US Politics

Sweet Square said:
Oh stop with this liberal moral horse shit.

The recent political events are down to decade longs polices and even long historical trends, no amount of voting for the nice sounding guy in the suit who goes around blowing the legs off little brown kids at wedding receptions will fix the problems of both american and european society, in fact it only intrenches these problems even deeper''If you don't want to talk critically about liberalism then shut up about fascism''. Get a critique of the system that got us here rather than putting hope or blame on the actions of individuals.
Click to expand...

Feel free to critique whoever the feck you want but going into 2016 we all knew the stakes. 1 and potentially 2 sc judges not withstanding.
 
Eboue said:
you have the luxury of looking at politics like it is a game with good people on both sides who just disagree and thinking they ought to follow roberts rules of order. i dont. when republicans and corporate democrats are in power, my family and friends are the ones who suffer. they are the ones whose houses get forclosed on, who lose healthcare, who get fired unfairly, who work long hours with lax safety regulations and never get a raise. they are the ones in flint who still dont have clean water while obama goes off to produce tv shows for netflix. they are the ones who worked their whole lives only to go bankrupt at 50 because their wife got cancer. they are the ones who are disabled and have their benefits cut to the point of homelessness meanwhile the bankers who crashed the economy got a bailout and eric holder did absolutely fecking nothing about it. they are the ones who get lied to by military recruiters and sent off to kill while eric prince sits atop a pile of cash. they are the ones making $36,000 as a teacher and still have to spend $900 on supplies for their underfunded classrooms while betsy devos has ten yachts. you dont get to preach to me about decorum and norms. the message that these people have for me and my friends and family and community is simple: "drop dead". hatred towards them is the least we can do in response. the very least.
Click to expand...
This is n amazing post.

I'd post one of these hell yeah memes, but Im not a 12 year old twitter troll.

Especially the Devos part makes my blood boil.
 
Cal? said:
As I've pointed out numerous times on this page, I have no interest at all in your view. I'm however interested in what others make of it.
Click to expand...

His view is much more realistic than yours seems to be. Shareholders are indeed usually leeches. It’s a fecked up system where short term profit is king. If shareholders can make more money, then they usually don’t give a single feck about the conditions the workers (who are responsible for the actual health of a company) are facing, and the long term effects that can have on productivity and profitability. Why would they care if they can sell their shares and simply reinvest elsewhere if profits start to decline?

That’s without even touching on things like the value of a company being vulnerable to huge change without any matching change in the companies actual assets or profitability.

The system is ridiculous quite frankly, and if 2008 didn’t show you that, then you weren’t watching very carefully.
 
So what happens now with the sexual assault investigation? There appears to be multiple credible allegations so surely the investigation must continue? Or does Ford and whoever need to formally press charges?

On the other side, since the allegations have been so damaging to Kananaugh and his family, surely he would due for defamation, if he is so innocent?
 
Kentonio said:
His view is much more realistic than yours seems to be. Shareholders are indeed usually leeches. It’s a fecked up system where short term profit is king. If shareholders can make more money, then they usually don’t give a single feck about the conditions the workers (who are responsible for the actual health of a company) are facing, and the long term effects that can have on productivity and profitability. Why would they care if they can sell their shares and simply reinvest elsewhere if profits start to decline?

That’s without even touching on things like the value of a company being vulnerable to huge change without any matching change in the companies actual assets or profitability.

The system is ridiculous quite frankly, and if 2008 didn’t show you that, then you weren’t watching very carefully.
Click to expand...
But without the funding provided by "shareholders", a lot of businesses doesn't even get started. The shareholders I am talking about are not only those who speculate on the stock market, but a lot of time, the founder/major shareholders who would care about their company much more than their employees.

Sure the stock market speculators care little for the companies they invest in, but they are still providing funds for the company to expand (IPO or share issue) or invest. Why shouldn't they get their fair share of returns?

How does the market cap of a company changing affect the workers? :confused:
 
Cal? said:
I don't know why you bother with him, it's clear that he's not someone who can be reasoned with.
Click to expand...

