2016 American Presidential Campaign

[Shimmer.Fade]

I'm also in school full time, attempting to realize this. I spent a year in the legislature. Still, I'm unqualified to answer phones for an insurance company.

This is where they have got many people. Managerial business types are trying to tell us academic experts where we are, or are not, qualified even when they have no fucking clue. Logistics/banking sectors have made countless pacts, and are truly attempting to take over the world. No ifs, ands, or buts at this point.

Who used to give the world leaders advice? Academics. Who gives world leaders advice now? Bankers and lawyers.

Which path will lead to utilitarian progress? Maybe the path that follows those who believe in such things. Bankers and lawyers have little classical philosophy in their motivations, what they care about is unlimited growth/profit without attention to the costs. They follow capitalism as if it were a classical philosophical stance. If it were put in the frame of classical philosophy they would be claiming that their ends (profit) are justified by ANY means (lives and livelihoods). I can't believe people haven't realized how dangerous this direction is. Conflict will arise.

 

[Bardeaux]

^Even Adam Smith, whom classical liberals love to tout was fully aware of this danger.

I think people like von Mises truly attempted to turn free market capitalism into a classical philosophy, with it's own set of ethics.

It also nags me that many people think the "founders" were unanimous on how the economic structure of the country was to be set up, using it as a defense for unbridled capitalism.

Something that probably doesn't often make the curriculum:

NSFW:

 

[superelephant]

The thing is, is that there is more than enough money in the system to be paying people a living wage. The 2 dollar living wage Sanders once fought for now equates to ~11 something per hour.

I see/read of tons of people being no more than indentured servants working two jobs at minimum wage. You can tell me these people should have known better, and I would tell you bullshit. Cheap, super easy credit was a new phenomenon of the early 80s. Then we had deregulation of the early 80s. People with their cheap credit were content and stupid, and didn't demand the wages increase as they normally had.

Their wages stagnated, they couldn't meet their credit payments, and were forced to refinance. Anytime you need to refinance you just lost fucking big time. People in the US (a false bastion of capitalism) seem to have forgotten what leverage means. It means I exert force knowing that the force I apply will pop what I want into place. The vast majority of Americans are lambs, not even sheep, and are now, rightfully, so scared of their overlords they can't even pop them into place.

The US is operating on a very broken system. Why did we have so much predatory lending leading to indentured servitude? Why should investment banking even exist on a large scale? We should ONLY have consumer banks and small, capped, and regulated investment banks giving US (true individuals) money when WE want to invest in something. I personally would invest in very few sectors right now knowing the games the bankers are playing. We have a system where the banks are giving themselves huge sums of money to invest in things, and they have totally destroyed the meaning of a dollar (we can also thank the Federal Reserve for this, which has committed treason more than once in the last two decades). Where is the money that WE need to start up things? We can get it, but at what conditions? Half the time the banks are structuring the loans as such that the growth/profit needed to keep up are more or less unattainable except with both hard work AND LUCK. This is fucking bullshit. A person should be able to work hard, keep a respectable mom and pop type business running, and not have to fear being driven into the ground. This doesn't work anymore due to the scale with which the players are operating. This scale should not be acceptable to the average person.

Basically, if you don't already have by this point you more than likely never will. Liberty, justice, equality, and freedom, but only for the wealthy.



Thank you for contributing absolutely nothing. I would gladly pay taxes knowing that that lady and her spawn are sitting at home out of my sight. Do you really think you can morally force these people to do things without providing a base for them to do things from within our current system of ethics and morals? These creatures were created by watered down, compromised welfare that is a product of a retarded two party political system. Welfare is wonderful, American welfare is dark, ironic comedy at its finest.

Relevant article on PAYDAY LOANS:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jack-m-guttentag/payday-loans-the-worst-ab_b_9744896.html

Average Joe has been fucked so hard for so long that the lambs bend over and simply take it without questioning if it is even an acceptable way of being.

