Majority of Americans want Democrats in control of Congress, poll finds
More
Republicans may hold the majority in both chambers of Congress today, but most Americans wish it were the other way around.
According to a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 54 per cent of Americans wish the Democratic Party had control of the House of Representatives. Only 38 per cent feel the same about the Republicans. In fact, more than 41 per cent of Americans feel the country would be better off if the Democrats had won in 2016.
Democratic leaders also win higher marks than their Republican counterparts: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gets a 31 per cent favourablity rating, while Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan gets 24 per cent. [/url]
Read more
Resistance to Trump is beginning as Democrats unseat Republicans
[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-resistance-democrats-win-special-elections-georgia-illinois-delaware-a7684521.html]
That bodes well for a Democratic party still reeling from its unexpected presidential loss. Six months after the defeat, Democrats seem to have latched onto Donald Trump’s lack of legislative success – and historic unpopularity ratings – to boost their midterm prospects.
When Mr Trump’s 100 days came and went without a major legislative victory, the Democrats released a triumphant press release titled “President Trump's 100 Days of Historic Broken Promises.” Mr Trump’s job approval rating is at a near-record low of 36 per cent, according to the poll.
Days later, when Mr Trump and Republican representatives celebrated the passage of their health care bill through the House, Democrats taunted them by signing “Na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye.” Just 38 per cent of Americans approve of the health care bill.
To win back a majority in the House, Democrats need to flip 25 seats – the average number of seats lost by each president’s party in every midterm since World War II.
But experts say Democrats shouldn’t be celebrating just yet: The party has notoriously low turnout for midterm elections – 20 per cent lower than Republican voters. And recent special elections, in which Democrats hoped to win back several historically Republican seats, haven’t delivered the resounding victory they’d hoped.
At a session of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “university” for potential candidates, consultant Dave Gold described the anti-Trump momentum as a “wave.”
"It's all about getting people out there on surfboards," Mr Gold told his students. "Otherwise, the wave might come and it crashes on the shore and nothing comes of it."
Quote: Jeff Sessions and Eric Holder. (Photos: Win McNamee/Getty Images – Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
More
Former Attorney General Eric Holder issued a scathing rebuke of the U.S. Justice Department’s new tough sentencing mandate, calling the policy announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions “dumb on crime.”
“It is an ideologically motivated, cookie-cutter approach that has only been proven to generate unfairly long sentences that are often applied indiscriminately and do little to achieve long-term public safety,” Holder said in a statement Friday.
Sessions outlined his new harsh sentencing policy in a memo to all federal prosecutors this week, beginning with the “core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense.”
“By definition,” Sessions clarified, “the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.”
Though the attorney general’s memo did not refer to drug offenders specifically, his directive for prosecutors to pursue mandatory minimum sentences signaled a return to controversial drug-war-era policies that disproportionately targeted minority communities and packed federal prisons with small-time drug offenders serving lengthy sentences for low-level, nonviolent crimes.
The new policy is also a clear departure from the Obama administration’s efforts to reform drug sentencing procedures and reduce the federal prison population. In particular, it moves to reverse the policy outlined by Holder in a 2013 memo that sought to give judges more discretion to avoid mandatory minimums and issue lighter sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.
In his lengthy statement, Holder called Sessions’ new directive “unwise and ill-informed” as well as “absurd,” and warned that such a reversal of course on recent sentencing reform “will take this nation back to a discredited past.”
Read more from Yahoo News:
This one is closer to the line
But it is there because of a simple principle in manipulation
05-13-2017, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 05-13-2017, 04:58 PM by guohua.)
Get Tough On Crime and Liberals Cry That It's Unfair To Criminals!
Well, unless it's getting Tough In White People. Holder and Obama Proved That.
Quote:As reported and applauded by Politico, Holder announced Tuesday that he was fed up with listening to whining whites who claim the justice department deliberately blocks investigations of black on white racism. Predictably, the Establishment media sides with Holder.
Quote:“Think about that,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia, which was inappropriate .. .to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people,” said Holder, who is black.
Quote:Holder noted that his late sister-in-law, Vivian Malone Jones, helped integrate the University of Alabama.
Quote:“To compare that kind of courage, that kind of action, to say some Black Panther incident is of greater concern to us, historically, I think just flies in the face of history,” Holder said with evident exasperation.”
