HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Autumn » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

Autumn

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 22,745

Journal Archives

No he didn't. He came across as Bernie and did quite well. Yes today was just a taste.

Will you be supportive when they do this to Hillary?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251457287 I look forward to your reaction when that happens.

Actually Hillary supports 'them' fighting for it, that's not the same as supporting it being raised

but where did she say $15 is not a magic number? I would think anyone who is concerned about low wages would certainly realize that $15 dollars is much better everywhere than the approximately $9 that is the minimum wage everywhere and would have no problem saying so. That's the right thing to say when you are trying to convince people who are struggling that you are going to fight for them. Of course $15 dollars isn't a living wage everywhere but what the minimum wage is now isn't a living wage anywhere.

Oh and the $9 minimum wage I brought up is off.

Alabama
none

Alaska
$8.75
$9.75 eff. 1-1-16
Indexed annual increases begin Jan. 1, 2017. (2014 ballot measure)
American Samoa
varies 1

Arizona
$8.05

Rate increased annually based on cost of living. (Ballot measure 2006)
Arkansas
$7.50
$8.00 eff. 1-1-16
$8.50 eff. 1-1-17

California
$9.00
$10.00 eff. 1-1-16

Colorado
$8.23

Rate increased or decreased annually based on cost of living (Constitutional amendment 2006)
Connecticut
$9.15 2
$9.60 eff. 1-1-16
$10.10 eff. 1-1-17

Delaware
$8.25

D.C.
$10.50 3
$10.50 eff. 7-1-15
$11.50 eff. 7-1-16
Indexed increases begin July 1, 2017 (2014 legislation)
Florida
$8.05

Annual increase based cost of living. (Constitutional amendment 2004)
Georgia
$5.15
(see notes below)

Guam
$8.25

Hawaii
$7.75
$8.50 eff. 1/1/16
$9.25 eff. 1/1/17
$10.10 eff. 1/1/18

Idaho
$7.25

Illinois
$8.25

Indiana
$7.25

Iowa
$7.25

Kansas
$7.25

Kentucky
$7.25

Louisiana
none

Maine
$7.50 4

Maryland
$8.25
$8.25 eff. 7-1-15
$8.75 eff. 7-1-16
$9.25 eff. 7-1-17
$10.10 eff. 7-1-18

Massachusetts
$9.00 5
$10.00 eff. 1-1-16
$11.00 eff. 1-1-17

Michigan
$8.15
$8.50 eff. 1-1-16
$8.90 eff. 1-1-17
$9.25 eff. 1-1-18
Annual increases take effect Jan. 1, 2019, linked to the CPI. Increases not to exceed 3.5%. (2014 Legislation)
Minnesota
$8.00/$6.50 6
Large Employers:
$9.00 eff. 8-1-15
$9.50 eff. 8-1-16
Small Employers:
$7.25 eff. 8-1-15
$7.75 eff. 8-1-16
Indexed annual increases begin Jan. 1, 2018. (2014 legislation)
Mississippi
none

Missouri
$7.65 7

Minimum wage increased or decreased by cost of living starting Jan. 1, 2008. (2006 ballot measure)
Montana
$8.05/$4.00 8

Increases done annually based on the CPI and effective Jan. 1 of the following year. (2006 ballot measure)
Nebraska
$8.00
$9.00 eff. 1-1-16

Nevada
$8.25/$7.25 9

Increases subject to the federal minimum wage and consumer price index. Increases take effect July 1. (Constitutional amendment 2004/2006).
New Hampshire
repealed by HB 133 (2011)

New Jersey
$8.38

Indexed annual increases based on the CPI, effective Jan. 1, 2014. (Constitutional Amendment 2013)
New Mexico
$7.50

New York
$8.75
$9.00 eff. 12-31-15

North Carolina
$7.25

North Dakota
$7.25

Ohio
$8.10/$7.25 10

Indexed annual increases based on the CPI. (Constitutional amendment 2006)
Oklahoma
$7.25/$2.00 11

Oregon
$9.25

Indexed annual increases based on the CPI, rounded to the nearest five cents. (ballot measure 2002)
Pennsylvania
$7.25

Puerto Rico
$7.25/$5.08 12

Rhode Island
$9.00
$9.60 eff. 1-1-16

South Carolina
none

South Dakota
$8.50

Annual indexed increases begin Jan. 1, 2016. (2014 ballot measure.)
Tennessee
none

Texas
$7.25

Utah
$7.25

Vermont
$9.15
$9.60 eff. 1-1-16
$10.00 eff. 1-1-17
$10.50 eff. 1-1-18
Beginning Jan. 1, 2019, minimum wage increased annually by 5% or the CPI, whichever is smaller; it cannot decrease. Note: Vermont started indexing in 2007. (2014 legislation)
Virgin Islands
$7.25/$4.30 13

Virginia
$7.25

Washington
$9.47

Annual indexed increases began Jan. 1, 2001. (ballot measure 1998)
West Virginia
$8.00
$8.75 eff. 12-31-15

Wisconsin
$7.25

Wyoming
$5.15

Sources: U.S. Dept. of Labor, http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm; and state web sites.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/state-minimum-wage-chart.aspx



With wages like that for many Americans and Hillary Clinton won't commit to a &15 dollar minimum wage. Another Hillary Clinton profile in courage

I'm glad people were kind to you when you posted about the pain in your life.

You sit there in your ivory tower with your healthcare that gave your husband a death with dignity and mock a person posting about a friend crying because she couldn't afford the medical treatment for cancer she needed. The posters Mother, diagnosed with RA, a debilitating painful disease and you have no empathy. Your response to the poster opening up about the pain in their life was disgusting and cold. The poster never said they believe Bernie will change everyone's life for the better overnight, they posted about their support for a candidate that they trust to turn things around for everyone.

Your response to their pain was disgusting and revealing

And as we all know ...

... if Bernie is elected, he will magically change everything overnight, for you and for everyone else.




I'm glad people were kind to you when you posted about the pain in your life.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=450860

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Wow. This is about as low as I've seen here. Using Nance's husband's recent death to bludgeon her in an open post is the single most disgusting thing I have witnessed here. This is hitting WAY below the belt, and this poster should know better. Utterly low, low, low.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jul 16, 2015, 11:29 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Totally out of line. Take a break.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Harsh perhaps, but I see no violation here.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, can't vote to hide this, not without the whole subthread going.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given


Here are some interesting poll numbers matching Bernie against the GOP

We also tested Bernie Sanders against the leading Republicans- he leads Trump 43/39, but trails Bush 40/39, Walker 39/38, and Rubio 40/38. On average Clinton performs a little under 7 points better than Sanders against the top quartet of GOPers in head to head match ups.


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/07/bush-leads-gop-field-in-virginia-but-clinton-ahead-for-general.html

It's early yet but I think in the General he would win over any GOPig . That he trails Bush by 1, I think that's a good indicator. I believe when Hillary gets out and campaigns her numbers will sink. Bernie will continue to rise.

OT but since I see you here I wanted to apologize. You got a hide and I now see it was a bad hide

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110711866

I didn't believe rec circles existed but then I saw this one and I see you were right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110711998

For what it's worth I'm sorry your post was hidden. That's the problem with juries sometimes they don't get the whole truth and someone will get a bogus hide.

As a host in the Bernie Sanders group I can answer that for you.

If a supporter is arguing with other members over stupid crap and can't be civil I have no problem blocking them. If we are getting complaints about a supporter and screen caps where they are recommending posts about other candidates and then later removing their rec and sticking up for their supporters and arguing with Bernie supporters I have no problem blocking them. If a supporter starts shit in our group I have no problem blocking them. They can support Bernie elsewhere on DU if they have a problem adhering to the rules that make our group a safe haven for our other members. They can tell you that they were banned for no reason but that's bulldshit and they are to put it gently, stretching the truth. We don't block a member just because they say something we don't like. They are blocked because they are creating a problem with the other members, we put a lot of thought into it and we know who the problem posters are and we watch them.

You don't need to wonder anymore. Now you know.
And here's what you weren't wondering about.

If a Bernie supporter starts an OP in the Bernie Sanders group trashing another candidates supporters we hosts in the Bernie Sanders group have no problem locking that OP, unlike other candidates groups. If a Member posts a nasty OP smearing another candidate in the Bernie Sanders group we hosts in the Bernie Sanders group have no problem locking that OP. And if a member comes into our group complaining their post was hidden and lying about what they did we hosts in the Bernie Sanders group would have no problem locking that that OP.

