Political Thread

[Heelyes]

Ok let's take drug use out of the equation... If companies are gov't forced to pay employees more, what if employees don't spend their money "wisely", what if they don't share it with their kids, their family, a neighbor down on their luck, what if they are selfish with it, keep it for themselves? Is the gov't going to punish them with higher taxes? Take their money, make the company fire them because they aren't spending it as the gov't dictates? Where does it stop? Gov't has no business running companies, that's not how the fair market works, also known as socialism, which never ever works.

So stop giving companies money, that's socialist

 

[Metwannabe]

Some of y'all aren't going to like this. But in this world there are winners and losers, sometimes a kid is an outstanding ball player worthy of MVP and sometimes a kid isn't good enough to make the time, sometimes an individual excels at their job and deserves a pay raise or promotion, sometimes an individual isn't cut out for the job, some people have the talents to open a business and become millionaires, some of us don't, in fact, some fail, not everyone is equal in their talents and abilities. Some people are eloquent in their speech and written comments, some of us aren't, some have amazing physiques, some of us don't, the list goes on and on.... it's life. We should use those failures, those situations as motivators, to push harder, to fight, to improve, God uses them to mold us and make us better people. When we try to make everyone equal, when government tries to become the great equalizer, then society as a whole stops striving to become better, society as a whole suffers.

 

[Heelyes]

Ok let's take drug use out of the equation... If companies are gov't forced to pay employees more, what if employees don't spend their money "wisely", what if they don't share it with their kids, their family, a neighbor down on their luck, what if they are selfish with it, keep it for themselves? Is the gov't going to punish them with higher taxes? Take their money, make the company fire them because they aren't spending it as the gov't dictates? Where does it stop? Gov't has no business running companies, that's not how the fair market works, also known as socialism, which never ever works.

If it was a fair market, big companies would be allowed to fail like my business would if I ran it like them

 

[Metwannabe]

So stop giving companies money, that's socialist

Raising taxes to punish a company because the government doesn't like how they run their business is government essentially taking that company by the reigns and driving, that becomes a government run company, that's socialism. Government interference doesn't always mean funding from the government.

 

[Metwannabe]

If it was a fair market, big companies would be allowed to fail like my business would if I ran it like them

If we're talking about government bailouts for failing companies then you actually will get no argument from me. If a company makes poor decisions and fails, then it fails and needs to learn. A forest becomes stronger when you burn the under brush, I get that.... but you stated they should be taxed more as punishment for not paying their employees more. Different argument.

 

[Heelyes]

If we're talking about government bailouts for failing companies then you actually will get no argument from me. If a company makes poor decisions and fails, then it fails and needs to learn. A forest becomes stronger when you burn the under brush, I get that.... but you stated they should be taxed more as punishment for not paying their employees more. Different argument.

They learned alright, let's make another bubble and make the government bail them out when it pops. I believe a free market can work if it's actually free. We give billions to these companies before we cut their taxes. It didn't trickle down, they used that money for stock buybacks and bonuses.

 

[Rain Cold]

Many of these big companies are deeply ingrained in the political process via direct monetary influence. Thus, politicians are in the pocket of big industry. We essentially have a coporatocracy. It's no surprise there are bailouts. Government policy supports the conglomeration of business, which leads to the megacorporations. How many independent news stations are there? How many independent telecom companies are there? How many independent banks are there? I could go on. This creates an economic/business environment with three major issues: 1) Reduction in legitimate competition (i.e. anti-capitalism). 2) Too big to fail -- too many people rely on services provided by a too big to fail corp, so it must be bailed out (i.e. anti-capitalism). 3) Too much political influence (i.e. corporatocracy, i.e. crony-capitalism, i.e. anti-capitalism).

We have moved from a capitalist economy to a crony-capitalist economy. This leads to massive wealth and power imbalances, which leads to main street economic distress, which leads to distrust in the system and a sense that nothing is fair, which leads to civil unrest, which leads to political upheaval, which leads to the mainstreaming of extreme political views, which leads to complete loss of confidence, which leads to complete economic disaster, which leads to war and/or a complete reset of the system, which hopefully leads to a better, more stable economic, political, and social system.

 

[Downeastnc]

They learned alright, let's make another bubble and make the government bail them out when it pops. I believe a free market can work if it's actually free. We give billions to these companies before we cut their taxes. It didn't trickle down, they used that money for stock buybacks and bonuses.

Its a very slippery slope, federal intrusion into the free market should be minimal IMO......

Many of these big companies are deeply ingrained in the political process via direct monetary influence. Thus, politicians are in the pocket of big industry. We essentially have a coporatocracy. It's no surprise there are bailouts. Government policy supports the conglomeration of business, which leads to the megacorporations. How many independent news stations are there? How many independent telecom companies are there? How many independent banks are there? I could go on. This creates an economic/business environment with three major issues: 1) Reduction in legitimate competition (i.e. anti-capitalism). 2) Too big to fail -- too many people rely on services provided by a too big to fail corp, so it must be bailed out (i.e. anti-capitalism). 3) Too much political influence (i.e. corporatocracy, i.e. crony-capitalism, i.e. anti-capitalism).

We have moved from a capitalist economy to a crony-capitalist economy. This leads to massive wealth and power imbalances, which leads to main street economic distress, which leads to distrust in the system and a sense that nothing is fair, which leads to civil unrest, which leads to political upheaval, which leads to the mainstreaming of extreme political views, which leads to complete loss of confidence, which leads to complete economic disaster, which leads to war and/or a complete reset of the system, which hopefully leads to a better, more stable economic, political, and social system.

Yeah this is the bottom line, we have allowed to much interaction between politics and big business....factor in a extremely broken health care system, unlimited debt availability etc and you end up with the mess we are in now....the problem is there is no real way to fix it now, well other than let it all blow up and starting over basically.

 

[Downeastnc]

In other news John Eisenberg is also due to testify next week, this is the NSC lead consul everyone went too with their concerns ( Vindman, Dr Hill etc) about the Trump Ukraince call, he is also the one that was responsible for the call being classified code word secret even though it wasn't and that could be a big deal as well since that is illegal....

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

 

[Metwannabe]

Many of these big companies are deeply ingrained in the political process via direct monetary influence. Thus, politicians are in the pocket of big industry. We essentially have a coporatocracy. It's no surprise there are bailouts. Government policy supports the conglomeration of business, which leads to the megacorporations. How many independent news stations are there? How many independent telecom companies are there? How many independent banks are there? I could go on. This creates an economic/business environment with three major issues: 1) Reduction in legitimate competition (i.e. anti-capitalism). 2) Too big to fail -- too many people rely on services provided by a too big to fail corp, so it must be bailed out (i.e. anti-capitalism). 3) Too much political influence (i.e. corporatocracy, i.e. crony-capitalism, i.e. anti-capitalism).

We have moved from a capitalist economy to a crony-capitalist economy. This leads to massive wealth and power imbalances, which leads to main street economic distress, which leads to distrust in the system and a sense that nothing is fair, which leads to civil unrest, which leads to political upheaval, which leads to the mainstreaming of extreme political views, which leads to complete loss of confidence, which leads to complete economic disaster, which leads to war and/or a complete reset of the system, which hopefully leads to a better, more stable economic, political, and social system.

Got any good news??

 

[Heelyes]

Many of these big companies are deeply ingrained in the political process via direct monetary influence. Thus, politicians are in the pocket of big industry. We essentially have a coporatocracy. It's no surprise there are bailouts. Government policy supports the conglomeration of business, which leads to the megacorporations. How many independent news stations are there? How many independent telecom companies are there? How many independent banks are there? I could go on. This creates an economic/business environment with three major issues: 1) Reduction in legitimate competition (i.e. anti-capitalism). 2) Too big to fail -- too many people rely on services provided by a too big to fail corp, so it must be bailed out (i.e. anti-capitalism). 3) Too much political influence (i.e. corporatocracy, i.e. crony-capitalism, i.e. anti-capitalism).

We have moved from a capitalist economy to a crony-capitalist economy. This leads to massive wealth and power imbalances, which leads to main street economic distress, which leads to distrust in the system and a sense that nothing is fair, which leads to civil unrest, which leads to political upheaval, which leads to the mainstreaming of extreme political views, which leads to complete loss of confidence, which leads to complete economic disaster, which leads to war and/or a complete reset of the system, which hopefully leads to a better, more stable economic, political, and social system.

Once again you have a better way with words than me. My point is exactly what you just said, socialism is only ok when it's for big business. Taxpayers foot the bill for risk and the companies collect a profit.

 

[Metwannabe]

Its a very slippery slope, federal intrusion into the free market should be minimal IMO......

