Philosophical Vegan Forum

That's very disappointing. The two most important issues were barely touched. And now they're talking about implementing policies to harm the job prospects of the disabled and ship more jobs overseas... I don't care about job export, there are people who need these jobs more than U.S. the population does, but this could seriously harm her chances of beating Trump.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's very disappointing. The two most important issues were barely touched. And now they're talking about implementing policies to harm the job prospects of the disabled and ship more jobs overseas... I don't care about job export, there are people who need these jobs more than U.S. the population does, but this could seriously harm her chances of beating Trump.

By the two most important issues, do you mean the actual most important issues, or the issues you think are most important in beating Trump?

When it comes to beating Trump, I think this is a great platform. I think that people are very skeptical of Clinton's relationship with Wall Street, and this platform is tough on Wall Street. It also has many other populist positions, like expanding Social Security, raising the minimum wage, and providing workers with important benefits.

I don't think Clinton is going to lose the disabled vote to Trump. Do you remember this?: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26 ... sot-ac.cnn
God, he's such an asshole.

Disabled people will say raising their wages as good for them.

As for shipping more jobs overseas, I assume you're referring to that the democrats didn't put opposition to the TPP in their party platform. However, Bernie shifted Clinton's position on the TPP quite some time ago during the primaries.

*Also, I forgot to mention, the platform calls for a path to legalization... For marijuana.

**Also... damn. v

As for the republicans platform, it apparently opposes gay couples adopting children and declares porn a national public health crisis and menace...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/por ... 90f7ea7a31

“Pornography, with his harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well being,” the amendment stated.

EquALLity wrote: By the two most important issues, do you mean the actual most important issues, or the issues you think are most important in beating Trump?

I meant of those mentioned. Israel and carbon tax.

EquALLity wrote:raising the minimum wage, and providing workers with important benefits.

I don't think Clinton is going to lose the disabled vote to Trump. Do you remember this?: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26 ... sot-ac.cnn
God, he's such an asshole.

If you're disabled, do you want an asshole for president, or one that's going to cost you your job because you can't work effectively enough to quite be worth paying you minimum wage compared to your competition?

EquALLity wrote:Disabled people will say raising their wages as good for them.

IF that's true (and I doubt it is, at least for their families) remember children think candy for dinner is good for them. It sounds good, but when you realize many if not most of them will be fired instead of have their wages raised, the equation changes dramatically.
No sensible business owner is going to hire a severely disabled person over an able bodied/minded one for the same wage.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/19/hillary-and-bernies-absurd-insistence-on-abolishing-the-sub-minimum-wage-for-the-disabled/#474979dd73ba
http://www.philanthropydaily.com/how-raising-the-minimum-wage-hurts-disabled-workers/

If we're serious about raising the minimum wage (which as I explained elsewhere, is not helpful, although I'll admit it's a populist position that may get Hillary elected), we HAVE to maintain and even expand exemptions to it on humanitarian grounds.

Anybody subject to employment stigma needs to be allowed to work for less. Reformed ex-cons, people on parole, the disabled, the poor and uneducated, people getting their first jobs, students.

This is just terrible for disabled people, all so that a politician can get elected and people can feel good about themselves for doing it in ignorance of the actual consequences of such an act.

If Trump is smart, he'll attack Hillary on this. And the disabled and their families will side with the asshole who wants them to keep their jobs over the ideologue who doesn't care how many lives she ruins as long as the minimum wage applies equally to everybody, becuase that's her idea of fairness.

EquALLity wrote:As for shipping more jobs overseas, I assume you're referring to that the democrats didn't put opposition to the TPP in their party platform. However, Bernie shifted Clinton's position on the TPP quite some time ago during the primaries.

I don't care about that, though: I actually agree with shipping jobs overseas, because those people need the jobs more.
It's a bad position for a president to have if he or she wants to protect the U.S. economy, but if it'll win votes I guess it doesn't matter.

EquALLity wrote:*Also, I forgot to mention, the platform calls for a path to legalization... For marijuana.

That's good.

EquALLity wrote: *Also, I forgot to mention, the platform calls for a path to legalization... For marijuana.

If any presidential candidate declared they would immediately legalize marijuana, they would win. Even if their policies were horrible at least you could get stoned and forget about it!

PsYcHo wrote:

EquALLity wrote: *Also, I forgot to mention, the platform calls for a path to legalization... For marijuana.

If any presidential candidate declared they would immediately legalize marijuana, they would win. Even if their policies were horrible at least you could get stoned and forget about it!

brimstoneSalad wrote:I meant of those mentioned. Israel and carbon tax.

