|
Post by Mid1010 on Nov 9, 2016 20:12:05 GMT
If only rednecks were not so afraid of the word socialism..
Bernie2020
|
|
|
Post by Daleks (@darkalex45) on Nov 9, 2016 20:23:14 GMT
After I get time tomorrow I'll make a post summarizing all my feelings
for now, some jokes:
Atleast now America has someone that perfectly represents them :Kappa:
#feelthebern2020
#WhydoesTrumpswifehavetobeslovene
fuck it I'm not creative at jokes anyway
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Nov 9, 2016 20:32:10 GMT
Let's just recap.
OvivoJR has already alluded to the tax plan, which will fail to raise revenue as required and instead will improve the lot of the highest income earning brackets.
Where this gets traction of course is the Joe the Plumber syndrome; Americans generally don't believe they're poor. They're just not rich yet.
His plan to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US is infuriating in its stupidity. Blue collar work left the US not because of trade deals; but because the push to innovate includes delivering a product that is cheaper and more efficient than the competitors and previous model. Labour is not a fixed cost, and it determines the quality aspect in part. American labour, in simple terms, isn't good enough to compete with cheaper Chinese labour.
So, instead of investing in education to retrain the workforce, he panders to angry blue collar types. If you think the offshoring of jobs is tragic, then you absolutely must and with no exception be angry that the cooper, the smith, the farrier, the thatcher, and the miller are no longer viable careers for young people today.
"Oh, but we moved away technologically from the need to have people whose specialisation was thatching a roof or making a barrel or shoeing a horse."
Yes, and we've moved away technologically from paying Skip and Chuck and Dale to stand at an assembly line in Michigan too. Look at Rotterdam; automation is the future of blue collar labour.
His plan to defeat Islamic state is undefined and probably involves bombing.
His plan to build a wall is hyperbolic stupidity. Notwithstanding that the backbone of the US economy is the low-wage labour illegal immigrants perform - the reason you have so many illegals, America, is because the legal pathway to migration is virtually non-existent. To get a working visa there, one must demonstrate an American cannot do the job. To get a 457 subclass working visa here; you must simply possess skills that are in short supply here.
It's not, in other words, hard to have good policy. But given the choice between doing the right thing and doing the catastrophically wrong thing, America can always be counted on to do the latter.
And tearing up Obamacare - you aren't even top 30 in the world for healthcare. Almost every other nation-state that has members in NoDo has better health care than you do. And why? It's socialised. That leads to better quality outcomes for all. Many of them are private-public hybrids, where access can be expedited at cost by privately insured patients, relieving burdens on the state funding.
Obamacare made inroads to redressing the worst healthcare system in the west. I work in insurance now, having done by 8 years in investment banking. I see all the time that people with pre-existing conditions aren't excluded from coverage; their premiums are higher. And it makes sense; it's risk-based insurance. We, the Life company, insure the risk of claim.
That Obamacare had to mandate insurers couldn't elect not to cover someone based on PECs is astonishing. The intelligent option, which is tantalisingly out of reach for the US, is to increase the premium and put a 12-18 month waiting period on claims related to the PEC. Hence why America needed law to say "you can't discriminate against PECs".
The list goes on; economists use the GINI coefficient to measure relative in/equality. A score of 0.0 = perfect equality. 1.0 = perfect inequality.
Most civilised nations, i.e. Europe, the Commonwealth - are 0.3. The US is 0.41, which puts it with China (JINA) or Russia.
Income inequality is problematic because it means the distribution of wealth to new risk takers is rarer. The incentive for a new entrepreneur to take a risk on a new product or service has to be to reward their success financially. Because the concentration is so at the top, the number of people who can break through is smaller. Which means the rich, basically, get richer and the poor stay poorer.
If only historical examples could highlight the problem with this approach. If only economists could make an argument against wealth concentration.
Oh, wait.
|
|
|
Post by TheUltimateSucka on Nov 9, 2016 20:33:36 GMT
I feel ashamed, I really do. We basically just elected a cartoon character as our president. During this entire election I have ran across two basic types of Trump supporters: the typical dumb redneck who wouldn't know politics if it bit him in the ass, and the average Clinton hater who feels we should "give Trump a chance".
The guy is a buffoon. Ranting and raving like a child, making all kinds of false promises and exaggerated claims, not being able to answer questions of how he's going to do these things he keeps raving about, etc. "Don't worry you're going to love me, I'll be good at this." "Don't worry I'll replace Obamacare with something real nice." My God.
I don't care for Clinton either, but I considered her the lesser of two evils on this one. I already believe if the constitution allowed it Obama could have sleepwalked his way to a third term.
Also of note, this is the 5th time in US history that the candidate with fewer popular votes won the presidential election. The electoral college is a joke.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Nov 9, 2016 20:48:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by TheUltimateSucka on Nov 9, 2016 21:10:22 GMT
|
|
Jonathan
Member
Posts: 36
Registered on: August 2016
|
Post by Jonathan on Nov 9, 2016 23:25:25 GMT
Most civilised nations, i.e. Europe, the Commonwealth - are 0.3. The US is 0.41, which puts it with China (JINA) or Russia. Some more interesting statistics: - 1 in 6 Americans live below the income minimum of about 500 dollar a month. - 45 milion Americans rely on foodstamps. - 1 in 100 adults is inprisoned (highest in the world). - 46 states balance on the edge of bankruptcy. - It has the most expensive health care in the world. - It ranks highest on gun posession (112 weapons per 100 citizens). - It has the highest study debt and credit card debt in the world. - It has the largest devide between rich and poor of the West (1 percent owns 40 percent of wellfare). With Clinton representing the ruling class, might this be the lower classes giving them the finger? Source (for the dutch readers): decorrespondent.nl/5549/de-status-quo-heeft-vannacht-verloren-de-revolte-is-het-nieuwe-normaal/591013047372-dae588b7
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Nov 10, 2016 0:43:02 GMT
Yes.
