Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

stefanovich

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not opening my any link from the ny post. Get one from a reputable source if you want me to read it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/437107-harris-i-believe-biden-accusers

frag420

stefanovich wrote: »

I got tired well before the election.

Sleepy Stefanovich....

That’s what Trump and some of his followers here would have called you!

Curse These Metal Hands

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not opening my any link from the ny post. Get one from a reputable source if you want me to read it.

It's common knowledge that was reported by every major news source at the time. A quick Google will show countless articles. Kamala Harris said she believed some women that accused Joe Biden of being inappropriate.

everlast75

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

It's common knowledge that was reported by every major news source at the time. A quick Google will show countless articles. Kamala Harris said she believed some women that accused Joe Biden of being inappropriate.

Women who interacted with joe said he invaded their personal space.

Joe admitted that he did that.

He apologised for it.

They accepted it.

He was v p for 8 years.

He was a member of Congress for decades.

He is one of the most vetted politicians of all time.

If there was any there there, Trump would have lined them up like he did with hillary (blatant hypocrisy notwithstanding).

Trump didn't. Full stop.

stefanovich

everlast75 wrote: »

Women who interacted with joe said he invaded their personal space.

Joe admitted that he did that.

He apologised for it.

They accepted it.

He was v p for 8 years.

He was a member of Congress for decades.

He is one of the most vetted politicians of all time.

If there was any there there, Trump would have lined them up like he did with hillary (blatant hypocrisy notwithstanding).

Trump didn't. Full stop.

So you don’t believe his accusers?

Curse These Metal Hands

everlast75 wrote: »

Women who interacted with joe said he invaded their personal space.

Joe admitted that he did that.

He apologised for it.

They accepted it.

He was v p for 8 years.

He was a member of Congress for decades.

He is one of the most vetted politicians of all time.

If there was any there there, Trump would have lined them up like he did with hillary (blatant hypocrisy notwithstanding).

Trump didn't. Full stop.

It was inappropriate touching, not "invading space."

Trump is incompetent, so him not lining up anything isn't credible evidence that these women are lying.

everlast75

stefanovich wrote: »

So you don’t believe his accusers?

Which accusers (plural) are you talking about?

I'm aware of one and listened to her story. There are inconsistencies which don't assist her credibility.

That said, anyone accused of any impropriety should be fully and fairly investigated.

Anyone else has said that they knew Biden was a good man and accepted his apology.

Now, can i ask you the same thing about Trump would you prefer me to ask it over on that thread.

stefanovich

everlast75 wrote: »

Which accusers (plural) are you talking about?

I'm aware of one and listened to her story. There are inconsistencies which don't assist her credibility.

That said, anyone accused of any impropriety should be fully and fairly investigated.

Anyone else has said that they knew Biden was a good man and accepted his apology.

Now, can i ask you the same thing about Trump would you prefer me to ask it over on that thread.

I bet you wouldn’t afford Trump the same benefit of the doubt.

everlast75

stefanovich wrote: »

I bet you wouldn’t afford Trump the same benefit of the doubt.

I asked you a question.

francois

stefanovich wrote: »

So does Kamala still think Joe is an abuser? Did lust for power make her forget her morals?

Textbook fallacy

stefanovich

francois wrote: »

Textbook fallacy

You’ll have to explain what you mean.

duploelabs

stefanovich wrote: »

You’ll have to explain what you mean.

You still don't know what citation means yet either do you

eagle eye

Curse These Metal Hands wrote:

It's common knowledge that was reported by every major news source at the time. A quick Google will show countless articles. Kamala Harris said she believed some women that accused Joe Biden of being inappropriate.

I'm aware of the inappropriate touching accusations and I discussed this only a couple of days ago. There was no response from anybody to what I said.
I'll repeat what I said. I seen the video of Biden with kids a year or more ago and was incensed by them. I heard the accusations of Biden touching women inappropriately too.
It's not normal for somebody to do something like that with both women and kids, it'd be one or the other.
So I went and watched lots of footage of Biden and low and behold he was touching men as well.
Basically he is just a handsy type person so it's clear there's nothing perverse about it but obviously it's uncomfortable for some people.

So I guess Kamala was right to believe these women. I'm sure Biden now understands that he needs to be less handsy.

I'm no fan of Kamala Harris and I don't think she'll win a Presidential election if she gets to run but she did nothing wrong and doesn't need to change her mind on this in my opinion.

Leroy42

NSAman wrote: »

Ok now the show trial is over, let’s see Biden and Harris start to pull this country out of the ****.

Enough of politics and vendettas, us tax payers need to see results.

Clearly you have only been paying attention to the 'show trial' becuase Biden is getting loads done, with Fox complaining he is doing too much and signing too many EO.

Biden wasn't waiting for the trial. He hit the ground running with clear plans and policies.

stefanovich

Leroy42 wrote: »

Clearly you have only been paying attention to the 'show trial' becuase Biden is getting loads done, with Fox complaining he is doing too much and signing too many EO.

Biden wasn't waiting for the trial. He hit the ground running with clear plans and policies.

Dismantling the wall to increase voter base and suppress wages of the poorest.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Dismantling the wall to increase voter base and suppress wages of the poorest.

Eh, they're increasing the minimum wage..

Water John

Didn't know illegals were allowed to vote either. Wrong on both points. Stef. zero for effort.

Leroy42

stefanovich wrote: »

Dismantling the wall to increase voter base and suppress wages of the poorest.

So, whilst you may not agree with what he is doing, we can both agree that he is doing?

But just like when Trump one, you're guy lost, get over it. Biden has the large electoral mandate, it would be antidemocratic not to implement the things people clearly voted for.

WHO, Paris Accord.

He doesn't need to dismantle any wall, Trump built so little of it it makes no difference and is no consigned to the place of other White Elephant vanity projects.

Given the 60+ cases, and the three months and counting of non stop attempts to find voter fraud, I think everyone can agree that the electoral system is robust and there is no material fraud so not sure what having increased undocumented illegals would achieve in terms of additional votes.

expectationlost

eagle eye wrote: »

I think you have to investigate first.
How long would it take to get in touch with the relevant parties? The alleged victim might not want to talk until after taking legal advice.

did you read the bloody article they investigated and talk to the parties the day and the next day it happened https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/i-will-destroy-you-biden-aide-threatened-a-politico-reporter-pursuing-a-story-on-his-relationship

ollkiller

stefanovich wrote: »

Dismantling the wall to increase voter base and suppress wages of the poorest.

You obviously know nothing about economics then. Immigration in the short term suppresses wages and in the long term leads to higher wages and a higher standard of living. More people equals more consumption etc etc. Same idiotic argument trotted out by gullible fools who believe sound bites by right wing commentators. When in fact the right wing commentators trot out this nonsense as it will stop people looking at their finances and how they, and not the immigrants are the reason for no minimum wage and terrible working conditions and general basic rights for workers.

ExMachina1000

ollkiller wrote: »

You obviously know nothing about economics then. Immigration in the short term suppresses wages and in the long term leads to higher wages and a higher standard of living. More people equals more consumption etc etc. Same idiotic argument trotted out by gullible fools who believe sound bites by right wing commentators. When in fact the right wing commentators trot out this nonsense as it will stop people looking at their finances and how they, and not the immigrants are the reason for no minimum wage and terrible working conditions and general basic rights for workers.

How long is the short term? Can people just cut back on day to day expenses until the "short term" passes

"This second message might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone who tells you that immigration doesn’t have any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants"

"George J. Borjas is professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of the forthcoming We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative"

Cody montana

stefanovich wrote: »

Dismantling the wall to increase voter base and suppress wages of the poorest.

Please google the nonsense you posted.

12gauge dave

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How long is the short term? Can people just cut back on day to day expenses until the "short term" passes

"This second message might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone who tells you that immigration doesn’t have any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants"

"George J. Borjas is professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of the forthcoming We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative"

Excellent post

Water John

What level immigrants come in at and also aspire to has implications in the turnout for the economy. Don't think you'll find many US citizens anxious to work in boning halls.

duploelabs

Water John wrote: »

What level immigrants come in at and also aspire to has implications in the turnout for the economy. Don't think you'll find many US citizens anxious to work in boning halls.

The entire hospitality industry in America is built on immigrants

astrofool

astrofool wrote: »

This is funny because of how utterly clueless you seem to be.

How long do you think the border fencing between Mexico and the United States currently is (I'll give you a hint, Joe Biden knows).

