Trump, Oh my god ! - Page 31 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15012785
Hindsite wrote:Dobbs: The Obama legacy has become one of shame
Published on Aug 18, 2016

The "Obama legacy" has nothing to do with my post. I will repost it for your consideration:


Since taking office Obese Donald has relentlessly favored the wealthy over members of the working class, whatever their skin color. His only major legislative success, the 2017 tax cut, was a huge break for corporations and business owners; the handful of crumbs thrown at ordinary families was so small that most people believe they got nothing at all.

At the same time, he keeps trying to destroy key provisions of Obamacare — protection for pre-existing conditions, premium subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid — even though these provisions are highly popular and have been of enormous benefit to states like Kentucky and West Virginia that favored him by huge margins.
By Hindsite
#15012791
jimjam wrote:The "Obama legacy" has nothing to do with my post. I will repost it for your consideration:

Since taking office Obese Donald has relentlessly favored the wealthy over members of the working class, whatever their skin color. His only major legislative success, the 2017 tax cut, was a huge break for corporations and business owners; the handful of crumbs thrown at ordinary families was so small that most people believe they got nothing at all.

At the same time, he keeps trying to destroy key provisions of Obamacare — protection for pre-existing conditions, premium subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid — even though these provisions are highly popular and have been of enormous benefit to states like Kentucky and West Virginia that favored him by huge margins.

The working class need the wealthy to provide jobs with a living wage. By providing the corporations and business owners with tax cuts, the President is in effect helping the working class. Obamacare is a bad system anyway. It needs to be replaced by a better system.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15012796
The working class need the wealthy to provide jobs with a living wage. By providing the corporations and business owners with tax cuts, the President is in effect helping the working class.


Net worth of the Walton family (Walmart) $150 billion dollars. Pay of a Walmart worker? A large percentage below the poverty level.

Obamacare is a bad system anyway. It needs to be replaced by a better system.


Yes it does. I wish Trump would offer one. It should be replaced with a single payer system. I am glad we agree on something.
By Hindsite
#15012827
Drlee wrote:Net worth of the Walton family (Walmart) $150 billion dollars. Pay of a Walmart worker? A large percentage below the poverty level.

An average full-time Walmart store associate in America makes $14.26 per hour, almost double the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Walmart minimum starting salary of $11 per hour and an average store manager compensation of $175,000 per year.

https://www.inc.com/cameron-albert-deit ... -wage.html

Drlee wrote:It should be replaced with a single payer system.

I don't agree that a single payer healthcare system would be best for all citizens. I am more in favor of competition under the capitalist system. However, I am not against the government providing a single payer healthcare system for those that want one.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15012831
Mr. Jerry Falwell Jr. was chancellor of one of the nation’s largest Christian colleges, Liberty University, and a son of the Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr., the televangelist and co-founder of the modern religious right. Mr. Falwell grabbed the attention of the entire political world when he endorsed Mr. Trump becoming one of the first major evangelical leaders to get behind the thrice-married, insult-hurling real estate mogul’s long-odds presidential bid.

One of Liberty’s trustees, Mark DeMoss — an alumnus and a longtime confidant of Mr. Falwell’s father — told The Washington Post that Mr. Trump did not exhibit “Christ-like behavior that Liberty has spent 40 years promoting with its students.” :lol: Mr. DeMoss "resigned" shortly thereafter.

It has always seemed ironic, to say the least, that alleged "Christians" could support a liar, thief and crime family boss such as Obese Donald. Donald is not stupid. As an experienced con artist he immediately saw a huge voting bloc there for the taking. "Christians" are obedient and are trained not to think for themselves and will do as they are told. Falwell is one of their major authority figures. Obese Donald snagged him and then tossed out some symbolic baubles to the "Christians" in a standard quid pro quo con artist 101 maneuver.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15012832
An average full-time Walmart store associate in America makes $14.26 per hour, almost double the federal minimum wage of $7.25.


