trump has 91% chance of winning 2nd term professor says
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,295
Location: the island of defective toy santas
I'm not sure that it is hate: just a different understanding of what is best for people\the country.
From what I have seen, the Democrats seem to believe the best thing for the poor is to give them money\services, whereas the Republicans see that as making them dependant on those "gifts" and would rather try to help them get into a position where they can support themselves.
This leads to the Democrats trying to help everyone (including those who lack a lawful reason to be in the country), whereas the Republicans try to help those poor who are legally in the country by removing the competition they face for jobs\income\etc. that comes from the people who are in the country illegally.
historically they've been opposed to anything that would give the working class a break- they have long supported things such as no restrictions on insurance premiums, onerous pre-existing conditions clauses and in short, anything that can maximise their own profits at the expense of the workers who are systematically priced out of health care here. more than one GOPer has said that EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act, the 1985 law that says ERs have to treat all comers without demanding prior payment] is next in their sights after they repeal Obamacare. in the old days here, if you were poor they didn't even let you in the ER! THAT is what our GOP wants us to return to. the GOP has NEVER been actually interested in helping anybody but themselves.
I'm not sure that it is hate: just a different understanding of what is best for people\the country.
From what I have seen, the Democrats seem to believe the best thing for the poor is to give them money\services, whereas the Republicans see that as making them dependant on those "gifts" and would rather try to help them get into a position where they can support themselves.
This leads to the Democrats trying to help everyone (including those who lack a lawful reason to be in the country), whereas the Republicans try to help those poor who are legally in the country by removing the competition they face for jobs\income\etc. that comes from the people who are in the country illegally.
historically they've been opposed to anything that would give the working class a break- they have long supported things such as no restrictions on insurance premiums, onerous pre-existing conditions clauses and in short, anything that can maximise their own profits at the expense of the workers who are systematically priced out of health care here. more than one GOPer has said that EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act, the 1985 law that says ERs have to treat all comers without demanding prior payment] is next in their sights after they repeal Obamacare. in the old days here, if you were poor they didn't even let you in the ER! THAT is what our GOP wants us to return to. the GOP has NEVER been actually interested in helping anybody but themselves.
That being the case, I'm curious how trying to remove those in the country illegally, and prevent further entrants helps with this?
As I understood it, this would make it easier for those legally in the country to get jobs (through decreased competition for existing places) and cause their wages to go up (through lower number of available employees, leading to higher wages/better conditions needing to be offered to obtain employees), which would seem to be a net benefit for the "working class", rather than the "bosses".
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,295
Location: the island of defective toy santas
I'm not sure that it is hate: just a different understanding of what is best for people\the country.
From what I have seen, the Democrats seem to believe the best thing for the poor is to give them money\services, whereas the Republicans see that as making them dependant on those "gifts" and would rather try to help them get into a position where they can support themselves.
This leads to the Democrats trying to help everyone (including those who lack a lawful reason to be in the country), whereas the Republicans try to help those poor who are legally in the country by removing the competition they face for jobs\income\etc. that comes from the people who are in the country illegally.
historically they've been opposed to anything that would give the working class a break- they have long supported things such as no restrictions on insurance premiums, onerous pre-existing conditions clauses and in short, anything that can maximise their own profits at the expense of the workers who are systematically priced out of health care here. more than one GOPer has said that EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act, the 1985 law that says ERs have to treat all comers without demanding prior payment] is next in their sights after they repeal Obamacare. in the old days here, if you were poor they didn't even let you in the ER! THAT is what our GOP wants us to return to. the GOP has NEVER been actually interested in helping anybody but themselves.
That being the case, I'm curious how trying to remove those in the country illegally, and prevent further entrants helps with this?
As I understood it, this would make it easier for those legally in the country to get jobs (through decreased competition for existing places) and cause their wages to go up (through lower number of available employees, leading to higher wages/better conditions needing to be offered to obtain employees), which would seem to be a net benefit for the "working class", rather than the "bosses".
by and large our southern neighbors visiting us up here are doing jobs that americans by and large are not well-suited for. if you get rid of those people somehow, that does not automatically mean that more than a tiny number of americans will suddenly decide to do those jobs, most of which are hard squat labor in the hot sun. it is in the american interest to let them have those jobs, just like europe does with their southern visitors. this is not PC but it is reality.
I'm not sure that it is hate: just a different understanding of what is best for people\the country.
From what I have seen, the Democrats seem to believe the best thing for the poor is to give them money\services, whereas the Republicans see that as making them dependant on those "gifts" and would rather try to help them get into a position where they can support themselves.
This leads to the Democrats trying to help everyone (including those who lack a lawful reason to be in the country), whereas the Republicans try to help those poor who are legally in the country by removing the competition they face for jobs\income\etc. that comes from the people who are in the country illegally.
historically they've been opposed to anything that would give the working class a break- they have long supported things such as no restrictions on insurance premiums, onerous pre-existing conditions clauses and in short, anything that can maximise their own profits at the expense of the workers who are systematically priced out of health care here. more than one GOPer has said that EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act, the 1985 law that says ERs have to treat all comers without demanding prior payment] is next in their sights after they repeal Obamacare. in the old days here, if you were poor they didn't even let you in the ER! THAT is what our GOP wants us to return to. the GOP has NEVER been actually interested in helping anybody but themselves.
That being the case, I'm curious how trying to remove those in the country illegally, and prevent further entrants helps with this?
As I understood it, this would make it easier for those legally in the country to get jobs (through decreased competition for existing places) and cause their wages to go up (through lower number of available employees, leading to higher wages/better conditions needing to be offered to obtain employees), which would seem to be a net benefit for the "working class", rather than the "bosses".
by and large our southern neighbors visiting us up here are doing jobs that americans by and large are not well-suited for. if you get rid of those people somehow, that does not automatically mean that more than a tiny number of americans will suddenly decide to do those jobs, most of which are hard squat labor in the hot sun. it is in the american interest to let them have those jobs, just like europe does with their southern visitors. this is not PC but it is reality.
The question is: Would americans do the jobs if wages\conditions were improved as a result of the cheap labour no longer being available? At some point, the wages\conditions would reach a point where there would be plenty of americans applying for the jobs.
The same thing would happen with "minimum wage" jobs: With a much smaller pool of potential employees, companies would have to voluntarily increase the wages offered in order to fill the positions (and retain staff).
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,295
Location: the island of defective toy santas
americans don't wanna pay 10 bucks for a head of lettuce, which would result if they paid produce pickers a living wage, and this is because the food corporations insist on an excess profit and also compound that by overpaying their overabundant layers of executives. they cut at the bottom only, never higher up in the command chain. amuuurican capitalists would just as soon invest in automation.
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,295
Location: the island of defective toy santas
auntblabby
Veteran
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,295
Location: the island of defective toy santas
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
No.
My conversations about trump are almost exclusively online - here and Facebook. Almost everyone is at the beach to enjoy the beach, it’s hippie culture, and one another’s company, not to talk about American politics.
My opposition to the orange lunatic is that he is unfit to lead anything, especially the United States of America. He is a career criminal & fraudster. A total conman. A grifter. There is simply No Way that man of his character with a history of his actions in life and business should be potus. Period.
Even without the sex crimes and allegations of money laundering business with the Russian mob, he has a lengthy track record of criminality with his finances and business dealings.
Here’s just a sampling of them:
Then add in the fact that he’s deranged and delusional, functionally illiterate, and has no interest in doing his job seeing as he spends his time and hundreds of Millions of taxpayer dollars golfing at his own resorts, has broken election laws requesting international interference in American elections from at least 3 different countries, has pissed off the entire world with with his twisted perspective on international trade and other agreements (UN, NATO, WHO, Paris Accord etc) and on and on and on - military moves that kill allies and benefit his favoured dictators, an incapability of understanding basics of international trade deficits and how tariffs work etc etc - firing everyone in his own government that dares do their job of providing oversight of government spending, doing the OPPOSITE of what medical experts have recommended to do to save lives during this viral pandemic that’s resulted in ~135,000 dead Americans and climbing - he is about The Least qualified person to be in such a position of leadership and power. And this lunatic has the United States of America’s nuclear launch codes.
He belongs in a mental institution, not the Oval Office.
_________________
No
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
I'm not sure that it is hate: just a different understanding of what is best for people\the country.
From what I have seen, the Democrats seem to believe the best thing for the poor is to give them money\services, whereas the Republicans see that as making them dependant on those "gifts" and would rather try to help them get into a position where they can support themselves.
This leads to the Democrats trying to help everyone (including those who lack a lawful reason to be in the country), whereas the Republicans try to help those poor who are legally in the country by removing the competition they face for jobs\income\etc. that comes from the people who are in the country illegally.
This post is just gross.
Attacks on civil and human rights of minorities, lgbt people etc are absolutely done out of hate and not a “different understanding of what is best for people\the country.”
Gross.
Republicans have no interest in poor people succeeding. They don’t want them to have any supports to be able to improve their lot in life, to prosper and be healthy. They want to keep them as their low paid disposable wage slaves - subservient “subhumans,” defined and divided largely by race/ethnicity - which is also just gross.
Defending, condoning, or tolerating this garbage mentality is just gross.
_________________
No
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
I'm not sure that it is hate: just a different understanding of what is best for people\the country.
From what I have seen, the Democrats seem to believe the best thing for the poor is to give them money\services, whereas the Republicans see that as making them dependant on those "gifts" and would rather try to help them get into a position where they can support themselves.
This leads to the Democrats trying to help everyone (including those who lack a lawful reason to be in the country), whereas the Republicans try to help those poor who are legally in the country by removing the competition they face for jobs\income\etc. that comes from the people who are in the country illegally.
historically they've been opposed to anything that would give the working class a break- they have long supported things such as no restrictions on insurance premiums, onerous pre-existing conditions clauses and in short, anything that can maximise their own profits at the expense of the workers who are systematically priced out of health care here. more than one GOPer has said that EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment And Labor Act, the 1985 law that says ERs have to treat all comers without demanding prior payment] is next in their sights after they repeal Obamacare. in the old days here, if you were poor they didn't even let you in the ER! THAT is what our GOP wants us to return to. the GOP has NEVER been actually interested in helping anybody but themselves.
That being the case, I'm curious how trying to remove those in the country illegally, and prevent further entrants helps with this?
As I understood it, this would make it easier for those legally in the country to get jobs (through decreased competition for existing places) and cause their wages to go up (through lower number of available employees, leading to higher wages/better conditions needing to be offered to obtain employees), which would seem to be a net benefit for the "working class", rather than the "bosses".
by and large our southern neighbors visiting us up here are doing jobs that americans by and large are not well-suited for. if you get rid of those people somehow, that does not automatically mean that more than a tiny number of americans will suddenly decide to do those jobs, most of which are hard squat labor in the hot sun. it is in the american interest to let them have those jobs, just like europe does with their southern visitors. this is not PC but it is reality.
The question is: Would americans do the jobs if wages\conditions were improved as a result of the cheap labour no longer being available? At some point, the wages\conditions would reach a point where there would be plenty of americans applying for the jobs.
The same thing would happen with "minimum wage" jobs: With a much smaller pool of potential employees, companies would have to voluntarily increase the wages offered in order to fill the positions (and retain staff).
Not likely.
Systemic racism is so pervasive in the USA that most Americans will not “degrade themselves,” by doing “N-word work,” like harvesting crops.
This is a country who’s wealth was founded by black slaves picking cotton. Americans, especially white Americans, by and large refuse to do those jobs.
Republican politicians spouting off against illegal immigrants is all just to get their racist fan base all riled up. They don’t Actually want to kick all of the illegal labour out of the country - because too many Millionaires and Billionaires rely on them for ultra cheap labour to harvest crops, clean things, build things etc. It’s all just become a part of the American economy and a way to perpetuate white supremacy and socioeconomic status.
Even trump’s own vineyards in California had grapes rot on the vines in the last couple years due to Mexicans no longer coming up to pick them.
We’re now experiencing some of these same problems in Canadian agriculture. We grow a LOT of fruit in BC, and right now there are ad posts circulating on Facebook pleading with locals to travel to fruit producing regions and stay to pick fields of cherries and peaches etc because due to the coronavirus pandemic migrant farm labour has not been able to come to the region this year. (Largely from Mexico, and I’ve read that there are also quite a few Jamaican farm labourers that come to Canada to do the same.) The ads are pretty clear that if people want the world to have fruit from BC this year that locals need to go harvest it - and also to save the farms from near financial ruin.. but like the USA, it’s unlikely that Most Canadians, even unemployed ones seeking work, will be willing to go travel to those places and pick fruit in 30-40C heat for whatever the not likely very high pay rate is. Too many people believe these jobs are beneath them.
Then there’s the economics of benefits money at play.. many people are just riding out the free cash until they have to go back to work, and others who Need work don’t have the ability to pack up and travel several hundred kilometres away for work due to lack of car & funds as all of their money has been spent on rent and food - so even if they’re willing to do the work, it’s a matter of logistics when people need a source of income within walking distance of where they lay their head. Although, perhaps some farmers would be willing to arrange transportation to these small towns in order to have hands to put to work. Hmm, maybe.
_________________
No
Democrats are not that much different than Republicans when money matters.
_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.
Be the hero of your life.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
This professor guy’s model sure does think Americans are stupid. I mean, who would look at the mess he’s made of the country, trade, international relations, the environment, gutting healthcare coverage and other social programs, immigration, skyrocketing national debt etc - everything - AND the more than 130,000 dead Americans from COVID and the lies he keeps telling and actions he’s taking that will all but certainly ensure that the death toll exceeds 200,000 and keeps climbing come Election Day and then still vote for him thinking he’s done such a bang up job he really ought to be granted another 4 years to just keep making America great?! Wow. Are enough people really that stupid for this to be able to happen?
Obviously only time will tell. I certainly hope that enough voters aren’t that stupid.
Gee do I need explain this again. The polls were not that off in 2016. The meta polls taken right before the election had Hillary winning the popular vote by 3 to 4 points. She won by 2.9. Those making forecasts giving Hillary a 90 percent chance of winning ignored the fact that Trump was closing the gap in the final week and most of all were utterly convinced that a person like Trump could not win.
Now Trump is 8 to 10 points behind. Trump winning in 2016 was a massive Democrat screwup. Trump winning 2020 would be a worse screwup by multiple times for all the reasons we have talked about here since 2016. I still think it is very likely the dems will win despite themselves but I can’t rule out them blowing it completely, they are the Democrats after all. What happens if Biden has one senior moment too many something like “Hello, I’m running against Joe Biden”?. Maybe Trump gets somewhere with frustrated parents with his the dems messing up you and your kids keeping them home message. Maybe Biden plays to much to the woke crowd and people are not exactly thrilled with spiking crime due to defunding the police campaigns. The last I don’t think will happen because Trump can’t stay on message for any length of time before getting triggered by something else. The first possibility keeps me up at night.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Thank you Donald J Trump! |
30 Jul 2026, 2:12 am |
| "Trump Admin. Considers Order on Autism and Vaccines" |
20 Aug 2026, 12:04 pm |
