2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Northern Davincia]

You're wrong but free to think otherwise.

I'm not really bothered to read 42 pages of a PDF, especially on this garbage computer, want to narrow down where this paper on the effects minimum wage has on employment contradicts my assertion that a minimum wage guarantees a minimum wage?

We show results from three administrative data sets that consistently indicate negative effects of the minimum wage on job growth. Our results are robust to a number of specifications and we find that the minimum wage reduces employment over a longer period of time than the literature has focused on in recent years.

It actually ensures that some workers are paid nothing at all, on account of losing their job.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Explain this.

With the abolition of the minimum wage, prices fall automatically. It's the same principle of supply-and-demand but with currency. Purchasing power, meanwhile, increases.

They won't. They will just keep on going up. Company's live off of unsustainable growth nowadays. See the AAA video game industry and how they keep on saying that games fail to meet expectations despite making a profit by selling millions of copies.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

They’ll last longer then a starving worker.

Yes, and then the rich will be starving and robots will laugh at our anticlimactic demise.
In more relevant news, Bill Weld is my second preferred candidate to McAfee.

I'd rather not have the workers starve just so the rich starve. I don't want anyone to starve.

[Valrifell]

Yes, and then the rich will be starving and robots will laugh at our anticlimactic demise.
In more relevant news, Bill Weld is my second preferred candidate to McAfee.

I'd rather not have the workers starve just so the rich starve. I don't want anyone to starve.

We could always eat the rich.

[Ifreann]

I'm not really bothered to read 42 pages of a PDF, especially on this garbage computer, want to narrow down where this paper on the effects minimum wage has on employment contradicts my assertion that a minimum wage guarantees a minimum wage?

We show results from three administrative data sets that consistently indicate negative effects of the minimum wage on job growth. Our results are robust to a number of specifications and we find that the minimum wage reduces employment over a longer period of time than the literature has focused on in recent years.

It actually ensures that some workers are paid nothing at all, on account of losing their job.

People without jobs don't get wages, therefore the minimum wage doesn't guarantee a minimum wage?


You're silly.

[Hakons]

Laïcité is awful and was started by a monstrous, revolutionary regime that slaughtered priests and nuns (among many, many others). Laïcité isn't secularism, but state atheism that demands religion be driven from all of the public sphere. It violates natural rights and is completely incompatible with American culture and democracy.

So of course, you support it

Laïcité is state secularism not state atheism. State secularism is where you can still practice your faith and churches exist but religious can’t run for office and you can’t flaunt your faith in public. State atheism is where the entire practice of religion is banned and churches are destroyed and those practicing religion are executed.

Now that we got that out of the way, Laïcité itself didn’t come about until 1871. Well after the anti-clerical French Revolution. Claiming that Laïcité is the same as anti-clericalism and came about in the revolution is the same as saying Merkel is a communist because she was born in East Germany

Religious people can't run for office in a secular state? That makes a mockery of what secularism is. OF COURSE religious people can hold public office, or else that is discrimination on religious grounds, a very un-secular thing. Forcing public officials to renounce their religion is clearly, obviously, and unapologetic state atheism, and you floating the idea that it is not is just blatant dishonesty.

What does "flaunting your religion in public" mean? Praying too loud? Wearing religious clothing? You are describing state atheism pretty well here. Preventing public displays of religion and banning religious people from office is a form of state atheism. While it is not as extreme as destroying Churches and killing religious people, it is still a form of state atheism, and one that tends to lead to this more extreme version. If you don't think setting out a group of people to be second-class citizens isn't a step to greater violations against them, you are willfully blinding yourself to history.

Regardless, such a system is entirely unconstitutional. The United States protects religious freedom from the discriminatory incursions on liberty that you propose. Religion is a powerful force in America, as it is in nearly all of the world, and I'm afraid to say your dreams of forcing Christians, Jews, Muslims, ect... to apostatize to hold public office don't have a clear path to fruition.

[Hakons]

Laïcité is awful and was started by a monstrous, revolutionary regime that slaughtered priests and nuns (among many, many others).

