Total posts: 4,222
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Trump has pointed out historically low black unemployment, criminal "justice" reform, seems he's not very good at being a racist.
trump has a very long history of racism. he is very, very good at it.
Low unemployment is a result of a booming economy which he inherited at the start of his term. That has little, if anything, to do with trump. Certainly nothing to do with his racism.
Trump has a history of fighting against criminal justice reform. He was a supporter of stop and frisk, a deeply racist policy. He brought back the federal death penalty (which is disproportionately used on people of color). You are arguing that turmp signed 1 piece of legislation, that he had no part in writing, so that means he isn't racist. That is some very weak evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Trump is insensitive, a braggart, exaggerator etc This is not the same as the stupid things Biden has said and says. The fact that Biden doesn't catch what he says until much after the fact should be alarming to everyone. To misspeak and immediately or quickly correct it is one thing, but it sure seems someone has to point it out to Biden since the apology/correction comes much much later.
No, trump's are much worse. He goes on long nonsensical rants about complete idiocy. He says things that are completely untrue. lots of these are just lies of course, but lots of them are just so stupid that it doesn't even make any sense for him to be lying about it. Like telling people to use bleach internally to cure corona. Or telling people to use an unproven medication that doctors are telling people not to take. Or saying that testing doesn't work because "one day the test can be negative and the next day it comes up positive". He literally doesn't understand what testing is for. the list goes on and on and on.
Biden says stupid shit. His mind is clearly starting to go. But Trump is equal parts liar, crazy and an imbecile.
IMO the stuff Trump says which I don't like, 90% + he knows full and well what he is saying but doesn't care. Biden, however doesn't know what he is saying.
I agree that trump knows what he is saying most of the time (although he usually doesn't know much, if anything, about the topic he is talking about). But the things he is saying are incredibly stupid and often incredibly dangerous. Biden's mind might be slipping, but he doesn't tell people to take poison, or compliment white supremacists, or ask if he can nuke a hurricane. Not to mention that Trump has purged anyone from his administration who might challenge any of the stupid things he says and does. So there is no one with a working brain (and a spine) left to try to stop the train wreck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I believe what Joe Biden said, Trust the man, Joe Biden is going to beat Joe Biden
I don't believe joe biden has that power. Trump has gotten people so used to politicians saying insane, stupid things. By comparison, nothing Biden can do will make him look worse than trump. He would have to try REALLY hard to say something more insane or more stupid than trump has said. Therefore it isn't likely to be a relevant factor in most people's choice.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
exactly, the democrats have always assumed they had total control over a certain demographic and those votes were guaranteed no matter what they did, didn't do, say or not say. The thought that blacks would think for themselves and not vote democrat is repugnant to Biden.
I actually totally agree with you.
super predator, hot sauce the list goes on and on, why the majority still vote for them I just don't understand.
it's because the republicans are worse. Many are fairly blatantly racist (trump as a case in point). The democrats don't do much to help black people, but they don't tend to go out of their way to hurt them either. Republicans tend to go out of their way to hurt black people. Often that isn't their intention, but it is the outcome of their actions.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Rape is rape and racism and racism. It says a lot about your morals if you’d consider supporting it.
Rape and racism are terrible things. Ideally a candidate would be available who was neither a rapist or a racist. Unfortunately we find ourselves in a situation where both likely candidates are rapists and racists. One of them is far more racist and has many, many more accusations of sexual assault. so if we are to take the degree of the offense into account, there is no contest. Biden is the lesser evil.
But also there is the fact that Trump is a corrupt, petulant, man-child who has no ability to do the job he was elected to do and has surrounded himself with a cast of corrupt, useless, suck-ups. Biden would be a bad president. But trump is a horrible one. While I certainly wouldn't want to have to support evil, there is no good or even objectively neutral choice available.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not only that, the Conservative party does not encourage censorship and thoughtcrimes. That's the other party.
You're kidding right? The trumpists allow no dissent. For god's sake, if fox news publishes a single poll that doesn't proclaim Trump winning by a landslide, trump goes on rants about how horrible they are to him even though 99.9% of their coverage is disgustingly fawning of him.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Why are you even here dude? Just to say Trump bad. The conversation is about Joe right now, not Trump. Fact is Joe Biden is a racist regardless of whether Trump is a racist or not lol
I believe my previous point said that quite explicitly. Are you so fragile that you can't take it when someone agrees with you unless they also engage in vapid, meaningless, adoration of a man baby who happens to have been elected president?
I confirmed Biden is racist. Trump happens to be much more racist. So when offered an option between the greater evil or the lesser evil, most will choose the lesser.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I'm not going to defend joe biden. He is a bad candidate and he would be a bad president. But he would still be better than the train wreck of president that's there now.You already said you’re not gonna vote for Joe. Stop talking if you’re not even supporting Joe
lol so the only point of view you accept is someone who defends to the death a bad candidate? That makes perfect sense coming from a trumpist.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that that is all that will matter to a large chunk of the population.yeah, if you don't vote for him you aint...fill in the blank.
I'm not going to defend joe biden. He is a bad candidate and he would be a bad president. But he would still be better than the train wreck of president that's there now.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But this wasn't racist at all. This was Sleepy - where am I Jill? - Joe believing he could get on down and speak the speak of the black man. It was banter. Only a blind man buried six foot under could miss that this was clearly intended as a parting joke.
