Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

On the topic of increasing the minimum wage I was thinking about the reasoning for it. People want it to be higher so people can get a living wage but in a country as big as the US a living wage varies from state to state and in some cases a living wage might be different within different parts of the same state. Why not try to implement policies that make the current wage in certain areas liveable? I know it's not that easy but I find it weird that none has proposed such a policies.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
On the topic of increasing the minimum wage I was thinking about the reasoning for it. People want it to be higher so people can get a living wage but in a country as big as the US a living wage varies from state to state and in some cases a living wage might be different within different parts of the same state. Why not try to implement policies that make the current wage in certain areas liveable? I know it's not that easy but I find it weird that none has proposed such a policies.

There are certainly areas where non-wage policies could help things.  Like California building more houses would make housing more affordable.  

But there's limitations to that.  Some situations are hard wherever you are at.  



Even the Onion reports with more accuracy than the WWE President Trump's twitter account does.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

"he repeatedly doubled (and tripled (and quadrupled)) down on his wrong-ness"

>I don't recall you ever pointing these out to me. Refresh my memory please.

Is a 10 second Google search too much work?  Or is being spoon fed the information part of the skepticism? 

Anyway, here is a timeline for you.  With double, triple and quadruple downs.

Sunday, Sept. 1

On Sunday morning, the President tweeted that Alabama and other states will be “hit (much) harder than anticipated.”

The Birmingham NWS appeared to respond to the President 20 minutes later, tweeting that the hurricane will be “too far east” to impact Alabama.

DOUBLE DOWN

That morning, Trump also repeated his claim that Alabama would be affected by the storm, telling reporters, “Alabama is going to get a piece of it, it looks like. But it can change its course again and it could go back more toward Florida.”

At a FEMA briefing an hour later, Trump said that the storm “may get a little piece of a great place: It’s called Alabama. And Alabama could even be in for at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could be. This just came up, unfortunately. It’s the size of — the storm that we’re talking about. So, for Alabama, just please be careful also.”

According to the Associated Press, the National Hurricane Center was reporting at this time that parts of Alabama only had a 5% to 10% chance of getting tropical storm level winds.

Monday, Sept. 2

On Monday, Katie Rogers of the New York Times wrote that these comments were part of Trump’s “reality-show approach to the presidency.”

“With his reality-show approach to the presidency, Mr. Trump has a habit of weighing in on the day’s most-covered news stories with his own running commentary. As Dorian approached, Mr. Trump switched into town-crier mode, updating the public on what he had learned — or, what he thought he’d learned — from government officials as Dorian threatened the coast of the state of Florida, where he has owned property for decades,” Rogers wrote.

Trump criticized journalists on Twitter for their reporting on his statement about Alabama.

TRIPLE DOWN

“Such a phony hurricane report by lightweight reporter @jonkarl of @ABCWorldNews. I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true,” Trump wrote. “They made a big deal about this when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some ‘hurt.’ Always good to be prepared! But the Fake News is only interested in demeaning and belittling. Didn’t play my whole sentence or statement. Bad people!”

QUADRUPLE DOWN

Wednesday, Sept. 4

Three days after his initial tweet, in a meeting in the Oval Office, Trump displayed a NOAA forecast map to demonstrate that Alabama was originally believed to have been threatened by Hurricane Dorian. The map appeared to have been crudely altered by hand, its forecast extended to show that the storm would impact Alabama.

Later, Trump tweeted a South Florida Water Management District map dated from Aug. 28 that showed that some projections showed that the hurricane could reach Alabama. The graphic notes that advisories from the National Hurricane Center should “supersede” the map.

This map South Florida Water Management District map was created 4 days before Trump first mentioned Alabama and well prior to updated maps that no longer showed Alabama in any danger at all.

The South Florida Water Management District later told CNN in a statement that it produces “hundreds” of such maps each day, and that they’re refreshed every 15 minutes with new data.

Trump also stated, "This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast," Trump said.  95%...remember that.

Thursday, Sept. 5

Philip Bump of the Washington Post wrote on Thursday that Trump’s response to the criticism was “Orwellian.”

“For Trump, this is a fight worth having because it does two things. It pits the media as oppositional by looping criticism of his initial inaccuracy and his flawed defenses as attacks on him and, by extension, on his supporters. It is also an example of Trump’s unwavering unwillingness to admit mistakes, a central component of his personal survival strategy.”

