He's still a bloody idiot, I'm sure he will realize this as he is being herded onto a cattle truck as the search for appropriate scapegoats to keep the dear leader in power goes down the old familiar pathway
SutterBrother, paraphrased: "The Democratic Party isn't perfect, but at least they're not openly advocating for dismantling democracy altogether in favour of autocratic theocracy."
curves2000: "What does that have to do with democracy across the board?"
Are you high on drugs, or...?
Not at all. If you re-read my post and try and to see a view point instead of just being argumentative for no particular reason and try and be pragmatic.
Sutterbrother was mentioning how unfair elections in America have been to the Democratic party, how they struggle to get financing, struggle to win due perceived unfair rules and more. Nonsense as the Democratic party has won plenty of elections fair and square. It's a democracy and it's healthy for the Democrats to win. Timun: Don't feel sorry for the Democrats or the Republicans and their parties. Feel sorry for the people. Democrats and Republicans aren't struggling.
It's also healthy for America and democracies across the board for OTHER political parties to actually win elections. Process that.
Given your posting history I am sure your 100% comfortable with Democrats wining 100% of elections in America but I am sure your not exactly thrilled with Conservatives being in power for 50+ years in Alberta for the most part and would just absolutely loved if Conservatives won every election until your death in Canada??
I am joking of course but in democracies, YOU NEED THE POWER TO SHIFT BACK AND FORTH. Just like in sports!!! Think with your brain.
You think if the Democrats continued to win forever that would be good for the nearly 50% of America? Or Vice Versa? It's healthy for back and forth.
If the Democrats lose this election, it's their own fault for not kicking an unwanted, aging candidate who struggles. I don't want another Trump Presidency but if we are expecting an 82 year old man who's been in top level power for 50 years to get er done in America, we are probably in for a rough wake up call.
Explain why changing of parties in democracies across the board is a bad idea to you?
Why would you want to give racists, bigots and generally ####ty people hope?
Because right or wrong, depending how some people think, their vote actually matters. It's a democracy and people get to vote for someone they believe in. It's the system and that's the way it works.
As I stated before, in democracies, you need shifts in power back and forth for it to be healthy. In America, in Canada, in Mexico in wherever you want.
What do you think happens when in these countries the leaders don't relinquish control? We have chaos.
I love politics, I love American/Canadian and European politics. Naturally I don't like when certain things from the opposite side of the spectrum don't go my way but I am ok with it because it's a democracy. It's healthy.
I am the same way with sports. I am not a blind homer for my teams. I say it all the time about my beloved Flames hockey team. It's a garbage organization. A loser franchise. If our rivals to the north didn't have a collective mental breakdown and trade away the most dominate athlete in history, would the Flames even have a cup in 89? Who knows but as a 39 year old, all I have ever really seen is losing from this loser franchise.
Frankly if this team doesn't do anything fairly soon performance wise, I may just take my insane amount of dollars I spend on them and just move on in life. If MY SIDE never actually wins, what's the purpose of this nonsense? Pain? Same thing in politics
Sutterbrother was mentioning how unfair elections in America have been to the Democratic party, how they struggle to get financing, struggle to win due perceived unfair rules and more. Nonsense as the Democratic party has won plenty of elections fair and square. It's a democracy and it's healthy for the Democrats to win.
That was my post and I'm happy to defend it. Despite both Democrats and Republicans both winning elections on a somewhat regular basis, the overall movement of the country has been largely rightward consistently, from an economic perspective. Tax rates on corporations and the wealthy have plummeted since GWB fraudulently become president. Wealth inequality in both America and the world are at all time highs. Even Scandinavia has moved to the right economically from what they used to be. The rich are getting their way more and more over time and using culture war issues to keep the rest of us divided. The cost of living for the 99% continues to soar while the 1% go laughing all the way to the bank.
And now, they're going for the jugular. If Trump wins, any chance of a decent future for humanity goes up in smoke. Welcome to social darwinism until the sun swallows the earth.
Quote:
It's also healthy for America and democracies across the board for OTHER political parties to actually win elections. Process that.
Given your posting history I am sure your 100% comfortable with Democrats wining 100% of elections in America but I am sure your not exactly thrilled with Conservatives being in power for 50+ years in Alberta for the most part and would just absolutely loved if Conservatives won every election until your death in Canada??
I am joking of course but in democracies, YOU NEED THE POWER TO SHIFT BACK AND FORTH. Just like in sports!!! Think with your brain.
You think if the Democrats continued to win forever that would be good for the nearly 50% of America? Or Vice Versa? It's healthy for back and forth.
If the Democrats lose this election, it's their own fault for not kicking an unwanted, aging candidate who struggles. I don't want another Trump Presidency but if we are expecting an 82 year old man who's been in top level power for 50 years to get er done in America, we are probably in for a rough wake up call.
Explain why changing of parties in democracies across the board is a bad idea to you?
Was it healthy for German democracy for the Nazis to win?
__________________
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
That was my post and I'm happy to defend it. Despite both Democrats and Republicans both winning elections on a somewhat regular basis, the overall movement of the country has been largely rightward consistently, from an economic perspective. Tax rates on corporations and the wealthy have plummeted since GWB fraudulently become president. Wealth inequality in both America and the world are at all time highs. Even Scandinavia has moved to the right economically from what they used to be. The rich are getting their way more and more over time and using culture war issues to keep the rest of us divided. The cost of living for the 99% continues to soar while the 1% go laughing all the way to the bank.
And now, they're going for the jugular. If Trump wins, any chance of a decent future for humanity goes up in smoke. Welcome to social darwinism until the sun swallows the earth.
Was it healthy for German democracy for the Nazis to win?
I agree with virtually everything you say in your post. I too am completely upset with everything that is going on and how our quality of life/economic situation/ constant lower of living standards and more is being eroded.
Personally I think a lot of political parties and the elites who govern are responsible. I don't blame one side or another. We collectively are allowing this to occur in these countries and the rich are benefiting more than anybody. The more and more I see what is happening and where we are actually going with AI, technology, big business, corporate welfare, money in politics, social economic issues and more, the more I am seeing how SOME of the crazy talk that at one point used to be conspiracy minded or whatever and agreeing with them to a point.
I recall thinking about how some people were hippies or crazy with their anti big pharma, organic foods, slow big business and corporate factory farming etc. I now completely see where they are coming from amongst other things.
As for Nazi Germany being a good example of democracies where the power shifts from one side to another, I am sure your smart enough to understand where I am coming from in that regard and not use the worst example possible.
Not at all. If you re-read my post and try and to see a view point instead of just being argumentative for no particular reason and try and be pragmatic.
<Clipped for brevity>
Explain why changing of parties in democracies across the board is a bad idea to you?
"Re-read my post and try to see a viewpoint," is rich, coming from you. How you manage to consistently type so much prose and say so little within it is impressive.
What I can't figure out is if you're just thick, or hopelessly naïve. You want me to agree with your extremely trite aphorism that "in democracies it's healthy to change party in government"? No one argued otherwise, but if you need this laid out for you: okay, sure.
What's not healthy for democracy is electing a party that openly campaigns on dismantling the democratic system entirely, in favour their perpetual rule. Deflecting from this with empty platitudes about "giving the other side a turn" makes you look like an idiot.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
Not at all. If you re-read my post and try and to see a view point instead of just being argumentative for no particular reason and try and be pragmatic.
Sutterbrother was mentioning how unfair elections in America have been to the Democratic party, how they struggle to get financing, struggle to win due perceived unfair rules and more. Nonsense as the Democratic party has won plenty of elections fair and square. It's a democracy and it's healthy for the Democrats to win. Timun: Don't feel sorry for the Democrats or the Republicans and their parties. Feel sorry for the people. Democrats and Republicans aren't struggling.
It's also healthy for America and democracies across the board for OTHER political parties to actually win elections. Process that.
Given your posting history I am sure your 100% comfortable with Democrats wining 100% of elections in America but I am sure your not exactly thrilled with Conservatives being in power for 50+ years in Alberta for the most part and would just absolutely loved if Conservatives won every election until your death in Canada??
I am joking of course but in democracies, YOU NEED THE POWER TO SHIFT BACK AND FORTH. Just like in sports!!! Think with your brain.
You think if the Democrats continued to win forever that would be good for the nearly 50% of America? Or Vice Versa? It's healthy for back and forth.
If the Democrats lose this election, it's their own fault for not kicking an unwanted, aging candidate who struggles. I don't want another Trump Presidency but if we are expecting an 82 year old man who's been in top level power for 50 years to get er done in America, we are probably in for a rough wake up call.
Explain why changing of parties in democracies across the board is a bad idea to you?
Biden has been the most productive president in a while, even at the ripe old age of 82. I'd say he's getting things done. Now if you're being honest with yourself the most unproductive group in government is the republican house representatives. They haven't done a damn thing besides wild goose chasing. It's embarrassing, the republican party is a joke and they need a full house cleaning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to IGGYRULES For This Useful Post:
I am joking of course but in democracies, YOU NEED THE POWER TO SHIFT BACK AND FORTH. Just like in sports!!! Think with your brain.
-snip-
Curious, how often do you completely shift who you vote for? And I don't mean going from the Reform to the Canadian Alliance to the Conservatives.
Or do you just mean other people need to change their vote often, but you can keep on keeping on, because the party you vote for supports your principles strongest?
And if you don't change your vote, how egregious a POS does your party leader need to be before you will stay home in disgust, or hold your knows to make sure they can't lead? Like, is Donald Trump egregious enough?
“At least three Alabama providers of in vitro fertilization have halted treatments since the state Supreme Court on Friday said frozen embryos in test tubes should be considered children, casting doubt on future access to the procedure in the state.
The ruling by the court, whose elected judges are all Republican, has left doctors and patients wondering how to legally store, transport, and use embryos in Alabama.”
Wonderful people…
The Following User Says Thank You to calculoso For This Useful Post:
Curious, how often do you completely shift who you vote for? And I don't mean going from the Reform to the Canadian Alliance to the Conservatives.
Or do you just mean other people need to change their vote often, but you can keep on keeping on, because the party you vote for supports your principles strongest?
And if you don't change your vote, how egregious a POS does your party leader need to be before you will stay home in disgust, or hold your knows to make sure they can't lead? Like, is Donald Trump egregious enough?
Well first of all, as I said before, I don't want another Trump Presidency. Even though I am of the more Conservative political leanings, I was ecstatic that Biden won in 2020 as I was tired of all the noise for and against Trump. America as a whole just has a very very unhealthy relationship overall with him and it's not good.
That being said, since I am not a homer, I can often see the other side of the political spectrum and I like to hold my side accountable when need be. I do the same thing in sports. If you can't understand why your side/team is losing, your just a homer and a loser fan.
I never tell anybody to vote for any particular side, that is a personal choice. I don't often agree with some parties policies but I accept them. It's not that I change my vote every time or that other people should changes theirs but more of the importance of having a shift in power from different parties. Let's call it competitive balance.
It's the way politics works, some accept it and some don't. I don't have a vote in the US election but if I did, I would vote Biden. He will probably lose and he will lose for a lot of reasons I have previously discussed. You will then see the knives come full out for Democrats, the party and his legacy will be forever tarnished cause he in essence brought back Trump and all that entails. People will then look back and wonder why the hell did we allow him to run? Why did he run? It won't be pretty and people will need to answer some very tough questions as a result
If he does win, it's becoming clearer by the day that he just doesn't have the juice in him to govern to the degree that is required. If he does need to step down due to health or longevity concerns, it also won't be good. If Harris needs to step in to the Presidency it also won't be a good thing as she is WILDLY unpopular. What do you think happens in 2028? An almost certainty of a Republican President.
The Following User Says Thank You to curves2000 For This Useful Post:
Real wages in the U.S. are growing. And they’re growing fastest for those at the bottom of the wage ladder.
According to the expert on minimum wage policies interviewed in this podcast, the tight labour market in the service and hospitality sectors has reduced wage inequality dramatically in the last few years.
The U.S. has recovered from the pandemic much faster and stronger than European countries. But the inflation of the pandemic economy is still front of mind for voters.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Real wages in the U.S. are growing. And they’re growing fastest for those at the bottom of the wage ladder.
According to the expert on minimum wage policies interviewed in this podcast, the tight labour market in the service and hospitality sectors has reduced wage inequality dramatically in the last few years.
The U.S. has recovered from the pandemic much faster and stronger than European countries. But the inflation of the pandemic economy is still front of mind for voters.
Not so much in the states that decide the election. Real Median Household Income in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, etc. is below where it was 20-25 years ago and well below where it was pre-pandemic. And while it is rising overall nationwide, that's more of a recovery than actual growth, as it's still only up 1% compared to pre-pandemic. To be fair, that's to be expected given the situation. But when Real GDP per capita has risen 8% in that same period, it's pretty clear that virtually none of the vaunted economic growth is actually ending up in the hands of the average voter. And it looks even worse when you restrict it to Biden's tenure; since Q1 2021 Real GDP per capita has risen 7% while Real Median wages have dropped almost 1%.
And how many of these companies are in the middle of laying off workers?
Quote:
The so-called “Magnificent 7” now wields greater financial might than almost every other major country in the world, according to new Deutsche Bank research.
The meteoric rise in the profits and market capitalizations of the Magnificent 7 U.S. tech behemoths — Apple
, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla
— outstrip those of all listed companies in almost every G20 country, the bank said in a research note Tuesday. Of the non-U.S. G20 countries, only China and Japan (and the latter, only just) have greater profits when their listed companies are combined.
Deutsche Bank analysts highlighted that the Magnificent 7′s combined market cap alone would make it the second-largest country stock exchange in the world, double that of Japan in fourth. Microsoft and Apple, individually, have similar market caps to all combined listed companies in each of France, Saudi Arabia and the U.K, they added.
And how many of these companies are in the middle of laying off workers?
All employers in the US with more than 100 employees are required to provide 60-day advance public notice of layoffs affecting more than 50 people. It's called a WARN notice (from the WARN act which mandates the notice).
https://www.warntracker.com scrapes these notices so Americans employed by large(ish) companies can always keep an eye out for upcoming layoffs.
Apple - will be laying off 100-250 people April 26th
Amazon - laid off 50-100 people on January 2nd - no layoffs in the next 60 days.
Alphabet/Google - is doing something interesting (possibly shady?), they have 27 total WARN notices for either 0-10, 11-50, or 50-100 layoffs, all scheduled for March 10. Looks like it could add up to about 1500 people?
Meta/Facebook - laid off 500-1000 people August 25, 2023 - No layoffs in the next 60 days.
Microsoft - laid off 500-1000 May 5, 2023; 250-500 people September 8, 2023 - No layoffs in the next 60 days.
NVIDIA - I dunno what's up here, but I can't find any info for NVIDIA layoffs in the Warntracker dataset.
Tesla - laid off 50-100 workers October 10, 2023 - No layoffs in the next 60 days.
Last edited by driveway; 02-26-2024 at 05:27 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
Real wages being down is largely due to the inflation caused by Trump's tax cuts, supply chain disruptions caused by Putin's war, and lingering effects of the pandemic. The effects of climate change could be having an impact too. Also, increased automation and AI is reducing demand for workers in some sectors.
In other news, "Dementia Joe" was on Seth's show last night. Clearly "losing his mind" lol.
__________________
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mathgod For This Useful Post:
