(03-11-2017, 03:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Congress has certain authority with regards to the POTUS, but do they have the ability to codify any of the traditions that have existed? We can't really be certain at this point. It would likely require a constitutional amendment, but that would not likely happen.

The issue is that it seems like abuse of power because your ethical code would lead you to that conclusion, as it would for many other people. The problem is that there is nothing by law that would be an issue for many of these things. Just about everyone agrees with the position that it would be an abuse of power, but that doesn't really mean anything until the next election comes around and people voice their opinions. Of course, that doesn't even mean it will make a difference at that point, either.

(03-13-2017, 12:19 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Clearly you haven't looked at the US debt or stepped foot on a military base during the past two decades.

(03-12-2017, 08:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: I know a bunch about pure alt-right supporters (never forget, we Austrians more or less are patient zero) and mainly see them as lost causes. Fortunately they are not the complete voter base, though. And no matter how different you look at things than bfine (and michaelsean, MikeM, JustWinBaby and some others I now forget), I guess you need to give them a bit more credit - like I do. Say what you want, but bfine is not getting his infos solely from Breitbart and I guess doesn't take Alex Jones seriously. Those people are plainly too intelligent for that. Denying that and throwing everyone in one alt-right pot isn't helpful, it just deepens the trenches and more and more "moderates" (meaning not alt-rightist Bannon fans) get lost.

(03-12-2017, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 4) You have no idea if Obama ordered him to be wire-tapped or not nor do you have an accurate count of voter fraud

(03-13-2017, 02:16 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think I am throwing all this forum's Trump defenders in the same alt-right pot. E.g., I don't regard Justwin as a Trump supporter at all, just someone who takes a rightist view of economics.

(03-13-2017, 02:16 AM)Dill Wrote: If Trump takes Breitbart and Infowars more seriously than his own intel services, and if, after that, Trump supporters still take him seriously, then the issue is not really whether they actually read Breitbart and Infowars or read it at all, or have other sources.

(03-13-2017, 03:17 AM)Dill Wrote: I have never seen the phrase "accurate count" is stretched so far out of whack as here.

There is very little voter fraud in the U.S.--less than 200 incidents nationwide in the last twenty years, and 33 Republican governors will sign off on that claim, based on recorded investigations and court records.

But Trump claims 3,000,000-5,000,000 fraudulent votes were cast in the last election. With no evidence, no intent to investigate.

I don't really need an "accurate count of voter fraud" to judge Trump's claim a wild exaggeration, horrifically bad judgment.  But you are comfortable with the unsupported claim. You won't say it's not possible, that he is lying or unstable or both. You are keeping an "open mind."

Same for "no idea" above. The president of the US cannot order a wire tap on a citizen. If there WERE evidence of wire-tapping it would have been a gift for Trump, a massive vindication, and the biggest blot on the Obama presidency. Trump could have made three phone calls to settle the wire tapping issue, but he has not, or he has chosen not to tweet the answer.

So I do have an idea whether Obama ordered a wire tap.

(03-13-2017, 12:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote:

(03-12-2017, 02:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: Mentoring a 70-year-oold life-long narcissist that, if any, only listens to Bannon.. hmm. Cool project. But whatever.

I said it once already, replacing Obama with Trump is like replacing Marvin Lewis with me. Sure, I might not know anything about coaching a football team, I will take colossal losses, draft crappy players and throw some fits against my predecessor and the world itself afterwards, but hey - new style! Just call it refreshing. And I can learn on the job and get better, as long as Bengals fans refrain from demanding my dismissal, don't buy into the fake results and stay open-minded and constructive. Who knows, in 8 years I might even win a game. Or two, if you don't grow tired of so much winning.
So why not give me a shot?

(03-12-2017, 03:19 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Fake info Griever
That was stopped in December a month before Trump took office

(03-13-2017, 09:27 AM)Griever Wrote: yeah it was stopped in courth because they knew the trump admin would do away with it and side with the states that wanted it stopped since trump thinks people are paid too much now anyways

(03-13-2017, 10:26 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Maybe one day you and others will figure out raising the minimum wage or changing OT pay rules will not equate to higher income net gain due to the costs rising on the consumer side. I figured out a long time ago if I wanted higher wages to be the best worker, always on time and present and loyal. That is how you go from close to minimum wage to 100K a year within 15 years.

Minimum wage is entry wages to start the learning process. Once in the door almost every company has opportunities to advance if one is motivated.

(03-13-2017, 10:26 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Maybe one day you and others will figure out raising the minimum wage or changing OT pay rules will not equate to higher income net gain due to the costs rising on the consumer side. I figured out a long time ago if I wanted higher wages to be the best worker, always on time and present and loyal. That is how you go from close to minimum wage to 100K a year within 15 years.

Minimum wage is entry wages to start the learning process. Once in the door almost every company has opportunities to advance if one is motivated.

(03-13-2017, 12:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Does anyone work or has worked for an employer who is loyal to them?

For me, the answer is no.

(03-13-2017, 12:14 PM)Benton Wrote: And that's got nothing to do with it.

OT pay rules get abused horribly in my industry. I figured out a long time ago, it doesn't matter if you're on time or present or loyal, they're going to work you 50-60 hours and pay you for salary for a flat 40. Don't like it? Pick a different industry. Which is what many folks did 10-15 years ago, and most do after being in it a decade or so. Usually it's around that point that if you aren't at a gray lady or at least an editor, you realize there's not much point in working for 2/3's of a check.

I don't know what industry you're in. But fewer and fewer companies care about whether or not you're on time and present and loyal. What they want is someone who works cheap. Cheap cheap cheap. Cheaper you work, bigger their bottom line. Bigger their bottom line, more inclined they are to let you stay.

Personally, I'm against a minimum wage increase. But OT laws definitely need to be fixed. And loopholes that allow companies to defer taxes and propagate a system where it's easy to not keep profits tethered to wages.

(03-13-2017, 01:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have never been involved with OT, so my question is, is who said you are being paid for a flat 40?  Is there usually an agreement that says you generally shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours?  don't new lawyers at a law firm work like 70-80 hour weeks?

(03-13-2017, 01:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have never been involved with OT, so my question is, is who said you are being paid for a flat 40?  Is there usually an agreement that says you generally shouldn't have to work more than 40 hours?  don't new lawyers at a law firm work like 70-80 hour weeks?

(03-13-2017, 02:00 PM)Benton Wrote: You're paid at a weekly salary which determines the hourly rate. Say (because the math is easy) $20 an hour is what your base salary (hourly wage times hours worked) is.

So if you work 40 hours, that's $800. Likewise, if you work $80 hours, it's $800. And if you work 20 hours, it's $800. When you do payroll you're paying someone for that 40 hour FTE.

As far as working more, that depends on the business. Used to some businesses offered comp time to salary workers. You work 60 hours one week, you only work 20 the next. But I think that's pretty well been abandoned as more businesses have fewer employees to take up that slack. 

In the above, if you're regularly working 80 hours, you're really just making $10 an hour. Less considering overtime laws.

(03-13-2017, 08:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I thought you liked Obama.

(03-12-2017, 11:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That is some bend over backward logic. 

(03-13-2017, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: It looks like there has been a massive shift in voter ethics in this election, as in ethics don't really matter the way they used to, or if they do they matter selectively. For some groups, it matters if the other party's candidate lies or generates the appearance of conflicting interests, but not their own.

You think that only an Amendment, not a Congressional Act could put more requirements on a presidential candidacy or secure more disclosure/divestment regarding business interests? The War Powers Act curtailed presidential power a bit without an Amendment. Congress has he power of the purse, which can curtail crazy projects like the wall, but it would be ineffective against random disruptions of treaties and public tweets undermining the intel and other government agencies.

It is a confusing/distressing situation. One can imagine many ways in which a Trump tweet storm could damage national interest and even cost lives. And if the damage is severe enough, Congress could be prompted to act. But it is impossible to prevent the abuse before it happens.

(03-13-2017, 12:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote:

(03-13-2017, 04:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And yet we still account for 30% of the worldwide military spending.