The White House released a statement from Rear Adm. Peter Brown, Trump’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, defending the President’s initial statement.

“The President’s comments were based on that morning’s Hurricane Dorian briefing, which included the possibility of tropical storm force winds in southeastern Alabama,” the statement read according to the Washington Post.

If this is true, which the skeptic in me doubts (you should doubt it too), then the President of the United States of America was briefed on data 4 days old for a frikkin hurricane.

That day, Trump criticized the news media for reporting on his statements about the storm.

QUINTUPLE DOWN

SIXTH LAYER DOWN

Later that day, Trump tweeted NOAA maps from 4 days prior to his first Alabama reference. One of the maps identified that parts of Alabama had a 5 to 20% chance of receiving 39 mph winds; the other map said parts of Alabama had a 5 to 30% chance of 39 mph winds.

You know, 5-20% or 5-30% of tropical storm winds are certainly not 95%.  So where the hell did he get the 95% figure from?

And remember, those were from 4 days prior to his first Alabama tweet.  By the time he tweeted about Alabama, those same maps looked like this:

SEVENTH LAYER DOWN

He also retweeted an Aug. 30 tweet from The Alabama National Guard, which said that the hurricane was “projected to reach southern Alabama by the early part of the week.”

The Guard’s account had then corrected that tweet the day after saying the forecast showed “more consistently” that the storm would track away from Alabama.

LAYER 8 DOWN

Friday, Sept. 6

On Friday, the President tweeted that the news media was “fixated” on what Trump had said about the storm.

“The Fake News Media was fixated on the fact that I properly said, at the beginnings of Hurricane Dorian, that in addition to Florida & other states, Alabama may also be grazed or hit. They went Crazy, hoping against hope that I made a mistake (which I didn’t). Check out maps…..”

He also tweeted an undated video clip that showed that CNN had acknowledged that the storm would hit Alabama.

CNN reported on Friday night that the clip had aired on Aug. 28 — four days before the President’s initial tweet about Hurrican Dorian hitting Alabama.

Reporters from various outlets commented on the President’s determination to prove himself right. Peter Baker and Sarah Mervosh of the New York Times wrote on Sept. 6 that the President seemed keen to “[wage] war over his forecasting skills.”

“Whatever merits there may have been to his original statement, he finds it impossible to back down or brush it off as imprecise wording. Where other presidents would have dropped the matter rather than give it air, Mr. Trump extended the story for nearly a week.”

FRONT 9 ON THE GREENS DOWN

Saturday, Sept. 7

In a pair of tweets on Saturday, President Trump criticized the Times‘ story for saying that they had misstated the hurricane’s trajectory. He noted that he had said “very early on” that the storm “may even hit” Alabama.

Monday, Sept. 9

On Monday, NWS Director Louis Uccellini publicly backed the Birmingham office’s Sept. 1 statement during a National Weather Association presentation, saying the office “did what any office would do to protect the public.”

According to Uccellini, the Birmingham office contradicted Trump’s tweet that Alabama would be hit much harder than anticipated to “stop public panic,” and “ensure public safety,”

“The integrity of the forecast process was maintained by the Birmingham office and across the entire National Weather Service,” added.

But I guess he never double, triple, quadruple, etc...downed, right?

And if this is not enough for you, don't you dare ever call yourself a skeptic just looking for proof and truth again.  You will no longer be able to hide behind the disguise of skepticism as a veil for your dogmatic Trump sycophancy.

It's odd. I don't understand why you claim Trump is doubling down, tripling down, and so on. His original claim was Alabama being hit. A great number of subsequent comments by Trump acknowledge or at least suggest Alabama may no longer be hit.

"I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true,” Trump wrote. “They made a big deal about this when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some ‘hurt.’"

"This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast."

"

"

Certain models strongly suggested that Alabama & Georgia would be hit as it made its way through Florida & to the Gulf....Instead it turned North and went up the coast, where it continues now. In the one model through Florida, the Great State of Alabama would have been hit or grazed. In the path it took, no.

Alabama was going to be hit or grazed, and then Hurricane Dorian took a different path (up along the East Coast).