So the obvious takeaway from this is that some racism is worse than others. Some racist injustice is worthy of prosecution, other racism is not. Apparently, whites simply haven’t suffered enough. They don’t deserve legal protection. So, any injustices committed against white people should be swept under the rug. It’s not worth Eric Holder’s time. Link
Quote:I
Quote:t is true that black Americans are not treated equally by the nation's police forces -- far too often they are treated better than members of other races because police are quite properly terrified of being accused of race-based discrimination.
This preferential race-based treatment of African-Americans fuels violence and social media-driven reigns of terror. It encourages today's race-baiting lynch mobs that troll the Internet to satisfy their unquenchable desire to be offended and outraged.
When the cranks and low-rent bigots of the so-called Black Lives Matter movement target an enemy, they get plenty of support from the media, and in many cases, from politicians. Black liberation theology and critical race theory no doubt helped the nation get to this unfortunate place.
Nowadays police coddle blacks, refusing to hold them to the same standard of behavior expected of everyone else. This cosseting of a large segment of the population encourages misbehavior because would-be perpetrators know they can get away with a lot.
For example, this policy of deliberately going easy on black suspects helps to explain the rise of the so-called knockout game in which young black men viciously prey on unsuspecting white bystanders, violently knocking them to the ground for fun.
It also helps to explain why police and their civilian commanders are extremely reluctant to shut down rioting black mobs.
Thumb-twiddling police officers forced to stand down in a crisis lose their own sense of self-respect as they are made to justify their inaction in their own minds.
Their superiors claim to be worried that cracking down on black crime might infringe on the rioters' right to express themselves politically.
They routinely give blacks the benefit of the doubt and then some as bleeding-heart judges slap African-American criminals on the wrist after listening to the obligatory sob stories that may as well have come out of dusty sociology textbooks. Link
Quote:Californians have a lot on the line in the next congressional debate about America’s gun laws. Two bills stacked with legislative sponsors — HB 38 in the House, SB 446 in the Senate — would override our state’s longstanding rules governing who is allowed to carry a concealed, loaded firearm in public. These bills, both called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, would dictate that if a person can carry a concealed weapon in any state, that person could carry it everywhere in America. This should be a call to action for all Californians concerned about keeping their families safe.
Twelve states do not require any permit to carry hidden, loaded guns within their borders. Some states’ rules have been so ineffective as to allow felons to carry concealed weapons. Not so in California. Our laws require good cause for the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. Applicants must undergo a comprehensive background check. No one with a serious criminal conviction may receive a permit, nor may subjects of temporary or permanent domestic violence restraining orders.
But if concealed carry reciprocity were the law of the land, all this would change. Unbelievably, the House version would allow an individual denied a permit in California to cross the border to a more permissive state, obtain a permit there, then return to California — with a new right to carry here.
More concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous.
In addition to jeopardizing public safety, concealed carry reciprocity would endanger the lives of law enforcement. The mere presence of more concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous. What’s more, if LAPD officers stopped someone with a loaded, concealed handgun, that person could claim to live in a state where permits weren’t necessary, and the officers would be unable to confirm whether it was true. Indeed, law enforcement leaders have warned that concealed carry reciprocity could turn otherwise routine encounters with non-residents into dangerous ones. Given our intensifying focus on the potential for homegrown terrorism, the last thing we need is to make it easier to carry concealed, loaded firearms across state lines.
Because concealed carry reciprocity poses grave risks, the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, including the Major Cities Chiefs Assn. and the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, along with the Assn. of Prosecuting Attorneys, the leaders of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence and many other partners in law enforcement, have strongly opposed it.
While the practical implications of this proposal are deeply troubling, the politics surrounding the debate are surreal. Members of Congress who have invoked states’ rights for years have supported these bills, even though concealed carry reciprocity destroys the notion that states should decide for themselves which rules best keep their residents safe.
Why lawmakers in D.C. are acting this way would be something of a mystery but for the fact that concealed carry reciprocity has been a top priority of gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Assn. Invigorated by the recent election, gun rights advocates deride what they see as an inconsistent “patchwork” of concealed carry laws across the nation.
If that were the real concern, though, Congress could take entirely different steps. Robust, national concealed carry standards similar to California’s would address the patchwork issue while protecting law enforcement officers and the public. Instead, concealed carry reciprocity defaults to the least stringent standards, with states like Arizona — where there are no universal background checks and residents can carry concealed weapons with no permit at all — dictating policy nationwide.
