US Presidential Candidates

They count. However, these jobs are likely not going to full time workers. They are the caddy, busboy sorts of jobs that are taken by teenagers and young adults developing their marketable skills.

So, the benefits to most of these employees is not only the wage, but an entre into areas they wish to develop a career. How are these folks treated apart from their wage? That would be a better measure.

Annachie wrote:Lol, jobs that aren't "minimum wage" clearly don't count if we are curious how he treats his minimum wage workers.

I am, however, starting to think that over here in Oz we have both more workers that would be consideted minimum wage, and a greater flow on effect of changes to that minimum wage due to the way the whole wages thing is worked out.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Tenshinai wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

Both Clinton and Trump have sky high negatives for good reason. November is going to come down to whom the voters dislike the most.

To date Trump has shown a positive genius for negative campaigning and has been incredibly successful with this tactic. Given the enormous volume of negative information about Clinton, he's going to have a lot of material to work with and he will make the most of it.

Clinton on the other hand has proved absolutely abysmal at campaigning negative or otherwise. She is a truly lousy candidate. Fortunately for her, there are a large number of Democratic 527s and superPacs which operate independently of the campaign. Many of them are a considerably more competent than she is. She's going to need to depend on them plus her friends in the mainstream media (your article for example) to generate any successful attacks on Trump.

The public already hates them both. After 6 months of negative attack machines......

biochem wrote:Clinton on the other hand has proved absolutely abysmal at campaigning negative or otherwise. She is a truly lousy candidate. Fortunately for her, there are a large number of Democratic 527s and superPacs which operate independently of the campaign. Many of them are a considerably more competent than she is. She's going to need to depend on them plus her friends in the mainstream media (your article for example) to generate any successful attacks on Drumpf.

The public already hates them both. After 6 months of negative attack machines......

So sticking to issues and refusing to descend into the mud-slinging pit is "abysmal" and "lousy" campaigning? I weep for the state of American politics.

dscott8 wrote:

biochem wrote:Clinton on the other hand has proved absolutely abysmal at campaigning negative or otherwise. She is a truly lousy candidate. Fortunately for her, there are a large number of Democratic 527s and superPacs which operate independently of the campaign. Many of them are a considerably more competent than she is. She's going to need to depend on them plus her friends in the mainstream media (your article for example) to generate any successful attacks on Drumpf.

The public already hates them both. After 6 months of negative attack machines......

So sticking to issues and refusing to descend into the mud-slinging pit is "abysmal" and "lousy" campaigning? I weep for the state of American politics.

She's abysmal at positive campaigning too.

biochem wrote:To date Trump has shown a positive genius for negative campaigning and has been incredibly successful with this tactic.

Is that supposed to somehow be a good thing?

biochem wrote:Given the enormous volume of negative information about Clinton, he's going to have a lot of material to work with and he will make the most of it.

Seriously, a huge part of the "dirt" on Hilary is overblown outright make-belief of the same kind the Rep´s sling at every Democrat candidate that looks to be getting anywhere. Like the ridiculous "Obama is a moslem"/"Obama wasn´t really born in USA" bullshit.

biochem wrote:Both Clinton and Trump have sky high negatives for good reason.

Hilary Clinton is a fricking saint compared to Trump. Pretending they belong in the same category is just weird.

biochem wrote:Clinton on the other hand has proved absolutely abysmal at campaigning negative or otherwise. She is a truly lousy candidate.

Logic fail, does not follow. The two sentences has no logical connection.

Really, how shallow can the US voters be?

Do they want a good president or a president good at mudslinging in the local sandbox?

biochem wrote: She's going to need to depend on them plus her friends in the mainstream media

In case you missed it, the Rep´s pretty much own the most influential media.

Murdoch doesn´t even try to claim that he isn´t trying to manipulate voters, and the voters still fall for the crap his massmedia pulls.
"fair and balanced reporting", yeah right, while their boss have no qualms saying that he IS using that channel among other means to manipulate people.

biochem wrote:(your article for example) to generate any successful attacks on Trump.

Ehm, you do realise that the article i linked isn´t actually an attack, try reading it and you SHOULD notice that they´re very particular about trying to get every fact as exactly straight as possible, even when it makes Trump look less bad than just using big headlines would.

You might also want to note that the article starts off by commenting about Hilary´s "baggage" and linking their article about it.

Exactly how does that make anyone involved in the article a friend of Hilary?

Face facts, the media is heavily rightwing biased in politics(and even more still so in economics), while the leftwingers have the most control in nonpolitical areas of reporting.

Why do you think there´s over a 20 to 1 ratio between left and rightwing political web-satire? Because the leftwing politics doesn´t get into the mainstream massmedia anywhere near as much as rightwing does.



This is what an "attack" looks like:
https://vimeo.com/165392407

The extremely sad part is that it´s actually not really exaggerating. Trump is just that level of disgusting.
And even the one doing the above, Mark Fiore, makes fun of the Dem´s as well.

Consider that little nugget, how often do you see people on either side making fun of their own side?
You probably don´t want the answer.

A GOP strategist just said that this campain will be one of the most negative ever.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:A GOP strategist just said that this campain will be one of the most negative ever.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Is he related to one of the ones that said Thrump wouldn't get the nomination?

Have fun,
T2M

Don't know. But he was down here in Oz, so clearly he is important

Ok is the Trump tax return thing as big as it's sounding?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Ok is the Trump tax return thing as big as it's sounding?

It's about as relevant as the whole Birther thing was back when Obama ran for President.

In other words, the only people who do care are those who are already in the Never Trump camp; For people who have decided on Trump, it's irrelevant.

Although, thinking about it, this is perhaps more critical for Trump's image than it would be for other candidates. After all, he built his entire campaign around the (provably inflated) fortune he has built and the success he has in business. If his tax returns do not match up to his claims, well, that would be a bit embarassing I imagine.

The other part of this whole thing is that it has become tradition for candidates to reveal their tax returns. Whether or not Trump follows this tradition will be seen as significant (but, again: I would imagine that most people's minds are made up by now and thus unlikely to change by something like this).