[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[CodeRedR51]

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.

Not to mention his main competition may end up in jail, so...

 

[squadops]

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.

I think he has publicly stated that, could be wrong I'd have to check. There is a very strong 3rd party guy though who will see it through to the end

Yes @R1600Turbo you've said it a few times already and I happen to agree with you, she is gawd awful, I could go all the way back to Arkansas days but it's not going to matter. Check out what Steve posted in the arab spring thread 👍

Perhaps it's important to drive this point a bit more, the DNC is scared to death of Trump as they should be, as the whole country should be, maybe that is your answer.

 

[Pillo-san]

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.

It was a metaphor/example I just used because some people here thinks that being a person that wants to be treated with an ounce of respect as a human being and not an expandable cheap worker that can be exploited how the company seems fit does mean he/she is demanding bad worker. Like I said a happy worker is often a good worker that a company can trust. Ie does not even need to oversee the workers effort. But what do I know how thing are in the states, maybe your people does their business/work just like the big companies, as fast and cheap as possible but wanting to rake in all the benefits/prize. But I am doubtful, people given chance want to do the best possible even in USA.

 

[squadops]

Well there is a reason I asked about the EU, you guys would be better off without them imo of course. I have nothing against any sort of anything if it works for the people, what I am against is people wanting to change what the u.s. is. I will try to explain with a few quotes, some that I've shared already but whatever maybe they will make more sense to you now 👍 Give me a few..

Here is one.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

.

And here is the other, I apologize to those who may think I'm just beating a dead horse, I just thought you might want to see these things together to better understand my stance, I'm going to bold a part.

bout to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our Government, and consequently those which ought to shape its Administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people -- a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

 

[Pillo-san]

@squadops, is the first quote taken from JFK speech?
What does it have to do with this? like I said no one is promoting what you are talking about.

the second one you already forced me to read once before....

A country is just a piece of land that is made up by the people that inhabit those borders. What the laws written on a old paper has nothing to do with the country itself. It does not give any rights/benefits, it is the population itself. Do you think that the Armed forces on the orders of the government will turn against its citizens just to protect the American way? What if they demand change, like starting to elect more and more like Bernie. So that banks/big companies can not get their way anymore.. what then?

Because actully I thing USA is tired of this crap, I mean look, Bearnie a socialist democrat is one of those in the centre of it all right now.

 

[Dotini]

Do you think that the Armed forces on the orders of the government will turn against its citizens just to protect the American way? What if they demand change, like starting to elect more and more like Bernie. So that banks/big companies can not get their way anymore...what then?

If the people started electing more and more like Bernie, the establishment banks and companies would not require the government to use armed force. Control would be reestablished by freeing up money, freeing up sex, expanding the quantity and quality of entertainment, booze and drugs.

 

[squadops]

Because actully I thing USA is tired of this crap, I mean look, Bearnie a socialist democrat is one of those in the centre of it all right now.

Well I'm going to stick to our constitution

Yeah yeah, I did make you read both of those things before, I feel no need for a revolution and that is what would happen if we elected a socialist, well maybe not but that is what I would want to come of it

Check this then, my favorite line "you say you have a real solution, well you know, we'd all love to see the plan"

 

[CodeRedR51]

If the people started electing more and more like Bernie, the establishment banks and companies would not require the government to use armed force. Control would be reestablished by freeing up money, freeing up sex, expanding the quantity and quality of entertainment, booze and drugs.

This makes absolutely no sense.

 

[squadops]

it's called satire.

 

[dylansan]

Just want to point out that the reason Sanders has given for not running third party is that Hillary would be a much better president than the republican candidates. It has nothing to do with his senate seat.

 

[CodeRedR51]

it's called satire.

Sorry my internet satire detector is down for maintenance due to recent events.

 

[FoolKiller]

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

It's wrong to try and operate a business as efficiently as possible?

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.

There is nothing wrong with trying to make your worker happy, but if plenty of people are willing to do the job for less there is no reason to increase the pay or benefits.