Finally, concealed carry reciprocity could damage our business community. Were great numbers of out-of-state visitors authorized to carry concealed guns in California, all sorts of venues — sports arenas, theme parks, commercial buildings — could be choked with metal detectors or other barriers installed by business owners legitimately concerned about their patrons’ safety.
Forcing concealed carry reciprocity is dangerous and undermines California’s gun laws. Lawmakers should find the courage to say no.
Mike Feuer is the city attorney of Los Angeles. Charlie Beck is the chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.
It is really simple
To California
do not take the federal money
then their is nothing the feds can say on it
Here is an article that shows how the "Deep State" uses a chat room with five users known as “Severus,” “Roger,” “Huck,” “Juules,” and “Dooku”, who consistently speak the most in these daily chats. They steer the conversation to topics that shine a "bad light" on Trump and his administration.
They are trying to lead the masses into impeaching Trump.
Quote:Soopermexican at The Right Scoop caught an amazing admission in the midnight hour on Friday morning, as CNN was beginning to mourn another Democratic loss in a special election for the House of Representatives. Media reporter Dylan Byers lamented that voters in Montana weren't even really paying attention to their incessant coverage of GOP candidate Greg Gianforte's violent treatment of Ben Jacobs, a reporter for the leftist British newspaper The Guardian, on the night before the election.
Quote:DYLAN BYERS: There’s this conversation that’s happening among people following the news industry, which is how can we bridge the sort of gap between all of those conservatives who don’t trust the media, and get them to start knowing that, you know, we’re acting in good faith, with good intentions? Maybe you can’t, because they’re not even listening. From the second, it’s not as though they’re reading the article and considering it, or listening the audio and considering it. They’re just not paying attention to it, because they don’t trust us.
And this, by the way, you look at the tapes of Trump there. Two things have happened. One, over the course of several decades, the conservatives have done a masterful job at capitalizing [on] the waning trust in media and using it to their advantage. But a second thing has happened, too, which is, on occasion, more than the media would like to admit, we have not told the story of conservative Americans, disenfranchised Americans, who believe that they are losing their country. The story we have largely been telling is a story that is more or less in step with the arc of history as defined by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It does not mean we favor them to win. It just means that sort of vision of a progressive future, a global future, and that is not one that resonates with so many conservative American voters.
And so there is this chasm, and no one exploited as well as Donald Trump did, and no one made it as violent and aggressive and sinister as Donald Trump did, and that laid the foundation for the sorts of incidents that happened saw last night.
Soopermexican writes: "I mean you have to hand it to him that he at least admits most reporters are stuck telling the story of the progressive future as envisioned by Obama and Hillary – that is an insight that most in the media seem physiologically incapable of making."
Except Byers is half-admitting it, that they tilt ever so slightly toward their "arc of history" bias, but it doesn't mean they favor Democrats. That they tilt away from "telling the story" of conservative Americans, when in reality they demonize conservative Americans with all the "isms" and "phobias" you can list. And worst of all, Byers says conservatives have "capitalized on waning trust" of the liberal media, instead of admitting that conservatives have exposed the liberal media, reported on and captured the liberal media inside their bubble.
05-30-2017, 04:22 PM (This post was last modified: 05-30-2017, 04:23 PM by Armonica_Templar.)
(05-26-2017, 04:52 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Here is an article that shows how the "Deep State" uses a chat room with five users known as “Severus,” “Roger,” “Huck,” “Juules,” and “Dooku”, who consistently speak the most in these daily chats. They steer the conversation to topics that shine a "bad light" on Trump and his administration.
They are trying to lead the masses into impeaching Trump.
(05-26-2017, 04:52 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Here is an article that shows how the "Deep State" uses a chat room with five users known as “Severus,” “Roger,” “Huck,” “Juules,” and “Dooku”, who consistently speak the most in these daily chats. They steer the conversation to topics that shine a "bad light" on Trump and his administration.
They are trying to lead the masses into impeaching Trump.
CNN Promoting Trump’s Assassination NEXT With HORRID Thing They Will Be Airing Any Second
Quote:Because us moral and peace loving good people know we can’t expect better from the likes of The New York Times and CNN’s parent company Time Warner. Both corporations have sent out press releases saying they are standing by their sponsorship of the Broadway play that clearly depicts the assassination of President Donald Trump.
And to make matters even worse, After this morning’s shooting of Republican Congressmen Scalise and 3 other individuals at baseball practice by a Bernie Sanders supporter who followed Sander’s orders and “resisted.” CNN has stated they will be adverting the very Broadway show that gives people the idea it’s ok to assassinate our president and our elected officials.
