Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Tim Sheens]

I will state it once again, that all of the lowest paying states with a rate down to $7.25 an hour are Republican states, every single one of them. It is not by coincidence that the vast majority of earlier life deaths are from this demographic and especially so right now, as apart from all the other disadvantage suffered, they don't have health cover.


FG you and I have previously clearly and I hope respectfully determined we have very different politics and world viewpoints and I hope thats cool. it certainly is from my point of view. I am not arrogant enough to think that I am totally right and you are wrong and the point you raise regularly above is very clear on a superficial level, however I totally and strongly disagree with it and I would encourage you to hear me out with an open mind.

If I can make your case for you, your argument is that Republican states have the lowest wages because they have Republican State Governments is this correct? But only you are able to work that out and the residents of these states are too stupid to work it out and vote for the other guys? Is it not possible that they have tried the other guys and it was worse and so they vote these guys in because they are more jobs focused and are able to best overcome whatever inherent issues there are in these states?

Your argument regarding minimum wages is based on a theory of supply side of economics (socialism/Communism) in that THIS is the minimum wage and THIS is what you get paid. In a capitalist system, it is a demand economy and wages are based on the balance of supply and demand. Pre COVID the US had a *massive* shortage of skilled labour and so a massive supply of jobs and massive demand for skilled labour, the logical outcome being increased wages. The question has to be asked, how do low minimum wages (assuming anyone is actually being paid these wages) exist in a US economy with a massive skilled labour shortage?

It actually is a mystery as to how the biggest economy on earth has an issue with low wage rates despite a massive inbalance in labour supply. The answer to this mystery is out there but it is not as superficial as you have stated, It is not a simple shallow argument that Republicans are bad guy, brutal capitalists trying to screw workers despite the good guy Democrats. To discover the answer for your self you should look into the following:

* Why do the Democratic Party support increased immigration of skilled labour whilst these states have such low minimum wages (hint, its the same reason as the Republicans)?

* Which states these immigrants are moving to?

* You should look into DAVOS (Left wing economic forum) and what CEO's think of immigration.

* Look into Eric Weinstein's (left wing mathematician and economist) theories on minimum wages.

A strong economy is one of balance, where the minimum wage earners and the unemployed have enough funds to make a regulated economy spread, circulate and grow, whilst lack of regulation allows it to funnel to executive levels and drain from the country to hedge funds and tax havens. The stock market is not an accurate measure of an economy, just a lesser portion of it, nor are simple job and unemployment numbers, especially as they are nowhere near reality, both here and abroad for decades now.

IMO this is rubbish. The unemployed should have enough funds to survive (reasonably comfortably) not make an economy grow. A strong economy is one where you have an oversupply of jobs and an undersupply of labour, like the US (preCOVID) and this *should* have an infaltionary force on wages and the whole thing grows, unless there are external forces at play.

I still fail to comprehend where you obtain what you think my political views on immigration and other policies come from, nor where the communism bit or thoughts on the unemployment benefit amount arise, as I have only ever stated that it should be at the poverty line. Still, I suggest that we would see a significant lift of a percentage point or so at that rate of payment and dependant on level of restriction lifting, still might get the chance to see just how much difference it makes, particularly in high unemployment level rural communities over the coming months with the additional benefit being paid and circulated.

If you honestly don't think that lack of regulation allows money to be taken from an economy, which lowers tax receipts and thus stifles growth injection and further circulation, then there is no point in having a discussion.

Just in case you don't already know, apart from a select few, I don't much like the establishment on either side US politics as they are mostly self serving, especially McConnell. I also don't see any mystery whatsoever in as to why so many of their constituents wages are so horribly low.

 

[Tiger5150]

I still fail to comprehend where you obtain what you think my political views on immigration and other policies come from, nor where the communism bit or thoughts on the unemployment benefit amount arise, as I have only ever stated that it should be at the poverty line. Still, I suggest that we would see a significant lift of a percentage point or so at that rate of payment and dependant on level of restriction lifting, still might get the chance to see just how much difference it makes, particularly in high unemployment level rural communities over the coming months with the additional benefit being paid and circulated.

I obviously didnt make my point clearly enough and I think you missed it, I am not making any comment on your political views on immigration and not saying you are socialist or communist.

