Trump 2016

[Saxon]

To explain why I think Donald is a 'wolf among sheep', in England the Police of Rotherham ignored about 14 years of testimony from teenage women, who were the victims of a Muslim rape gang's abuses. The Police said they didn't act on the reports because they 'didn't want to provide oxygen to racism'.

I think this is representative of attitudes towards immigration and multiculturalism in the west; that it's best not to talk about it because that might be racist, even if that means turning a blind eye to abuses.

 

People speaking out against this cult of silence genuinely do single themselves out as enemies of the flock, wolves among sheep. Unfortunately, because all dissenting viewpoints to 'happy and problem-free multiculturalism' have been branded racist, now we're going to have to deal with the long over-due eruption of all those comments, including those which actually are racist.

 

[Troj]

Trump is certainly a wolf among the same-old same-old sheep, and he is entertaining in his way.

But, that doesn't make him worthy of running a country.

If people are supporting Trump because LOL TROLLING or LOL IRONY, they'd be better off supporting benign and obvious satirists like Vermin Supreme. Much like the idiots who bought Shake Weights, people also need to realize that just as there's no such thing as "irony dollars," there's no such thing as "irony votes."

If people want candidates who represent a more unconventional or atypical point of view, they'd be better off supporting someone like Bernie Sanders, because at least his platform doesn't involve apartheid, acts of thuggery, and totally alienating our allies.

Trump supporters may feel smarter than the average bear, but that makes them even easier to snooker, in my estimation.

Well, and it's sad political candidates tend to fall on one side of the fence or the other, but in reality, you can be thoughtful about the challenges of living in a multi-cultural society without being either a pollyanna or a jackbooted bigot.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Troj

[Saxon]

52 minutes ago, Troj said:

Trump is certainly a wolf among the same-old same-old sheep, and he is entertaining in his way.

But, that doesn't make him worthy of running a country.

If people are supporting Trump because LOL TROLLING or LOL IRONY, they'd be better off supporting benign and obvious satirists like Vermin Supreme. Much like the idiots who bought Shake Weights, people also need to realize that just as there's no such thing as "irony dollars," there's no such thing as "irony votes."

If people want candidates who represent a more unconventional or atypical point of view, they'd be better off supporting someone like Bernie Sanders, because at least his platform doesn't involve apartheid, acts of thuggery, and totally alienating our allies.

Trump supporters may feel smarter than the average bear, but that makes them even easier to snooker, in my estimation.

Well, and it's sad political candidates tend to fall on one side of the fence or the other, but in reality, you can be thoughtful about the challenges of living in a multi-cultural society without being either a pollyanna or a jackbooted bigot.

I don't think Trump is popular because of trolling or irony; I think it's because he's distinguished himself by being willing to talk very decisively about sensitive and confusing topics which are often ignored. A lot of those voters also probably genuinely support those ideas, for better or worse; I think that his support is populist, not ironic. 

I think that the rise of populist candidates, in the USA and in Europe too, could have been avoided if our other politicians had been willing to discuss multiculturalism and immigration openly, rather than accusing people who are skeptical about multicultural ambitions of being racists.

...and a little 'food for thought' regarding 'the fence'. About 45% of Democrats supported banning Muslims from entering the USA, when polled, but the number dropped to 25% when the polling question associated the proposal with Donald Trump.

 

[Butters]

Shitty politicians come from shitty cultures I tell you what. 

[Troj]

18 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I think that the rise of populist candidates, in the USA and in Europe too, could have been avoided if our other politicians had been willing to discuss multiculturalism and immigration openly, rather than accusing people who are skeptical about multicultural ambitions of being racists.

...and a little 'food for thought' regarding 'the fence'. About 45% of Democrats supported banning Muslims from entering the USA, when polled, but the number dropped to 25% when the polling question associated the proposal with Donald Trump.

 

I think you're entirely right about all that. One, people are hungry for a "straight-shooter" who is willing to talk about these complex issues openly--and over-simplify them, natch, because people who acknowledge complexity are typically seen as eggheads or flip-floppers--and two, people do tend to shift their position depending on how questions or dilemmas are phrased, or who a given position is associated with.

I may be using the word "irony" too liberally here, because I'm trying to get at how many of his supporters seem to relish his trollishness. Basically, I'm referring to people delighting in how Trump is basically a bull in a china shop and gives no shits. I get the impression that many of his supporters just enjoy watching him kick and buck around the china shop, while other people scream in horror and try to save the commemorative dishes.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Troj

[Pignog]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

...and a little 'food for thought' regarding 'the fence'. About 45% of Democrats supported banning Muslims from entering the USA, when polled, but the number dropped to 25% when the polling question associated the proposal with Donald Trump.

Not that I don't believe you, but could you link that poll? 45% sounds high even among Republicans tbh, but I'm in a bubble up north shielded from most American media, so sometimes I miss these shifts in public opinion.

