In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration will remove Malaysia from its official list of the world's worst human trafficking offenders, according to Reuters, a move human rights advocates fear will damage U.S. credibility.
The maneuver would allow the administration to continue negotiating a controversial trade agreement with Malaysia and 10 other Pacific nations. Legislation authored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) effectively bars the U.S. from enacting trade deals with countries deemed "Tier 3" violators of human trafficking standards -- the worst of the worst in the State Department's formal reckoning of governments that facilitate modern-day slavery.
Malaysia earned its spot on that list, alongside Iran and North Korea, from years of human trafficking, including rampant sex slavery and forced labor in the agriculture and the textile industries, according to 2014 State Department documents. Malaysia's electronics industry also is rife with forced labor. This year, mass graves for trafficking victims were discovered in Malaysia near its northern border with Thailand.
Reuters reports that Malaysia will soon be upgraded to a "Tier 2" country, allowing it to sidestep the ban imposed by the Menendez legislation. The State Department said it does not comment on its human trafficking list before it is formally issued. In a statement to HuffPost, Menendez said the maneuver would undermine the international legitimacy of America's human rights efforts.
"If true, this manipulation of Malaysia’s ranking in the State Department’s 2015 TIP report would be a perversion of the trafficking list and undermine both the integrity of this important report as well as the very difficult task of confronting states about human trafficking," Menendez said in the statement. "The deplorable human trafficking crisis in Malaysia merits a global cry for action and justice -- not an attempt to sweep them under the rug for political expediency."
Malaysia passed a law in June amid international controversy over its human trafficking record that would provide additional protections for victims. Human trafficking has long been illegal in Malaysia, however. The country's critics -- including the State Department -- have not focused on its legal standards, but on its willingness to enforce those standards.
Human Rights Watch has persistently criticized Obama administration efforts to undermine the Menendez language.
Today, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who as of-late has gone relatively gaffe-free, uttered a phrase that may not go over too well with the constituency he seeks to reach. During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's "The Union Leader" that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."
He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
I'm not sure it's actually going to hurt him, simply because it's a "pull yourself by your bootstraps" answer and the main rebuttals are "out of touch" (too cliche and weak) or actually diving into the economics (too abstract for most Americans.)
I think he'll need to screw up a follow up answer for things to get out of hand.
And obviously his thought is terrible for a lot of reasons: 1. Labor force participation is low because of baby boomers dropping out of the work force and increasing % of young people going to college, two factors that didn't apply so heavily 20 years ago. The 90's were outside of the norm - we're likely never going to reach those levels again. 2. Labor force participation has little to do with working more hours. In fact, adding hours to currently employed workers could actually increase the number of discouraged workers / lower labor force participation. 3. Americans already work relatively long hours and get less vacation compared to everyone besides Koreans, Japanese, Greeks (yep, they work(ed) more hours than us) and Portuguese. And we're already pretty damn productive. I think Norway and Luxembourg are the only two countries that are more productive and Americans already work 300-400 (!) more hours per year than both of them. 4. It's hard to make a case for getting more hours when many large employers specifically only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits. 5. GDP is actually looking pretty decent right now. 6. Increasing worker hours is the stupidest goddamn fucking way to increase GDP. It's the most inefficient way of doing it. It's China's growth strategy in the 60's and 70's - throw man hours at the problem.
But like I said, this stuff won't matter cause he won't get called on it in a way that makes it approachable/offensive to the average American.
Today, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who as of-late has gone relatively gaffe-free, uttered a phrase that may not go over too well with the constituency he seeks to reach. During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's "The Union Leader" that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."
He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
I'm not sure it's actually going to hurt him, simply because it's a "pull yourself by your bootstraps" answer and the main rebuttals are "out of touch" (too cliche and weak) or actually diving into the economics (too abstract for most Americans.)
I think he'll need to screw up a follow up answer for things to get out of hand.
And obviously his thought is terrible for a lot of reasons: 1. Labor force participation is low because of baby boomers dropping out of the work force and increasing % of young people going to college, two factors that didn't apply so heavily 20 years ago. The 90's were outside of the norm - we're likely never going to reach those levels again. 2. Labor force participation has little to do with working more hours. In fact, adding hours to currently employed workers could actually increase the number of discouraged workers / lower labor force participation. 3. Americans already work relatively long hours and get less vacation compared to everyone besides Koreans, Japanese, Greeks (yep, they work(ed) more hours than us) and Portuguese. And we're already pretty damn productive. I think Norway and Luxembourg are the only two countries that are more productive and Americans already work 300-400 (!) more hours per year than both of them. 4. It's hard to make a case for getting more hours when many large employers specifically only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits. 5. GDP is actually looking pretty decent right now. 6. Increasing worker hours is the stupidest goddamn fucking way to increase GDP. It's the most inefficient way of doing it. It's China's growth strategy in the 60's and 70's - throw man hours at the problem.
But like I said, this stuff won't matter cause he won't get called on it in a way that makes it approachable/offensive to the average American.
Depends on if his opponents decide to jump on it and use it as a focal point of attack, and how Bush would respond to such a hypothetical attack. Obama was able to hit Romney hard over issues such as the tax returns, his tenure at Bain Capital, and even his wife's Olympic horse. It was relatively successful because Romney reacted poorly to the attacks, but also because it solidified the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich guy who didn't understand the average American. Bush is in danger of this portrayal as well.
I really dont think she is going to beat Sanders for the Democratic nomination. She couldnt even beat obama and that was before bengazi, the email scandal, etc
Today, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who as of-late has gone relatively gaffe-free, uttered a phrase that may not go over too well with the constituency he seeks to reach. During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's "The Union Leader" that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."
He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
I'm not sure it's actually going to hurt him, simply because it's a "pull yourself by your bootstraps" answer and the main rebuttals are "out of touch" (too cliche and weak) or actually diving into the economics (too abstract for most Americans.)
I think he'll need to screw up a follow up answer for things to get out of hand.
And obviously his thought is terrible for a lot of reasons: 1. Labor force participation is low because of baby boomers dropping out of the work force and increasing % of young people going to college, two factors that didn't apply so heavily 20 years ago. The 90's were outside of the norm - we're likely never going to reach those levels again. 2. Labor force participation has little to do with working more hours. In fact, adding hours to currently employed workers could actually increase the number of discouraged workers / lower labor force participation. 3. Americans already work relatively long hours and get less vacation compared to everyone besides Koreans, Japanese, Greeks (yep, they work(ed) more hours than us) and Portuguese. And we're already pretty damn productive. I think Norway and Luxembourg are the only two countries that are more productive and Americans already work 300-400 (!) more hours per year than both of them. 4. It's hard to make a case for getting more hours when many large employers specifically only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits. 5. GDP is actually looking pretty decent right now. 6. Increasing worker hours is the stupidest goddamn fucking way to increase GDP. It's the most inefficient way of doing it. It's China's growth strategy in the 60's and 70's - throw man hours at the problem.
But like I said, this stuff won't matter cause he won't get called on it in a way that makes it approachable/offensive to the average American.
Depends on if his opponents decide to jump on it and use it as a focal point of attack, and how Bush would respond to such a hypothetical attack. Obama was able to hit Romney hard over issues such as the tax returns, his tenure at Bain Capital, and even his wife's Olympic horse. It was relatively successful because Romney reacted poorly to the attacks, but also because it solidified the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich guy who didn't understand the average American. Bush is in danger of this portrayal as well.
You would think they would have learned that people like the Bushes should never speak on the issues every day American’s face. Let alone prescribe idiotic things like “work more hours”. The people he is trying to win votes from already work a ton of hour and the concept of working more isn’t appealing. Just don't talk about things you have literally zero experience with.
The worst part is Jeb Bush seems the least off the wall idiot of the Republican camp.
Today, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who as of-late has gone relatively gaffe-free, uttered a phrase that may not go over too well with the constituency he seeks to reach. During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's "The Union Leader" that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."
He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
I'm not sure it's actually going to hurt him, simply because it's a "pull yourself by your bootstraps" answer and the main rebuttals are "out of touch" (too cliche and weak) or actually diving into the economics (too abstract for most Americans.)
I think he'll need to screw up a follow up answer for things to get out of hand.
And obviously his thought is terrible for a lot of reasons: 1. Labor force participation is low because of baby boomers dropping out of the work force and increasing % of young people going to college, two factors that didn't apply so heavily 20 years ago. The 90's were outside of the norm - we're likely never going to reach those levels again. 2. Labor force participation has little to do with working more hours. In fact, adding hours to currently employed workers could actually increase the number of discouraged workers / lower labor force participation. 3. Americans already work relatively long hours and get less vacation compared to everyone besides Koreans, Japanese, Greeks (yep, they work(ed) more hours than us) and Portuguese. And we're already pretty damn productive. I think Norway and Luxembourg are the only two countries that are more productive and Americans already work 300-400 (!) more hours per year than both of them. 4. It's hard to make a case for getting more hours when many large employers specifically only hire part time workers to avoid paying benefits. 5. GDP is actually looking pretty decent right now. 6. Increasing worker hours is the stupidest goddamn fucking way to increase GDP. It's the most inefficient way of doing it. It's China's growth strategy in the 60's and 70's - throw man hours at the problem.
But like I said, this stuff won't matter cause he won't get called on it in a way that makes it approachable/offensive to the average American.
Depends on if his opponents decide to jump on it and use it as a focal point of attack, and how Bush would respond to such a hypothetical attack. Obama was able to hit Romney hard over issues such as the tax returns, his tenure at Bain Capital, and even his wife's Olympic horse. It was relatively successful because Romney reacted poorly to the attacks, but also because it solidified the narrative that he was an out-of-touch rich guy who didn't understand the average American. Bush is in danger of this portrayal as well.
You would think they would have learned that people like the Bushes should never speak on the issues every day American’s face. Let alone prescribe idiotic things like “work more hours”. The people he is trying to win votes from already work a ton of hour and the concept of working more isn’t appealing. Just don't talk about things you have literally zero experience with.
The worst part is Jeb Bush seems the least off the wall idiot of the Republican camp.
FYI in a later tweet he tried to clarify that he intends for part time workers to get more hours. Whether that was his original intention or a clever correction is up for debate.
If that's what he meant, Bush used the wrong subject in his sentence. People need to work longer hours is VERY different than businesses need to hire full time workers rather than a whole ton of part time workers. But even in his correction he avoids business as a subject. "People need to stop being part-time workers." Oh? And how does a worker correct that state of being when they were hired on as part-time. . . work another part-time job and still get no benefits (the plain meaning of his first comment) ooooor maybe hiring policy of businesses have something to do with that- particularly very large businesses. (I am, of course, excluding those people who are working part time out of choice.) "they need to be having access to greater opportunities to work" again, where are these opportunities coming from? ...The businesses themselves... or I guess self-employment, but that isn't for everyone.
Listening to that Trump interview with Anderson, do you suppose he'll be the Teflon man. Anderson: Criticism X Trump: People love me, moving on. ? That's not an answer, but it seems to be working. I suspect being under the public eye generally and The Apprentice specifically goes largely in his favour as far as his brash comments (except for incredulous opponents), you know what you are getting is a sort of American Simon Cowell. And while I fall in the incredulous camp, I can see the appeal of someone that shoots from the hip- I do, after all, have a soft spot for the gaffe-prone Joe Biden. The question is does the shoot from the hip crowd outnumber the incredulous crowd?
Now I'm in the public sector I think I get 36 days of paid leave a year which works out at a little over 7 weeks. Sick leave allowance is on top of that. Better than what I had in the UK.
On July 10 2015 04:02 KwarK wrote: Now I'm in the public sector I think I get 36 days of paid leave a year which works out at a little over 7 weeks. Sick leave allowance is on top of that. Better than what I had in the UK.
That is sort of the exception, but vacation time is getting better in the US. The business community is slowly turning around on the idea that maybe working everyone 40 hours a week all the time isn't that effective.
On July 10 2015 04:02 KwarK wrote: Now I'm in the public sector I think I get 36 days of paid leave a year which works out at a little over 7 weeks. Sick leave allowance is on top of that. Better than what I had in the UK.
Since this is the politics tread i guess its about mandatory benefits employes get (and public sector is often better off in that anyway)?
On July 10 2015 02:00 Falling wrote: If that's what he meant, Bush used the wrong subject in his sentence. People need to work longer hours is VERY different than businesses need to hire full time workers rather than a whole ton of part time workers. But even in his correction he avoids business as a subject. "People need to stop being part-time workers." Oh? And how does a worker correct that state of being when they were hired on as part-time. . . work another part-time job and still get no benefits (the plain meaning of his first comment) ooooor maybe hiring policy of businesses have something to do with that- particularly very large businesses. (I am, of course, excluding those people who are working part time out of choice.) "they need to be having access to greater opportunities to work" again, where are these opportunities coming from? ...The businesses themselves... or I guess self-employment, but that isn't for everyone.
Listening to that Trump interview with Anderson, do you suppose he'll be the Teflon man. Anderson: Criticism X Trump: People love me, moving on. ? That's not an answer, but it seems to be working. I suspect being under the public eye generally and The Apprentice specifically goes largely in his favour as far as his brash comments (except for incredulous opponents), you know what you are getting is a sort of American Simon Cowell. And while I fall in the incredulous camp, I can see the appeal of someone that shoots from the hip- I do, after all, have a soft spot for the gaffe-prone Joe Biden. The question is does the shoot from the hip crowd outnumber the incredulous crowd?
Trump only appeals to a certain kind of crazy that you find in the Republican primary voting block, which is a small subset of the overall voting block.