Trump ‘Assassination’ Play Still Funded by Time Warner, Taxpayers
Time Warner funds “assassination” of Trump
Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, is one of the companies still sponsoring The Public Theater, a New York Shakespeare group that offers free tickets to anyone who wants to see President Trump assassinated in the group’s rendition of Julius Caesar.
The New York City government’s “Department of Cultural Affairs” also sponsors the theatre group. In this “Shakespeare in the Park” play, a man with unkempt blonde hair, a blue suit and red tie is married to a woman wearing designer outfits and speaking with a Slavic-like accent.
At the end of the play, the Trump/Caesar character is brutally stabbed to death in a lengthy assassination scene. The play’s director, Oskar Eustis, calls the play a “contemporary” “WARNING PARABLE”:
“Rome’s leader, Julius Caesar, is a force unlike any the city has seen. Magnetic, populist, irreverent, he seems bent on absolute power. A small band of patriots, devoted to the country’s democratic traditions, must decide how to oppose him. Shakespeare’s political masterpiece has never felt more contemporary.”
“Julius Caesar can be read as a warning parable to those who try to fight for democracy by undemocratic means. To fight the tyrant does not mean imitating him.”
CNN host Fareed Zakaria, like his employer’s parent company, Time Warner, supports the play. Zakaria even went so far as to declare it a “masterpiece.”
“If you’re in NYC, go see Julius Caesar, free in Central Park, brilliantly interpreted for Trump era. A masterpiece,” he tweeted at the end of May.
The Trump “assassination” play is making headlines just a week after CNN fired Reza Aslan and Kathy Griffin for their over-the-top displays of hatred towards President Trump.
On Sunday, Delta Airlines and Bank of America both pulled their support from the company. “We do not condone this interpretation of Julius Caesar at this summer’s Free Shakespeare in the Park,” tweeted Delta. “We have notified them of our decision to end our sponsorship as the official airline of The Public Theater.”
Bank of America followed suit, tweeting a statement saying: “The Public Theater chose to present Julius Caesar in a way that was attended to provoke and offend” – adding that, if it had known of the play’s content beforehand, it would never have sponored it:
Meanwhile, the Time Warner Foundation, American Express, and others continue to sponsor the Central Park theater group, though American Express has, reportedly, issued a statement distancing itself from the group.
Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. also took to Twitter to express their displeasure with the Shakespeare adaptation. “I wonder how much of this ‘art’ is funded by taxpayers,” tweeted Donald Jr. “Serious question, when does ‘art’ become political speech & does that change things?”
“Thank you Delta and Bank of America. This was the right thing to do,” said Eric Trump in a tweet.
The theatre group has been “assassinating” Trump since the play opened on May 23 – and will continue to kill the president until June 18.
“Julius Caesar is about how fragile democracy is. The institutions that we have grown up with, that we have inherited from the struggle of many generations of our ancestors, can be swept away in no time at all,” says the play’s artistic director Oskar Eutis on the company’s website.
As of publication of this piece, these organizations were still listed at sponsors. Contact information is provided for each:
The Luesther T. Mertz Charitable Trust – Phone: (212) 777-5226
Bank of America (WITHDRAWN)
Blavatnik Family Foundation – Email: https://www.inc-cap.com/contact/
The Harold and Mimi Steinberg New Play Development Fund – Phone: (212)- 758-0404
The Philip and Janice Levin Foundation – Phone: (908) 755-2401
Time Warner Foundation – Phone: (212)-484-8000
American Express – Phone: 1 (800) 528-4800
Delta (WITHDRAWN)
New York (magazine) – Subscriber Phone: (800) 678-9000
TheaterMania – Phone: (212) 352-0255
Today Tix – Phone: (855) 464-9778
NYC Culture Department – Phone: 212-NEW-YORK (212-639-9675)
New York Council on the Arts – Phone: (212) 459-8800
Art Works – Phone: (919) 831-0199
While not listed on The Public Theatre’s (Phone: 212-539-8650) “Corporate Sponsors” webpage, The New York Times has publicly declared itself to be a sponsor – and vowed to continue funding the theater group. (Phone: 800-NYTIMES, (800) 698-4637)
This is America, they should have the right to sponsor whatever they like. But just like every right, there should also be a consequence. They both of The New York Times and CNN should be forced to turn in their White House Credentials. Luckily not all corporations are evil, Delta Airlines and Bank of America have both dropped their support for the play in the wake of public outrage over the play’s depiction of Trump’s assassination. And after today’s shooting the play should be pulled completely.