Which is true for most people who label themselves 'socialist'. I do agree about John McCain to a degree though. I wouldn't go as far as wishing death on someone but I certainly didn't shed any tears when he passed away. Would be nice though if people on the left would acknowledge that Obama belongs in the same group. The group of imperialist war mongers that is.
 
I'd also argue that the socialist's ideal world is at least a fair one. We're all somewhat equal and the wealth is evenly distributed, whereas a conservatives ideal world is erm, feck poor people, believe in God, never change or adept to anything ever. The whole principle of conservatism is based on is just dumb. It's counter evolutionairy. These people would still be swinging in trees if it werent for progressives.

Conservatives are holding back civilization and should just feck off.
 
KirkDuyt said:
We're all somewhat equal and the wealth is evenly distributed
Click to expand...

Which is achieved by having completely free markets and trade. Neither socialists nor conservatives like that, though. They both like government interference when it suits their agenda.
 
Pagh Wraith said:
Which is achieved by having completely free markets and trade. Neither socialists nor conservatives like that, though. They both like government interference when it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...
In a completely free market the weak will never hve anything though will they? If you have nothing to begin with, how will you ever get anything? We're not created equal and need a government to enforce at least the semblence of equal opportunity.
 
KirkDuyt said:
I'd also argue that the socialist's ideal world is at least a fair one. We're all somewhat equal and the wealth is evenly distributed, whereas a conservatives ideal world is erm, feck poor people, believe in God, never change or adept to anything ever. The whole principle of conservatism is based on is just dumb. It's counter evolutionairy. These people would still be swinging in trees if it werent for progressives.

Conservatives are holding back civilization and should just feck off.
Click to expand...
Why should the wealth be evenly distributed? If someone studies hard until he is on his mid-twenties or so, then builds a startup from scratch with some good idea, works 15 hours per day in doing so, why he should have the same amount of money as some lazy feck who doesn't do anything?

I am all for not having these absurd cases where someone has 150b and his workers don't have enough to eat - which in turn allows the person to actually pay lawmakers to set his policy agenda, allowing him to become even richer in future - but having equally distributed wealth in my opinion is equally harmful. There should be a middle ground, and as I see the politics, it is all about finding it.
 
Cal? said:
But without the funding provided by "shareholders", a lot of businesses doesn't even get started. The shareholders I am talking about are not only those who speculate on the stock market, but a lot of time, the founder/major shareholders who would care about their company much more than their employees.

Sure the stock market speculators care little for the companies they invest in, but they are still providing funds for the company to expand (IPO or share issue) or invest. Why shouldn't they get their fair share of returns?
Click to expand...

When it work well, it can be a win/win for both sides. That requires sensible shareholders who aren’t just in it for quick profit. Unfortunately there’s no guarantee of that being the case.

How does the market cap of a company changing affect the workers? :confused:
Click to expand...

If a company’s value plummets due to a market crash (which may have absolutely nothing to do with that company directly) or due to a deliberate manipulation of a companies stock, then of course that can have a direct and negative impact on workers. Companies can be bought out and asset stripped or put through supposed ‘efficiency drives’ that result in wage cuts/job losses with the sole intention of driving up short term profit without consideration for the long term prospects of the business. It’s happened countless times.
 
Revan said:
Why should the wealth be evenly distributed? If someone studies hard until he is on his mid-twenties or so, then builds a startup from scratch with some good idea, works 15 hours per day in doing so, why he should have the same amount of money as some lazy feck who doesn't do anything?

I am all for not having these absurd cases where someone has 150b and his workers don't have enough to eat - which in turn allows the person to actually pay lawmakers to set his policy agenda, allowing him to become even richer in future - but having equally distributed wealth in my opinion is equally harmful. There should be a middle ground, and as I see the politics, it is all about finding it.
Click to expand...

Revan said:
Maybe those people don't agree with you that their lives will get progressively worse, and actually hold conservative opinions? Just cause you and me are left wing, it doesn't mean that we're right and all the others are morons. That is a very Eboue-ish opinion to hold.
Click to expand...