Bernie Sanders Has a Secret

Vermont, his son and the hungry early years that made him the surging socialist he is today.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927.html#.VZ_Fcl9Viko

On Wednesday, I sent Michael Briggs, Sanders’ spokesman, an email with a list of questions, including personal questions about the parts of his past that to this point have gone largely unknown or unchecked. Knowing his opinions about the media and recalling the Sweetser incident, I expected at least a lecture.
Sanders has criticized the press his entire political career.
“The question of who decides what’s important and what’s not important is really the most important issue,” he said at a forum on the media in Burlington in 1988, “and the media does not have a habit of focusing on what’s important.”
Something like that.

Briggs called me a little more than an hour after I sent my questions. He said he had talked with Sanders and had answers. He ticked them off one by one.
He told me where Sanders met and married his first wife and how the marriage ended. “She got a Mexican divorce, is what I was told,” Briggs said. He explained the origin of the money Sanders used to buy the Middlesex land and the carpentry he did on the sugar shack. He said Sanders received unemployment, “for a few months,” in 1971, though Sanders can’t remember what the job was that qualified him for the benefits. He told me where Sanders had met Mott and where they lived together. He confirmed she was the mother of Sanders’ son, in spite of previous news accounts. “Whatever has been reported,” he said, “what you have is accurate.”

The last question I had sent him was whether there was anything else he thought I should know.
“Yes,” Briggs said.
“The middle class is collapsing. Income and wealth inequality is greater now than it has been at any point since before the Great Depression. The American people are working longer hours for lower wages, and they’re angry. Those kinds of things, you should know.”


A long read but a fascinating glimpse into the man.

**Bernie Sanders Group Milestone over 20,000 posts**

20,193 to be exact. Way to go!!!

You members make this group rock!

Feel the Bern!

I've had more than enough of the Look at me!!!! OPs. Edited

I've had enough of the I'm doing fine, my economy has recovered, if yours hasn't it's not my problem.
I've had enough of the posters who can't stand another DUer but won't ignore that DUer and attack them over and over in their threads and alert on them instead of being an adult and ignoring that poster.
I've had enough of the lectures at how horrible we are if we express disappointment in politicians and being told that we are haters.
I've had enough of people who think we are stupid enough to think that any single politician or elected official can effect sweeping changes alone. No one here thinks that, it's a fantasy in a few posters minds.
I've had enough of a majority of Democratic voters treated as the enemy because we don't see things the same way as others.
I've had enough of Democrats who disagree with democrats being accused of attacking other Democrats.
I've had enough of people telling people that they don't recognize progressive actions when they occur, even when said actions are in no way progressive and in fact are actually a shit sandwich.
I've had enough of Democrats acting like republicans and being told I should STFU and swallow my anger and get the fuck out there and vote.
I've had more than enough of people who can't look into a mirror and see that they do the same as the one's they are complaining about only in reverse.
I've had enough of being sold out by politicians who seek to pad their own parachute while cutting the cords on ours.
I've had enough of people who say some of us want to kill capitalism, no one here is that stupid, the banks, wall street and corporations who pay no taxes, that's an entirely different matter.
I've had enough of people who like to pretend they are the only people who are smart enough to actually know how things work.
I've had enough of people who hate DU and DUers but won't stay the fuck away from either.
I've had enough of people telling me I have to vote for what doesn't work, if it worked we wouldn't be in tghe shape we are today.

I've had enough and I grow weary of fucking passive aggressive lectures

25 bucks for Bernie is 25 bucks for Bernie!

This OP got Bernie 100 bucks in donations. 25 from Manny and three other posters have told me they will be donating 25 bucks each to Bernie. This OP is a copycat and violates the SOP for GD

45 times Secretary Clinton pushed the trade bill she now opposes

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

Washington (CNN)Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, seems reluctant to take a firm position on an issue dividing her party: whether President Obama should have fast-track trading authority for the immense trade deal he has been negotiating, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With some progressive voters eyeing her with some skepticism, and facing a challenge (such as it is) from candidates on her left, she is being advised to tack in that direction.

President Obama has been pushing hard for the deal, while Democrats in the House of Representatives on Friday revolted and voted against a key part of the legislation. One told me, "there was a very strong concern about the lost jobs and growing income inequality," adding, pointedly: "Ms. Clinton should take notice."

She clearly did. After first dodging the issue, on Sunday in Iowa, Clinton said that "the President should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, who have expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers, to make sure we get the best, strongest deal possible. And if we don't get it, there should be no deal."



Let's turn lemons into lemonade
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »