US Politics: midterm elections are nigh: do you know where your voting rights are?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Look we get that all you do is parrot opinions in a Rush-lite manner but you're asking me to find op-eds that take a different angle than the ones you copied and pasted despite the fact that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the policies(all of them!) you were asked to detail? Yeah...sorry guy.

So you can't, that's all you had to say bro.

[1918me]

I guess "context" really isn't a strength eh?

Why would he waste time on that tired ol' context defense?

[TerraPrime]

Merentha:

I don't know how far we will get with this line of questioning because Athias isn't really too keen about defining "coercion" in the context that she uses the term. We had a multi-page discussion last thread on this concept of "coercion" and far as I can tell she stopped engaging on the topic after a while.

[Summah]

So this is your answer for how this could happen during the six years of the first black presidents two terms. Basically, Bush was better for black Americans than Obama.

The economy crashed under Bush, so no. Right now the black unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in five years.

This problem didn't just happen, black unemployment rates have been that consistently high for at least 50 years, they've also been double that of whites for at least that long. I'm not sure how you expect Obama to fix hundred of years of racism in eight years total, that's certainly not something I or any other black people I know expect, despite your racist insinuations otherwise.

[Athias]

Yes, the employer is coercing the employee through threats of starvation. The choice is "starve or accept our offer." There is fear involved, and therefore, coercion. The employer does not have to be responsible for the cause of the fear to be coercive. If I have food, and you are dying of hunger, am I coercing you if I say I will give you some food if your sell ___ to me? Potentially, yes. This depends on the nature of my demand. I can coerce without having been the cause of your initial starvation and lack of food. Similarly, employers can coerce despite being not responsible for the employee's starvation. Eh, lets be even simpler, to ensure the point is made. You are hanging off a cliff, through no fault of my own. I offer to pull you up, of my own volition, on the condition you give me all your money. Am I coercing you? I say yes. If you disagree, all further discussion is rather moot, in my opinion.

The answer, naturally, is that both the employer and state are coercive. I will not contest that a minimum wage is coercive, any more than I contest that a prohibition against murder is coercive. Both are, as an entity is threatened with expulsion from society of they break those prohibitions. It is a part of the social construct that every member agrees to if they chose to participate in society.

How can an employer threaten starvation if neither the starvation nor the act of "inflicting" it originates from said employer? How can the employer threaten starvation if starvation pre-exists (and possibly persist in the rejection of) the prospect of any labor contracts with him/her? I don't dispute that there may be fear involved, but you have not made the connection between the employer delineating the terms to which he/she will participate in the contract, and intimidation. The fear is sustained by the employee for his/her own reasons that are independent from employer's actions.

Merentha:

I don't know how far we will get with this line of questioning because Athias isn't really too keen about defining "coercion" in the context that she uses the term. We had a multi-page discussion last thread on this concept of "coercion" and far as I can tell she stopped engaging on the topic after a while.

Are you confused about how I defined coercion? Because if I remember correctly, I did submit a definition in that multi-paged discussion.

[MerenthaClone]

How can an employer threaten starvation if neither the starvation nor the act of "inflicting" it originates from said employer? How can the employer threaten starvation if starvation pre-exists (and possibly persist in the rejection of) the prospect of any labor contracts with him/her? I don't dispute that there may be fear involved, but you have not made the connection between the employer delineating the terms to which he/she will participate in the contract, and intimidation. The fear is sustained by the employee for his/her own reasons that are independent from employer's actions.

Would you answer my hypothetical? You are hanging off the edge of a cliff. I had nothing to do with your predicament. I offer to lift you up on the condition that you give me all of your worldly possessions. Am I coercing you, under your definition of coercion?

The threat exists independent of the employer's actions, but the employer uses it (knowingly or unknowingly) to an advantage nonetheless. That is coercion.

[Commodore]

The black unemployment rate has been twice that of whites for at least 50 years, nothing has changed. Obama didn't work miracles and fix racism overnight like you seem to think we expected him to (hint: we didn't, it's too widespread and systemic to be fixed so quickly). This unemployment rate isn't new, it's pretty constantly hovering around 10% even when the economy is good.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/

50 years you say?

hrmmm

[alguien]

You referring to the time I educated you about the policies that have wrecked Chicago and Detroit, and you had no argument to dispute the facts I cited. That time?

You have an... interesting way of recalling events. Not to mention a tendency for entirely unwarranted trash-talking.

[Athias]

Would you answer my hypothetical? You are hanging off the edge of a cliff. I had nothing to do with your predicament. I offer to lift you up on the condition that you give me all of your worldly possessions. Am I coercing you, under your definition of coercion?

No. You are not responsible for my predicament and therefore you're not responsible for the possible outcomes that may occur as a result. You don't have to help me. Now if you seek to take advantage of this and propose a trade--all my worldly possessions for your help--that may make you crummy, but you are not coercing me. Because the terms to which you're dictating your participation isn't characterized by "give me all your stuff, or die," it's characterized by "give me all your stuff, or I won't help you." And as unfortunate as those terms may be, I'm not entitled to your help. The danger to my life is independent of your action. You are not threating me by not helping me.

On the other hand, if I was hanging off a cliff and you threatened to compromise my grip causing me to fall, then you'd be coercing me. Because under those circumstances, your terms will be characterized by "give me all your stuff, or I will make you fall."

The threat exists independent of the employer's actions, but the employer uses it (knowingly or unknowingly) to an advantage nonetheless. That is coercion.

No it isn't. That's just taking advantage. Exploitation may be a better word.

[TrackerNeil]

No. You are not responsible for my predicament and therefore you're not responsible for the possible outcomes that may occur as a result. You don't have to help me. Now if you seek to take advantage of this and propose a trade--all my worldly possessions for your help--that may make you crummy, but you are not coercing me. Because the terms to which you're dictating your participation isn't characterized by "give me all your stuff, or die," it's characterized by "give me all your stuff, or I won't help you." And as unfortunate as those terms may be, I'm not entitled to your help. The danger to my life is independent of your action. You are not threating me by not helping me.

On the other hand, if I was hanging off a cliff and you threatened to compromise my grip causing me to fall, then you'd be coercing me. Because under those circumstances, your terms will be characterized by "give me all your stuff, or I will make you fall."

No it isn't. That's just taking advantage. Exploitation may be a better word.

Merentha, FLoW and I had a conversation like this last year, about a scenario in which I, comfortably ensconced in my lavish yacht, come across a man swimming in shark-infested waters. If I offer to let him aboard only if he'll give himself over to indentured servitude, that's apparently not coercion because, after all, I didn't put him in the ocean, nor did I stock the water with sharks. It's defining coercion in the most narrow, privilege-accommodating terms, but there you are.

[TerraPrime]

So, exploitation is okay. Coercion to prohibit exploitation is not.

Kind of what we thought all along regarding Libertarian-like worldviews. Funny it takes such a long time and such a round-about way to get someone to admit to it.

[Wise Fool]

Have any of you answered the question that's been asked at least three times? If raising the minimum wage is so beneficial, why isn't it raised to $100/hr? I'd flip the hell out of some burgers for $100 an hour.

Because that's nonsensical. The minimum wage has always been relative to a living wage -"just and reasonable wages which shall be compensation sufficient to provide, for the hours of labor as limited, a standard of living in decency and comfort" ^{(National Industrial Recovery Act Sec .206)}, the specific rate of which is always tied to the cost of living. So it relates to the dollar value, and not the dollar amount. Otherwise, it would still be at 25 cents an hour, because that was the reasonable rate at the time.

Nobody is arguing for a hundred, (or even a hundred thousand, or a million lol! as certain media pundits have routinely blurted), so asking "why not" to these is like me asking you "if having a salad for lunch is so beneficial WHY NOT TEN MILLION SALADS?" You'd kind of think that was a stupid question, right? Yeah. And maybe you'd walk away. Or maybe you'd get into this weird conversation about how salads work just because one of us just plain doesn't like salad.

If you're against the minimum wage, try to explain why, rather than burn down a strawman - "at least three times," according to yourself.

[Shryke]

Would you answer my hypothetical? You are hanging off the edge of a cliff. I had nothing to do with your predicament. I offer to lift you up on the condition that you give me all of your worldly possessions. Am I coercing you, under your definition of coercion?

