Democrats

Gern Blansten · July 29

Grok Musk?

Halifax2TheMax · July 29

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Hey genius, maybe some people could give two fucks if 3% of a particular work group are affected when maybe 97% of those remaining get a much higher minimum wage? Particularly, if 21,700 jobs were added in one month, which is more than the jobs lost. And maybe the sheckster could link to the full research rather than faux’s interpretation? But AI, eh?

This.

Right, his lazy ass commenting, his original one. I found the paper in less than a minute, and looks like you did also.

Jobs added in different industries is not the research sheck presented. It was an attempt by a nonpartisan group to answer a specific question.

you can change the parameters in any debate to shape it how you wish, the only thing proven is that argument is a result of partisan hackery.
Other industries may or may not have anything to do with the minimum wage laws. His argument is pure partisan whataboutism.

I look forward to Gavin Newsom’s opponents pointing out that because he raised the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour, those 3% of an industry sector lost their jobs and the 97% that were left saying, “you want fries with that,” were negatively impacted and their higher wages had no impact on the local economy. Never mind the rest of the minimum wage workers who may have had their wages increased. For sure this will be the reason Gavin won’t be POTUS. Stupid.

Its almost like Faux online content creators ask AI to give examples of “studies” that can be construed to be negative of a dem governor in a dem state, knowing folks like the shekster don’t have the attention span to look beyond the headline and see the bigger picture. Sounds like an AI response that I quoted to boot.

Like we’re getting bi-partisan, unbiased opinion from certain posters and their sources.

Lerxst1992 · July 29

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Hey genius, maybe some people could give two fucks if 3% of a particular work group are affected when maybe 97% of those remaining get a much higher minimum wage? Particularly, if 21,700 jobs were added in one month, which is more than the jobs lost. And maybe the sheckster could link to the full research rather than faux’s interpretation? But AI, eh?

This.

Right, his lazy ass commenting, his original one. I found the paper in less than a minute, and looks like you did also.

Jobs added in different industries is not the research sheck presented. It was an attempt by a nonpartisan group to answer a specific question.

you can change the parameters in any debate to shape it how you wish, the only thing proven is that argument is a result of partisan hackery.
Other industries may or may not have anything to do with the minimum wage laws. His argument is pure partisan whataboutism.

I look forward to Gavin Newsom’s opponents pointing out that because he raised the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour, those 3% of an industry sector lost their jobs and the 97% that were left saying, “you want fries with that,” were negatively impacted and their higher wages had no impact on the local economy. Never mind the rest of the minimum wage workers who may have had their wages increased. For sure this will be the reason Gavin won’t be POTUS. Stupid.

Its almost like Faux online content creators ask AI to give examples of “studies” that can be construed to be negative of a dem governor in a dem state, knowing folks like the shekster don’t have the attention span to look beyond the headline and see the bigger picture. Sounds like an AI response that I quoted to boot.

Like we’re getting bi-partisan, unbiased opinion from certain posters and their sources.

Now that’s a halfway decent point that increased minimum wages will benefit the economy in other ways, not like that milkshake nonsense whataboutism that preceded it. Sheck posted a study from a reputable organization, and it made a decent point comparing an industry in one state to other states. Just because fox posted it is no reason to delve into that partisan hackery. Yeah he got lucky.

and Gavin won’t win because his party is knee deep in a story that will not matter to voters in 2028, does not help those now hurting economically, and has no positive political message for the Dems.

Tim Simmons · July 29

His party is knee deep or the American people are?

I'd argue it would behoove the Dems to chase the stuff that has the public interest.

Tim Simmons · July 29

also its totally wild to hitch your wagon believing that something will definitely happen 3 and a half years from now because YOU are not happy with today. 3.5 years worth of stuff is gonna happen. you can relax if Dems or whoever aren't behaving in the way that will make you happy.

Halifax2TheMax · July 29

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Hey genius, maybe some people could give two fucks if 3% of a particular work group are affected when maybe 97% of those remaining get a much higher minimum wage? Particularly, if 21,700 jobs were added in one month, which is more than the jobs lost. And maybe the sheckster could link to the full research rather than faux’s interpretation? But AI, eh?