I see absolutely nothing wrong with all of the above.

he didn't even bother to deny the onslaught carried out by the radical Laicite secularist extremist terrorists

Believe it or not, I do not endorse the murder of the clergy (I skipped over it as being unlike the other examples you showed).

Seeing absolutely nothing wrong with all of the above certainly didn't give that impression. Regardless, the idea that religion should be entirely driven from the public sphere is still absurd and discriminatory.

To get back to the presidential topic, I wouldn't support Booker (or Harris for remarks from a different hearing). Despite glowing praise from radical elements here, criticizing religion usually isn't a path to success in America, and for good reason.

[Trumptonium1]

Trump, prior to his election, was able to do so, as you put it, in part because of his outrageous and biased rhetoric, and in part because of his caricaturesque personality. But there are other styles of dominating discourse that have a similar effect. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, has a rather different style than Trump, but she played the media brilliantly since her election, given how she's had a far greater role in national debate than one would expect from a house member with so little seniority.

AOC is in congress, Beto is not. None of the attention she gets is because she is her, but because of her actions or speeches in congress. Beto can't get any attention whatsoever, not unless he makes memes go viral.

The question is whether Beto has a similar ability to draw media attention disproportionate to his political office (which currently means, no office at all). I don't know whether he does, but I'm pretty sure adopting Trump's style of rhetoric wouldn't be a smart strategy for him, given that Democratic voters, who on average tend to be better educated than Republican voters, can reasonably be expected to prefer their discourse a little more fact-based and conventionally "civil" than the kind of rhetoric that set Trump apart in 2016.

Saying that Democrats are better educated than Republicans is a completely dumb statement. The average income of a Republican is far higher than a Democrat. Democrat "education attainment" figures are bloated by people with crappy degrees that rightly lead them to a life of poverty. Figures inflated by people with PhDs in Romantic Comedies, for one.

A Republican financial manager with no college degree is far more educated and smarter than some dumb progressive with a sociology degree who since graduating 8 years ago has switched between Starbucks and freelancing.

Degrees mean nothing to this subsect of the population who wouldn't be able to find their way out of a paper bag. Although I ain't moaning, since Dems calling people uneducated is clearly working against their interests anyway, so please, continue.

[Ifreann]

Trump, prior to his election, was able to do so, as you put it, in part because of his outrageous and biased rhetoric, and in part because of his caricaturesque personality. But there are other styles of dominating discourse that have a similar effect. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example, has a rather different style than Trump, but she played the media brilliantly since her election, given how she's had a far greater role in national debate than one would expect from a house member with so little seniority.

AOC is in congress, Beto is not. None of the attention she gets is because she is her, but because of her actions or speeches in congress.

The question is whether Beto has a similar ability to draw media attention disproportionate to his political office (which currently means, no office at all). I don't know whether he does, but I'm pretty sure adopting Trump's style of rhetoric wouldn't be a smart strategy for him, given that Democratic voters, who on average tend to be better educated than Republican voters, can reasonably be expected to prefer their discourse a little more fact-based and conventionally "civil" than the kind of rhetoric that set Trump apart in 2016.

Saying that Democrats are better educated than Republicans is a completely dumb statement. The average income of a Republican is far higher than a Democrat. Democrat "education attainment" figures are bloated by people with crappy degrees that rightly lead them to a life of poverty. Figures inflated by people with PhDs in Romantic Comedies, for one.

A Republican financial manager with no college degree is far more educated and smarter than some dumb progressive with a sociology degree who since graduating 8 years ago has switched between Starbucks and freelancing.

Degrees mean nothing to this subsect of the population who wouldn't be able to find their way out of a paper bag. Although I ain't moaning, since Dems calling people uneducated is clearly working against their interests anyway, so please, continue.

Education isn't a synonym for wealth. Or do you not have enough money to realise that?

[Trumptonium1]

By the way, average IQ of a university graduate today is identical to the average IQ of a high school graduate in 1960.

http://www.unz.com/anepigone/average-iq ... by-decade/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 150402883/
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/brbaker/



Those 50 year old mechanics voting for Trump in rural Ohio are just as smart as any randomly picked recent university graduate in liberal arts. So be careful who you call uneducated.

[Trumptonium1]

AOC is in congress, Beto is not. None of the attention she gets is because she is her, but because of her actions or speeches in congress.



Saying that Democrats are better educated than Republicans is a completely dumb statement. The average income of a Republican is far higher than a Democrat. Democrat "education attainment" figures are bloated by people with crappy degrees that rightly lead them to a life of poverty. Figures inflated by people with PhDs in Romantic Comedies, for one.

A Republican financial manager with no college degree is far more educated and smarter than some dumb progressive with a sociology degree who since graduating 8 years ago has switched between Starbucks and freelancing.

Degrees mean nothing to this subsect of the population who wouldn't be able to find their way out of a paper bag. Although I ain't moaning, since Dems calling people uneducated is clearly working against their interests anyway, so please, continue.

Education isn't a synonym for wealth. Or do you not have enough money to realise that?

It is.

Liberals have expanded the definition of "education" to include silly things like sociology, "romantic comedies", gender studies, et al, so it only makes sense for conservatives to expand the definition of education as something that should be a synonym of or direct correlation of wealth, the purpose of education.

You don't get to singlehandedly redefine things. 50 years ago those things were called hobbies.

[Valrifell]

By the way, average IQ of a university graduate today is identical to the average IQ of a high school graduate in 1960.

http://www.unz.com/anepigone/average-iq ... by-decade/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 150402883/
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/brbaker/

(Image)

Those 50 year old mechanics voting for Trump in rural Ohio are just as smart as any randomly picked recent university graduate in liberal arts. So be careful who you call uneducated.

IQ is fixed such that 100 is always the global average

[Trumptonium1]

By the way, average IQ of a university graduate today is identical to the average IQ of a high school graduate in 1960.

http://www.unz.com/anepigone/average-iq ... by-decade/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 150402883/
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/brbaker/

(Image)

Those 50 year old mechanics voting for Trump in rural Ohio are just as smart as any randomly picked recent university graduate in liberal arts. So be careful who you call uneducated.

IQ is fixed such that 100 is always the global average

harvard disagrees
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/brbaker/

1kg is not fixed so that a random stone in paris will always be 1kg irrespective of gravity and density

[Ifreann]

Education isn't a synonym for wealth. Or do you not have enough money to realise that?

It is.

Liberals have expanded the definition of "education" to include silly things like sociology, "romantic comedies", gender studies, et al, so it only makes sense for conservatives to expand the definition of education as something that should be a synonym of or direct correlation of wealth, the purpose of education.

You don't get to singlehandedly redefine things. 50 years ago those things were called hobbies.

People pursuing education in fields that you personally don't approve of does not constitute an expansion of the definition of education.

[Valrifell]

IQ is fixed such that 100 is always the global average

harvard disagrees
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/brbaker/

1kg is not fixed so that a random stone in paris will always be 1kg irrespective of gravity and density

Which is weird because the Flynn Effect is such a studied phenomenon (and is the opposite of what you're saying) that it even has a name. I could get some papers if you'd like.

Also, the Kilogram is defined terms of Planck's Constant, not Le Grand K. The Kilogram is defined according to an unchanging universal constant. Calling Le Grand K a 'stone' is also a gross oversimplification.

[Valrifell]

It is.

Liberals have expanded the definition of "education" to include silly things like sociology, "romantic comedies", gender studies, et al, so it only makes sense for conservatives to expand the definition of education as something that should be a synonym of or direct correlation of wealth, the purpose of education.

You don't get to singlehandedly redefine things. 50 years ago those things were called hobbies.

People pursuing education in fields that you personally don't approve of does not constitute an expansion of the definition of education.

Several Enlightenment thinkers were sociologists and the bulk of them spent time on stuff that wouldn't land them a job today.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

By the way, average IQ of a university graduate today is identical to the average IQ of a high school graduate in 1960.

http://www.unz.com/anepigone/average-iq ... by-decade/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 150402883/
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/brbaker/

(Image)

Those 50 year old mechanics voting for Trump in rural Ohio are just as smart as any randomly picked recent university graduate in liberal arts. So be careful who you call uneducated.

Trump's presidency has still been shit. I won't forget the time that his VA wanted to cut homeless vet funding towards giving them a home.
Or his FCC cutting off NN. Or gag ordering the EPA.

[Hediacrana]

AOC is in congress, Beto is not. None of the attention she gets is because she is her, but because of her actions or speeches in congress. Beto can't get any attention whatsoever, not unless he makes memes go viral.

You seem to have completely missed my point. I'm saying that to get more media attention than your political office would suggest (and as I wrote, Beto has no office whatsoever right now) is a useful talent for politicians, and it is one that AOC and Trump in different ways share. And I said it's an open question Beto has that talent too.

Saying that Democrats are better educated than Republicans is a completely dumb statement.

Not a dumb statement - rather, a measurably true fact. See the study I linked to. Your personal feelings about the worth of particular degrees don't do anything to change that fact.

Also note that I never said Republicans were less intelligent than Democrats. Education level is not the same thing as intelligence.

Although I ain't moaning, since Dems calling people uneducated is clearly working against their interests anyway, so please, continue.

It would seem that some deeply held worldviews of yours lead you to make some false assumptions about my views and claims. First, I'm not a Democrat; second, it's not me who's calling anyone uneducated; it's the people in that study themselves who reported their level of education.

[South Odreria]

I was unaware that level of education was synonymous with IQ. If you do not have a college degree and someone else does, then you have had a lower degree of education than that person. Talk about redefining things... I guess education now means "voted for Trump."

[Cannot think of a name]

Education isn't a synonym for wealth. Or do you not have enough money to realise that?

It is.

Liberals have expanded the definition of "education" to include silly things like sociology, "romantic comedies", gender studies, et al, so it only makes sense for conservatives to expand the definition of education as something that should be a synonym of or direct correlation of wealth, the purpose of education.

You don't get to singlehandedly redefine things. 50 years ago those things were called hobbies.

Higher education has always been centered on humanities and the liberal arts, with colleges of the late 19th and early 20th centuries focus on language, literature, logic, and rhetoric. The idea of college as vocational training is actually the redefinition of college, not the other way around.

[Len Hyet]

It is.

Liberals have expanded the definition of "education" to include silly things like sociology, "romantic comedies", gender studies, et al, so it only makes sense for conservatives to expand the definition of education as something that should be a synonym of or direct correlation of wealth, the purpose of education.

You don't get to singlehandedly redefine things. 50 years ago those things were called hobbies.

Higher education has always been centered on humanities and the liberal arts, with colleges of the late 19th and early 20th centuries focus on language, literature, logic, and rhetoric. The idea of college as vocational training is actually the redefinition of college, not the other way around.

Trumptonium scoffs at things he doesn't understand, is wrong. More on this breaking story at 11.

[Vyluria-Aseko]

Honestly, I think Biden is the best bet for our Country for the next election. We could use less partisanship in our election, and he seems like a good man to build bridges between everyone. As well, tons of experience too.

[Nor Portland]

Adam Kokesh 2020. Meme candidate but fuck the federal government so

[Cannot think of a name]

Adam Kokesh 2020. Meme candidate but fuck the federal government so

I feel like we already tried this and it went horribly.

[Puldania]

Ah yes, there's nothing like blatant hatred for those that put their life on the line to regulate civil society.

Edgy internet posters aside, most mature citizens respect law-enforcement. Making this a partisan issue is one of many ways I've gone to conservatism.

The most asshole-ish behaviour the police force indulge in around these parts of mine are ticket quotas, and frankly, aside from that, they're really not the demons that beat little babies that many make out to be.

Must be a US issue.

The police officers in my area have lovely coffee chats about how they don't answer calls from "ethnic" communities because they deserve whatever trouble they get into.
Or that they usually "eyeball" it when an "urban" driver passes by for a speeding ticket.

All around great people, really.