You are welcome. This post is not much of a contribution either. I'm also busy most of the time with little of opportunity to post in online discussions. Government regulations are barriers into the marketplace, businesses that would not otherwise require loans do, to get the facility and everything else up to "code". I don't believe anyone or any institution has the moral right to initiate force. That includes the states illegitimate authority to force people to pay them for things they may not want to.

Real shit, You can’t be compassionate with somebody else’s money. I’d happily help with schools, hospitals, and the elderly, but you need to ask. The help must be voluntary or it isn’t help, it’s theft. Taxes are also used to subsidize a football stadium, or attack a country, or put people in cages because they smoke pot. I’m sure you feel quite compassionate while supporting the creepy people who take half of what I earn and use it for many (not all) purposes that I am morally opposed to.

NSFW:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/11/immigrant-could-lose-his-business-becaus

Government is the problem

maybe more later when I have more time.

 

[GenericMind]

Of the last 10 state primaries, the only two Bernie has lost are currently being investigated for massive voter irregularities. Arizona by the Federal Department of Justice and New York by the Attorney General. These two states just happen to be the two most important states delegate-wise out of the 10. In the other 8 states, Bernie won by double digits.

How is this not a massive red flag to the public, the media, and the world?

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

How is this not a massive red flag to the public, the media, and the world?

I think it is. Those who like Bernie are pissed, and those who don't are worried, but too stupid to realize just how worried they should be. Many people who aren't in the US view it of an affirmation that the US is not a true representative democracy, and that corporate interests supercede those of the citizen.

If this isn't an indictment of the current political system in the US I don't know what is. It doesn't work. People are not being represented.

Roadblocks have been put up at every intersection where progress is trying to be made. The next 20 years will be interesting without a doubt. I just don't think in a good way.

 

[GenericMind]

Released today: According to mathematician Richard Charmin the probability of the 11.8% discrepancy between the exit polls and the results in NY are 1 in 236,000.

 

[Bagseed]

can anybody post some good ressource covering the NY election? Local media basically only said "Hillary won, Sanders has no chance".

 

[RedLeader]

If you do not have the means already, you are forced as a worker to take what you can get. It is one reason our economy is stagnant.

Tons of money can be thrown at a weak economic demand to force a quick uptrend on a lot of economic factors including wage trends, but it has no chance of ever holding in any longer-term sense without the systematic factors that limit wage growth being addressed as well.

An example of a systematic explanation for wage stagnation is the decline in union membership. To those of you saying that you're unable to negotiate your wage, well unions can help with this. Maybe not for every last job, but they can do a lot better for you than you could do for yourself. Obviously you need to do the math regarding the union fees and the dollar amounts you assign to the benefits of membership, but historically-speaking unions have a positive effect on wages. Given that countering systematic factors is going to be much better in the long-term than fiscal stimulus on demand, I would really suggest that the Fight for Fifteen people instead focus their energy on the big companies being so anti-union in this day and age. I mean, won't companies like Walmart fire you on the spot if you join a union? I think unions get a bad rep due a few particularly horrible ones (cough teachers cough police cough), but in general I think conservatives are unfair to private-sector unions.

The whole part-time worker issue is one of the major reasons why wages have stagnated. Full-time workers make more than part-time workers according to the statistics, and by an impressive amount. One could make a strong case that government intervention in private business has directly led to the part-time crisis. In 2014-2015, while I was straddling two part-time jobs, it was obvious to me that the only reason I was part-time at both is because neither wanted to pay me benefits or risk overtime. So how is this fixed? Well, either you take away the incentive for companies to hire mostly part-time by letting companies completely set their own benefit rules or use government force to ensure part-time employees get the same benefits. If we make the Walmarts and Targets of the world do the latter, there will be overnight inflation. Guaranteed.

Other problems are more global. America is really screwing itself over when it denies so many of its intelligent and hardworking citizens the ability to work due to criminal records, incarcerates a lot of talent, keeps good people out of jobs because of insane licensing requirements and so on. As well, if the argument is that domestic wage increases will cause domestic inflation and we can debate that one, if there are global reasons why America would experience inflation, we likely would see a better wage increase. If the world forces inflation on America, suddenly the employers will see the employees as more justified in their requests for higher wages.

