Workers don't exist in that hypothetical scenario, or it is communism which means that workers starve. Pick your poison.
RIP Paul Allen
- Thread starter sglowrider
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Yeah, but you didn't go yet into nasty stuff. Now it is the time to advocate mass murder, I guess.
if we are going to pretend that the options are ruso/sino communism or capitalism then it never left
the major concern of the impending destruction of the climate is going to be the hundreds of millions of climate refugees and when the options are to murder the ownership class who have led the world here or a peasant class who had no hand or choice in the matter i'm going to point the gun at the owners
if you think trump is the peak of the far rights descent then you have not been paying attention, there aren't going to be any levers we can pull or policies we can change that fix the problem while maintaining a largely similar society, if there is going to be a serious attempt to tackle the worst consequences then it needs to happen extremely quickly, but it won't, and when the consequences play out i know which side i'm on
if you think trump is the peak of the far rights descent then you have not been paying attention, there aren't going to be any levers we can pull or policies we can change that fix the problem while maintaining a largely similar society, if there is going to be a serious attempt to tackle the worst consequences then it needs to happen extremely quickly, but it won't, and when the consequences play out i know which side i'm on
Last edited:
Absolute bollocks - and that's just presidential elections, recent mid-terms saw 37% of Americans at the polls. You might also note the staggering discrepancy between people of voting age and registered voters in the US as compared to other nations.
Basically 10% fewer voters rock up at US presidential elections than the OECD average. That equates to 25 million people.
Not sure it warrants the red fonts. I'd argue his point stands there if you are saying the OECD average would be 47%.
Democracy, the rule of the people voting on equal terms for representation in government... and half don't even turn up? And then you have @Silva ranting and raving at the elite, how about people being arsed at all?
In the case of the America the Republican Party elite actively try to defund education and ensure people aren't educated properly to discourage them for voting. When apathy is a problem it's usually down to more than the people themselves. Unless you believe specific groups of people are less genetically inclined to vote than those from other backgrounds or countries.
there being so many non voters in America isn't the fault of individual non voters, it's a result of decades of deliberate disenfranchisement, it would be like having a go at the chicken because a fox got in the coop
I think the CE forum needs a "a billionaire died" thread. They all end the exact same way anyway.
Also, RIP Paul Allen, I hardly knew ya, so I wont pretend to shed a tear.
Also, RIP Paul Allen, I hardly knew ya, so I wont pretend to shed a tear.
What the feck?
Everyone keeps banging on about democracy, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out the way that operates is through exercising your right to vote.
Poor educational standards (christ, what do you leave for the rest of us?) are relevant to the ability to understand the issues and vote effectively, but I don't see how you can keep people in the dark about voting.
I do agree there's more than just people being at fault. Politicians (of any party, once incumbent) don't like anything rocking the boat so all sorts of "barriers to entry" can be erected.
As I said, I'm more for voting being compulsory.
The red font is what automatically happens when you embed a link. From that link we can derive that the average for OECD countries is 65.8 percent. The United States, in a Presidential year, got 55.7% and amassed 37% for the last midterms. That's still at least 25 million people no matter how you cut it.
In reading my post (and presumably missing the link) you also missed the fact that in the vast majority of other OECD countries the gap between eligible voters and people of voting age is quite narrow. Not so in the States where fully 40% of the voting age population isn't eligible to to cast a ballot.
In what world do do you think his point stands?
I obviously missed the link, else I wouldn't wonder why the colouring.
The stats do indeed show a stark difference in the access to voting, but the overall result isn't far off since those registered DO vote while in many other countries the problem seems to be that even if registered they don't show up. Potatoe/potato as far as the original post is concerned. For all we know making it easier to register may not make any difference.
So the billionaires would move to another state and they would get nothing. The state would lose and again the middle class will have to pay more taxes to cover the loss.i have no idea it's the first time i've seen that article
meant to post this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareo...n-tax-fight-versus-gates-family/#3e0deb376aae
Last edited:
Again, as of the last count the overall result represents a shortfall in American voter participation of at least 25 million when compared to its peers. This is so whether access to voting is taken into account or not.
That's a fairly simple and cost effective solution actually. But for the States, Republicans would go ape-shit fighting against it - probably on the grounds of 'socialized voting' removing people's freedom to not vote and how its another example of the tyrannical leftists being the apogee of evil trying to force people to spend 10 minutes every 2 years voting.
I got the 10% relative to an average. Doesn't mean other countries aren't also struggling with turnout, which was the point (he even admitted it was somewhat lower in US).
