Gaining traction?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

But to say someone is entitled to pay employees a starvation wage and encourage them to take government assistance while pocketing billions is so mortally currupt. But I can see why you support that from your posting history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, no one has to work there, no one has to shop there. The Waltons figured out how to do retail better than anyone on the planet.

"But I can see why you support that from your posting history."

I want everyone to succeed and be comfortable, I genuinely do. If I had billions, I would happily give 99% of it away. But you can't take it by force.

You, and liberals, have this idea that the wealthy are stealing from everyone else. Not so. Wealth is not finite. Neither the Waltons, nor the CEO of Walmart, are responsible for the fact that so many kids don't do homework in high school, and this are stuck in dead-end jobs. The solution isn't to punish the wealthy, the better solution is to incentivize people to acquire the skills to get a better job than stocking shelves at Walmart.

Liberalism: gimme, gimme, gimme.

White cops are to blame for violence against blacks. The wealthy are to blame for poverty.

Yawn.

[Nebe]

In many cases, people do have to work there. A walmart moves into town and poof. small mom and pop business start going out of business. The double whammy for so many small towns is a home depot and a walmart. You will loose your hardware store, your whole main street of shops could close.. Im talking about very rural towns by the way. Add a Panera Bread and a Chipotle to the mix and you will loose family owned restaurants. Im not saying this is illegal or is immoral, etc, but this is the root problem.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

but this is the root problem.

this is funny...you see a large organization that pays it's bills and meets it's obligations as the root of the problem....I see a large government that can't pay it's current bills and obligations and in fact, is so indebted that it's current track is widely termed unsustainable in numbers unfathomable... as the root of the problem.....you apparently think reducing the salary of the person successfully running an organization as well as reducing the "pillaging" by the owners of that organization which is paying it's bills and meeting it's obligations as part of the solution to the root of the problem.....I think reducing the size and expense and obligations of an organization multi trillions in debt, whose obligations are riddled with fraud, waste and abuse, patronage, cronyism....and whose actors are so entrenched and beholden at the trough that they cannot make decisions in the best interest of the organization as the root of the problem...


your guy, bernie, wants to expand the scope of the federal government funneling trillions more $$$ through it if he is elected....how is that going to improve "the root" of the problem for the federal government? Isn't that like showing up at an alcoholics convention with more booze?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

Probably not. The Democrats have their own special system .
It is pretty ironic though isn't it? Bernie worked so hard for something only to have it taken away and given to somebody that doesn't deserve it ����
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Giddayup....redistribution of delegates!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

But to say someone is entitled to pay employees a starvation wage and encourage them to take government assistance while pocketing billions is so mortally currupt. But I can see why you support that from your posting history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wake up Eben....http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...nhappy-workers

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

If I had employees I would .......


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

....understand the "actual" cost of having employees

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by buckman

Hillary ended up with more delegates in NH then Bernie I believe . The fix is in . The Democrats don't care about your vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems you got your outrage Email right on time .. Watch out there are some beyonce controversy email in the pipe line

Some one has already made the point just like Iowa's Coin flip and now Super delegates.. this isn't new .. Just another example have Facts seem not to matter its Just another Conspiracy undiscovered By Conservatives

http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...tablishme.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems you got your outrage Email right on time .. Watch out there are some beyonce controversy email in the pipe line

Some one has already made the point just like Iowa's Coin flip and now Super delegates.. this isn't new .. Just another example have Facts seem not to matter its Just another Conspiracy undiscovered By Conservatives

http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...tablishme.html

She has 9 times as many delegates. She barely won Iowa, and got creamed in NH. And the guy who wrote your article, says we shouldn't care about that, because up until now, superdelegates have never decided anything.

Here's my question - why do they exist at all? For what purpose? Please answer.

Bernie won NH by the largest margin ever, I believe. And after that primary, he fell further behind Hilary. If that's democracy, I fail to see how, and you can never explain that away.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Who said anything about giving it all away? If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc.

If you look at personal income growth it was awesome from ww2 until the 70's and then it slowed way down. And suddenly, poof! CEO's started making tons of money. What started that change ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"CEO's started making tons of money"

But that doesn't mean that everyone else makes a lot less, as I showed with the Walmart math. Nebe, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

"If I had employees I would pay them fairly. That would mean enough to live on their own..

Apartment, food, a car payment, etc"

Right. If you owned a small restaurant, you would pay your cashiers and busboys enough to pay rent, a car payment, etc?? The economy doesn't work that way, Nebe. There are unskilled, entry-level jobs that are not designed to be sufficient to raise a family on. If we paid everyone $50k a year for every job, prices at every department store would skyrocket, and you'd be complaining about the new high prices.

The problem isn't CEO pay. You now know that.