But in general, labor productivity must rise at least as fast as wages to avoid inflation, so if we're about to have these jumps in wages, then we better have a plan to increase labor productivity proportionally as well. "Firing A to pay for B and C's raises" is one way to do this. Working proportionally harder/better/faster is another. But if there is a minimum wage increase and none of the other variables change, there will be inflation that negates the benefits of the wages. This is not not conjecture. It's centuries of practice replicating theory.

Property is theft.

Taxation is theft.

Theft is theft. Nobody likes theft.

 

[GenericMind]

So I had a brief email convo with NY Superdelegate and 2016 Democrat Convention CEO Leah Daughtry today.



From: GM
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:05 PM
To: Leah D. Daughtry <[email protected]>
Subject: 2016 Election

Greetings,

I am contacting you regarding your super delegate vote. To preserve the definition of democracy I respectfully request that you represent the will of your constituents. Please cast your super delegate vote for Bernie Sanders. As a normally Democrat voter, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election under any circumstances.

My vote in the next election, and all following elections, will go to the elected officials who represent the will of the people.

Respectfully,

GM

____________________________________________

On Apr 21, 2016 1:51 PM, "Leah D. Daughtry" <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Sir,



Thank you for your note. As CEO of the 2016 Democratic Convention, I am required to be neutral throughout the primary process.



But I am confused by your email. I am a New Yorker. Based on your note, and if I followed your logic, my vote would be cast for Hillary Clinton since she overwhelmingly won the State of New York, and based on information provided by the New York Times, I see that she also overwhelmingly won my particular neighborhood. It would seem, based on your email, that to follow the will of the people would mean voting for Secretary Clinton, though that would not yield your desired result. Correct?

________________________________________________

Incorrect. Hundreds of thousands of voters were either the target of election fraud or BoE incompetence and at least 120,000 were dropped from the Democrat voter rolls in Sen. Sanders' hometown of Brooklyn alone. We the people of New York have little faith that either the NYC Comptroller or the Attorney General, both who have come out in favor of Hillary Clinton, will earnestly pursue their investigations into these and other voting irregularities that happened on Tuesday.

Bernie Sanders won a vast majority of the counties in New York. Over 50, compared to 12 won by Hillary. I highly doubt she would have won NYC had people not been dropped from the voter rolls or had the 3.2 million disenfranchised Independent voters had been allowed to vote, Independent voters that have supported Sen. Sanders by margins of 60%-70% in other states' open primaries.

Those Independent voters, like myself, will not be ignored in the primary election only to be asked to support a candidate who is willfully ignoring significant problems and irregularities like Hillary Clinton has. Illinois, Arizona, and now New York. There is a fast growing movement of Democrat and Independent voters who feel that our Democracy is literally being stolen from us during this primary election. Mathematician Richard Charnin released a study today showing the probability of the 11.8% discrepancy between the CNN exit poll and the actual NY results is 1 in 236,000.

The simple fact of the matter is that there are now millions of registered Democrats and even more Independents who no longer have faith in this process, and the DNC's silence on the issue is making them skeptical that the party isn't part of the problem.

Because of this, as an insurance policy, we are pledging not to support Hillary Clinton in a general election. Not even Sen. Sanders' endorsement of her will change our minds. Since this will almost undoubtedly end up being a contested election, I think it's important that the Democrat Superdelegates are aware of this. That's why I emailed you.

-GM

 

[spacejunk]

Great letter(s) GM. Nice work man.

 

[Bardeaux]

Please tell this lady that. Do it, she will call you stupid.

Is it really that outrageous if minimum wage pays roughly the same as welfare, that people would simply choose to not work? I've been unemployed, never been eligible for welfare.

I've been on food stamps, which pays about one weeks worth of groceries for just myself all month. If we want to get people off of government assistance, why not "mutually agree" to not pay workers welfare wages? Walk into Walmart (the largest private sector employer in the world) and reject the part time wage offer and instead counter offer with $11 an hour. It doesn't work like this. Students especially, who are working to better themselves, interning (working for FREE etc) just aren't going to earn more than welfare wages unless they are given a break or are exceptionally talented. There is no incentive to not be on welfare as the minimum has fallen from $10.10 per hour in 1968 to 7.15 in 2016. Raise the minimum to 15, and lets see how many choose welfare over going to work.