You'll have to use Google yourself this time.

Any answer to this Dave?, or are you just going to stick to thanking posts for a while?

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

How long is the short term? Can people just cut back on day to day expenses until the "short term" passes

"This second message might be hard for many Americans to process, but anyone who tells you that immigration doesn’t have any negative effects doesn’t understand how it really works. When the supply of workers goes up, the price that firms have to pay to hire workers goes down. Wage trends over the past half-century suggest that a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with a particular set of skills probably lowers the wage of that group by at least 3 percent. Even after the economy has fully adjusted, those skill groups that received the most immigrants will still offer lower pay relative to those that received fewer immigrants"

"George J. Borjas is professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and author of the forthcoming We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative"

A higher minimum wage would deal with that in the stroke of a pen.

But it is far easier to blame immigrants than actually do something

ExMachina1000

Leroy42 wrote: »

A higher minimum wage would deal with that in the stroke of a pen.

But it is far easier to blame immigrants than actually do something

A higher minimum wage has nothing to do with immigration.

You are saying a Harvard economist analysing 50 years of data is wrong but you are correct?

Back it up please. Let's hear it

ollkiller

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

A higher minimum wage has nothing to do with immigration.

But in one fail swoop would cancel your point that immigration drives down wages. Any country without a minimum wage basically doesn't give a f**k about it's citizens.

Munstersrebel

stefanovich wrote: »

I bet you wouldn’t afford Trump the same benefit of the doubt.

Correct me but isnt there at least 1 sexual assault civil suit on going against the Seditious one?

And then how he bullied Stormy Daniels and others... And the connections with a certain autocratic Republic... And so on and on. In 4 yrs the only thing he did was lower taxed for the rich and sign an order for delayed tax increases for when his first term would have ended.

Carfacemandog

stefanovich wrote: »

Dismantling the wall to increase voter base and suppress wages of the poorest.

I would point out that immigrants can't vote, but you already knew that before you posted this nonsense.

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

A higher minimum wage has nothing to do with immigration.

You are saying a Harvard economist analysing 50 years of data is wrong but you are correct?

Back it up please. Let's hear it

You said, or the economist said, that every 10% increase in numbers leads to 3% reduction. But minimum wage stops that happening.

So it stands to reason if you remove the ability to reduce the wage that wages don't drop.

Did the economist take account of potential impacts?

ExMachina1000

ollkiller wrote: »

But in one fail swoop would cancel your point that immigration drives down wages. Any country without a minimum wage basically doesn't give a f**k about it's citizens.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/10/one-third-of-small-businesses-say-15-minimum-wage-means-layoffs.html#aoh=16133225019473&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

More money per hour but less people employed. 1.3 million less

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/10/one-third-of-small-businesses-say-15-minimum-wage-means-layoffs.html#aoh=16133225019473&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

More money per hour but less people employed. 1.3 million less

So wages are dropping to maintain jobs, it would be happening regardless of immigration.

Are wage rates because too many immigrants or because its what businesses can afford?

You can't have both

ExMachina1000

Leroy42 wrote: »

So wages are dropping to maintain jobs, it would be happening regardless of immigration.

Are wage rates because too many immigrants or because its what businesses can afford?

You can't have both

Raise the minimum wage - 1/3 of businesses let staff go. With or without immigration.

It's a separate story.

One would imagine that allowing large numbers into a country when there are less low paid jobs available due to businesses unable to keep the same staffing levels to be a real recipe for success.

You end up with unemployed Americans and unemployed immigrants. Nobody wins.

Business owners have said so about the costs themselves. I don't know what's left to argue

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Raise the minimum wage - 1/3 of businesses let staff go. With or without immigration.

It's a separate story.

Ine would imagine that allowing large numbers into a country when there are less low paid jobs available due to businesses unable to keep the same staffing levels to be a real recipe for success.

You end up with unemployed Americans and unemployed immigrants. Nobody wins.

Business owners have said so about the costs themselves. I don't know what's left to argue

Because you are arguing that immigrants lead directly to lower wages.

An easy solution is to stop employers reducing the wage. Now there is no Incentive to hire illegals as they cost the same but carry more risk.

If a business cannot survive without paying a minimum wage then there is a problem with that business. And that is a wider discussion.

Do immigrants lead to lowering of wages and if they do whybeven bring business ability to pay into it?