I don't think it was racism in the sense of "I hate black people" but it absolutely is racist in the sense that Biden assumes that Black people HAVE to vote for him. They don't have a choice. He can't even imagine a scenario in which black people wouldn't support him. It is a systemic problem in the democratic party. He doesn't see them as individuals who might vote for a candidate who will fight for their interests. He sees them as black, therefore they will vote democrat or they aren't black.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If Biden says this on live television at a debate, it’s over for him. Trump will destroy him at the debates.
nah, trump has created a situation where the opponent is irrelevant. As long as biden has a pulse and is less evil than trump (which he definitely is) that that is all that will matter to a large chunk of the population. In the same way trump got elected by being a terrible candidate (and terrible person), Biden can now do the same.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The subject is not concerned with "influence" though is it? It is about P_O_W_E_R. Stop moving the goalposts and the trying to build an argument about what you say instead of what the OP ACTUALLY and clearly states.
influence is power. If you have the ability to get people to do things, that is power.
You mentioned a religious figure head as being the "most powerful". I would consider the leader of the whole Muslim faith to be much more powerful.
Is there a single leader of the Muslim faith similar to the Pope? To my knowledge there is not since the end of the caliphate in 1924. But I admit I'm not an expert on Islam.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Promises Made. Promises Kept.
lol, he promised to make deals. he made no deals. but your TDS makes you see that as a promise kept... somehow.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
“Bend a little” means passing a liberal wishlist and nothing more.
lol of course it means giving the other side some of the things they want. That is how politics works. The fact that trump doesn't know that shows how stupid he is.
Compromise defeats your whole purpose of claiming oh they were ineffective even when they controlled HoR and Senate. 8 Democrats don’t grow on trees
trump didn't accomplish very much. That is, by definition, ineffectiveness. If he were effective, he would have accomplished things. He ran on being a negotiator, a deal maker. He said he would get things done and make deals to "make america great again". Then he got elected, managed to make no deals because he doesn't actually know how to do that. He knows how to screw people over, slander them and then sue them. Those skills are not very useful as president though.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ever heard of a filibuster?
I have, what is your point? He was offered deals by the democrats. All he had to do what bend a little on issues he didn't actually care about and he could have gotten stuff done. Certainly not everything he wanted, but at least decent chunks of it. He chose throw tantrums and act like a giant man baby and ended up accomplishing very little.
Created:
Trump may be president, but he has proven he doesn't actually know how to use that power. He is so stupid that he just ends up thrashing in random directions accomplishing very little other than corruption and infighting. That is why he couldn't accomplish anything meaningful in the 1st 2 years of his presidency while the republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency.
So while a smart person in charge of the US right now might conceivably be the most powerful person in the world. Because trump is also an idiot, he very much is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
I wasn't familiar with the term and had to look it up. But basically, it is a way for right wingers in america to completely dismiss the left. If you can equate the left with being nazi's (who are far to the right) then you can dismiss them and all their "crazy" ideas (like giving people healthcare) without having to actually think about them very hard.
But the bottom line is that the world is far, far more complicated that terms like "left" and "right" can capture. Take the establishment dems for example. Economically they are actually right wing. But on token social issues, the go to the left so that they seem "progressive". So are they left or right? Neither terms particularly describes them well.
Created:
-->
@Nemiroff
Biden will get destroyed by trump in debates and general PR. He lacks trumps charisma, and lacks the focus and genuiness of bernie/pete/warren. He was a poor choice.
I agree, Biden will get wrecked in debates and PR. But I think his fundamental problem is deeper than that.
His campaign is making many of the exact same strategy errors hilary clinton made. He is a running a "trump bad" kind of campaign. Making the campaign about the morality and character of the 2 candidates is a horrible idea. Joe has a long record of doing shitty things. His family has a record of using Joe's office to make money. He now has sexual assault allegations too. He is not a man whose morality and character is above reproach. While he isn't as bad as trump, a moral argument where one is is a little less horrible, is not a strong argument.
Given then he has virtually no ideas to actually help people (like warren or sanders have) to convince them to vote for him, he is going to end up with a low energy campaign, get low turnout in critical areas, and then lose.
Created:
Posted in:
Dude you you’re refusing to answer the question that started this whole thing. It’s pretty simple, instead of ad homs why don’t you put specific proposals out there.
go back and re-read the 1st comment of this thread. That is not "the question that started this whole thing". You are changing topics.
We haven’t used sources this forum convo. I literally just want ideas with specifics. It’s not that hard
Since you seem to insist on detailed plans or you consider it not to be an answer, I would need to do research to get such detailed plans. But since you will simply not understand, lie about what i'm saying or just ignore what i am saying (as you have done in virtually all of your replies to me), I am not going to spend time doing that. I have better things to do then spend time researching to disprove the opinions of some guy on the internet who has every intention of just ignoring what I say anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Or you don’t have anything. Thanks for the concession. Rather than using ad hominem maybe you should state what you mean instead of dancing around what you mean the last couple of pages.
It's not a concession. That kind of a debate would require me to spend time and energy doing addition research to back up my points. From experience, i know you either won't understand what i'm saying, will lie about what i'm saying, or will just ignore what i'm say. This would make the research a waste of time. I have no intention of doing that.
Again, you’ve been advocating policies to decide how much a business owner should be paying their employees which is inherently a govt takeover of businesses. What you’re advocating for is socialism. The labor laws etc are not a govt takeover of the individual finances of a business. What you are doing is completely different.
nope. It is exactly the same thing. The government puts rules in place to protect workers. Whether that is determining a minumium wage, or making it illegal to work people to death. It is exactly the same concept. You choose to pretend it isn;t.
Your definition of greed is paying employees less than employers makes the employees greedy. You nor the govt knows how margins should be working in businesses.
that is nothing even remotely similar to anything I have said.
most people don't know what the companies they shop at are doing.So? Is it inherently harming Americans?
yes. A company polluting in 1 particular area would hurt Americans. People in a different part of the country would have no idea they have done that. The company therefore faces virtually no chance of having any significant consequences of doing that.
Very few people would have any knowledge of that. Walmart crushes every union that tries to form at their stores.Which is illegal. Sue them. Employees have the right to form a union and negotiate. Employers have the right to advocate against a union as well. There are laws specifically designed to prevent retaliation for forming a union. If people don’t use laws that already exist why do we need for laws?
You are making my point. The laws protecting unions, are government regulation of business. But that aside, companies like walmart just find a way around it. For example if a union tries to form they simply close the whole store and pretend it was for some other reason. This is an example of an area where we need stronger regulation.
Most people don't know that either. Pretending that consumers can control corporations actions is a complete joke. There are near constant examples of companies doing shitty things.Corporations do what they do within the law. What they do in other countries do in their jurisdiction is no concern to me. If you have a problem with it you’re welcome to stop buying from them.
You seem to be willfully missing the point.
A) it doesn;t matter if I do. Since the vast majority of people wont make buying decision based on this it will have no impact on corporations.
B) No one can ever be fully aware of what any company, let alone EVERY company, is doing. It is therefore impossible for the public to prevent things they are not aware of. This means that expecting consumers to police corporate actions is incredibly stupid on the face of it.
The US has no business regulating what a country can do in another country. It violates their sovereignty.
lol companies do not have sovereignty.
No one can keep track of all of them. And even if they could, they would quickly find that there are very few companies they can shop at.You think Americans are stupid don’t you? If we are satisfied with the product, we will buy it. Now if there’s injustice happening in the US that’s a problem that needs to be resolved. But what you said is either in the jurisdiction of another nation or already in violation of existing laws.
Again, you are willfully missing my point. Do you know ever single thing that literally any company is doing? no you don;t. Now do you know what every company in america is doing at every moment? Again, no you don't. No one does. It is impossible to up to date on what companies are doing because you have a life. People have families and jobs. They don;t have time to research what companies are up to. That is why we have regulators. They DO have time to research what companies are doing and take actions accordingly.
Competition already exists. 8 dollars is still more than 7.25. If you can’t get a job higher than that then you need to do something lol. Not all corporations pay as little as possible in case you didn’t know. Not all corporations are greedy as I’ve tried to tell you countless times. My own dad pays people 2 dollars an hour above minimum wage to be a cashiers at his convenience store. Plus in believing what you’re believing, competition doesn’t exist . Do you deny economics?
I agree competition exists. But companies have an inherent motivation to pay as little as possible. That is also economics. Labor costs are some of the biggest costs for companies. They want to keep this as low as possible. So they don't want to get into a situation where they need to offer higher wages unless they absolutely have to. That is one of the reason wages have been stagnant in the US for decades.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The US needs stronger banking regulations for starters.Again like what? Specifics please.
I'm not going to debate banking regulations with you. I can hardly get you to understand basic sentences I use without you completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I say.
There’s no such thing as regulated capitalism if you want to get rid of greed. The correct term would be socialism in this instance.
Here is yet another example of you misunderstand or misrepresenting what I say. I keep telling you that greed is fine as long as it is channeled properly. The point isn't to get rid of greed, it is to make sure that it serves to common good. And we have been doing that for the last 100 years. If you think that is socialism then america has always been a socialist country.
Why should we use your definition of greed?
I'm not using a definition other than the commonly accepted one. Why do you think i am using a special one?
What constitutes public good?
the things that are good for society or the population at large. These aren't complicated concepts.
If people like what they’re buying they support the business. If they don’t like it, they stop buying and go to a competitor. Are you Americans are idiots by supporting companies of products they like?
most people don't know what the companies they shop at are doing. Coca Cola had union leaders in south america murdered. Very few people would have any knowledge of that. Walmart crushes every union that tries to form at their stores. Most people don't know that either. Pretending that consumers can control corporations actions is a complete joke. There are near constant examples of companies doing shitty things. No one can keep track of all of them. And even if they could, they would quickly find that there are very few companies they can shop at.
The solution is simple. If people don’t think they’re getting paid enough, they can leave and seek a job somewhere else.
oh of course. I forgot that high paying jobs magically grow on trees and are readily available. This argument is juvenile. If corporations all pay as little as possible, then there simply aren't very many high paying jobs.
