I've gotten slow & sloppy in activating new accounts lately; sorry about that! All new acct registrations in the queue as of 9/23 at 7:15a ET have been activated. Want to share your favorite Buzzboard posts with your social media page readers? Now, there's an easy way to do it! Visit this page for instructions: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=47643

(Note: hover your mouse pointer near the upper right corner of this box and click the "x" to close it.)

Gretchen Whitmer

Some folks just cannot resist the urge to debate current issues of the day...here's the place to satisfy your craving. BE FOREWARNED - if you are an intellectual lightweight, you might find it a bit rough in here. This place is kinda like a never-ending edition of the McLaughlin Group. (Whatever happened to Mort Zuckerman, anyway?)
User avatar
craig11152
Posts: 1811
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by craig11152 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:03 pm

TC Talks wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:57 pm
Increasing farm wages to $15 an hour (the average entry wage for labor work in our area) is not realistic based on a commodities market driven economy. The market only pays so much for cherries and apples. Our local Cherry Cooperative filed for bankruptcy, now the farmers have nowhere to take their cherries.
I understand the dilemma but a business model dependent on substandard wages paid to third world workers who are basically "held hostage" is hard to sympathise with. By "held hostage" I mean they are a long way from home and the substandard wages by American standards is still better than what they left behind.

Why stop at your industry? There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of smart people living in "third world countries" who are educated, speak english and are probably not making nearly what they could here. Teachers, accountants, engineers doctors, nurses. I bet we could get some of them to work for half or two thirds the prevailing US wage.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am
Location: Moderator of Reason

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by TC Talks » Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:55 pm

Well, now you see my point. Trump voters don't really understand the value of immigrants. Don't you notice all of those industries you listed required an education?

When we reach a point where the rich don't want to pay for a quality free education, you end up with a population who feels their value is greater then what the market is willing to pay. They feel helpless and vote for the loud mouth, yet the idea of going back to school and opening new opportunities offends them.

How do you propose we talk the wealthy into taking a tax increase to pay for the costs of a living wage?

Big ag will not survive without cheap labor. So if you can get the ignorant uneducated Trump followers into the fields be my guest. I am not as optimistic.


(C) 2018 TC Talks. Assembled in U.S.A.

906XJ
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 5:19 am

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by 906XJ » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:51 pm

Get the lazy, freeshitter leftists into the field and they might get some respect.

Signed, an ex potato picker.



NS8401
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by NS8401 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:52 pm

906XJ wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:51 pm
Get the lazy, freeshitter leftists into the field and they might get some respect.

Signed, an ex potato picker.
Grocery store don’t count there guy...



NS8401
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by NS8401 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:54 pm

craig11152 wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 1:19 pm
NS8401 wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:52 pm

It wouldn’t be hard to imagine the Russians having math skills and figuring out which states to target as you just did... who said they had to try in all 50?
I didn't pick which states to target. I looked back at what happened after the fact. :roll:
I also haven't seen any suggestion from our government's findings that the Russians focused their trolling work on those specific states. But in fairness I haven't done an exhaustive search. So feel free to link me up.
It would seem to me if we know what they did we would know where they did it.

Why do you ignore the possible notion that Trump just out campaigned her in key states going down the stretch?
Is it because you would lose your bogeyman?
Nobody denies she made mistakes and took those states for granted... I’m talking about the social media aspect... sorry that wasn’t more clear. It’s not hard to see where folks live and do it that way, influencing them to cast a ballot differently...



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 5317
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by audiophile » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:20 am

Rural America does not cling to Facebook.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

In The Bleachers
Posts: 331
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:15 am
Location: Nankin Township

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by In The Bleachers » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:08 am

audiophile wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:20 am
Rural America does not cling to Facebook.
I agree.
And I'll go further in saying that a majority of the people who have FB messenger instantly streaming to their phone honestly think everyone else does too.


Nothing will change until ALL incumbents are voted out of office.

NS8401
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by NS8401 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:53 am

audiophile wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:20 am
Rural America does not cling to Facebook.
You’d be surprised how many older folks are on it to reconnect with old friends or what not... then there are their kids who do cling to it and frankly in the six states we discussed “Rural America” wasn’t the factor, they would have been there voting for Trump had Russia never existed. It was Suburban whites that swung it, notably white women. This is why the Democrats have been putting up moderates in an effort to woo those voters in center to R+10 districts... fitting the district has been placed above ideology this year...

For older rural farts with dial-up the chain e-mail would do just as well. When you find out the original author of one of those terrible things let us know... they are pretty hard to trace... so many of them are naive enough to believe anything they get though and I think that’s mostly age related...



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am
Location: Moderator of Reason

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by TC Talks » Wed Aug 08, 2018 5:06 pm

I'm elated with the turnout and the results.

Then there is this....
This is an ominous sign for Republicans: The highest-income and best-educated elements of the electorate — those deeply uneasy with President Trump — are showing the most interest in voting. Defending a few dozen districts that are either more heavily urban or feature a similar demographic mix as Ohio’s 12th District, Republicans will need to find a way to win back suburbanites or better galvanize rural voters. If they do not, their House majority will slip away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/us/p ... higan.html


(C) 2018 TC Talks. Assembled in U.S.A.

tapeisrolling
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: go ahead, I'm listening

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by tapeisrolling » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:43 pm

Something to think about, in the future 17 states can decide who will run or ruin the country. The Electoral College is a thing of the past. IF CA had the same rate of electoral votes that Wyoming has (1 per 570k voters, 3 total) then CA would have 217 votes. Since there is a limit to the total and the least a State can have is 3, then all bets are off on getting fair outcome as the population moves around.



lovinlife101
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:53 am

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by lovinlife101 » Thu Aug 09, 2018 10:21 am

I think it’s hilarious how those “holier than thous” get all offended just because Granholm Jr. said to “fix the F’N roads!”