Of those mentioned, do you mean most important in terms of beating Trump or just the most important because of what the policies entail?

brimstoneSalad wrote:If you're disabled, do you want an asshole for president, or one that's going to cost you your job because you can't work effectively enough to quite be worth paying you minimum wage compared to your competition?

I'm not necessarily saying it's rational, but when you attack a group, it's very difficult for members of that group to support you even if they think you're overall better than the alternative.

brimstoneSalad wrote:IF that's true (and I doubt it is, at least for their families) remember children think candy for dinner is good for them. It sounds good, but when you realize many if not most of them will be fired instead of have their wages raised, the equation changes dramatically.
No sensible business owner is going to hire a severely disabled person over an able bodied/minded one for the same wage.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... 4979dd73ba
http://www.philanthropydaily.com/how-ra ... d-workers/

If we're serious about raising the minimum wage (which as I explained elsewhere, is not helpful, although I'll admit it's a populist position that may get Hillary elected), we HAVE to maintain and even expand exemptions to it on humanitarian grounds.

These links don't seem very credible. They're both just the opinions of random people. Neither of the writers of those are economists.

The Bloomberg article the second one mentions is probably more credible, though I'm wary of the mainstream media- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -forces-it

Yeah, I think you're right about sub-minimum wages. It's too bad though, because it forces the disabled to live in poverty. As if it isn't already hard enough to be disabled.
The only ethical thing to do would be to compensate for the poverty with things like food stamps, which increases federal spending, so I'm not sure if that's necessarily better.

What do conservatives want us to do here?
Raising wage- bad
Social programs that compensate for low wages- bad

Not to imply that you think social programs are bad, just an observation.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Anybody subject to employment stigma needs to be allowed to work for less. Reformed ex-cons, people on parole, the disabled, the poor and uneducated, people getting their first jobs, students.

Providing raising the min. wage hurts jobs, this I think depends on the job. Minimum wage jobs are intentionally low skill. There's no reason you'd need a college degree to work as a cashier. Why would students or the poor etc. be of lesser work value in that regard?

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is just terrible for disabled people, all so that a politician can get elected and people can feel good about themselves for doing it in ignorance of the actual consequences of such an act.

If Trump is smart, he'll attack Hillary on this. And the disabled and their families will side with the asshole who wants them to keep their jobs over the ideologue who doesn't care how many lives she ruins as long as the minimum wage applies equally to everybody, becuase that's her idea of fairness.

1) He's not smart.
2) I don't think it would be good to attack her on this politically. He's already actually flip-flopped and made statements supporting raising the minimum wage (after he said during a debate that wages are too high). He knows it's a populist position to raise the wage.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't care about that, though: I actually agree with shipping jobs overseas, because those people need the jobs more.
It's a bad position for a president to have if he or she wants to protect the U.S. economy, but if it'll win votes I guess it doesn't matter.

I thought it helps workers overseas but hurts the US economy?

brimstoneSalad wrote: That's good.

Is that good because it's populist? I thought you were against legalizing marijuana.

EquALLity wrote: Of those mentioned, do you mean most important in terms of beating Trump or just the most important because of what the policies entail?

The latter.
Being critical of Israel is not a good way to get elected. Nor probably is advocating for a carbon tax.

EquALLity wrote:These links don't seem very credible. They're both just the opinions of random people. Neither of the writers of those are economists.

Forbes is usually pretty good.

EquALLity wrote:The Bloomberg article the second one mentions is probably more credible, though I'm wary of the mainstream media- http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... -forces-it

This is just consistent with basic economics. You might want to watch some videos on economics, or maybe read some introductory books; it's important stuff to understand the state of the country, and the problem of poverty.

Crash Course is a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtPNZwz5_o_5uirJ8gQXnhEO

The main reason to be wary of media (mainstream or not, smaller media isn't better) is clickbait, fear mongering, and telling people what they want to hear. Advocating something that's likely to be unpopular like this, and that isn't sexy, isn't something they're using to generate revenue.

When smelling out a lie, the first thing you have to look for is motivation.
The "Bacon is better than lettuce!" and "Plants feel pain!" headlines are good examples of yellow journalism: it's media clickbait.

EquALLity wrote:Yeah, I think you're right about sub-minimum wages. It's too bad though, because it forces the disabled to live in poverty. As if it isn't already hard enough to be disabled.

It's easier to get a job if you are allowed to work for less than the next guy: it doesn't mean you have to work for less. If a disabled person has experience and does a better job, he or she can earn far over the non-disabled minimum wage.
It doesn't force disabled to live in poverty: there's no maximum wage. It just gives them options.

EquALLity wrote:The only ethical thing to do would be to compensate for the poverty with things like food stamps, which increases federal spending, so I'm not sure if that's necessarily better.