[Saxon]

40 minutes ago, Pignog said:

Not that I don't believe you, but could you link that poll? 45% sounds high even among Republicans tbh, but I'm in a bubble up north shielded from most American media, so sometimes I miss these shifts in public opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/18/fox-news-poll-views-on-trumps-proposed-ban-on-non-u-s-muslims.html

 

The original source was a fox news poll.

[Butters]

16 minutes ago, Saxon said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/18/fox-news-poll-views-on-trumps-proposed-ban-on-non-u-s-muslims.html

 

The original source was a fox news poll.

Fox News is the Daily Mail of the USA...(only worse if u can believe it)

[Lucyfish]

The GOP knows that with this coming election they basically have no chance, so they want to push the most noticeable and controversial candidate just so they can remind everyone that the GOP still exists.

[Saxon]

6 minutes ago, Butters said:

Fox News is the Daily Mail of the USA...(only worse if u can believe it)

Just because a poll was undertaken by fox doesn't automatically make it irrelevant. Dismissing arguments because of who they come from, rather than because there is a problem with how they were conducted is a form of bias, so I try to avoid doing it.

 

I did look up how the poll was conducted, and the telephone numbers were samples randomly, and proportionately to a state's population, with over 1000 calls made. There's nothing wrong with that methodology, so I don't have reason to believe the poll was rigged- which is your hypothesis.

[Butters]

[Rassah]

19 hours ago, WolfyAmbassador said:

Third party voices are almost never heard by the mainstream, so voting third party would be kind of useless. If only the people in the Republican and Democratic parties weren't stupid and/or divisive cunts, then maybe I wouldn't have so much hatred for politicians in this country.

There's always a third option. We're building it right now, and it's getting easier every year.

3 hours ago, Troj said:

If people are supporting Trump because LOL TROLLING or LOL IRONY, they'd be better off supporting benign and obvious satirists like Vermin Supreme.

Hey, Vermin Supreme isn't a troll, he's a serious candidate

And what better way to troll the government, and expose the whole shebang as just a bunch of incompetent trolls, than electing an actual troll to the office?

3 hours ago, Troj said:

If people want candidates who represent a more unconventional or atypical point of view, they'd be better off supporting someone like Bernie Sanders, because at least his platform doesn't involve apartheid, acts of thuggery, and totally alienating our allies.

Um, Sanders wants to separate people even further into classes, with employable and unemployable, with even more blacks likely falling into the later, wants to use even more thuggery to force people around and take their stuff, and wants to alienate out allies by preventing more of them from having any business relations with us. Maybe not intentionally, but still...

38 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

The GOP knows that with this coming election they basically have no chance, so they want to push the most noticeable and controversial candidate just so they can remind everyone that the GOP still exists.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the GOP was freaking out about Trump, not wanting him, but not knowing what the hell to do about him. As far as I know, he is funding his campaign entirely himself, isn't depending on GOP party funds, and the GOP can't kick him out just by pulling his funding.

[Zeke]

30 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Just because a poll was undertaken by fox doesn't automatically make it irrelevant. Dismissing arguments because of who they come from, rather than because there is a problem with how they were conducted is a form of bias, so I try to avoid doing it.

 

I did look up how the poll was conducted, and the telephone numbers were samples randomly, and proportionately to a state's population, with over 1000 calls made. There's nothing wrong with that methodology, so I don't have reason to believe the poll was rigged- which is your hypothesis.

I don't think that it was dismissing it, but more of caution. You can take it with a grain of salt. 

8 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the GOP was freaking out about Trump, not wanting him, but not knowing what the hell to do about him. As far as I know, he is funding his campaign entirely himself, isn't depending on GOP party funds, and the GOP can't kick him out just by pulling his funding.

He's getting donations, so it isn't accurate to say that he is funding his own campaign completely.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/15/donald-trump-received-nearly-4-million-in-unsolicited-campaign-donations/

 

[Brass]

Vote for the Cyberparty. Make America innovative again.

[Zeke]

4 hours ago, Brass said:

Vote for the Cyberparty. Make America innovative again.

Vote lemonparty. make America great again!

[Zerig]

3 hours ago, MarkOfBane said:

Sanders.

[Troj]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

And what better way to troll the government, and expose the whole shebang as just a bunch of incompetent trolls, than electing an actual troll to the office?

Um, Sanders wants to separate people even further into classes, with employable and unemployable, with even more blacks likely falling into the later, wants to use even more thuggery to force people around and take their stuff, and wants to alienate out allies by preventing more of them from having any business relations with us. Maybe not intentionally, but still...

Sanders is about as far Left as a candidate can get, which makes him pretty atypical and unconventional where our political system's concerned. That was my point. If people want a candidate who tells the Powers That Be to eat a dick, then Sanders has basically said that to a lot of corporate and political entities.

Well, and whatever you assume or think his impact might, could, or would be, he's run a pretty respectful and civil campaign, unlike basically everybody else. Other candidates have straight-up admitted that they're in favor of discriminating against Muslims, non-Christians, LGBTs, poor people, women, foreigners and immigrants, and/or the disabled in one form or another. The other candidates also haven't hesitated to say really snarky things about one another. We're not even talking about the unintended or indirect side effects of people's proposed policies here.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Troj

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, Butters said:

This is still a fallacy, Butters. Being wrong about one subject doesn't mean everything else you say is automatically wrong.

The Daily mail reported the death of my Palaeobiology professor, and the ensuing prosecution of his killer, correctly. Obviously I'm not entitled to assume everything the Daily mail prints is wrong just because I may not sympathise with all of their political positions. I actually have to use my head to check reports for errors.

In the case of fox news's poll, I went to the data to find out who conducted the research [a third party, which fox contracted] and how it was conducted.

 

The poll results, that some Americans sympthise with Trump's views, but don't want to be associated with the man himself, isn't all that surprising. It does raise issues about people's sincerity, though.

[TheGreatFanatic]

Just now, Saxon said:

This is still a fallacy, Butters. Being wrong about one subject doesn't mean everything else you say is automatically wrong.

The Daily mail reported the death of my Palaeobiology professor, and the ensuing prosecution of his killer, correctly. Obviously I'm not entitled to assume everything the Daily mail prints is wrong just because I may not sympathise with all of their political positions. I actually have to use my head to check reports for errors.

In the case of fox news's poll, I went to the data to find out who conducted the research [a third party, which fox contracted] and how it was conducted.

 

The poll results, that some Americans sympthise with Trump's views, but don't want to be associated with the man himself, isn't all that surprising. It does raise issues about people's sincerity, though.

I like how someone with the name Saxon posts on a thread about Donald Trump.

[Onnes]

32 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Vote lemonparty. make America great again!

 

[Saxon]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatFanatic said:

I like how someone with the name Saxon posts on a thread about Donald Trump.

I'm sorry; you'll have to explain that one to me.

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, Onnes said:

 

....

STOP GIVING ME IDEAS!

[DrDingo]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I'm sorry; you'll have to explain that one to me.

I think it might be from that one episode of Doctor Who where the Master (the bad guy) became Prime minister of the UK under the name Harold Saxon

And he basically kills everyone because he's a lunatic

[Saxon]

7 minutes ago, DrDingo said:

I think it might be from that one episode of Doctor Who where the Master (the bad guy) became Prime minister of the UK under the name Harold Saxon

And he basically kills everyone because he's a lunatic

...Oh okay? I don't watch doctor who.

[TheGreatFanatic]

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

I'm sorry; you'll have to explain that one to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_(Doctor_Who)

 

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

...Oh okay? I don't watch doctor who.

How dare you.

[Rassah]

23 hours ago, WolfyAmbassador said:

If only the people in the Republican and Democratic parties weren't stupid and/or divisive cunts, then maybe I wouldn't have so much hatred for politicians in this country.

I forgot to post the list to the third option https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A

[Rassah]

2 hours ago, Troj said:

If people want a candidate who tells the Powers That Be to eat a dick, then Sanders has basically said that to a lot of corporate and political entities.

If they just want someone who says these things, I guess, but as for actually doing, there hasn't been a corporate funding or corporate giveaway bill that Sabers have supported yet... 

2 hours ago, Troj said:

Other candidates have straight-up admitted that they're in favor of discriminating against Muslims, non-Christians, LGBTs, poor people, women, foreigners and immigrants, and/or the disabled in one form or another.

Sanders has straight-up admitted that he is in favor of discriminating against the economically unproductive, those that work and produce too much, and even against foreigners. He doesn't want to straight up build a wall like Trump, but he threatened to discriminate against foreigners through legislation. These aren't unintended or indirect side effects, these are things he actually purposes in his policies that his supporters think are wonderful.

 

[evan]

i'm not exactly the brightest bulb in the political world, so i'm just going to tread lightly and grab what i can.

4 hours ago, Butters said:

 

so i can cite irrelevant examples of people being wrong to disprove a single study? sweet

2 hours ago, Onnes said:

 

...i'm an idiot and went to said link. i enjoyed it, though.

22 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Sanders has straight-up admitted that he is in favor of discriminating against the economically unproductive, those that work and produce too much, and even against foreigners. He doesn't want to straight up build a wall like Trump, but he threatened to discriminate against foreigners through legislation. These aren't unintended or indirect side effects, these are things he actually purposes in his policies that his supporters think are wonderful.

can you cite me where these things have been said? i'm having trouble finding anything through all the bern bias and i wanna try to round out my opinion of him.

Edited December 29, 2015 by evan

[MalletFace]

2 hours ago, evan said:

can you cite me where these things have been said? i'm having trouble finding anything through all the bern bias and i wanna try to round out my opinion of him.

I'm not sure he can. I can actually find contradicting accounts of most of this, too. The rest is hard to counter because it is more of his opinion than anything close to fact.

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

He doesn't want to straight up build a wall like Trump, but he threatened to discriminate against foreigners through legislation. These aren't unintended or indirect side effects, these are things he actually purposes in his policies that his supporters think are wonderful.

This is probably talking about him voting against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

During the debate in Las Vegas, Sanders said, "I voted against that piece of legislation because it had guest-worker provisions in it which the Southern Poverty Law Center talked about being semi-slavery. Guest workers are coming in, they're working under terrible conditions, but if they stand up for their rights, they're thrown out of the country. I was not the only progressive to vote against that legislation for that reason."

He voted to table an amendment to a bill that would take funds from sanctuary cities.

"Bernie believes undocumented workers are already part of the nation’s “fabric,” they should have a path to citizenship that will allow them to be fully participating members of American society and contributors to its economy."

And, while I cannot find the information on congress.gov or senate.gov, he voted against a bill (HR 3722) that would require hospitals to determine if a person was an illegal immigrant, would require them to report this, and would allow them to refuse to serve; he voted against an act to make English the official language and waive the right of immigrants to receive information in their native language (S.Amdt.1151 to S.Amdt.1150); and he has indeed voted against building a wall many times.

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

Sanders has straight-up admitted that he is in favor of discriminating against the economically unproductive, those that work and produce too much, and even against foreigners.

Already said something on the foreigner thing, but I'm not sure about the others.

The Sanders dogma usually involves bashing Wall Street and declaring that the middle class must be rebuilt. If you mean that Wall Street and the American rich produce to much and he is discriminating against them, I would like proof of this. Much of his policy involves reversing high-income and high-wealth tax cuts that have been implemented since the glory of the Wartime and Postwar democrats faded, but I don't consider that to be discrimination - they are not losing any privileges or rights that other Americans have.

[Rassah]

Sanders believes that if you are not skilled and productive enough to generate some minimum amount of income, then you should be jobless and poor (his minimum wage policy).

 Sanders believes that if you have busted ass in college and work, rose up in your position, married someone just as hard working as you, and together you live in a fairly affluent area, then you should lose the right to a much bigger chunk of the time and labor that you spent at work (anyone, or family, making over some amount of money, regardless of why or how hard they worked to get there, should be taxed at a higher level).

Sanders has repeatedly called to criminalize, prosecute, and jail "bankers" and those on Wall Street, without ever naming any names, basically covering everyone in a blanket statement, regardless of whether they did anything wrong.

Sanders believes people who live and work in other countries do not deserve their jobs and livelihoods, calling on bans on imports of foreign goods, as if people who simply live in a different geography are worse, or less deserving, of having a good life than people who live here (which, frankly, is the type of tribalism that isn't that much better than Trump's).

You don't really need to look up references for these. His supporters will happily back me up that these are the things he believes and promises.

[Toshabi]

The democratic party hit a new low when the only thing they got going for them is Sanders/Clinton. 

 

Just saying.

[Endless/Nameless]

34 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Sanders believes that if you are not skilled and productive enough to generate some minimum amount of income, then you should be jobless and poor (his minimum wage policy)

I'm unskilled and unproductive. I feel threatened.

[Rassah]

17 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I'm unskilled and unproductive. I feel threatened.

Well, I'd hire you, but it would have to be under the table illegally

[Zeke]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

 

You don't really need to look up references for these. His supporters will happily back me up that these are the things he believes and promises.

We're talking politics here, so you are better off posting fact checks here, otherwise it just sounds like you are blowing gas from your ass. 

[Rassah]

Just now, Zeke said:

We're talking politics here, so you are better off posting fact checks here, otherwise it just sounds like you are blowing gas from your ass. 

Doesn't everyone already know that Bernie Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to as high as $15, wants to tax the rich, and wants to impose tariffs on imports to support American workers?

[Zeke]

26 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Doesn't everyone already know that Bernie Sanders wants to raise the minimum wage to as high as $15, wants to tax the rich, and wants to impose tariffs on imports to support American workers?

Since you are making me do reference work after hours, let me help you!

There's a difference between "knowing something" and quoting. Just because a supporter says something doesn't mean that it is always true, Same goes for Trump supporters. Quotes get Telephoned so often that you have to pick through the muck to find out if it's even remotely the truth or hearsay.

[Rassah]

Fine, I'll do the damn work. It's pretty easy, since it's all on his own campaign page: https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

1) Discriminating against low skilled low productive workers in jobs:

"Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty."

(Of course, if you are not skilled enough to create $15 an hour worth of work, you'll be living in $0 an hour poverty)

 

2) Discriminating against wealthy and anyone associated with wealth ("wall street speculators"? Wtf?):

"Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As president, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings."

What the heck is "the wealthy?" What the heck is "fair share?" Don't those people already pay for the vast majority of government's tax revenue?

Oh yeah, extra bonus for screwing responsible people who save for retirement, and the old folks currently retired, by seizing their retirement investment/pension income ("corporate profits") for government to spend. I'm sure government will be responsible enough to spend it on those retiree's bills and needs, as opposed to wasting it on more bombs for Middle East. /S

3) Discriminating against foreigners:

"Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries."

It's as if the poor Chinese (and "other low-wage countries" citizens) who have just recently started digging themselves out of extreme sub-$1-a-day poverty, thanks to our consumerism, don't need or deserve an opportunity to have an income and survive. Bernie would be fine if they went back to subsistence farming and age 30 life expectancies. Not to mention that it's thanks to those low wage workers that our own poorest are still able to survive, buying really cheap products. Close off trade, and Bernie will be screwing our poor too.

 

By the way, all that said, on the current topic, Trump is just as insane of a choice, since outright fascism isn't much better than whatever Bernie is peddling.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Rassah

[Zeke]

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

 

24 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Fine, I'll do the damn work. It's pretty easy, since it's all on his own campaign page: https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/

1) Discriminating against low skilled low productive workers in jobs:

"Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty."

(Of course, if you are not skilled enough to create $15 an hour worth of work, you'll be living in $0 an hour poverty)

 

2) Discriminating against wealthy and anyone associated with wealth ("wall street speculators"? Wtf?):

Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. As president, Sen. Sanders will stop corporations from shifting their profits and jobs overseas to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. He will create a progressive estate tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million. He will also enact a tax on Wall Street speculators who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings.

What the heck is "the wealthy?" What the heck is "fair share?" Don't those people already pay for the vast majority of government's tax revenue?

Oh yeah, extra bonus for screwing responsible people who save for retirement, and thr old folks currently retired, by seizing their income ("corporate profits") for government to spend. I'm sure government will be responsible enough to spend it on those retiree's bills and needs, as opposed to wasting it on more bombs for Middle East. /S

3) Discriminating against foreigners:

"Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries."

It's as if the poor Chinese (and "other low-wage countries" citizens) who have just recently started digging themselves out of extreme poverty thanks to our consumerism, don't need or deserve an opportunity to have an income and survive. Bernie world be fine if they went back to subsistence farming and age 30 life expectancies. Not to mention that it's thanks to those low wage workers that our own poorest are still able to survive, buying really cheap products. Close off trade, and Bernie will be screwing our poor too.

 

By the way, all that said, on the current topic, Trump is just as insane of a choice, since outright fascism isn't much better than whatever Bernie is peddling.

 

I am going to nitpick here:

"1) Discriminating against low skilled low productive workers in jobs:

"Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020. In the year 2015, no one who works 40 hours a week should be living in poverty."

(Of course, if you are not skilled enough to create $15 an hour worth of work, you'll be living in $0 an hour poverty)"

That line isn't discriminating low skilled workers. That particular line is telling you that the Min. Wage will be adjusted from the fed 7.25 to 15 over the course of 5-6 years. Means that the Minimum wage will adjust itself over time, if not slowly. It isn't an immediate increase like a lot of people have been yelling about. The next bit is more-or-less speaking on people who work low-skilled or entry-level jobs at 7.25, which state workers and entry level clerks fall into that line. Most state and government jobs would see the increase first before the rest of non-government employers, and it would be up to the businesses to set it. 

 

What would be discrimination is if he said that he would reform welfare to remove social security and unemployment for people who are unemployed which is something a few of the Extreme right have said over and over again.

. 

There's no discrimination and I have read your link.

 

"2) Discriminating against wealthy and anyone associated with wealth ("wall street speculators"? Wtf?):"

 

He is speaking on businesses that ship jobs, like factory production overseas and not keeping them in the US. It's been a giant gripe for years among Democrats since potential "meaningless" jobs like telemarketing to producing stupid brooms and dustpans are sent over because China offers cheaper incentives and isn't bogged down by environmental regulations and carbon taxes, which companies producing goods in the US have to pay. 

 

Which also brings me to:

"3) Discriminating against foreigners:

"Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs. If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries."

It's as if the poor Chinese (and "other low-wage countries" citizens) who have just recently started digging themselves out of extreme poverty thanks to our consumerism, don't need or deserve an opportunity to have an income and survive. Bernie world be fine if they went back to subsistence farming and age 30 life expectancy. Not to mention that it's thanks to those low wage workers that our own poorest are still able to survive, buying really cheap products. Close off trade, and Bernie will be screwing our poor too."

Not discriminating foreigners or other Xenophobic tripe, but discriminating companies that shift jobs that produce goods to overseas. Potential factory jobs that Americans can use...or if some company wants to hire Mexicans instead of Americans asking for 15 dollars an hour to make brooms and cellphones. It will not close trade or create an "Embargo" on foreign goods since we do get a substantial amount of trade with most countries in the world. 

I will have to give you a C+

[TrishaCat]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Sanders believes that if you are not skilled and productive enough to generate some minimum amount of income, then you should be jobless and poor (his minimum wage policy).

 Sanders believes that if you have busted ass in college and work, rose up in your position, married someone just as hard working as you, and together you live in a fairly affluent area, then you should lose the right to a much bigger chunk of the time and labor that you spent at work (anyone, or family, making over some amount of money, regardless of why or how hard they worked to get there, should be taxed at a higher level).

Sanders has repeatedly called to criminalize, prosecute, and jail "bankers" and those on Wall Street, without ever naming any names, basically covering everyone in a blanket statement, regardless of whether they did anything wrong.

Sanders believes people who live and work in other countries do not deserve their jobs and livelihoods, calling on bans on imports of foreign goods, as if people who simply live in a different geography are worse, or less deserving, of having a good life than people who live here (which, frankly, is the type of tribalism that isn't that much better than Trump's).

You don't really need to look up references for these. His supporters will happily back me up that these are the things he believes and promises.

You say these like they're a bad thing. (I'm only slightly joking)

And a lot of your statements, especially when explained further in your later post, are exaggerations and/or deriving far more extreme consequences and situations out of much less extreme statements and views from Sanders. Especially the last one; he never said that importing goods would be disallowed. He just wants more focus on American industry and wants to push companies to make and sell products using American goods in America, which would in turn improve the economic conditions of the country.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Battlechili

[Khaki]

I'd be interested in seeing Trump get into power just for the sake of seeing what will happen as to whether he will actually make an effort

to improve/ruin the country or just let everything continue to slide along on it's usual downward tangent like everyone else does.

[Saxon]

Rassah, your idea of what constitutes 'discrimination' is a joke. Tax evasion by wealthy multi-national organisations, which base their headquarters in tax havens to avoid paying any realistic amount of tax like everyone else, are a genuine problem.

It's not discrimination to expect such companies to pay their same fair dues that everybody else is expected to.

 

I don't know much of sanders, because I'm not an American, but that sounds like a very good policy. It is an injustice that rich companies can dodge their taxes.

[Half-Note]

20 hours ago, Zerig said:

Quality post. <3

[Half-Note]

Anyway, say Sanders is elected. Bunch of bankers and Wall Street traders are criminally charged with the reason being "you are a rich corporative, so even if you made your money fairly by providing masses of goods that have a high demand, we're still throwing you under the same umbrella as those that are fraudulent". Assuming the stockholders of the corporation are found guilty, they'll a), face heavy fines which will likely run the companies as a whole into the ground, or b) be imprisoned, which would also have a huge economical impact on the companies due to change of leadership, management, and so forth. I don't think it'd be easy running K-Mart from inside a federal prison, after all.

So that's the corporations taken care of, right? But wait, we need to raise wages! How do we do that? We raise the prices of our services! So now you make more of the currency, but the services the currency buys cost more too, hence the currency is now worth less than before. Besides, if the people make more, they can afford more, so there's no reason to worry about that.

Sanders also wants education to be tax-covered by using the US-military fund, which I think is great, everyone should have an opportunity to support the society they live in by doing what they want, but what else will the US-military cutbacks cover? Healthcare! Now, I agree that healthcare is a good service to be providing, and with everyone chipping in to pay for surgeries that not many single individuals could afford, those individuals do they get the help they need to survive, but the question I have is, are people obligated to pay for someone else's well-being? Has the person being treated done anything to deserve anything from the tax-payers? One could turn this around and say that your taxes pay for your own well-being too, but not everyone wants to pay that extra for healthcare unless they feel the need to, and I don't think they should be forced to, and threatened with imprisonment if they refuse to pay their taxes. Should quality healthcare be available? Yes, but it shouldn't be forced on someone to cover for it if they have no wish to make use of it anyway.

As for sanctions against China, given how 1 USD can come a loooooong way there given the vast differences in both nations' economy, Sanders' rethoric is a little concerning. Not only that, but imposed sanctions will have a damage on trade and import, so that in the long run, supplies that are mass-produced in China and imported to the USA will most likely fall into a shortage, raising prices of said supply. "But we'll still be making textiles in the US!", you say? Yes, but...! Remember the wage raises? Mhm, those clothes will be Hell'a expensive too!

My neo-economic knowledge is improving methinks.

[Onnes]

I wish Sanders would go all in and include a basic income in his platform. Not that I think that would ever make it past the House within the next decade, but it would at least enter it into the conversation. Combine basic income with universal healthcare and you can eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, and so many other smaller programs as well as largely obviating the minimum wage and the full-time/part-time distinction.

18 hours ago, evan said:

...i'm an idiot and went to said link. i enjoyed it, though.

We've finally come full circle to where those who were too young when the classic shock sites first appeared are now old enough to visit them unaware.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Onnes

[Zeke]

Taxing certain firms would also have some businesses thinking about budgeting more and knowing where to place their money to benefit their company instead of frivolous spending.

Too bad Companies are run by humans and humans are subjected to greed. :V

 

[Rassah]

12 hours ago, Zeke said:

That line isn't discriminating low skilled workers. That particular line is telling you that the Min. Wage will be adjusted from the fed 7.25 to 15 over the course of 5-6 years. Means that the Minimum wage will adjust itself over time, if not slowly. It isn't an immediate increase like a lot of people have been yelling about.

That just means that he will be discriminating against increasingly skilled workers...

Quote

The next bit is more-or-less speaking on people who work low-skilled or entry-level jobs at 7.25, which state workers and entry level clerks fall into that line. Most state and government jobs would see the increase first before the rest of non-government employers, and it would be up to the businesses to set it. 

I have no doubt that government will have no issue hiring these people. Government doesn't operate on revenues, so if they run out of money paying for these workers, them just take more from the rest of us. Unfortunately businesses do operate on revenues. And if the employee can't produce more than the minimum amount required by government, Bernie's policy will tell them they're not allowed to be hired. Which is what minimum wage was historically supposed to be for, anyway.

Quote

He is speaking on businesses that ship jobs, like factory production overseas and not keeping them in the US.

In the second one he's not just taking about those who shift their money overseas, but about "wealthy" and "speculators" in general, including those who do that. Who already pay most of the taxes. I would be surprised if Bernie said he didn't want to raise income taxes on the wealthy too. And would not be surprised if he didn't know what a speculator was.

Quote

Not discriminating foreigners or other Xenophobic tripe, but discriminating companies that shift jobs that produce goods to overseas.

At this point no one shifts jobs overseas. At least not to China. Us foreigners can't compete in China against the Chinese who live there, know the culture and environment, and have the necessary connections. So Chinese establish their own businesses and factories, and our companies simply buy from there instead of locally, since it's cheaper.

Quote

Potential factory jobs that Americans can use...or if some company wants to hire Mexicans instead of Americans asking for 15 dollars an hour to make brooms and cellphones.

I'm not sure I want to pay two or three times the amount for brooms and cellphones (and other necessities). But at least I can afford it. Why is it that everyone is so concerned about the workers, but no one ever considers the customers?

Quote

It will not close trade or create an "Embargo" on foreign goods since we do get a substantial amount of trade with most countries in the world. 

 

12 hours ago, Battlechili said:

he never said that importing goods would be disallowed.

But that's exactly what getting rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR will do. It won't outright ban all imports, but it will restrict them and increase their costs so much (through increased import taxes) that it might as well have the same effect. We already have issue with that in US with high sugar tariffs that make imported sugar too expensive, our own sugar almost as expensive, and which resulted in Americans putting corn syrup in EVERYTHING.

Quote

He just wants more focus on American industry and wants to push companies to make and sell products using American goods in America, which would in turn improve the economic conditions of the country.

That's a fallacy that concentrates only on the producers but ignores consumers. If we have to make a widget, using more of our own resources, we are tying up those resources and can't use them on anything else. If someone else is making that widget, and cheaper than we can (meaning more efficiently), that means we can use those resources for more important things, whole getting a widget cheaper than if we had made it ourselves. So end result is things we buy are cheaper too, and we can have more things.

 

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

Tax evasion by wealthy multi-national organisations, which base their headquarters in tax havens to avoid paying any realistic amount of tax like everyone else, are a genuine problem.

Don't forget that those not paid taxes end up as profits reflected in people's mutual funds, retirement investments, and pensions. The taxes still get paid on them, but by retiree's who have to pay capital gains. If you tax that multinational corporate profit, not only are you taking money from retirees, you're taxing them twice. Which isn't really fair.

[Rassah]

10 hours ago, Khaki said:

to improve/ruin the country or just let everything continue to slide along on it's usual downward tangent like everyone else does.

Despite all our arguments, this is actually what will happen. None of the policies either of the guys is promising that people will be voting them in for will actually pass. And chances are they know it too. It's like they're running for class president, on promises of Coca Cola in school water fountains.

49 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Taxing certain firms would also have some businesses thinking about budgeting more and knowing where to place their money to benefit their company instead of frivolous spending.

That doesn't make sense. Spending is spending, and is tax deductible, regardless of whether it's frivolous or not...

49 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Too bad Companies are run by humans and humans are subjected to greed. :V

It's a good thing the only way companies can satisfy their greed is through sales, and the only way to increase sales is by selling the best quality and best value products. :V

[Zeke]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

That doesn't make sense. Spending is spending, and is tax deductible, regardless of whether it's frivolous or not...

It's a good thing the only way companies can satisfy their greed is through sales, and the only way to increase sales is by selling the best quality and best value products. :V

Deciding where you put your money does make sense in the long run for your employees. It's either planning to put it into buying new raw materials to satisfy the demand for a product...or decide to expand on the "Company" golf course for shits and giggles. One has a higher outcome for revenue and the other is just a lawn. 