What I am saying is that considering "minimum wages" is based on supply side economics, which is socialist/marxist/communist side of economics. Worrying about what the minimum wage is, based on people being forced onto the minimum wage is supply based economics. ie the minimum wage is this, this is what you will be paid. The US (capitalist) economy is a demand based (market) economy and accordingly, what people get paid is not based on predetermined rates but based on the labour market warrants. Pre COVID the US was in a post war high oversupply of jobs and post war high demand for labour. This ordinarily has to equal post war high force on wages and it isnt and you should be looking for the reason for this rather than putting all your eggs in the REpublican basket.

If it was as simple as you are stating, it would be fixed at the ballot box, but its not. The research I laid out is the reason for it and the Reps and Dems are equally at blame.


If you honestly don't think that lack of regulation allows money to be taken from an economy, which lowers tax receipts and thus stifles growth injection and further circulation, then there is no point in having a discussion.


It is possible there is no point for discussion, as I have said many times previously but not for the reasons you have given. Regulation does not increase growth, it does the opposite. Where does "growth" come from? Governments dont just print money from growth, this is the issue with the left who hang their hats on "modern monetary policy". Growth can not happen without increased capital, it is not physically possible. Growth without increased capital is called debt. Someone has to pay the piper. Money doesnt just appear. Why would international capital inject increased capital into a market that is regulated by government? Regulation doesnt stop money being taken from the economy, but it sure as hell stops it coming in.

Explain to me how the hell "tax receipts" equals growth injection? Tax receipts equals growth injection in a tiny proportion of nations. We call those nations China, North Korea and Venezuala. For the rest of the nations, increased capital equals growth. Capital is allergic to government regulation.





Just in case you don't already know, apart from a select few, I don't much like the establishment on either side US politics as they are mostly self serving, especially McConnell. I also don't see any mystery whatsoever in as to why so many of their constituents wages are so horribly low.

If you genuinely dont see any mystery whatsoever as to why a huge oversupply of jobs and undersupply of labour doesnt equal increased wages in the biggest, most market driven economy on the planet, then yes, there is no point in furthering discussion.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I still fail to comprehend where you obtain what you think my political views on immigration and other policies come from, nor where the communism bit or thoughts on the unemployment benefit amount arise, as I have only ever stated that it should be at the poverty line. Still, I suggest that we would see a significant lift of a percentage point or so at that rate of payment and dependant on level of restriction lifting, still might get the chance to see just how much difference it makes, particularly in high unemployment level rural communities over the coming months with the additional benefit being paid and circulated.

I obviously didnt make my point clearly enough and I think you missed it, I am not making any comment on your political views on immigration and not saying you are socialist or communist.

What I am saying is that considering "minimum wages" is based on supply side economics, which is socialist/marxist/communist side of economics. Worrying about what the minimum wage is, based on people being forced onto the minimum wage is supply based economics. ie the minimum wage is this, this is what you will be paid. The US (capitalist) economy is a demand based (market) economy and accordingly, what people get paid is not based on predetermined rates but based on the labour market warrants. Pre COVID the US was in a post war high oversupply of jobs and post war high demand for labour. This ordinarily has to equal post war high force on wages and it isnt and you should be looking for the reason for this rather than putting all your eggs in the REpublican basket.

If it was as simple as you are stating, it would be fixed at the ballot box, but its not. The research I laid out is the reason for it and the Reps and Dems are equally at blame.


If you honestly don't think that lack of regulation allows money to be taken from an economy, which lowers tax receipts and thus stifles growth injection and further circulation, then there is no point in having a discussion.


It is possible there is no point for discussion, as I have said many times previously but not for the reasons you have given. Regulation does not increase growth, it does the opposite. Where does "growth" come from? Governments dont just print money from growth, this is the issue with the left who hang their hats on "modern monetary policy". Growth can not happen without increased capital, it is not physically possible. Growth without increased capital is called debt. Someone has to pay the piper. Money doesnt just appear. Why would international capital inject increased capital into a market that is regulated by government? Regulation doesnt stop money being taken from the economy, but it sure as hell stops it coming in.

Explain to me how the hell "tax receipts" equals growth injection? Tax receipts equals growth injection in a tiny proportion of nations. We call those nations China, North Korea and Venezuala. For the rest of the nations, increased capital equals growth. Capital is allergic to government regulation.