This is not the fabled meritocracy. I interned for the state legislature for a year, and I learned many skills there. But The job market doesn't seem to care. I'm mixing fucking paints for a living. They want someone with proper credentials, whether I can do the same job or not. So until I have a piece of paper that says I'm qualified to do a job I'm already qualified to do, I'm basically working for welfare level wages and living on loans.

The woman on the right-wing radio show does have a point. She just lacks any sort of dignity or self worth.

 

[sigmond]

Regardless of yesterdays loss and the voter fraud fuckery, what are our chances of winning? What if we win Cali, for instance.

Zero

It'll be almost impossible for either candidate to secure the nomination before the convention now, so both of them will have to go there in June and try to sway the Superdelegates.

according to my estimation - which has proven to be quite reliable - Clinton will end up with at least 2235 delegates. which would be 148 delegates short of 2383

Next Tuesday prediction: Clinton wins 4 if not 5 States. The one State she might lose is PA but it will be so close that it won't be significant for the Sanders campaign.

Clinton already has 500 pledged superdelegates vs Sanders 50 - it's over.

 

[Bardeaux]

^I have no solid faith that sanders will pull this off, but those superdelagates aren't set in stone, and can change if sanders can walk on water and perform a miracle in the remainder of the primaries/caucuses. Obviously this would be ideal, but indeed, I don't see it happening.

The ideals Sanders are running on however, are just heating up.

 

[sigmond]

from what i can gather the superdelegates will only change if Sanders ends up with more votes - which isn't going to happen.

2235 is with Clinton only winning around 50% of the remaining delegates. I actually think she'll get more and probably enough to secure the nomination.

(sanders represents my ideals far more than clinton does but im not going to ignore reality)

 

[Bardeaux]

at least what he's done here is to show that a social democrat can indeed garner enough support to shake up the political landscape in the US. Who knows what the future holds for this new emerging left.

 

[superelephant]

Is it really that outrageous if minimum wage pays roughly the same as welfare, that people would simply choose to not work? I've been unemployed, never been eligible for welfare.

I've been on food stamps, which pays about one weeks worth of groceries for just myself all month. If we want to get people off of government assistance, why not "mutually agree" to not pay workers welfare wages? Walk into Walmart (the largest private sector employer in the world) and reject the part time wage offer and instead counter offer with $11 an hour. It doesn't work like this. Students especially, who are working to better themselves, interning (working for FREE etc) just aren't going to earn more than welfare wages unless they are given a break or are exceptionally talented. There is no incentive to not be on welfare as the minimum has fallen from $10.10 per hour in 1968 to 7.15 in 2016. Raise the minimum to 15, and lets see how many choose welfare over going to work.

This is not the fabled meritocracy. I interned for the state legislature for a year, and I learned many skills there. But The job market doesn't seem to care. I'm mixing fucking paints for a living. They want someone with proper credentials, whether I can do the same job or not. So until I have a piece of paper that says I'm qualified to do a job I'm already qualified to do, I'm basically working for welfare level wages and living on loans.

The woman on the right-wing radio show does have a point. She just lacks any sort of dignity or self worth.

I can't agree to something for someone else. There should not be a minimum wage. Without one welfare can't pay more than it because it won't exist. Switzerland does not have a minimum wage and they no issues. Unions are fine as long a membership is not obligatory as means to keep dues down. ( people will decide not to join if fee's are too high) I worked at walmart for a month and a half. I tried to barter my wage and was not successful. The only reason I accepted was because I had another interview scheduled but was told the on boarding process was going to be long even if they decided to hire me. I worked up a lot of debt at that point waiting for unemployment, (that I only ever ended up receiving one payment of) and I still was about to take great joy in telling them to fuck themselves when they told me that they were not going to pay me how much I asked for. I didn't, I decided to see how the next interview went before doing so. I'm glad I didn't, the job helped me get my shit together and I still got to tell them to fuck themselves. Point is, they made their offer, I did not have to accept and I almost didn't.