To comment on the weather, I don't believe it's appropriate to speak of it in certain terms which Trump's 9/1 tweet arguably did. Subsequent output from the president seems to recognize that nothing is ever set in stone which I find to be appropriate language... Not sure the same can be said for the NWSBirmingham tweet, later to be contradicted by the NOAA itself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the maps identified that parts of Alabama had a 5 to 20% chance of receiving 39 mph winds; the other map said parts of Alabama had a 5 to 30% chance of 39 mph winds.

You know, 5-20% or 5-30% of tropical storm winds are certainly not 95%.  So where the hell did he get the 95% figure from?

>To answer your question on the 95% figure, Trump per your post said "This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast,"

It sounds to me like the 95% figure attests to what path the hurricane was likely to go, NOT a probability with regards to the likelihood of Alabama being hit.



KLAMarine said:

It's odd. I don't understand why you claim Trump is doubling down, tripling down, and so on. His original claim was Alabama being hit. A great number of subsequent comments by Trump acknowledge or at least suggest Alabama may no longer be hit.

But it wasn't.

We just went over this.

His original claim was that Alabama was one of the states which had a high likelihood of being hit much harder than expected by one of the largest hurricanes ever.

We just went over this.

We just went over this.

Literally.

We just went over this.

PS: We just went over this.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Damn, went through all 9 circles of hell for that one.

Btw, read below the map he posted on the 4th one (where he says that the "fake news" could apologize) :It says that maps from weather agencies supersedes that map. And even more funny: If anything on this graphic causes confusion, ignore the entire product. Think El Prez got confused by the map and thought Alabama (which is one of his most supportive states btw) could be scratched.

Indeed.  I brought that up back on the 6th and KLAMarine completely ignored it.

Baalzamon said:

Yea health insurance is not cheap here. Granted, with a $50k income the max you will pay for a Silver plan under Obama Care is $4700/year (total), or $400/mo (so we just generated an additional $200/mo). There are further potential subsidies for some states as well.

But the point of minimum wage is kind of what you mentioned. Not a ton left, but it is absolutely livable.

Is that $400 for an individual or with a spouse? Mine includes a spouse.  If it were just 1 person, it would be $404 on average based on my source.

KLAMarine said:

1). It's odd. I don't understand why you claim Trump is doubling down, tripling down, and so on. His original claim was Alabama being hit. A great number of subsequent comments by Trump acknowledge or at least suggest Alabama may no longer be hit.

"I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true,” Trump wrote. “They made a big deal about this when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some ‘hurt.’"

"This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast."

"

"

Certain models strongly suggested that Alabama & Georgia would be hit as it made its way through Florida & to the Gulf....Instead it turned North and went up the coast, where it continues now. In the one model through Florida, the Great State of Alabama would have been hit or grazed. In the path it took, no.

2). Alabama was going to be hit or grazed, and then Hurricane Dorian took a different path (up along the East Coast).

3). To comment on the weather, I don't believe it's appropriate to speak of it in certain terms which Trump's 9/1 tweet arguably did. Subsequent output from the president seems to recognize that nothing is ever set in stone which I find to be appropriate language... Not sure the same can be said for the NWSBirmingham tweet, later to be contradicted by the NOAA itself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the maps identified that parts of Alabama had a 5 to 20% chance of receiving 39 mph winds; the other map said parts of Alabama had a 5 to 30% chance of 39 mph winds.

You know, 5-20% or 5-30% of tropical storm winds are certainly not 95%.  So where the hell did he get the 95% figure from?

4). >To answer your question on the 95% figure, Trump per your post said "This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast,"

5). It sounds to me like the 95% figure attests to what path the hurricane was likely to go, NOT a probability with regards to the likelihood of Alabama being hit.

Wow.  You're really digging your own grave for Trump.

1). It's doubling/tripling/quadrupling down because he was already corrected by the NWS, told if was old data to start with and continued to defend his initial lie.

Had he stated after being corrected that he had old information, this would be done and over.  But, the ego in chief stood by his original statement WHICH WAS WRONG. 

2). Was Alabama ever projected in Dorian's path?  Yes....3-4 frikkin days BEFORE Trump mentioned Alabama.  Why is this so hard for you (and Trump) to understand? It took a different path that no longer included Alabama DAYS before Trump made his Alabama claim.

