• jimbolauski
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have no idea why you are so afraid to post the quote.

      • jimbolauski
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        You didn’t post proof, you posted a link you claim is proof but you can’t seem to quote which part is proof.

        There are two possible reasons, one you are incredibly lazy, or two you know there is nothing to support your claim and decided to take claim some moral high ground as to why you won’t post the quote.

          • jimbolauski
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            More excuses. I did review it, which is why I trying to figure out what you think proves your point but you’re too lazy or scared to post it.

              • jimbolauski
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                It stated FDR choose to support a minimum wage bill of 0.25 over a 0.40 bill. That’s probably one of those pesky facts that you don’t want to post because it doesn’t support your position.

                  • jimbolauski
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    That single data point does not define the intent of the minimum wage itself. This is on you to prove

                    That single data point is one more from that article than you provided.

                    Oh, also that article explains the 0.25 amount was a compromise wage to give the people something because Republicans wouldn’t support an actual living wage.

                    You show your ignorance again the article does not say that. The only time the article mentions Republican opposition they then cite what the opposition was for.

                    Many representatives had told her that they agreed with the principles of the bill but that they objected to a five-man wage board with broad powers.

                    See that’s how you provide a quote that way both people know what is being referenced.

                    So even if you are right, it’s the Republican’s fault.

                    The democrats had 334 of the 435 seats in the house and 77 Senate seats in 1938 the Republicans could not block anything. Do you ever wonder why every claim you make is so easily refuted?