The Dominator

It's been a while since I've had Rohrbach's blueberry ale, it was probably the summer the last time I've had it. But their vanilla porter is one of my all-time favorite beers

Plus the false rage in the media while they reach a record amount of hits on their articles. And legitimate rage in me. Although he does get me to chuckle at least 5 times each debate

Check out @nytpolitics's Tweet: https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/702498742948249600?s=09 Doing this from my phone, hopefully it works!

Very much appreciated from the both of you :thumbsup:

Disclaimer: I never said I agreed with the author. I know you didn't accuse me of it, just thought I should throw that out there before someone connects the author's take with my own. I figured it would draw opinions

Maybe it couldn't handle the website traffic it was receiving (me) :lol:

I didn't notice any links to sources so I'll have to go back and check. It was a fee.org article. Like I said, her numbers cited are mostly vague and without great context so I was hoping the article would act as a starting platform at least. Although if the information is too flawed...

Interesting read. I wish the author would go into more specifics with her numbers (example: what it means to be in the bottom 20% or the top 20% of income earners in real dollars) but at least it offers a platform from which to discuss... Busting Myths About Income Inequality Chelsea German Politicians speak often about income inequality. But that doesn’t mean they are well-informed. Indeed, they propagate four myths about the issue. 1. Most often, those vying for elected office describe income inequality as static — as though the people who make up each income group do not change. The “top 1 percent” or the “top 10 percent” of income-earners are portrayed as exclusive clubs that seldom accept new members or see old and current members leave. No fluidity, no change. 2. Political figures also have a tendency only to blame income inequality on factors like trade, immigration, an insufficiently high minimum wage, inadequate taxes on the wealthy, or the vague concept of “greed.” 3. They typically ignore the sizeable role of choices under an individual’s control 4. They downplay the role of regressive government regulations. Reality is much more interesting than soundbites. Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. Indeed, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year. Fortunately, a great deal of what explains this income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control. While people tend to earn more in their “prime earning years” than in their youth or old age, other key factors that explain income differences are education level, marital status, and number of earners per household. As AEI’s Mark Perry recently wrote: The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school and graduating, getting and staying married, etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever. According to the U.S. economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.” While people move between income groups over their lifetime, many worry that income inequality between different income groups is increasing. The growing income inequality is real, but its causes are more complex than the demagogues make them out to be. Consider, for example, the effect of “power couples,” or people with high levels of education marrying one another and forming dual-earner households. In a free society, people can marry whoever they want, even if it does contribute to widening income disparities. Or consider the effects of regressive government regulations on exacerbating income inequality. These include barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses and stifle competition. To name one extreme example, Louisiana recently required a government-issued license to become a florist. Lifting more of these regressive regulations would aid income mobility and help to reduce income inequality, while also furthering economic growth. If our elections were more about the substance of serious public policy issues, rather than demagoguery and soundbites, achieving reasonable solutions could move from the land of make-believe to our complex, dynamic reality.

You're back! Alright, let's try this again... Honest question, as someone who is actively trying to understand Trump supporters (assuming you are a Trump supporter), can you explain to me how Trump will build a wall that spans the entirety of the U.S./Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it? Also, how does this wall prevent illegal immigrants and drugs from coming in through underground tunnels? Finally, can you also explain to me how he will effectively remove 11 million illegal immigrants from this country?

That's actually a very good read. Thanks for the link!

I agree as well. That's some solid advice.

Agreed on the fundamentals leaning towards the strength of the GOP (along with fatigue, etc.). Will they elect a nominee that can take advantage of that strength? Trump and Cruz most likely won't do very well in a presidential election regardless of the opponent (my opinion of course, I haven't paid attention to any presidential matchup polls). I think Rubio would make it a tight race between him and Clinton or Sanders (not that I particularly like him a whole lot) but I realize he would be enticing at least to anyone on the fence. It seems like there isn't another candidate who's truly in the race after those three. If Jeb can string together some votes and keep improving in debates, he surely has the money to last. A Bush/Clinton matchup would be pretty bad for the GOP I would think based off of names alone. A Bush/Sanders matchup would be good for the GOP I think.

Hahaha if you're afraid to say it, I will. Communism. Supporting Socialism =/= supporting Communism. Sorry. I like Bernie. He's a good man with great intentions. Probably the most honest and kind-hearted nominee in the race. I think his plans don't fiscally add up. He isn't a Commie or anything of the sort. That statement is a great example of fear mongering. You are a fear monger (or worse). ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Biodork, can I steal your sig?

Am I the only one who thinks a livable minimum would crush small business? Who else could afford that besides the largest corporations? Its an open question, not saying you're wrong, and my question disregards the corporate tax breaks where I agree with you.

Can't say I disagree. Can't say I disagree with this either... Why is drug testing mean? Most jobs require it. Let's expand upon jobs and say most forms of income require it.

What has caused this great divide? Why are candidates up on stage arguing over who's "more conservative?" It's laughable to me, almost to the point where I get frustrated. Like being "ultra-conservative" is the greatest honor in the world or being a "true democrat" makes you superior. I hate the labels and how people associate them with superiority. Left vs Right isn't right vs wrong or vise versa. Somewhere people made it right vs wrong and I think it's a problem. It stunts growth and progress. It stunts advancement and collaboration. It causes two sides to butt heads together which just leaves everyone concussed.

That's fine. I won't waver from some fundamental beliefs I have. I can live with it. I'll keep searching. I have faith that my generation will find someone who is less divisive with the issues at hand. I think we are about to blur some lines in the sand once it's our time.

If a measured politician who is able to negotiate and work with both sides of the spectrum and bring people together to solve problems and be an actual leader is called a unicorn, then yes. I want a unicorn. I apologize if I have high standards for the commander in chief.

Oh I've figured out where everyone stands by now. Especially now that the field has thinned out. Basically, I wanted someone who was fiscally conservative but also didn't infringe upon individual's freedom. If you could find me someone who was pro-choice (women's health/abortion, gay marriage, avoiding policies which infringed upon different belief systems, marijuana, etc.) but was fiscally conservative (minus increased military spending) I would be behind them every step. I figured that candidate didn't exist before the process started but thought I could find someone who hit on most issues. I rounded down the candidates to Clinton, Sanders, Paul, and Kasich. Paul is out. Sanders believes every policy can be paid for by Wall Street. Kasich is strictly against Planned Parenthood (among other social stances I have). And while Clinton's stances on policies are probably the most rounded and moderate of the group, the e-mail situation bothers me and I get the feeling she's disingenuous at times (I partially get this from the e-mails). So, depending on the final 2 candidates, I'm most likely voting Independent unless I really dislike one candidate over the other. Basically, if Cruz wins the GOP, I guarantee I'm voting Democrat just to try and keep him out. EDIT: Thank you K-9. Qualified is a much better term.

I can answer this. Both of the bold are correct. Candidates that don't give me what I want or those that seem disingenuous. I'm undecided because I don't want to vote for a mediocre candidate. That's why I'm leaning towards (insert an Independent candidate here) rather than giving either side my vote if I don't feel they are "worthy." Sorry in advance for the word worthy, I can't think up another word at the moment. My vote isn't worth more than anyone else's.

Ugh Rubio "Marriage is between one man and one woman." This isn't a Christian country. Your beliefs don't take favor over someone else's (and this is coming from someone who identifies himself as a Roman Catholic). Quit shoving it down everyone's throats. I get it, he's pandering to SC. Still, it pisses me off. It's selfish and self-serving.

Trust me, as a 22 year old, I am really questioning my decision making ability. Although the past few years of dunk contests have been forgettable. The last great matchup I can think of was Nate Robinson vs. Dwight Howard. Now that was entertaining.

Agreed with the rankings. Trump just called Cruz the biggest liar on stage which makes me happy so I'm switching Trump and Cruz in the rankings EDIT: and he's more measured in regards to planned parenthood. I'll put him above bencarson.com as well.

This is like an elementary food fight. "You can't even speak Spanish!" "Jeb! said he would drop his pants!" yadda yadda yadda... My IQ level is dropping whenever Trump talks. Or when Rubio lies. Or when Cruz blatantly sidesteps questions. I think Jeb is doing fine tonight when he is able to say what he wants to say without tripping up over his words.

I thought the traditional conservative stance on taxes was lower taxes? I could be wrong though...