When I was younger, the minimum wage sounded like a good idea, but of course wasn't. Nowadays, as I have seen its repeated folly and the effects that seemingly every time "they" raise the minimum wage, the standard of living of the middle class and most needy goes down, the inescapable conclusion is that there should never be a minimum wage imposed, rather the market should decide, and the individuals either rise to be worth it, or start businesses with all their inherent risk and reward, themselves and put those paying 'unfair' wages out of business if they can do better. Business owners deserve every bit of the reward for their risk and investment. Oh, but that takes too much time, and election cycles are so short! My, oh, my how the ignorant fall for same the ruse over and over as the carpet is repeatedly yanked out from under them...

(02-22-2024 07:07 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-22-2024 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Just for clarity... although I tend to agree about the 'whole' of progressives, I would not assign that to each and every one of them. I think Lad calls himself 'progressive', and I know he understands it at least on some level far above the average for that cohort.

Lad is much more of a liberal than a "progressive", regardless of what he calls himself.

But yes, a general characterization is never true in every single case. Never!

But it is the exception that proves the rule.

Its good to be a Newsome donor

(02-23-2024 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Oh, but that takes too much time, and election cycles are so short!

So start explaining now and keep it up until they understand.

Ross Perot's PowerPoints (or whatever they were, not even sure PowerPoint existed back then) did a pretty good job of breaking down some complicated issues into easily understood pieces. He might have become president if his own behaviour had not proved him to be kind of a kook. A campaign like that would make a lot of sense.

(02-29-2024 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Oh, but that takes too much time, and election cycles are so short!

So start explaining now and keep it up until they understand.

Ross Perot's PowerPoints (or whatever they were, not even sure PowerPoint existed back then) did a pretty good job of breaking down some complicated issues into easily understood pieces. He might have become president if his own behaviour had not proved him to be kind of a kook. A campaign like that would make a lot of sense.

voted for Ross the first time...the original Make America Great Again candidate...

(03-01-2024 10:05 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Oh, but that takes too much time, and election cycles are so short!

So start explaining now and keep it up until they understand.

Ross Perot's PowerPoints (or whatever they were, not even sure PowerPoint existed back then) did a pretty good job of breaking down some complicated issues into easily understood pieces. He might have become president if his own behaviour had not proved him to be kind of a kook. A campaign like that would make a lot of sense.

voted for Ross the first time...the original Make America Great Again candidate...

So YOU are responsible for electing Clinton (and his wife).

(03-01-2024 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 10:05 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Oh, but that takes too much time, and election cycles are so short!

So start explaining now and keep it up until they understand.

Ross Perot's PowerPoints (or whatever they were, not even sure PowerPoint existed back then) did a pretty good job of breaking down some complicated issues into easily understood pieces. He might have become president if his own behaviour had not proved him to be kind of a kook. A campaign like that would make a lot of sense.

voted for Ross the first time...the original Make America Great Again candidate...

So YOU are responsible for electing Clinton (and his wife).

Papa Bush was no friend to the Constitution...seems we all can see that more clearly now, as his leftovers claw to retain power at the expense of American Citrizens. Besides, the first time, Ross was clearly the superior candidate...

(03-01-2024 11:22 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 10:05 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-23-2024 10:35 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Oh, but that takes too much time, and election cycles are so short!

So start explaining now and keep it up until they understand.

Ross Perot's PowerPoints (or whatever they were, not even sure PowerPoint existed back then) did a pretty good job of breaking down some complicated issues into easily understood pieces. He might have become president if his own behaviour had not proved him to be kind of a kook. A campaign like that would make a lot of sense.

voted for Ross the first time...the original Make America Great Again candidate...

So YOU are responsible for electing Clinton (and his wife).

Papa Bush was no friend to the Constitution...seems we all can see that more clearly now, as his leftovers claw to retain power at the expense of American Citrizens. Besides, the first time, Ross was clearly the superior candidate...

How many electoral votes did Perot win?

People who vote third party (or stay at home) may do so for the purest of motives, but in our current system all they accomplish is to strengthen the other side - the side opposite to the one they would normally vote for. The upcoming election will be decided by which candidate has the most voters sucked away by third party candidates/stay at home in protest voters. That candidate will lose to the other one - NOT to any third party nominee. Just as happened in 1992. No Perot in '92, no Hillary in '16.

(03-01-2024 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 11:22 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 10:05 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 08:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So start explaining now and keep it up until they understand.

Ross Perot's PowerPoints (or whatever they were, not even sure PowerPoint existed back then) did a pretty good job of breaking down some complicated issues into easily understood pieces. He might have become president if his own behaviour had not proved him to be kind of a kook. A campaign like that would make a lot of sense.

voted for Ross the first time...the original Make America Great Again candidate...

So YOU are responsible for electing Clinton (and his wife).

Papa Bush was no friend to the Constitution...seems we all can see that more clearly now, as his leftovers claw to retain power at the expense of American Citrizens. Besides, the first time, Ross was clearly the superior candidate...

How many electoral votes did Perot win?

People who vote third party (or stay at home) may do so for the purest of motives, but in our current system all they accomplish is to strengthen the other side - the side opposite to the one they would normally vote for. The upcoming election will be decided by which candidate has the most voters sucked away by third party candidates/stay at home in protest voters. That candidate will lose to the other one - NOT to any third party nominee. Just as happened in 1992. No Perot in '92, no Hillary in '16.

Not all of us think in terms of “the other side.” Nothing changes until people wake up from the Red Team/ Blue Team brainwashing.

(03-01-2024 02:29 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 11:22 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 10:05 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  voted for Ross the first time...the original Make America Great Again candidate...

So YOU are responsible for electing Clinton (and his wife).

Papa Bush was no friend to the Constitution...seems we all can see that more clearly now, as his leftovers claw to retain power at the expense of American Citrizens. Besides, the first time, Ross was clearly the superior candidate...

How many electoral votes did Perot win?

People who vote third party (or stay at home) may do so for the purest of motives, but in our current system all they accomplish is to strengthen the other side - the side opposite to the one they would normally vote for. The upcoming election will be decided by which candidate has the most voters sucked away by third party candidates/stay at home in protest voters. That candidate will lose to the other one - NOT to any third party nominee. Just as happened in 1992. No Perot in '92, no Hillary in '16.

Not all of us think in terms of “the other side.” Nothing changes until people wake up from the Red Team/ Blue Team brainwashing.

I couched my language to be nonpartisan. This situation holds regardless of which side(s) you support or oppose.

If a Democrat voter stays home, it helps Trump. If a conservative votes third party, it helps Biden.

I have in the past written in people, voted for a third party, and abstained from voting in the Presidential race. Every time, a Republican or Democrat won. I expect that this time, a Republican or Democrat will win again. Not the candidate for the The Rent is Too Damn High party or any other party. If I thought the Libertarians had a snowball's chance, that is probably the way I would go. I don't.

So the party that does the best job of holding on to their voters and getting them out will win. The party that does the worst job of getting their votes out will lose. Nothing about "teams" there - they are playing the same game on the same field.

But your comment was equally as presumptuous when you state ‘the one they would normally vote for.’ In fact it has the simple ‘gonna vote red/ blue’ embedded in it as well —- as Frizzy notes above.

Hate to tell you some actually (horrors) vote for candidates. Not ‘the one [i.e. party] they usually vote for’. That kind of underlies the issues you and I seemingly have regarding the putative candidate for one of the parties.

(03-01-2024 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But your comment was equally as presumptuous when you state ‘the one they would normally vote for.’ In fact it has the simple ‘gonna vote red/ blue’ embedded in it as well —- as Frizzy notes above.

Hate to tell you some actually (horrors) vote for candidates. Not ‘the one [i.e. party] they usually vote for’. That kind of underlies the issues you and I seemingly have regarding the putative candidate for one of the parties.

I have issues with both Trump and Biden. Less so for one of them. Voting for Jill Stein will not help. Staying home to watch TV will not help.

I have no issue with you, or your choice. It's your vote and you can exercise it in any way you see fit. Sorry you have one with me/my choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8_FOQ7-P30


Yes, I expect conservatives likely would have voted Republican, and liberals likely would have voted Democrat. Some of each group now will not vote in the way they normally would. If, say, 20,000,000 of group A stays home, and 10,000,000 of Group B stay home, doesn't that equate to a 10,000,000 gain for Group B? That is so regardless of the motivations for any individual to stay home.

(03-01-2024 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to tell you some actually (horrors) vote for candidates. Not ‘the one [i.e. party] they usually vote for’. That kind of underlies the issues you and I seemingly have regarding the putative candidate for one of the parties.

Except there are lots of folks who always vote one way. I vote for the candidate, but I have never voted for a democrat for president because they don't run candidates that I actually like.

Closest I ever came was 1996 when Bill Clinton (the one democrat I actually liked) ran against Bob Dole (a republican that I did not care for), but Clinton's running mate was Al Gore (and my family has had too many dealings with the crooked Gore family for me to be able to vote for putting him within a heartbeat of the presidency), so I did my usual thing and voted Libertarian. If splitting tickets were possible, I would probably have voted for Clinton and Jack Kemp.

Since Clinton, there was no way I could vote for Gore (obviously), Kerry, Obama, Hillary, or Biden. Same for Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, or Humphrey before him. They all suck, bigly. My first presidential election was 1968. I voted Nixon as the lesser evil then, and have voted Libertarian in every presidential election since except 1980 (Reagan, to get rid of Ccarter) and 2020 (Trump, as a lesser evil than Biden).

(03-01-2024 05:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hate to tell you some actually (horrors) vote for candidates. Not ‘the one [i.e. party] they usually vote for’. That kind of underlies the issues you and I seemingly have regarding the putative candidate for one of the parties.

Except there are lots of folks who always vote one way. I vote for the candidate, but I have never voted for a democrat for president because they don't run candidates that I actually like.

Closest I ever came was 1996 when Bill Clinton (the one democrat I actually liked) ran against Bob Dole (a republican that I did not care for), but Clinton's running mate was Al Gore (and my family has had too many dealings with the crooked Gore family for me to be able to vote for putting him within a heartbeat of the presidency), so I did my usual thing and voted Libertarian. If splitting tickets were possible, I would probably have voted for Clinton and Jack Kemp.

Since Clinton, there was no way I could vote for Gore (obviously), Kerry, Obama, Hillary, or Biden. Same for Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, McGovern, or Humphrey before him. They all suck, bigly. My first presidential election was 1968. I voted Nixon as the lesser evil then, and have voted Libertarian in every presidential election since except 1980 (Reagan, to get rid of Ccarter) and 2020 (Trump, as a lesser evil than Biden).

Anecdote: A few days before the 72 election, I was at my in-law's house when my father-in-law shocked me by saying "I sure hope Nixon wins". I was surprised since he had been a life long straight ticket Dem, and I said, "Albert, i didn't think you would ever vote for a Republican. He said, "Oh, I'm not going to vote for him". I asked why not, if you think he is the better man?"? He said, with a tone of voice that suggested I was the stupidest POS he had ever seen, "Well, if I did that I couldn't vote a straight ticket, could I?"

Born 1912, died 2009, never voted for Republican in his life. Stright ticket Dem, forever. Liked at least one Republican, for a while, anyway. RIP Albert.

(03-01-2024 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But your comment was equally as presumptuous when you state ‘the one they would normally vote for.’ In fact it has the simple ‘gonna vote red/ blue’ embedded in it as well —- as Frizzy notes above.

Hate to tell you some actually (horrors) vote for candidates. Not ‘the one [i.e. party] they usually vote for’. That kind of underlies the issues you and I seemingly have regarding the putative candidate for one of the parties.

I have issues with both Trump and Biden. Less so for one of them. Voting for Jill Stein will not help. Staying home to watch TV will not help.

I have no issue with you, or your choice. It's your vote and you can exercise it in any way you see fit. Sorry you have one with me/my choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8_FOQ7-P30


Yes, I expect conservatives likely would have voted Republican, and liberals likely would have voted Democrat. Some of each group now will not vote in the way they normally would. If, say, 20,000,000 of group A stays home, and 10,000,000 of Group B stay home, doesn't that equate to a 10,000,000 gain for Group B? That is so regardless of the motivations for any individual to stay home.

I don’t think I have ever disrespected your choice, OO. I think I have always said you are free to vote for whomever, and for what ever reason.

Perhaps you should denote where I have done otherwise.

(03-01-2024 09:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 04:43 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2024 04:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But your comment was equally as presumptuous when you state ‘the one they would normally vote for.’ In fact it has the simple ‘gonna vote red/ blue’ embedded in it as well —- as Frizzy notes above.

Hate to tell you some actually (horrors) vote for candidates. Not ‘the one [i.e. party] they usually vote for’. That kind of underlies the issues you and I seemingly have regarding the putative candidate for one of the parties.

I have issues with both Trump and Biden. Less so for one of them. Voting for Jill Stein will not help. Staying home to watch TV will not help.

I have no issue with you, or your choice. It's your vote and you can exercise it in any way you see fit. Sorry you have one with me/my choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8_FOQ7-P30


Yes, I expect conservatives likely would have voted Republican, and liberals likely would have voted Democrat. Some of each group now will not vote in the way they normally would. If, say, 20,000,000 of group A stays home, and 10,000,000 of Group B stay home, doesn't that equate to a 10,000,000 gain for Group B? That is so regardless of the motivations for any individual to stay home.

I don’t think I have ever disrespected your choice, OO. I think I have always said you are free to vote for whomever, and for what reason.

Perhaps you should denote where I have done otherwise.

That’s not respect - that’s law. But yes, both of us have always said that both of are free to vote for whoever we want, for any reason.

Funny, I feel disrespected. But it’s not important. BFD. Neither your vote nor mine is going to swing the election.

My point was, and is, that this election will likely be decided by which major party has the most people who normally vote for them stay home or vote third party. I predict record totals for most of the fringe candidates.