First presidential debate - September 26: Trump vs Hillary

[Elegiac]

Voting in someone who isn't
Crazy
Honest
Respectable

Neither of these 2 adhere to that standard.

You want a dishonest and disrespectable candidate?

[DocSavageFan]

Not remotely what I said, but okay. It's part of the parcel of being an informed citizen; being active and involved in the political process.

zenkai: We know what kind of people they are, we know where they stand, I am not voting for either one so what do I get for watching that trash.

Didactic: You get the privilege of not being an ignorant twenty something hipster, for one.

zenkai: Yeah, not watching the debate will totally make me an uninformed voter.

Didactic: Not remotely what I said, but okay. It's part of the parcel of being an informed citizen; being active and involved in the political process.

Given that 'ignorant' and 'uninformed' are synonyms, that's exactly what you said. Your hubris is damn annoying, but your dishonesty is unacceptable and needs to be called out.

[Elegiac]

South Park is cute and all but gross oversimplification only appeals to the lazy and small minded.

That, and its entire shtick is making fun of people who care about things.

- - - Updated - - -

Given that 'ignorant' and 'uninformed' are synonyms, that's exactly what you said. Your hubris is damn annoying, but your dishonesty is unacceptable and needs to be called out.

I did not say "not watching the debate makes one an uninformed voter", I made a tongue in-cheek remark about his general attitude towards politics. So sue me.

- - - Updated - - -

You nailed it, die hard. I don't like to vote in crazy people are crooks, must be a Republican.

No, but being someone who bases their political viewpoint on the notion that caring about things makes someone 'crazy' or stupid does in fact make you a part of that demographic.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Voting in someone who isn't
Crazy
Honest
Respectable

Neither of these 2 adhere to that standard.

Honest question, zenkai. If you don't really have a horse in this race, don't care about who won the debate, and don't have any actual issues other than 'I don't like these candidates'... why are you here?

[Felya]

And why have wages not kept pace with inflation? Might it have started with reagan's amnesty? Might it have something to do with the fact we have 10-20 million illegals competing for jobs with american citizens since then?

They are not competing for jobs. An American citizen will not work for the wages illegals get paid. The reason illegals get paid shit, is the same reason China's manufacturing is booming, you get the lowest cost you can. It has nothing to do with amnesty...

Remember, once illegals get amnesty, they no longer work agriculture, because their legality in the country let's them get paid legitimately, instead of under the table. Your assertion, contradicts your point.

[Dren The Black]

Largely because of refusal to raise the minimum wage.

Uh... You realize that the job market works as a "supply"(people wanting work) and "demand'(jobs available) model? The higher the jobs to people ratio there is the higher wages will rise in response. The lower it is the lower wages go... thinking that raising the minimum wage will magically fix wage disparity is short sighted and discounts real market factors.

Not in the slightest.

Feel free to enlighten us with your theories then.

[Deleted]

Illegal immigration isn't responsible for wage suppression.

yes it is, and in regards to farm labor, its not even debatable.

[TZucchini]

Voting in someone who isn't
Crazy
Honest
Respectable

Neither of these 2 adhere to that standard.

Those are not political issues.

Things like, gun control, marriage rights, national security, the economy, abortion rights, voting rights, etc.. Those are political issues.

See you're not answering the question because you're not stupid, and you can tell what I'm doing. The position of "both are stupid so I don't care" is completely untenable. This isn't a choice between Pepsi and Coke. These candidates are incredibly different.

[Elegiac]

Uh... You realize that the job market works as a "supply"(people wanting work) and "demand'(jobs available) model? The higher the jobs to people ratio there is the higher wages will rise in response. The lower it is the lower wages go... thinking that raising the minimum wage will magically fix wage disparity is short sighted and discounts real market factors.

And you are aware that jobs available is primarily a function of market demand, which is in turn generated by people's ability to consume (i.e. their disposable income), yes?

Moreover, the simplistic supply/demand model doesn't account for the disparity in negotiating power that is -inherent- in a market system.

[Deleted]

I dunno Davey, could be the fact that wages haven't kept pace with inflation since the 1980s.

Why is that do you think?

Illegal immigration is more proof that some jobs are so unpleasant that only inordinate amounts of pay will attract employees.

So?

[Felya]

It's a douchebag or a turd sandwich.

According to Southpark, it's really not... Remember, unlike their characters of Clinton, Garrison is trying to lose. This election is not your usual lesser of two evils. Your rhetoric is 8 years old, when Southpark actually made that statement. This isn't the same, even according to those who originated the term you are trying to use.

[Elegiac]

yes it is, and in regards to farm labor, its not even debatable.

It couldn't possibly be the businesses hiring illegal immigrants, could it.

[Bollocks]

Yes you can.