Christy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Raise the minimum wage - 1/3 of businesses let staff go. With or without immigration.

It's a separate story.

One would imagine that allowing large numbers into a country when there are less low paid jobs available due to businesses unable to keep the same staffing levels to be a real recipe for success.

You end up with unemployed Americans and unemployed immigrants. Nobody wins.

Business owners have said so about the costs themselves. I don't know what's left to argue

Why are they hiring so many people they don't need? That seems super confusing to me. If they need them they will hire them and if they don't they wouldn't have been hired already.

Certainly over the last year masses of money have been funnelled to billionaires so they obviously have enough to hire people.

ExMachina1000

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because you are arguing that immigrants lead directly to lower wages.


If a business cannot survive without paying a minimum wage then there is a problem with that business. And that is a wider discussion.

Do immigrants lead to lowering of wages and if they do whybeven bring business ability to pay into it?

Who are you to make the call that businesses should be able to absorb the cost of doubling the wages of its minimum paid workers?
Have you looked their books? Their operating costs? The profit margins?

Maybe they should just close completely?

"If a business cannot survive without paying a minimum wage then there is a problem with that business"

Biggest load of rubbish iv read in a long while. Such a lack of knowledge

Do immigrants lower wages? Yes they do. But dont take my word for it. Take the word of a Harvard economist studying 50 years of data.

I linked it above


Biden would have a team of economists and all sorts of advisers working for him. These people know what happens to small businesses ( the backbone of the economy) if the minimum wage was to be doubled. I can cast iron guarantee it wont happen nationwide. Not a hope in hell. No chance. Zero

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Who are you to make the call that businesses should be able to absorb the cost of doubling the wages of its minimum paid workers?
Have you looked their books? Their operating costs? The profit margins?

Maybe they should just close completely?

"If a business cannot survive without paying a minimum wage then there is a problem with that business"

Biggest load of rubbish iv read in a long while. Such a lack of knowledge

Do immigrants lower wages? Yes they do. But dont take my word for it. Take the word of a Harvard economist studying 50 years of data.

I linked it above

Of course illegals reduce wages, if there are no constraints on a business using them to force legals to accept lower wage or lose their job. The points you quoted dealt with that reality, it didn't take account of a regulated minimum wage.

You then sidetracked to make a point that businesses can't afford to pay people. So, are you are now claiming that its the business costs driving down wage rates, and immigrants are just the suckers used to prop up the business.

I am only asking which you believe. Is it that immigrants are driving down wages or wages are low because that is all the company can afford.

Which is it?

Where did I mention a doubling of the minimum wage?

ExMachina1000

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course illegals reduce wages, if there are no constraints on them doing so. The points you quoted dealt with that reality, it didn't take account of a regulated minimum wage.

You then sidetracked to make a point that businesses can afford to pay people. So, I'm you are now claiming that its the business costs driving down wage rates, and immigrants are just the sockets used to prop up the business.

I am only asking which you believe. Is it that immigrants are driving down wages or wages are low because that is all the company can afford.

Which is it?

No what you are doing is sidestepping all of the data and educated opinion that I'm am throwing at you.

Some sort of side mission based on fantasy and sticking it to the billionaires

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Who are you to make the call that businesses should be able to absorb the cost of doubling the wages of its minimum paid workers?
Have you looked their books? Their operating costs? The profit margins?

Maybe they should just close completely?

Maybe they should??

If a job deosnt pay a living wage,then it isnt worth doing and its pure wrong to expect people to work for less than a living wage (1913 lockouts in dublin were essentially about this,how in 2021 its even up for debate is beyond me)



Now yous are right about immigrants accepting lower wages,anyone would to get ahead/start life in a new country.....but the problem is inherently people are being paid too little/gig contracts/messing about with hours.....noone should need to work 2-3 jobs,just to survive

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

No what you are doing is sidestepping all of the data and educated opinion that I'm am throwing at you.

Some sort of side mission based on fantasy and sticking it to the billionaires

I'm really not. Your economist is not arguing what you think he is. He is making the point that currently, illegal immigrants drive down wages. But not that a proper minimum wage wouldn't sort out that problem.

You are looking at the data as if there is no other way but the current way.

Why hire an illegal, with the possible legal ramifications of that, when they cost the exact same as a legal?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe they should??

