan is on to something with this article.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-1456448550

 

I expect there will be a lot of first time "unprotected" voters in the upcoming general election if it is between Clinton and Trump.

Edited February 27, 2016 by waitforufo

[Phi for All]

There is nothing evil about H1B visa holds. I'm sure I would be looking to come to the US if I lived in another country as well, but H1B visa holders are just pawns in a game with at goal to lower wages.

 

So the H1B visa holders are being used to lower wages, and that is wrong in your book, obviously. So why do you so easily write off the ripoff of the middle class over the last 50 years?

 

The way I see it, we were lied to about how badly companies were doing so we'd accept lower wages, all in an atmosphere where getting a new job was a precarious, uncertain, danger-filled experience. We were pawns in a game with a goal to lower wages, weren't we?

[iNow]

A meaningful endorsement to Trump's campaign to secure the Republican nomination. Like I said, Trump is running a brilliant campaign. This endorsement could push Trump to meaningful victories on Super Tuesday. If it does, Trump could be unstoppable.

Agree completely. I also feel it was a supremely smart move by Christie. While Christue obviously wasn't going to receive the nod from voters for the number one spot he sought, this now sets him up to possibly get there through a process back door since he's now at the very top of the list for a legitimate Trump VP pick (or at minimum a very senior cabinet position).

[overtone]

As I said, for the religious person, Jesus clearly said all things belong to the creator.

What you said was: " Conservative thinking people understand that some money is theirs and some is not theirs "

And what was pointed out to you was that "conservative" US voters obviously have a lot of trouble comprehending the idea that some money is not theirs, but belongs to the community and the public and the government.

 

You, for example, have a lot of trouble answering this simple question straight from the conservative's ideological base: Jesus said money with Ceasar's picture on it was Ceasar's - was he wrong, yes or no?

 

That coupled with the US environmental movement gaining meaningful force in the '70s shutting down smokestack industries. Sure our environment is better, but at the expense of middle class jobs. A trade-off many are willing to accept, but not admit.

That never happened. Neither did a sudden onset of competition from foreign industry in 1982.

 

I think Peggy Noonan is on to something with this article.

It's paywalled, but let's go by common sense: Noonan has had nothing worthwhile to say in the past thirty years, and since its purchase by wingnut money the WSJ's editorial page has been so far into mass delusion that its conflicts with its own news articles have been inadvertent comedy. So what are the odds?

 

That's not the story. The story is why the people who called Trump months ago, and the Republican Party years before that, and were right about that stuff for years, appear to be nowhere in your worldview. Why are you going to zip-brained crank sites like the WSJ editorial pages for your analysis?

Edited February 28, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Trump won at least 192 delegates in Tuesday's contests. Ted Cruz collected at least 132 delegates and Marco Rubio picked up at least 66.

John Kasich won at least 19 delegates and Ben Carson won at least three.

There were 595 Republican delegates at stake in 11 states. There were still 183 delegates left to be allocated.

Overall, Trump leads with 274 delegates. Cruz has 149, Rubio has 82, Kasich has 25 and Carson has eight.

It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/latest-trump-weary-questions-disavowing-duke-37304309

 

 

Tough night for Rubio. Trump beat Rubio in 10 of 11 states. Rubio had to have a better showing and didn't get it. That said Trump still failed to pull away. Ted Cruz over performed in a few places as did Kasich. So the delegate count to Trump (all that really matters) wasn't decissive. Trump only peaked at over 40% of the vote in 2 states and over 50% in none. So Trump reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to be the nominee is still in question.

[iNow]

Trump hasn't pulled away yet. Not by a long shot regardless of the headlines. I believe on March 1st things turn.

How do you feel now that it's March 2 and results show that Trump decimated his competition on Super Tuesday?

[overtone]

 

 

Trump reaching the 1,237 delegates needed to be the nominee is still in question

Not as much in question as anyone else getting them. Cruz? Rubio? Neither one has a shot.

 

Right now, the main thing impeding Trump is that winner take all hasn't started yet.

[Ten oz]

How do you feel now that it's March 2 and results show that Trump decimated his competition on Super Tuesday?