Then why are you arguing for something you know nothing about. You have yet to name one specific regulation and details that you’re advocating for.
because this topic is not a detailed debate of regulation policy. You keep shifting topics whenever it suits you.
I however know that the status quo is sure as hell working and there’s no point in changing it.
Then you are incredibly misinformed. This is one of the major problems today. The people who are doing well see the system and think it's great because they are doing well. While the 10's or 100's of millions who are getting crushed by the current economic system get completely ignored.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And what about people purchasing harmful products? Don't you think an authoritative government has an obligation to stop them from supporting companies with their reckless purchases?
That depends very much on the circumstances. Do I believe people have the right to knowingly buy things that could endanger their health (ex. Alchohol) yes. I think there needs to be regulations on it (how concentrated it can be sold, needing to check for id etc), but they should have that right. On the other hand, I also believe the government has a responsibility to make sure that any such risks are public knowledge and the people involved know the risks and freely accept them. Things like putting shitty quality ingredients in baby formula to save money for example requires regulations to prevent it.
I am sure you have more than a few Chinese products in your home, allowing those companies to pollute and poison the planet. You are an accessory to their greed with your irresponsible purchases. The government should stop you from continuing to support Chinese businesses and others in the USA that poison the planet.
I believe that measures need to be taken to limit that pollution. Things like cap and trade for example.
Make it illegal for you, personally to purchase products from poisoning businesses, either here or abroad.
It depends on context. I don't think punishing people is usually an effective way to go about it. But things such as Cap and Trade, where companies are forced to pay for the amount of pollution they create seems to be quite effective. It gives companies a financial incentive to improve their pollution management. Without those kinds of regulations, they have a financial incentive not to improve them since doing so would be expensive and no one is going to give them more money for being less of a polluter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's far easier to regulate you in the USA from buying cheap shit than it is to regulate a company from producing cheap shit considering the market is global.
No it isn't. It is very easy to say that if you sell a faulty product we will fine you until you go bankrupt. It is much harder to control the buying habits of people.
Governments can regulate your greed to purchase cheap shit, and then, you can be happy with being forced to purchase inflated prices on stuff you would never ever choose to purchase with your own money, ever.
I'm not talking about controlling cheap products. I'm talking about regulating the production and sale of harmful products. If people want to buy cheap stuff that's fine, as long as it isn't hurting people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
All of these already exist. An employer cannot force someone to work. Labor laws already exist. Fire exits already exist. New regulations.
you didn't specify new last time, you only said what regulations I support. The US needs stronger banking regulations for starters. They play fast and loose with the rules and when it blows up in their face (like in 2008) it isn't just banks that pay the price. It is everyone. Canada, for example, has much stronger banking regulations and none of the major banks there required bail outs. But they are still making lots of profit without the insane risks american banks were taking.
You’re saying we need more regulation and haven’t said anything about them. If greed isn’t bad why shouldn’t we keep the status quo anyways. You can’t have it both ways dude.
regulated capitalism is having it both ways. I don't claim to be an expert on every field. That is why we have government departments in charge to regulating those fields.
But you specifically say we need to stop companies’ greed. Companies are always going to be greedy. If you’re saying we should quantify greed then your morals are not where they should be.
again, i have been very clear that greed can be a force for good when channeled properly. I am saying the government needs to regulate that greed to make sure it serves the public good and not just a handfull of rich oligarchs.
most of them didn't really make that money either. They squeezed it out of the labor of others. -HBLets get back to the point. What regulations would you use that would stop this? Specific details please.
One interesting idea I heard was tying the amount you could pay a CEO to a proportion of the average wage of employees. EX. 100 times the average salary of your employee. Since CEOs all want to pay themselves more money, the only way they could do that would be raise the average wage of employees.
But again, I am not an expert on the field. I don't pretend to be. And I am quite certain you aren't either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are literally millions of businesses that have failed in your lifetime in part because you and others like you refused to purchase a higher-priced better quality product.
I fail to see how that is in any way related to this conversation. We need to set minimums of what they are permitted to use. IE you can't use anything that would poison people. If companies want to use better materials than this, that is their business, not ours. It is completely irrelevant to regulations.
There is no private water company on the planet that could have survived the lawsuits from Flint, but the government can kill as many people they want with impunity. Fuck you and your authoritative government solutions.
True, the company would fold. Then the corrupt men running it start up a new company and do it again. I am not arguing that governments can't screw things up. They absolutely can. One example of a government screwing up in no way invalidates my argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Laborers are ALWAYS going to earn less than the owner of the company.
i have never advocated for that. I have no idea why you insist on throwing our random things like you are disagreeing with me, when I have never said the thing you are disagreeing with.
What regulations do you specifically advocate for? Please give some specifics.
Labor standards for a starters. IE limits on the amounts of hours an employer can require a worker to work. Safety regulations, for example having sufficient fire escapes. There was a rather famous case of an employer sealing all the exits so his employees couldn't steal things and 146 employees (mostly women) burned to death. These are just a couple examples, there are many, many things that need proper regulation.
You said corporations are inherently greedy because they want to earn money. To stop greed you need to get rid of their desire to earn money. What am I getting wrong here? Please explain.
Companies are inherent greedy, yes. I am not saying that we need to stop their greed. I never said that. I said that we need proper regulation so that in their pursuit of profit they do not act against the common good.