Good fecking job buddy.
 
Revan said:
Why should the wealth be evenly distributed? If someone studies hard until he is on his mid-twenties or so, then builds a startup from scratch with some good idea, works 15 hours per day in doing so, why he should have the same amount of money as some lazy feck who doesn't do anything?

I am all for not having these absurd cases where someone has 150b and his workers don't have enough to eat - which in turn allows the person to actually pay lawmakers to set his policy agenda, allowing him to become even richer in future - but having equally distributed wealth in my opinion is equally harmful. There should be a middle ground, and as I see the politics, it is all about finding it.
Click to expand...
I said somewhat equally, not completely. I think merit should play a substantial role, but not without end. Also, I'm not a socialist I just sympathise with the ideal.
 
Is there a long history of conflict between @fishfingers15 and other posters?

Because not knowing the back story, I find it pretty irritating how some apparently left-wing posters are berating someone over the voting issue who may be deported from the US, thinking he's worse off with Trump/Reps at the helm than with Clinton/Dems. One telling him to "get a critique of the system".

@Sweet Square
It's practically 1:1 the issue we had in the Kaepernick/Nike thread.
 
Revan said:
Why should the wealth be evenly distributed? If someone studies hard until he is on his mid-twenties or so, then builds a startup from scratch with some good idea, works 15 hours per day in doing so, why he should have the same amount of money as some lazy feck who doesn't do anything?

I am all for not having these absurd cases where someone has 150b and his workers don't have enough to eat - which in turn allows the person to actually pay lawmakers to set his policy agenda, allowing him to become even richer in future - but having equally distributed wealth in my opinion is equally harmful. There should be a middle ground, and as I see the politics, it is all about finding it.
Click to expand...

Completely concur with you.
 
Pagh Wraith said:
Which is true for most people who label themselves 'socialist'. I do agree about John McCain to a degree though. I wouldn't go as far as wishing death on someone but I certainly didn't shed any tears when he passed away. Would be nice though if people on the left would acknowledge that Obama belongs in the same group. The group of imperialist war mongers that is.
Click to expand...
I happen to support Obama’s position on US foreign relationships. It’s not warmongering to keep China in check.
KirkDuyt said:
I'd also argue that the socialist's ideal world is at least a fair one. We're all somewhat equal and the wealth is evenly distributed, whereas a conservatives ideal world is erm, feck poor people, believe in God, never change or adept to anything ever. The whole principle of conservatism is based on is just dumb. It's counter evolutionairy. These people would still be swinging in trees if it werent for progressives.

Conservatives are holding back civilization and should just feck off.
Click to expand...
There’s nothing fair about equal wealth. Why should someone who is smarter, works harder, etc etc have the same as someone who decides to do nothing all life?

I’m all for society providing a safety net in terms of healthcare, education, social security and such. But expectations beyond that is undeserved.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Good fecking job buddy.
Click to expand...
Never said that I am a communist when a surgeon should be as wealthy as a window cleaner.

Equal opportunity, free education, free health, progressive taxes (including extremely large one in super-wealthy), a regulation of house markets when the more houses you buy the more you get taxed, total ban on high frequency trading, total ban on lobbying and politicians to not be allowed to get more than a few hundreds (or even tens) from a person/organization are all policies I strongly support.

Everyone having the same wealth on the other hand ... hell no, that is nuts, and that experiment was played in last century. It didn't end well.
 
Last edited:
Cal? said:
I happen to support Obama’s position on US foreign relationships. It’s not warmongering to keep China in check.

There’s nothing fair about equal wealth. Why should someone who is smarter, works harder, etc etc have the same as someone who decides to do nothing all life?

I’m all for society providing a safety net in terms of healthcare, education, social security and such. But expectations beyond that is undeserved.
Click to expand...
Somewhat equal, somewhat. :)
 
Kentonio said:
When it work well, it can be a win/win for both sides. That requires sensible shareholders who aren’t just in it for quick profit. Unfortunately there’s no guarantee of that being the case.

If a company’s value plummets due to a market crash (which may have absolutely nothing to do with that company directly) or due to a deliberate manipulation of a companies stock, then of course that can have a direct and negative impact on workers. Companies can be bought out and asset stripped or put through supposed ‘efficiency drives’ that result in wage cuts/job losses with the sole intention of driving up short term profit without consideration for the long term prospects of the business. It’s happened countless times.
Click to expand...
So you’re against stock market speculation by not shareholders. I’m totally fine with capital gains tax that increases the cost of speculation. That’s not the same as saying shareholders are leeches.

Again, that has more to do with regulating the stock market than actual shareholders...
 
Revan said:
Why should the wealth be evenly distributed? If someone studies hard until he is on his mid-twenties or so, then builds a startup from scratch with some good idea, works 15 hours per day in doing so, why he should have the same amount of money as some lazy feck who doesn't do anything?

I am all for not having these absurd cases where someone has 150b and his workers don't have enough to eat - which in turn allows the person to actually pay lawmakers to set his policy agenda, allowing him to become even richer in future - but having equally distributed wealth in my opinion is equally harmful. There should be a middle ground, and as I see the politics, it is all about finding it.
Click to expand...

So the only thing stopping the waitress at Denny's from becoming rich is hard work?
 
Revan said:
Never said that I am a communist when a surgeon should be as wealthy as a window cleaner.
Click to expand...

Who said you did?

At the same time you're happily walking around repeating rightwing slogans like the only barriers to success in this world are how hard you're willing to work and that the only reason people are poor are because they're feckless, workshy losers.

You're about as leftwing as Thatcher.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Who said you did?

At the same time you're happily walking around repeating rightwing slogans like the only barriers to success in this world are how hard you're willing to work and that the only reason people are poor are because they're feckless, workshy losers.

You're about as leftwing as Thatcher.
Click to expand...
Edited my previous post to point out the policies I support.
 
Cal? said:
So you’re against stock market speculation by not shareholders. I’m totally fine with capital gains tax that increases the cost of speculation. That’s not the same as saying shareholders are leeches.

Again, that has more to do with regulating the stock market than actual shareholders...
Click to expand...

That would be a great start, but it’s not a complete fix. Even long term shareholder are usually fixated on profit, and getting them to agree to things like reasonable wage increases and rights can be a difficult battle. End of the day companies obviously need funding, but the workers are the ones who actually make the profits that drive the system. It needs to be a balanced system where that is recognized and the rewards of success shared. Otherwise you’re just making the rich richer and the people actually creating that wealth get very little.
 
Kentonio said:
End of the day companies obviously need funding, but the workers are the ones who actually make the profits that drive the system.
Click to expand...
That's not as universally true as it looks on first sight. Most workers are only useful in a large system with other workers and loads of expensive machinery, which is all put in place by the people providing the money (or other workers working on their behalf). Those who can do without either of the two are likely to be self-employed.

Agree with most of the other things you say though. Greedy short-term shareholders are a pest on society.
 
Going off topic here but the FTT the EU is implementing is an interesting idea. Also frankly I think capital gains should be abolished.
 
Completely equal wealth would work if we first lobotomize the human race. We're greedy cnuts who need something to motivate us.
 
Kentonio said:
That would be a great start, but it’s not a complete fix. Even long term shareholder are usually fixated on profit, and getting them to agree to things like reasonable wage increases and rights can be a difficult battle. End of the day companies obviously need funding, but the workers are the ones who actually make the profits that drive the system. It needs to be a balanced system where that is recognized and the rewards of success shared. Otherwise you’re just making the rich richer and the people actually creating that wealth get very little.
Click to expand...
That's the reality of the world we live in. Ultimately, low-skilled workers are easily replaceable and there is no big incentive for the management to increase wage or rights above market level. Obviously there are companies so big like Amazon and Walmart who can bend the market, but ultimately the vast majority of companies pay around the market going rate and that's pretty much determined by supply and demand in the labor market.

I agree that a better balance can and should be found. Scandinavia are doing much more than the US (who are in turn doing much more than China) in this regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.