The threat exists independent of the employer's actions, but the employer uses it (knowingly or unknowingly) to an advantage nonetheless. That is coercion.

Coercion might not be the best word for this, even if I get what you are trying to say. It's more that the bargaining positions here are inherently unequal in a way that heavily biases negotiations.

It's just like, say, health care. Another market we know doesn't function properly for the exact same reason. (ie - because one side ultimately must make a deal to survive at all)

[Athias]

So, exploitation is okay. Coercion to prohibit exploitation is not.

Kind of what we thought all along regarding Libertarian-like worldviews. Funny it takes such a long time and such a round-about way to get someone to admit to it.

Non-sequitur.

[Ormond]

Non-sequitur.

Terra Prime was being a bit glib to conclude you thought exploitation was "OK".

But if the report of previous conversations is correct, it does not seem to me that it would be a non sequitur to say that you hold that exploitation, though bad, is much LESS bad than coercion, because it seems that you believe that no amount of coercion is ever justified even in cases of the most grievous exploitation.

[TrackerNeil]

So, exploitation is okay. Coercion to prohibit exploitation is not.

Kind of what we thought all along regarding Libertarian-like worldviews. Funny it takes such a long time and such a round-about way to get someone to admit to it.

I suspect the justification goes something like this: "Exploitation is unfortunate, but to prevent it we'd have to allow something even worse." It's a map-over-territory approach, which I find typical of libertarian thought. I doubt that human history shows that coercion to prevent exploitation has had worse outcomes than the exploitation itself, but then libertarians seem to me quite unconcerned with how/where their principles intersect the real world. It's a philosophy whose justification is found not in real-world results but in intellectual consistency, and it should therefore be no wonder it's a hit with young people, who quite often live entirely in their own heads.

[Commodore]

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3607682.shtml#.VFbY4PnF_ww

The first case of voter fraud in New Mexico this election has been confirmed by the Rio Arriba County Clerk's Office.

According to the Rio Arriba County Clerk's office, a voter trying to cast an early ballot in Espanola Saturday was told he had already voted three days prior.

The man told poll workers he hadn't voted. He was then shown the signature of the voter, but he says it wasn't his signature.

Officials say they were able to confirm that the signature on the original ballot did not match the legal voter's signature on file.

Poll workers allowed the man to vote on a provisional ballot, but election officials will have to determine whether the provisional ballot can be counted. Elections officials have no legal means of actually verifying signatures or confirming identification of a voter.

"The poll workers and the Rio Arriba County Clerk’s office did a good job in responding to the situation, following all the procedures available to them," said Bobbi Shearer of the Secretary of State’s office Saturday, "I have nothing, but praise for their efforts to try to ensure integrity in the election. It is just that under current law there are no means available to poll workers to help them determine if a voter is actually the person he says he is."

Shearer said the fraudulent voter's vote has already gone through a tabulator and cannot be identified or separated from all the legitimate ballots in the machine.
Rio Arriba County also fell under scrutiny just two years ago when campaign workers were caught offering alchol to voters.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3607682.shtml#.VFbY4PnF_ww

According to suttree, this never happened.

[TrackerNeil]

I'm curious if the GOP can resist impeachment if they do have a big day on Tuesday.

I remember, back in 2010, being sure the GOP would at some point try to impeach Obama, but I think I had that wrong. Clinton gave the GOP a pretty good opening, but even that didn't work out so well for them; Republican approval ratings tumbled and Clinton's soared. So you have to figure that any impeachment against Obama would be similarly disastrous, and would likely take place while the Republican primary was in swing. That means every Republican with his eye on the White House is going to have to take a position on the issue, and that's a red mess. So I think Boehner and McConnell will stay their hands, if only out of self-interest.

[The Mance]

The first case of voter fraud in New Mexico this election has been confirmed by the Rio Arriba County Clerk's Office.

Seems presumptuous to assume fraud. Could just as easily be some sort of clerical error that led to the first voter signing on the wrong line. Would not surprise me AT ALL that this is another case of voters with similar names getting mixed up. I've lived in that area, my first daughter was born in the Espanola hospital, and I can tell you there are a LOT of people with similar, if not identical, first, last, and even middle names in that area. Hell, i remember there being something like 3 pages of Gonzales' in the Taos county phone book alone.