Just in case you don't already know, apart from a select few, I don't much like the establishment on either side US politics as they are mostly self serving, especially McConnell. I also don't see any mystery whatsoever in as to why so many of their constituents wages are so horribly low.

If you genuinely dont see any mystery whatsoever as to why a huge oversupply of jobs and undersupply of labour doesnt equal increased wages in the biggest, most market driven economy on the planet, then yes, there is no point in furthering discussion.

I see it, quite clearly and it is greed, nothing more and nothing less.

Yet here we are in a capitalist country, that in spite of erosion under recent coalition governments, still maintains a decent minimum wage and basic healthcare for all, just as most developed nations are. Many have a more regulated system that pay higher wages to essential services, which works for the community plus allows for growth.

If we got more than a pittance for our minerals and resources, plus cut out the superannuation loopholes, we would also be a lot better off collectively.

 

[Tiger5150]

I still fail to comprehend where you obtain what you think my political views on immigration and other policies come from, nor where the communism bit or thoughts on the unemployment benefit amount arise, as I have only ever stated that it should be at the poverty line. Still, I suggest that we would see a significant lift of a percentage point or so at that rate of payment and dependant on level of restriction lifting, still might get the chance to see just how much difference it makes, particularly in high unemployment level rural communities over the coming months with the additional benefit being paid and circulated.

I obviously didnt make my point clearly enough and I think you missed it, I am not making any comment on your political views on immigration and not saying you are socialist or communist.

What I am saying is that considering "minimum wages" is based on supply side economics, which is socialist/marxist/communist side of economics. Worrying about what the minimum wage is, based on people being forced onto the minimum wage is supply based economics. ie the minimum wage is this, this is what you will be paid. The US (capitalist) economy is a demand based (market) economy and accordingly, what people get paid is not based on predetermined rates but based on the labour market warrants. Pre COVID the US was in a post war high oversupply of jobs and post war high demand for labour. This ordinarily has to equal post war high force on wages and it isnt and you should be looking for the reason for this rather than putting all your eggs in the REpublican basket.

If it was as simple as you are stating, it would be fixed at the ballot box, but its not. The research I laid out is the reason for it and the Reps and Dems are equally at blame.


If you honestly don't think that lack of regulation allows money to be taken from an economy, which lowers tax receipts and thus stifles growth injection and further circulation, then there is no point in having a discussion.


It is possible there is no point for discussion, as I have said many times previously but not for the reasons you have given. Regulation does not increase growth, it does the opposite. Where does "growth" come from? Governments dont just print money from growth, this is the issue with the left who hang their hats on "modern monetary policy". Growth can not happen without increased capital, it is not physically possible. Growth without increased capital is called debt. Someone has to pay the piper. Money doesnt just appear. Why would international capital inject increased capital into a market that is regulated by government? Regulation doesnt stop money being taken from the economy, but it sure as hell stops it coming in.

Explain to me how the hell "tax receipts" equals growth injection? Tax receipts equals growth injection in a tiny proportion of nations. We call those nations China, North Korea and Venezuala. For the rest of the nations, increased capital equals growth. Capital is allergic to government regulation.





Just in case you don't already know, apart from a select few, I don't much like the establishment on either side US politics as they are mostly self serving, especially McConnell. I also don't see any mystery whatsoever in as to why so many of their constituents wages are so horribly low.

If you genuinely dont see any mystery whatsoever as to why a huge oversupply of jobs and undersupply of labour doesnt equal increased wages in the biggest, most market driven economy on the planet, then yes, there is no point in furthering discussion.

I see it, quite clearly and it is greed, nothing more and nothing less.

You clearly didnt see it because if you did, it doesnt make sense. Why does the biggest market economy in the world with record demand for labour under both Democratic and Republican governance have such low minimum wages? Its a maximum two sentence answer. Im waiting for your response to show me that you do, in fact , "see it".

Yet here we are in a capitalist country, that in spite of erosion under recent coalition governments, still maintains a decent minimum wage and basic healthcare for all,

You do realise that we do ***not*** have basic healthcare for all, dont you? You do realise how healthcare works in this country, dont you? you do realise the differences between the US & Australia?

just as most developed nations are.

Please give a short list of full funded public healthcare. Im not sure it is the case in "many" nations.

>Many have a more regulated system that pay higher wages to essential services, which works for the community plus allows for growth.