First off, I'd be amazed if he won the primary. His policy proposals have zero substance, and even if he is a loudmouthed ass that tries to bully opponents in primary debates, his ignorance of policy matters will show itself in the debates.
Second, even if he does win the primary, then there's no way in hell he'll get anywhere in the general election.
On July 10 2015 02:00 Falling wrote: If that's what he meant, Bush used the wrong subject in his sentence. People need to work longer hours is VERY different than businesses need to hire full time workers rather than a whole ton of part time workers. But even in his correction he avoids business as a subject. "People need to stop being part-time workers." Oh? And how does a worker correct that state of being when they were hired on as part-time. . . work another part-time job and still get no benefits (the plain meaning of his first comment) ooooor maybe hiring policy of businesses have something to do with that- particularly very large businesses. (I am, of course, excluding those people who are working part time out of choice.) "they need to be having access to greater opportunities to work" again, where are these opportunities coming from? ...The businesses themselves... or I guess self-employment, but that isn't for everyone.
Listening to that Trump interview with Anderson, do you suppose he'll be the Teflon man. Anderson: Criticism X Trump: People love me, moving on. ? That's not an answer, but it seems to be working. I suspect being under the public eye generally and The Apprentice specifically goes largely in his favour as far as his brash comments (except for incredulous opponents), you know what you are getting is a sort of American Simon Cowell. And while I fall in the incredulous camp, I can see the appeal of someone that shoots from the hip- I do, after all, have a soft spot for the gaffe-prone Joe Biden. The question is does the shoot from the hip crowd outnumber the incredulous crowd?
Trump only appeals to a certain kind of crazy that you find in the Republican primary voting block, which is a small subset of the overall voting block.
First off, I'd be amazed if he won the primary. His policy proposals have zero substance, and even if he is a loudmouthed ass that tries to bully opponents in primary debates, his ignorance of policy matters will show itself in the debates.
Second, even if he does win the primary, then there's no way in hell he'll get anywhere in the general election.
Well ignorance is kind of the bread and butter of politics. I for one am not underestimating how far Trump can get with 0 understanding of how government functions outside of the domestic business sector and the hate/ignorance filled rhetoric republicans and conservatives have been denying is a significant part of their party for the entire Obama administration.
The guy is a both a birther and in 1st/2nd place for the nomination of the Republican party. I don't know how they are going to keep being able to deny he represents a huge chunk of the party and that his rhetoric is what he means, not the variations the other candidates are rewording and agreeing with.
I kinda hope that Trump wins the republican primary, that would mean that noone would have to worry about "electability" when considering Bernie Sanders, who appears to be the single reasonable presidential candidate the US has had in a long while. His policy apparently consists of fixing a lot of the things that are obviously broken in the US, but which a lot of americans seem to like due to some weird sort of Stockholm syndrome, or don't dare speak against because that would make them unamerican communists.
Does Donald Trump have corporate money behind him (besides his own)? If so, whose? And if not, how far can he get without wooing that money?
The reason I ask is this. Take Jeb. He'll say ridiculous things to make his constituency happy on the one hand, while on the other hand vacuuming up huge sums of money from corporate interests on the promise that he'll be beholden to those interests once elected.
But Trump's asshattery isn't feigned. It's the real deal, and the GOP constituency is clearly picking up on that, which is making him really popular. Can he run a whole campaign on the strength of his own megalomania and his own fortune, ignoring corporate donors and appealing to the people who just want to elect the king asshat? Does Trump need the people that Bush needs, who have gotten used to running the entire party, or can he just hack it on his own merits as a loudmouthed, overbearing, discriminatory, famous millionaire?
It would be funny if the people who are used to running the entire party suddenly realized that the frontrunner didn't even need their advertising cash (and that negative ads won't stick to him) and is literally just in it for his own ego. Of course, he probably wouldn't say no to their cash. Maybe I'm being naive.
So Reince Priebus calls Trump to tell him to tone it down...
Donald Trump remembers that phone call with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus a bit differently.
The Donald took to Twitter on Thursday morning to slam a Washington Post report that Priebus spent nearly an hour on the phone with him this week, during which Priebus told him multiple times to “tone it down.”
“Totally false reporting on my call with @Reince Priebus. He called me, ten minutes, said I hit a ‘nerve’, doing well, end!” Trump wrote.
On July 10 2015 04:02 KwarK wrote: Now I'm in the public sector I think I get 36 days of paid leave a year which works out at a little over 7 weeks. Sick leave allowance is on top of that. Better than what I had in the UK.
And here I am having to fight for 4 days unpaid vacation even though I put it in 6 months in advance.
EPT