3). Really?  I guess all 50 states were possibly going to be hit then.  I mean, why claim with absolute certainty that Alaska won't be hit by Dorian then?  I guess Poland was could have been hit too, eh?  Maybe it would do a 180 and hit Morocco. Or perhaps it would fallow Magellan's path, swoop under South America and slam into the Philippines.  Only a sith deals in absolutes, right?

4). No, nobody thought 95%.  Look at the damn maps themselves. Not a single one shows a 95% probability of even Tropical force winds...much less hurricane force winds.

5). Are we forgetting that when Trump first said Alabama that the weather information he was using was 4 DAYS OLD? Or that the current weather information on that day had Alabama completely in the clear for any chance of Dorian hitting Alabama?  Or that the NWS in Alabama said 20 minutes later that Alabama was in the clear? 

The only 95% of anything we have here is you failing to recognize reality.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Baalzamon said:

Yea health insurance is not cheap here. Granted, with a $50k income the max you will pay for a Silver plan under Obama Care is $4700/year (total), or $400/mo (so we just generated an additional $200/mo). There are further potential subsidies for some states as well.

But the point of minimum wage is kind of what you mentioned. Not a ton left, but it is absolutely livable.

Is that $400 for an individual or with a spouse? Mine includes a spouse.  If it were just 1 person, it would be $404 on average based on my source.

That $400 is the maximum they would pay for premiums as a couple. Obamacare premium amounts are limited to ~9.5% of income for somebody at this income level. As a result, the maximum they will pay with a $50k income is $4,750 per year (actually decreases further for a family of 3 and family of 4 etc).

You can absolutely get "better" insurance plans than a Silver plan (likely how your source is calculating it), but they definitely have decent insurance available for $400 combined.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

It's odd. I don't understand why you claim Trump is doubling down, tripling down, and so on. His original claim was Alabama being hit. A great number of subsequent comments by Trump acknowledge or at least suggest Alabama may no longer be hit.

But it wasn't.

We just went over this.

His original claim was that Alabama was one of the states which had a high likelihood of being hit much harder than expected by one of the largest hurricanes ever.

We just went over this.

We just went over this.

Literally.

We just went over this.

PS: We just went over this.

"His original claim was that Alabama was one of the states which had a high likelihood of being hit much harder than expected by one of the largest hurricanes ever."

>I completely agree.

SpokenTruth said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Damn, went through all 9 circles of hell for that one.

Btw, read below the map he posted on the 4th one (where he says that the "fake news" could apologize) :It says that maps from weather agencies supersedes that map. And even more funny: If anything on this graphic causes confusion, ignore the entire product. Think El Prez got confused by the map and thought Alabama (which is one of his most supportive states btw) could be scratched.

Indeed.  I brought that up back on the 6th and KLAMarine completely ignored it.

Baalzamon said:

Yea health insurance is not cheap here. Granted, with a $50k income the max you will pay for a Silver plan under Obama Care is $4700/year (total), or $400/mo (so we just generated an additional $200/mo). There are further potential subsidies for some states as well.

But the point of minimum wage is kind of what you mentioned. Not a ton left, but it is absolutely livable.

Is that $400 for an individual or with a spouse? Mine includes a spouse.  If it were just 1 person, it would be $404 on average based on my source.

KLAMarine said:

1). It's odd. I don't understand why you claim Trump is doubling down, tripling down, and so on. His original claim was Alabama being hit. A great number of subsequent comments by Trump acknowledge or at least suggest Alabama may no longer be hit.

"I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true,” Trump wrote. “They made a big deal about this when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some ‘hurt.’"

"This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast."

"

"

Certain models strongly suggested that Alabama & Georgia would be hit as it made its way through Florida & to the Gulf....Instead it turned North and went up the coast, where it continues now. In the one model through Florida, the Great State of Alabama would have been hit or grazed. In the path it took, no.

2). Alabama was going to be hit or grazed, and then Hurricane Dorian took a different path (up along the East Coast).

3). To comment on the weather, I don't believe it's appropriate to speak of it in certain terms which Trump's 9/1 tweet arguably did. Subsequent output from the president seems to recognize that nothing is ever set in stone which I find to be appropriate language... Not sure the same can be said for the NWSBirmingham tweet, later to be contradicted by the NOAA itself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the maps identified that parts of Alabama had a 5 to 20% chance of receiving 39 mph winds; the other map said parts of Alabama had a 5 to 30% chance of 39 mph winds.