There is that word again...many. Which nations successfully ***regulate*** higher wages to essential services? Genuinely interested.



If we got more than a pittance for our minerals and resources, plus cut out the superannuation loopholes, we would also be a lot better off collectively.

I agree with you 1000% for half of this.....(is that 500%?). Australia should place more importance on exports of our resources. You do realise what our second and third biggest export earners are dont you?

Superannuation should be left alone 1000% (NOT 500%). This is money already earned by hard working Australians and every dollar placed in Superannuation is a dollar not paid by the Govt in pension. Stealing from Australians Superannuation is as low as you can go and un-Australian.

 

[Tim Sheens]

I still fail to comprehend where you obtain what you think my political views on immigration and other policies come from, nor where the communism bit or thoughts on the unemployment benefit amount arise, as I have only ever stated that it should be at the poverty line. Still, I suggest that we would see a significant lift of a percentage point or so at that rate of payment and dependant on level of restriction lifting, still might get the chance to see just how much difference it makes, particularly in high unemployment level rural communities over the coming months with the additional benefit being paid and circulated.

I obviously didnt make my point clearly enough and I think you missed it, I am not making any comment on your political views on immigration and not saying you are socialist or communist.

What I am saying is that considering "minimum wages" is based on supply side economics, which is socialist/marxist/communist side of economics. Worrying about what the minimum wage is, based on people being forced onto the minimum wage is supply based economics. ie the minimum wage is this, this is what you will be paid. The US (capitalist) economy is a demand based (market) economy and accordingly, what people get paid is not based on predetermined rates but based on the labour market warrants. Pre COVID the US was in a post war high oversupply of jobs and post war high demand for labour. This ordinarily has to equal post war high force on wages and it isnt and you should be looking for the reason for this rather than putting all your eggs in the REpublican basket.

If it was as simple as you are stating, it would be fixed at the ballot box, but its not. The research I laid out is the reason for it and the Reps and Dems are equally at blame.


If you honestly don't think that lack of regulation allows money to be taken from an economy, which lowers tax receipts and thus stifles growth injection and further circulation, then there is no point in having a discussion.


It is possible there is no point for discussion, as I have said many times previously but not for the reasons you have given. Regulation does not increase growth, it does the opposite. Where does "growth" come from? Governments dont just print money from growth, this is the issue with the left who hang their hats on "modern monetary policy". Growth can not happen without increased capital, it is not physically possible. Growth without increased capital is called debt. Someone has to pay the piper. Money doesnt just appear. Why would international capital inject increased capital into a market that is regulated by government? Regulation doesnt stop money being taken from the economy, but it sure as hell stops it coming in.

Explain to me how the hell "tax receipts" equals growth injection? Tax receipts equals growth injection in a tiny proportion of nations. We call those nations China, North Korea and Venezuala. For the rest of the nations, increased capital equals growth. Capital is allergic to government regulation.





Just in case you don't already know, apart from a select few, I don't much like the establishment on either side US politics as they are mostly self serving, especially McConnell. I also don't see any mystery whatsoever in as to why so many of their constituents wages are so horribly low.

If you genuinely dont see any mystery whatsoever as to why a huge oversupply of jobs and undersupply of labour doesnt equal increased wages in the biggest, most market driven economy on the planet, then yes, there is no point in furthering discussion.

I see it, quite clearly and it is greed, nothing more and nothing less.


You clearly didnt see it because if you did, it doesnt make sense. Why does the biggest market economy in the world with record demand for labour under both Democratic and Republican governance have such low minimum wages? Its a maximum two sentence answer. Im waiting for your response to show me that you do, in fact , "see it".

Yet here we are in a capitalist country, that in spite of erosion under recent coalition governments, still maintains a decent minimum wage and basic healthcare for all,

You do realise that we do ***not*** have basic healthcare for all, dont you? You do realise how healthcare works in this country, dont you? you do realise the differences between the US & Australia?

just as most developed nations are.

Please give a short list of full funded public healthcare. Im not sure it is the case in "many" nations.

>Many have a more regulated system that pay higher wages to essential services, which works for the community plus allows for growth.

There is that word again...many. Which nations successfully ***regulate*** higher wages to essential services? Genuinely interested.



If we got more than a pittance for our minerals and resources, plus cut out the superannuation loopholes, we would also be a lot better off collectively.

I agree with you 1000% for half of this.....(is that 500%?). Australia should place more importance on exports of our resources. You do realise what our second and third biggest export earners are dont you?

Superannuation should be left alone 1000% (NOT 500%). This is money already earned by hard working Australians and every dollar placed in Superannuation is a dollar not paid by the Govt in pension. Stealing from Australians Superannuation is as low as you can go and un-Australian.

You might need a couple of sentences, where a single word still suffices for me.

We have and call it whatever tickles your fancy, but I understand it first hand as a patient and know that our system looks after all permanent residents.

Once again twisting words and going off on a tangent.

Ditto and you are more than capable of checking for yourself.

Irrelevant to this, apart from being sold short as a nation, especially the ridiculousness of the gas deal lacking basic inflation provisions.

I don't believe that people like my parents, having already gained the tax benefits on those monies when placing them there, should be able to get more money back through credits than the entire pension payment. I have no issue with using it as an offset, but it simply does not make any sense paying it, let alone more than the actual pension, as the tax advantage was initially given because super is meant to be drawn upon and we are the only nation to pay it.

 

[Tiger5150]

You might need a couple of sentences, where a single word still suffices for me.

I assume that word ( you used it before) is greed? Struggling to work out how greed explains low wages in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply. So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they give it to the greediest? So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they just say we are going to pay minimum wage, and the 100 greediest take the jobs? Do you realise how a market works?

We have and call it whatever tickles your fancy, but I understand it first hand as a patient and know that our system looks after all permanent residents.

No it doesnt. Full stop. Glad you got looked after as a patient, but the health system runs at a 90% loss and if Australians stopped paying private health insurance tomorrow, you can sing for your supper and scream in agony for your "first hand as a patient". Please research the diiferences between Australian and US health systems, you may be surprised. The Government is not paying for the health system in Australia.


Once again twisting words and going off on a tangent.

Not at all. You said MANY nations have this system. I cant think of 4. Please enlighten me. I didnt make the claim, you did.


Ditto and you are more than capable of checking for yourself.

Irrelevant to this, apart from being sold short as a nation, especially the ridiculousness of the gas deal lacking basic inflation provisions.

I don't believe that people like my parents, having already gained the tax benefits on those monies when placing them there, should be able to get more money back through credits than the entire pension payment. I have no issue with using it as an offset, but it simply does not make any sense paying it, let alone more than the actual pension, as the tax advantage was initially given because super is meant to be drawn upon and we are the only nation to pay it.

The nation is not paying it, your parents ***earned*** it years ago and forewent the opportunity to earn money on it then and spend it them to look after themselves and save the nation the cost of looking after them when they are old. They should be rewarded for that (as should you) and shouldnt be taxed or penalised twice.

 

[Tim Sheens]

You might need a couple of sentences, where a single word still suffices for me.


I assume that word ( you used it before) is greed? Struggling to work out how greed explains low wages in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply. So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they give it to the greediest? So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they just say we are going to pay minimum wage, and the 100 greediest take the jobs? Do you realise how a market works?

We have and call it whatever tickles your fancy, but I understand it first hand as a patient and know that our system looks after all permanent residents.

No it doesnt. Full stop. Glad you got looked after as a patient, but the health system runs at a 90% loss and if Australians stopped paying private health insurance tomorrow, you can sing for your supper and scream in agony for your "first hand as a patient". Please research the diiferences between Australian and US health systems, you may be surprised. The Government is not paying for the health system in Australia.


Once again twisting words and going off on a tangent.

Not at all. You said MANY nations have this system. I cant think of 4. Please enlighten me. I didnt make the claim, you did.


Ditto and you are more than capable of checking for yourself.

Irrelevant to this, apart from being sold short as a nation, especially the ridiculousness of the gas deal lacking basic inflation provisions.

I don't believe that people like my parents, having already gained the tax benefits on those monies when placing them there, should be able to get more money back through credits than the entire pension payment. I have no issue with using it as an offset, but it simply does not make any sense paying it, let alone more than the actual pension, as the tax advantage was initially given because super is meant to be drawn upon and we are the only nation to pay it.

The nation is not paying it, your parents ***earned*** it years ago and forewent the opportunity to earn money on it then and spend it them to look after themselves and save the nation the cost of looking after them when they are old. They should be rewarded for that (as should you) and shouldnt be taxed or penalised twice.

