Why the hate about Trump?

[dalekphalm]

Just now, kidlat020 said:

Everything I learned about socialism, I learned in Venezuela. Also this

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc6PK7aqTO0

You realize that Capitalism and Socialism aren't necessarily incompatible with each other? Many nations have what could be called Democratic Socialism, that employs Capitalism, yet restrained by regulations to prevent companies from exploiting consumers (and each other) through tactics like monopolies, unfair business practices, rigging benchmarks, etc.

 

A 100% purely capitalist society would be utter anarchy - I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one. In a society like that, you'd have the 1% become the 0.1%, and the rest would become far poorer then we are (on average) now.

[SansVarnic]

18 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Anyone who has done even small amounts of research on Socialism (Which, by the way, is a very broad category), knows that socialism isn't about "free shit". It's about everyone doing their part, and contributing as they are able to, but allowing all citizens to have access to basics that should be fundamental rights:

Health Care

Education

Social Services - that would be things like Mental Health, veteran's affairs offices, support programs, and a million other important things

And capitalism is not?

Each does his own part and keeps what is earned. 

I have researched socialism, redistribution of wealth is a major player in social circles.

 

I normal agree with you on most things, here I cannot.

 

Health care should not be a fundamental right by any means under its current form. Example before the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) it was already law that you must receive care at any hospital matter what. Health Insurance is a fraudulent exercise. My paycheck should not have to be distributed to pay for someone elses care. I have my own bills to pay for...

 

33 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

And with a higher base salary the turnover would be a lot less.

 

Also sorry to say this but if the base for the success of your business is cheating your employees out of benefits to increase your profit margins, in my not-so-humble opinion you don't deserve to be in business and I would not find an iota of sympathy for me if you go down by being compelled to offer a fucking livable wages to the people that make you a successful business.

Correct cheating the employee is not right.

But a company has the right to conduct itself in a manner it sees fit. (disclaimer I do not use this as an excuse but to point it out) Company's that succeed will treat their employees well including giving incentives such as heath, 401k, etc benefits so that employees will stay on. Remember a benefit is the same as a pay raise. Health care benefit, depending on the level of care provided, equates to $500-$1000 a month. A 401k 3%-8% match will equate to $100-$500 an month an so on.

My point is made. A wage increase is not always the answer. 

Besides it is not the large companies that have the issue with the wage hike its the smaller companies that do. A company of less than 50 employees cannot continue to survive if forced into a large pay hike including giving benefits. In this environment it is not cheating the employee of pay it is destroying the company. Small company do not make that much if you do the math. There is also operating overhead to consider.

 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

And capitalism is not?

Each does his own part and keeps what is earned. 

I have researched socialism, redistribution of wealth is a major player in social circles.

 

I normal agree with you on most things, here I cannot.

 

Correct cheating the employee is not right.

But a company has the right to conduct itself in a manner it sees fit. (disclaimer I do not use this as an excuse but to point it out) Company's that succeed will treat their employees well including giving incentives such as heath, 401k, etc benefits so that employees will stay on. Remember a benefit is the same as a pay raise. Health care benefit, depending on the level of care provided, equates to $500-$1000 a month. A 401k 3%-8% match will equate to $100-$500 an month an so on.

My point is made. A wage increase is not always the answer. 

Besides it is not the large companies that have the issue with the wage hike its the smaller companies that do. A company of less than 50 employees cannot continue to survive if forced into a large pay hike including giving benefits. In this environment it is not cheating the employee of pay it is destroying the company. Small company do not make that much if you do the math. There is also operating overhead to consider.

 

If any of what you mention was widespread practice there would be no crysis due to low wages. Except we know is not: we know companies, small medium and large, just basically take advantage of people for the most part. Whenever it's locally or abroad by outsourcing it's still a reality. One that needs to change.

 

I'd be nice we could trust corporations to do the right thing and handle their employees well being the way you suggest after all it's still beneficial to them for better worker loyalty, services and benefits are a lot cheaper for a company that basically has massive contracts, etc. But alas, they not, so they get to be spanked with a 15 bucks an hour bare minimum salary.

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

And capitalism is not?

Each does his own part and keeps what is earned. 

I have researched socialism, redistribution of wealth is a major player in social circles.

 

I normal agree with you on most things, here I cannot.

 

Correct cheating the employee is not right.

But a company has the right to conduct itself in a manner it sees fit. (disclaimer I do not use this as an excuse but to point it out) Company's that succeed will treat their employees well including giving incentives such as heath, 401k, etc benefits so that employees will stay on. Remember a benefit is the same as a pay raise. Health care benefit, depending on the level of care provided, equates to $500-$1000 a month. A 401k 3%-8% match will equate to $100-$500 an month an so on.

My point is made. A wage increase is not always the answer. 

Besides it is not the large companies that have the issue with the wage hike its the smaller companies that do. A company of less than 50 employees cannot continue to survive if forced into a large pay hike including giving benefits. In this environment it is not cheating the employee of pay it is destroying the company. Small company do not make that much if you do the math. There is also operating overhead to consider.

 

I agree with you that Capitalism is also about everyone doing their part.

 

In fact, as per my post, Socialism and Capitalism don't have to be segregated. I like living in a Capitalist society. I don't want to live in a pure Communist society. I like achieving success, doing better than others, and having the ability to trade that worth (in the form of money) for luxury items that aren't necessary for basic survival.

 

But I fundamentally do not agree with a pure Capitalist model. It needs restraint. It needs balance. I agree with redistribution of wealth with limits. I agree with paying taxes to fund things for all citizens, like Education (including Post Secondary/College/University), and Health Care.

 

Does that mean poor people should get handouts for free? No. There must be balance there too.

[YongKang]

1 hour ago, 69ing Rainbow Dash said:

you liberals have no idea

 

1 hour ago, 69ing Rainbow Dash said:

My parents will have to pay 100,000 MORE A YEAR because of it.

 

1 hour ago, 69ing Rainbow Dash said:

liberals like you cannot comprehend.

 

1 hour ago, 69ing Rainbow Dash said:

100,000 more..... in PAYROLL

I don't know with which kind of shades should I look with, at your opinion.

By looking at your computer setup, how baller it is, and the mention of your parents payroll, I think I can deduce you don't come from an average family.

By the way you speak, I think you're around your 20s. 

Before I even start "offending" you, I suggest you to tone down your level of republican' cuz I feel like America can crash this forum.

[SansVarnic]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

If any of what you mention was widespread practice there would be no crysis due to low wages. Except we know is not: we know companies, small medium and large, just basically take advantage of people for the most part. Whenever it's locally or abroad by outsourcing it's still a reality. One that needs to change.

 

I'd be nice we could trust corporations to do the right thing and handle their employees well being the way you suggest after all it's still beneficial to them for better worker loyalty, services and benefits are a lot cheaper for a company that basically has massive contracts, etc. But alas, they not, so they get to be spanked with a 15 bucks an hour bare minimum salary.

Alas I cannot agree that the pay hike will accomplish anything because it wont. This will be a major economic fail.

But then again its happening in California and that state that has a well known moto "our citizens bend over willingly so we screw 'em deeply without them knowing". 

 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, SansVarnic said:

Alas I cannot agree that the pay hike will accomplish anything because it wont. This will be a major economic fail.

But then again its happening in California and that state that has a well known moto "our citizens bend over willingly so we screw 'em deeply without them knowing". 

I guess we'll see.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I guess we'll see.

I think the point of this whole $15/h thing is that at least they are trying something. I have yet to see the Conservative/Republican base put forth an alternative.

 

There IS a problem with many Americans (And to a lesser degree, others too, Canadians, etc) who have to try and survive on minimum wage jobs, and they either can't get by, or are just barely scraping by pay cheque to pay cheque.

 

That's a problem, and it needs to be fixed.

 

And we've seen very well over the last 30-40 years, that "Trickle Down" economics don't work. Generally (although there are exceptions), if you give the business owner a break, he's more likely to simply pocket the extra savings for himself, rather than employing more people or giving them better wages/benefits.

[Donut417]

Here is what will solve our issues:

Firstly we need three constitutional amendments. 

 

1) Taking money out of politics. Make it a federal crime to give any type of political donations. Period. Or at least restrict Corporations, they dont need to be part of the democratic process. Corporations are not flesh and blood. Only the people who run and work at them are. 

 

2) 1 term limits in congress. Dont let these fuckers have a job for life. And your benefits as a congressmen or senator are gone when you leave office. None of this pension bullshit. I dont get a pension, neither should these useless bastards. 

 

3) Congressional Raises only under approval of the people. Period. Where I live, if the city wants to raise taxes guess what. They put that shit on the ballot. Then we promptly vote NO. But the fact is, we had a chance to vote yes. The city has to make a case of why it needs more money. If the people believe its necessary then they would vote yes. So I feel that if the people feel that their elected leaders are doing a good job then they can give a raise. Im pretty sure at most jobs thats how it goes. The boss sees your doing a good job and you get a raise. In this case, we are the bosses, not them. In all purposes to our government we are their employers. They have to strive to make us happy, not the other way around. 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Donut417 said:

Here is what will solve our issues:

Firstly we need three constitutional amendments. 