Doubling the wage wont make all farms go under, especially since the goal will be to force everyone to comply, making it quite possible to raise prices.

Food should cost more - The US wastes 1/4 of all the food people buy - The produce rate is worse.

You might as well import food then, because no one will pay 35$ for watermelons. And it seems that in the us(geogia) they would rather starve than work in the farms so I don't know how much wages would have to increase to bring unskilled youth and avoid the negatives of very high wages compared to their productivity ( see France/Germany).
My personal theory is that people rather not work in farms.

[Dren The Black]

They are not competing for jobs. An American citizen will not work for the wages illegals get paid. The reason illegals get paid shit, is the same reason China's manufacturing is booming, you get the lowest cost you can. It has nothing to do with amnesty...

Yes, and no. You cut out the source of cheap disposable labor, and you force companies to raise wages to attract legal workers.

Remember, once illegals get amnesty, they no longer work agriculture, because their legality in the country let's them get paid legitimately, instead of under the table. Your assertion, contradicts your point.

No... it doesn't. You're literally telling me why what I said is correct.

EDIT: well, time for work. i'll be back later to continue this.

[Elegiac]

So?

So, Americans wouldn't be doing those jobs anyway.

Which is why you have chronic underemployment in the states which engage in yearly 'kick the beaner' deportation schemes.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and no. You cut out the source of cheap disposable labor, and you force companies to raise wages to attract legal workers.

Or, as is actually the case, they automate.

Why do you think machine harvestable tomatoes were invented?

[Dren The Black]

And you are aware that jobs available is primarily a function of market demand, which is in turn generated by people's ability to consume (i.e. their disposable income), yes?

Cutting out cheap disposable illegal labor forces the company to hire legal labor through higher wages. which increase spending power(ability to consume) of citizens.

Moreover, the simplistic supply/demand model doesn't account for the disparity in negotiating power that is -inherent- in a market system.

And when you run cheap disposable illegal labor through the negotiating power of the american citizen is hamstrung.

I'll be back later. Time for work.

[Bollocks]

Uh... You realize that the job market works as a "supply"(people wanting work) and "demand'(jobs available) model? The higher the jobs to people ratio there is the higher wages will rise in response. The lower it is the lower wages go... thinking that raising the minimum wage will magically fix wage disparity is short sighted and discounts real market factors.





Feel free to enlighten us with your theories then.

Lump of labor fallacy.

[Deleted]

It couldn't possibly be the businesses hiring illegal immigrants, could it.

yes, its not the fault of illegal immigration, but because business hire those people.
That's some primo grade 'perspective' going on.

[Breccia]

If online polls aren't your thing, how about Gallup? They're pretty well respected, right?

They didn't cover the debate, but literally yesterday published these results:

Clinton leads Trump by double-digits when the issue is:
Race relations (Clinton by 35)
Climate Change (Clinton by 33)
"Social issues such as gay marriage and abortion" Clinton +30
Foreign Affairs Clinton +26
Education Clinton +25
Healthcare/ACA Clinton +15
Immigration Clinton +13

Trump does not lead Clinton by double digits in any category asked. He is, however, +9 on the budget/defecit, regulation of Wall Street/banks, and the size/efficiency of the government.

They also pointed out how Trump was weaker amongst Republicans than Clinton was amongst Democrats. For example, when asked which candidate would better handle healthcare/ACA, 73% of Republicans said Trump, 83% of Democrats picked Clinton, giving her +10.

Clinton had a double-digit lead in 8 categories, four of which were 30 and up. Trump had a double-digit lead in 6 categories and his highest gap was 21.

They also did the same with "young voters" ages 18 to 34. First of all, fuck you Gallup, 34 is not young. Second of all, amongst those voters, Clinton led by double-digits in eleven categories, Trump never did.

Gallup was quick to point out that both candidates have horrible ratings amongst young voters, with Clinton at 38% to Trump's 34%. Bear that in mind when reading those results.

If nothing else, this is food for thought for both candidates. Clearly, they both have some ground to make up in at least a few places. But in a strictly issues-based discussion, the evidence leans in Clinton's favor more than Trump's.

[Elegiac]

yes, its not the fault of illegal immigration, but because business hire those people.
That's some primo grade 'perspective' going on.

In other news, headaches cause cancer.

Illegal immigration is a symptom of a series of issues relating to border control and being lax in terms of labor standards enforcement. And to wit, it's not related to the issue of wage suppression which is -general-, not just in the agricultural sector.

- - - Updated - - -

Cutting out cheap disposable illegal labor forces the company to hire legal labor through higher wages. which increase spending power(ability to consume) of citizens.

Or, as is more accurate, it encourages automation which leads to no net change in the employment rate or wage levels.

Whereas simply increasing the minimum wage cascades upwards to increase buying power for the vast majority of consumers.