Again you change words to make argument with your imagined topic and the public health system is available to all that choose to use it, which you know, so consider this conversation over and talk rubbish elsewhere with someone else.

 

[weststigers]

You might need a couple of sentences, where a single word still suffices for me.


I assume that word ( you used it before) is greed? Struggling to work out how greed explains low wages in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply. So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they give it to the greediest? So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they just say we are going to pay minimum wage, and the 100 greediest take the jobs? Do you realise how a market works?

We have and call it whatever tickles your fancy, but I understand it first hand as a patient and know that our system looks after all permanent residents.

No it doesnt. Full stop. Glad you got looked after as a patient, but the health system runs at a 90% loss and if Australians stopped paying private health insurance tomorrow, you can sing for your supper and scream in agony for your "first hand as a patient". Please research the diiferences between Australian and US health systems, you may be surprised. The Government is not paying for the health system in Australia.


Once again twisting words and going off on a tangent.

Not at all. You said MANY nations have this system. I cant think of 4. Please enlighten me. I didnt make the claim, you did.


Ditto and you are more than capable of checking for yourself.

Irrelevant to this, apart from being sold short as a nation, especially the ridiculousness of the gas deal lacking basic inflation provisions.

I don't believe that people like my parents, having already gained the tax benefits on those monies when placing them there, should be able to get more money back through credits than the entire pension payment. I have no issue with using it as an offset, but it simply does not make any sense paying it, let alone more than the actual pension, as the tax advantage was initially given because super is meant to be drawn upon and we are the only nation to pay it.

The nation is not paying it, your parents ***earned*** it years ago and forewent the opportunity to earn money on it then and spend it them to look after themselves and save the nation the cost of looking after them when they are old. They should be rewarded for that (as should you) and shouldnt be taxed or penalised twice.

Again you change words to make argument with your imagined topic and the public health system is available to all that choose to use it, which you know, so consider this conversation over and talk rubbish elsewhere with someone else.

rekt

 

[Tiger5150]

You might need a couple of sentences, where a single word still suffices for me.


I assume that word ( you used it before) is greed? Struggling to work out how greed explains low wages in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply. So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they give it to the greediest? So there are 1000 jobs and 100 candidates and they just say we are going to pay minimum wage, and the 100 greediest take the jobs? Do you realise how a market works?

We have and call it whatever tickles your fancy, but I understand it first hand as a patient and know that our system looks after all permanent residents.

No it doesnt. Full stop. Glad you got looked after as a patient, but the health system runs at a 90% loss and if Australians stopped paying private health insurance tomorrow, you can sing for your supper and scream in agony for your "first hand as a patient". Please research the diiferences between Australian and US health systems, you may be surprised. The Government is not paying for the health system in Australia.


Once again twisting words and going off on a tangent.

Not at all. You said MANY nations have this system. I cant think of 4. Please enlighten me. I didnt make the claim, you did.


Ditto and you are more than capable of checking for yourself.

Irrelevant to this, apart from being sold short as a nation, especially the ridiculousness of the gas deal lacking basic inflation provisions.

I don't believe that people like my parents, having already gained the tax benefits on those monies when placing them there, should be able to get more money back through credits than the entire pension payment. I have no issue with using it as an offset, but it simply does not make any sense paying it, let alone more than the actual pension, as the tax advantage was initially given because super is meant to be drawn upon and we are the only nation to pay it.

The nation is not paying it, your parents ***earned*** it years ago and forewent the opportunity to earn money on it then and spend it them to look after themselves and save the nation the cost of looking after them when they are old. They should be rewarded for that (as should you) and shouldnt be taxed or penalised twice.

Again you change words to make argument with your imagined topic and the public health system is available to all that choose to use it, which you know, so consider this conversation over and talk rubbish elsewhere with someone else.

Well you didnt have an answer to a single question I asked so further discussion seems pointless, you clearly dont have answers to questions that dont meet your ideology.