 

1) Taking money out of politics. Make it a federal crime to give any type of political donations. Period. Or at least restrict Corporations, they dont need to be part of the democratic process. Corporations are not flesh and blood. Only the people who run and work at them are. 

 

2) 1 term limits in congress. Dont let these fuckers have a job for life. And your benefits as a congressmen or senator are gone when you leave office. None of this pension bullshit. I dont get a pension, neither should these useless bastards. 

 

3) Congressional Raises only under approval of the people. Period. Where I live, if the city wants to raise taxes guess what. They put that shit on the ballot. Then we promptly vote NO. But the fact is, we had a chance to vote yes. The city has to make a case of why it needs more money. If the people believe its necessary then they would vote yes. So I feel that if the people feel that their elected leaders are doing a good job then they can give a raise. Im pretty sure at most jobs thats how it goes. The boss sees your doing a good job and you get a raise. In this case, we are the bosses, not them. In all purposes to our government we are their employers. They have to strive to make us happy, not the other way around. 

[SansVarnic]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I guess we'll see.

California also loves to give a free ride to every illegal person that crosses the border with zero regard to to the word Illegal. I am fairly certain that SoCal will soon learn the same lesson that France is coming to terms with... maybe. The pay hike only goes so far of course because if remember correctly California's taxation is pretty strict on wages so no matter what you pay people they will still lose and California will increase their pockets with more taxpayer money and more political backward spending will increase. Yeah full circle and nothing is accomplished.

Like I said.

Thing is I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture but that is ok. In the world of micro economics and the short term this will be a good thing, BUT in the world of macro economics and the long term this will be a major fail. Also, just to point his out, when this all comes to a head no body will notice so much as the state of California is so upside down we may never really see how it will turn out.  

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Here is what will solve our issues:

Firstly we need three constitutional amendments. 

 

1) Taking money out of politics. Make it a federal crime to give any type of political donations. Period. Or at least restrict Corporations, they dont need to be part of the democratic process. Corporations are not flesh and blood. Only the people who run and work at them are. 

 

2) 1 term limits in congress. Dont let these fuckers have a job for life. And your benefits as a congressmen or senator are gone when you leave office. None of this pension bullshit. I dont get a pension, neither should these useless bastards. 

 

3) Congressional Raises only under approval of the people. Period. Where I live, if the city wants to raise taxes guess what. They put that shit on the ballot. Then we promptly vote NO. But the fact is, we had a chance to vote yes. The city has to make a case of why it needs more money. If the people believe its necessary then they would vote yes. So I feel that if the people feel that their elected leaders are doing a good job then they can give a raise. Im pretty sure at most jobs thats how it goes. The boss sees your doing a good job and you get a raise. In this case, we are the bosses, not them. In all purposes to our government we are their employers. They have to strive to make us happy, not the other way around. 

Agreed, but for point #1, you have to be very careful.

 

Elections cost money. You need to spread the word about your campaign, make visits around the country, travel, have press releases and photoshoots, and 10 million other things that all cost money.

 

If you eliminated donations entirely, then this would give an INSANELY UNFAIR AND MASSIVE advantage candidates who are rich.

 

No one will vote for you if no one knows your name or who you are - even if you're the most qualified, scouts honour, most honest person in the world.

 

There needs to be a way to combat this, in whatever system is used.

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

California also loves to give a free ride to every illegal person that crosses the border with zero regard to to the word Illegal. I am fairly certain that SoCal will soon learn the same lesson that France is coming to terms with... maybe. The pay hike only goes so far of course because if remember correctly California's taxation is pretty strict on wages so no matter what you pay people they will still lose and California will increase their pockets with more taxpayer money and more political backward spending will increase. Yeah full circle and nothing is accomplished.

Like I said.

Thing is I don't think you are seeing the bigger picture but that is ok. In the world of micro economics and the short term this will be a good thing, BUT in the world of macro economics and the long term this will be a major fail. Also, just to point his out, when this all comes to a head no body will notice so much as the state of California is so upside down we may never really see how it will turn out.  

Somehow I don't really see my brother wetbacks screaming "Jesus is great! Praise the Virgin Mary!!" While mowing down citizens on a truck. But the point is nevertheless well made: That illegal immigration tremendous burden on the economy. My only caveat is that it shouldn't be only about immigration but cracking down on businesses that willingly and openly hire illegals to pay them little more than dirt wages anyway.

