[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, think about this. how many days off do you get. how many days can you be home when your kid is born. There are a lot of work related problems in USA and I see that people in charge use word as free market to explaining those problems away. Yes it is free market for those that employ people. American system = take as much as you can as fast as you can and screw everybody else....

It is I that should be using that meme about your was of describing when you refer to people and countries as socialistic democrats. Many in USA react to the words socialist democrat as if if someone was showing a vampire the cross and watching how the vampire recoils. :P
 
It's always difficult to explain things for me without sounding like an arrogant jerk but here it goes. You are speaking of large corporations in which they actually treat there people pretty well, what you fail to realize is that the job is voluntary. Personally some years back I ran a fairly large sized small business(I know how that sounds) and I always put my employees interests ahead of mine, why? I could not function without the work force, simple as that.

Now this same exploitation you are speaking of also has to carry over to investors, even the employees you are so worried about buy stock in the company they work for, it's called saving for the future. Do the top get rich? Of course they do, why shouldn't they? More of your class envy garbage.

I know you do not like going back in the thread however I showed you exactly what a true socialist thinks of the idea and I can say with confidence that having a government official run the business would be much much worse and your job might not even be your choice. Here I will find it for you and link it here you lazy git ;)

Here, read this and when you are done please keep telling me just how free you are.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/20-alt.htm

We need not, and will not deprive the small farmer or artisan of the bit of land or the little workshop from which he ekes out a meager existence by the work of his own hands. As time goes by he will realize the superiority of socialized production over private ownership and will come to us of his own accord.

:lol: :lol:

What is Bolshevism? Slavery I would say.
 
Last edited:
Keep telling yourself that, what is your answer for all the so called greedy companies exploiting workers, more tax? Don't make me laugh. This super taxing of the successful will only lead to less productivity and opportunity, what happens then? At this point in my life I don't need to employ people, but I still do, why? Oh I don't know probably because I'm some greedy jackass :lol:

You'll never see it until it is too late.

Any and all social programs the u.s. has started has grown wheels and became a runaway train, look at what I said about ssi, it wasn't even supposed to be permanent yet now look how it is being used and abused. There are simply no brakes involved with the snowball effect. I honestly have no idea where you think the money is going to come from, perhaps it will start growing on trees.
 
Last edited:
my understanding of The American way of conducting its capitalism/free market is that companies and people should earn us much as possible and pay as little as possible back to the country it operates in.
Weird. Not the American Dream people talk about here. Perhaps your understanding is incorrect? Assuming we have a free market/capitalism is your first mistake. Ignoring that I said that government doing things for businesses is not capitalism is your second mistake. Like I said, you are to capitalism what you claim we are to socialism.

As for the paying as little back to the country as possible: Why can that only be defined by being forced to give it to the government for them to manage? How is providing thousands of dollars to medical research every year through a private, non-profit, charitable organization different, other than the donors do it of their own free will not giving back?

Paying as little in wages as possible and not give them as many rights that could result in money spent on the worker instead of going to the profit of the company.
Companies don't provide rights. The employees have the right to take as much time off as they like, but if it harms productivity then the company has the right to find someone else.

Why do you think an employee has a "right" to do whatever while the company doesn't have a right to ask for a minimum standard that they feel is required to be in their employ? Better yet, why does a current employee have a right to demand more money, more time off, more benefits when an unemployed person is willing to do the job as currently offered? If the employee gets his way then the rights of company owners and a potential, but currently unemployed, employee are violated.

See what I did there? Using your definition of rights and freedoms allows me to claim the employee who you defend demanding more hurts the rights of others.

No one is forced to work a specific job. No employer is forced to hire someone. It is an agreement between two entities.

The profit should every quarter be higher and higher than the last, if it goes down just so slightly then cut in the workforce is made just so the owners/directors of the company do not earning a dime less then before even though they do earn multiple/200x or more times the worker.
I won't deny this doesn't happen, but then we aren't exactly practicing capitalism either.

simply put Americas open market is straight up a way to exploit its workforce.
But it's not an open market. We have tons of regulations on businesses. Ironically, most of those help large businesses keep out new competitors. See, not capitalism.

I do promote free and capitalistic system, do not get me wrong. but a company should pay/provide as much as an individual. They are after all using all the benefits in that country they operate.
They should pay as much as an individual is willing to work for. They can choose to pay more, but they have no reason to do so.


Look, you have a mistaken view of how we work here and what it actually is. As I keep saying, we do not have capitalism and free markets. You can't have thousands of regulations, bailouts, and kickbacks and call it that.

That said, I have severe health issues. I still work. I qualify for government assistance but have chosen not to accept it. I have to miss a lot of time for doctor appointments and the occasional hospitalization. None of those days have been unpaid during my entire adult career. In fact, this year I have enough extra time and money to take my daughter to Florida for a week at Disney. I am not rich. I am just in the mid-range of middle class. And my out-of-pocket medical expenses cost less than my taxes.

You know what? I want more. I could walk into my boss's office and demand it right now. But I understand the reality of my employer's finances and that it isn't likely to happen. Know what I'm doing about it? Looking for other jobs. I applied for one today (with a charitable institution, for bonus credit) and had a job interview last week.

See, I feel like I deserve more, so I am seeking it out. I am not running to my government to complain about my employer like some child running to his teacher because Billy won't share the ball.

On top of all that, my health will eventually mean I can't physically work. Knowing that, when I am not busy working, volunteering, or parenting I am slowly working on something I hope I can do from home so that I can avoid being on government assistance.

I love my country and fellow man so much that I am doing everything in my power to avoid finding myself in a place where I have to consider having the government force them to help me.
 
Last edited:
@squadops, you can sound as pompous as you want if you want to, it is internet after all, no need to get winded up it is only words after all.

Just like @huskeR32 is telling you, no one is promoting that.

Good for you that you thought about your employees, kudos to you... It has nothing to do how reality in the States are, many are forced two have several jobs just to survive because of the low minimum wages. How could they even afford medical treatments or similar when they have to think about their children.

No you do not get it. Even in our country a big company does not pay an equal amount of tax as a individual does, and I know for a fact that it is even worse in USA. So a company and the rich should be treated differently than a normal person? Like I have said before, a country should be governed by its government that has its citizens prioritized not the rich and powerful companies that through lobbyists can dictate the laws. I have pointed this out already, it has nothing to do with being envy of a class.. once again, why should there be class differences in a "free society" I have missed something but I did not think USA was a class based society like in imperial/monarchy based countries. Ok so not everyone has the same rights then, you must be from a certain family in a certain class to be given a fair chance in the world.

Got it, The thing you says does not make any sense.. You want to be free do as you please, and pay for things only when you use them without the state interfering in your life. But you also want to have a military power and a sense of security. So every time you get assaulted you swipe your visa so that they can come and help/defend you? You also say that all are equal and as free as the other but you want to have classes in the society so that those belong to a higher class have more rights and more freedom.. Man you are all over the place, I have said this before. You do not know what you want.
 
Last edited:
Just like @huskeR32 is telling you, no one is promoting that.

Not directly but those ideals will lead to exactly what I am saying, at least for the sake of this thread they will and that is why Bernie has no chance. That is what I've been telling you all along, you can argue the statement's validity all you wish but at the end of the day you will see that I am correct.

The reason being is quite simple, I've been around a while, I'm out in the public in business and friendship and family, I know america much better than you do.

I am most intrigued by the generation that my kids fall into(around 20 on average) they have huge numbers, they are not so excited about capitalism nor socialism, they seem to me to be a much more responsible people than I have ever seen in any other generation before or after, they have very large numbers, I really like them. There is probably a term for there gen but I don't know it, I'm waiting to see what they will do with a bit more time. Most of them seem to support a Bernie type of thing.

If you're talking to me, I don't see it, but I'm on my phone.

Yeah, you quoted the other guy and he used some funny font so some of your post looks a bit odd. No big deal 👍
 
I guess it is basically the same thing, but if people are not forced to help others plenty wont do so out of greed. Its just picking between which one is less likely to fail and too me a health care system primarily funded through taxes would fail the least and provide people the best oppurtinitys.
Wonder why charities exist then.
Also taxes would be so minimal on a person who was homless or close too it thatit wouldn't account for much but the little they contribute could be put to use in order to help them.
So just because you think it has a small effect that it makes it acceptable?
 
Why do you think an employee has a "right" to do whatever while the company doesn't have a right to ask for a minimum standard that they feel is required to be in their employ? Better yet, why does a current employee have a right to demand more money, more time off, more benefits when an unemployed person is willing to do the job as currently offered? If the employee gets his way then the rights of company owners and a potential, but currently unemployed, employee are violated.


That is exacly what is wroing with your way of thinking.

Providing a way to make your worker happy is going to make he gives his all for the company. By saying, no you will not get those days off so watch out so that I do not replace you! saying that will not make him work better you know.. Pure intimidation.

A individual should have as much rights as a company that hires him. It is the worker that makes it possible for the owner to even earn money.
 
Let him start his own business then, or get another job. That leads into what angers me about government regulations that end up going against the small man, remember I said something about crooked cronyism?

We do need a system with regulatory economics in mind, I'll give you that much for sure but to me it should protect the small business. Do you see it yet?
 
Wonder why charities exist then.

So just because you think it has a small effect that it makes it acceptable?

For some reason I just distrust the reliabilty of charity to be able to pay for it. Maybe when you pay for it through proper tax there is no need for charity and when you have a good charity there is no need for taxes to pay for it.

Don't kid yourself I don't think taxes always end up in the right places but if it was used to help those people in need what would be wrong with it?
 
Small companies usually can not or have not the contacts/knowledge/time to try lower their taxes as big companies do. A small company is paying a lot more in tax percentage wise that a Big one. A small company do often care about their employees as they do not afford to replace their employees if they should have differences with them. The big bad wolf are the big companies, geeez... Not everything is black or white...

And like somebody already pointed out, you should know better than thinking you know me by only seeing my avatar and having exchanged some words with me on a game forum.
 
@squadops Whether you want to use the term correctly or not, Marxism has a very specific meaning. And the only person here advocating for Marxism is your strawman.

You'd be far better served in your crusade against Bernie by actually arguing the points being raised by real people here in the thread.
 
She only belonged to, get this, I know it's crazy! The democratic socialist movement of Germany.

It doesn't matter in anyway any longer, Bernie is cooked 👍 If you'd like me to argue against him as not a communist that is easy as well, class warfare is stupid. I like the rich because that means I have a chance to be rich as well.

@Pillo-san I guess you didn't catch that bit I said about cronies and regulatory economics. BTW it is the second most important duty of our federal government to properly regulate commerce, something they are not doing. Damn my words are so clear I can only conclude that people wish to look at a pick to nit rather than see what has actually been said.
 
Oh brother @huskeR32, the example you referred to is Rosa Luxemburg, because I compared her ideals to Bernie. I'm so glad that is the only sort of argument you can come up with. :bowdown:
 
That is exacly what is wroing with your way of thinking.

Providing a way to make your worker happy is going to make he gives his all for the company. By saying, no you will not get those days off so watch out so that I do not replace you! saying that will not make him work better you know.. Pure intimidation.

A individual should have as much rights as a company that hires him. It is the worker that makes it possible for the owner to even earn money.

Too be fair a company owner will go through a bunch more stress than a regular employee with no piece of the company, and those with a part in the company are entitled to some sort of reward if they make it succeed are they not? I have seen it first hand with the family business that was started by my grandfather and now includes my father and grandmother.

They went through many employees who were complete junk until a good one came along. Now that the employee is here they treat them as best and fair as they can. Obviously employees need to be treated well but if they have nothing invested or they don't have as much risk involved they are not entitled to everything the company has to offer. Don't even get me started about if they are junk workers and think they are something at the company.
 