 

[twentyforty]

I have said here previously, prior to the virus, Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon has been an effective President. He has got a lot done, most of it good. He also does ans says some really dumb stuff. He should be at unbackable odds to be a one term president,

But the left and the democrats have not learned any lessons from 2016 and if anything seem to have lost their way further. In 2016 Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon pulled back the curtain on the US complex and the public saw waht they always suspected, that under the veneer the US political class was deeply corrupted and not working for them. The Democratic Party is a self serving political machine, the embodiment of the "Deep State" and Hilary was the android avatar of that machine, the US Media is the publicity and propaganda arm of that machine. Of course the Reps are potential as corrupt as the Dems but its a different form. The Reps are less organised and are more a group of disparate entities, some good some bad. The Democratic Party machine has now mindlessly thrown up its next attempt to survive and replicate itself with Joe Biden.

In 2016 the Public saw it, for some for the first time. They voted for Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon not because they wanted him but because they wanted an end to that cynical institutionalised "business as usual". Since then the Dems have moved way further left and the nexus between the media and the Dems is more ingrained than ever.

Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon should have no chance this year but if he wins it wont be because people want him, it will be because the Dems havent learned anything

If he had any opposition that would be true 5150 .....he is up against the bye ....unfortunately he will win in a canter

I have many friends in the mid west and under Obama they and there kids had no jobs .. under Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon they were all working BF the virus . Say what you may it is better the devil you know in the worst economic crisis since the depression ... I have a word for all the red flag wavers amongst us , it will not be over until the fat lady sings .
The voters will vote on one agenda only and that is the economy and there jobs because without that you have nothing and everything else with just be a memory !

You wanna hope voters aren’t voting on those things. Economy in the toilet and an unemployment rate at nearly 20% by November.

It’s very interesting to see how we all change our attitude to various benefits in our lives when they are suddenly taken away by a force majeure. Those things we thought we would always have, freedom, good health, a job? Suddenly their value rises to higher levels.


Exactly, and IMO the Dems are showing that they are still (since 16) blinded to what the average US citizen wants and needs. The dems are looking to politicise and use this crisis to implement social reform whereas I think the average American desperately wants to get back to work to feed the kids and pay the bills. IMO AOC here is showing how out of touch they are..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94L6wkczNZQ

The left often appear negative to me. I’ve given it some thought , and have concluded that mostly they are simply protesting without offering solutions.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Just when you think he’d had enough humiliation from bleachgate, he’s now calling journalists to return their “noble prizes”. Prizes that aren’t awarded to journalists btw.

 

[colinbh]

Just when you think he’d had enough humiliation from bleachgate, he’s now calling journalists to return their “noble prizes”. Prizes that aren’t awarded to journalists btw.

They really should hire you at CNN or MSDBC.

 

[trentrunciman]

Just when you think he’d had enough humiliation from bleachgate, he’s now calling journalists to return their “noble prizes”. Prizes that aren’t awarded to journalists btw.

Mate of mine just sent that to me


 

[GNR4LIFE]

Just when you think he’d had enough humiliation from bleachgate, he’s now calling journalists to return their “noble prizes”. Prizes that aren’t awarded to journalists btw.

Mate of mine just sent that to me


Then he doubled down, which made him look like an even bigger goof, defining the word noble. All well and good except noble and nobel have 2 different meanings and pronunciations.

 

[Spud_Murphy]

I feel like from this point on, anytime someone wants to defend him, or deride you for attacking him, you comeback with just one word; Bleach.

Problem is the insane nutter will still get voted back in GNR ....

Yep this ^^^

I want him gone as much as the next sane person, but most voting Americans are crazy! He’ll get back in again, no sweat.

 

[twentyforty]

Just curious, where does everybody get all this information about Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon? Is it from social media? MSM? Personal contacts in USA? I know some have posted social media copy/paste but what other sources?

 

[jadtiger]

BBC is a good source and covers his daily covid-19 updates.

 

[Snake]

Hopefully soon the left media in the US. will have to call out Sleepy Joe on the sexually assault allegations by various women over the years The #Metoo movement can not turn away just because he is a Democrat. They have had no problem going after the President.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Just when you think he’d had enough humiliation from bleachgate, he’s now calling journalists to return their “noble prizes”. Prizes that aren’t awarded to journalists btw.


They really should hire you at CNN or MSDBC.


 

[Tiger5150]

Hopefully soon the left media in the US. will have to call out Sleepy Joe on the sexually assault allegations by various women over the years The #Metoo movement can not turn away just because he is a Democrat. They have had no problem going after the President.

#believeallwomen....except that one with claims against a Democrat.