pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:Sanders wins this answer, by a mile. Not a 3rd term. Clinton's answer was #$!&@.

Well Webb was right. Bernie's answer was fantasy land.

that Congress wouldn't approve the spending? Sure. But he thinks they'd work with him? That's stupid.

Right but Webb isn't a serious candidate. Bernie can say all of this stuff but until he actually explains how he's going to get any of it through congress it's kind of a waste of breath. He's saying stuff some people want to hear, which makes the other candidates look bad when they take more reasonable positions that actually have a chance of getting through congress. Which is kind of ironic coming from a guy who is supposed to be such a straight shooter.

Chafee looks like he ran against James Monroe

The Dude wrote:

pacino wrote:this idea that businesses don't hire people because of paid leave is hilarious. "Gee, I have all these customers and all this business but now I gotta pay for leave?! Josie, you're fired!"

I have literally seen it happen. A woman wasn't hired at a company I worked at bc the hiring manager was afraid she was at baby-having age

Do you think this is happening at such a rate that enacting mandatory paid leave for all workers would be a big negative on the economy?

I don't think so.

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:Sanders wins this answer, by a mile. Not a 3rd term. Clinton's answer was #$!&@.

Well Webb was right. Bernie's answer was fantasy land.

that Congress wouldn't approve the spending? Sure. But he thinks they'd work with him? That's stupid.

Right but Webb isn't a serious candidate. Bernie can say all of this stuff but until he actually explains how he's going to get any of it through congress it's kind of a waste of breath. He's saying stuff some people want to hear, which makes the other candidates look bad when they take more reasonable positions that actually have a chance of getting through congress. Which is kind of ironic coming from a guy who is supposed to be such a straight shooter.

Well, I mean I'm the only Democrat on this board besides nightman that's voting Clinton in the primary so I get exactly what you're saying with this.

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:

pacino wrote:this idea that businesses don't hire people because of paid leave is hilarious. "Gee, I have all these customers and all this business but now I gotta pay for leave?! Josie, you're fired!"

I have literally seen it happen. A woman wasn't hired at a company I worked at bc the hiring manager was afraid she was at baby-having age

Do you think this is happening at such a rate that enacting mandatory paid leave for all workers would be a big negative on the economy?

I don't think so.

I believe this type of thinking falls nicely in line with their supply side economic fantasies

Ok, I take back what I said previously; O'Malley gunning for VP with this.

O'Malley is the perfect VP... with a real shot to be President in 2024

Warszawa wrote:

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:

pacino wrote:this idea that businesses don't hire people because of paid leave is hilarious. "Gee, I have all these customers and all this business but now I gotta pay for leave?! Josie, you're fired!"

I have literally seen it happen. A woman wasn't hired at a company I worked at bc the hiring manager was afraid she was at baby-having age

Do you think this is happening at such a rate that enacting mandatory paid leave for all workers would be a big negative on the economy?

I don't think so.

I believe this type of thinking falls nicely in line with their supply side economic fantasies

well, I should say that yeah it probably happens, like dude said. But it's not at any significant rate. Most companies don't limit expansion opportunities because they'll then have to hire more workers and possibly then pay a few more taxes. That's why we haven't seen any substantive negative losses in regards to healthcare provided by employers, which was feared.

I don't know how often, hopefully it's a leftover from some antiquated thinking. But it doesn't prevent expansion, they just hire another person

jerseyhoya wrote:Can't believe Anderson didn't make Hillary answer the "Do black lives matter or all lives matter?" question. Bastard.

Why? Her answer certainly would have been "Black Lives Matter" blah blah blah. That issue is a trick for Bernie, not for her.

i guess we had the kids' table debate.


we can dub this the adult table.

The Dude wrote:I don't know how often, hopefully it's a leftover from some antiquated thinking. But it doesn't prevent expansion, they just hire another person

men can get paid family sick leave, too. they don't get maternity leave, but that's different. in many countries they get paternity leave, though.

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Can't believe Anderson didn't make Hillary answer the "Do black lives matter or all lives matter?" question. Bastard.

Why? Her answer certainly would have been "Black Lives Matter" blah blah blah. That issue is a trick for Bernie, not for her.

One that Webb couldn't wait to answer. What a horrible response he has

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:Sanders wins this answer, by a mile. Not a 3rd term. Clinton's answer was #$!&@.

Well Webb was right. Bernie's answer was fantasy land.

that Congress wouldn't approve the spending? Sure. But he thinks they'd work with him? That's stupid.

Right but Webb isn't a serious candidate. Bernie can say all of this stuff but until he actually explains how he's going to get any of it through congress it's kind of a waste of breath. He's saying stuff some people want to hear, which makes the other candidates look bad when they take more reasonable positions that actually have a chance of getting through congress. Which is kind of ironic coming from a guy who is supposed to be such a straight shooter.

He's said many times that he's relying on the American people to get active. If congressmen have constituents calling them and showing up at their offices demanding Bernie's changes, those congressmen are going to have to either work with him or risk getting voted out of office.

Titlehungry wrote:O'Malley is the perfect VP... with a real shot to be President in 2024

He's white, so not perfect

pacino wrote:

The Dude wrote:I don't know how often, hopefully it's a leftover from some antiquated thinking. But it doesn't prevent expansion, they just hire another person

men can get paid family sick leave, too

Right, but hardly any take it. With the way women are paid, men make the most money in most households and it's rare a family can take a 35% hit to that main salary for 3 months

Lincoln Chaffee really reminds me of George HW Bush... they're almost certainly related of course. Also reminds me in terms of GHWB's political "skill."

So who's Hillary facing in the general election... im having a tough time with this... if Trump drops out, Carson and Fiorina as well... not seeing Jeb who looks frightened next to Trump... Kasich, Rubio?

Gimpy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

pacino wrote:Sanders wins this answer, by a mile. Not a 3rd term. Clinton's answer was #$!&@.

Well Webb was right. Bernie's answer was fantasy land.

that Congress wouldn't approve the spending? Sure. But he thinks they'd work with him? That's stupid.

Right but Webb isn't a serious candidate. Bernie can say all of this stuff but until he actually explains how he's going to get any of it through congress it's kind of a waste of breath. He's saying stuff some people want to hear, which makes the other candidates look bad when they take more reasonable positions that actually have a chance of getting through congress. Which is kind of ironic coming from a guy who is supposed to be such a straight shooter.

He's said many times that he's relying on the American people to get active. If congressmen have constituents calling them and showing up at their offices demanding Bernie's changes, those congressmen are going to have to either work with him or risk getting voted out of office.

Right and the fact that his plan is relying on a massive shift in the make up of congress is just one sign that it's massively unrealistic.

Titlehungry wrote:O'Malley is the perfect VP... with a real shot to be President in 2024

So you are predicting 20 consecutive years of Democrats holding the Presidency? From your mouth to God's ears...