Really? And were you going to mention that this wage is right at poverty level for a family of four? That they are eligible for federal benefits at your and my expense? That the taxpayers are subsidizing their health care, their food and their housing. And that average does not matter one bit because the higher paid workers pull up the poverty stricken lower paid workers.

The ignorance on the right is stunning.
#15012834
@Hindsite

Hindsite wrote:The working class need the wealthy to provide jobs with a living wage. By providing the corporations and business owners with tax cuts, the President is in effect helping the working class.


It was the American worker who built Carnegie's steel mill, NOT Carnegie. It was Carnegie's capital that funded but he underpaid his steel mill workers and it was not a living wage. A prime example of this is the Homestead Steel Mill strike. You can watch an excellent episode on this that was on the History Channel:

By Hindsite
#15012838
Drlee wrote:Really? And were you going to mention that this wage is right at poverty level for a family of four? That they are eligible for federal benefits at your and my expense? That the taxpayers are subsidizing their health care, their food and their housing. And that average does not matter one bit because the higher paid workers pull up the poverty stricken lower paid workers.

The ignorance on the right is stunning.

The ignorance on the left ignores the fact that the wage is for one person, not for a family of four; and they would not have that wage without Walmart and may not even have a job without Walmart. If they could get a higher wage from another employer, then they must be stupid to stay at Walmart according to left-wing logic. The lowest paid Walmart workers still make about $4 more per hour than minimum wage.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15012839
The ignorance on the left ignores the fact that the wage is for one person, not for a family of four; and they would not have that wage without Walmart and may not even have a job without Walmart. If they could get a higher wage from another employer, then they must be stupid to stay at Walmart according to left-wing logic. The lowest paid Walmart workers still make about $4 more per hour than minimum wage.


Yes. The little boys can shine shoes and the little girls....

Wake up. The Waltons managed to amass 150 billion bucks. For less than 5% of that every employee could have health care. But you would rather that you and I pay for their health care than ask the poor Waltons to get by on a mere $142.5 billion dollars.

What does your sig say? Oh yea. Something about Einstein. :roll:
#15012840
@Hindsite

Hindsite wrote:The ignorance on the left ignores the fact that the wage is for one person, not for a family of four; and they would not have that wage without Walmart and may not even have a job without Walmart. If they could get a higher wage from another employer, then they must be stupid to stay at Walmart according to left-wing logic. The lowest paid Walmart workers still make about $4 more per hour than minimum wage.


What about shared prosperity? The US economy has grown stronger and yet we still have wage stagnation and the cost of living has gone up. The rich are doing better than ever before BUT not workers. Unions are the only way to have some level of assurance that the prosperity is shared and that workers benefit in a better, stronger economy too and not just only the wealthy. After all, without workers there would be no Wal Mart just like without workers Carnegie would never have any steel mills.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15012846
jimjam wrote:Mr. Jerry Falwell Jr. was chancellor of one of the nation’s largest Christian colleges, Liberty University, and a son of the Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr., the televangelist and co-founder of the modern religious right.

Falwell leveraged cable television. Nothing prevented the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, etc. from doing this, but they were too busy molesting kids or trying to convince churchgoers that social libertinism was consistent with the teachings of the Bible. The Catholics are still a big religion, because of Hispanic migration into the US. The mainline protestant churches have collapsed and given way to the mega churches.

jimjam wrote:It has always seemed ironic, to say the least, that alleged "Christians" could support a liar, thief and crime family boss such as Obese Donald.

It could be 1) that they do not share your conclusion that Trump is a thief or a crime family boss. They can assume he's a liar, as all politicians are liars; 2) that they were horrified that Hillary Clinton un-reservedly gave her support for on-demand, no restriction partial birth abortion; or maybe 3) they thought that Trump's pre-election list of court nominees was a sufficient reason to vote for him given the likely outcome of supporting Hillary, who is also a much better fit for liar, thief and crime family boss.

jimjam wrote:Donald is not stupid. As an experienced con artist he immediately saw a huge voting bloc there for the taking.