The problem is we have too many kids whose parents don't encourage them to do schoolwork. If you get C's and D's in high school (and for most kids who do, it's a choice on their part), you are going to struggle. There's nothing unfair about that. There are a small number of people who don't have the ability to rise above menial work at Walmart, and we have an obligation to help those people. People who chose to slack off? Different story. They can work harder and get promoted at Walmart, they can go to school at night, etc.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems you got your outrage Email right on time .. Watch out there are some beyonce controversy email in the pipe line

Some one has already made the point just like Iowa's Coin flip and now Super delegates.. this isn't new .. Just another example have Facts seem not to matter its Just another Conspiracy undiscovered By Conservatives

http://www.pastemagazine.com/article...tablishme.html

I see you got your, be a condescending ass memo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

This is the Buckman attempt at civil discourse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This is the Buckman attempt at civil discourse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wait what? That Clinton would get more super delegates? That was known all along, it's how the system works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by buckman

No , I just get sick of the left being so dismissive of facts(or anything that disagrees with their world view)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's the essential ingredient for membership

[ecduzitgood]

The Democrats have super delegates because they know the people who vote for Democrats cannot be trusted to vote for the right Democratic candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Wait what? That Clinton would get more super delegates? That was known all along, it's how the system works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's how your system works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by Nebe

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would like to see the actual vote from Iowa but I suspect Hillary wasn't all that popular.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Wait what? That Clinton would get more super delegates? That was known all along, it's how the system works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please explain how that system of yours is consistent with the principles of "democracy".

Spence, how can you get behind a candidate who claims to be opposed to how "rigged" the system supposedly is, when she is perfectly willing to reap for herself the benefits of being an insider?

How can anyone take this woman seroiusly?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As long as the herd votes for the candidate preferred by the super-delegates. When the majority have a different idea than the super-delegates, we are witnessing what happens. Yet those same Democratic insiders claim to be opposed to "crony capitalism". Unbelievable. You cannot make this up.

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She has 9 times as many delegates. She barely won Iowa, and got creamed in NH. And the guy who wrote your article, says we shouldn't care about that, because up until now, superdelegates have never decided anything.

Here's my question - why do they exist at all? For what purpose? Please answer.

Bernie won NH by the largest margin ever, I believe. And after that primary, he fell further behind Hilary. If that's democracy, I fail to see how, and you can never explain that away.

Constitutional Republic, not to be confused with a dictatorship of the proletatiat

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fishpart

Constitutional Republic, not to be confused with a dictatorship of the proletatiat

True, we are a republic, but in a democratic republic, officials are supposed to reflect the will of the people they are supposed to serve (you can take time to laugh at that if you want).

I believe all democrats in congress are superdelegates. Who are the other superdelegates? I presume not all of them are elected, that some are appointed. In which case, they are not answerable to the voters, therefore the voters have zero say in how they vote. That's precisely contrary to everything we were founded upon.

[Fly Rod]

If voting made any difference, they would not let us do it.....

It does not matter if bernie wins more democratic primaries, it is set in stone that hillary if not indited will B the nominee and that's the way it is....

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Nebe

These delegates and super delegates voted are not set in stone and history has shown us that they will follow the popular vote. However it sure does seem like it is a trigger for a suppression of democracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

But what is the logic behind it? Why i sth enomination process more democratic with the super-delegates?

And there was a lot of controversy in 2008, when it came down to the wire between Hilary and Weird Harold. She won the popular vote, he had the super delegates. Then, there was this weird situation where the DNC "punished" some states for having their primaries too early, by reducing the number of regular (non-super)delegates those states represented. I doin't remember who won those states or if it turned out to matter.

But I cannot imagine what the point of them is, except to undermine the democratic process, in the admittedly unlikely event that a non-establishment candidate wins a majority of the regular delegates. The king-makers want to make sure they approve of who the herd nominates. What other possible explanation is there?

I don't think it exists on the GOP side, and for good reason. As horrified as I am at the prospect of a Trump nomination, if he wins enough states, he has earned the right to be the nominee.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This.
About half are democrats in congress and democratic governors.
The rest are mayors and other democratic party types.

represents 15% total; as of now it has never decided an election, and if Sanders starts winning other state primaries, you will see a change in how some of these initial ones get committed.

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm confused. So they get to vote twice or just change their vote which is the same as voting twice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what hapened in their state's primary.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I think the super delegates can declare who they support as of today. But they don't actually vote until the convention. They can declare one thing, and change their mind before the convention. Even the regular delegates in Iowa and NH don't officially vote until the convention, I think it's assumed that the regular (non-super) delegates will vote in accordance with what happened in their state's primary.

As of now they have stated or been quoted in the press as supporting a candidate, but they are not awarded till the convention.

The GOP has super delegates too....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

We shall see. My point here and I should have voiced it is that I see the economy picking up. Higher wages equals more spending and the fly wheels turn faster.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

at what point do you need to stop stimulating these economies that you think are thriving?


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-krona-warning

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/11/fed-c...recession.html