There were two angry populist candidates in the election cycle; Trump, and Sanders.
Populism is defined as:
"a political ideology that holds that virtuous citizens are mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. Populism depicts elites as trampling on the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people."
Now, there was no conspiracy by Wall St, Banks, the wealthy, JINA, Russia, Mexicans, Washington, NAFTA, Muslims ("Mozlems"), Gays, Women, etc.
Capitalism is cyclical and American capitalism is deaf and blind to the warnings people like Adam Smith made.
That is, you need a bit of a social welfare net to stop people being left behind. That's not left wing nonsense, that's the view of most if not all of the small-l liberals in history. Conservatives have been, typically, pro-welfare state as a bulwark against socialism.
We're in a period of change, so people react and get angry. They turn to populism for answers. We've seen this before; in the 1920s, populism was en vogue and it lead to fascism and communism.
This was a bad outcome.
It was also writing on the wall with Brexit, and maybe a necessary step in the evolution of the US republic. Burn the First Republic down, start with the Second. France is on its fifth one; do keep up!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 3:27:05 GMT
If only rednecks were not so afraid of the word socialism.. Bernie2020 I think they fear socialism for the same reason they fear fascism and communism; they don't like government meddling with their lives.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Nov 10, 2016 4:38:28 GMT
Mid1010 @alfislegend Bernie wasn't a socialist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 8:14:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Registered on: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2016 16:51:56 GMT
I usually dont like to get involved with this political stuff, but one thing that i can say is that trump deserved the victory.
the people of america need change, and thats something that hillary wouldnt put forward.
donald trump wants the best for his country, and knows things need to change. (eg gun violence)
say all you want about trump about him being racist and all that, but atleast he will do the right thing
|
|
|
Post by Daleks (@darkalex45) on Nov 10, 2016 17:19:16 GMT
I usually dont like to get involved with this political stuff, but one thing that i can say is that trump deserved the victory. the people of america need change, and thats something that hillary wouldnt put forward. donald trump wants the best for his country, and knows things need to change. (eg gun violence) say all you want about trump about him being racist and all that, but atleast he will do the right thing The thing is though Change is a nice thing though, but where do you draw the line between 'Too dangerous' and 'The little bit of problems will be worth it''? The thing with Trump is: Not everyone who voted for him is a dumb 'bigot', but mostly everyone in America who is, did vote for him. This win motivates these groups.The tensions are going to rise between the various religious groups, racial groups, LGBT people... Trump won with a campaign with too many bad racist and sexist statements. Another thing is, perhaps the most important one even; there are a lot of facts that Trump is very against climate change prevention. This is one of the most important topics in the world and he answered it with 'hoax' and plans which will make pollution go insane. Imagine him vetoing a nato's bill that has something to do with helping against climate change? Now don't get me wrong, Hillary is also bad. But same old corruption and a 'war threat' that I find she is too much of a pussy to go through with I find is more morally right. What is annoying me is the fact that Bernie Sanders would have been great. Wasn't there something about the democratic party rigging the democratic elections? Because I'd be really mad that they decided to take the 'not risky' route, which at the end cost them. They should have realized that Americans wanted a change... I 100% believe Sanders would have won against Trump. Americans just wanted change and the turnout was TERRIBLE and it cost the democrats the victory. Oh yeah I need to make a post summarizing all my opinion, gosh I'm lazy. P.S I'm tired right now and I might be saying some retarded shit. If I am sorry.
|
|
|
Post by tonysoprano1985 on Nov 10, 2016 17:22:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stormcaller3801 on Nov 10, 2016 17:30:13 GMT
Truth of the matter is, there was no good option- but opinions differ regarding which one was the worst option.
Right now we have a Republican House, Senate, Presidency, and at the very least one seat in the Supreme Court is going to go to a conservative judge. Clarence Thomas has also talked about retiring when he knows he'll be replaced with another conservative. Whether any other seats there will open will probably depend upon if someone dies.
Regardless of what Trump thinks, a very large group of people have embraced what he's said- and much like post-Brexit, harassment, assault, and outright violence have spiked. There's a lot of people who will push the agenda he's put forward, and at least parts of that (his statements regarding NATO, trade agreements, tariffs, and so on) will make the world less stable while giving other, more corrupt powers room to increase their influence. Add to that his statements regarding use of nuclear weapons, and statements from officials about his lack of understanding regarding the seriousness of using nuclear weapons, and everything becomes very uncertain in a very scary way.
By contrast, if Clinton was elected, the Supreme Court might tilt blue, but the House was going to stay red, and she'd get four years of minimal activity- especially if as per usual the Republicans gained more control of Congress in the off-year elections. Undoubtedly there'd be corruption and self-interest, but given that Trump has both admitted to gaming the system and said you should exploit if you can, I think that's a given regardless.
I have friends I have to worry for, more than I would otherwise. And for the first time in a very long time, I'm strongly debating whether to purchase a gun and practice with it in order to defend, not just myself, but the people I care about.
We'll see.
|
|