Another way of saying that is Hillary was stupid. With the entire nation watching a national debate, she came out for unrestricted partial birth abortion. She could have played that much differently.

jimjam wrote:Obese Donald snagged him and then tossed out some symbolic baubles to the "Christians" in a standard quid pro quo con artist 101 maneuver.

Trump has made good on his court appointments. It has been a quid pro quo that served the evangelicals well, wouldn't you agree?

Drlee wrote:And were you going to mention that this wage is right at poverty level for a family of four?

That's generally not a problem if you have two incomes in a two-parent family. That's why people who stay married and go to church are almost always better off than people who don't on average. Companies aren't responsible to overpay people who live non-traditional lifestyles.

Drlee wrote:The ignorance on the right is stunning.

The right usually factors other things into the mix. They don't see single parent families, licentious sexual behavior, and alcohol and drug abuse as an "alternative lifestyle" that the government should be supporting. Generally, they view welfare as a temporary safety net. Nothing more.

Drlee wrote:For less than 5% of that every employee could have health care.

For one year... and that's if the Waltons write the check themselves. Do that long enough, and they would be on the welfare lines. If WalMart increases the expenses of the company by 5% the stock will drop 20% overnight. That's how the markets really work. We asked our CEO why we didn't develop new products in house--why we always buy companies. He said, "We would be better off taking $500M into the parking lot and setting it on fire than increasing our costs from 20% to 25%. Our stock would be down 25% overnight and we'd lose $4-6B of market cap." That's the real world Drlee.

Politics_Observer wrote:Unions are the only way to have some level of assurance that the prosperity is shared and that workers benefit in a better, stronger economy too and not just only the wealthy.

You sound like you grew up in a union household. Unions were the only way unskilled factory workers would benefit. Unions can't do shit if the company moves the factory to China. Unions don't do shit about illegal aliens either. They are now dependent on companies that can't be outsourced, like hotel and restaurant workers, government employees, etc.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15012911
Falwell leveraged cable television. Nothing prevented the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, etc. from doing this, but they were too busy molesting kids or trying to convince churchgoers that social libertinism was consistent with the teachings of the Bible. The Catholics are still a big religion, because of Hispanic migration into the US. The mainline protestant churches have collapsed and given way to the mega churches.


Really Blackjack. You just can't resist childish trolling.

If you would limit yourself to behaving like an adult you would be more effective.

Hillary did not lose because of partial birth abortion. She was not going to get a single of those votes anyway. Trump won for just one reason. The slate of other republicans was beyond weak so the gerrymandering went to him. The only real alternative to him with the "base" the republicans had constructed was Cruz and there is not a soul in the US who actually likes Cruz. (Though he would have been a much better choice, he might have lost to Clinton.)

Trump has made good on his court appointments. It has been a quid pro quo that served the evangelicals well, wouldn't you agree?


You would think so but Gorsuch just threw them under the bus over three issues:

He sided with Ginsburg on double jeopardy.

He sided with Ginsburg and Thomas denying Virginia's House standing to appeal a case thereby letting the democratic leaning court ordered redistricting map stand.

He upheld Virginia's ban on uranium mining writing in a sweeping decision, that though the federal government has the right to regulate mining it does not have the authority to override states ability to regulate or ban mining.

He is showing his hand here. Like Roberts it seems he has risen to his responsibility to the law not to Trump. (Roberts is still doing penance over Citizen's United.)
Blackjack said: (A bunch of nonsense about stock prices.)


If true, a very good argument for not only a dramatically higher minimum wage but also single payer health care.

You sound like you grew up in a union household. Unions were the only way unskilled factory workers would benefit. Unions can't do shit if the company moves the factory to China. Unions don't do shit about illegal aliens either. They are now dependent on companies that can't be outsourced, like hotel and restaurant workers, government employees, etc.


