• We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
  • Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.

News Donald Trump's Popularity To Date

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Muse , what planet are you on? I have Mexican neighbors, three families in one house with a bunch of great kids... really hard working people. I have a friend who works full time and has a landscape business with his father... yeah illegals or whatever the common term is these days... I don't let progressives control the dialogue... but hey guess what... On a people to people level... there isn't any hate here in our neighborhood... just hard working people trying to provide for their families and get by. I can't believe you said, "The Mexican laborer is used and then deported in an exploitative way. His family is hated for being illegal and "taking" from resources as if not human". What a crock... I grew up in So Cal and have lived here in Florida for 36 years. I'm calling bull shit.
 
Here in Florida, Latino, Cuban and Hispanic flourishes... but even in the 60's and 70's there was no animosity among ourselves and our neighbors from the south. Not in our circles anyways. I think the trouble with statements like this is that they presume sometimes to be a statement of truth when it's personal. In my own case, I know what my own interactions were/are... and you're scenario does not apply.

Off topic... Elizabeth Warren, boy oh boy don't even get me started.
 
Anything a progressive doesn't like is Natzi or Hitler... okay. Just like "Clinton was the first "black president" when he was just a white boy from the south with a sax who wasn't a rabid racist, or Obama is the first "black" president, when in fact (which could have unified our nation by the way) he was biracial.
 
Albatross, I only suggested that because this is a Trump thread. There's also a Hillary thread, so why not an Obama thread?

Differing opinions are, I think, welcome here, but this is JMH's thread. I just think it's off topic, that's all.
 
but this is JMH's thread.
I think after 25 pages, it probably has graduated to a forum thread (no offense meant to @Justmehere, but it's taken on a life of its own).

The topic, though, is approximately Trump. :tup:

@The Albatross - it's smart to point out how unique Florida is in re: the Latin@ community. I find a very different attitude in some vocal parts of Texas, the actions of the southern border control, and attitudes in Southern California as well. There is a whole lot of the 'speak American' and 'go back home' attitude. Also, perversely, some economics that depend on immigrant labor and cash payments for service work.

I have no real info on whether it's a very loud but small segment of the populace, or whether the attitudes are endemic. But wanted to point it out.
 
I think after 25 pages, it probably has graduated to a forum thread (no offense meant to @Justmehere, but it's taken on a life of its own).

The topic, though, is approximately Trump. :tup:
I absolutely agree @joeylittle, on both counts, and I have written the same thing myself. :)
I was sitting back reading along getting a ring side think to liberal/progressive group think.
I want to challenge you on your labeling the whole conversation as being one between liberals and progressives. If we are going to get into labels, I'd probably be best described as a conservative small "l" libertarian constitutionalism. Others on this thread are liberal and progressive and probably everything in between. If you start grouping everyone together, assuming we are all the same when we are not, then it will start to shut down dialogue. This thread is open to all people of all ideologies to discuss the popularity of Trump. It's open to Trump supporters! I'm really glad when people respectfully express differing views, because I personally learn a lot.

An article I read today: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...equences-gop-rivals-not-endorsing-him-n601406 "Without naming specific politicians, Trump called those 2016 candidates who have yet to endorse him in accordance with the RNC pledge "sore losers" who "should never be allowed to run for public office again."

Once again, Trump wants to destroy the first amendment. (If I am wrong on this, show me one example of where he stood up for the free speech rights of those he did not disagree with.)

The right to free speech is essential. We can express disagreement with someone's idea AND to defend their right to communicate about that idea. Those are not diametrically opposed positions, but one actually requires the other.

Just because I disagree, does not mean I want to silence someone.

There is someone who wants to silence and even penalize those who disagree with him, and it's Donald Trump.
 
We get the same prejudices against immigrants in Britain and Ireland. Arguably they are stronger or at least less PC in Ireland.

There are several "unseens" in the prejudice

In Britain, Ireland and America, there are costs to employing people which are not apparent to the employee.