Second, who said that if the employee requests more they get fired? It doesn't work that way unless the employer is a total ass. The employee has a choice to accept current conditions or leave. That is his right, not more pay or benefits that his employer is unwilling to give.

Is it intimidation if the best employee demands more or threatens to walk out the door, leaving the employer in a bind?

It's almost like you only read this one paragraph from my post and didn't see where I am in a situation where I think I should have more than my current employer is offering me. I'm not fired. I'm not out of a job.

Stop acting like an American employer will just kick people out the door and make them work in the worst conditions possible. It is so far from the norm here that it is laughable. They aren't robber barons sitting around kicking dirt on the little people.

I'll say it again, you repeatedly show that you don't understand how the US job market works.

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.

An individual does. They can agree with each other on a pay and benefits that the job is worth. If they can't agree, both have the right to give in or deny the contract. Both have the same rights. No one is forced to work with the other under conditions they find acceptable.

I was unemployed for four months a few years back. I knew exactly what pay and benefits I found necessary for certain types of work. I turned down two job offers because they didn't meet those terms.

If you have highly desirable skills here you can negotiate a salary. You can negotiate more salary for less benefits. Well, you could until Obamacare.

 

[Biggles]

Hard to keep track of the squadops induced post-proliferation, but to go back to Danoff's point:

.
Feel free to insert your own definition that shows a decline since the 70s. I've given you a fairly objective one. I know that today the obsession is not with how much you have but with whether or not you have as much as your neighbor, but economically it's a meaningless standard.

Surely you realize that an increase in GDP per capita doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the standard of living of the average family?

The whole point of capitalism is that it allows the capitalist class - those who own the means of production - to increase productivity - which can be measured by GDP growth - while retaining the profits generated by that increase in productivity. Retaining the profits allows the capitalist to re-invest in new businesses, land, machinery, real estate etc. which allows the capitalist to make more profit & so on. In Marx's view this would eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism because concentration of wealth in the hands of the few would result in the impoverished masses no longer having the means to purchase the goods produced by the capitalist's businesses.

As it turned out, things did not ultimately follow this progression. Two disastrous World Wars, a Great Depression, revolution & a fear of revolution, & the growth of democratic power resulted in circumstances & government policy that actually led to diminishing wealth inequalities during most of the 20th century. Those policies included things like social security, improved access to education & health care, unionization of workers, affirmative action & minimum wage laws & high marginal tax rates. There were still very wealthy individuals, but the gap between the very wealthy & the middle & working classes was much reduced.

All this began to change again after the introduction of "Trickle Down" economics in the 1980's. Much lower tax rates on the very wealthy & the consolidation of businesses (including banks) into larger & larger units led to an increasing concentration of wealth - especially for the "0.1%". The key factor was increasing globalization, which put many large, multi-national corporations out of the control of national democratic forces. Globalization allowed big corporations to by-pass local labour & environmental laws & undermined union power. It has also, gradually, opened new markets for goods in previously undeveloped countries, which also makes the capitalist class less dependent on Western consumers.

There are lots of statistics that show what's been happening in the US. This is what I've come up with:

The figures indicate that since 1967 the top 5% of earners have done very well, the top 20% have also done well, the lower quintiles - particularly the lower 3 quintiles have seen very little increase in earning power in the last 50 years.
My suspicion is that the top 1% will have done significantly better than the top 5%, & the top .01% would be totally off the chart. I would guess that Trump supporters would figure heavily in the bottom 3 quintiles, people who have largely been left behind in the last few decades.

 

[squadops]

Hard to keep track of the squadops induced post-proliferation, but to go back to Danoff's point:

I gave you a shout out along the way at least

 

[Danoff]

Hard to keep track of the squadops induced post-proliferation, but to go back to Danoff's point:



View attachment 538633

Surely you realize that an increase in GDP per capita doesn't necessarily indicate anything about the standard of living of the average family?

