Donald Trump running for president

thebigt said:
I apply the same logic here that I applied to deciding against capital punishment...better to see someone's gun rights be exploited than to see some crazy shoot up another school.


sometimes the greater good is what drives my thinking, not always but in certain cases.
Click to expand...

Maybe its that exploitation that is allowing these crazies to shoot up another school in the first place. After all, schools are gun free zones. People in schools cant defend themselves and the shooter knows that.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Bail reform is already a hot topic. Adding in guns, even as temporary suspension, could be a really bad thing. I think it could be a good idea, but there is a huge potential for abuse there.
Click to expand...

this is 2018...there is huge potential for abuse everywhere, lol. the law would need to be crafted very carefully and still clever lawyers would find loopholes, but this is true for every law.
 
thebigt said:
21st amendment.


ok...if someone commits a violent crime and is given a bail hearing, is gun ownership even a subject that is questioned-I will give you the answer-no it is not....how about making bail for certain violent crimes conditional to temporary suspension of gun ownership.
Click to expand...

I would personally be ok with that depending on the nature of the charge. I think if your on bail perhaps mandatory ankle bracelets would be ok too until trail is done with.

Then again, if the nature of the charge is that bad with clear definitive evidence, maybe we should reform bail laws and also expedite trials quickly as promised by the Constitution.
 
ax1 said:
Maybe its that exploitation that is allowing these crazies to shoot up another school in the first place. After all, schools are gun free zones. People in schools cant defend themselves and the shooter knows that.
Click to expand...

maybe at least try to take guns out of the hands of crazies? banks have armed guards and they still get robbed...just sayin
 
ax1 said:
Maybe its that exploitation that is allowing these crazies to shoot up another school in the first place. After all, schools are gun free zones. People in schools cant defend themselves and the shooter knows that.
Click to expand...

The shooters aren't typically thinking it through like that, at least not most of these mass ones. There's been shootings on military bases too (not everybody is carrying, but there is armed security). Dallas dude went directly at cops.
 
ax1 said:
I would personally be ok with that depending on the nature of the charge. I think if your on bail perhaps mandatory ankle bracelets would be ok too until trail is done with.

Then again, if the nature of the charge is that bad with clear definitive evidence, maybe we should reform bail laws and also expedite trials quickly as promised by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

many counties are already in violation of judges rulings on overcrowding, it is going to get worse before it gets better...what is really bad is all the plea agreements being made, many convicted violent offenders getting much lighter sentences than should be-even repeat offenders....so bail reform is going to be a tough road to plow.
 
thebigt said:
maybe at least try to take guns out of the hands of crazies? banks have armed guards and they still get robbed...just sayin
Click to expand...

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to the government its hard for me to compromise that, the effects are too brutal long term for the people.
 
thebigt said:
many counties are already in violation of judges rulings on overcrowding, it is going to get worse before it gets better...what is really bad is all the plea agreements being made, many convicted violent offenders getting much lighter sentences than should be-even repeat offenders....so bail reform is going to be a tough road to plow.
Click to expand...

I dont think we will ever have a perfect system, but I sure still love it here more that I do in China, lol
 
thebigt said:
maybe at least try to take guns out of the hands of crazies? banks have armed guards and they still get robbed...just sayin
Click to expand...

Ill add this, if a "crazy" is making real threats, I do consider threats a crime and a great reason for a judge to rule to take away gun privileges.
 
ax1 said:
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to the government its hard for me to compromise that, the effects are too brutal long term for the people.
Click to expand...

except Kavanaugh, lol....just kidding, alek!!!

I understand where you are coming from...there is no easy way out.
 
thebigt said:
except Kavanaugh, lol....just kidding, alek!!!

I understand where you are coming from...there is no easy way out.
Click to expand...

Oh boy lol. He was innocent then and he's innocent now. I still think there were too many questions left unanswered as to his integrity on other matters, but there's never going to be a perfect justice. You should look into cash bail reform. Since you sided with the dirty liberals on capital punishment, you might find some of the issues interesting.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Oh boy lol. He was innocent then and he's innocent now. I still think there were too many questions left unanswered as to his integrity on other matters, but there's never going to be a perfect justice. You should look into cash bail reform. Since you sided with the dirty liberals on capital punishment, you might find some of the issues interesting.
Click to expand...

I see there has been another shooting...aurora, Illinois.

this shyt is madness, back in the day we had a beef we duked it out, day later we were friends.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Mass shootings are always going to exist unless guns are magically banished from this world. That's just reality and I'm not saying new laws will stop all. I'm asking because I honestly don't remember and currently trying to get a job done too so couldn't do a search, but were his arrests ever made into felony convictions? Otherwise, they couldn't do anything then either. If somebody is simply the town ******* or crazy dude, they still have constitutional rights no matter how many times they get pulled in for minor stuff.
Click to expand...
If they’re the town crazy dude with arrests and an FBI tip from a family member, they should be looked into more. I’m pretty sure they had ample time and just ignored it.
 
thebigt said:
I see there has been another shooting...aurora, Illinois.

this shyt is madness, back in the day we had a beef we duked it out, day later we were friends.
Click to expand...
Yet overall gun violence is down. You’re statistically less likely to be killed by a gun now than you were decades ago. That mass shootings are horribly tragic and make headlines, but one-off shootings don’t always, but they are much, much more common than mass shootings. So things aren’t quite as doom and gloom as they may seem. You’re statistically safer today than you were decades ago.

But yeah, mental health is a major issue hat needs addressing for sure.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
If they’re the town crazy dude with arrests and an FBI tip from a family member, they should be looked into more. I’m pretty sure they had ample time and just ignored it.
Click to expand...

I am sure this happens a lot more than we are aware of...you know, you make some valid points...it isn't gun laws that need to be changed, it is the lack of enforcement of existing laws that needs to be changed.

well some laws do need an update.
 
thebigt said:
I see there has been another shooting...aurora, Illinois.

this shyt is madness, back in the day we had a beef we duked it out, day later we were friends.
Click to expand...

All in all considering our 300 million population, if you do the math it is almost impossible to be shot in this country unless you live in Chiraq of course.

Now as far as back in the day goes, how did they do it in the wild west? Lol
 
muscleupcrohn said:
If they’re the town crazy dude with arrests and an FBI tip from a family member, they should be looked into more. I’m pretty sure they had ample time and just ignored it.
Click to expand...

I'll give them all the time in the world. If they don't have felonies, but a million tips, what are the cops supposed to do? Getting pulled in for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct isn't enough.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I'll give them all the time in the world. If they don't have felonies, but a million tips, what are the cops supposed to do? Getting pulled in for disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct isn't enough.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t just disturbing the peace, and it wasn’t just one tip to the FBI.
Invalid Link Removed
By 2013, according to that list, the calls to the deputies began detailing more violence. In November of that year, Lynda said she was thrown against a wall because she took away an Xbox gaming system. In November 2014, deputies report Cruz used a BB gun to shoot a chicken.
Click to expand...
By early 2016, deputies were called after a neighbor's son saw a disturbing Instagram post that seemed to suggest Cruz "planned to shoot up the school." At the time, deputies concluded that Cruz owned knives and a BB gun. They passed along that information to a school resource officer at Stoneman Douglas, but it is not clear whether any other steps were taken.
Click to expand...
In a separate call to 911, Deschamps told the dispatcher that she was afraid Cruz would come back to the house with a gun and that he demonstrated violent behavior in the past.

"He put the gun on the head of his brother before. So, it's not the first time. And he did that to his mom. It's not the first time he's put a gun on somebody's head," Deschamps said on the 911 recordings.
Click to expand...
The Florida Department of Children and Families became involved with Cruz in late 2016 after he began cutting himself and posting images of the self-harm on Snapchat.
Click to expand...
In addition to reports made to both the Broward and Palm Beach sheriff's offices, the FBI was also notified about Cruz.

The first tip came in September when a Mississippi bail bondsman, who also makes YouTube videos, alerted the FBI that someone left a disturbing message in the comments section of a video that read: "Im going to be a professional school shooter."
Click to expand...
The bureau received a second tip on Jan. 5, weeks before Cruz allegedly carried out the shooting at Stoneman Douglas. The caller, who the FBI said was a person close to the suspect, warned that Cruz had a "desire to kill people" and worried about "the potential of him conducting a school shooting."

Days after the shooting, the FBI said that "protocols were not followed" and that information should have been forwarded to the Miami field office.
Click to expand...
 
How you can read any of that and say that he wasn’t a danger to himself AND others is beyond me. Like I said, the FBI admitted they messed up. There was more than enough evidence.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
How you can read any of that and say that he wasn’t a danger to himself AND others is beyond me. Like I said, the FBI admitted they messed up. There was more than enough evidence.
Click to expand...

Dont forget, when you get to the scene of a active school children shooting HIDE!!!
 
ax1 said:
Dont forget, when you get to the scene of a active school children shooting HIDE!!!
Click to expand...
Go look up some of Sheriff Israel’s interviews. He’s absolutely insane. Here are some highlights:
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, you know, O.J. Simpson would still be in the record books.
Click to expand...
What have I done differently than Don Shula or Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Gandhi?
Click to expand...
And apparently he put his face on police cars at one point?
Invalid Link Removed
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Go look up some of Sheriff Israel’s interviews. He’s absolutely insane. Here are some highlights:


And apparently he put his face on police cars at one point?
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Damn, if anyone needs to be disarmed without proper due process I couldnt find a more perfect and fitting candidate!
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Are you talking to me?
Click to expand...
I’m saying that if you read all of those reports you shouldn’t come to the conclusion that someone shouldn’t have at least investigated things further with him. The FBI admitted to dropping the ball, and there are clear and verifiable instances of him being a danger to himself, and making threats about the crime he would later commit. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater, and you certainly can’t say you’ll shoot up a school online and not have that warrant some investigation. The two of those things together should have been warning signs, and he probably should have been mentally evaluated.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
It wasn’t just disturbing the peace, and it wasn’t just one tip to the FBI.
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

First, we're talking hypothetical about the town crazy person and now you're jumping back to somebody specific. If you want to talk about that person, fine, but don't put words in my mouth and act like I was doing so. Second, fine there were allegations and more than one tip. I will ask the question again since you keep ignoring it yet call out people for ignoring your questions: what were the FBI or local police supposed to do? Nobody ever stepped up to press charges against him, so what legal grounds would they have to take his guns other than he was an *******?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I’m saying that if you read all of those reports you shouldn’t come to the conclusion that someone shouldn’t have at least investigated things further with him. The FBI admitted to dropping the ball, and there are clear and verifiable instances of him being a danger to himself, and making threats about the crime he would later commit. You can’t yell fire in a movie theater, and you certainly can’t say you’ll shoot up a school online and not have that warrant some investigation. The two of those things together should have been warning signs, and he probably should have been mentally evaluated.
Click to expand...

When did I say he shouldn't have been looked into further. When did I say he wasn't a danger to himself and others? This conversation is coming from the statement that Trump made about taking guns first and I'm saying he still had constitutional rights to have guns unless he had a felony. And even with a felony there are loopholes.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
First, we're talking hypothetical about the town crazy person and now you're jumping back to somebody specific. If you want to talk about that person, fine, but don't put words in my mouth and act like I was doing so. Second, fine there were allegations and more than one tip. I will ask the question again since you keep ignoring it yet call out people for ignoring your questions: what were the FBI or local police supposed to do? Nobody ever stepped up to press charges against him, so what legal grounds would they have to take his guns other than he was an *******?
Click to expand...
I was talking about this one instance, as I had mentioned it before. The FBI admitted they should have forwarded the tips to their Miami location. They would have then considered further action. He also was clearly a threat to himself and others, as verified by social media posts on both accounts of self harm and threats to commit mass murder. He should have been given a mental health evaluation, which it’s pretty clear he would not have passed. Why that did not happen I do not know. I fully admit that not all mass shootings could be prevented, but this is one instance where the local PD and the FBI did nothing despite multiple red flags that would have warranted bringing him in for a psych evaluation and some questioning about his online threats.

I fully agree that the random town ******* who gets police calls regularly but is never convicted of a felony and has one tip should not have his rights taken away, but this instance goes orders of magnitude above that. Multiple verifiable red flags showing he was a threat to himself and others, including explicit threats to commit mass murder.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you, I was only talking about this instance, and you have fair points about the general rule as you mentioned. But this instance is the exception to the rule I suppose; you couldn’t think of more evidence and red flags if you tried.
 
I’m not saying they should have immediately taken his guns, only that they should have brought him for a mental evaluation and for questioning on his explicit threats to commit mass murder. I highly doubt he would have done to well in either of those interviews, and I doubt he would have just been sent home no questions asked.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
When did I say he shouldn't have been looked into further. When did I say he wasn't a danger to himself and others? This conversation is coming from the statement that Trump made about taking guns first and I'm saying he still had constitutional rights to have guns unless he had a felony. And even with a felony there are loopholes.
Click to expand...
I’m saying that they had more than sufficient time to investigate him and his threats and perform a mental health evaluation and then go through the legal process to take his guns.

This is off topic, I admit that, as there WAS plenty of time AND evidence to go through due process if someone did their job right, so it’s my mistake for bringing it up.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I’m not saying they should have immediately taken his guns, only that they should have brought him for a mental evaluation and for questioning on his explicit threats to commit mass murder. I highly doubt he would have done to well in either of those interviews, and I doubt he would have just been sent home no questions asked.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, but the cops can't just keep you for very long without charging you with something. I'm not saying the FBI and locals didn't drop the ball on what they could do because they did. I'm simply saying that unless his family or neighbors were going to step forward and press charges, there's not a lot that can be done and that's the million dollar question. Do you take his guns and/or lock him up and completely disregard the Constitution? He'd end up bankrupting that town with a lawsuit and would get his guns back and still be a psycho. Or do you respect the Constitution and let the shooting happen? Cops and feds don't have the resources to follow every person who says such brutal things online and there are a lot of those people, I would argue even at this piece of crap's level. There are white supremacist sites like Stormfront (and ones a little harder to find) where people talk quite openly about killing groups of people or individuals and some have followed through. I'd love nothing more than to bury each one of them, but as far as legal options go, there's not a lot that can be done.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
If you threaten to commit mass murder online, no guns for you. New law.
Click to expand...

That would go to the Supreme Court for the 1st and 2nd amendment violations. It's a really complicated issue, but like you said, there are exceptions to free speech. I think they could try making a case for conspiracy since a lot of people get caught and tossed in jail for that before actually committing a crime, but it's not cut and dry.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I agree with all of that, but the cops can't just keep you for very long without charging you with something. I'm not saying the FBI and locals didn't drop the ball on what they could do because they did. I'm simply saying that unless his family or neighbors were going to step forward and press charges, there's not a lot that can be done and that's the million dollar question. Do you take his guns and/or lock him up and completely disregard the Constitution? He'd end up bankrupting that town with a lawsuit and would get his guns back and still be a psycho. Or do you respect the Constitution and let the shooting happen? Cops and feds don't have the resources to follow every person who says such brutal things online and there are a lot of those people, I would argue even at this piece of crap's level. There are white supremacist sites like Stormfront (and ones a little harder to find) where people talk quite openly about killing groups of people or individuals and some have followed through. I'd love nothing more than to bury each one of them, but as far as legal options go, there's not a lot that can be done.
Click to expand...
He almost certainly would not have passed a mental health evaluation. If someone is a clear and demonstrated danger to themselves and others, no one needs to press charges, they can be Baker Acted. There was more than sufficient evidence to go through due process after that, as I can all but guarantee he wouldn’t have passed even a basics mental health evaluation. And not every person who threatens mass murder online also has videos of self harm and tips from family members about killing too. This guy was the trifecta. But he’s such a rare case of extremes and multiple government agencies dropped the ball, so I don’t think it even warrants policy discussion much. My bad for harping on it so much. And I’m not a big pharma guy, but maybe he needed to be on some meds that could have mahbe prevented it? We have a major mental health problem, and sometimes medicine works wonders for mental health issues.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
That would go to the Supreme Court for the 1st and 2nd amendment violations. It's a really complicated issue, but like you said, there are exceptions to free speech. I think they could try making a case for conspiracy since a lot of people get caught and tossed in jail for that before actually committing a crime, but it's not cut and dry.
Click to expand...

Need to correct myself. Conspiracy is agreement between two people, so at least in this guy's case, it couldn't have been used.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
That would go to the Supreme Court for the 1st and 2nd amendment violations. It's a really complicated issue, but like you said, there are exceptions to free speech. I think they could try making a case for conspiracy since a lot of people get caught and tossed in jail for that before actually committing a crime, but it's not cut and dry.
Click to expand...
It’d still require an investigation and due process, that’s fine. The secret service and/or FBI investigated Eminem for threatening Bush in a song for crying out loud. But to do nothing about someone making multiple threats to commit mass murder is NOT the right answer.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Need to correct myself. Conspiracy is agreement between two people, so at least in this guy's case, it couldn't have been used.
Click to expand...
I knew what you meant. They may have been able to get him on intent if he bought a gun after making the threat for example. Even if he bought ammo after making the threat too.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
He almost certainly would not have passed a mental health evaluation. If someone is a clear and demonstrated danger to themselves and others, no one needs to press charges, they can be Baker Acted. There was more than sufficient evidence to go through due process after that, as I can all but guarantee he wouldn’t have passed even a basics mental health evaluation. And not every person who threatens mass murder online also has videos of self harm and tips from family members about killing too. This guy was the trifecta. But he’s such a rare case of extremes and multiple government agencies dropped the ball, so I don’t think it even warrants policy discussion much. My bad for harping on it so much. And I’m not a big pharma guy, but maybe he needed to be on some meds that could have mahbe prevented it? We have a major mental health problem, and sometimes medicine works wonders for mental health issues.
Click to expand...

He would have gone in for the first 72 hour hold, but I don't know if he was showing enough symptoms for the criteria that gets him in there indefinitely. I found one article that states this "The largest intake center, Gracepoint in Tampa, processes more than 1,000 Baker Act patients each month." With constant cuts to mental health services, those counselors have to be stretched thin, so it's possible to simply make a bad call and it sounds like that happened more than once. Again, there are a lot of angry people online who happen to own guns that won't go out and commit a crime like this.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He would have gone in for the first 72 hour hold, but I don't know if he was showing enough symptoms for the criteria that gets him in there indefinitely. I found one article that states this "The largest intake center, Gracepoint in Tampa, processes more than 1,000 Baker Act patients each month." With constant cuts to mental health services, those counselors have to be stretched thin, so it's possible to simply make a bad call and it sounds like that happened more than once. Again, there are a lot of angry people online who happen to own guns that won't go out and commit a crime like this.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if he would have been released after 72 hours given that he both self harmed and threatened mass murder, and did both publicly online. I doubt he doesn’t throw off red flags left and right when being questioned by professionals. Angry online isn’t the same as threatening a very specific type of mass murder. And I’m not saying he hypothetically couldn’t have been released after 72 hours, only that these possibilities don’t mean that doing nothing at all was the right answer.

Anyway, I think we’ve beat this dead horse enough. I agree Trump’s idea without due process is bad and dangerous, but we should try to identify when to pursue due process better, and our mental health system needs major improvements.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I don’t know if he would have been released after 72 hours given that he both self harmed and threatened mass murder, and did both publicly online. I doubt he doesn’t throw off red flags left and right when being questioned by professionals. Angry online isn’t the same as threatening a very specific type of mass murder. And I’m not saying he hypothetically couldn’t have been released after 72 hours, only that these possibilities don’t mean that doing nothing at all was the right answer.

Anyway, I think we’ve beat this dead horse enough. I agree Trump’s idea without due process is bad and dangerous, but we should try to identify when to pursue due process better, and our mental health system needs major improvements.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sick of hearing it's a mental health issue but we'll also be cutting mental health services too.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I knew what you meant. They may have been able to get him on intent if he bought a gun after making the threat for example. Even if he bought ammo after making the threat too.
Click to expand...

My tin foil is on, it at the point where I think the deep state allowed this to happen.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
He would have gone in for the first 72 hour hold, but I don't know if he was showing enough symptoms for the criteria that gets him in there indefinitely. I found one article that states this "The largest intake center, Gracepoint in Tampa, processes more than 1,000 Baker Act patients each month." With constant cuts to mental health services, those counselors have to be stretched thin, so it's possible to simply make a bad call and it sounds like that happened more than once. Again, there are a lot of angry people online who happen to own guns that won't go out and commit a crime like this.
Click to expand...

Im not a lawyer and dont have advanced knowledge about law, but Isnt a threat for violence enough to punish him with a crime? He would just be thrown in the slammer....not a life sentence of course but at least until his trial comes and take it from there. In the meantime there would be plenty of time in jail to evaluate him.

I guess your saying threats are so common online they dont feel like doing anything about these things or they simply cant keep up although this specific case it seems there is a admitting of fault.
 
ax1 said:
My tin foil is on, it at the point where I think the deep state allowed this to happen.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard that too. I’m not saying I believe it of course, but I’ve heard it. Sometimes conspiracy is easier to buy than gross incompetence by multiple government agencies.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I’ve heard that too. I’m not saying I believe it of course, but I’ve heard it. Sometimes conspiracy is easier to buy than gross incompetence by multiple government agencies.
Click to expand...

Also, its easy for a very select few on top to take advantage and manipulate the gross incompetence by multiple government agencies.

Im not saying I definitely believe it either in this specific case, but I always stick up agaisnt the persecution of asking questions especially when documents such as Operation Northwoods exist.
 
ax1 said:
Also, its easy for a very select few on top to take advantage and manipulate the gross incompetence by multiple government agencies.

Im not saying I definitely believe it either in this specific case, but I always stick up agaisnt the persecution of asking questions especially when documents such as Operation Northwoods exist.
Click to expand...
Yeah, when I first learned about that was a shock. Fortunately America was founded on the basis of a general mistrust, or at least weariness, of government.
 
ax1 said:
Im not a lawyer and dont have advanced knowledge about law, but Isnt a threat for violence enough to punish him with a crime? He would just be thrown in the slammer....not a life sentence of course but at least until his trial comes and take it from there. In the meantime there would be plenty of time in jail to evaluate him.

I guess your saying threats are so common online they dont feel like doing anything about these things or they simply cant keep up although this specific case it seems there is a admitting of fault.
Click to expand...

Looks like Florida makes it a felony if sent through email or posted online somewhere Invalid Link Removed . That's since 2011 so would have covered him too, but nobody wanted to do anything apparently.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yeah, when I first learned about that was a shock. Fortunately America was founded on the basis of a general mistrust, or at least weariness, of government.
Click to expand...

exactly why we have 2nd amendment...

as I open my mind to see things from both sides it is becoming more difficult to make up my mind where I stand on many issues I used to think were cut and dry...


cold hearted orb that rules the night,

removes the colours from our sight,

red is grey and yellow white,

but we decide which is right.

and which is an illusion?
 
IMG_3108.JPG


Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
View attachment 179617

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Honest question. If minimum wage goes up from $10 to $15, what happens to people making $15? Does the supervisor or assistant manager now make the same as the new worker who has less responsibility? Or does the $15 also get bumped up to $20? But now the assistant manager now makes the same as the manager? Does he go up to $25? Now we just have inflation, no? And any savings you have are now worth less.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Honest question. If minimum wage goes up from $10 to $15, what happens to people making $15? Does the supervisor or assistant manager now make the same as the new worker who has less responsibility? Or does the $15 also get bumped up to $20? But now the assistant manager now makes the same as the manager? Does he go up to $25? Now we just have inflation, no? And any savings you have are now worth less.
Click to expand...

You can find out now as it already is $15 in NYC
In New York City, it is $13.50 per hour for businesses with 10 or fewer employees, and $15.00 per hour for businesses with 11 or more employees.Invalid Link Removed

The rest of the state is $11.10 where in Long Island its $12.

The rest New York State will go up to $12.50 by 2020 and there on will go up to $15 from there on.

* Annual increases for the rest of the state will continue until the rate reaches $15 minimum wage (and $10 tipped wage). Starting 2021, the annual increases will be published by the Commissioner of Labor on or before October 1.
Invalid Link Removed

Tipped jobs such as waiters used to make $2, and thats going up to $10, thats pretty dramatic.

Ill tell you this, the price of everything has already gone up. Its not the only reason but Im positive it is contributing to this.

There are no laws giving people who already were making $15 a raise....so I dunno how this is fair and just, I think its going to devalue incentives for people to work in more responsible positions unless people are significantly getting raises all across the board.

Personally, I think the hour wage as a whole is dumb crap....why should someone who works twice as hard as another get the same exact salary? The most productive and rewarding jobs I ever had were paid for the actual work rather than putting a price on time.

They want to give everybody free college here too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top