|
WampaLord posted:You really don't want to go down this road. He's exactly right, at least with respect to automation. Factories aren't in China because robotic assembly lines are cheaper there. It's because the people you need for hand-finishing work are cheaper there.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:He's exactly right, at least with respect to automation. Factories aren't in China because robotic assembly lines are cheaper there. It's because the people you need for hand-finishing work are cheaper there. He was saying you don't want to get in a slap-fight with Fischmech because America's greatest boy genius will always find a more pedantic thing to argue than you can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Wait, so Clinton is the Full Communism Now candidate? Or did we just step through into crazy town? Wow it's almost as if one can support a policy that weakens one kind of imperialistic fygm while still not magically transforming into marx
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:You're talking out of your rear end dude, first claiming that Chinese factories have fewer workers than US factories and now claiming that far more workers is less effective than a 1950s factory? There are many high production industries such as footwear in which massive volumes of somewhat custom products have to be assembled by hand. Human hands and eyes are versatile, easily instructed and self correcting. But they do have less workers than the American factories they replaced! Because the American factories they replaced also existed before all sorts of automation you take for granted now as practical or even existed. Not sure why you and the other guy think it's supposed to be a comparison between the factories that still exist in America and those that exist in China. You sound like another person who thinks "automation" equals a robot does everything. That's not what it means. Simply working on an assembly line is a form of automation. Having barcodes and such on the inventory is automation which cuts out a lot more jobs than you might think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Good point, it's pretty clear he was talking about barcodes and assembly lines
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:He was saying you don't want to get in a slap-fight with Fischmech because America's greatest boy genius will always find a more pedantic thing to argue than you can. The sheer amount of topics that Fishmech is willing to argue about is staggering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Wait, so Clinton is the Full Communism Now candidate? Or did we just step through into crazy town? I think he's pointing out that alot of globalization critiques are along the lines of a kinder, gentler FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I think he's pointing out that alot of globalization critiques are along the lines of a kinder, gentler FYGM. This. I'm phone posting from work so I'm probably not completing thoughts, my bad. Clinton isn't the full communism now candidate and I wasn't trying to imply that. She's a neoliberal running on a fairly acceptable left of center progressive platform, most of which won't get passed because of conservative obstruction and lack of political will. I don't love all of her positions and she's clearly not a perfect candidate, but as far as politically viable presidential candidates go you couldn't get someone much more qualified and capable than Hillary. I was just trying to say that the "wah, TPP and globalization are evil, where are my easy no education needed factory jobs?" types are FYGM of the highest order, and reactionary protectionism to try and stem a five hundred year long domino collapse won't bring those jobs back. Just because angry white dudes don't understand history or macroeconomics and are mad about losing their jobs doesn't mean we should cater to their knee jerk whims. I sincerely believe we can and should help victims of globalization gain an equitable share of the profits of free trade and open markets. I also sincerely believe that being a socialist doesn't require that you deny economic reality or demand command economies form from the ether. But protectionism won't help angry white factory workers in America. Better wages, unionization, and retraining policies, among a host of other reforms, will. BI NOW made a phenomenal point when he(?) said that politicians pretending to be anti-free trade come election years is pointless and stupid. They should be pro free trade. They should also be clamoring for a more equitable distribution of the profits from free trade. And that is what we should be demanding from Hillary. Not "no TPP" like bleating sheep while a Civil Rights Movement veteran gives a speech on racism in America at the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Globalists! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But they do have less workers than the American factories they replaced! Because the American factories they replaced also existed before all sorts of automation you take for granted now as practical or even existed. Not sure why you and the other guy think it's supposed to be a comparison between the factories that still exist in America and those that exist in China. yeah, textiles are the only thing that MIGHT be an exception, just because they are so loving hard to automate. And to say what fishmech was saying a bit differently: A few decades ago, the job that I was doing(sandblasting the insides of water heaters), would have been done with an actual sandblaster. When I was doing it, I was using a machine that I loaded the water heaters into, and it blasted the inside for me. That definitely replaced a few workers, if for no other reason than that the machine was sandblasting one part while I loaded the next. Every step of that line had gone through a lot of those improvements over and over, in some cases reducing bottlenecks, in other cases replacing redundant workers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Also strictly speaking, "NO TPP" was demanded of Elijah Cummings as he told the story of growing up a poor sharecropper turned civil rights leader, and how it relates to the current rise of white nationalism in the United States, not Clinton
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Also strictly speaking, "NO TPP" was demanded of Elijah Cummings as he told the story of growing up a poor sharecropper turned civil rights leader, and how it relates to the current rise of white nationalism in the United States, not Clinton This is what I was referencing. I just couldn't remember if it was him or John Lewis. I read the DNC thread but didn't catch that speech, which is how I was aware of it happening. Also, isn't he anti-TPP anyway? It was so dumb and pointless. Note: you can criticize TPP for not being a great deal without buying into the premise that free trade is fundamentally bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is what I was referencing. I just couldn't remember if it was him or John Lewis. I read the DNC thread but didn't catch that speech, which is how I was aware of it happening. When you think about it, it's kind of crazy that both of them are Democrats when they're the party of the KKK and slavery
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:When you think about it, it's kind of crazy that both of them are Democrats when they're the party of the KKK and slavery Bitch please. The Democrats and Republicans used to be the same party! The Democratic-Republicans! They really are equally as bad and the truth is in the middle, gosh why won't anybody listen to my white- and mansplained common sense ideas like term limits?  admittedly I'm basically a white dude, Mexican first and last name notwithstanding, and you can take my opinions accordingly if you like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
The bottom line is that if we force all the jobs back to America, we'll all be moaning about ultra-high prices on literally everything within a year. You can have one, not both: cheap crap everywhere, or low-skill, high-paying factory jobs everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:It's always kind of baffled me that the right feels the need to make up murders, health scares and rape allegations to go after the Clintons when the truth would work just fine. And the truth would be...? readingatwork posted:That they're pretty much "business as usual" incarnate. They're crass political animals with little real integrity who's entire political platform is based on shrewd calculations and will change on a dime the second the political winds blow in another direction. They're also up to their eyeballs in corporate cash and have pushed watered-down versions of pretty much every lovely Republican economic policy over the years. Hrrrm yes I wonder why Republicans aren't using the slam-dunk "Republican policies are universally lovely, and Clinton is just the lite version, vote Republican!" attack strategy. What a bizarre oversight, Republicans would have this election in the bag if they tell America how horrible electing Republicans is, yep.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Do we have a thread where Dakota Access Pipeline is being discussed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Has this video been posted? Echoing how insane this is to watch in real-time. Dude flails around a bit and then completely collapses while never admitting fault. He's probably never had his story questioned in his life and was completely unprepared. If he wasn't such an unrepentant scumbag that scammed people for a living I might feel an ounce of sympathy, but gently caress this guy. It's too bad he's incapable of learning any lessons from this other than to blame the media for catching him in a lie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Bitch please. The Democrats and Republicans used to be the same party! The Democratic-Republicans! They really are equally as bad and the truth is in the middle, gosh why won't anybody listen to my white- and mansplained common sense ideas like term limits? We have the first competitive election in years. They've finally decided to run a Whig candidate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Globalists! (((
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
hexenmexen posted:It's not sexist to call someone's morals into question when the person they marry has very questionable morals. Yeah, it's sexist as hell to assume that a woman can't have different thoughts and opinions than her husband. That's some pre-sufferage bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Hillary could literally be 1992 Bill in drag and I'd still happily vote for her considering the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
The reason why people won't take jobs with poo poo wages but good benefits is that good benefits can disappear at any time, but taking a job with a low wage bends your wage curve for the rest of your career
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
TeenageArchipelago posted:
It's chilling placing high end HR and process engineers because half of their resume is boasting about "Reducing overhead." It's difficult to empathize with a job seeker when their resume takes credit for laying off 80 direct-hire employees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:She is probably less violently angered by the principle of that decision than many leftists Yes, the woman personally targeted by a bullshit propaganda video and the decision by a handful of conservative assholes in robes definitely is less angry about CU than Randomly Haughty Liberal #23983794. She knows full well that oligarchs being able to buy politicians and elections means a right wing corporatist swing and that means a lot of things she wants to see happen (like healthcare reform) becomes even harder. That she'll take the money and play the game doesn't mean she hates it any less. She's not naive. If Hilary was the criminal mastermind serial killer the right treats her as she'd have had everyone involved in CU killed long before it had a chance to be an issue before the SCOTUS. Overturning the CU decision and then maybe seeing the CU group itself destroyed is going to be high on her to do list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Anyone else think the Clinton campaign is intentionally holding back on using their oppo research until sooner to the election? People have short memories and it seems the Khan gaffe has already been collectively forgotten. Clinton's campaign has been spending money in red states; is it optimism or do they know something we don't about Trump? Admittedly it's hard to think of anything that could be revealed that is more disqualifying for Trump to be president than what we already know about him. People who say they are anti-globalization are just using an euphemism for being anti-immigration. I can't imagine anyone seriously wants to turn back the clock given how much our economy depends o foreign trade. More regulation is fine but protectionism like Trump is proposing is just a way to get into unnecessary trade wars in which both sides lose and jobs are lost. That said, continued automation will eliminate repetitive unskilled labor but will create new industries programming the devices and maintaining them. Not to go into particulars, but I think the automation of logistics will make truck driving if not redundant much less labour-intensive. We should be trying to anticipate the future by increasing technical education instead of looking backwards to a time that never really existed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Oh this? This is just a globalist star! Who's the real racist now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Anyone else think the Clinton campaign is intentionally holding back on using their oppo research until sooner to the election? People have short memories and it seems the Khan gaffe has already been collectively forgotten. Clinton's campaign has been spending money in red states; is it optimism or do they know something we don't about Trump? Admittedly it's hard to think of anything that could be revealed that is more disqualifying for Trump to be president than what we already know about him. I agree with everything else you said, but I absolutely think that the Clinton camp is holding back a lot of oppo research since the only adds that have been attacking him have been super focused ones in red states about Trump stiffing contractors, and their internal polling has to be positive as gently caress considering how great the public polling has been for her. As far as the most damning thing that could come out about Trump, that would be that he's not even a billionaire though since his entire brand is built on that image alone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
If it were me and I was Clinton, I'd want as much ammo going into the debates that I could, without giving Trump time to work up a spin on it. I'd want to give Trump as little time to spin things as possible because he sucks at it but he gets infinite chances to retry until something sticks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
I honestly don't think 'He's not even a billionaire' would do anything to his support with his supporters. It's something HE cares about a hell of a lot, though, and if there's anything that would make him lose it completely it'd be proving that publicly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
There's no point in Clinton doing oppo on Trump, he'll just do something outrageous and take the narrative back an hour later. That alt-right speech was brutal and would've been the talk of the town four years ago, but it was immediately equated with Trump calling her a bigot and that was it. The equivalency levels are so extreme this year that she's better off just focusing on driving voter turnout and letting Trump screw up on his own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I honestly don't think 'He's not even a billionaire' would do anything to his support with his supporters. It's something HE cares about a hell of a lot, though, and if there's anything that would make him lose it completely it'd be proving that publicly. The general electorate would probably find a stunt like that petty and silly. It'd be the reverse of Hillary's health conspiracy. Even if it's true and I don't disagree, I don't think it would play well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I honestly don't think 'He's not even a billionaire' would do anything to his support with his supporters. It's something HE cares about a hell of a lot, though, and if there's anything that would make him lose it completely it'd be proving that publicly. Having Mark Cuban and Bloomberg out there clowning on Trump's wealth has been surprisingly effective at pissing him off. I'd certainly be all for more billionaires calling Trump a piece of poo poo poor. Clinton doesn't need to say a thing about it, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Anyone else think the Clinton campaign is intentionally holding back on using their oppo research until sooner to the election? People have short memories and it seems the Khan gaffe has already been collectively forgotten. Clinton's campaign has been spending money in red states; is it optimism or do they know something we don't about Trump? Admittedly it's hard to think of anything that could be revealed that is more disqualifying for Trump to be president than what we already know about him. There's no way that the opposition research doesn't exist. Trump has a long history of bankruptcies, loving over clients, employees and business partners and generally being fairly awful. So the opposition research has to exist. He's prone to gaffes and many of them are on radio or television. He also has a long list of people who hate his rear end and startlingly few friends. Possibly none which is pretty weird to me tbh. If it never gets released, which is possible but I think unlikely, it's because all of that research looks tame in response to what he's doing now. It would make him look bad, but he already looks bad. It also might not be useful for building the narrative that they want against him. So he may have something particularly damning about him, but it doesn't paint him as a racist, sexist or a bad businessman. My guess though is that the opposition research is scheduled to roll out at specific and planned points. My own guess, and this is just spitballing, but my guess would be that if the manila folder was comically large that there'd be a rolling Tuesday/Friday release for a month or two. Smack him over and over with scandal after scandal to make him defend himself until something stuck, and then run that specific scandal into the ground. Trump is easily provoked and prone to gaffes so if you hit him with something that made him angry he'd respond in a particularly stupid way until someone hid his android again. Essentially it would be turning his own tactics against him. Nothing sticks to him because he creates even bigger scandals. So you don't try to make anything stick. You rely on the high turnover of stories in the 24 hour media with a scattershot approach. At the same time though I think this would really only be done if Trump started gaining in the polls. He's restricted currently to 36-37% approval rating and tops out in the low 40%'s. Hillary goes from the low 40%'s to the high 40%'s. The current strategy seems to be making this election so noxious that people are checking out or voting third party to pretend like they're above it all. Trump could go lower, but not by much. Hillary's approval ratings can dip further still. So I think that in reality unless Trump's numbers go up even harder she's just going to grind it out in battleground states and try to make him look like some sort of lunatic racist grandpa in the debates. Ice Phisherman fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Ice Phisherman posted:There's no way that the opposition research doesn't exist. Trump has a long history of bankruptcies, loving over clients, employees and business partners and generally being fairly awful. So the opposition research has to exist. He's prone to gaffes and many of them are on radio or television. He also has a long list of people who hate his rear end and startlingly few friends. Possibly none which is pretty weird to me tbh. You know people keep going on about this magical oppo file that will nuke Trump off the map but how true is that? Trump has been a public figure that has been openly campaigning for a year and a half now. He was a public figure BEFORE he ran for president. The press has (incompetently) scrutinized him. Bloggers have gone over all his skeletons. What out there hasn't been touched that only Clinton's campaign would have access to? To be honest I don't think she has much more than what everybody else has access to. The only thing in her advantage here is that she has a campaign that can structure that information and create a narrative on. But Trump is good at throwing off those narratives and leading the media around through the nose -- he is a TV showman first and foremost. The only time he couldn't control the narrative was when Manafort was trying to leash him -- but the Breitbart guys seem to be good at honing him and pointing him in the right direction. I wish that dems and progressives didn't think this election was already wrapped up, that the Silent Majority will obviously vote for a winner and will back her in the end. Things seem to be narrowing now and if the debates go poorly for Hildog we are going to be in a world of poo poo. Feldegast42 fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Sep 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
I think it's less stuff only they have access to and more that theoretically they can put focus on it. I say theoretically because that depends some on the press deciding to talk about it at all, and the total forgetting of the Reno speech shows that can't be depended on in the least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
who needs an oppo file when you can literally just grill him on everything from the past month.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
I really hope people aren't pinning their hopes on "opposition research" outdoing a weeklong feud with a gold star family, or the fact that a literal pay-to-play scheme completely failed to resonate. Trump will be Trump's own destruction. Clinton can fan flames and perhaps bait him into doing something stupid, but there is absolutely nothing her campaign can dig up that will alter the narrative of the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Didn't an oppo file get dumped with the DNC hack? No big shockers in that as I recall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Echoing how insane this is to watch in real-time. Dude flails around a bit and then completely collapses while never admitting fault. He's probably never had his story questioned in his life and was completely unprepared. If he wasn't such an unrepentant scumbag that scammed people for a living I might feel an ounce of sympathy, but gently caress this guy. It's too bad he's incapable of learning any lessons from this other than to blame the media for catching him in a lie. Echoing your echo. That video seemed like a comedy skit in several moments of it. Is there anyone associated with the Trump campaign who isn't extremely odd?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2016 03:22
|
|