The whole point of capitalism is that it allows the capitalist class - those who own the means of production - to increase productivity - which can be measured by GDP growth - while retaining the profits generated by that increase in productivity. Retaining the profits allows the capitalist to re-invest in new businesses, land, machinery, real estate etc. which allows the capitalist to make more profit & so on. In Marx's view this would eventually lead to the collapse of capitalism because concentration of wealth in the hands of the few would result in the impoverished masses no longer having the means to purchase the goods produced by the capitalist's businesses.

As it turned out, things did not ultimately follow this progression. Two disastrous World Wars, a Great Depression, revolution & a fear of revolution, & the growth of democratic power resulted in circumstances & government policy that actually led to diminishing wealth inequalities during most of the 20th century. Those policies included things like social security, improved access to education & health care, unionization of workers, affirmative action & minimum wage laws & high marginal tax rates. There were still very wealthy individuals, but the gap between the very wealthy & the middle & working classes was much reduced.

All this began to change again after the introduction of "Trickle Down" economics in the 1980's. Much lower tax rates on the very wealthy & the consolidation of businesses (including banks) into larger & larger units led to an increasing concentration of wealth - especially for the "0.1%". The key factor was increasing globalization, which put many large, multi-national corporations out of the control of national democratic forces. Globalization allowed big corporations to by-pass local labour & environmental laws & undermined union power. It has also, gradually, opened new markets for goods in previously undeveloped countries, which also makes the capitalist class less dependent on Western consumers.

There are lots of statistics that show what's been happening in the US. This is what I've come up with:


View attachment 538640





View attachment 538641



View attachment 538642

The figures indicate that since 1967 the top 5% of earners have done very well, the top 20% have also done well, the lower quintiles - particularly the lower 3 quintiles have seen very little increase in earning power in the last 50 years.
My suspicion is that the top 1% will have done significantly better than the top 5%, & the top .01% would be totally off the chart. I would guess that Trump supporters would figure heavily in the bottom 3 quintiles, people who have largely been left behind in the last few decades.

My point was not that GDP is the end-all be-all of statistics. My point was that the notion that there has been a decline since the 70s is nonsense. A point which you have actually supported with your charts.

Regarding your charts, they don't show what you think they do. First of all, despite what everyone who promotes class warfare wants to assume, people are not stuck in "classes". The US is one of the most upwardly mobile populations in the world. Generally someone who starts out in the bottom quintile as a 20 year old transitions to one of the upper quintiles by the time they retire.

The top chart is fairly pointless since it should be logarithmic. The second chart is showing increased standard of living across all people, especially during the Reagan administration (which you highlighted) who was president from 81 to 89. There's a correction for everyone followed by a major boom for everyone, followed by another correction. Then we get a period of economic turmoil while Keynesian economics is attempted to maintain the bubble - which doesn't work. Note that the hardest hit from the socialist and Keynesian policies of the late 90s and 2000s are some of the lowest quintiles. Enacting further socialist policies doesn't seem to have stopped the bleeding either.

There is no such thing as monopolizing the means to production. It's easier to start a company from nothing today than it ever has been, barriers to entry for producing have never been lower. Globalization of corporations has resulted in unprecedented access to entrepreneurship. So if Marx was predicting that the lowest class of society would be exploited by the rich who monopolize access to wealth generation, he has been proven wrong astoundingly thoroughly.

Anyway, thanks for your help.

 

[huskeR32]

Rand Paul is not Ron Paul first off

What on Earth does this have to do with anything I said?

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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

The first paragraph of your own article there clearly states that democratic socialism is not the same thing as Marxism. Or, ya know, the same thing I've been telling you for a couple pages now.

Despite what @huskeR32 might have you think, even the dems do not wish to own production, they'd rather control and tax it.

Don't put words in my mouth. I've never said anything remotely like that.

And, as I've pointed out to you multiple times, even Bernie himself doesn't want the government to control economic production.

At this point, though, it's obviously a lost cause to expect you to acknowledge anything resembling reality, so I'm done. Go on arguing with yourself, I no longer have any interest in stopping you.

