2016 Election Thread Part Deux

#1,701
#1,701
hog88 said:
I do value my workers, they are paid at or above the market. Look, no successful business can survive without good workers but it also wouldn't survive, can't survive if you give the workers the power to set their own wages.
Click to expand...

not under capitalism.. no it can't... you are right.
 
#1,703
#1,703
1972 Grad said:
....and if you need investors to expand your apple business, you might want to consider paying a dividend to entice me to invest.
Click to expand...

yes.. that's capitalism.. that's what needs to go. The need to make a profit is forced on capitalists so they will not lose their investments and their position. Competition with others in this capitalist system forces them to reinvest as much of their profits as they can afford to keep their production up to date.

Every aspect of our lives is dependent on the drive to make profit. In capitalist society, our real needs are secondary to the requirements of profit.
 
#1,704
#1,704
AM64 said:
It's a national disparity. If you can find a presidential election map by county from 2008 - probably 2012 (but I can't remember for sure), you would assume that the Republicans won. A coast-to-coast sea of red with some blotches of blue. The thing was that the blotches of blue were major cities, and they had the bulk of the population. In words from 2002 George Bush carried 2,439 counties and Gore 674, and Bush lost the popular vote. If it were regional, we'd probably be discussing secession and/or civil war. This kind of disparity is probably worse - more like a systemic cancer. We are a country divided in a way that probably cannot be fixed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say?
 
#1,705
#1,705
1972 Grad said:
....and if you need investors to expand your apple business, you might want to consider paying a dividend to entice me to invest.
Click to expand...

And that would make absolute sense with a sane stock market but it's harder and harder to justify stock investment for the dividend or expected growth when the share price is all over the place for completely unrelated reasons. For example, when the cost of oil falls most stocks should rise - if you deal with expectations rather than what the company is really worth. Apple stock should rise because energy costs dropped - transportation and manufacturing, also the costs of the plastics derived from oil. Most companies would see the same dip in production costs - less cost and no change in selling price equals more profit. Consumers were paying less for gas and many less for heating; therefore, they should have had more disposable income. But the market dropped, which in a supposedly un-manipulated market makes no sense unless you see a tremendous drop in incomes directly related to oil production. If we had that, then we'd in essence be on a bare subsistence oil diet - like on the brink of starvation with just one little slip in food production. Individual stock prices should reflect individual corporate value - what you might earn if investing in that company - not crazy stuff that trading programs on steroids, derivatives, etc cause. The disconnect is something like what happens on the football field vs fantasy football - one is real - the other not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,706
#1,706
hog88 said:
In any system I'm right.
Click to expand...

I don't know.. there has never really been a socialist society. We should try it...:peace2:

But capitalism is why Trump and Sanders are doing so well. Trump is no socialist but he talks about bringing jobs back and forcing companies to keep jobs in America and that is not capitalism. Bernie of course is more socialist but talks about the same thing.
 
#1,707
#1,707
Persian Vol said:
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say?
Click to expand...

There is a great difference in the political view in urban and in rural areas. The metropolitan areas dominate because they have the numbers. We may all use some government services, but the urban population is more dependent on those services, and their vote reflects that. The rural areas can subsist without because they can produce what they need to live. The two want different things from government, and the political parties are playing it rather than seeking compromise.
 
#1,708
#1,708
SuperDave said:
I don't know.. there has never really been a socialist society. We should try it...:peace2:

But capitalism is why Trump and Sanders are doing so well. Trump is no socialist but he talks about bringing jobs back and forcing companies to keep jobs in America and that is not capitalism. Bernie of course is more socialist but talks about the same thing.
Click to expand...

Capitalism can't exist without a market for goods. No jobs equals no market. Greed and common sense can exist in either system and make it work or destroy it. Either way, if you kill the goose, there aren't going to be any more golden eggs.
 
#1,710
#1,710
AM64 said:
There is a great difference in the political view in urban and in rural areas. The metropolitan areas dominate because they have the numbers. We may all use some government services, but the urban population is more dependent on those services, and their vote reflects that. The rural areas can subsist without because they can produce what they need to live. The two want different things from government, and the political parties are playing it rather than seeking compromise.
Click to expand...

City life vs rural life is obviously very different and have completely different cultures, hence the disparity between ideologies. But I'm confused to how this relates to the whole map thing exactly and what the whole purpose of bringing this up is
 
#1,713
#1,713
So LG, I have a serious question...

And you can't flip this around and start poking at the GOP either. Straight up yes or no with an explanation.

Do you believe the Super Delegate system within the DNC is fair? And why.
 
#1,714
#1,714
Persian Vol said:
City life vs rural life is obviously very different and have completely different cultures, hence the disparity between ideologies. But I'm confused to how this relates to the whole map thing exactly and what the whole purpose of bringing this up is
Click to expand...

Ah, it started in response to WI delegates and the fact that Clinton with one small county (Milwaukee) got 38 and Sanders carried the entire remainder of the state and got 48 - the urban rural split. My comment was that it was a nationwide thing - intending to mean that virtually the entire country can be controlled election-wise by the urban vote. I wasn't clear in my meaning and it was confusing because I used R vs D and not Sanders vs Clinton to make the point. I didn't understand your first question it and doubtless made the initial comment more confusing. Sorry.

2004-election-county-by-county.gif
 
#1,715
#1,715
AM64 said:
Ah, it started in response to WI delegates and the fact that Clinton with one small county (Milwaukee) got 38 and Sanders carried the entire remainder of the state and got 48 - the urban rural split. My comment was that it was a nationwide thing - intending to mean that virtually the entire country can be controlled election-wise by the urban vote. I wasn't clear in my meaning and it was confusing because I used R vs D and not Sanders vs Clinton to make the point. I didn't understand your first question it and doubtless made the initial comment more confusing. Sorry.

View attachment 109436
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty disgusting.

So many ignorant, intolerant, flat out stupid people. Just think there will still be ignorant lib votes. Dumbf*** people we live with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,716
#1,716
AM64 said:
Ah, it started in response to WI delegates and the fact that Clinton with one small county (Milwaukee) got 38 and Sanders carried the entire remainder of the state and got 48 - the urban rural split. My comment was that it was a nationwide thing - intending to mean that virtually the entire country can be controlled election-wise by the urban vote. I wasn't clear in my meaning and it was confusing because I used R vs D and not Sanders vs Clinton to make the point. I didn't understand your first question it and doubtless made the initial comment more confusing. Sorry.

View attachment 109436
Click to expand...

Yeah that may have been me that started the whole thing...I didn't even mean it to be R vs D or rural vs urban..I wanted to show that Clinton won one county and still got lots of delegates and Trump won the majority and almost got none..it was to point out the differences in the way both parties award delegates
 
#1,717
#1,717
AM64 said:
Ah, it started in response to WI delegates and the fact that Clinton with one small county (Milwaukee) got 38 and Sanders carried the entire remainder of the state and got 48 - the urban rural split. My comment was that it was a nationwide thing - intending to mean that virtually the entire country can be controlled election-wise by the urban vote. I wasn't clear in my meaning and it was confusing because I used R vs D and not Sanders vs Clinton to make the point. I didn't understand your first question it and doubtless made the initial comment more confusing. Sorry.

View attachment 109436
Click to expand...

No big deal. I don't really disagree with what your saying right now, haha it just seemed like stuff that we already knew, but I suppose some people didn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,718
#1,718
VolnJC said:
Yeah that may have been me that started the whole thing...I didn't even mean it to be R vs D or rural vs urban..I wanted to show that Clinton won one county and still got lots of delegates and Trump won the majority and almost got none..it was to point out the differences in the way both parties award delegates
Click to expand...

People really shouldn't look at county victories when looking at results. Delegate count is based on voter percentages from the total population of that state, and you really can't grasp the specific numbers when looking at a color coded map. But I love maps, and I always found it interesting to see what parts of the state share which ideology generally.
 
#1,719
#1,719
Persian Vol said:
People really shouldn't look at county victories when looking at results. Delegate count is based on voter percentages from the total population of that state, and you really can't grasp the specific numbers when looking at a color coded map. But I love maps, and I always found it interesting to see what parts of the state share which ideology generally.
Click to expand...

I do too..if you look at AM64's map..you can see the AA influence along the Mississippi Delta
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,721
#1,721
VolnJC said:
I do too..if you look at AM64's map..you can see the AA influence along the Mississippi Delta
Click to expand...

It's funny you mention that, because I was actually looking at that and thinking about that same thing lol. I love maps, geography, and anything demographic related. It really provides a greater understanding of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,722
#1,722
Grand Vol said:
So LG, I have a serious question...

And you can't flip this around and start poking at the GOP either. Straight up yes or no with an explanation.

Do you believe the Super Delegate system within the DNC is fair? And why.
Click to expand...


No, I don't.

I admit I'm learning this cycle much more about how much both parties stack the deck to control the outcome. They give the illusion that it's a precursor to just voting on the general, and it isn't.

The Electoral College is itself a weird anachronism which has probably outlived it's usefulness by about 100 years. But it sppears that pales on comparison to thwarting the will of the people to the charade of both parties in the nomination process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,723
#1,723
lawgator1 said:
No, I don't.

I admit I'm learning this cycle much more about how much both parties stack the deck to control the outcome. They give the illusion that it's a precursor to just voting on the general, and it isn't.

The Electoral College is itself a weird anachronism which has probably outlived it's usefulness by about 100 years. But it sppears that pales on comparison to thwarting the will of the people to the charade of both parties in the nomination process.
Click to expand...

So you believe States should be winner take all? No proportional delegates assigned? (on either side?)
 
#1,724
#1,724
Didn't know where else too post, but, since his wife is running...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnXRJ7qiNmw[/youtube]

Bill lecturing BLM.

He mad.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top