So, having one clown in the oval office making bad decisions makes it ok for a second clown to do the same?

"Democrats: We're not worse than Trump!"

 

maybe this will clear it up:

 

They're going to do everything they can to label conservatism as some sort or supremacy/domestic terrorist thing. They're already preparing stupid people to accept that other races can be "white supremacists" and it you think that's crazy please remember that they've already conditioned stupid people to believe that men have periods too, some men can even birth a child.

 

The National Guard, when functioning under 32 U.S.C. is never subject to the posse comitatus act. 32 U.S.C. means that those Soldiers are "National Guard" status, and not called up to "Regular Army" status (Covered under 10 U.S.C.), typically reserved specifically for the purposes of national defense. Basically, if the guard is under the control of their governor (or, by mutual compact, organized in support of another state's governor), then they are under 32 U.S.C. A noteworthy data point here; I understand that because the District of Columbia is not a state and therefore has no Governor, the President of the United States commands D.C.s National Guard units under 32 U.S.C. as if he were D.C.'s governor; he can also command supporting state's National Guard troops the same as a governor. If this is the case, then even the 180-day rule/restriction would not apply.

Joe P. is correct that Posse Comitatus applies only to the regular Army and Air Force. It's valuable to note that the Army and Air Force Reserve is specifically a "Reserve" of the regular Army and Air Force, and so are bound by the same rules as their full-time brothers in arms.

Next point: Posse Comitatus for use of Soldiers under 10 U.S.C. is explicitly granted to only the President of the United States, which is to say that POTUS has the power to use 10 U.S.C. troops on American Soil anytime he or she deems necessary - this is logical should the U.S. be invaded by a foreign country; otherwise, we would be at the mercy of the National Guard (32 U.S.C.) while the Reserves (10 U.S.C.) and Active Military (10 U.S.C.) sat on their bases and watched it all go down while liberals and conservatives argued on CNN and FOX about whether or not the Army should be allowed to engage the Chinese on American soil (In such a situation, the National Guard would most likely be called to federal service under 10 U.S.C. anyhow).

Source: Active Duty National Guard Title 32 U.S.C. Soldier that deals with educating people about Title 10 / Title 32 U.S.C. issues as a routine part of business specific to my role, and now (temporarily) serving as a Title 10 U.S.C. Soldier in a land far away.

 

Why is she a bad choice? She's more than qualified. Unless you're basing her qualifications strictly on her gender preference.

Honestly, I would expect a MIATA forum to be a little more inclusive.

 

going to?!

 

thanks for the clarification. 30,000 loyalist cant be wrong.

 

 

This is really scary. It's almost like the $15/hr minimum wage people have no idea the effects of raising the minimum wage.
A) this appears to be for Federal minimum wage, not "EVERY JOB IN THE COUNTRY" so people are bound to be disappointed when they read the fine print. Almost like Joe's "$2000 Stimulus checks" turned into "we'll add $1400 to partner with Donald Trump's $600 checks (even though he asked for $2000) to make $2000"

B) If $15/hr were so critical, don't you think the stimulus payments should have been $2,600?

C) At no time EVER has anyone said that Minimum wage must be a "living wage". It is exactly the lowest amount of money you can pay to hire a completely unskilled worker. Additionally, the "Living Wage" phrase is a Liberal Socialist fabrication. Is a living wage for San Francisco the same as a Living wage for Des Moines? Of course not. Minimum wage was supposed to be what you earned on the front end of your career. You were never supposed to move into your own place or save to buy a house on that money. It was supposed to motivate you to gain better skill and move up to the next role or get a new job

D) In any environment where a person earns $7.25/hr, I can guarantee you that there are experienced employees and supervisors that are barely earning $11/hr. To raise one wage means raising them all. Of course, for a Federal job, there is never a worry about budget or profits as they use taxes to pay workers.

E) Let's pretend it's a national $15/hr minimum wage for all businesses. In any business or operation, Payroll is approximately 65% of total COGS. Doubling minimum wage would double the labor cost. How exactly would a business react? By raising prices of course.


Serious question - do you have any evidence that an "armed militia" is attempting to invade the US Capitol or are you just repeating the MSM hybperbole?

 

People start out where i work making $12 an hour. For a highly unskilled position on the production floor. If you can pass a drug test and show up, you can make $12 an hour. There is so much room for growth too. We are currently 30 heads short, working 7 days a week. You can basically make as much money as you want. And yet, the gubment is out here giving money away and extending unemployment.
You can buy a double wide for 20k around here too, so people who are wiling to work do pretty well. I don't even know anyone paying minimum wage. What i can see happening, is facilities like ours will just end up running a 7 day work week with a rotational schedule. Keep everyone under 30 hours and don't give them any health benefits.

Hell, i just hired a kid. 22 years old. Never once turned a wrench. Started out at $16 an hour. If he keeps to it, he could easily be making $24+ in less than 5 years.

 

Here's a mass-dump of videos taken by the mob themselves during the Jan 6 incursion: https://projects.propublica.org/parler-capitol-videos/

Focus on the ones marked "Inside Capitol."

So, we have a large group of people who:

A: Describe themselves as "militia," who
B: Broke into the Capitol build,
C: While armed, and
D: Subsequently occupied and looted it.

Which part of that do you question?

 

C) At no time EVER has anyone said that Minimum wage must be a "living wage". It is exactly the lowest amount of money you can pay to hire a completely unskilled worker. Additionally, the "Living Wage" phrase is a Liberal Socialist fabrication. Is a living wage for San Francisco the same as a Living wage for Des Moines? Of course not. Minimum wage was supposed to be what you earned on the front end of your career. You were never supposed to move into your own place or save to buy a house on that money. It was supposed to motivate you to gain better skill and move up to the next role or get a new job

It's terrifying that you claim this with such passion and conviction, when it's clear you have never read the Fair Labor Standards act of 1938 and could not possibly be more wrong if you tried. Roosevelt said, “In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

“By business I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.”

 

Imagine making business illegal, and then telling the ones special enough to stay open, what they must pay employees.

 

Fear the gun-toting extremist right, they'll leave thier guns at home at break a window with a riot shield, pose for photographers, all while under police escort, then leave.

 

Sir,

I scrolled up a few pages and cannot be 100% sure about who the "she" is you are referring to. Please clarify.

 

Not being uninclusive. Being trans is a mental health issue not saying she isn't capable but we can definitely question her on that alone. Or if it's a "preference" and not a medical disorder we can question and mock because a preference is a choice and not a inherent quality.

 

Diamond Dave is absolutely correct. No matter what the minimum wage is, it will still be the minimum wage. In Virginia the minimum wage is $7.25, and a medium meat pizza is about 10 bucks. If the minimum wage goes to $15, that pizza will be roughly $20. There's an equilibrium between the cost of labor and the cost of stuff. If you raise labor costs, the price of stuff goes up.

What is really terrifying is seeing the grins in dimwitted people's brains when I suggest making the minimum wage $100 per hour. It wouldn't change their lives one bit, but they'd be paying more in taxes.

 

It's still a man...

 

Funny how that happens.

 

None of this even matters. Here's what matters:

X x .585 % wage/salary workers = 81,900,000 wage/salary workers
81,900,000 / .585 = 140,000,000 full time
140,000,000 + 81,900,000 = ~221,900,000 total work force
1,700,000 workers at or below the federal minimum / 221,900,000 twf = 0.0076% of the total working population.

Min wage employees are statistically insignificant.