 

[Pillo-san]

There is no such thing as monopolizing the means to production. It's easier to start a company from nothing today than it ever has been, barriers to entry for producing have never been lower. Globalization of corporations has resulted in unprecedented access to entrepreneurship.

Tell it to all those people that have been chased out of their land for example for oil, all in the name of "Global Entrepreneurship" Again it is a way to exploit others as no one of those global entrepreneurs seems to be responsible. This country have no laws against this and this and this, and if someone is in the way, well just hire some crooks to get the problem out of the way.



You do think it is a "right" to not agree to a employment contract/ie not take the job/leave the job when it is simply natural thing to do so.

It is not a "right". A right is what you expect of the company/country/fellow human being to respect you. You are working at this company, giving your time and effort, you are spending more time at work then being awake at home, the work is a part of your life. It is natural that you should have rights at work. Again, because like it or not you spend your life for it.


Your given point of view makes it seem like as you are not free and someone would shoot you for saying no to a job if you had not that right to be able to not agree/say no to a certain job... hehe, sounds exaggerated but it is the picture you painted with what you said to me

 

[Johnnypenso]

Don't put words in my mouth. I've never said anything remotely like that.

And, as I've pointed out to you multiple times, even Bernie himself doesn't want the government to control economic production.

Bernie wants to put an end to fracking arguably a big part of the reason Americans are paying $2/gallon of gas currently. Bernie wants to heavily subsidize the installation of solar panels for low income families. Bernie wants to subsidize the transition away from cheap fossil fuels and into more expensive "green" energy initiatives. Bernie wants to spend lots of tax dollars subsidizing inefficient green energy job creation. Energy is the basis of all economic production.

Tell it to all those people that have been chased out of their land for example for oil, all in the name of "Global Entrepreneurship" Again it is a way to exploit others as no one of those global entrepreneurs seems to be responsible. This country have no laws against this and this and this, and if someone is in the way, well just hire some crooks to get the problem out of the way.

You have no idea how things work in this part of the world do you? Do you have some examples of people "chased out of their land for oil"?

You do think it is a "right" to not agree to a employment contract/ie not take the job/leave the job when it is simply natural thing to do so.

It is not a "right". A right is what you expect of the company/country/fellow human being to respect you. You are working at this company, giving your time and effort, you are spending more time at work then being awake at home, the work is a part of your life. It is natural that you should have rights at work. Again, because like it or not you spend your life for it.

Respect is not a right, it must be earned. You can legally enforce behaviours, not respect.

Your given point of view makes it seem like as you are not free and someone would shoot you for saying no to a job if you had not that right to be able to not agree/say no to a certain job... hehe, sounds exaggerated but it is the picture you painted with what you said to me

Ridiculous exaggeration.

 

[Danoff]

Tell it to all those people that have been chased out of their land for example for oil, all in the name of "Global Entrepreneurship" Again it is a way to exploit others as no one of those global entrepreneurs seems to be responsible. This country have no laws against this and this and this, and if someone is in the way, well just hire some crooks to get the problem out of the way.

"Chased out of their land"? Give me an example that does not involve the government refusing to acknowledge property rights.

You do think it is a "right" to not agree to a employment contract/ie not take the job/leave the job when it is simply natural thing to do so.

It is not a "right". A right is what you expect of the company/country/fellow human being to respect you. You are working at this company, giving your time and effort, you are spending more time at work then being awake at home, the work is a part of your life. It is natural that you should have rights at work. Again, because like it or not you spend your life for it.


Your given point of view makes it seem like as you are not free and someone would shoot you for saying no to a job if you had not that right to be able to not agree/say no to a certain job... hehe, sounds exaggerated but it is the picture you painted with what you said to me

You're muddying the waters by conflating lawlessness with voluntary employment. You do not have a right to "expect" anything more than what you agreed to when you sign a contract.

