[SK in CV]

[quote=Rich Toscano]The cost of living goes up every year (even in calendar years 2008 and 2009 the cost of living went up). So if you didn’t get a raise in a given year, your compensation has actually declined.[/quote]

Not exactly. If your pay stays the same, then your pay stays the same. The purchasing power of that compensation goes down. That’s not necessarily the same as a cut in pay.

The thing is, if an employer doesn’t raise prices (or in the case of industries like tech consulting, where rates actually have fallen), then there has been no inflation in value. Should employers in industries similarly situated be obligated to give cost of living raises? Ultimately, market conditions rule. I’m just not convinced there’s any logic to automatic raises, just because another year has passed.

[SK in CV]

I have a question. Your question begs the question (in the classic sense), by presuming that everyone gets a raise every year. In the industry I’ve worked in for more than the last decade, nobody gets a raise every year. Almost everyone’s comp is based on very objective metrics. Bill more, get paid more. Increased technical skills lead to higher billing rate, leads to higher variable compensation.

So my question is, do you think that another year on the job is a good reason for an employer to pay more for the same services? Shouldn’t raises (and compensation in general) be based on more objective measurements, like merit, performance, absolute value, and capped by comparable rates and conditions within the market place?

This presumption that another year on the job is good cause for a raise, absent other measurements, bugs the hell out of me.

[SK in CV]

I think this is a great idea. There are a couple of these that I haven’t ever opened because I either didn’t know what they were about, or I was afraid I did know what they were about.

But wtf is “Week of Feb. 15th”. Today is the 15th. It’s Wednesday. Weeks don’t run from Wednesday to Tuesday. You can have a week beginning on Sunday. That’s how my office does it. You could have a week beginning on Mondays. But Wednesday? Man you’re screwing up the whole calendar. Call it something else. Call it “News from last week”. or “Whats been going on lately”.

To summarize:

Jeremy Lin might be the only Ivy League educated Asian Ron Paul supporting Indian club swinging 4S ranch resident. He should never have been suckered into those high Mello Roos fees.

TGIW

[SK in CV]

I don’t know if this could really qualify as voter fraud, since no election actually took place. It was a non-binding straw poll. There was apparently a completely separate vote to elect delegates who are also not bound to any particular candidate.

I don’t know if there was any tampering. (No, I didn’t watch the video. I have read a few articles about it. I know reading might be a little harder for you, but it goes a lot faster for me, so I don’t do political videos.) I do know that the whole “cancel the meeting cuz there might be a storm coming” is dubious. We’re talking about Maine. In the winter. There is ALWAYS a storm coming. Though they have had a pretty mild winter. No snow on the ground in central-coastal Maine right now, which is unheard of the middle of Feb. The harbors aren’t frozen over. They’re more likely to cancel an indoor meeting because there ISN’T a storm, so they can go snipe hunting or shoot at visitors.

To answer your last question, yes, votes still count. Since this wasn’t really a vote which meant anything, no harm, no foul. Move on to AZ and MI.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]

The other Candidates don’t need to focus on his negatives because the media did it for them. There isn’t much there at all. All you see in the debates is the other retards arguing how they shifted their positions and trying to back pedal. Paul can’t participate because he won’t attack them and they have nothing to attack him about. He’s said the same thing for 30 years.

I don’t understand how going from 10% to 15% in 6 months, literally a 50% increase in your support nationally is range bound. He did it with negative media support. Just because the other supporters will jump behind whoever for the moment, doesn’t mean they are successful getting those temporary votes. The Paul supporters will not leave. They will not vote for the other Obama in sheepskin clothing.[/quote]

Paul has plenty of potential negatives. That you see them as positives differentiates you from non-Ron Paul supporters.

Going to 10% to 15% is no big deal. Look what the other candidates have done in a matter of a few weeks. Gingrich went from below 5% to 30% before he fell. Romney went from below 20% to over 30%. And Santorum just went from an internet punch line to almost 30% practically over night.

Since my earlier post, 3 more national polls came out, with Paul at 7%, 12% and 16%. He has a very strong base of support. And a very low ceiling. But with the way the others are slugging it out, you could be right. 15% won’t be a factor in a national election. It could be a factor at the convention. But so far it looks like the only winner coming out of the Republican primaries is Obama.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]Again the tipping point is at 15-18%. You claim based on the national polls he hasn’t gotten there quite yet, and I guess I have to agree. He hasn’t campaigned in many states and you call 15% a failure with no help from the media?[/quote]

I don’t know that 15% is a failure. I just haven’t seen any indication that he’s going to go any higher than that. I agree that he may have upside, since his campaigning has been limited. On the other hand, none of the other candidates have ever paid much attention to him, so they haven’t campaigned against him either. I’m sure you’ll see it differently, but I think he has at least as much negative as positive going for him that will keep him in the same range he’s been at for the last 6 months.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
He’s right about at the tipping point right now. It’s hard to say if he’s past it with 16% overall, but he’s close.[/quote]

At least two more national polls with Paul at 12% in one and 8% in the other. The 8% appears to be an outlier (Gallup). But the “tipping point” surge appears to have fizzled. Now below 13% on average.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/US/?chart=12USPresRepPR&chart_mode=new

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
Lol, it’s not over if he has 15% of national polls which he will until November. That’s what he needs to continue debating. There is no way he doesn’t run. If he doesn’t run he’ll endorse Gary Johnson and all 15%+ will head over there and Gary is a better speaker and can tweak his message slightly.[/quote]

I’m trying to remember the last time a guy with 15% support came in anything but 3rd place. Thinking….thinking….oh, i know! NEVER!

Good luck with that 15%.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV][quote=markmax33]

How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?

Paul is significantly more popular than all of the rest of the candidates. Delegates = Votes. Just because Romney got Millions of Dollars from a bunch of banks and got a bunch more apathetic voters out, it doesn’t mean he is popular. He is the best of the worst. Note the very low voter turnout even with an extremely unpopular president.

The Romney and Santorum Delegates won’t stand a shot with a majority of Paul supports in the state Caucus votes. Think about it…[/quote]

In this context, I would define popular as people actually voting. You’re attribute importance to Paul votes, but you’re totally dismissive of votes for others. You don’t see that disconnect?
[/quote]

I am not dismissive of the other voters at all. The voters are tricked into the thinking the race is down to Mitt Romney or Obama and the Romney vote is an anti-Obama vote more than a pro-Romney vote. The polling numbers show this on exit surveys and it is in every single state. The low voter turn out shows the same thing.

Here is a poll showing this:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/republican-voters-are-less-satisfied-ever/48064/

I would kill to see a Poll that said asked the question: Did you vote for Romney because you don’t think there is another choice to defeat Obama? I bet the number of poeple that vote yes to that very closely resembles Romney’s vote count.

These voters are tricked into thinking it is the “American way” to go out and vote and the whole time they haven’t realized they have been scammed by the system to vote for the same things: more wars, more welfare, more debt.

Your popularity definition is simply wrong.
[/quote]

The very definition of dismissive. You think Paul voters haven’t been tricked, but all the others have been. Everyone voting for the other candidates are too stupid to understand, but you think only the Paul voters really understand. That IS dismissing them.

The fact that Republican voters are dissatisfied with their choices applies just as much to Paul as it does the other candidates. I understand that Paul doesn’t get the coverage that other’s do. At least he hasn’t before. But with all the debates, all the decent showings in the caucus states, that’s started to change, and he still doesn’t get the surge that every single other Republican candidate has experienced. Perry had a surge. Cain had a surge. Bachmann had a surge. Gingrich had a surge. Santorum had a surge. Paul moved up 5%. Somehow the Republican voters shifted (at least temporarily) in large numbers to other candidates, but never towards Paul.

[quote=markmax33]
[quote=SK in CV]
There isn’t a single nationwide poll that indicates Paul’s popularity exceeds the other remaining candidates. In national polls, on average, he’s still around 15%, and in 3rd place.
[/quote]

Again you are completely wrong. Here is a poll from last week showing he is 2nd nationally for a nationallly well respected poll. He has 21% in this poll. [/quote]

That’s exactly what I said. There isn’t a single poll showing him leading. Second place is the very best. You didn’t actually provide a link showing him at 21%, but what I said was “on average” the national polls show him at 15%. So the 21% poll is cherry picking an outlier poll.

[quote=markmax33]
[quote=SK in CV]
And he’s at the highest he’s ever been. I understand national polling isn’t terribly important in either the primaries or the general, but I’m pretty sure that no candidate has ever won either with 15% support.
[/quote]

It seems interesting he gets much less press for how well he is doing and hasn’t campaigned in many states and he’s still at 21%. If the press was fair you would know that though. Imagine what happens when he gets out to all of the States. 0% to 21% in 4 years with no real help from major media is really good. He’s 8% behind Romney nationally and hasn’t hit many states. [/quote]

I won’t quibble with you on the press. I agree, though I think his coverage has improved. But as covered before, Republican voters are still not flocking to him. You’re impressed with Paul going from 0% to 21% in 4 years. Both Gingrich and Santorum had a bigger increases in less than 4 weeks. He’s 8% behind Romney in ONE poll. An outlier. Romney has more than 2 1/2 times more support on average. (about 30% to 12%) Check pollster, where they aggregate the polls, and show the average of the various polls. That Ipsos poll, btw, has him 5% higher than any other poll has ever had him. No other national poll has had him higher than 16%.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elections/state/US/?chart=12USPresRepPR&chart_mode=new

[quote=markmax33][quote=SK in CV]
A lot of time for things to change, but they’re not trending Paul’s direction. He appears to have hit a ceiling.[/quote]

They said he was at a cieling at 5%, 8%, 10%, 15% and probably eveything inbetween. He gained 5% in one week! Have you ever studied marketing and the tipping point concept? Right at about 15% market pentration, in any market with a very popular product, the sales usually double very quickly. Read this:

http://www.rmmag.com/MGTemplate.cfm?Section=RMMagazine&NavMenuID=128&template=/Magazine/DisplayMagazines.cfm&MGPreview=1&Volume=58&IssueID=360&AID=4431&ShowArticle=1%5B/quote%5D

If he’s reached a tipping point, then the new polls should show it. So far, they haven’t. That 21% poll was a week ago. There have been 5 national polls released since then and they show him with lower support, not higher. If the 6 or 7 national polls that will come out in the next week show him flat, or lower than that 21% then your tipping point theory is dead in the water for now. We’ll see.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
With all the printing and problems with fiat currencies right now? I just don’t see how that’s mathematically possible.[/quote]

Because mathmatically or otherwise, gold doesn’t have significantly more intrinsic value that paper money.

I haven’t read the link to Buffet’s opinion, but I’ve heard him say similar things in the past.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]

How do you define popular? Do a bunch of people who don’t really care about their bad choices but vote anyway count as “popular”?

Paul is significantly more popular than all of the rest of the candidates. Delegates = Votes. Just because Romney got Millions of Dollars from a bunch of banks and got a bunch more apathetic voters out, it doesn’t mean he is popular. He is the best of the worst. Note the very low voter turnout even with an extremely unpopular president.

The Romney and Santorum Delegates won’t stand a shot with a majority of Paul supports in the state Caucus votes. Think about it…[/quote]

In this context, I would define popular as people actually voting. You’re attribute importance to Paul votes, but you’re totally dismissive of votes for others. You don’t see that disconnect? There isn’t a single nationwide poll that indicates Paul’s popularity exceeds the other remaining candidates. In national polls, on average, he’s still around 15%, and in 3rd place. And he’s at the highest he’s ever been. I understand national polling isn’t terribly important in either the primaries or the general, but I’m pretty sure that no candidate has ever won either with 15% support. A lot of time for things to change, but they’re not trending Paul’s direction. He appears to have hit a ceiling.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33]
How is an article with the title “Ron Paul’s Fuzzy Math” even going to be objective?[/quote]

How can an article put out by the Paul campaign, or one of his avowed fanboy supporters going to be objective?

Have any actual evidence that either Santorum or Gingrich delegates will be weak at the state level? Or are you simply relying on hope?

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33][quote=UCGal]Florida was punished for moving up in the order. They had half their delegates taken away. You could argue that hurts Romney and helps Paul. I, personally would argue that it hurts FL GOP voters because their vote counts less.

As far as what is happening in caucus states.. I clearly stated it was LEGAL. I would argue that presenting yourself as a Santorum delegate to the rest of your caucus, with a *secret* intent to vote for Ron Paul at the state convention you are not operating in an above board way…. maybe my standard of ethics is different than others.

I participated in a caucus in WA state in 1992 and was voted to represent my precinct to the next level. I felt an obligation to vote in the intent I was sent to represent (until my candidate dropped out before the next level – then I followed how that candidate pledged publicly when he endorsed the ultimate winner.[/quote]

I strongly disagree. I look at it as a failure of the Santorum voters. It also shows that even though they voted for him, they don’t really care that much. Santorum=Gingrich=Romney=Obama, that’s why nobody cares. They can’t escape the status quo. Ron Paul people are signing up in mass as delegates in every state. The strategy is quite genius. The media is slanted against him and doesn’t give him a chance and then he drives a freight train through the establishment.[/quote]

I don’t think this comment was the least bit responsive.

But I am curious about your freight train. To date, Paul has received just over 11% of the popular vote in the primaries and cacauses completed to date. Romney has received 38%. Gingrich 27%. Santorum almost 19%. So that’s 3 candidates that have all received way more votes than Paul. Is none of that important? Shouldn’t that freight train eventually turn into actual votes? It certainly appears that in big scheme of things, Ron Paul is just not that popular.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
I don’t see why religious organizations have special rights. The law should apply to everybody equally.[/quote]

They don’t have special rights in this regards. SCOTUS said so. More than 20 years ago:

We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

Ironically written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality]
And as a side note, regarding contraception, his flip flop is actually a greater social liberty than his original position. Unless you consider forcing people to do things against their beliefs social liberty.

[/quote]

He didn’t DO anything. Virtually no change. And none whatsoever for patients. It wasn’t a compromise. It was saving face for the Catholic Church. Women employees of Catholic organizations (which are not churchs) get their birth control for free, just like everyone else. The church can claim they’re not paying for it. But it’s a no cost benefit. Insurance companies would rather pay for pills than pregnancy, it’s cheaper. The stupidest controversy ever. It’s been law for years, specifically required in 28 states.

[Author]

Posts