25 million is a big number but irrelevant. 10% in China is more and in Iceland is a lot less, still 10%.
You can make voting compulsory and still allow for a blank box to be checked or for spoiled ballots.
I wonder who is going to inherit his wealth?
That's how it works in Belgium. It's not the ideal solution though, as there are a lot of feckwits who don't have a clue what they're doing and vote for bad parties "because it can't get any worse than it is now" without even knowing in the slightest what they're talking about.
Compulsory voting should increase the people's participation in politics and national policies but sadly it does not.
We still use envelopes so those feckwits typically insert a printed statement, joke, drawing... We even had a comedian who impersonated various politicians getting '000s of votes a few years back.
Blank and Anulled are ~5% each and typically 10-12% jointly. We've had cases over 20% and those are interpreted as clear discontent.
RIP thread over the death of a Billionaire.... interesting.
The man may have been smart, talented, and a whole host of other things. But he was also a pretty garbage person.
I'm sure as hell not glad that he's dead, but it also doesn't bother me that he is either. I cant comprehend why folks that have never met him would mourn him either.
Disclaimer: He did a lot of cool shit for himself with his money. I would also act like a fun loving asshole if given umpteen billions of dollars. But I would be more than happy for strangers to call me a dick.
You can't possibly be arguing that 10% of 10 people is the same as 10% of 250 million people.....
No, the point was that US turnout was "no big deal" because many European countries only have a "similar or slightly higher" instance of voter participation. When we examine this claim further it turns out that this "similar or slightly higher" gambit leaves the US 26th of 32 OECD countries and 10% below the average. That this equates to 25 million citizens gives a concrete idea of what this "no big deal" looks like when applied to the instance of the US which, after all, is the subject of this discussion.
That you describe other countries with greater voter participation as "struggling with turnout" doesn't seem like an argument that particularly favours the proposition that low voter turnout in the US is "no big deal". Apparently it's considered a concern even in countries where voters participate in greater numbers. It should also be emphasised that half of the US legislature is elected via the midterms and that voter participation in these is even lower (37%). These figures of a 10% deficit and thus a 25 million shortfall actually constitute charitable analysis. If we weighed both equally then we'd be looking at a 19% deficit, equating to over 45 million fewer voters than if the US had bang average voter participation - a level at which other countries can be described as "struggling".
Last edited:
It is, just applies to a different order of magnitude.
You could argue it's easier to close that gap in the first case, sure, but as far as impact on the mandate the elected reps have it's exactly the same and a better guide than what number of people it translates to, which isn't comparable across countries.
I don't agree with the "no big deal" part. It is a big deal regardless of how others fare.
I only pointed out he is right it isn't only a US problem but a wider issue. There's no emphasis in building citizenship, just a constant focus on building your own base to a majority.
Didn't check but wouldn't be surprised if there's a huge correlation between that turnout chart and number of parties. First past the post two party systems are bound to leave no room for alternative viewpoints / independent ideas or issues-based representation.
I used to like them, they give clarity on who is in charge and who is responsible (as opposed to constantly changing coalitions and the inertia they lead to) but we live in a more complex world than we did 30-50 years ago and proportional representation is better at addressing that.
Dude..... They're nothing like the same.
There's no need to compare the USA to China.
[Trusting the already stated numbers here...] 25 million Americans not voting... that's a huge problem.
If the 25 million people was 10% of every demographic then of course that wouldnt move the needle. But there are countless studies to show that the 25 million isn't spread across the entire voting base.
Yeah I'd agree that there's a bunch of reasons for non participation in elections and like you say significant among these is a dearth of options and the fact that your vote carries little weight unless you're in a swing state. 'What the hell's the point of me schlepping 10 miles to the polls to vote for Hillary when I'm a socialist living in Mississippi' has got to have a negative effect on turnout - see Eboue.
I do think, though, that the especially low turnout in the US has a bunch of other contributory factors - closing particular polling places, purging voter rolls, changing the requirements for registering, making the registration process more intimidating, etc. You've got to remember that the 10% fewer people voting hides a multitude of other sins. It's not like the 10% shortfall is evenly distributed across the electorate, rather it effects the poorer to a greater degree, minorities to a greater degree, etc.
There are definitely ways to systemically nudge towards increased voter turnout though none of them perfect. But really the main problem in the US is that one party is actively pursuing every method to suppress voter turnout not increase it.
Every dem controlled state should pass automatic voter registration but I won't hold my breath