Agreed.... in fact federal intrusion at all levels should be minimal. Government should protect it's citizens not try to run their lives

 

[Rain Cold]

Got any good news??

Hilliary is not president?

 

[crecre9]

Some of y'all aren't going to like this. But in this world there are winners and losers, sometimes a kid is an outstanding ball player worthy of MVP and sometimes a kid isn't good enough to make the time, sometimes an individual excels at their job and deserves a pay raise or promotion, sometimes an individual isn't cut out for the job, some people have the talents to open a business and become millionaires, some of us don't, in fact, some fail, not everyone is equal in their talents and abilities. Some people are eloquent in their speech and written comments, some of us aren't, some have amazing physiques, some of us don't, the list goes on and on.... it's life. We should use those failures, those situations as motivators, to push harder, to fight, to improve, God uses them to mold us and make us better people. When we try to make everyone equal, when government tries to become the great equalizer, then society as a whole stops striving to become better, society as a whole suffers.

Sure there are winners, but no one should go without food or shelter or medical care, and in a nation with so much, there is no excuse not to be able to provide it. Unlucky genes or an accident should not doom one to a life of destitution or pain.

 

[Downeastnc]

Sure there are winners, but no one should go without food or shelter or medical care, and in a nation with so much, there is no excuse not to be able to provide it. Unlucky genes or an accident should not doom one to a life of destitution or pain.

Completely agree, the system for SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Snap, basically all the "welfare" programs need to be drastically overhauled, the amount of waste that goes just into running these programs is ridiculous.....however good luck ever getting any meaningful reform of these systems with the current political situation in our country.....maybe get Nikki Haley and Tulsi Gabbard to run together on a ticket that would be cool, that is the kind of thing we need now to shake things up.....

 

[Heelyes]

Completely agree, the system for SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, Snap, basically all the "welfare" programs need to be drastically overhauled, the amount of waste that goes just into running these programs is ridiculous.....however good luck ever getting any meaningful reform of these systems with the current political situation in our country.....maybe get Nikki Haley and Tulsi Gabbard to run together on a ticket that would be cool, that is the kind of thing we need now to shake things up.....

This could have happened already if McCain picked Leiberman instead of Palin.

 

[Arcc]

This could have happened already if McCain picked Leiberman instead of Palin.

McCain had no shot at that election unless everyone else running died. That was the first election I could have voted in and I didn’t because nothing about him made me want to vote.

 

[GaWx]

These are not my words but rather the words of a pretty smart man elsewhere who is a strong Trump supporter totally unlike me. Despite my differences, I consider myself to be open-minded enough to consider some points made by the pro-Trump side. For those who are not Trump fans, is there any chance this man has a valid point here?

"I misstated that the call was only about the 2016 election last week but I read the transcript over again to be sure of what I was stating and he does mention Biden one time, so for sure he wanted part of the overall investigation into corruption to include Biden..............and it was a big reason for him.

However, the quid pro quo never happened. He did not insist or demand anything, he asked the president nicely if he would look into it corruption and mentioned specifially the Bidens and 2016 election and Ukraines money still came to them without Trump getting anything in return, so there can't be a quid pro quo by definition.

Can the president of the US ask a foreign country to look into corruption......where there looks to be obvious corruption?

Of course he can.

Can he ask them to dig up dirt on a political opponent and make military aid contingent upon them doing that(quid pro quo) of course he can't..........and the evidence clearly shows that it did not happen...........despite the never Trumpers claiming the phone call shows it.

The phone call features him asking nicely for an investigation, specifically into the corruption that he has been/is most affected by............but our country is/was also affected by that same corruption too.

How can anybody think that Biden's situation or the 2016 election corruption, both involving likely corruption in the Ukraine don't justify an investigation.

That would be like telling the democrats right now, 'hey, you can't investigate corruption that you claim Trump committed because he is from the opposite party and that would be political'

Trump did not ask for anything other than an investigation.

Schiff was the one that made up 'dig up dirt' and asked 7 times bs that he read into the record."
---------------------------------------------------------

To the folks like me who are NOT Trump fans, I know it isn't easy due to bias but I'm asking you to also be open-minded enough to read this and tell me if it is possible this man has a valid point. TIA.

 

[Heelyes]

These are not my words but rather the words of a pretty smart man elsewhere who is a strong Trump supporter totally unlike me. Despite my differences, I consider myself to be open-minded enough to consider some points made by the pro-Trump side. For those who are not Trump fans, is there any chance this man has a valid point here?

"I misstated that the call was only about the 2016 election last week but I read the transcript over again to be sure of what I was stating and he does mention Biden one time, so for sure he wanted part of the overall investigation into corruption to include Biden..............and it was a big reason for him.

However, the quid pro quo never happened. He did not insist or demand anything, he asked the president nicely if he would look into it corruption and mentioned specifially the Bidens and 2016 election and Ukraines money still came to them without Trump getting anything in return, so there can't be a quid pro quo by definition.

Can the president of the US ask a foreign country to look into corruption......where there looks to be obvious corruption?

Of course he can.

Can he ask them to dig up dirt on a political opponent and make military aid contingent upon them doing that(quid pro quo) of course he can't..........and the evidence clearly shows that it did not happen...........despite the never Trumpers claiming the phone call shows it.

The phone call features him asking nicely for an investigation, specifically into the corruption that he has been/is most affected by............but our country is/was also affected by that same corruption too.

How can anybody think that Biden's situation or the 2016 election corruption, both involving likely corruption in the Ukraine don't justify an investigation.

That would be like telling the democrats right now, 'hey, you can't investigate corruption that you claim Trump committed because he is from the opposite party and that would be political'

Trump did not ask for anything other than an investigation.

Schiff was the one that made up 'dig up dirt' and asked 7 times bs that he read into the record."
---------------------------------------------------------

To the folks like me who are NOT Trump fans, I know it isn't easy due to bias but I'm asking you to also be open-minded enough to read this and tell me if it is possible this man has a valid point. TIA.

If the Dems were asking Russia to investigate Trump I don't think he would support it. It would also help his point if Trump asked any other countries to investigate anyone else, but he didn't. Biden is his only threat so he wanted him investigated

 

[Downeastnc]

These are not my words but rather the words of a pretty smart man elsewhere who is a strong Trump supporter totally unlike me. Despite my differences, I consider myself to be open-minded enough to consider some points made by the pro-Trump side. For those who are not Trump fans, is there any chance this man has a valid point here?

"I misstated that the call was only about the 2016 election last week but I read the transcript over again to be sure of what I was stating and he does mention Biden one time, so for sure he wanted part of the overall investigation into corruption to include Biden..............and it was a big reason for him.

However, the quid pro quo never happened. He did not insist or demand anything, he asked the president nicely if he would look into it corruption and mentioned specifially the Bidens and 2016 election and Ukraines money still came to them without Trump getting anything in return, so there can't be a quid pro quo by definition.

Can the president of the US ask a foreign country to look into corruption......where there looks to be obvious corruption?

Of course he can.

Can he ask them to dig up dirt on a political opponent and make military aid contingent upon them doing that(quid pro quo) of course he can't..........and the evidence clearly shows that it did not happen...........despite the never Trumpers claiming the phone call shows it.

The phone call features him asking nicely for an investigation, specifically into the corruption that he has been/is most affected by............but our country is/was also affected by that same corruption too.

How can anybody think that Biden's situation or the 2016 election corruption, both involving likely corruption in the Ukraine don't justify an investigation.

That would be like telling the democrats right now, 'hey, you can't investigate corruption that you claim Trump committed because he is from the opposite party and that would be political'

Trump did not ask for anything other than an investigation.

Schiff was the one that made up 'dig up dirt' and asked 7 times bs that he read into the record."
---------------------------------------------------------

To the folks like me who are NOT Trump fans, I know it isn't easy due to bias but I'm asking you to also be open-minded enough to read this and tell me if it is possible this man has a valid point. TIA.

The short answer is no.....if it was ok for Trump to ask why did Bolton, Vindman, Dr Hill etc all rush to the lawyers to report it almost as soon as the call ended....why did they hide it, illegally I might add the call on a code word server to try and bury it....then there is the issue of QPQ which no one ever asserted was done on this call, however there is tons of indications that access to Trump and the military aid were dependent on Ukraine playing ball on the Biden investigations...

I cant watch the impeachment inquiry rule vote but I hear the GOP is crying about the rules......which is ironic since the current rules that are in place where put there by the GOP.......you cant make this stuff up. It as a conservative is disappointing to see no one on the right with a backbone willing to stand up to Trump and demand that the party deserves better.