I bet you could get a better job than mixing paint with your experience.

 

[RedLeader]

I'll ask the question again to the Bernie people...

Do you agree with the statement "a wage increase without a proportional increase in labor productivity will necessarily lead to a proportional increase in inflation"? If yes, what proposals are being made alongside Fight for Fifteen's wage demand that address labor productivity? If no, which part of the statement is flawed and why?

 

[Shimmer.Fade]

I'll ask the question again to the Bernie people...

Do you agree with the statement "a wage increase without a proportional increase in labor productivity will necessarily lead to a proportional increase in inflation"? If yes, what proposals are being made alongside Fight for Fifteen's wage demand that address labor productivity? If no, which part of the statement is flawed and why?

I would counter with the fact that so much wealth is currently locked up away from the people that the only way to make the equation slightly more balanced is to make the money of those who have incomprehensible amounts worth less.

I know exactly what you are saying, and it could end very badly if the lower and middle classes don't stick together and show their true power. Why do you think the elites have been defunding education and splitting us on social issues across the board for so long? They knew this time was coming, and they are trying to rely on the fact that they can outsmart the masses, turn us on each other, and create a false reality for the uneducated to buy into. That is why we must spread our ideas, and not have fear (so long as we are together) of these complex, unnatural systems put into place to create economic oppression

The lower and middle classes just have to stick together and produce what they need for themselves to live. We need to ask ourselves, what do these numbers really mean when we have so much fertile land and resources to which we (the people) have no access? If we can guarantee healthy food, potable water, security, a society which works towards their interests, and a warm, safe place to sleep then I think the middle and lower classes will be happier than they have been in a long, long time. We can have what we need to easily, and those at the very top know it. Since a large Social Democratic base has flourished there is now a moral imperative to not give in.

My rant: I don't like a swift move to socialism. Social Democracy is the next step needed to pass more regulations on these corporations bringing them to heel. If elites/corporations stamp this out the next fire will be much bigger, hotter, and brighter due to necessity. They need to understand the people are giving them a non-violent, regulated way out through social democracy. History is what it is, and we have had data permanence for over a decade now. The elites should really take the hand of friendship being offered. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

[manboychef]

Actually productivity has increased quite a bit over the years... Instead of passing the savings/increased revenue back to the workers via increased wages, better vacations, and better benefits, the corporations have chosen to take away jobs or underemploy, and limit benefits in order to increase profits. Basically, they have kept any gains for themselves. What you say redleader would only work if corporate greed did not exist, or there was a system in place that regulated wages .

 

[socko]

Actually productivity has increased quite a bit over the years... Instead of passing the savings/increased revenue back to the workers via increased wages, better vacations, and better benefits, the corporations have chosen to take away jobs or underemploy, and limit benefits in order to increase profits. Basically, they have kept any gains for themselves. What you say redleader would only work if corporate greed did not exist, or there was a system in place that regulated wages .

The increase in productivity is real and has been documented and reported almost constantly. With the widespread adoption of computers and then the internet, the 1980s - 2000s saw large increases in productivity. While shareholders and CEOs enjoyed unprecedented increases in wealth during these years, the 99,9% did not benefit but instead saw their real earnings decrease.


In other news, Trump is supporting transgender rights. Unlike the mainstream social conservatives who control the Republican party, Trump opposes the recent North Carolina law that bans discrimination.

Donald Trump's Case for Tolerance
The Republican candidate’s defense of transgender bathroom accommodations shows how his approach to the culture war differs from the standard social-conservative line.


Brendan McDermid / Reuters



DAVID A. GRAHAM APR 21, 2016 2016 ELECTION
Blame it on his New York values, but Donald Trump doesn’t like North Carolina’s recently passed HB2, which—among other things—bars government from establishing or mandating transgender bathroom accommodation.

“North Carolina did something that was very strong, and they’re paying a big price, and there’s a lot of problems,” Trump said at a Today show town hall on Thursday:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...p-transgender-bathroom-north-carolina/479316/