The best way to satisfy company success is through the sale of high quality good yes, but only if those goods haven't been cheapened out due to irresponsibly distributing funds from one place to another...or to use "Cheaper" materials to create the same goods to sell it at the same price. 

As for the other parts..(Do not know why the hell you won't merge your posts), the conditions of the workers makes for better morale and more likey that you will have better production. If your workers are working in shit conditions, that can cause not only problems for you as a company to lose money because your workers are getting sick or injured more often, but it also lessens the morale of your workers altogether.  It also lessens the quality of your goods because your demoralized employees aren't working up to par, so you have to spend more money replacing them due to a high turnover or settling lawsuits if one person had their arms sliced up by the weaving machine, or sick days which you can lose productivity and that's a loss of profit. You could also hire immigrants, but that's more trouble than it's worth law-wise, and has serious ramifications if you are caught. If you are all for profit, you could always threaten them to have them deported.Good employees make for a better company as a whole regardless if you are making cheap pencils or making bacon. Let's be honest here, in today's PC society, people will buy more if your company is a moralfag, and that's good for business to have people know that your workers are fat and happy. Customers will go for that.  You can still be as crooked as a question mark, but still treat your workers like human beings and ensure their trust when shit hits the fan. Business isn't all about profit, it is also understanding the social workings both inside and outside your company, as well as the psychology makeup of your workers in order ensure that your maximizing both their potential to ensure big profits that you can trickle down to your workers. 

As for Minimum wage, the fed sets it and you can set it either close to the minimum, or go over and cut hours. Companies do that to save money and/or hire more part timers for less depending on the job. Full time's only reserved for those higher up the corporate ladder. 

[Saxon]

@Rassah  By that argument, any tax evasion is acceptable, because it "ends up in people's retirement investments at some point".

How patently absurd.

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

Deciding where you put your money does make sense in the long run for your employees. It's either planning to put it into buying new raw materials to satisfy the demand for a product...or decide to expand on the "Company" golf course for shits and giggles. One has a higher outcome for revenue and the other is just a lawn. 

But that has no bearing on taxes, and conversely, higher corporate taxes will not inventivize companies to spend better instead of frivolously, as you claimed.

Quote

The best way to satisfy company success is through the sale of high quality good yes, but only if those goods haven't been cheapened out due to irresponsibly distributing funds from one place to another...or to use "Cheaper" materials to create the same goods to sell it at the same price. 

So, if you don't follow the best ways to satisfy company success, and produce worse quality products with cheaper materials, then your company will fail instead of succeeding, and disappear. So what's the problem? 

Quote

As for the other parts, the conditions of the workers makes for better morale and more likey that you will have better production.

That's true everywhere, including in China. And that's why work environment for Chinese workers (and those in India and other third world countries we outsource to) have improved drastically compared to what they all used to be. But just because workers there earn $2.70 an hour versus ours earning $7.50 an hour doesn't mean the workers there are treated badly or live much worse off. Don't forget that cost of living in those countries is way smaller than here. Most of our incomes here go to pay for housing. You can rent a really nice place in India for just $250 a month, and most people don't need places that "expensive."

And if the company does treat its workers badly, has high turnover, etc, then that company will either have higher overall costs of products, which means we won't buy them, or the company will go bust from human resource issues, and disappear. Either way, it will fix itself. It's not like those business things you describe only work in US, and that's why we have to have all our workers here, getting paid almost three times as much.

Quote

As for Minimum wage, the fed sets it and you can set it either close to the minimum, or go over and cut hours. Companies do that to save money and/or hire more part timers for less depending on the job. Full time's only reserved for those higher up the corporate ladder. 

Cutting hours and using part timers doesn't make a difference, when you are paying $7.50 for an hour of labor. If you need to spend an hour to get something done, you'll pay the minimum regardless of the worker's employment status. Part timers are only used to avoid the benefits that full timers often earn on top of that minimum wage.

And if the hour of labor that I need to produce something gives me something that I can sell for less than $7.50 (or $15 as Bernie wants), such as if a part that takes an hour to make sells less than $7.50, or the convenience store that I need a cashier to sit at earns less than $7.50 an hour is profit from sales, well then there's no way I can afford to pay for that hour of labor, part time or not.

And, conversely, if you're not the type of employee that can do something that generates $7.50 worth of wealth every hour, then according to this law you don't deserve a job.

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

@Rassah  By that argument, any tax evasion is acceptable, because it "ends up in people's retirement investments at some point".

How patently absurd.

Well, true, actually. All money that we take away from people is money those people would otherwise spend on their bills, necessities, and hopefully savings and retirement. But in this case the corporate taxes quite literally and directly take away retirement money. And increasing that amount of taxation will literally cut incomes of people who depend on that money right now, not some time in the future. That's what interest returns on stocks and bonds are: they're "corporate profits."

What's really absurd is idiots being so incensed at the word "profit" and the idea that corporations can make so much of it that it's "unfair," that they're driven to support policies about things they don't understand that screw themselves in the ass.