US Elections 2016

[BruceVC]

Paid vacation is really means that you get less salary for days that you are in work, but you are compensated for it by getting money during your vacation.  This is meant to ensure that people have constantly access to steady income. Paid vacation systems usually also include statutory free days that employers need to give their workers, to ensure that workers don't burn themselves out by doing too much work (this is of course meant to lower number of people that need treatment from public healthcare system and of course higher retirement age).

 

Paid sick days are bit different as they are usually compensated to companies by tax benefits or direct payments from government (although there is sometimes own risk share that both employee and employer share). But main idea behind paid sick days is to ensure health of workforce which will allow them to work longer before they need to retire.

 

So mostly it always comeback to socialistic aspects of economy.

We start on 20 days leave and we get about 15 days sick leave ?

 

But I seldom take sick leave and I take time off when I work overtime so I normally get about 20-30 days leave  

[Calax]

 

Paid vacation is really means that you get less salary for days that you are in work, but you are compensated for it by getting money during your vacation.  This is meant to ensure that people have constantly access to steady income. Paid vacation systems usually also include statutory free days that employers need to give their workers, to ensure that workers don't burn themselves out by doing too much work (this is of course meant to lower number of people that need treatment from public healthcare system and of course higher retirement age).

 

Paid sick days are bit different as they are usually compensated to companies by tax benefits or direct payments from government (although there is sometimes own risk share that both employee and employer share). But main idea behind paid sick days is to ensure health of workforce which will allow them to work longer before they need to retire.

 

So mostly it always comeback to socialistic aspects of economy.

We start on 20 days leave and we get about 15 days sick leave ?

 

But I seldom take sick leave and I take time off when I work overtime so I normally get about 20-30 days leave  

 

To give you context. As a new hire with Hertz I started with 5 days of paid vacation and 5 sick days paid (with five floating holidays). It's based on how long you've been with the company (I bump to 10 vacation on my second year). But at McDonalds etc it's just "oh you want a day off? Hope you can keep your rent going!"

[BruceVC]

 

 

Paid vacation is really means that you get less salary for days that you are in work, but you are compensated for it by getting money during your vacation.  This is meant to ensure that people have constantly access to steady income. Paid vacation systems usually also include statutory free days that employers need to give their workers, to ensure that workers don't burn themselves out by doing too much work (this is of course meant to lower number of people that need treatment from public healthcare system and of course higher retirement age).

 

Paid sick days are bit different as they are usually compensated to companies by tax benefits or direct payments from government (although there is sometimes own risk share that both employee and employer share). But main idea behind paid sick days is to ensure health of workforce which will allow them to work longer before they need to retire.

 

So mostly it always comeback to socialistic aspects of economy.

We start on 20 days leave and we get about 15 days sick leave ?

 

But I seldom take sick leave and I take time off when I work overtime so I normally get about 20-30 days leave  

 

To give you context. As a new hire with Hertz I started with 5 days of paid vacation and 5 sick days paid (with five floating holidays). It's based on how long you've been with the company (I bump to 10 vacation on my second year). But at McDonalds etc it's just "oh you want a day off? Hope you can keep your rent going!"

 

Dude thats really bad IMO?

[Elerond]

 

Paid vacation is really means that you get less salary for days that you are in work, but you are compensated for it by getting money during your vacation.  This is meant to ensure that people have constantly access to steady income. Paid vacation systems usually also include statutory free days that employers need to give their workers, to ensure that workers don't burn themselves out by doing too much work (this is of course meant to lower number of people that need treatment from public healthcare system and of course higher retirement age).

 

Paid sick days are bit different as they are usually compensated to companies by tax benefits or direct payments from government (although there is sometimes own risk share that both employee and employer share). But main idea behind paid sick days is to ensure health of workforce which will allow them to work longer before they need to retire.

 

So mostly it always comeback to socialistic aspects of economy.

We start on 20 days leave and we get about 15 days sick leave ?

 

But I seldom take sick leave and I take time off when I work overtime so I normally get about 20-30 days leave  

 

 

In Finland full time worker typically has 6 weeks (usually divided in two parts 4 weeks and 2 weeks, and amount is negotiated by unions (workers and business)) of paid vacation in year and in theory infinite number of sick days, although after certain number of sick days person goes to get benefits from government instead of salary (mandatory worker insurance or personal healthcare insurance most likely compensates difference depending on why person is sick so much).

Edited April 3, 2016 by Elerond

[Oerwinde]

In Canada we get 2 weeks of paid vacation after a year working a job, 3 weeks after 5 years. How its paid for is we get a % of our wage paid out additionally into a separate total, which is released when we take vacation. Its separate so what we get paid during vacation doesn't contribute to our vacation pay. If we quit or are fired/laid off before taking our vacation, it is paid out in our last check. There are no government mandated sick days. The company I work for gives 8 hours a year in sick time. Since I work 10 hour shifts I get 4/5ths of a sick day per year. They used to offer 3 sick days a year but felt it was being abused. We also have I think 10 statutory holidays, in which we are paid for the day off, or if we have to work it we get paid time and a half plus a paid day off.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Oerwinde

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Paid vacation is really means that you get less salary for days that you are in work, but you are compensated for it by getting money during your vacation.  This is meant to ensure that people have constantly access to steady income. Paid vacation systems usually also include statutory free days that employers need to give their workers, to ensure that workers don't burn themselves out by doing too much work (this is of course meant to lower number of people that need treatment from public healthcare system and of course higher retirement age).

 

Paid sick days are bit different as they are usually compensated to companies by tax benefits or direct payments from government (although there is sometimes own risk share that both employee and employer share). But main idea behind paid sick days is to ensure health of workforce which will allow them to work longer before they need to retire.

 

So mostly it always comeback to socialistic aspects of economy.

We start on 20 days leave and we get about 15 days sick leave ?

 

But I seldom take sick leave and I take time off when I work overtime so I normally get about 20-30 days leave  

 

To give you context. As a new hire with Hertz I started with 5 days of paid vacation and 5 sick days paid (with five floating holidays). It's based on how long you've been with the company (I bump to 10 vacation on my second year). But at McDonalds etc it's just "oh you want a day off? Hope you can keep your rent going!"

 

Dude thats really bad IMO?

 

McDonalds does not consider itself a long term employment option beyond the executive level or franchise owner level. The majority of it's employees are part time and for the most part are young. They are not going to trouble themselves to put up a competitive benefit package for a workforce like that. Nor should they. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Agiel]

 

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/715207444947832832

[Volourn]

"But why should you get dragged into this Trump joke...you actually deserve better ...all GOP supporters do

 

That video about Megyn Kelly will come back to haunt him. Seriously guys, I know some of you say I'm exaggerating but have you ever seen a Republican candidate with such utter contempt for women? He actually find it funny in the beginning

 

We talking about our mothers, wives, daughters, girlfriends etc. "
 

Why do you only feel women are victims. Do you really have no repsect for them? Trump insults EVERYONE yet you cry over him saying mean thuings about women while  ignoring or not making a big deal when he insults a man or men. Why do you hate women so much that you view them as weak and pathetic that they need special protection ala children? Wow.

[BruceVC]

"But why should you get dragged into this Trump joke...you actually deserve better ...all GOP supporters do

 

That video about Megyn Kelly will come back to haunt him. Seriously guys, I know some of you say I'm exaggerating but have you ever seen a Republican candidate with such utter contempt for women? He actually find it funny in the beginning

 

We talking about our mothers, wives, daughters, girlfriends etc. "

 

Why do you only feel women are victims. Do you really have no repsect for them? Trump insults EVERYONE yet you cry over him saying mean thuings about women while  ignoring or not making a big deal when he insults a man or men. Why do you hate women so much that you view them as weak and pathetic that they need special protection ala children? Wow.

He insults people in different ways you right but I am more concerned with his treatment of women as they represent over 50% of the voting base. Priorities Volo.....never forget to priorities 

 

But there are other minorities he has insulted, you need to step up and help out my son. Why dont you go confirm with the Muslims he has insulted? You have a natural affinity with Muslims so they will listen to you ?

[Bartimaeus]

In other news, Nevada has switched to Bernie Sanders as a result of their extremely weird and convoluted caucusing system, and the numbers, which were originally 53%-47% in Clinton's favor, have now swapped to 55%-45% in Bernie's favor. The numbers aren't final, because apparently there's an additional round of the caucus THESE results have to go through, but as it stands, Bernie has somehow gotten more delegates from Nevada with Clinton winning by a 6 point lead than Clinton has.

 

Caucuses are just pants-on-head silly.

 

(e): Had my numbers about the original vote wrong: 53-47, not 55-45. Oops, fixed!

Edited April 3, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Calax]

 

 

 

 

Paid vacation is really means that you get less salary for days that you are in work, but you are compensated for it by getting money during your vacation.  This is meant to ensure that people have constantly access to steady income. Paid vacation systems usually also include statutory free days that employers need to give their workers, to ensure that workers don't burn themselves out by doing too much work (this is of course meant to lower number of people that need treatment from public healthcare system and of course higher retirement age).

 

Paid sick days are bit different as they are usually compensated to companies by tax benefits or direct payments from government (although there is sometimes own risk share that both employee and employer share). But main idea behind paid sick days is to ensure health of workforce which will allow them to work longer before they need to retire.

 

So mostly it always comeback to socialistic aspects of economy.

We start on 20 days leave and we get about 15 days sick leave ?

 

But I seldom take sick leave and I take time off when I work overtime so I normally get about 20-30 days leave  

 

To give you context. As a new hire with Hertz I started with 5 days of paid vacation and 5 sick days paid (with five floating holidays). It's based on how long you've been with the company (I bump to 10 vacation on my second year). But at McDonalds etc it's just "oh you want a day off? Hope you can keep your rent going!"

 

Dude thats really bad IMO?

 

McDonalds does not consider itself a long term employment option beyond the executive level or franchise owner level. The majority of it's employees are part time and for the most part are young. They are not going to trouble themselves to put up a competitive benefit package for a workforce like that. Nor should they. 

 

You'd be surprised. There's actually a pretty good insurance package for the management there, it's just rarely used.

[Wrath of Dagon]

This illustrates perfectly why I don't trust Cruz one bit: http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3302/The-PCE-Pt-15-Charles-C-Foster-Ted-Cruzs-Pro-Amnesty-Money-Man.aspx#.VwBoeDxfqRU.twitter

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Just the stuff he's been saying for the last couple of weeks. And it keeps getting worse: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-dont-change-abortion-laws/

 

That article is a good example of a hit piece by mainstream media. It's an issue that largely does not matter in the context of a Presidential race yet polarizes many people, and takes what Trump says out of context in order to make him look bad to the polarized.

 

Trump is hardly trying to lose. The establishment has been throwing everything it has at him though. The abortion question, especially in contrived form, is a perennial favorite.

 

It's not going to get much traction, and then will fall off. The majority of people stupid enough to fall for this manufactured type of anti-candidate X crap have already fallen for the other manufactured anti-Trump crap.

 

It's a hit Trump performed on himself. It's perfectly reasonable to ask a question about the platform he's running on. And when you can't answer a simple question with a simple standard answer that almost any Republican politician would easily give, you have to ask yourself what's really going on. Moreover, the abortion debate isn't settled as you say. If a Republican wins (seems almost impossible right now, but things happen, like in my sig) he could easily appoint two conservative Supreme Court justices, and then the issue goes back to the states.

 

 

The part where people take what he said out of context is the hit, not what Trump said. Trump didn't take his own words out of context to push a false narrative about himself.

 

Regarding the SCOTUS appointments and Roe v. Wade. Five pro-lifers could be added to the court in the next five years, and Roe v. Wade still more than likely wouldn't be revisited for decades. Other possible cases regarding abortion perhaps might be decided differently than they otherwise would, but the 'right to abort' is not going anywhere via the SCOTUS, not even back to the states, unless of course the five justices added were all states rights folks. That isn't happening. The only candidate that might have nominated some judges that were strongly for the 10th amendment and generally against Federal government overreach was Rand Paul. There isn't a single candidate running right now that will give us SCOTUS justices that will seriously chip away at Federal power. Also, given that it has been the norm for quite some time now to nominate from the pool of Federal judges out there, there aren't even many (if any at this point) judges in that pool that are big 10th amendment fans.

 

The most likely scenario where we'd see the 'right to abort' put back firmly in the hands of the states, would be an Article V Convention initiated by the States where some amendment(s) was/were ratified by the States directly (very unlikely) or indirectly (possible) putting it there. A currently very unlikely scenario that certainly isn't happening anytime soon.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

 

 

This video highlights one of the big issues with Trump, its also one of the most contemporaneous comments he has ever made IMO 

 

He has no respect for the feelings  of women and clearly feels pandering to his supporters in the room who actually cheer and laugh because a women is called " a fat disgusting pig " 

 

And this is the guy who is " going to make the USA great " ......

 

No, this video highlights how stupid some people are in that Megyn asks a question that only morons are going to think is relevant, and is somewhat amusing (the Rosie line was a good one). It's exactly the kind of question that a great many people who aren't morons are beyond sick of, hence the cheering of Trump's response.

 

In addition to the various insults he's thrown various women's (and men's) ways over the years, Donald Trump has also laid lavish praise upon various women (and men), do we hear Donald being accused of thinking that all woman are 'wonderful' (which he has called many), or him being accused of having 'no respect for the feelings of men'? No, because that would be ridiculous. What you propose is no less ridiculous, and actually quite sexist.

 

Insulting one woman/man or one person of a specific ethnicity (especially a deserving one), does not equate to insulting them all. Thinking such is moronic.