It’s time you “Resist” Democrats wake the hell up. If this would have been done to your messiah, the charlatan that is President Barack Hussein Obama you would have raised all hell. This is not art and this rhetoric has just caused the assassination attempt against our Republican Congressmen. This needs to stop, NOW!
Source
I can't find any words for this despicable act; it just makes me sick to see what people have turned in to.
It appears all the propaganda and lies have finally caught up to some of lying main stream media. I saw this on my Twitter feed, and yesterday I saw an article on Face Book saying the paper and some other news outlets (from the left view) are going to be having some major lay offs.
06-22-2017, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 06-22-2017, 05:03 PM by BIAD.)
It'll be interesting to see if this is ignored by the US mainstream media or spun to show Trump's low ratings.
Maybe they'll say polls are unreliable?!
Clinton's Image at Lowest Point in Two Decades.
*38% view Hillary Clinton favourably, 57% unfavourably
*Her favourable percentage was 55% as recently as two years ago.
'PRINCETON, N.J. -- As the Democratic National Convention gets underway in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton's image is at its lowest point in the 24 years of her national career, with 38% of Americans viewing her favorably and 57% unfavorably
Americans' most positive view of Clinton, 67% favorable, came in December 1998. Before last year, her lowest favorable ratings since she became well-known had been 43% in January 1996 and 44% in March 2001.
Clinton was at 41% favorable in mid-June but drifted down to 37% by mid-July. Her favorable ratings have since held near that level, including through last week's Republican National Convention. Republican nominee Donald Trump's image for the past seven days was 36% favorable and 59% unfavorable, only slightly less positive than Clinton's.
Gallup first measured Hillary Clinton's image in 1992 as her husband campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her image, like Bill Clinton's, was mixed in the spring of that year but then grew more positive.
Her favorable ratings were above 60% at several points in 1993, and more than six in 10 Americans viewed her favorably at other points as well: when her husband was impeached by the House and tried by the Senate in 1998 and 1999, from 2009 through 2013 while she served as secretary of state, and in April 2013 after she returned to being a private citizen.
After launching her campaign last year and as her handling of emails while secretary of state became an increasingly public and controversial issue, Americans' views of Clinton began their downslide...' Gallup:
06-22-2017, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 06-22-2017, 05:09 PM by Mystic Wanderer.)
(06-22-2017, 05:02 PM)BIAD Wrote: It'll be interesting to see if this is ignored by the US mainstream media or spun to show Trump's low ratings.
Maybe they'll say polls are unreliable?!
Clinton's Image at Lowest Point in Two Decades.
*38% view Hillary Clinton favourably, 57% unfavourably
*Her favourable percentage was 55% as recently as two years ago.
I love it when the truth comes out... especially concerning Killary!
What is disturbing is that 38% still find her favorable! What does that say about our country?
06-22-2017, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 06-22-2017, 05:46 PM by BIAD.)
(06-22-2017, 05:08 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: ...What is disturbing is that 38% still find her favorable! What does that say about our country?
What's also disturbing is from around halfway through 2015, Hillary's favourable ratings plummeted and then
attempted to level out towards the end of the year. But by the beginning of 2016, her positives slowly continued
to drop and never showed any improvement right up to the election.
So the question is, what polls were the mainstream media reading during the campaigns?!
Quote:Originally published July 5, 2017 at 2:19 pm Updated July 5, 2017 at 2:51 pm
[img=0x0]https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/c815e8d4-5ddc-11e7-a021-fc1199091e10-780x520.jpg[/img]A sign hangs outside Seattle City Hall after the Seattle City Council passed a $15 minimum-wage measure in 2014. (Ted S. Warren/AP) Conservative media — critics of Seattle’s $15 an hour minimum wage — are focused on writing alarming headlines, not reflecting the reality of Seattle’s labor market or the many caveats in the latest UW study findings.
Share story
By Rebecca Smith Special to The Times
WHEN you see blaring headlines announcing something way out of the bounds of the normal, your alarm bells should be ringing. In this era of fake news, social-media bubbles and data manipulation, it pays to have a critical eye — to be suspicious of sweeping claims, to analyze the underlying assumptions behind any piece of research, and to check the data carefully.
Last week, a University of Washington study team released a working paper on Seattle’s increased minimum wage. This working paper has inspired eye-popping headlines. Not surprisingly, outlets that have traditionally agitated against minimum-wage increases — like the American Enterprise Institute, the National Review and Forbes — all made sure to trumpet the paper’s claim that there was a loss of jobs for workers who earn less than $19 per hour. Some have pointed to Seattle’s alleged “failure” as a cautionary tale for the many cities and states across the country that are raising their minimum wages.
How can these findings be squared with the reality of Seattle’s economy? At 2.5 percent unemployment, Seattle is very near full employment. A Seattle Times story from earlier this month reported a restaurant owner’s Facebook confession that due to the tight labor market “I’d give my right pinkie up for an awesome dishwasher.” Earlier this year, Jimmy John’s advertised for delivery drivers at $20 per hour.
Rebecca Smith, who lives in Seattle, is the deputy director of the National Employment Law Project, which fights for policies to create good jobs, strengthen protections, and support for low-wage workers and the unemployed.
Conservative sources are focused on writing alarming headlines, not reflecting the reality of Seattle’s labor market or the many caveats in the study. Those caveats are politically inconvenient for minimum-wage opponents, but they’re vitally important to people who live and work in Seattle, so let’s take a look at them now.
Specifically, let’s look at all the workers who are simply left out of the analysis. By the UW team’s own admission, nearly 40 percent of the city’s low-wage workforce is excluded from the data: workers at multisite employers like Nordstrom, Starbucks, or even restaurants with a few locations like Dick’s. Even worse, any time a worker left a job with a single-site employer for one with a chain, that was treated as a “lost job” that was blamed on the minimum wage — and that likely happened a lot since the minimum wage was higher for those large employers.
Similarly, every time an employer raised its pay above $19 per hour — like Jimmy John’s did — it was counted not as a better job, but as a low-wage job lost as a result of the minimum wage.
The truth is, low-wage workers are making real gains in Seattle’s labor market. In almost all categories of traditionally low-wage work, there are more employers in the market than at any time in the city’s history. There are more coffee shops, restaurants and hotels in Seattle than ever before. The work is getting done. And the largest (and best-paid) workforce in the history of the city is doing it.
Nor can the study be reconciled with the wide body of rigorous research — including a recent study of Seattle’s restaurant industry by University of California economist Michael Reich, one of the country’s foremost minimum-wage researchers — that finds that minimum-wage-increases studies have not led to any appreciable job losses.
Top Opinion Stories
I look forward to the next phase of this process, when we move past the blare of the headlines and get to work understanding why the study team drew their sweeping conclusions based on such seemingly flimsy data. The UW team’s working paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, and in that process the findings will likely be modified and the headline-grabbing claims will likely be toned down. In the meantime, we are likely to see more evidence from more places about what the real impact that the new higher minimum wages are having.
But regardless of what the headlines say, Seattle is enjoying unprecedented growth and prosperity. The consensus that Seattle and its workers, as well as other cities and states representing 18 percent of the U.S. workforce, have reached is that a $15 an hour minimum wage is necessary to ensure that everyone can participate in a vibrant economy.
Rebecca Smith
This has earned a spot
I am not sure but I think this is the study..
Will someone double check for me
@"Armonica_Templar"
Yes it was a study done by the University of Washington State.
Here is a link to the Review: link
They failed to mention how all of the rental properties and other consumer driven goods will increase in price.
Plus the proven fact that employers will cut their Hours and cut out Over Time pay.
It's amazing to me to think someone expects to raise a family, pay a mortgage and car payment working a Burger King or McDonald's or Wal Mart.
Great piece and oddly enough, there was an article on the Sky News channel in the UK about
the same subject only four hours after Armonica_Templar posted this!
The source, The Living Wage Foundation, had a spokeswoman from a foundation -who first of all,
corrected the Presenter's introduction that the British-based Think-Tank hadn't studied the minimum
wage, but the 'Living' wage and then stated that many low-paid workers received less money than they
can live on.
I know this is true, but why has it only come to light now?!
Specifically in Britain, the mainstream media have never made a big thing of low-paid workers
and the subject was certainly never raised before and during the 'Brexit' referendum.
Sure, on rare occasions when findings were announced, there'd be a reference to it, but overall,
a discussion on the topic was something to be steered away from.
With the political tussle going on at the moment in the UK and the begrudged trending of nationalism
across the world, I think it's just another bullet to use in order to say that the past status-quo was better.
Many low-paid workers have always struggled and a minimum wage -albeit a good idea, has never been
something that employers seek to improve.
Why would they?!