I like her spunk!



User avatar
Frank Booth
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 12:46 am
Location: Wood County Ohio

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by Frank Booth » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:50 pm

"And in 8 years... there will be nothing left"


I-Heart Media, I ask you to please bring back 106.7 The D, but without Journey,Eddie money, or Styx. ALT 106.7 sucks ass!

User avatar
Frank Booth
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 12:46 am
Location: Wood County Ohio

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by Frank Booth » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:51 pm

I still remember Granholm on the news one time "I'm gonna sit down and cry with these family's"


I-Heart Media, I ask you to please bring back 106.7 The D, but without Journey,Eddie money, or Styx. ALT 106.7 sucks ass!

bmw
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by bmw » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:13 pm

tapeisrolling wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:43 pm
Something to think about, in the future 17 states can decide who will run or ruin the country. The Electoral College is a thing of the past. IF CA had the same rate of electoral votes that Wyoming has (1 per 570k voters, 3 total) then CA would have 217 votes. Since there is a limit to the total and the least a State can have is 3, then all bets are off on getting fair outcome as the population moves around.
That is because each state has 2 electoral votes for simply existing as a state. We have a bicameral legislative branch where one half represents the people and the other half represents the states as a whole. The presidential election process was set up to mirror this system.

I have a simple solution to this that I think both sides could agree with. Keep the electoral college. Keep the 538 electors. But instead of winner-take-all for each state (yes I know there's already a few exceptions), assign electoral votes as follows:

Each state gets 2 electoral votes (winner-take-all based on popular vote for the state)
Each congressional district gets 1 electoral vote (assigned to the popular vote winner of a district)



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am
Location: Moderator of Reason

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by TC Talks » Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:32 pm

Frank Booth wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:51 pm
I still remember Granholm on the news one time "I'm gonna sit down and cry with these family's"
Don't you live in Ohio?


(C) 2018 TC Talks. Assembled in U.S.A.

User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am
Location: Moderator of Reason

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by TC Talks » Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:39 pm

bmw wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:13 pm
I have a simple solution to this that I think both sides could agree with. Keep the electoral college. Keep the 538 electors. But instead of winner-take-all for each state (yes I know there's already a few exceptions), assign electoral votes as follows:

Each state gets 2 electoral votes (winner-take-all based on popular vote for the state)
Each congressional district gets 1 electoral vote (assigned to the popular vote winner of a district)
You get the GOP (who is actively eroding the right to vote) to sign on to this, I will take back everything I've said about you.


(C) 2018 TC Talks. Assembled in U.S.A.

User avatar
Frank Booth
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 12:46 am
Location: Wood County Ohio

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by Frank Booth » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:15 am

I do but I used to live in MI. In The Toledo area, where I am we do get coverage of Michigan Politics. The only thing the Democrats have is "Trump sucks" and that's it. nationwide. In MI, the aura of Granholm still the white elephant in the room.


I-Heart Media, I ask you to please bring back 106.7 The D, but without Journey,Eddie money, or Styx. ALT 106.7 sucks ass!

bmw
Posts: 1521
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by bmw » Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:26 am

TC Talks wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:39 pm
bmw wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:13 pm
I have a simple solution to this that I think both sides could agree with. Keep the electoral college. Keep the 538 electors. But instead of winner-take-all for each state (yes I know there's already a few exceptions), assign electoral votes as follows:

Each state gets 2 electoral votes (winner-take-all based on popular vote for the state)
Each congressional district gets 1 electoral vote (assigned to the popular vote winner of a district)
You get the GOP (who is actively eroding the right to vote) to sign on to this, I will take back everything I've said about you.
You do know Trump would have still won in 2016 under those rules, right? It woulda been closer, however - by my math, 290-248. But I do think such a system would substantially change the dynamics of how the politics is played - suddenly swing districts in heavily blue or heavily red states would be important.

Honestly I'm a bit surprised you support this idea. You say republicans would never sign on, but would democrats be willing to give up their monopoly on California and New York as winner-take-all states? The only big one Republicans have is Texas.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am
Location: Moderator of Reason

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by TC Talks » Fri Aug 10, 2018 8:10 am

It improves things.


(C) 2018 TC Talks. Assembled in U.S.A.

NS8401
Posts: 8592
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:06 pm

Re: Gretchen Whitmer

Post by NS8401 » Fri Aug 10, 2018 5:20 pm

bmw wrote:
Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:26 am
TC Talks wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 5:39 pm
bmw wrote:
Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:13 pm
I have a simple solution to this that I think both sides could agree with. Keep the electoral college. Keep the 538 electors. But instead of winner-take-all for each state (yes I know there's already a few exceptions), assign electoral votes as follows:

Each state gets 2 electoral votes (winner-take-all based on popular vote for the state)
Each congressional district gets 1 electoral vote (assigned to the popular vote winner of a district)
You get the GOP (who is actively eroding the right to vote) to sign on to this, I will take back everything I've said about you.
You do know Trump would have still won in 2016 under those rules, right? It woulda been closer, however - by my math, 290-248. But I do think such a system would substantially change the dynamics of how the politics is played - suddenly swing districts in heavily blue or heavily red states would be important.

Honestly I'm a bit surprised you support this idea. You say republicans would never sign on, but would democrats be willing to give up their monopoly on California and New York as winner-take-all states? The only big one Republicans have is Texas.
How about instant runoff voting?



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic