The Rules of Debate

[The Thinker]

No, it shows that those quotes are from media pundits who are out of touch with voters. They can claim all they want that Trump lost, but online polling and the enthusiasm of Trump supporters tells a much different story.

This is a failure of your ability to be logical. First, the online polls are not scientific. They don't count. You can vote as many times as you want, and bots can be created to auto vote. They are completely useless and only serve to reinforce an existing bias (the ones done on dem-leaning site show Hillary won, the ones on rep-leaning sites show Trump won). Second, why would the opinion of existing Trump fans show that Trump actually won? It is obvious from anyone watching the debate that Trump really really screwed up in the last hour of it. He was rambling and incoherent, he had no evidence for most things as he usually doesn't, and he lost his cool over and over again. He was totally unprepared for the basic questions he should have studied for.

He choked.

[One Bad Pig]

So, question:
Are you such a low information moron that you don't understand the difference between socially liberal and economically left-wing, or were you deliberately trying to deceive us by equating them?

If you'd read MM's prior post (to which your response got a in return), you'd know that you're setting up a false dichotomy here. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand what he was saying.

[The Thinker]

Well-known to liberals maybe.

Trump actually refuted at least three of those lies on the spot during the debate.

No these are facts. Well known to everyone who has a brain and the internet. Watch this:

https://youtu.be/14HDAuZL1gk?t=2m

Show me actual evidence he refuted any one of those lies he told.

[The Thinker]

That is pretty much from the Never Trump crowd who probably had those reviews written and ready to post before the debate started.

It's accurate. If you're going to claim Trump didn't get caught on all those lies in the picture I mentioned, or that he was prepared and didn't choke, you must prefer faith over evidence.

[Mountain Man]

So, question:
Are you such a low information moron that you don't understand the difference between socially liberal and economically left-wing, or were you deliberately trying to deceive us by equating them?

Do you have to work hard at being stupid, or does it come naturally?

It's a socially liberal publication (by your own admission) arguing against raising the minimum wage. And in subsequent posts I cited several more articles and studies that reached the same conclusions as the socially liberal publication (by your own admission).

Seriously, man up and either refute the articles I've posted with something more reputable than Wikipedia, or try admitting you're wrong for a change. Or barring that, just shut up. That works too.

[stfoskey15]

That's the liberal fantasy. The reality, of course, is much different:

Source: The Wall Street Journal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-evid...obs-1450220824

© Copyright Original Source

A 1-2% reduction for a 10% gain is stil a net gain.

[Starlight]

It's a socially liberal publication (by your own admission) arguing against raising the minimum wage. And in subsequent posts I cited several more articles and studies that reached the same conclusions as the socially liberal publication (by your own admission).

Wow you're so dumb it's painful. Raising the minimum wage is an economic issue. Therefore the relevant fact is that it's an economically right-wing publication. The fact that it's socially liberal has no relevance here.

Seriously, man up and either refute the articles I've posted with something more reputable than Wikipedia

The simple fact is that most economists used to assume that raising the minimum wage would cause some job losses. But after decades doing over a thousand studies, they generally found that it doesn't. So the majority of economists now believe that it has no effect on employment levels. It is, of course, possible to cite some economist from the minority, who still believes it affects employment. So if you find any given right-wing source arguing against the minimum wage, that is what you will find them doing. There's not really much discussion that needs to be had: The evidence is simply not on their side and empirically they are wrong. They, and others in this thread, can arguing "no, but logically, we think it really should cause job losses" until the cows come home, but all that shows is that their logic is overlooking a few things, because empirically it doesn't have those effects.

The likely reason why it doesn't cause job losses, is because low-income people spend their entire paycheck each week, so when they are given a slight raise they spend it on goods and services, which means the businesses get more income because they are selling more product. Due to having more income the business owners can afford the wages they are now paying their staff. They or other businesses may need to employ more people to handle the increased demand, and such job gains will offset any job losses from businesses where the employer cannot handle the additional wage cost. The empirical studies show these effects even out and that there is a net zero change in employment.

However, I note that whether or not there is any change in employment is somewhat beside the point. Raising the minimum wage to a wage a person is capable of living on is a rational political policy even if it did create significant job losses. There's not a lot of point in having people working at jobs that don't pay them enough to survive on. Otherwise you end up with essentially the government subsidizing businesses like happens now with Walmart - Walmart pays its workers a pittance which isn't enough to live on and the government then has to top-up the salaries of workers, which essentially amounts to the government subsidizing Walmart. Walmart is the nation's biggest minimum wage employer, and a very very rich company... why should the government be subsidizing them?

[Jaecp]

I take it you know Nick Hanauer, Star? (video ~6 minutes) If you haven't, its the venture capitalist who was one of Amazon's early founders and he is basically skewering Supply Side woo woo while explaining Demand Side economics value. It's REALLY good, but its a bit old so you've probably absorbed a lot of it through osmosis, but you should follow his Facebook page,

Oh and his undergraduate degree is in Philosophy, so it's really focused and nice

followup video (20 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?annota...&v=q2gO4DKVpa8

[Starlight]

I take it you know Nick Hanauer, Star?

I vaguely recognize the name. I think I must have seen him talk a couple of times before. He's pretty good and to the point, and gets his explanations and logic spot on.

[Jaecp]

I vaguely recognize the name. I think I must have seen him talk a couple of times before. He's pretty good and to the point, and gets his explanations and logic spot on.

Glad you liked it. You probably remember his name vaguely because TED pulled the video from their website until the internet freaked out on them. It was that "Banned TED Talk"

[JimL]

not to mention paying higher wages means a higher cost of goods, which means those same workers will have to pay more for the goods that they buy at the store, so their higher wages will buy less and it all ends up as a wash: make more money but you have to spend more for the same level of living. No gain.

Wrong, they will only charge what the market will bear, so they will have to reduce their profits a bit. Besides that, with more people having more money to spend, there will be more people buying goods, so the profits would remain close to the same.

[JimL]

This is common sense: even as a moderate, raising the min wage doesn't make sense. You're going to see service reductions if the cost of labour is high. Sure, a couple people may get raises, but for mom & pop shops, that's cutting it close.

If the minimum wage is raised, and as a result everyones elses wages go up as well, then more people will be spending at Mom & Pops and they will do just fine. The present minimum wage in comparison to the 1960's, when you take inflation into account, should be around $17 an hour. But instead, although profits skyrocketed, wages went down. Thats the gist of it, over the last 3 or 4 decades the rich got richer and the middle class and the poor got even poorer.

[JimL]

Except I cited The Wall Street Journal which by most accounts is one of the most liberal news sources in the country (the Journal's "conservative" reputation stems from the fact that its primary focus is economic rather than political). I deliberately picked that as my source specifically so that low-info morons like you and Dimbulb couldn't take issue with it. But instead of challenging an article from a left-wing source which cites a wide variety of studies, Dimmy there links to Wikipedia which has been proven time and time again to be an unreliable source.

Seriously, guys, you can't make this up.

Yeah, thats right, the WSJ is conservative when it comes to economics, and economics is about politics. "Its the economy stupid!" The WSJ doesn't speak for, nor care about the interests of the common man.

[demi-conservative]

First, the online polls are not scientific. They don't count. You can vote as many times as you want, and bots can be created to auto vote. They are completely useless and only serve to reinforce an existing bias... Second, why would the opinion of existing Trump fans show that Trump actually won?

And in light of this, reviews by NeverTrump you posted, haters of Trump, matter because...?

[JimL]

And in light of this, reviews by NeverTrump you posted, haters of Trump, matter because...?

Because he is not talking about reviews by NeverTrump, he's talking about scientific polls which are an indication of what people are thinking, and according to the polls, people are thinking that Trump got trounced in the debate.