For example, we all agree children shouldn't be allowed to work in a dangerous factory. Children would be cheaper to hire than an adult. We are infringing on a company's ability to make money in order to protect children and serve the common good. We aren't doing it to get rid of greed. We aren't doing it to prevent them from making money. We are doing it to protect society (and in this case children).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
HB is convinced corporations attract consumers and employees in a competitive free market mainly by poisoning and killing them.
no, but they regularly cut corners and kill people. Acting in a safe, constructive manner rarely provides the best quarterly earnings. Sadly that is all alot of companies care about.
Don't your parents regularly add mercury to the coffee so they can boost profits and drive more revenue and customers to their convenience store?
no, but corporations regularly use sub standard components in their products to reduce costs and maximize profit. They have also been known to dump toxic waste into ground water. Hell the tobacco lobby spent years fighting tooth and nail to convince people cigarettes were healthy long after they knew they caused cancer.
These are reasons why we need regulations. So that if you use sub standard materials, you get a massive fine. If you dump toxic waste without treating, massive fine. If you lie to your consumers about the health impacts of your products, massive fine. This is one of the reasons governments exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I want corporations to make jobs and make money.But that’s greedy and greed is bad right?
No, i feel like I am being very clear but somehow you are still not understanding me. Greed is a powerful motivator and can be channeled to accomplish great things. However if you do not put lots of checks and balances in place to keep that greed channeled into a constructive direction, you end up with horrible consequences. People end up dead or financially ruined. That it why we need capitalism, but with strong government regulation to make sure that people profit, but that it is good for the country and the people, not just a small handful of rich oligarchs.
He’s contradicting himself so hard lol. He knows corporations are the backbone of the economy and to get rid of profit you’d inherently need govt control. He just refuses to admit it when he’s wrong so he’s backed himself into a corner.
im not backed into any corner. I know corporations are the backbone of the economy. I have never disputed that. I have also never said we should get rid of profit. I don't know where you are getting this stupid ideas. I am not saying them. Why do you think that the choices are unregulated, chaos or communism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Companies don't create jobs because they fear the whip. They create jobs out of greed.HB either wants to bring back the whip or make everyone jobless.
I want neither of those things. I want corporations to make jobs and make money. But since we all know they don't care about the public good, I also want a strong government and regulations in place to contain the problems uncontrolled greed always creates. IE poisoned ground water, dead or maimed workers, horrible working conditions, rediculously low wages, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Who created the current system? 🤔🤔. Maybe a free market approach across state lines with more competition could lower prices. The free market is proven to work historically.
the free market created the current system. It has failed. The free market is good at certain things. But primarily, it is good at making money. It is not inherently good at looking after the needs of people. Which is exactly what a healthcare system needs to do.
And the fact remains, with Medicare for All you’re going to force people off of the health insurance they like.
This is just an incorrect statement. It's like saying that a man has a sandwich. If I also give him a drink I must be stealing the sandwich!!!. Medicare for all, by definition, covers everything. So no one is losing any coverage. No one is losing insurance. At worst they are maintaining the same coverage they have now. The vast majority will be getting much better coverage. No one is losing their insurance. Not a single person.
The whole point of a corporation is to earn money. That’s the definition of business. Without the money incentive there won’t be business. I hope you realize that. You can’t have it both ways. If you want to eliminate greed you won’t have corporations.
of course you can have it both ways. We have been working on that for the last century. We want the competitive advantages of capitalism, but the control and concern for the public good. That is exactly what regulations are for. They contain the excess and the greed that is one of the main drawbacks of capitalism.
You’ve already mentioned that companies are inherently greedy and greed is inherently bad. Congrats you’ve just destroyed the economy by destroying businesses.
You are misunderstanding me. Greed is what drives corporations. That greed is necessary and can be a force for good. However, that greed is often at odds with the public good. That is why strong government regulations are desperately needed. That way we get the benefits of competition and capitalism, without the horrible side effects of uncontrolled avarice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so if bernie was the nominee, and a woman falsely accuses him of rape, but no one knows it's false and it looks like it could be credible, bernie should have to resign?
if there was reasonable suspicion, then yes. There is a significant amount of corroboration for the accusation against Biden. If it was a single person with nothing to back them up then probably not. But that isn't what is currently happening.
But saying that Kavenaugh had to stand down, but biden doesn't (when there is much more corroboration for the accusation against Biden) just shows how hypocritical alot of the left is. They claim to support women, but as soon as accusations come out against a democrat all of a sudden they no longer think women should be believed. It massively undermines the "moral" argument that is the core of Biden's election campaign. Basically his whole campaign rests on "trump Bad" and "Biden good". If Biden also has credible accusations of sexual assault, then his argument is completely meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
To the contrary. We think the govt is too incompetent to manage our healthcare.
The current system lets millions go bankrupt and countless people get sicker and/or die. The current system is broken as hell. But you think the government who is too incompetent to manage healthcare?
So let me get this straight. You’re advocating for the abolition of corporations? Or you want to control how a corporation spends its money. Where it spends it’s money and where they get their investment from? All from the govt of course.
no, i want reasonable regulations of businesses so that we can guarantee that they act in the public good while they also try to earn a profit. For example, companies used to use alot of child labor to earn a profit. As a society we decided that should not be allowed. Companies bitched and moaned about how that limited their ability to make money. But they adapted, and as a society we are all much better off for it.
If left entirely to their own devices, corporations will do horrible things in pursuit of profit. The government needs to be a check on that greed to ensure that the public good is being maintained.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
Yeah, i would certainly qualify as a liberal, and as far as i can tell i agree with every one of your statements.
I HAVE HEARD LINERALS SAY COUNTLESS TIMES THAT Deregulation is stupid. How is deregulation stupid if liberals agree with the fact that there are too many or wrong regulations in some areas?
because reviewing and revising regulations that are not functioning correctly is absolutely necessary. If the regulations aren't having the intended effect, or if the downside of the regulation is greater that the upside, then they should absolutely be changed or removed to fix the issue.
But when the right says "deregulate", they don't usually mean reviewing regulations on a case by case basis and fixing the handful that are problematic. They usually mean slashing as many regulations as they can get their hands on. The effect of this is usually terrible for the poor or working class while the rich can now get away with more stuff (poisoning ground water, risking their employees lives, bankrupting people etc)
So it is entirely logical to both believe it is possible for regulations to go too far, and also say that deregulation is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Someone needs a primer on what socialist ideals are. You're distributing them whether you know it
lol if you think that making laws about whether or not companies can put poison in your food is socialism and therefore evil, you are unreachable.
You entirely missed my point that their population is 10M. Ours is 327M. We're the third largest population in the world.
So you think americans are too incompetent to manage their own healthcare? You really don't think much of your own people do you?
195 countries in the world. 32 is but 16% of them.
true, america is slightly ahead of alot of 3rd world countries and dictatorships. YAY!! but the US lags behind most of the free world.
ou get hung-up on a cvtch phrase and blow the rest of the interpretation. Can't skim read and expect to capture meaning, but this is what you do. Stop it.
no, you just fail to articulate your point well. You get side tracked and derail your argument.
There are options for fresh food: like frozen
umm, frozen food, by definition is not fresh. that is why they froze it....
Get smart.
ok, so your argument is that people who don't have the money to invest in advanced methods of food preparation and storage, or the space available to grow their own food deserve to die. They don't have the disposable income or land enough to live, so as a society we should have them all die. Your argument is fucking awful. Even if we leave morality out of it, letting millions of people get sick, go bankrupt or die is a financial mess that weakens all of us as a society. You may think that you don't pay those costs but you are dead wrong. We all do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Government is naturally evil and did dirty tricks to get in the business. The majority of company owners worked hard to get where they are.
umm what? Governments are elected by the people to represent the people. if the act against the wishes of the people, they can be replaced. Corporations act for their own best interests only. They don't care at all about the people. There is absolutely no way to remove them if they act against the public interest. Corporations are by far the bigger threat to the people.
Not a reflection, but a genuine question. You donated less. Your maybe $5 you donated are minuscule compared to his $8B
1st off, whose 8 billion? 2nd, how much damage did this person do to get that money? How many people did they have to kill and how many lives have they ruined. Donating money is fine. But usually it is just to buy some good will so they can go back to screwing people over. It often isn't done with other people's best interests in mind, only their profit.
You don't know how basic economy works then if you think Mark Zuckerberg net worth is his total. Your net worth is all your companies revenue plus your total revenue. His bank account is much smaller than his net worth. Basic economy, but I guess you wouldn't know since your arguing for socialism
i have no idea why you went on this tangent. I said I had no idea what you were talking about and that for all i could tell you were picking numbers out of the air. You never said who you were talking about. Now you are ranting about networth vs. bank account, which i also didn't mention. Also, I have never argued for socialism. So all in all, that was a complete waste of time.
There is a need in society. The companies fills the need by providing an item. They set a price for it. If you need it/want it, you buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Business aren't tricking you.
All of this is absolutely true. I have never argued otherwise. And as long as there is very good government oversight and controls in place to keep companies from being complete assholes, then all that is great.
If you give government the full control, destroying business, the government will screw over the people the same as the monopoly. The thing is you can't find any monopolies in America
you seriously love straw man arguments. you can't seem to help yourself. NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE FULL CONTROL. If you won't actually read the things I say and just insist on making the same straw man argument over and over and over, then there is no point trying to discuss anything with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Do you have any idea what you’re saying? You claim to not be a socialist but are actively advocating total government control over a business.
please point out where i said government should have total control over business. I doubt you will be able to, because i have never said that.
In your world no good company exists because they want money. With your logic there won’t be any companies.
this is, more or less, an accurate description of the real world that we currently live in.
As I mentioned earlier wanting money and taking care of workers are not mutually exclusive.
not entirely, but largely it is. Every extra dollar you give your employee is one extra dollar you can't funnel into your own pocket, or those of your investors.
You saying otherwise shows your ignorance or a socialist desire which we know is harmful.
you clearly have no idea what socialism is. You seem to think that if it isn't completely unregulated capitolism, then it must be socialism. The world is a much more complicated place than you seem to be capable of understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is the most lame, socialist argument there is.
blah, blah, blah. socialism bad. How many times can I repeat NO ONE IS ADVOCATING SOCIALISM before you will give up this straw man?
And that makes the world right, and we're wrong?
yes, yes it does. They provide healthcare to their entire population. They don't let the sick go bankrupt or die because they weren't born wealthy enough. Oh, and they spend WAY less per capita despite the fact they are providing care to way of their population.
the total cost of the three chronic diseases I named, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, those three, alone account for 60.2% of the total of $3.7T chronic diseases cost us in the U.S. In what universe is 60%^ a "tiny percentage?" Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.
you were specifically talking about " MTV Jackass stunt". That accounts for a tiny fraction of the total percentage. But nice try to move the goalposts.
And yes, those kinds of illnesses do make up a big part of healthcare costs. But that doesn;t mean those people did anything wrong. It doesn;'t mean that letting them die or go bankrupt is a good thing financially, societally, or morally. Because it is extremely bad for all of those.
Yeah. To a socialist putz.
I will say this again. No one here is talking about socialism. Leave the straw man's out of this.
Preventive medicine is not needing medicine in the first place because you take care of your body by correct eating habits, exercise, and maintaining a prudent lifestyle.
And you think that letting people get sicker and die because they can't afford healthy foods, or insulin or any other number of things that are needed for a healthy lifestyle is a sign of a functioning society? You might have enough disposable income to eat lots of balanced meals, you might only have to work a limited number of hours to support your family. A large percent of people don;'t have that ability. You are advocating punishing people for not having the amount of money you have and it is despicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's okay because socialism will stop you from greedily selling your labor to capitalists and stop you from greedily purchasing the goods you desire by making it illegal to do so.
and yet more straw man arguments are coming out. Have I, or anyone in this conversation, ever advocated for socialism? No.
\
It's far easier for the government to control you than people who have capital.
true, but I get a say in government. If they decide to take controls i don't like I have a method of preventing it. I have absolutely no control over corporations. No one does. That is the point. They are accountable to no one but their shareholders. And all they are after is your money.
The government will choose for you who you can and cannot sell your labor to.
Of course they will. They already do in every country on earth. The government decides that companies who don't meet labor laws, or health and safety laws (or any number of other laws) cannot operate. I therefore can't sell my labor to them. That is what governments do.
That is your idea of a "benevolent" government.
that is my idea of every government. Including america right this very second.
In order for Socialism to actually work, the government doesn't need to go after capitalists.
why are you talking about socialism? No one here is advocating for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Both parties agreed to the terms of work. If people felt they were being squeezed of money they could quit.
of course they could. Then they can choose to work at one of the corporations that doesn't prioritize money over people, if such a company existed. Sadly, capitalism doesn't work that way.
Saying people can do things that hypothetically could happen, but in reality cannot happen, is a silly argument.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
" trump has countless accusations of sexual assault." Was any of them proved?
Trump and his daddy spent alot of money silencing people over the years. Sadly that is a very effective way of covering up crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The point is, Buff, those yachts are paid for by their money, not yours, not mine. My money isn't yours, either. Make your bloody own.
most of them didn't really make that money either. They squeezed it out of the labor of others.
So, what of right now. You want the right right now. Can't have right now under my proposed condition, can you? Get it?
lol every modern country on the planet (except the US) has some version of universal healthcare. But yes, it must be impossible to do what everyone else has already done. The only difference between a universal system and a profit driven one is that in the profit version, the rich get the care. In the universal system the people who need it most get them.
You've entirely missed my point. My acknowledgment is not contrary to the point, being, specifically, that MTV Jackass stunt is on him, not on me. Let him pay for his idiocy.
more deflection. Point to a tiny percentage of healthcare costs, then extend the argument to all healthcare.
My point was, with control of what goes in the pie hole, which is entirely a personal decision, not anyone else's, 80% and 60% of those diseases don't need early treatment because they would not be contracted in the first place.
you think 80% of diseases are caused by personal vices? Are you delusional?
It's called preventive medicine, Bucko, and that is entirely free with no imposition on anyone else's pocketbook, period. Get it?
preventative medicine is giving people medicine to stop deseases getting worse. The for profit system we have now is the exact opposite of that. It is designed to squeeze as much money out of people as possible. Causing them to not seek care early and make their conditions worse in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
back to the straw man arguments I see. I have literally never said that government should have full control. That doesn't seem to stop you from lying about it though.Communism is everything controlled by government. No private businesses. That isn't a straw man when it did happen. It's factual. Not straw man
True, but since literally no one is advocating for communism, it is a complete straw man argument here.
And how much have you donated to Covid 19 reliefs? Certainly less than $8B. Maybe work harder and invent something useful instead of complaining about society? Why don't you donate all your funds to the government so people can be healthy
very nice deflection. But utterly worthless in this conversation.
Also it's not a small portion of their wealth. The net worth is in the company. There bank account is less worth than their net worth. He gave up a huge some. And are you the people donating? How do you know it's all for show. You simply don't
As far as I can tell you are picking numbers out of the air with absolutely no context, then praising people who you don't actually name. Do you honestly think you are making any valid points? I assure you, you are not.
Yes they are. Ofc they want to make money, but they fill a need for the people. And if you don't need the product then don't buy from the companies. They try to help the consumer in their life
ok, you praise them for doing stuff, then immediately acknowledge it is a scheme to help them make money and is not actually intended to be for the public good. You can't even keep your own arguments straight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, you do. You can tell them to go fuck off. Assuming you don't support monopolies like the government.
Ok, you tell me where i can buy a motherboard other than from a major corporation. How about a car?
It is a childish argument to say that people can avoid buying things for corporations. If you are willing to live like an Amish person maybe. But i don't want that. So i choose capitalism, with a strong central government to keep them in line. It is the best of both worlds. You get the innovation and growth of capitalism, while you have a strong government to keep their evil, greed based decisions kept in check.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
umm, virtually all of them. That is what corporations exist for. They care about the bottom line.And it appears you care enough about the corporations to reciprocate their concern and support them with your purchases as well, otherwise, you would have told them to fuck off and look for an alternative competitor. Assuming you don't support monopolies like the government.
You too seem to not understand capitolism. I have no choice. Since a core component of corporations is a complete disdain for things like "the common good" and only caring about profit margins, I have virtually no options. If I want to be able to live, i need to buy things. By definition, that means buying things from corrupt corporations that don't give a shit about me. That is why we have governments to keep them in line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Government with full control such as communist states kill millions of people due to starvation. Look at North Korea. A communist dictatorship that kills their people. That is a central government.
back to the straw man arguments I see. I have literally never said that government should have full control. That doesn't seem to stop you from lying about it though.
Then why have people, companies, and other donated billions of dollars to fight Covid-19, due work for charity, and do so much for the consumer by providing sales, having customer service for the customer, and various other
So people who do massive damage sometimes give tiny fractions of their wealth back? In most cases it is just a publicity stunt to get people to look over their massive abuses the rest of the time.
Companies are donating billions to stop Coronavirus and give money to people laid off by Coronavirus, yet you stand here saying that no company works for the consumer. This is simply wrong on all levels
you clearly don't understand what capitolism is. Very few companies are ever "for the consumer". Almost none that listed on a public stock exchange. They are for their own bottom lines. Sometimes that causes them to do nice things. Sometimes they want to buy some good publicity so people think how nice they are, then they go back to royally screwing them over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Name me one product you personally purchase from a company that does not care about you.
umm, virtually all of them. That is what corporations exist for. They care about the bottom line. Sometimes that means doing things to attract customers, but alot of the time it means screwing people over just as hard as they can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Governments have killed more people than considerations have
Please provide some evidence for that. Countless people die every single day due to greedy corporations. Their insurance gets rejected, they die. Their water gets poisoned, they die. Governments aren't perfect, no one has ever claimed they are. But at least we get a voice in what the government does. The government has to fear us. Corportions don't give a rat's ass what you think. They don't care if they kill you or ruin your life. They aren't accountable to you are anyone else who isn't rich and connected.
I'll take government power over over corporate and oligarch power any day of the week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Give people healthcare? Who says healthcare is a right? If it is a right, it is equally available to all who seek it. That is so obviously not true, it's pathetic to think it is.
I do. And I agree it isn't true, yet. That is the point. Rich assholes want people to believe that poor people deserve to get sick and die while the people who profit off those poor people buy their 3rd yacht or 4th mansion.
Item: If ealthcare were a right, we would have warehouses stuffed with available organs for transplant.
this doesn't even make sense on the face of it. But as medical technology improves we likely will develop artificial organs and this will become the case.
Item: If healthcare were a right, people could act like MTV Jackasses and expect treatment. Actually, they do, anyway.
You acknowledge they do that anyway, so it makes absolutely no difference whether or not healthcare is a right. Thank you for disproving your own point.
Item: If healthcare were a right, we would have far less incident of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, because we could all stuff whatever into the pie hole with the assurance that we would not contract these diseases, or be treated for them and all survive.
You seem to be missing the point. alot of those diseases are treatable early. The treatments are relatively cheap and effective. The fact that people can't afford the early treatment means they put it off until it is much more serious and MUCH more expensive. That causes people to die unnecessarily and cause medical care to be MUCH more expensive. So providing healthcare to everyone would actually decrease those costs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're still under the delusion that a benevolent government exists that has interests aligned with your own interests.
governments exist at the whim of the people. If they stop doing what the people want, they get replaced. Corporations exists to amass as much money as they can. They don't care if they have to kill you or bankrupt you to get it. They have absolutely no motivation to do what is best for the people or for the nation.
Obviously having proper power in the hands of the government is a MUCH better plan than giving corporations free reign to poison or exploit us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so you think moderates and republicans are more progressive than democrats? you must think that, if you think bernie is more electable in the general when he lost so spectacularly in the primary
No, I think there are millions of americans who don't belong to either party because they are both full of corruption and are both right wing. There is no party that actually tries to do anything but pay the slightest of lip service to the left.
Also, one of the main reasons Biden managed to win is because the party and the media worked hard to keep any kind of criticism of biden from being made. That kind of active cover up works on the Democratic base because they watch alot of MSNBC and CNN. On the rest of the population, that is much less effective. Especially once trump and the republicans start actually pointing out what a terrible candidate he is.
All of the criticism of Bernie has been made already. There is no new dirt to come out in the general. Virtually none of the dirt on biden has been covered in the mainstream media. You can be damn sure it will come up in a general election.
Created: