Don’t see how. She’s had RWs desperate to hunt up any dirt on her for the last 23 years. There can’t be anything left to find. OTOH, there can be plenty more in Trump’s case; he’s been famous for decades but he’s never before come under a national-political-candidate level of scrutiny.
Can’t remember where but I read that Trump supporters actually don’t skew low-income -in fact overall they’re slightly above average income-wise. They skew “angry middle-class whites”, which are not a predominantly Democratic-leaning demographic.
No there aren’t. They’ve been purged. If you are Republican, you have to love guns and hate abortion and gays and want to destroy the safety net.
And this ridiculous characterization is one reason why I wouldn’t be too saddened to see a President Trump. Call it spiteful but the self-righteous and smug on the left need a beating. Electorally of course.
BobLibDem was being slightly reductive but it’s hardly a “ridiculous characterization” to note that the Republicans have placed a great deal of emphasis on ideological purity in recent years (particularly in the context of the rise of the Tea Party), nor to note that guns, gays, abortion and benefit cuts have been key shibboleths in that regard.
Yeah, that shit drove me out, and my first Presidential vote was for Richard Nixon.
Mine was for Bob Dole in the '88 primary*. I wasn’t a Bush I fan then, although these days he looks like a goddamn statesman compared to some of the current crop.
Meanwhile old Bob has recently endorsed in succession Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and now Trump. Third time lucky, Bob!
*I think I ended up voting Dukakis in the general, although I thought he was another Mondalesque milquetoast.
Probably at least people who are working on Govt. payroll (having permanent Govt. jobs) or those supplying to the government, would be doing good.
Government’s revenue in FY15 was 3.25 trillion dollars, overall government debt is around 19.5 trillion. So debt to revenue ratio is 6. IIRC, this ratio is the highest ever in history except during world war 2.
There doesn’t seem to the income equality which is why Trump and Sanders are popular. But at least those having (permanent not contractual) Govt. jobs should be doing well since Govt. seems to be ready to incur infinite debt for their hefty salaries and retirement benefits.
Nobody goes into civil service for the money.
Why? How are the pay n benefits?
Worse than in the private sector, by far, if you’re a professional or white collar position. For blue collar positions and for the less-educated, they do better than the private sector:
To quote Mother Jones:
Please note that things are different in the state, city, and county levels. Pay tends to be lower than Federal pay, though there will be plenty of exceptions to the rule (for example, the City Manager of San Antonio makes 2X what the Pres of the US does… but she makes FAR LESS than what she would be making running a similarly-sized division ($1 billion in revenue) in a multi-national corp.)
So low paying government jobs pay better than low paying private jobs? But low paying private jobs are by far the largest portion of total jobs out there.
And so one can conclude that Govt. Servants are less likely to vote Trump or Bernie than private sector workers?
Then why does the government offer such high salaries and pensions compared to the average joe? That’s the only way someone would choose to do such mind-numbing and antisocial work is if he’s getting rewarded for it.
Those professionals that go after tax dollars want something easy and uncompetitive.
The City Manager of San Antonio would never be considered for a high paying private sector job.
Yeah, but the thing is that sometimes they get home safely. I hang right and I’ve been following the Republican primaries with mounting concern. I just couldn’t believe that Trump was going to get there but the asshole did. Best scenario now for me is for Trump to get his ass kicked by Clinton and the Republicans to reshape and remember what they were once so good at: winning elections.
IIRC some of the countries who come out tops on different ratings like happiness ratings are those were Govt. employs more than 50% of the total workforce.
For all countries including USA, it is only possible when Govt. Job salaries and retirement benefits are less. Only then, they can employ more people.
I like this approach.
Wow. I’m detecting a note of government-hate here, correct me if I’m wrong. What makes you think that working in the public sector is mind-numbing and anti-social? Generally, professionals make more in the private sector, going into the public sector brings lower pay but higher job security and the knowledge that you’re working for the good of the citizens and not some corporation. I don’t know the mayor of San Antonio, perhaps the skills that make one rise in politics are transferable to the public sector, so I disagree with your conclusion.
Huh. I thought it was the parents’ responsibility to feed their children.
Those beliefs about the second amendment are about as genuinely held as his beliefs on abortion.
Bone is probably one of the gun nuttiest gun nuts (at least on this board) and he has voted for Democrats.
The partisan divide on guns is not nearly as strictly enforced as the partisan divide on abortion.
At least the gun nuts are genuflecting to an actual amendment. Which amendment is NARAL genuflecting to?
I dont know about USA but in Govt. jobs here in India, the entry level salaries are nowhere near enviable.
Like in private jobs, the salaries keep increasing with age but the issue is productivity. Govt. Jobs aren’t productive enough. So (in India atleast) Govt. Jobs pay hikes should be close to zero and retirement benefits should be less.
Both my parents are govt. servents. With provident fund and gratuity in retirement, they will be probably in top 2 percentile in India money-wise. Plus the pension and medical insurance. So a HUGE burden on the Govt. So now the Govt now has almost frozen the permanent hiring lol…all contract workers.