The Swamp

brian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:19 pm No, I agree 100 percent. The first bill the Dem leadership in the House should send to the Senate is a $15/hr minimum wage bill. Literally, the first one. They should do this by February. Once the Senate rejects it, then game on. There's at least three or four similar bills where they can show how out of touch Republicans are with the majority of the American people. They should send a bill to end the federal prohibition on cannabis to the Senate too.

brian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:26 pm Guys, maybe I shouldn't feel this way -- I get it if that's the argument -- but I think the Dem leadership in the House really gets the big picture here.

They ran a great national campaign by and large to pick up the House and it's evident that a lot of the gains really were in suburban swing districts that Trump has to win in 2020. If the map last night is exactly the same in 2020, he loses the EV (with MI, PA and WI going back to the Democrats and no Democrats states that Hillary carried turning red last night.

There's excitement about some of the younger candidates that won last night as there should be, picked up some big state houses and governor's races. It's not time to get off of that message that worked last night. Now it's all about using the power of that message in the House to continue to drive that point home.

Support for pre-existing conditions, Medicare expansion, decriminalization of cannabis, a $15 minimum wage all poll at around 60 percent or higher nationally. They don't have to run on free college for all (even though I personally agree with that and even if it is also popular). They have the benefit of a lot of different policy proposals to hammer Trump and the GOP on. It's a matter of finding what works and sticking with it.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:47 pm Sessions resigns.

Looks like the first move from Trump to end Mueller underway.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:58 pm Non-antagonistic question: Do you still advocating working, at all, with the R party if they let him fire Mueller?

brian wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:43 pmSaw some of that at his presser today.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:51 pm Been watching the CNN docuseries on The Seventies the last couple of days. (It's pretty good, btw.)

The episode on Nixon. Wow. The parallels are so striking, it's like Trump is ticking off the major plot points.

* Bullshit, petty criminal act spurs cover up that goes way beyond, because Nixon wasn't really involved in ordering the break in. (Russia collusion is pretty difficult to pin on Trump, but all of his actions in the time after look really shitty.

* Constantly going after the credibility of the press, a lot of which in hindsight Nixon knowingly based on out right lies. (Obvious Trump comparison)

* And now we're getting into the phase where Nixon straight up started firing the investigators. The problem for Trump, is that where these two events veer off course dramatically is this: People often forget, Nixon won the 1972 election in a MASSIVE landslide (McGovern only won Mass). He was hugely popular at the time Watergate kicked into a higher gear.

Trump, obviously, is fucked on this front. He's not popular, and unlike Nixon, he has a House that would love nothing other than to start putting people in public hearings under oath with the full knowledge and weight of whatever Mueller has uncovered.

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:24 pm I'll admit I haven't studied the issue much, but is it really reasonable to jump the national minimum wage by over 100% ($7.25 to $15)? In a country as large as ours, there are drastically different costs of living and wage levels in different areas. While $15 isn't much to make or pay in NYC, it's a hell of a lot to pay a kid working at Burger King in rural Iowa. So, given that, it seems like it would make more sense to either have a lower federal minimum or to have some sort of floating federal minimum that is tied to some local economic index.

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:24 pm I'll admit I haven't studied the issue much, but is it really reasonable to jump the national minimum wage by over 100% ($7.25 to $15)? In a country as large as ours, there are drastically different costs of living and wage levels in different areas. While $15 isn't much to make or pay in NYC, it's a hell of a lot to pay a kid working at Burger King in rural Iowa. So, given that, it seems like it would make more sense to either have a lower federal minimum or to have some sort of floating federal minimum that is tied to some local economic index.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:49 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:24 pm I'll admit I haven't studied the issue much, but is it really reasonable to jump the national minimum wage by over 100% ($7.25 to $15)? In a country as large as ours, there are drastically different costs of living and wage levels in different areas. While $15 isn't much to make or pay in NYC, it's a hell of a lot to pay a kid working at Burger King in rural Iowa. So, given that, it seems like it would make more sense to either have a lower federal minimum or to have some sort of floating federal minimum that is tied to some local economic index.

If the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour here there are a lot of small local businesses that will close.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:21 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:49 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:24 pm I'll admit I haven't studied the issue much, but is it really reasonable to jump the national minimum wage by over 100% ($7.25 to $15)? In a country as large as ours, there are drastically different costs of living and wage levels in different areas. While $15 isn't much to make or pay in NYC, it's a hell of a lot to pay a kid working at Burger King in rural Iowa. So, given that, it seems like it would make more sense to either have a lower federal minimum or to have some sort of floating federal minimum that is tied to some local economic index.

If the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour here there are a lot of small local businesses that will close.

What is this based on? Statements made about those businesses as part of lobbying efforts or an independent analysis of their books? Because frankly, as much as we tend to hold up smal businesses as paragons of virtue, if you truly cannot afford to pay your employees $15/hour then you’re probably not running your business very well to begin with.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:21 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:49 pm

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:24 pm I'll admit I haven't studied the issue much, but is it really reasonable to jump the national minimum wage by over 100% ($7.25 to $15)? In a country as large as ours, there are drastically different costs of living and wage levels in different areas. While $15 isn't much to make or pay in NYC, it's a hell of a lot to pay a kid working at Burger King in rural Iowa. So, given that, it seems like it would make more sense to either have a lower federal minimum or to have some sort of floating federal minimum that is tied to some local economic index.

If the minimum wage is raised to $15 per hour here there are a lot of small local businesses that will close.

What is this based on? Statements made about those businesses as part of lobbying efforts or an independent analysis of their books? Because frankly, as much as we tend to hold up smal businesses as paragons of virtue, if you truly cannot afford to pay your employees $15/hour then you’re probably not running your business very well to begin with.

brian wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:04 pm Yeah that’s a shitty take from the start. No disrespect to John Legend but she’s the best part of that couple.

mister d wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:13 pm I get the “mom and pop” argument but isn’t the flip side that some non-ownership mom or pop can currently work 1/3 of the hours of their life to bring home $21K?