He did not decimate his competition. Trump to day has only received 34% of total votes in the Republican primary. He only managed above 40% in 2 states and has not yet hit 50% or above in a single state. The majority of GOP voters are voting for someone else.

 

"But there’s also the fact that Trump has received only 34 percent of the Republican vote, aggregated across all primaries and caucuses to have voted so far. He did not really improve on that figure on Super Tuesday; Trump had a combined 33 percent of the vote through the first four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada); he got 34 percent in Super Tuesday states themselves.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-super-tuesday-can-republicans-still-take-the-nomination-away-from-trump/

 

Can Trump run away with the nomination with only one third support in the party? He is winning victories without actually obtaining popular support. It is a problem for him regardless of how the headlines read. He needs to reach 1,237 delegates. If he loses just a couple of key states; any combo of FL, IL, MI, OH, CA his path to 1,237 becomes very difficult. Can he walk into the convention having received just 34% of the vote (without the needed delegates) and demand the nomination? I think we are headed toward a brokered convention.

[overtone]

Can Trump run away with the nomination with only one third support in the party?

Yep.

 

If he loses just a couple of key states; any combo of FL, IL, MI, OH, CA his path to 1,237 becomes very difficult.

He starts competing in winner take all States shortly. According to this calculator , if nobody is beating him soundly by March 15th he's likely to have the delegates to claim it outright.

 

Notice that if neither Cruz nor Rubio drop, and they continue to split the vote roughly as they have been, Trump takes it easily with 33% of the vote from here on out. He's doing better than that.

 

There is also the problem that if Trump is only a few delegates short, it becomes very difficult to deny him the nomination without a revolt within the Party.

Edited March 3, 2016 by overtone

[iNow]

He's also driving historically high turnout.

[Ten oz]

Yep.

 

He starts competing in winner take all States shortly. According to this calculator , if nobody is beating him soundly by March 15th he's likely to have the delegates to claim it outright.

 

Notice that if neither Cruz nor Rubio drop, and they continue to split the vote roughly as they have been, Trump takes it easily with 33% of the vote from here on out. He's doing better than that.

 

There is also the problem that if Trump is only a few delegates short, it becomes very difficult to deny him the nomination without a revolt within the Party.

Yes, if nothing changes and Trump continues to track as he had he can win the nomination by collecting the 1,237 he needs. That assumes nothing changes. Primaries are different than the general election in that the results in one state can influence another. we are still weeks and months away from key states. Thus far Trumps advantage has primarily been in the south and eastern states. what happens in the mid west and west could be different. If Kasich takes OH and Rubio manages to get FL Trump will move into April weaker than he sits today. So I am still skeptical. Obviously if he wins NC, FL, and OH it is probably over; he'll be the nominee. He just needs to pull that off before I am 100% ready to say he gots it.

[iNow]

I think Florida is likely to go with Trump. Uncertain about Ohio and whether Kasich will actually take it. In the end, though, I can't see Rubio pulling this one off and don't think he's gonna win FL.

[overtone]

I can't for the life of me see what the objection is to Trump, anyway - he's no battier, less realistic, or uglier in his proposals, than any other Republican Candidate.

 

This is the Party of Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Richard Cheney (now there's ugly, if that was your problem), the inimitable W himself; this is the Party of the Tea, you know, the folks who brought stuffed monkeys dressed as negro witch doctors with bones in their noses to public rallies against the secret Muslim from Kenya;

 

- seriously, why the sudden fantods over a guy like Trump? He's not going to raise taxes on rich people very much, surely, so what's the problem?

 

 

 

Yes, if nothing changes and Trump continues to track as he had he can win the nomination by collecting the 1,237 he needs. That assumes nothing changes.

Actually, if nothing else changes he could drop back to 33% of the vote (from his current 37 and rising) and still be favored to take it outright.

 

The only realistic way for any other candidate to top him is for all but one rival to drop, force a two way race. And the problem with that is that it greatly reduces the chances of a brokered convention, which right now is the Republican aristocracy's major hope.

Edited March 3, 2016 by overtone