 

[huskeR32]

Bernie wants to put an end to fracking arguably a big part of the reason Americans are paying $2/gallon of gas currently. Bernie wants to heavily subsidize the installation of solar panels for low income families. Bernie wants to subsidize the transition away from cheap fossil fuels and into more expensive "green" energy initiatives. Bernie wants to spend lots of tax dollars subsidizing inefficient green energy job creation. Energy is the basis of all economic production.

That may all be so, but none of that constitutes Marxism.

If heavily subsidizing something equals Marxism, then we've been a Marxist country for a long time now, and both parties are equally culpable for it.

 

[CodeRedR51]

My point was not that GDP is the end-all be-all of statistics. My point was that the notion that there has been a decline since the 70s is nonsense.

I know when I said that it was very generic, but what I meant was that this country really hasn't truly done anything great enough since the late 60's for the world to stand up and take notice. Maybe the Space Shuttle might be an exception, but other than that we're mostly known for starting wars and policing the world. Both huge negatives.

 

[TenEightyOne]

7-Eleven, 911, same thing right?

 

[Dennisch]

7-Eleven, 911, same thing right?

I like how everyone anti Trump makes a huge deal out of it. My FB is full of it.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That may all be so, but none of that constitutes Marxism. If heavily subsidizing something equals Marxism, then we've been a Marxist country for a long time now, and both parties are equally culpable for it.

I wasn't arguing that Bernie is a Marxist. I was responding to your assertion that Bernie doesn't want to control economic production when he clearly wants to completely shift the focus of energy production in the U.S. from relatively cheap fossil fuels to more expensive green energy.

 

[Danoff]

I know when I said that it was very generic, but what I meant was that this country really hasn't truly done anything great enough since the late 60's for the world to stand up and take notice. Maybe the Space Shuttle might be an exception, but other than that we're mostly known for starting wars and policing the world. Both huge negatives.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I know when I said that it was very generic, but what I meant was that this country really hasn't truly done anything great enough since the late 60's for the world to stand up and take notice. Maybe the Space Shuttle might be an exception, but other than that we're mostly known for starting wars and policing the world. Both huge negatives.

I could go on...and on...and on...and on...

 

[huskeR32]

I was responding to your assertion that Bernie doesn't want to control economic production when he clearly wants to completely shift the focus of energy production in the U.S. from relatively cheap fossil fuels to more expensive green energy.

Subsidizing something does not equal public control of it. So I'm failing to see what point you're trying to make.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Subsidizing something does not equal public control of it. So I'm failing to see what point you're trying to make.

Yes it does. Heavy subsidies pull money away from energy production that might otherwise be more cost efficient. That is the entire purpose of subsidies, to get people to invest in things they would not otherwise invest in. It is an indirect form of control, punishing and/or outlawing fossil fuel use/production and investment through legislation and using tax dollars to promote more expensive green energy. The point is obvious.

 

[Pillo-san]

"Chased out of their land"? Give me an example that does not involve the government refusing to acknowledge property rights.

You're muddying the waters by conflating lawlessness with voluntary employment. You do not have a right to "expect" anything more than what you agreed to when you sign a contract.

There are a bunch of examples, the Lundin oil scandal for example, and yeah I give this as an axmple because you think that Social democratic systems can not give rise to people being "Entrepreneurs" hehe.

The BP disaster is yet another big thing for me, that company should be taken down. It caused such a big destruction that it should not be allowed to exist anymore. The destruction out weights far more what it is actually worth.
And the "fracking" of oil just to give you the cheap gasoline is so irresponsible. Not only does it affect your environment and health negatively around you but also the surroundings where the oil is being "fracked" All that you can have cheap gasoline, who give you the right to destroy the world just because you want to have cheap propellant. Switching to a cleaner energy is expensive, that is natural but the cost will go down.

AllI see is, me me me me me me: I do not care about anything but me.Way to go America.

 

[Pillo-san]

I could go on...and on...and on...and on...

How big percentage of those researchers are American born?
Only the owners of those companies are Americans(edited, added what owners in this case refers to)

How I know this? My friends are working in all those industries in USA that you pointed out and they plan to come back once they have saved enough of money so that they can retire.