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by Valsuelm

[Valsuelm]

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

This video highlights one of the big issues with Trump, its also one of the most contemporaneous comments he has ever made IMO 

 

He has no respect for the feelings  of women and clearly feels pandering to his supporters in the room who actually cheer and laugh because a women is called " a fat disgusting pig " 

 

And this is the guy who is " going to make the USA great " ......

 

No, this video highlights how stupid some people are in that Megyn asks a question that only morons are going to think is relevant, and is somewhat amusing (the Rosie line was a good one). It's exactly the kind of question that a great many people who aren't morons are beyond sick of, hence the cheering of Trump's response.

 

In addition to the various insults he's thrown various women's (and men's) ways over the years, Donald Trump has also laid lavish praise upon various women (and men), do we hear Donald being accused of thinking that all woman are 'wonderful' (which he has called many), or him being accused of having 'no respect for the feelings of men'? No, because that would be ridiculous. What you propose is no less ridiculous, and actually quite sexist.

 

Insulting one woman/man or one person of a specific ethnicity (especially a deserving one), does not equate to insulting them all. Thinking such is moronic.

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

 

Sorry Vals but I showed this video clip and emailed the story to several of my committed feminist friends and they were very annoyed

 

It is sexism and they agree Trumps overall actions were disgraceful....and trust me they women so they would know better than either of us 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

[Valsuelm]

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

 

Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

 

Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No.

 

 

 

If you can't even understand why that'd be unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem, I'm not gonna waste time on advanced concepts like "what's sexism".

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

 

Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No.

 

 

 

If you can't even understand why that'd be unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem, I'm not gonna waste time on advanced concepts like "what's sexism".

 

 

Your vocabulary is lacking if you think it's "unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem".

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

 

Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No.

 

 

 

If you can't even understand why that'd be unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem, I'm not gonna waste time on advanced concepts like "what's sexism".

 

alu I cannot believe ANYONE would try to dispute this is not sexist 

 

Vals must be trolling us? But I know sexism also bothers you....doesnt this particular video just irritate you. Whats worse about it is what message is it sending the rest of the world who would thinlk " sexism doesn't exist in the USA  "  

 

But the story gets even better, after this debate Trump refused to attend the next Fox News debate….he basically said “Megyn Kelly was unfair to him and she is a third rate journalist “ ….and this is the guy who wants to   “ make the USA great again “ , he cant even  handle the scrutiny of a women or having to actually  admit he is wrong to a  women ?  Seriously….

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVNVY343FXY

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

 

Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No.

 

 

 

If you can't even understand why that'd be unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem, I'm not gonna waste time on advanced concepts like "what's sexism".

 

 

Your vocabulary is lacking if you think it's "unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem".

 

Vals you are embarrassing yourself now ....please lets just move on

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

 

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

 

Arguably ad hominem? Yes. Fundamentally sexist? No.

 

 

 

If you can't even understand why that'd be unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem, I'm not gonna waste time on advanced concepts like "what's sexism".

 

 

Your vocabulary is lacking if you think it's "unequivocally and without a shade of doubt an ad hominem".

 

Vals you are embarrassing yourself now ....please lets just move on

 

 

Embarrassing myself? No.

 

Perhaps I'm wasting my time though in attempting to point out reality to a couple folks who lack in vocabulary and somehow think that ad hominems directed at a specific woman is necessarily sexist, and even somehow indicates a lack of respect for all women everywhere.

 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Embarrassing myself? No.

 

Perhaps I'm wasting my time though in attempting to point out reality to a couple folks who lack in vocabulary and somehow think that ad hominems directed at a specific woman is necessarily sexist, and even somehow indicates a lack of respect for all women everywhere.

 

 

 

 

Well, given that you're attributing claims to me that I blatantly did not make (the bolded part), you possibly may. And since you used plural, it's kind of obvious that you meant Bruce and me (or possibly Bruce and a bunch of imaginary enemies lurking around who happen to believe the thing you accuse them of believing and also read this topic).

 

The jab against my "vocabulary" is kind of funny in light of the level of reading comprehension you just demonstrated, though.

[Guard Dog]

 

Some women are 'fat disgusting pigs', so are some men, but not all of either are. You can insert just about any positive or negative adjective(s) you want for 'fat disgusting pigs' and the previous sentence still holds true.

 

I have a hard time imagining any context in which calling someone a "fat disgusting pig" is a value-neutral statement of fact instead of the nasty ad hominem it is. And attacking a woman's looks instead of their viewpoints is fundamentally sexist.

 

 I figured sooner or later you and I would agree on something!