In the UK, the irony is that for many thousands of people, the welfare system provides an income higher
than most low-paid work and for a couple of generations now, they actually call it 'pay'
Again particularly for Great Britain, the recent announcement from doesn't explain why it's now a priority
to bring it to the fore, but I suspect it has something to do with the recent troubles and tragedies in the
country.
The majority of the working-class and the poor now have a different skin-colour from past working-classes
in general, and as political-correctness demands, the current situation is a voting nightmare.
(07-06-2017, 04:51 AM)guohua Wrote: @"Armonica_Templar"
Yes it was a study done by the University of Washington State.
Here is a link to the Review: link
They failed to mention how all of the rental properties and other consumer driven goods will increase in price.
Plus the proven fact that employers will cut their Hours and cut out Over Time pay.
It's amazing to me to think someone expects to raise a family, pay a mortgage and car payment working a Burger King or McDonald's or Wal Mart.
Thank you
The rental properties are good example none of them are covering in connection. The rental agencies have to cover increased cost.. Not to mention when people have more income, they want certain other things.. End results general rents go up in price..
As for living on min wage..
It can be done but none of thee people B#$%^ing have looked at another issue..
What do they blow they blow there money on..
A large part of the issue is lack of money management skills.
Great piece and oddly enough, there was an article on the Sky News channel in the UK about
the same subject only four hours after Armonica_Templar posted this!
The source, The Living Wage Foundation, had a spokeswoman from a foundation -who first of all,
corrected the Presenter's introduction that the British-based Think-Tank hadn't studied the minimum
wage, but the 'Living' wage and then stated that many low-paid workers received less money than they
can live on.
I know this is true, but why has it only come to light now?!
Specifically in Britain, the mainstream media have never made a big thing of low-paid workers
and the subject was certainly never raised before and during the 'Brexit' referendum.
Sure, on rare occasions when findings were announced, there'd be a reference to it, but overall,
a discussion on the topic was something to be steered away from.
With the political tussle going on at the moment in the UK and the begrudged trending of nationalism
across the world, I think it's just another bullet to use in order to say that the past status-quo was better.
Many low-paid workers have always struggled and a minimum wage -albeit a good idea, has never been
something that employers seek to improve.
Why would they?!
In the UK, the irony is that for many thousands of people, the welfare system provides an income higher
than most low-paid work and for a couple of generations now, they actually call it 'pay'
Again particularly for Great Britain, the recent announcement from doesn't explain why it's now a priority
to bring it to the fore, but I suspect it has something to do with the recent troubles and tragedies in the
country.
The majority of the working-class and the poor now have a different skin-colour from past working-classes
in general, and as political-correctness demands, the current situation is a voting nightmare.
Interesting thread, A.T.
Culture is a little different in the UK.. Better word is standing belief's are understood with a slightly different twist
However my opinion is the same no matter where you stand on the third rock from the sun
Min wage is a tax
It increases the money the thieves at top collect
Taxes are NEVER collected for the benefit of the taxed
The money never goes to what it is supposed to and never has
look at non-profits and administrative cost as a good corollary
Quote:[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Louisiana lawyers sue Black Lives Matter on behalf of a cop shot by a lone assassin
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.44)]It is the second time the attorneys have sought to blame a hashtag for violence against police.[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6)]A man attempts to stop protesters from engaging with police in riot gear in front of the Police Department headquarters in Baton Rouge, La., after police attempted to clear the street on July 9, 2016. Several protesters were arrested. CREDIT: AP Photo/Max Becherer, File[/color]
Lawyers seeking to tar the entire Black Lives Matter movement with the violence of a couple lone gunmen have filed a civil suit on behalf of one of the surviving victims of a 2016 ambush of police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Arguing that founding BLM organizers DeRay McKesson, Johnetta Elzie, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi “not only, incited the violence against police in retaliation for the death of black men shot by police, but also did nothing to dissuade the ongoing violence and injury to police,” the suit both seeks damages from the five named organizers and aims to render “#BlackLivesMatter” as a courtroom defendant.
While the suit seeks to keep the officer’s identity secret, he has been identified by multiple local media outlets as Nick Tullier, one of the three officers wounded non-fatally in the ambush. Tullier survived bullets to the shoulder, stomach, and head in the attack. Tullier’s own role guiding the lawsuit on his behalf is foggy; the court documents note that lawyers are working with a “duly court appointed curator” of Tullier’s affairs. Tullier, who was permanently disabled in the attack, has been in intensive recovery therapy for months and recently regained the ability to speak the word “hello,” as documented in a video posted by his fiance.
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.44)][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)]
Donald Trump Wants The Attorney General To Investigate Black Lives Matter[/color]
thinkprogress.org[/url][/color] The two lawyers behind the suit previously brought another claim against McKesson, Elzie, Garza, Tometi, Cullors, and the movement they helped to found. An ongoing suit from 2016 seeks to hold the movement and its most prominent leaders liable for injuries suffered by another Louisiana police officer who was struck by a rock during a standoff with protesters in Baton Rouge the weekend after Alton Sterling was killed by city officers.
The judge in that case is still deliberating on whether or not “Black Lives Matter” is a coherent legal entity that can be targeted with a lawsuit. The same technicality is likely to be at issue in the new case as well. But narrow legal questions aside, the broader ambition of the two suits is clear — and alarming. “I think the lawsuit first and foremost was intended to be a shot across the bow to anyone who has been publicly critical of police,” civil liberties lawyer David Roland told PBS. “It’s saying, ‘Unless you expressly disavow tactics that we don’t like, we’re going to come after you, we’re going to destroy you in court.’”
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.44)][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)]
New Orleans cops seek first-ever ‘Blue Lives Matter’ hate crime charges[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6)]It’s a weird test case for a bad, redundant law.[/color]thinkprogress.org[/color] Each of the men who ambushed and murdered police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge last summer pointed to their outrage with police violence as motivation for their violence. Each man also acted alone, explicitly disavowed the reform-oriented street protest movements in favor of bloodshed, and made a premeditated choice to spill blood. The attacker in the Baton Rouge ambush was a member of a so-called “sovereign citizen” group, one of many in a ragtag underground movement whose adherents have frequently killed police during traffic stops and in intentional ambushes.
The lawsuit’s attempt to pin an assassin’s deeds onto the prime drivers of civil disobedience mirrors in the courtroom what conservatives have been doing in public rhetoric for some time.
Right-wing pundits leaped at the chance to blame BLM protesters for the Dallas massacre, even though the officers shot there had been escorting BLM marchers when they were attacked by a murderer who was not involved in the movement. Fox News coverage of tensions between police departments and their communities has long centered on the idea that protesters are waging a “war on cops.”
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.44)][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.9)]
Trump order won’t make cops safer, but might make it a felony to yell at them[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.6)]“Contempt of cop” is a big enough problem already. The president seems determined to make it worse.[/color]thinkprogress.org[/color] President Donald Trump is on record saying that the federal government [url=https://thinkprogress.org/donald-trump-wants-the-attorney-general-to-investigate-black-lives-matter-c3855b1cde5b]should investigate BLM activities and should encourage local police to “go and counterattack.” The National Rifle Association recently published a slick web video depicting a straight-line connection between liberal Hollywood actors, anti-racism protests, civil unrest in American cities, and a wholesale attack on “our country and our freedom.”
The Louisiana lawsuit purports to list numerous examples of targeted killings of police that supposedly connect back to the hashtag it targets for damages. But it omits the ambush slayings of two officers in Iowa by a Confederate flag-waving Trump supporter in November. [/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)][color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.44)]Thanks to Ned Resnikoff.[/color][/color]
View photos
![[Image: 51d1b3553290137caa41327d1bf03874]](https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/yXN01LC4XwjhOn12viAIvA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/homerun/the_independent_635/51d1b3553290137caa41327d1bf03874)
![[Image: a4cda531b5eab34261405a775cdce817]](https://www.yahoo.com/sy/ny/api/res/1.2/fn2BTrY7ZS1w7aKZC6B_Dw--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9NzQ0O2g9NDAx/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/a4cda531b5eab34261405a775cdce817)
![[Image: cnn-trump-assassination-main-700x340.jpg]](http://1csabj4ddrd61fgqez2e4nss.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cnn-trump-assassination-main-700x340.jpg)
![[Image: TRUMP-ASSASSINATION-01-800x416-700x364.jpg]](http://1csabj4ddrd61fgqez2e4nss.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/TRUMP-ASSASSINATION-01-800x416-700x364.jpg)
![[Image: Times_Sale.jpg]](http://thumb.ibb.co/cC3ayQ/Times_Sale.jpg)
![[Image: 1*4CIeERp_QrkPIJfcppMx3Q.jpeg]](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1000/1*4CIeERp_QrkPIJfcppMx3Q.jpeg)