Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Ivrnet

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-15-2017, 03:55 PM   #41
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h View Post
Having an entire election strategy of "Women and Minorities hate trump so they will vote for me" may have been an issue....

Apparently no one every asked "What if these people just don't vote at all?"
Her team also had an entire republican primary to learn that attacks on Trump's vulgar statements were ineffective. Yet that was a pretty core portion of her strategy. Shockingly, it didn't work.
nik- is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 05:31 PM   #42
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
Bonus being that they shot themselves in the foot AND elected another 'puppet president'.
Don't forget the giant bowl of you know what.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 05:59 PM   #43
wittynickname
wittyusertitle
 
wittynickname's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
It's not inconceivable to get back to the 50's level of growth. It's not just about workers making more money, back in those days business tax rates were significantly higher and companies weren't outsourcing work at anywhere near the rates they are today. These concepts aren't about stopping businesses from making money or making a lot of money, they're about maintaining overall domestic economic growth.
Unless we have another massive economic depression, followed by another World War which decimates much of Europe's ability to produce goods--we're really unlikely to ever get back to 50s growth. The world has become much smaller, with far more big players on the stage.

The 50s were unique because much of the rest of the developed world had just been beaten down by a massive military conflict. The US fought that battle on foreign soil, which left America able to fulfill the needs of other countries. That isn't the case now.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper View Post
Like how conservatives and Republicans moved on
once Obama was president?
Or like Southern (and honestly, far too many Northern also) whites have moved on from the Confederacy? Nothing I love more than being told to get over a questionable election less than a year ago by someone waving the flag of an uprising that was squashed 150 years ago.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
I think where Clinton also failed was that her campaign platforms were a little too status quo, where trump promised big changes. When people aren't happy with the status quo they will gravitate towards change. The poor and middle class workers are so desperate for change that they couldn't be bothered to fact check or see how they were being manipulated, they just took trump's word for it that he cared about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44 View Post
Iggy_oi nailed it. If I had to boil down the election to one sentence, it would be "Trump promised change, while Hillary did not".
Oh no, Hillary promised change--increased equality among the sexes, increased access to education, moving forward with clean energy, etc. The problem is that Trump voters did not want progressive change. They wanted change that would turn things back to the way they were 50-75 years ago. They want to go back to a bygone era where coal miners were 9th grade high school dropouts making 80K a year with a comfortable retirement plan. They want to go back to manufacturing jobs where their kids can get zero education and still make a living. They want to go back to time when women had dinner on the table for them by 6pm, when gay people stayed int the closet, when everyone they saw in their neighborhood or on their television was white.

These voters were largely afraid of cultural change, and a woman president is a great big sign of cultural change.

I posted a link to this in the politics thread, but it bears a repost:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nxiety/525771/

Quote:
Evidence suggests financially troubled voters in the white working class were more likely to prefer Clinton over Trump. Besides partisan affiliation, it was cultural anxiety—feeling like a stranger in America, supporting the deportation of immigrants, and hesitating about educational investment—that best predicted support for Trump.
Quote:
Controlling for other demographic variables, three factors stood out as strong independent predictors of how white working-class people would vote. The first was anxiety about cultural change. Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.”
Quote:
Nearly two-thirds of the white working class say American culture has gotten worse since the 1950s. Sixty-eight percent say the U.S. is in danger of losing its identity, and 62 percent say America’s growing number of immigrants threaten the country’s culture. More than half say discrimination against whites has become just as problematic as discrimination against minorities.

We can argue up and down and left and right about what Clinton did wrong, but the basic narrative is that a bunch of rural white people are freaking out that this country isn't as white and Christian and traditional as in the "good old days" and they freaked out, and Trump's rhetoric fed right into it.
wittynickname is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Old 05-15-2017, 06:09 PM   #44
Matata
First Line Centre
 
Matata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14 View Post
Bonus being that they shot themselves in the foot AND elected another 'puppet president'.
At least they sent a message to the political and cultural elites. A very, very confusing message.

It's beautifully American, really.
Matata is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 06:21 PM   #45
ToewsFan
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

The Democrats made a horrible choice in nominating Hillary Clinton to run for President. The World would be a completely different place if Bernie Sanders was president (he would have defeated Trump). Instead, we have a madman in charge of the most powerful country in the World.
ToewsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 08:07 PM   #46
Clarkey
Lifetime Suspension
 
Clarkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exp:
Default

Human Relations 101, the people didn't like or trust her. She wasn't genuine, nothing else seemed to matter.
Clarkey is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Clarkey For This Useful Post:
Old 05-15-2017, 08:18 PM   #47
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bc-chris View Post
i'm still in awe that in a country of around 330,000,000 people that trump and clinton were the two choices to lead
It's quite simple. The normal vote in each party was split across several candidates, the extreme vote gets concentrated into one candidate. It's what would happen to the Alberta PC race several times over.
Flames in 07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 08:19 PM   #48
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik- View Post
Her team also had an entire republican primary to learn that attacks on Trump's vulgar statements were ineffective. Yet that was a pretty core portion of her strategy. Shockingly, it didn't work.
Turns out calling half the registered voters deplorable isn't the best strategy either.
Flames in 07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 08:24 PM   #49
Clarkey
Lifetime Suspension
 
Clarkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Exp:
Default

I remember last year when Hillary was running she was on The Breakfast Club and she said that she kept Mayonnaise in her purse to try to pander to us Saskatchewan folks. I facepalmed so hard at that.
Clarkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 08:45 PM   #50
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
There is a growing movement trying to stop these changes though. People like Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich and Nick Hanuer are becoming increasingly active in getting people to see what is actually going on and how the economy has ended up in the shape it is in. At some point there needs to be a major economic shakeup, it's sad that things almost need to get to the point where people lose everything before deciding to fight for more.



Online shopping. The numbers are true for the retail industry, however there has also been an increase in jobs in parcel deliveries. Now Amazon is testing drone delivery. This is really where the workers/consumers themselves need to take the power back so to speak, they need to recognize the pattern and stop contributing to the problem. If a company is actively eliminating jobs to increase their profits under the guise of "making their purchases cheaper", they need to start shopping elsewhere. It's a pipe dream to expect most people to pay more for something, but if we won't pay the extra couple dollars to have a person deliver your package instead of a drone or to have a person be your cashier at the grocery store, we're really no better than the companies that are trying to profit from taking away those jobs to begin with and we're helping them do it every step of the way.
You have made this argument or a similar one many times in many threads. And it's flat out wrong. Your not going to find a single economist who will tell you that subsidizing inefficient business models is going to win in the long run. It keeps people from retraining into jobs the economy wants and the waste slows the economy down. The 1-2 bucks you speak of, is something I presume you'd apply to many situations and you will simply be creating a honorable welfare system.

It's nice to have jobs, what you are arguing for sounds great. But your society will lose in the long run 100 out of 100 times. Efficient economies and Effiecient work forces will eat the lunch of the slow one. It's just a matter of time as commerce becomes more global and pace of change increases.

We don't need milk men coming to our doors every Monday and Thursday to exchange the little plastic tokens for cartons of milk, and society as a whole is worse off if we pretend we do.
Flames in 07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 09:02 PM   #51
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname View Post
Unless we have another massive economic depression, followed by another World War which decimates much of Europe's ability to produce goods--we're really unlikely to ever get back to 50s growth. The world has become much smaller, with far more big players on the stage.

The 50s were unique because much of the rest of the developed world had just been beaten down by a massive military conflict. The US fought that battle on foreign soil, which left America able to fulfill the needs of other countries. That isn't the case now.
The growth didn't stop in the 50's though, it slowed down significantly after Reagen declared war on middle class workers decades later and has been on a steady decline ever since. There are still countries that need rebuilding and imported products, and countries like Canada had the same luxury of being away from the war but didn't have the same boom the states had. The Soviet Union gobbled up a big chunk of war torn europe, and they weren't buying American. The states kept upping their military spending and dumping money into other conflicts like the war in Vietnam, and the Cold War wasn't cheap either. The reason they were able to afford these things then while still maintaining growth was because of an entirely different taxation system and higher wages for workers which increased consumerism and grew their own economy.

I'm not saying they can certainly achieve that same level again, but they can get closer to that if the people are willing to fight for the necessary changes. After the 80's the rich began to pay less and less in taxes, the workers saw their wages stagnate(relative to inflation and growth among the wealthy), and America's infrastructure began crumbling due to reduced tax revenue, then corporations began outsourcing to more labour cost friendly foreign countries to increae profits while telling workers here it was their fault, putting more strain on the tax revenue pool while at the same time creating the perfect manipulative scare tactic to use in their effort to continue to receive more and more tax cuts. It will take a massive effort to get people to understand what has really happened in that country, but perhaps trump and his staff made up of billionaires might be the perfect catalyst. They aren't there to help anybody but themselves, as time goes on more and more people will hopefully begin to recognize this.


Quote:
Oh no, Hillary promised change--increased equality among the sexes, increased access to education, moving forward with clean energy, etc. The problem is that Trump voters did not want progressive change. They wanted change that would turn things back to the way they were 50-75 years ago. They want to go back to a bygone era where coal miners were 9th grade high school dropouts making 80K a year with a comfortable retirement plan. They want to go back to manufacturing jobs where their kids can get zero education and still make a living. They want to go back to time when women had dinner on the table for them by 6pm, when gay people stayed int the closet, when everyone they saw in their neighborhood or on their television was white.

These voters were largely afraid of cultural change, and a woman president is a great big sign of cultural change.

I posted a link to this in the politics thread, but it bears a repost:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...nxiety/525771/

Clinton's change wasn't drastic enough was my point, another reason why I believe Sanders would have fairies better against trump.


Quote:
We can argue up and down and left and right about what Clinton did wrong, but the basic narrative is that a bunch of rural white people are freaking out that this country isn't as white and Christian and traditional as in the "good old days" and they freaked out, and Trump's rhetoric fed right into it.
Yeah that played a big part in it as well.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 09:18 PM   #52
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07 View Post
You have made this argument or a similar one many times in many threads. And it's flat out wrong. Your not going to find a single economist who will tell you that subsidizing inefficient business models is going to win in the long run. It keeps people from retraining into jobs the economy wants and the waste slows the economy down. The 1-2 bucks you speak of, is something I presume you'd apply to many situations and you will simply be creating a honorable welfare system.

It's nice to have jobs, what you are arguing for sounds great. But your society will lose in the long run 100 out of 100 times. Efficient economies and Effiecient work forces will eat the lunch of the slow one. It's just a matter of time as commerce becomes more global and pace of change increases.

We don't need milk men coming to our doors every Monday and Thursday to exchange the little plastic tokens for cartons of milk, and society as a whole is worse off if we pretend we do.
I'm not saying we should stop businesses from being profitable or efficient, what I'm saying is when a company increases profits or efficiency(I even mentioned that the decrease in retail jobs due to growth in online shopping lead to an increase in parcel delivery jobs) but when they do not use the gains from it to reinvest in job creation and increasing consumerism there will eventually be a tipping point where economic growth comes to halt that we won't be able to recover from. Walmart or Amazon can reduce labour costs by installing selfserve kiosks or using machines to make deliveries, but there is only so much they can possibly reinvest those savings into. Walmart only needs so many stores to serve its customers, so they will eventually reach a point where despite their savings they will not be able to create new jobs. These machines they use are not made domestically so what happens when the jobs they eliminate cannot be recovered in other industries? People on welfare don't exactly brag about how much stuff they are able to buy.

Last edited by iggy_oi; 05-15-2017 at 09:20 PM.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 09:25 PM   #53
Flames in 07
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
I'm not saying we should stop businesses from being profitable or efficient, what I'm saying is when a company increases profits or efficiency but does not use the gains from it to reinvest in job creation and increasing consumerism there will eventually be a tipping point where economic growth comes to halt that we won't be able to recover from. Walmart or Amazon can reduce labour costs by installing selfserve kiosks or using machines to make deliveries, but there is only so much they can possibly reinvest those savings into. Walmart only needs so many stores to serve its customers, so they will eventually reach a point where despite their savings they will not be able to create new jobs. These machines they use are not made domestically so what happens when the jobs they eliminate cannot be recovered in other industries? People on welfare don't exactly brag about how much stuff they are able to buy.
I think you actually did say we should curb efficiency.

But nonetheless, Responding to your last comment, where do you draw the line between artificially propping up jobs or not? Even by the standard you illustrate above how could anyone possibly know when to throw money at the dinosaur jobs or not? What an awful waste of time that will never be executed well. Might as well spend the money and energy on retraining into areas where labor is actually wanted.

off topic from the OP I know, but your idealistic view on how economies should work just doesn't fit in the real world. I'm concerned about societies ability to keep enough people employed as you are. Especially in Canada where the labor force is not preparing well for the next generation but to just artificially pretend jobs exist where they shouldn't is a ticket to losing. Every single time.
Flames in 07 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 09:53 PM   #54
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07 View Post
I think you actually did say we should curb efficiency.
I did not, I'm just trying to illustrate how the way our economies are structured doesn't provide and endless opportunity for job creation.

Quote:
But nonetheless, Responding to your last comment, where do you draw the line between artificially propping up jobs or not? Even by the standard you illustrate above how could anyone possibly know when to throw money at the dinosaur jobs or not? What an awful waste of time that will never be executed well. Might as well spend the money and energy on retraining into areas where labor is actually wanted.
What happens when there are no areas left in need of labour? I'm assuming you are aware that continually moving people to lower paying jobs also has a detrimental effect on consumerism.
Quote:
off topic from the OP I know, but your idealistic view on how economies should work just doesn't fit in the real world. I'm concerned about societies ability to keep enough people employed as you are. Especially in Canada where the labor force is not preparing well for the next generation but to just artificially pretend jobs exist where they shouldn't is a ticket to losing. Every single time.
I'm of the opinion that if a job cannot be replaced by a machine without having another job available somewhere for that worker, it will only benefit that employer in the short term, until there are too many people out of work. If new jobs with equal or better pay can continually be created in other industries as a result of it, then that is a different scenario but I don't believe it to be the case, at least not indefinitely.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 01:29 AM   #55
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kamloops
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames in 07 View Post
Turns out calling half the registered voters deplorable isn't the best strategy either.
She didn't
__________________
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 01:30 AM   #56
Street Pharmacist
Franchise Player
 
Street Pharmacist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kamloops
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarkey View Post
Human Relations 101, the people didn't like or trust her. She wasn't genuine, nothing else seemed to matter.
Trump was genuine??????
__________________
Street Pharmacist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:29 AM   #57
Resolute 14
One of many who is too boring; thinks that there should be rules regarding grammar in custom user titles, and also makes moderators wonder if there is a charachter limit here. I mean come on- you would think that would be a limitation in the software
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Yeah, that's the funniest part. There are very few arguments one can make against Hillary that don't apply at least in equal measure to Orange.
__________________

Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 07:30 AM   #58
DuffMan
Franchise Player
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 127.0.0.1
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist View Post
Trump was genuine??????
grabbing ##### is not genuine?
__________________
Pass the bacon.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2017, 08:06 AM   #59
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post

I'm of the opinion that if a job cannot be replaced by a machine without having another job available somewhere for that worker, it will only benefit that employer in the short term, until there are too many people out of work. If new jobs with equal or better pay can continually be created in other industries as a result of it, then that is a different scenario but I don't believe it to be the case, at least not indefinitely.
You are just Wrong here in an economic sense.

We have been losing jobs since the invention of Agriculture. Hunter and Gateherers used to spend 100% of their time trying to survive. Then you got Agriculture which gave people free time, then in that free time some people studied and your invented creating better tools which further increased efficiencies and eliminated jobs. These jobs are never all replaced, if they were all replaced. We went from spending every waking hour trying to survive to spending 8, 5 days a week with paid vacations. This was all made possible by efficiency that reduced the total number of required labour hours to keep society running.

If we can make a task that takes two people twice as efficient you have 3 extreme options.

1) The capitalist - the best person keeps the job and makes twice as much money
2) The communist - the best person keeps the job and makes the same and subsidizes the now unemployed person
3) The Iggy-Oi - the new tech is banned and we burn the spinning wheels and both people continue to work for the same pay.

It's obvious 3 is wrong, the issue becomes how do you distribute wealth and labour in a world where there is a surplus of wealth and anshortage of demand for labour. The answer is not fake jobs for everyone
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Old 05-16-2017, 09:29 AM   #60
northcrunk
First Line Centre
 
northcrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Exp:
Default

Clinton body count:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-campaign.html

Quote:
The names on the various Internet lists varies from one website to another, but these are among those most frequently cited as possible victims of a vast Clinton conspiracy
northcrunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
corrupt , election , flawed , hillary , trump

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:59 AM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016