Fez Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Has she supported any war effort that politicians from both sides have not supported? The War on Poverty? Not a lot of Republican fans of that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Has she supported any war effort that politicians from both sides have not supported?What does that even mean? There's never been a purely partisan war. Did you miss all her recents jabs at Obama for being too soft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 What does that even mean? There's never been a purely partisan war. So why is it such a significance that she supports these wars? Oh I get it. You like Rand Paul and he has voted against wars. Am I right? Did you miss all her recents jabs at Obama for being too soft? I think I covered that when I said that she's obviously hawkish in philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I'm not even sure he's that great on paper. A simple comparison of WI to MN shows the terrible flaws in what he has implemented and how the alternative, namely MN 'socialism', works far better for the average worker and the state overall. He owns their shitty economy and it's going to be hard for him to dodge that on the national stage. I've said that too. In any sane world he would be laughed at for even saying he wants to be president. He came on the scene promising to create 250,000 new jobs, which sharp political analysts and economists noted was the minimum expected to be created by his state based on past performance regardless of what he did, and then somehow he failed to hit it. During his tenure WI has gone one of the fastest growing (economically) states in the region to one of the slowest, significantly below the federal average, companies that donated to his election got significant tax breaks and money to build up in state jobs... and promptly left the state and outsourced the work. He's got multiple in state scandals dogging him. He's currently slashing 300 million from the state university system (at the same time that we're trying to convince kids that education is the way to be successful and earn a place in society) and using state money to build a sports stadium, despite the fact that states doing that is a money loser for them. By all rights the man should be a laughing stock, a walking punch line. But he sure stuck it to those libturds and unions good, didn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 More on the latest jobs report.the one thing with the couple of pennies increase in average pay, I'm surprised no analysts commented that it probably bounced up because of the plethora of changes to state minimum wage laws starting in january, all increasing, I feel like that's got be a huge part of the increase if you decompose it, and probably part of the decrease in december (companies hiring more minimum wage people in dec to take advantage of training time at a cheaper rate than they would pay in january). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 the one thing with the couple of pennies increase in average pay, I'm surprised no analysts commented that it probably bounced up because of the plethora of changes to state minimum wage laws starting in january, all increasing, I feel like that's got be a huge part of the increase if you decompose it, and probably part of the decrease in december (companies hiring more minimum wage people in dec to take advantage of training time at a cheaper rate than they would pay in january). One would think that if that were actually the case, some analysts would, in fact, be commenting on it. Do you have some data to back up your assertion that that is 'probabl'y the cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 So why is it such a significance that she supports these wars?Oh I get it. You like Rand Paul and he has voted against wars. Am I right?I think I covered that when I said that she's obviously hawkish in philosophy.Not sure what Rand Paul has to do with it. Just pointing out that your defense (that other people also supported those wars) was weak as shit. Plenty of people opposed them too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The War on Poverty? Not a lot of Republican fans of that one. Heh...good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 One would think that if that were actually the case, some analysts would, in fact, be commenting on it. Do you have some data to back up your assertion that that is 'probabl'y the cause?The brain cells in my intestines say so, that's why. Actually the latimes article posted this evening does mention minimum wage as being a significant part of the increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suttree Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The brain cells in my intestines say so, that's why. Actually the latimes article posted this evening does mention minimum wage as being a significant part of the increase. I've seen a number of analysts reference the fact that it did indeed play a role, albeit a small one. What the minimum wage changes most certainly didn't do was "hurr durr job killer". Serious question. How can the right keep trotting out that same tired old canard despite it being disproven time and again as the data comes in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Because data doesn't influence people the way hate and fear does. Same reason democrats keep trying to pass gun regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Serious question. How can the right keep trotting out that same tired old canard despite it being disproven time and again as the data comes in? Because the rightwing base relies on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for their news. If those sources don't cover it, then it's just filthy lies told by Obama to make America trust him so he can implement Muslim Socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGriff89 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Because the rightwing base relies on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for their news. If those sources don't cover it, then it's just filthy lies told by Obama to make America trust him so he can implement Muslim Socialism. You should have heard some of the crap my ex's father used to talk about. Loyal Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck listener/ watcher. I don't think it's that right wingers don't fact check, I think it's more that they don't accept some things aren't debatable. Everything is a matter of opinion no matter how much research proves the opposite they like that narrative better so they stick to it. I'll give an example: vaccines and autism. There's no evidence of a link after copious amounts of research. Still, disregard the facts the idea is there and all these right wing mouth pieces as well as Dr Rand Paul supports this narrative so there must be something to it.Besides, if vaccines lead to autism think of what else they can lead to. Before you know it Obama and all his socialist commie liberal democratic Marxist cronies will have us all under sharia mind control and take all our money to give to illegals.I wish I could tell you I'm just using a straw man argument, but l have read worse than that from his Facebook. I'm only paraphrasing a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The contest for the Republican nomination reminds me of this.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg&list=RDkTcRRaXV-fg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Serious question. How can the right keep trotting out that same tired old canard despite it being disproven time and again as the data comes in? Basically, the average voter don't care about figures and charts, might be a holdover of mathophobia from school. Trying to convince a voter, you need to tell a story, not point to 'useless' facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zelticgar Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I'll give an example: vaccines and autism. There's no evidence of a link after copious amounts of research. Still, disregard the facts the idea is there and all these right wing mouth pieces as well as Dr Rand Paul supports this narrative so there must be something to it.Besides, if vaccines lead to autism think of what else they can lead to. Before you know it Obama and all his socialist commie liberal democratic Marxist cronies will have us all under sharia mind control and take all our money to give to illegals.I wish I could tell you I'm just using a straw man argument, but l have read worse than that from his Facebook. I'm only paraphrasing a little. That's an interesting opinion. I do recall some of the more libertarian GOPer espousing opinions about parents rights when it comes to vaccinations but the polls dont seem to back your assertion up. Most polls that explore opinions on vaccinations show results that show the younger a person is the more likely they are to be in favor of parental rights for vaccinations. As a matter of fact, only 20% of those 65 or old (the majority of Fox News viewers) support a parents right to decide. 41% of millennials are against mandatory vacs. HuffPost poll on mandatory vaccinations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The Difference here seems to be between people who have experienced the things Vaccines protect against and those who haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 The Difference here seems to be between people who have experienced the things Vaccines protect against and those who haven't.Heh. Because of, y'know, vaccines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungGriff89 Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 That's an interesting opinion. I do recall some of the more libertarian GOPer espousing opinions about parents rights when it comes to vaccinations but the polls dont seem to back your assertion up. Most polls that explore opinions on vaccinations show results that show the younger a person is the more likely they are to be in favor of parental rights for vaccinations. As a matter of fact, only 20% of those 65 or old (the majority of Fox News viewers) support a parents right to decide. 41% of millennials are against mandatory vacs. HuffPost poll on mandatory vaccinationsI can understand that. I'm actually not so surprised to see people old enough to remember life before vaccines were mandatory in favor of them. Yeah I am generalizing a lot using one anecdote and that's my mistake. I do have more where that came from but it is all anecdote so, yeah. What I'm getting at is that lack of vaccination is a public health risk. It isn't something you can lump under "you should decide what you do with your body." Which is a common libertarian theme. The lack of outbreaks undermines how important the vaccines are. It's like when that one Fox anchor said "what good are these regulations doing anyway? You guys remember when acid rain was a big thing? I mean whatever happened to acid rain?" Regulations happened to acid rain. Well what the heck happened to all these things vaccines prevented? Vaccines. If autism wasn't a side effect of vaccinations then why would autism now be an issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Serious question. How can the right keep trotting out that same tired old canard despite it being disproven time and again as the data comes in? Come now my little stalker. The same can be said for both sides. That's a weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.