Certainly the employee gets to see some of the tax and national insurance deductions on their pay slip - that is money which it has cost the employer to hire the person, but it is money which the employee does not get to enjoy (private sector payroll hiests are rare and make the news - state sector ones are vastly bigger happen every single month and never make the news)

But there are also the employers contributions to national insurance and the many thousands of pages of legislation which suddenly apply as soon as someone is taken onto the books to do a job.

Add on to that that there are then minimum wages. even if someone wants to, they can't get a job at less than the minimum.

arguments that the minimum wage is the minimum someone can live on fall flat - in Britain someone working a 37 1/2 hour week on the minimum, pays £3,000 a year feckin income tax!

arguments that a minimum wage protects vulnerable workers are refuted by the early 20th century advocates of minimum wages (I've previously cited leading British Fabien socialist Sidney Webb - who praised a minimum wage as it would price immigrants, people with disabilities, women and young people OUT of work

Work would then be enjoyed only by non disabled white males.

If a minimum wage actually made low paid workers more prosperous - why keep it so low, why not make it $30 / hour? or even better $100 / hour?
Union bosses realise full well that such rates would price their members out of work - but they are perfectly happy to have anyone who might compete with their members priced out of work - and people taxed to pay the welfare payments to keep them priced out of work.

_________________________________________

Those costs increase the cost of employing people

what are the economic effects of price controls?

a minimum price set above where the market price would have been results in less being bought, but more being brought to market
hence a surplus
anyone remember the european beef butter and grain mountains and wine milk and vegetable oil lakes back in the days of minimum prices? - that's what you see with labour with a minimum wage and high payroll taxes, too few jobs and lots of people looking for jobs.

a maximum price set below where the market would have set the price - results in fewer goods brought to the market and more people seeking those goods
Think of after a natural disaster and bans on "price gouging"
if there's no incentive to move goods in, why bother?
The same in venezuela now - there are maximum prices set for food and other goods - so they all get smuggled accross the border to Columbia where market prices still apply.

______________________________________________

OK, I mentioned smuggling.

If someone is below the state's radar, they can live ok on lower wages, because there aren't all of the deductions.

They're also a lot simpler to employ - just pay cash and keep your gob shut.

there aren't the thousands of pages of laws and regs to follow, there are no arduous procedures to follow if the work relationship doesn't work out.
________________________________________

Please see the problem for what it is

the problem is not informal immigrants

It doesn't lie with either side in an informal employment arrangement

The problem is the costs and massive complications piled onto employers and employees

Think how mny jobs would become affordable to have done if they were approximately 40% to 50% cheaper?

that 40% to 50% is what the various levels of gubbernmint steals from the two sides in an "on the books" work arrangement

That's why we have both large scale unemployment AND informal immigrants and informal work arrangements at the same time

The Corrollary of Sidney Webb wanting only fit healthy white males working - was that a free market was making too many jobs for Women, young people, minorities, disabled and mentally ill people.... Too many for his bigoted liking

We have very strong common cause with the informal immigrants, if only most people could see it - and very strong arguments against the state.

instead the state tries to blame immigrants for the problems which it causes - and some people believe those lies.
 
Following on from labour being made artificially more expensive than it would have been

obviously less of it gets done, so the goods and services resulting from labour are less abundant than they otherwise would have been - which makes us all materially poorer

who gets the shitty end of that stick?

people who might be perceived as being less productive or less dependable:

  • young people with no record of work behind them
  • especially young people without degrees or college certs
  • people from minorities
  • people with disabilities
  • people with health issues
  • people who might have to become carers
  • people who might become mothers
  • people over 45 years old

in short, the poorer, less advantaged and more vulnerable members of society

what does the institution of gubbernmint purport to do?

to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in society

what are its policies of taxation, onerous employment laws, minimum wages and payroll deductions doing?

injuring the ...

The problem isn't the lack of a second Berlin Wall along a border - it's the robbing, bullying parasitic institution that Trump and Shillery want to be figurehead of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar posts

D
  • Locked
Comments
2

Donation drives

2026 Donation Goal

Goal
$1,800.00
Earned
$910.00
This donation drive ends in
0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
  50.6%

Trending content

Featured content

Back
Top Bottom