|
Condiv posted:oh, and i turned out to be right, clinton did her damndest to have trump be who she faced off against in the election: so what
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Carlosologist posted:somewhere on Twitter someone said that the way to beat automation was to reduce the length of the work day. I wish I could find the tweetstorm because it was really insightful but my initial reaction was that companies would never try to spread the wealth around like that Splitting (and lengthening) the work day into two six-hour (or even three five-hour, if you want to get crazy) shifts is definitely interesting, but I think it'd be a non-starter to a lot of people who "don't want to work less hours because i'll get paid less" - the "GOVERNMENT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE" types of wages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:"ugh could this party that consistently pushes for minimum wage increases ignore wage stagnation any harder?" Give me a break, minimum wage increases have been fought against by dems at state level and it took a rebellion to get $15 on the silly, useless platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Give me a break, minimum wage increases have been fought against by dems at state level and it took a rebellion to get $15 on the silly, useless platform. Didn't Clinton only support $12 minimum wage?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Give me a break, minimum wage increases have been fought against by dems at state level and it took a rebellion to get $15 on the silly, useless platform. "ugh this party ignores wages" -beat- "ok well maybe not but they didn't get anything passed, plus i'm talking about salaries now, furthermore in a truly equitable system..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Trump could probably make a social conservative, fiscally left/populist coalition that, if it could appeal to minorities would be pretty unstoppable. Only one thing stands in the way... the fact that "social conservatism" is inherently anti-minority?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Here you go: https://www.greatagain.gov/serve-america.html I will help make America great again. Also, what sort if things in the White House are valuable, not too heavy, and small enough to carry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, he's at bare minimum being hugely FYGM about it. "Yup, you guys will all suffer, maybe you'll try harder next time, I'll be just fine tho. After having insults and accusations of racism (like wtf?) screamed at those who correctly predicted Clinton would lose because she bad it is fairly cathartic to read all the teary editorials and careposts from the very people who were spreading the vitriol for the last year or so. Not sure it's worth a president Trump though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
"
|
Polygynous posted:so what if clinton wasn't such a collosal idiot we might've had jeb in office instead of racist supreme if she were a smart politician she would've adopted more of bernie's platform and campaigned
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Give me a break, minimum wage increases have been fought against by dems at state level and it took a rebellion to get $15 on the silly, useless platform. Not to mention the people on the bottom there probably don't like free trade, which Dems support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Didn't Clinton only support $12 minimum wage? If I remember correctly, she would have been happy with $15 but thought $12 was more attainable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Didn't Clinton only support $12 minimum wage? $12 phased in over the next 50 years so as not to upset the markets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Niton posted:Splitting (and lengthening) the work day into two six-hour (or even three five-hour, if you want to get crazy) shifts is definitely interesting, but I think it'd be a non-starter to a lot of people who "don't want to work less hours because i'll get paid less" - the "GOVERNMENT DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE" types of wages. I actually found the source, this is obviously just some guy but I think the logic is solid. the guaranteed overtime is probably a non-starter among companies, and this plan requires a revitalization of the unions, to which, lol https://twitter.com/JoeR42/status/798179935676313600
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:$12 phased in over the next 50 years so as not to upset the markets. I'm not happy that Trump won, but I'm pretty happy that Clinton lost.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:the fact that "social conservatism" is inherently anti-minority? It isn't really. If it seems like it is in the US that doesn't mean it has to be. Certain minority blocks do not like abortion or gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:If I remember correctly, she would have been happy with $15 but thought $12 was more attainable. she thought $15 was too much for the whole US and should be passed on a state-by-state basis with $12 being the federal baseline
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:After having insults and accusations of racism (like wtf?) screamed at those who correctly predicted Clinton would lose because she bad it is fairly cathartic to read all the teary editorials and careposts from the very people who were spreading the vitriol for the last year or so. Not sure it's worth a president Trump though. There's a difference between catharsis and I told you soism (which is also immensely obnoxious and needs to eventually die down because if we're still doing that poo poo in a year no one will want to work with progressives) and literally "I'll be fine, all those other people deserve this so they can learn their lesson."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, he's at bare minimum being hugely FYGM about it. "Yup, you guys will all suffer, maybe you'll try harder next time, I'll be just fine tho. I'm sorry but if your reaction to this catastrophic loss for Dems was to get on Twitter/Tumblr/etc and whine about how everyone is sexist and racist while continuing to ignore what a disaster the Democratic Party has been for working class people of all races and genders then you deserve what's coming. If you voted for Donald because you're a racist uneducated pig then well.. That's a problem that will fix itself once Ryan takes their Medicare away and people start dying in their disgusting deindustrialized towns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Torpor posted:It isn't really. If it seems like it is in the US that doesn't mean it has to be. and social conservatism isnt limited to abortion and gay marriage
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Does it even make sense for the rich to support the GOP? Money is the one thing they have in spades, so tax breaks and deregulation are just peanuts to them. Peanuts which get under cut by how everyone else's favors hurt their profit, and how the instability of the country and the world at large makes things a poorer environment for the wealthy. Don't they have more to gain from improving the lot of the little people, if only because the little people do the things which improve the rich folks lives? A smaller number on paper is nothing compared to the stability of the nation whose teat you suck on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There's a difference between catharsis and I told you soism (which is also immensely obnoxious and needs to eventually die down because if we're still doing that poo poo in a year no one will want to work with progressives) and literally "I'll be fine, all those other people deserve this so they can learn their lesson." it's been less than a week since the election, and clinton supporters were smug as gently caress for months and months. the i-told-you-sos are gonna keep rolling in for a bit
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Accelerationism doesn't work, moron. All you do is accelerate the suffering of millions - including poor white people who will immensely suffer under the Republicans - while pushing people towards fascism. The Great Depression didn't produce a bunch of friendly socialist countries in Europe eager to hand out hugs to Jewish people. No, it probably won't work, but it sure seemed like the American public found that more appealing then 4 more years of treading water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:somewhere on Twitter someone said that the way to beat automation was to reduce the length of the work day. I wish I could find the tweetstorm because it was really insightful but my initial reaction was that companies would never try to spread the wealth around like that Companies wouldn't be the driving force behind that, just like they weren't the driving force behind the merely 40-hour workweek The difference being, at the time that became codified it was a compromise the feds were forced to broker between the guys who still own the government and an active and vibrant organized labor movement that could physically shut down factories and did not have to compete directly with a functionally limitless supply of 12-year-old Bangladeshis who work for $68 a month. Globalization killed the political forces that could've shielded the average American from being simply laid off and never rehired when someone devises a robot that does what they used to do for a living, and Democrats owned globalization. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Torpor posted:It isn't really. If it seems like it is in the US that doesn't mean it has to be. Can you point out a social conservative movement in the world that isn't inherently racist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:No, it probably won't work, but it sure seemed like the American public found that more appealing then 4 more years of treading water. Frankly, that makes the American public that voted Trump preposterously stupid. Yourself included.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Does it even make sense for the rich to support the GOP? Money is the one thing they have in spades, so tax breaks and deregulation are just peanuts to them. Peanuts which get under cut by how everyone else's favors hurt their profit, and how the instability of the country and the world at large makes things a poorer environment for the wealthy. You're talking like rich people are smart or prudent
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
It just seems like things such as universal health care would mean you don't have to deal with providing your employee's health insurance, and could let you cut all sorts of poo poo out for yourself. Improving education would allow you to have a greater force of experts to improve your life in ways that having even twice as much money as you currently have could ever do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:It just seems like things such as universal health care would mean you don't have to deal with providing your employee's health insurance, and could let you cut all sorts of poo poo out for yourself. Improving education would allow you to have a greater force of experts to improve your life in ways that having even twice as much money as you currently have could ever do. Unless you work for a health insurance company. Or have money invested in a health insurance company. In that case, universal health care could be bad for you
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:It just seems like things such as universal health care would mean you don't have to deal with providing your employee's health insurance, and could let you cut all sorts of poo poo out for yourself. Improving education would allow you to have a greater force of experts to improve your life in ways that having even twice as much money as you currently have could ever do. Universal healthcare and aggressive anti-trust actions would probably go a long way to supporting small business, but universal healthcare is aggressively unpopular because the right has successfully demonized it. Hillary failed to get actual government healthcare in the '90s, remember. It was Hillarycare before it was Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Almost 5 million signatures.  This is going to be a wild loving ride.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:The Dems helped to systematically destroy unions since the 70s. They also became just as hawkish as the right. They also slashed welfare and made it much harder to qualify for it, all the while passing policies that shipped jobs overseas. All the while ignoring the ballooning rent/home/tuition prices. All the while ignoring our stagnant wages. The Dems have deliberately shifted their party to one that is only concerned with the 10%. They made the already well off, much more well off. They called upon minorities every 4 years to vote and then instantly ignore them right afterwards. It's satisfying to beat up on the current incarnation of the Democrats, but this didn't happen in a vacuum. Unions around the world have been crushed, and progressives are struggling in almost every single western country. If you think the Democrats have it bad look at Labor in the UK, at least the Democrats still have the popular vote majority. There are also uniquely American institutional problems. Like it or not a two-party system favors centrists. The structure of Congress favors gridlock and the Senate is explicitly undemocratic. The US doesn't have national districting guidelines and the house is gerrymandered to give Republicans a structural advantage (this has only been a major factor for the past few years). Weak/non-existent campaign spending limits mean that US elections see an order of magnitude higher spending per capita than similar western democracies. Citizen's United means PACs can drop unlimited amounts of money on any contest anywhere in the country. Which also brings up the question as to how to change going forward. Protectionism isn't going to bring back automated jobs, in fact it might actually speed up the pace of automation by removing cheap global labor. Are govt jobs + mincome + insane taxes on the rich really on the table, because I'm not seeing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:You're talking like rich people are smart or prudent Point. But since the reality of the situation implies it would be in their best interest to side with the common folk even if only for cynical reasons, and since they are generally more well educated and live in an environment which allows them to learn more easily if they would like to, it explains why so many rich people do not side with the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Almost 5 million signatures. this better not happen also, the dems who are suggesting it are petulant babies who are willing to destroy their country for abuela
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Lena Dunham and her boyfriend were literally weeping in the streets when Hillary lost. These are the kind of people who were more than fine with Dems shipping jobs off to other countries while slashing government assistance. They were and still are fine with it because those kind of people were born into already well off families and they never had to worry about competing for the jobs that working class people of all races do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:It's satisfying to beat up on the current incarnation of the Democrats, but this didn't happen in a vacuum. Unions around the world have been crushed, and progressives are struggling in almost every single western country. If you think the Democrats have it bad look at Labor in the UK, at least the Democrats still have the popular vote majority. imo, the political class around the world are interconnected which is why you see the same poo poo popping up in labour or other leftist parties in europe. they take a page from our lovely leftist party for example, politicians in france are floating the idea of a two-party system like america's "to reduce gridlock"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Fitzy Fitz posted:If I remember correctly, she would have been happy with $15 but thought $12 was more attainable. she also allegedly supports UHC but just that it "wasn't attainable" Funny how everything progressives wanted "wasn't attainable"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Almost 5 million signatures. It's not gonna happen, folks. We almost never have faithless electors. And, when we do, they don't swing elections. Heck, they're usually accidents like the time that one elector was in such a rush that he wrote the name so sloppy they couldn't accept it as a vote. This isn't going to happen even if 320 million people signed this petition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Almost 5 million signatures. If this sparks a civil war then I'm moving to China. Not going to die for liberals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Almost 5 million signatures. There's no way that matters in a practical sense but I think Trump is going to be one of the most unpopular incoming Presidents in history and certainly within the last 70 years. Add into the fact that the Republicans are seeing this as their golden opportunity to do every evil think they've ever wanted and I can't see that not exploding in their face at least somewhat. We are really going to see how far the press will go to push truth in the middle-ism and how little they can report as Rome burns around them. Treating Trump's "win because Hillary tripped over herself trying to showboat across the finish line" accidental success might not be the prudent idea they think it is when people are primed to hate both parties right now, not just the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:26 |
|
|
Monaghan posted:she also allegedly supports UHC but just that it "wasn't attainable" i think if there's anyone who would know about the attainability of UHC it's hillary clinton
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:15
|
|