If a job deosnt pay a living wage,then it isnt worth doing and its pure wrong to expect people to work for less than a living wage (1913 lockouts in dublin were essentially about this,how in 2021 its even up for debate is beyond me)



Now yous are right about immigrants accepting lower wages,anyone would to get ahead/start life in a new country.....but the problem is inherently people are being paid too little/gig contracts/messing about with hours.....noone should need to work 2-3 jobs,just to survive

That's basically it, machina is arguing for the right to pay exploitative salaries. And we're supposed to sympathise with the business being forced to raise salaries?

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's basically it, machina is arguing for the right to pay exploitative salaries. And we're supposed to sympathise with the business being forced to raise salaries?

I cant understand why this is complicated but il try one more time. This with an example.

Let's take a shop in one of the many poor areas of the United states . An electrical shop in lower Santan village, Arizona

The shop has 5 staff on minimum wage and margins are thin due to the low economic area it is based. Ie people are too poor to be upgrading their tvs or home entertainment regularly.

The minimum wage doubles and the owner has to pay twice the current wage for the same level of return in the form of staff labour. The profit margin drops further so the owner let's 2 staff members go. 2 people now have no job with little chance of getting one somewhere else. Raising the prices of items in the shop affects the customers who already cant afford regular upgrades. The business suffers even further

Or like suggested the " business should just close" .
5 people lose their jobs and the area loses yet another business.

Joe Biden and team know that small businesses are the backbone of any economy. The doubling of the minimum wage will not be happening. Not a hope

gizmo

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I cant understand why this is complicated but il try one more time. This with an example.

Let's take a shop in one of the many poor areas of the United states . An electrical shop in lower Santan village, Arizona

The shop has 5 staff on minimum wage and margins are thin due to the low economic area it is based. Ie people are too poor to be upgrading their tvs or home entertainment regularly.

The minimum wage doubles and the owner has to pay twice the current wage for the same level of return in the form of staff labour. The profit margin drops further so the owner let's 2 staff members go. 2 people now have no job with little chance of getting one somewhere else. Raising the prices of items in the shop affects the customers who already cant afford regular upgrades. The business suffers even further

Or like suggested the " business should just close" .
5 people lose their jobs and the area loses yet another business.

Joe Biden and team know that small businesses are the backbone of any economy. The doubling of the minimum wage will not be happening. Not a hope

Two points, of varying relevancy, apply here.

As of January 1st of this year, the minimum wage in Arizona is already $12.15. This is set at a state level and has seen an incremental increase since the passing of Proposition 206, a state-wide ballot in 2006.

On the federal side of things, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is what has determined the current $7.25 level of minimum wage across the country, has an important exception. As per the Department of Labor, it applies "...to employees of enterprises that have annual gross volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000". While Biden's plan has measures which would remove some of the exemptions that currently allow employers to pay under the minimum to certain groups, namely people with disabilities and those aged under 20, the above exemption has, to date, not being discussed.

Thankfully the electrical shop in your example would therefore still be exempt from any increase should Biden's measure pass.

stefanovich

So with a stroke of a pen Biden cancels 11000 jobs. What will be the outcome of Biden’s policy of job destruction?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

So with a stroke of a pen Biden cancels 11000 jobs. What will be the outcome of Biden’s policy of job destruction?

According to John Kerry they should have made better life choices.

Tell me how

stefanovich wrote: »

So with a stroke of a pen Biden cancels 11000 jobs. What will be the outcome of Biden’s policy of job destruction? protects native heartlands from being destroyed by a commercial project

Fixed your post.

Those 11,000 jobs were temporary as well, let's not ignore that.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

According to John Kerry they should have made better life choices.

Got a link for that?


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/kerry-biden-offering-displaced-workers-better-choices?_amp=true

President Biden’s top climate officials on Wednesday sought to assure that their actions targeting fossil fuel production in order to combat climate change won’t lead to a massive displacement of jobs.

“What President Biden wants to do is make sure those folks have better choices, that they have alternatives,” Biden’s international climate envoy John Kerry said of fossil fuel workers. “They can be the people who go to work to build the solar panels, making them here at home.”

Water John

Poster saying Sanders min $15/hr would double present min wage. So who works for €6/hr and what society thinks it acceptable?