Well, what the evidence suggests so far is that we need basic income.

EquALLity wrote:What do conservatives want us to do here?
Raising wage- bad
Social programs that compensate for low wages- bad

Neither conservatives nor liberals make any sense. They're each half wrong. That's what's wrong with politics: you have two parties which are each very wrong, but on different subjects. It's like how Republicans are right on nuclear, but wrong on global warming, and Democrats are wrong on nuclear, but right on global warming.

EquALLity wrote:Providing raising the min. wage hurts jobs, this I think depends on the job. Minimum wage jobs are intentionally low skill. There's no reason you'd need a college degree to work as a cashier. Why would students or the poor etc. be of lesser work value in that regard?

It's about competition in the job market. Everything counts, particularly when jobs are in high demand. Employers want somebody responsible, honest, and who can work up the ladder to manager. Poor may not have a car, so could have more trouble getting to work, or may be more likely to steal (not out of malice, but because they think they need it). Students may be seen as less responsible, or busy with school, they may drop the job on a dime and leave the employer hanging.

This could be part of why women may earn slightly less right now [aside from the predominant factor of not going into STEM as much] and may have a more difficult time getting hired: they could get pregnant and cost you an arm and a leg in paid leave and insurance without working (this is more damaging if you're a small company).
You can find women on some forums online bragging about having obscured a pregnancy to get a job, then taking off on maternity leave after being hired -- then they quit when they're expected to return to work. It's people who abuse the system who make it worse for everybody else. Men have a lower risk of that kind of abuse.
You could say this is just people taking from society what they're owed, since the government won't help them, and congratulate them for gaming the system: but it has a cost in the employment market.

Everything counts, even things that you'd see as improbable or relatively minor (like a Muslim praying during work: it's lost productivity).

EquALLity wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't care about that [the minimum wage raising], though: I actually agree with shipping jobs overseas [as a consequence of a higher minimum wage], because those people need the jobs more [and it helps the workers overseas].
It's [raising minimum wage] a bad position for a president to have if he or she wants to protect the U.S. economy [because it hurts the US economy], but if it'll win votes I guess it doesn't matter [at least for the first term, good luck getting reelected. That's almost a Brexit level fuckup].

I thought it helps workers overseas but hurts the US economy?

Right, that's what I was saying.

EquALLity wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote: That's good.

Is that good because it's populist? I thought you were against legalizing marijuana.

It's not an either or proposition.

1. Keep it criminalized and illegal.
2. Decriminalize it but keep it illegal.
3. Legalize it entirely.

I prefer option #2 as the best option, but I'll take whatever we can get.
Chances are it will be legalized on the federal level, and then banned by city and state laws that will impose a fine. Which is pretty much how it should be.

Hillary Clinton's VP pick is... Tim Kaine? Who?
That's disappointing.

Wikileaks leaked DNC emails the reveal the democratic party was in fact conspiring against Bernie Sanders:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-s ... d=40825318

"Everybody is disappointed that much of what we felt was happening at the DNC was in fact happening, that you had in this case a clear example of the DNC taking sides and looking to place negative information into the political process.

"We have an electoral process. The DNC, by its charter, is required to be neutral among the candidates. Clearly it was not," Weaver said, responding for the first time to the growing controversy. "We had obviously pointed that out in a number of instances prior to this, and these emails just bear that out."

Another member of Sanders' staff, Rania Batrice put it this way: "Everything our fans have been saying -- and they were beaten down for and called conspiracy theorists -- and now it's in black and white."

Weaver said that he was surprised that no one with the party had reached out to him, "given the conduct that was disclosed" in the emails. Several of the emails showed that DNC staff called Weaver names including "a liar."

Several members of Sanders staff have expressed specific outrage over the emails, which seemed to suggest attacking the senator's religion. Sanders' former Iowa State Director Robert Becker told ABC News that it showed "a total lack of decency."

The Democratic National Committee has not commented on the issue.

Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Sanders and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support.

"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May 5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My southern baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

Wow, that's pretty disgusting.

So, it's confirmed that the democratic primaries were essentially rigged against Bernie Sanders.
This is blatantly unethical. Most politicians don't seem to really care about ethics... I suppose that's what comes with selling out to corporate donors.

EquALLity wrote: Wow, that's pretty disgusting.

So, it's confirmed that the democratic primaries were essentially rigged against Bernie Sanders.
This is blatantly unethical. Most politicians don't seem to really care about ethics... I suppose that's what comes with selling out to corporate donors.

Eh, blessing in disguise I'd say. He'd probably not be a great president anyways, from what I can tell.

But anyways, this may be a stretch, but if this were Trump, you wouldn't be so angry about the system being fucked. But that's just me.