You know, 5-20% or 5-30% of tropical storm winds are certainly not 95%.  So where the hell did he get the 95% figure from?

4). >To answer your question on the 95% figure, Trump per your post said "This is the original path that we thought -- and everybody thought that this was about a 95% probability," he said. "And it turned out to be not that path. It turned out to be a path going up the coast,"

5). It sounds to me like the 95% figure attests to what path the hurricane was likely to go, NOT a probability with regards to the likelihood of Alabama being hit.

Wow.  You're really digging your own grave for Trump.

1). It's doubling/tripling/quadrupling down because he was already corrected by the NWS, told if was old data to start with and continued to defend his initial lie.

Had he stated after being corrected that he had old information, this would be done and over.  But, the ego in chief stood by his original statement WHICH WAS WRONG. 

2). Was Alabama ever projected in Dorian's path?  Yes....3-4 frikkin days BEFORE Trump mentioned Alabama.  Why is this so hard for you (and Trump) to understand? It took a different path that no longer included Alabama DAYS before Trump made his Alabama claim.

3). Really?  I guess all 50 states were possibly going to be hit then.  I mean, why claim with absolute certainty that Alaska won't be hit by Dorian then?  I guess Poland was could have been hit too, eh?  Maybe it would do a 180 and hit Morocco. Or perhaps it would fallow Magellan's path, swoop under South America and slam into the Philippines.  Only a sith deals in absolutes, right?

4). No, nobody thought 95%.  Look at the damn maps themselves. Not a single one shows a 95% probability of even Tropical force winds...much less hurricane force winds.

5). Are we forgetting that when Trump first said Alabama that the weather information he was using was 4 DAYS OLD? Or that the current weather information on that day had Alabama completely in the clear for any chance of Dorian hitting Alabama?  Or that the NWS in Alabama said 20 minutes later that Alabama was in the clear? 

The only 95% of anything we have here is you failing to recognize reality.

1. "It's doubling/tripling/quadrupling down because he was already corrected by the NWS, told if was old data to start with and continued to defend his initial lie."

>Are we sure Trump saw NWSBirmingham's tweet? The guy gets tons and tons of tweets, have we a guarantee Trump saw their tweet shortly after it was made?

2. "Was Alabama ever projected in Dorian's path?  Yes....3-4 frikkin days BEFORE Trump mentioned Alabama.  Why is this so hard for you (and Trump) to understand? It took a different path that no longer included Alabama DAYS before Trump made his Alabama claim."

>NOAA is telling me the information they and the NHC were giving to Trump at the time did very much include Alabama being at risk: "From Wednesday, August 28, through Monday, September 2, the information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama."

https://www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa

I now have to wonder how fast does NOAA/NHC's information gets to Trump.

3. "Really?  I guess all 50 states were possibly going to be hit then.  I mean, why claim with absolute certainty that Alaska won't be hit by Dorian then?  I guess Poland was could have been hit too, eh?  Maybe it would do a 180 and hit Morocco. Or perhaps it would fallow Magellan's path, swoop under South America and slam into the Philippines.  Only a sith deals in absolutes, right?"

>No, let's focus on the states that are closer. That would include Alabama, certainly not Alaska.

4. "No, nobody thought 95%.  Look at the damn maps themselves. Not a single one shows a 95% probability of even Tropical force winds...much less hurricane force winds."

>Again, the 95% figure did not sound like it was about wind strength but rather the suspected trajectory of the hurricane.

By the way, I gotta take umbrage with your declaration that I "will no longer be able to hide behind the disguise of skepticism as a veil for your dogmatic Trump sycophancy."

Let me let you in on a little secret:

Spoiler!
I voted for Hillary.

So for you to call me a Trump sycophant I'm finding incredibly rich. That said, let's tone it down on the insults please. Thank you.



:warning:
The conversation about the hurricane isn't going anywhere. Time to drop it.



I wonder if Trump does all the work himself when he presents something to the people. You'd think with a job like that he would have teams that would put the majority of it together for him. I wonder how much time Trump has to go over all of the information in every presentation with a fine tooth comb? If mistakes are made by the team, should Trump take the blame for them? If Trump publically apologizes while pointing out it was the team who screwed up, would that be accepted by those who were upset?

I think we all know the negative reaction that would still follow and who the blame would go to regardless.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.