This.

Right, his lazy ass commenting, his original one. I found the paper in less than a minute, and looks like you did also.

Jobs added in different industries is not the research sheck presented. It was an attempt by a nonpartisan group to answer a specific question.

you can change the parameters in any debate to shape it how you wish, the only thing proven is that argument is a result of partisan hackery.
Other industries may or may not have anything to do with the minimum wage laws. His argument is pure partisan whataboutism.

I look forward to Gavin Newsom’s opponents pointing out that because he raised the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour, those 3% of an industry sector lost their jobs and the 97% that were left saying, “you want fries with that,” were negatively impacted and their higher wages had no impact on the local economy. Never mind the rest of the minimum wage workers who may have had their wages increased. For sure this will be the reason Gavin won’t be POTUS. Stupid.

Its almost like Faux online content creators ask AI to give examples of “studies” that can be construed to be negative of a dem governor in a dem state, knowing folks like the shekster don’t have the attention span to look beyond the headline and see the bigger picture. Sounds like an AI response that I quoted to boot.

Like we’re getting bi-partisan, unbiased opinion from certain posters and their sources.

Now that’s a halfway decent point that increased minimum wages will benefit the economy in other ways, not like that milkshake nonsense whataboutism that preceded it. Sheck posted a study from a reputable organization, and it made a decent point comparing an industry in one state to other states. Just because fox posted it is no reason to delve into that partisan hackery. Yeah he got lucky.

and Gavin won’t win because his party is knee deep in a story that will not matter to voters in 2028, does not help those now hurting economically, and has no positive political message for the Dems.

For every Faux News story that claims something is so, there are 12 studies that counter the one faux decided to share. How do I know? AI told me.

Because faux posted it is every reason why one should delve into it. It’d be like going through life and only reading the NY Post and thinking you have a solid sense of reality.

Raising the minimum wage is not a positive message? What’s in your pipe? And if it’s not, what is? Oh yea, be more like COOTWH.

Lerxst1992 · July 30

Tim Simmons said:

His party is knee deep or the American people are?

I'd argue it would behoove the Dems to chase the stuff that has the public interest.

We've become them, in a partisan manner

It's just so freaking obvious

Lerxst1992 · July 30

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

shecky said:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/study-shows-californias-20-minimum-wage-hike-cost-state-18000-jobs

Way to go, Gavin! "Would you like some fries with that?"

I thought you were a populist.

OMG! .0009% of employed people in Cali.

That comment shows a lack of ability to do statistics. The real answer is somewhere around 3% of the APPLICABLE population . Three thousand percent error rate. WOW! But hey DEI hasn’t cost you a job yet, so keep at it!

There is help for you tho, please use it before commenting…thanks!

AI Overview
The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

AI Overview
There are over 500,000 fast food workers in California. This figure represents a significant portion of the state's workforce and has led to discussions about the impact of wage increases on the industry

Your assumption is that a person in food service in incapable of doing anything else. So a lost job in food service means that person will not acquire another job in another field. That's a faulty assumption.

What if the loss of job was due to automation? What if the person left the position voluntarily and it was replaced by automation?

I'm no advocate of 20/hr minimum wage for food service workers, but your attack on this is off base and not worthwhile H2M is likely correct (I'm not checking his denominator) when he said "of employed people in Cali". That's not a lack of understanding of statistics, it's a different lens. The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics".

And WTF were you doing with AI here? This appears to be apropos of nothing.  The result of 0.03/0.0009 is approximately 33.33, which is 3333.33%. To calculate the percent error, you would need to compare this result to an accepted or expected value. Without that reference point, it's impossible to determine a percent error.

It really ain’t worth it

The research is literally about FOOD workers. Dems have Become a party of people who refused to read

“Researchers found that the state’s $20 minimum wage fast food hike has cost the fast-food sector 18,000 jobs since it went into effect in April 2024, representing a 3.2% decline in that sector compared to fast-food sectors in other parts of the country.

mr is outright supporting fake news, bc of a refusal to read the research, and accepted Hal’s pure fiction.

It's a different lens he offered, not "fake news". Seriously, what is wrong with you? Both statements can be true. You are showing you don't have any sort of analytical background. And I literally quoted the same thing that you did, but you say that I didn't 'read the research'. Let me quote myself "The article stated clearly that it was 3.2% of the sector, and that's how they chose to evaluate it. It doesn't make H2Ms statement a "lack of ability to do statistics". "

And I still don't know what kind of math you were trying to do later on, ending up with +3k% through some nonsense AI question you asked.

We keep telling you you are going full MAGA and this is yet another example. You're having arguments about right wing think tanks research, completely forgetting that think tanks are typically hired by special interests, and they are easily able to manipulate data based on the desired outcome. And it isn't even lying, it's the base assumptions that they integrate. I feel like you would have remembered this a few years ago, but not anymore evidently.

The entire point of the study…
” The research found that in the year since the bill went into law, California’s fast food employment contracted while fast food employment around the country expanded.”

which has zero to do with his point

Why is he encumbered by the perspective of the think tank? He's actually exercising independent thought.

And to say it has "zero to do with his point" is ridiculous. H2M is making his own point. People aren't tethered to a career in fast food like it's a caste system.

Because he mocked it and changed to topic from fast food workers to total people employed in the state. The study is specific about the ca labor law impact on a specific class of workers. Generally speaking, there are tons of topics within employment, but what shecky posted was a detailed study by a NONPARTISAN reputable org REGARDING A PRECISE AND SPECIFIC TOPIC, not liberal interpretations that support its desires to increase minimum wage, WHICH IS SOMETHING I SUPPORT, I just do not support the absurd hackery that Hal posted to try to discredit the research.

And the entire discussion evolved into many whataboutisms by the band of partisan hackery brothers here, considering other employment factors outside of the study shecky posted. The research, by a nonpartisan org, is attempting to calculate a specific impact of the labor law and this forum goes off into any and every topic, other than the one shecky posted.

Hey genius, maybe some people could give two fucks if 3% of a particular work group are affected when maybe 97% of those remaining get a much higher minimum wage? Particularly, if 21,700 jobs were added in one month, which is more than the jobs lost. And maybe the sheckster could link to the full research rather than faux’s interpretation? But AI, eh?

This.

Right, his lazy ass commenting, his original one. I found the paper in less than a minute, and looks like you did also.

Jobs added in different industries is not the research sheck presented. It was an attempt by a nonpartisan group to answer a specific question.

you can change the parameters in any debate to shape it how you wish, the only thing proven is that argument is a result of partisan hackery.
Other industries may or may not have anything to do with the minimum wage laws. His argument is pure partisan whataboutism.

I look forward to Gavin Newsom’s opponents pointing out that because he raised the minimum wage to $20.00 an hour, those 3% of an industry sector lost their jobs and the 97% that were left saying, “you want fries with that,” were negatively impacted and their higher wages had no impact on the local economy. Never mind the rest of the minimum wage workers who may have had their wages increased. For sure this will be the reason Gavin won’t be POTUS. Stupid.

Its almost like Faux online content creators ask AI to give examples of “studies” that can be construed to be negative of a dem governor in a dem state, knowing folks like the shekster don’t have the attention span to look beyond the headline and see the bigger picture. Sounds like an AI response that I quoted to boot.

Like we’re getting bi-partisan, unbiased opinion from certain posters and their sources.

Now that’s a halfway decent point that increased minimum wages will benefit the economy in other ways, not like that milkshake nonsense whataboutism that preceded it. Sheck posted a study from a reputable organization, and it made a decent point comparing an industry in one state to other states. Just because fox posted it is no reason to delve into that partisan hackery. Yeah he got lucky.

and Gavin won’t win because his party is knee deep in a story that will not matter to voters in 2028, does not help those now hurting economically, and has no positive political message for the Dems.

For every Faux News story that claims something is so, there are 12 studies that counter the one faux decided to share. How do I know? AI told me.

Because faux posted it is every reason why one should delve into it. It’d be like going through life and only reading the NY Post and thinking you have a solid sense of reality.

Raising the minimum wage is not a positive message? What’s in your pipe? And if it’s not, what is? Oh yea, be more like COOTWH.

The dems are knee deep in the epstein story. That's the reference

We are only debating this topic because the other side decided to analyze it

Tim Simmons · July 30

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

His party is knee deep or the American people are?

I'd argue it would behoove the Dems to chase the stuff that has the public interest.

We've become them, in a partisan manner

It's just so freaking obvious

So it’s not an important issue?

gimmesometruth27 · July 30

Tim Simmons said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Tim Simmons said:

His party is knee deep or the American people are?

I'd argue it would behoove the Dems to chase the stuff that has the public interest.

We've become them, in a partisan manner

It's just so freaking obvious

So it’s not an important issue?

ask ai.

Halifax2TheMax · July 30

Can’t fix stupid. Dems go all policy wonky and stupid falls asleep. They only stay awake for litter boxes in classrooms and they’re eating the pets. And Epstein but the Dems shouldn’t hammer COOTWH or Repubs on that because the biggest political scandal of all time needs to be investigated and Dems need to learn from their nice ways of not helping the stupid. Oh, and DEI.

Tim Simmons · July 30

Putting this here for no particular reason. Maybe because it’s says Democrat. IDK. Thread needs a picture anyway.

Gern Blansten · July 31

I keep seeing shit from the right talking about Sweeney driving the left crazy but I'm not seeing anything from the left. I think it's manufactured but I could be wrong.

It just seems odd that I haven't heard anything critical and I listen more to left leaning news.

I prefer more Sweeney.

Tim Simmons · July 31

Yeah. It’s not a real issue. It’s just a jeans ad.

OnWis97 · July 31

Gern Blansten said:

I keep seeing shit from the right talking about Sweeney driving the left crazy but I'm not seeing anything from the left. I think it's manufactured but I could be wrong.

It just seems odd that I haven't heard anything critical and I listen more to left leaning news.

I prefer more Sweeney.

Reminds me of the “outrage” over Vince Vaughn being a Trump fan. This is pre-Elon Twitter…I saw a minimum of 25 tweets complaining about people being upset over this for every tweet actually being upset.

OnWis97 · July 31

PS: I don’t even know what the Sydney Sweeney situation is.

Bentleyspop · July 31

Gern Blansten said:

I keep seeing shit from the right talking about Sweeney driving the left crazy but I'm not seeing anything from the left. I think it's manufactured but I could be wrong.

It just seems odd that I haven't heard anything critical and I listen more to left leaning news.

I prefer more Sweeney.

Supposedly it's about some libs being upset about the AE ads using the term "my blue jeans" and focusing on her blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. And some making a eugenics argument and getting riled up.

More than anything its just more bs, conspiracy theories, dogwhistles, and lies from the rightwingosphere.

Gern Blansten · July 31

Bentleyspop said:

Gern Blansten said:

I keep seeing shit from the right talking about Sweeney driving the left crazy but I'm not seeing anything from the left. I think it's manufactured but I could be wrong.

It just seems odd that I haven't heard anything critical and I listen more to left leaning news.

I prefer more Sweeney.

Supposedly it's about some libs being upset about the AE ads using the term "my blue jeans" and focusing on her blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. And some making a eugenics argument and getting riled up.

More than anything its just more bs, conspiracy theories, dogwhistles, and lies from the rightwingosphere.

Yeah they have to keep "woke" alive to feed their idiot base

Gern Blansten · July 31

Give me Sweeney or give me death

Tim Simmons · July 31

OnWis97 said:

PS: I don’t even know what the Sydney Sweeney situation is.

She made 2 ads for American Eagle about Jeans. Theres a wordplay on Genes and Jeans (The gist being 'I'm attractive because of my Genes and these are the Jeans I wear'). Like 6 people on Twitter freaked out that it was White Nationalist coded (because she mentions blond hair and blue eyes) and because Extreme Right Twitter needed a distraction from the Epstein stuff, they ran with "the Left is outraged". When most people just saw a Jeans ad.

Democrats

Comments

Categories