 

Other than somehow making us pay for the wall (Never has been explain because it cannot be explained: economical sanctions with one of your main trade partners would probably hurt you guys as much) I'd like to see it built without any illegal workers doing the construction.

[SansVarnic]

8 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I think the point of this whole $15/h thing is that at least they are trying something. I have yet to see the Conservative/Republican base put forth an alternative.

 

There IS a problem with many Americans (And to a lesser degree, others too, Canadians, etc) who have to try and survive on minimum wage jobs, and they either can't get by, or are just barely scraping by pay cheque to pay cheque.

 

That's a problem, and it needs to be fixed.

 

And we've seen very well over the last 30-40 years, that "Trickle Down" economics don't work. Generally (although there are exceptions), if you give the business owner a break, he's more likely to simply pocket the extra savings for himself, rather than employing more people or giving them better wages/benefits.

Yes trickle down has not worked well but culturally we changed so much that business owners have become and in someways pushed to become greedy.

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Here is what will solve our issues:

Firstly we need three constitutional amendments. 

 

1) Taking money out of politics. Make it a federal crime to give any type of political donations. Period. Or at least restrict Corporations, they dont need to be part of the democratic process. Corporations are not flesh and blood. Only the people who run and work at them are. 

 

2) 1 term limits in congress. Dont let these fuckers have a job for life. And your benefits as a congressmen or senator are gone when you leave office. None of this pension bullshit. I dont get a pension, neither should these useless bastards. 

 

3) Congressional Raises only under approval of the people. Period. Where I live, if the city wants to raise taxes guess what. They put that shit on the ballot. Then we promptly vote NO. But the fact is, we had a chance to vote yes. The city has to make a case of why it needs more money. If the people believe its necessary then they would vote yes. So I feel that if the people feel that their elected leaders are doing a good job then they can give a raise. Im pretty sure at most jobs thats how it goes. The boss sees your doing a good job and you get a raise. In this case, we are the bosses, not them. In all purposes to our government we are their employers. They have to strive to make us happy, not the other way around. 

Agreed. There are many republicans and conservative that have been pushing for this for a number of years.

[Donut417]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Agreed, but for point #1, you have to be very careful.

 

Elections cost money. You need to spread the word about your campaign, make visits around the country, travel, have press releases and photoshoots, and 10 million other things that all cost money.

 

If you eliminated donations entirely, then this would give an INSANELY UNFAIR AND MASSIVE advantage candidates who are rich.

 

No one will vote for you if no one knows your name or who you are - even if you're the most qualified, scouts honour, most honest person in the world.

 

There needs to be a way to combat this, in whatever system is used.

NO corporation should never be involved. Thats the issue. Although legally speaking a corporation is an artificial person under the law. They should not have any political ties or rights. If the CEO wants to support some one, then he can contribute. But can not use company assets. Also, all donations should have to be made public, with amounts and who donated. And I think there should be a limit on how much one can do not during the year. None of the millions of dollars bull shit. 

[Prindagelf]

chances are, we from U.S. are all doomed when our choices are a popular rich idiot from TV or old rich B*** who is trying to be something she is not to be popular and failing badly.

NO, not all change is good.

Why can't we vote for smart people who do not have millions of dollars in their pocket to convince other rich people and companies and organizations to give more money to make them the only choice(s) we have to vote for. 

I refuse to vote for what most call the lesser of 2 evils, Evil is Evil and will never get my support regardless of what the lesser devil promises. 

That said...

 

Prindagelf for President, vote today!  

 

[42kq]

@ssl

The same policies that have bankrupted democrat run towns like detroit?

 

The same policies like obamacare that have led to my insurance skyrocketing?

 

The same policies like the safe act which pissed off the last industries in upstate new york and cost my father and his friends their jobs?

 

The same damn policies that make it impossible for police to keep areas like the ones I grew up in; corona and east new york safe?

 

The same policies which take nearly half my income in taxes yet I'm barely above median income in the US.

 

Those same destructive policies?

[Donut417]

 

This video makes a valid point. The biggest issue is Democrats and Republicans. Our founding fathers thought about outlawing political parties. I think they should have. Im pretty sure the video really paints on how things work in congress. 

 

Lewis Black for President 2016!!!!!!!!!!! I think its about time we elect and angry comic as president. Maybe the rest of the world would think we are nuts. OR

 

Lets elect and dead president. Then the rest of the world would really thing we are crazy. We could use someone line Ronald Reagan, he could scare the shit out of our enemies and us at the same time. 

[SansVarnic]

13 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

NO corporation should never be involved. Thats the issue. Although legally speaking a corporation is an artificial person under the law. They should not have any political ties or rights. If the CEO wants to support some one, then he can contribute. But can not use company assets. Also, all donations should have to be made public, with amounts and who donated. And I think there should be a limit on how much one can do not during the year. None of the millions of dollars bull shit. 

Let me ad one more for you.

 

Elimination of all congressional lobbying. I know this is a hand in hand to eliminating corporate money but it has a larger impact.

[straight_stewie]

On 7/24/2016 at 0:52 PM, RuLeZ said:

I dont know much about USA, I am european, but seeing the videos about Trump on the Internet, he seems to me like a normal politician, so why I see everywhere something bad about him? I really just want the honest opinion of americans here.

American politics right now is generally screwed. No one trusts anyone, and politicians generally say what they believe their constituents want to hear, even if they have to contradict themselves to do so. This happens on both sides of things. The problem is that the left media tends to be better at getting the word out than the right media, so there is more negativity surrounding Trump than there is surrounding Clinton. 

[SansVarnic]

Personally I don't like Trump as a person but as a Presidential candidate I do.

The man is a business man through and through. I have mentioned this before, the man is a sledge hammer. He is not subtle in what he does but he does get things done. And he stands for what he says he will. That is the only reason I support him. Otherwise I could care less for the man. Looking at what he is up against, Hillary is a far cry from anything human in my book. She should have been hung for all those things she has done, she has technically committed treason a number times to start so there zero reason she should be considered a candidate. Anyone and I mean anyone that supports Hillary, well I wont say it but well I feel very sorry for you.

 

*edit

well i had my fill on this thread.. I am done. Till the next flamewar time.

Edited July 27, 2016 by SansVarnic

[dalekphalm]

6 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Personally I don't like Trump as a person but as a Presidential candidate I do.

The man is a business man through and through. I have mentioned this before, the man is a sledge hammer. He is not subtle in what he does but he does get things done. And he stands for what he says he will. That is the only reason I support him. Otherwise I could care less for the man. Looking at what he is up against, Hillary is a far cry from anything human in my book. She should have been hung for all those things she has done, she has technically committed treason a number times to start so there zero reason she should be considered a candidate. Anyone and I mean anyone that supports Hillary, well I wont say it but well I feel very sorry for you.

 

*edit

well i had my fill on this thread.. I am done. Till the next flamewar time.

I won't lie, I find the whole "she technically committed treason" thing very flimsy.

 

She was investigated. By the FBI (which has no special love for any party). And more importantly, by The republican dominated Congress. If there was even the tiniest shred of evidence that she actually broke the law, she'd have been nailed to wall six feet to sunday.

 

But they didn't. No charges were filed. No evidence brought to light. At best, she was mildly irresponsible with the whole private email server - but even in that regard, there's plenty of precedent by other government leaders using their own private email/servers, etc.

[SansVarnic]

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I won't lie, I find the whole "she technically committed treason" thing very flimsy.

 

She was investigated. By the FBI (which has no special love for any party). And more importantly, by The republican dominated Congress. If there was even the tiniest shred of evidence that she actually broke the law, she'd have been nailed to wall six feet to sunday.

 

But they didn't. No charges were filed. No evidence brought to light. At best, she was mildly irresponsible with the whole private email server - but even in that regard, there's plenty of precedent by other government leaders using their own private email/servers, etc.

Her history goes beyond the email thing... way beyond.

And I wasn't referring the emails any how. 

Edited July 27, 2016 by SansVarnic

[kidlat020]

Shoes should be a right, because many people die without shoes.

 

one last video:

 

[straight_stewie]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

I won't lie, I find the whole "she technically committed treason" thing very flimsy.

 

She was investigated. By the FBI (which has no special love for any party). And more importantly, by The republican dominated Congress. If there was even the tiniest shred of evidence that she actually broke the law, she'd have been nailed to wall six feet to sunday.

 

But they didn't. No charges were filed. No evidence brought to light. At best, she was mildly irresponsible with the whole private email server - but even in that regard, there's plenty of precedent by other government leaders using their own private email/servers, etc.

I have to disagree with the sentiment of this. Comey stood in front of the world, listed the crimes that she committed, and then said not to prosecute her. Whether the crimes she committed were treasonous or not is rather irrelevant. Comey (the director of the FBI) listed her actions, identified them as crimes, and then told people to leave her alone. That's the thing that people have a problem with. 

You said yourself that people have been convicted of doing the same things that the director of the FBI said she did and that she herself publicly admitted to. Why then was she not prosecuted?