Yes. Unions have been all but destroyed in this country. Two points though. We most certainly can do something about moving factories. We can, and should, pass a law denying companies who move production off shore the ability to deduct the costs of operating those companies from their US taxes. Several countries do this. Might they mover their entire operations off shore? Sure. I need not tell you how to deal with that. Easily.

But again you make an excellent argument for a much higher minimum wage as well as single payer health care. Enlightened business leaders are advocating for both. They would increase their competitiveness in the domestic market in both cases. Such increases also favor larger companies over start ups and small business.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15012921
Drlee wrote:Really Blackjack. You just can't resist childish trolling.

If you would limit yourself to behaving like an adult you would be more effective.
...
The slate of other republicans was beyond weak so the gerrymandering went to him.

First, an adult would know that I was responding to jimjam's assertion. If you think jimjam's assertion was childish, you can tell him yourself. American voting adults often know the difference between gerrymandering and the electoral college. You cannot gerrymander a presidential election or a statewide primary. You cannot gerrymander a senate election either. You can only gerrymander the election of a house or state assembly seat, where district boundaries are drawn arbitrarily. Since you purport to be smarter than 99% of the population, you might try and get that one right once in awhile, as this is not the first time your use of the word "gerrymander" is completely wrong. Gerrymandering Second, when condescending to people, use terms accurately; otherwise, you end up looking like an idiot.

Drlee wrote:Hillary did not lose because of partial birth abortion. She was not going to get a single of those votes anyway.

There are a lot of nominally pro-choice voters who are horrified by partial birth abortion, which is why abortion never maintained political popularity in spite of SCOTUS trying to bastardize the constitution to that end. Partial birth abortion sways nominally pro-choice voters to the pro-life cause, which is why it is used as a wedge issue.

Drlee wrote:If true, a very good argument for not only a dramatically higher minimum wage but also single payer health care.

A dramatically higher minimum wage would depress stock prices, because it would hit the gross and net margins of all companies.

Drlee wrote:We can, and should, pass a law denying companies who move production off shore the ability to deduct the costs of operating those companies from their US taxes.

Tariffs are the most effective way to address the issue. Your solution would just inspire corporations to contract out services they perform in-house. There are lots of contract manufacturers in Asia. Apple does not manufacture iPhones. Contract manufacturers do. Your proposal might hurt Wells Fargo's back office operations in India, or Ford's operations in Mexico. It wouldn't do a thing to Apple subcontracting iPhones to FoxConn.

Drlee wrote:Such increases also favor larger companies over start ups and small business.

Yes. However, most job growth in the United States comes from start ups and small businesses. That's why Sarbanes-Oxley was hated. Trump's friendliness to small business is why his rallies are so packed. It's also why Trump does better with minorities than Romney or McCain did in spite of torrential propaganda calling him a racist at every opportunity.
#15012945
@blackjack21

blackjack wrote:You sound like you grew up in a union household. Unions were the only way unskilled factory workers would benefit. Unions can't do shit if the company moves the factory to China. Unions don't do shit about illegal aliens either. They are now dependent on companies that can't be outsourced, like hotel and restaurant workers, government employees, etc.


You better believe I am pro-union. But as Drlee has pointed out, unions have been pretty much wiped out. The war against unions has been largely successful. Especially with the legal precedent set by Ronald Reagan when he fired government air traffic controllers. That legal precedent has been used to prevent unions from being organized in private sector work places. You can vote in a union but if you strike then the company can use that legal precedent to replace you. Here is an article which discusses the legal precedent set by Ronald Reagan's firing of air traffic controllers and how that affected private sector worker rights:

Joseph A. McCartin of the New York Times wrote:More than any other labor dispute of the past three decades, Reagan’s confrontation with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, undermined the bargaining power of American workers and their labor unions. It also polarized our politics in ways that prevent us from addressing the root of our economic troubles: the continuing stagnation of incomes despite rising corporate profits and worker productivity.


Quoting from another part of the article:

Joseph A. McCartin of the New York Times wrote:Yet three decades later, with the economy shrinking or stagnant for nearly four years now and Reagan’s party moving even further to the right than where he stood, the long-term costs of his destruction of the union loom ever larger. It is clear now that the fallout from the strike has hurt workers and distorted our politics in ways Reagan himself did not advocate.


Continuing:

Joseph A. McCartin of the New York Times wrote:He not only made this point when supporting Lech Walesa’s anti-Communist Solidarity movement in Poland; he also boasted of being the first president of the Screen Actors Guild to lead that union in a strike. Over time, however, his crushing of the controllers’ walkout — which he believed was justified because federal workers were not allowed under the law to strike — has helped undermine the private-sector rights he once defended.

Workers in the private sector had used the strike as a tool of leverage in labor-management conflicts between World War II and 1981, repeatedly withholding their work to win fairer treatment from recalcitrant employers. But after Patco, that weapon was largely lost. Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. Phelps Dodge and International Paper were among the companies that imitated Reagan by replacing strikers rather than negotiating with them. Many other employers followed suit.


By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952.


So in that last quote I put in bold letters the significant part of it. It demonstrates the legal precedent set by Reagan that has busted many unions and prevented many unions from organizing in the first place. Companies will tell workers who considering voting in a union that you can go ahead and vote in a union, but that doesn't matter, if you go on strike, we'll just replace you and they cite that legal precedent set by Reagan's firing of air traffic controllers. That has had long term disastrous results for the health of our republic big time. This why we see the rise of fascism here in America.

References-

McCartin, Joseph A. "The Strike That Busted Unions." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia, 2 Aug. 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/reag ... nions.html. Accessed 19 June 2019.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15013022
Politics_Observer wrote:You better believe I am pro-union. But as Drlee has pointed out, unions have been pretty much wiped out. The war against unions has been largely successful. Especially with the legal precedent set by Ronald Reagan when he fired government air traffic controllers. That legal precedent has been used to prevent unions from being organized in private sector work places. You can vote in a union but if you strike then the company can use that legal precedent to replace you. Here is an article which discusses the legal precedent set by Ronald Reagan's firing of air traffic controllers and how that affected private sector worker rights:

Reagan didn't set any significant precedent. The PATCO strike was illegal. The president, if he wanted to, could rescind Kennedy's executive order allowing government workers to unionize--effectively ending all federal government unions once contracts expired. Firing PATCO workers doesn't prevent unions from organizing anywhere. Keep in mind, Ronald Reagan was a union president at one point. He was not anti-union per se, but was against abusive union practices.

Here's how your article opens:

THIRTY years ago today, when he threatened to fire nearly 13,000 air traffic controllers unless they called off an illegal strike, Ronald Reagan not only transformed his presidency, but also shaped the world of the modern workplace.

The strike was illegal, and even the author of your article admits this in his opening sentence.

Although there were 39 illegal work stoppages against the federal government between 1962 and 1981, no significant federal job actions followed Reagan’s firing of the Patco strikers.

Again, the author notes that work stoppages are illegal with certain federal unions.

It is clear now that the fallout from the strike has hurt workers and distorted our politics in ways Reagan himself did not advocate.

Right. Reagan was NOT anti-union. In fact, he was president of the Screen Actors Guild. He was a union leader.

Although a conservative, Reagan often argued that private sector workers’ rights to organize were fundamental in a democracy. He not only made this point when supporting Lech Walesa’s anti-Communist Solidarity movement in Poland; he also boasted of being the first president of the Screen Actors Guild to lead that union in a strike.

Well, I have to say, it is refreshing to read a NYTimes article that is actually making factual statements about Reagan!

Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. Phelps Dodge and International Paper were among the companies that imitated Reagan by replacing strikers rather than negotiating with them. Many other employers followed suit.

Management still has a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith. They were never banned from replacing striking workers. It has never been illegal. It's simply that union demands were excessive. Today, a gantry crane operator at the Port of Oakland makes well into six figures. I have a high school buddy with a masters degree in psychology who works as a janitor for our mass transit system, BART, where he makes well into six figures emptying garbage cans, and will retire in his early 50s with 90% pay. These are jobs that should pay no more than $60k with a 401(k); yet, they are making over twice that with a guaranteed pension for unskilled labor. It's so attractive, that people with masters degrees in psychology will take those jobs instead of helping people unfuck themselves per their education.

By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952.

By 2010, Reagan had been out of office for 22 years. In that time, NAFTA, GATT, MFN status for China and admission of China to the WTO effectively made striking a suicide mission for the private sector. Reagan's administration was brainstorming NAFTA, but he didn't propose that. It was Bush who did that, and it was negotiated and ratified by Clinton. Public sector unions do not enjoy public support now, because they make far more money than most people doing similar jobs in the private sector. Drlee was yammering on about what a great job California was doing running a budget surplus. What he doesn't mention is that CalPers is nearly bankrupt, because they promise absolutely glorious benefits to public sector workers, that private sector workers can only dream about. That's why union workers vote lock-stock-and-barrel for the Democrats even if they don't agree with all their other weird shit. It's regulatory capture.

Although he opposed government strikes, Reagan supported government workers’ efforts to unionize and bargain collectively. As governor, he extended such rights in California.

Right...following Kennedy's action at the Federal level. That led to a lot of teachers strikes, and that's when my parents put me in private schools. Crappy teachers cannot be fired now. Teachers unions ruined the public school system.

In the spring, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin invoked Reagan’s handling of Patco as he prepared to “change history” by stripping public employees of collective bargaining rights in a party-line vote. “I’m not negotiating,” Mr. Walker said. By then the world had seemingly forgotten that unlike Mr. Walker, Reagan had not challenged public employees’ right to bargain — only their right to strike.

Yes, but public sector unionism became incredibly corrupt. As I said, I have a friend with a masters degree in psychology emptying garbage cans for a six figure salary and guaranteed pension in the six figures and retiring in his mid 50s. I have a friend who is a cop who gets a similar deal. Cops have to work for a living and risk getting shot at. They have to write reports, show up in court, make arrests of violent felons, and put up with incredible amounts of shit. Any able-bodied person able to follow directions can empty garbage cans. It doesn't even require a high school diploma for all intents and purposes. Six figures? Seriously?

Politics_Observer wrote:It demonstrates the legal precedent set by Reagan that has busted many unions and prevented many unions from organizing in the first place.

There was no legal precedent set. The strike was illegal. There is no argument to the contrary. The precedent set was simply having the balls to call the union out on their bullshit.

Politics_Observer wrote:Companies will tell workers who considering voting in a union that you can go ahead and vote in a union, but that doesn't matter, if you go on strike, we'll just replace you and they cite that legal precedent set by Reagan's firing of air traffic controllers.

That's simply false. Reagan never set any legal precedent. It was already illegal. He just refused to negotiate with people who willfully broke the law and tried bringing the US airline system to its knees in hopes of making him a 1-term president for the benefit of the Democratic party where their political loyalties lie--and it was the union leaders who basically sold out the workers, not Reagan. It's not easy to replace skilled laborers. It's easy to replace unskilled laborers.

Politics_Observer wrote:This why we see the rise of fascism here in America.

Fascism is union friendly. Both Mussolini and Hitler allowed unions. They simply crushed the communist and anarchist factions within them, and brought the unions close to the party. In the United States, the unions are closely allied with the Democratic party, which is why the Republican party has no political incentive to deal with them. Reagan enabled public sector unions in California. He got zero thanks for that. Scott Walker had every political incentive to crush the unions in Wisconsin, because their membership was compelled to make political contributions to the detriment of the Republicans. It's illegal for union leaders to bribe politicians. Is it illegal for labor union leaders to take money under the table from private interests with a co-incident interest in the well being of the Democratic party? In the US, unions like the media, are tied very closely with the Democratic party political machine.

If we're to believe any of the Russiagate bullshit, the emails were the only thing that could have had any meaningful impact, and all they did was ratify what everybody already knew--e.g., Democratic party operatives like Donna Brazil would get the debate questions asked by the media and feed them to the Democratic party candidate to give them a competitive advantage, etc.
By Hindsite
#15013027
Drlee wrote:Yes. The little boys can shine shoes and the little girls....

Wake up. The Waltons managed to amass 150 billion bucks. For less than 5% of that every employee could have health care. But you would rather that you and I pay for their health care than ask the poor Waltons to get by on a mere $142.5 billion dollars.

What does your sig say? Oh yea. Something about Einstein. :roll:

When I made a wage under the poverty level for a family of 7, my wife picked up the slack by working part-time. We didn't complain about it like you liberal snow-flakes.

Politics_Observer wrote:@Hindsite

What about shared prosperity? The US economy has grown stronger and yet we still have wage stagnation and the cost of living has gone up. The rich are doing better than ever before BUT not workers. Unions are the only way to have some level of assurance that the prosperity is shared and that workers benefit in a better, stronger economy too and not just only the wealthy. After all, without workers there would be no Wal Mart just like without workers Carnegie would never have any steel mills.

Shared property sounds like communism. I disagree with your propositions.
#15013035
@blackjack21

Fascism is NOT friendly towards labor unions or communism. The fascists in Germany had alliances with communists but that didn't mean they liked each other. I mean the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union was seen as anti-communist crusade by the Germans.

Part of the characteristics of fascism, which we see in America today with Donald Trump and his supporters is anti-intellectualism, hierarchy (like with Trump stating time and time again he wants to be President "for life" which basically means he wants to be dictator like you know Adolf Hitler was a dictator), victim-hood (fascist politics portray the dominant group of society as victims. The Nazis said that Germans were the victims of the minority Jews, you know sort of like the American white man is the victim of those 'illegals.'), law and order (fascists promise a regime of law and order not to punish actual criminals, but to criminalize “out groups” like racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities).

Kinda like right now where we’re seeing criminality being written into immigration status in the United States. Fascists thrive on launching purportedly specific attacks against certain segments of a population, like “criminal” immigrants or Jews, and then broadening that definition to include the entire group. Finally, the notion of "work shall set you free" (ring a bell when you think of Auschwitz) Fascists identify out groups as lazy, attack welfare systems and labor organizers, and promote the idea that the group on top is hard working, the groups on the bottom are lazy and drains on the state and should be forced to work, ideally for free. And these are some of the characteristics of fascism and it all sounds very very familiar today in our political climate here in America.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15013050
Interesting to see the human sewage that Obese Donald gravitates to. Birds of a feather:

Image

Mr. Bone Saw ^

and

Image

Kim jong asshole (at a meeting of the Funny Hat Club). No doubt Donald digs his title: "Supreme Leader" :lol:
User avatar
By jimjam
#15013052
Hindsite wrote:Shared property sounds like communism. I disagree with your propositions.

Please define the term "predatory capitalism". Thanks.
By Hindsite
#15013060
jimjam wrote:Please define the term "predatory capitalism". Thanks.

"Predatory capitalism" is a made up phrase by those that wish to criticize capitalism.
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 48

The LeBron thing was pretty lol. He was like &quo[…]

Well, I am not a surgeon but the male-to-female s[…]

don't understand the concept of diplomatic immun[…]

^ Yeah mate that dangerous woman playing video gam[…]