@squadops What is your argument then? Bernie is toast because he is calling himself for socialist democrat?
We probably all know that it will probably be Hillary against Cruz I do not see Trump there even if he gets most of republicans votes. You gotta be one of the gang to be included/elected for the presidency. That is how I see politics.

@Turbotwin01 You still miss the point. There are places that have good work ethics, you do your best possible. If the work does not suit you they probably have a short period where you are measured up, but with respect. And yes, that is how socialist democrat are at work. I do not have heard anyone in USA or other part of world complain about the work ethics of a Scandinavian worker(socialist democrat) as you want to call them.
 
What is your argument then? Bernie is toast because he is calling himself for socialist democrat?

Na, I say that because he cannot win the primary. I do claim it is because he is a socialist but that really doesn't matter because for whatever reason, he is done. It's time to pack it in unless he want's to go 3rd party which I believe he said he would not do, care to guess why? I'd guess it's because he has found comfort in his senate seat.

This is meant to be comical so ffs don't get your panties in a ruffle.

Posting in this thread is like whistling in the wind, unless you do not follow someone's idea of protocol, or misspell a word, or use the wrong word, those things will be pointed out. As far as any point you may try to make forget it, it will either be ignored or twisted into a plate of spaghetti :lol:

Therefore I present to you something some of you think but actually does not exist in the USA.
 
@Turbotwin01 You still miss the point. There are places that have good work ethics, you do your best possible. If the work does not suit you they probably have a short period where you are measured up, but with respect. And yes, that is how socialist democrat are at work. I do not have heard anyone in USA or other part of world complain about the work ethics of a Scandinavian worker(socialist democrat) as you want to call them.

For starters I never called them socialist democrats, I think @squadops did. Also I know Scandinavians are hard workers, every country has its share of decent hard working people aswell as scum. However there are some things the private sector just does plane better than the public sector, aswell as vise versa. I personally believe there should be some sort of health care provided by the government, but I also know government run construction efforts can often be much more costly and slower than if a private contractor was brought in.
 
Last edited:
I never said anything about Scandinavians that I can recall. I disagree with government provided healthcare obviously, other than that 👍

I do have to admit to reaping some reward from contracting with the government on construction projects lol.
 
Posting in this thread is like whistling in the wind, unless you do not follow someone's idea of protocol, or misspell a word, or use the wrong word, those things will be pointed out.

How do you expect productive conversation to happen if people don't use the right words? Your insistence on drawing a false equivalency between Bernie Sanders and Marxism helps nobody, and it derails otherwise useful debate.

Rand Paul once said, "The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn't say keep religion out of government."

Now, if I wanted to obnoxious, I could say that sentiment leaves me worried that electing Rand Paul president would be tantamount to instituting Sharia law, and spend the rest of the thread making strong insinuations that Rand Paul really is no different than ISIS when you get right down to it. Gotta learn from history the dangers of governing from a religious viewpoint, right?

You sound no less ridiculous with your continuing insistence that the fate of Soviet communism has something to tell us about the hypothetical presidency of Bernie Sanders.
 
Rand Paul is not Ron Paul first off, second off, we elect religious officials every cycle from city to state to federal, not seeing your point.

Bernie Sanders no longer matters, you can question why I think that is all day long but it's not going to change a thing.

I already know what you are going to say so I'll just cover the bases now. Bernie has proclaimed himself one of these. The very first few words should give you a clue :lol:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't see how Bernie "no longer matters" when he still has lots of support behind him and it being between just him and Hillary.
 
He cannot win the primary, not only do the numbers support what I am saying but you also have to understand what happens at the DNC. Despite what @huskeR32 might have you think, even the dems do not wish to own production, they'd rather control and tax it. There base will flock to Hillary, at this point I really don't see that as simply my opinion.

If for no other reason they know that she can beat Donald if it comes to that, they are not nearly as sure if Bernie could.
 
Has he ruled out running a third party campaign? If not he could still run on his own and have a good chunk of support. I still believe the U.S needs another party and it would be cool if he could kick start the creation of another party.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back