Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

They have to move past him to make 2024 viable.

Latest straw poll has trump getting 70% of the nomination votes…WTF people, you’re going to fuck us over with another horrendous Dem WH team!

On the local level, my wife and I have realized the GOP is primarily old, angry people clinging to Trump. They can’t let go, and they can’t have a conversation with anybody who is not hard right. They’re as bad as the left in that regard. We’re conservative,  but we’re a lot closer to the middle than these people…time for the younger generations to stage a coup of the GOP itself and get this shit back on track, starting at the local level. The problem is if we don’t, we’re in the middle with everyone else who hates both sides, but begrudgingly chooses one side at the polls because we despise the other side’s policies more. This choosing the lesser of two evils bullshit has to stop.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the solution.  He's even got the knife hands thing down...

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis issues order prohibiting state from issuing  'vaccine passports'

Bonus points for the fact the Left hates him!

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, brabus said:

Latest straw poll has trump getting 70% of the nomination votes…WTF people, you’re going to fuck us over with another horrendous Dem WH team!

On the local level, my wife and I have realized the GOP is primarily old, angry people clinging to Trump. They can’t let go, and they can’t have a conversation with anybody who is not hard right. They’re as bad as the left in that regard. We’re conservative,  but we’re a lot closer to the middle than these people…time for the younger generations to stage a coup of the GOP itself and get this shit back on track, starting at the local level. The problem is if we don’t, we’re in the middle with everyone else who hates both sides, but begrudgingly chooses one side at the polls because we despise the other side’s policies more. This choosing the lesser of two evils bullshit has to stop.  

I think it's laughable that anyone thinks Trump's positions are "hard right".

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pawnman said:

I think it's laughable that anyone thinks Trump's positions are "hard right".

True, my “hard right” was directed at these old people in the GOP who won’t listen for one sec to somebody who doesn't believe exactly like them (very conservative). Local example: those people are losing their shit that a gay guy is running as a republican. Never mind he has great policy stances and is conservative-minded, but he’s gay, so we not only shouldn’t support him, we should actively oppose him. They literally would rather die on their religious sword and see this guy lose, at the cost of some batshit crazy leftist winning. Not that they want that outcome, but they’re incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. That’s the part of the GOP that needs to “retire;” let the rest of us conservatives who don’t care who you fuck interact with the public. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brabus said:

True, my “hard right” was directed at these old people in the GOP who won’t listen for one sec to somebody who doesn't believe exactly like them (very conservative). Local example: those people are losing their shit that a gay guy is running as a republican. Never mind he has great policy stances and is conservative-minded, but he’s gay, so we not only shouldn’t support him, we should actively oppose him. They literally would rather die on their religious sword and see this guy lose, at the cost of some batshit crazy leftist winning. Not that they want that outcome, but they’re incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. That’s the part of the GOP that needs to “retire;” let the rest of us conservatives who don’t care who you interact with the public. 

The religious right is the albatross around the neck of the conservative movement in this country. Unfortunately it wields considerable power; Trump had to pretend he was praying at almost every event and he even had to reference God, the bible, etc... in his speeches and I think we all know that man is not religious in any way, shape, or form. 

Mixing of religion and politics is never a good combo. The Republicans in this country that continually cave to the religious right and choose social issues as their hill to die on are only hurting the party in the long run and it gives infinite and easy fodder to the left. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, brabus said:

Latest straw poll has trump getting 70% of the nomination votes…WTF people, you’re going to fuck us over with another horrendous Dem WH team!

On the local level, my wife and I have realized the GOP is primarily old, angry people clinging to Trump. They can’t let go, and they can’t have a conversation with anybody who is not hard right. They’re as bad as the left in that regard. We’re conservative,  but we’re a lot closer to the middle than these people…time for the younger generations to stage a coup of the GOP itself and get this shit back on track, starting at the local level. The problem is if we don’t, we’re in the middle with everyone else who hates both sides, but begrudgingly chooses one side at the polls because we despise the other side’s policies more. This choosing the lesser of two evils bullshit has to stop.  

On the surface I agree with your notion that we need to move past Trump in order to regain credibility as a party let alone defeat whichever lunatic the Dems put up (probably Kamala).  While there are many nut jobs on the right, we have to ask “why” said old people cling to Trump. Maybe it’s because he was one of the only politicians that connected with boring, maybe rural, everyday Americans? Many of these hard right folk are decent Americans that just want to be left alone and have someone that will fight for them. Whoever the Republican nominee is, must be able to connect with these everyday normal Americans.  They aren’t going away. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Whoever the Republican nominee is, must be able to connect with these everyday normal Americans.  They aren’t going away. 

I agree. I think Desantis, Crenshaw, etc. can do that, but with the added benefit of not pissing off the middle. Trump’s problem is he alienates a lot of voters who aren’t fairly conservative, but may actually vote GOP if they see a candidate who’s not raging away on Twitter. I think emotional voting is stupid as shit, but I acknowledge there are a lot of people out there who just can’t stand Trump’s personality/approach towards others and will summarily vote for anyone but him. It’d be disingenuous to say he didn’t play his part in creating the “never trumpers.”

By the way, I voted for him twice…but also strive to be as balanced, informed, and unemotional as possible. That means I have to acknowledge the other groups/sides, even if I don’t agree with them. 

Edited by brabus
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dream big said:

On the surface I agree with your notion that we need to move past Trump in order to regain credibility as a party let alone defeat whichever lunatic the Dems put up (probably Kamala).  While there are many nut jobs on the right, we have to ask “why” said old people cling to Trump. Maybe it’s because he was one of the only politicians that connected with boring, maybe rural, everyday Americans? Many of these hard right folk are decent Americans that just want to be left alone and have someone that will fight for them. Whoever the Republican nominee is, must be able to connect with these everyday normal Americans.  They aren’t going away. 

I wouldn't exactly identify a guy who builds and buys glamorous buildings/casinos/pimped out 757s as "connecting with hard working rural Americans". He was just good at telling people what they wanted to hear to get what he wanted (like most politicians). A master salesman, and I say that honestly as a compliment. It is indeed a skill like anything else.

I totally empathize with what you're saying. The problem is the world cahnged. It's like saying I just want to be left alone to run my steam train business....steam trains are obsolete/not coming back. America isn't going to be able to return to its former manufacturing glory, it's a pipe dream no matter who you stick on the ballot. Technological progress is the new hot commodity, and you'll notice that is heavily located on the coasts right now. As human technology progresses and increases in complexity, the standard level of education required is going to keep increasing in order to service/design/implement said technology. Being boring isn't in high demand, and never will be again. Boring people aren't going to figure out how to regrow an eyeball you lost on the 4th of July, or how to extend the range of electric vehicles. That's what people need and want now.

Why do people cling to Trump? Sometimes the past was better than the future. To have been a 707 steam gauge pilot during the jet age for TWA... pretty sweet. But TWA and its 707s ain't coming back. 

Best thing any president could do is get everyone (coasts and middle states) on the same page. Left can stop the hypocrisy of "We should buy everything from China and shrink the military while they grow theirs but wine every time they violate some other democratic country or ethnic groups civil rights". Right needs to get on board with the "Yea maybe we should overhaul our energy infrastructure to create jobs, and maybe people do need higher levels of education now that everyone carries a damn computer in their pockets..."

 

 

 

Edited by hockeydork
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 5:29 AM, Lord Ratner said:

No, that argument has no logical continuity. What about being born with smarter parents? What about being born with genes that will make you taller? Should we force "equity" of height and parental intelligence too, since we have scientifically validated evidence that they provide advantages? It's created with equal rights, not equal surroundings. The founders weren't obtuse.

The argument makes sense. Also, I’d like to point out its easier to hit a nerve here on Baseops than ever before, it seems. Here’s your founding fathers takes on inheritance. Spoilers: they didn’t believe in it.

Adams: “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.”

Jefferson: “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.”


More reading bemoaning this point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

And no, to the secondary argument, I NEVER even partially implied that the other things in the list of 10 marxist things were good just because there were some that made sense. But I did point out that lumping together 10 disparate ideas that don’t make sense together was ineffective.

Edited by Negatory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2021 at 3:38 AM, brabus said:

interesting devils advocate. So what about the thought that what a person earns through his labor is his, whether that be $1000 or $1B? Each person should be free to spend that money however they see fit, and if that’s inheritance, then so be it. Now, you can argue the recipient of said inheritance didn’t earn it, but why is that anyone’s business besides within the family? Is it fair for me to buy my son a bike while the neighbor kid had to mow lawns all summer to buy his own? Maybe not in a vacuum and the truest sense of the word, but in the real world, I get to decide as the parent what my son must work for and what I provide directly to him without labor required. That’s liberty. 
 

To address equality of opportunity…I think the difference is one person may have a steeper climb, but they can achieve the same mountain top. Nobody is limited by anything other than their own perseverance and capabilities. Everyone absolutely may have different/more or less barriers to achieving a similar goal (e.g. family wealth), but the poor person in this analogy can still go to Harvard like the rich Nantucket kid with a family connection…the poor kid just has a greater challenge to get there (but the opportunity is squarely in existence). 

This assumes that everyone agrees taxes are inherently fair, and that once money is taxed it is 100% fair and yours. The fact that things like the top marginal tax rate have gone from percents in the 90s to the 20s just since WWII, along with the amount of crying on both sides when taxes change in either direction really makes it hard to believe that anyone really agrees with your premise that the amount of post-tax money you have is inherently fair, just, or ethical. And if people dont agree with that, then they won’t agree with your point that $1B was necessarily obtained in an acceptable way just because it was obtained.

To highlight this, if you make $500 an hour working 80 hours a week with no breaks, it will only take you… 481 years to make $1B. Oh also, this assumes no inflation, because in reality 480 years of inflation would mean you would have only been making $1 an hour to start out. I don’t care if you like it or not, but this is why people can easily question the morality of what, basically, amounts to taking other people’s labor because it’s nigh impossible to make $1B without exploitation and stealing of labor value.

Finally, would you ever enter a poker competition where you get a $10 chip and have to play against the guy with $50k to get to the second round? Because that’s what it’s like for a baby born on the streets who’s trying to get the same opportunities as your Nantucket example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Negatory said:

The argument makes sense. Also, I’d like to point out its easier to hit a nerve here on Baseops than ever before, it seems. Here’s your founding fathers takes on inheritance. Spoilers: they didn’t believe in it.

Adams: “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.”

Jefferson: “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society.”


More reading bemoaning this point: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2010/10/14/you-cant-take-it-with-you

And no, to the secondary argument, I NEVER even partially implied that the other things in the list of 10 marxist things were good just because there were some that made sense. But I did point out that lumping together 10 disparate ideas that don’t make sense together was ineffective.

That's not addressing the point. The founders had slaves and decried slavery, so contractions abound. You'll notice there's nothing in the Constitution about forfeiting all property "to the society" after you die. 

 

You asked how it squared with the idea of "created equal," implying a connection, but there is none. I gave examples of other advantages you can be born with. Created equal means created with the same rights and freedoms, from the government, as anyone else. Whether you inherit $10 billion dollars or nothing at all, you have a right to due process, a right to association, free speech, etc. 

 

Our system is immensely successful precisely because the founders didn't incorporate personal opinions of fairness into the government's control. Limited government.

 

You have a right to give your children whatever is yours. You have the same rights and freedoms as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos had to make fortunes. Inherited wealth is not particularly enduring, and most of the billionaires/millionaires in America are self-made. So your argument is an emotional one, not a practical one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Negatory said:

 

To highlight this, if you make $500 an hour working 80 hours a week with no breaks, it will only take you… 481 years to make $1B. Oh also, this assumes no inflation, because in reality 480 years of inflation would mean you would have only been making $1 an hour to start out. I don’t care if you like it or not, but this is why people can easily question the morality of what, basically, amounts to taking other people’s labor because it’s nigh impossible to make $1B without exploitation and stealing of labor value.

 

Well, we found the Marxist.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dream big said:

While there are many nut jobs on the right, we have to ask “why” said old people cling to Trump...

Sorry, but it's not all "old people" who are clinging to Trump.  Look closely at this photo from earlier this month, and the vast majority of participants are middle aged or younger...

image.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

If he was a Marxist, he wouldn’t be talking making a wage.

The entire paragraph I quoted sounds like a college sophomore talking to his friends in the dining hall that just discovered Marx’s theories on exploitation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Negatory said:

I don’t care if you like it or not, but this is why people can easily question the morality of what, basically, amounts to taking other people’s labor because it’s nigh impossible to make $1B without exploitation and stealing of labor value.

 

This is one of the most mind-boggling arguments that I see all the time from the left.

 

Wealth is created. It is not static. Yes, the basis for wealth and the monetary systems we use to support it are fundamentally systems of exchanging labor. But that labor value is not fixed. When you look at the billionaire class, overwhelmingly they are represented by people who created fundamental changes in how labor functions, freeing up incredible amounts of labor to be dedicated into other pursuits. That is the creation of additional labor/wealth. They did not take it from anybody, and to say so is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.

 

Now, if you want to get into a conversation specifically about wealth transfer in the banking and finance system, I think there is a very strong argument there for criticizing the manipulation of financial instruments to move wealth from one person to another. But that's not where most of the billionaires come from, and it's not the argument being made by the most visible politicians/activists on the left.

 

Jeff Bezos is worth billions because millions of people wanted to exchange their wealth for his services. He didn't trap 100,000 people in a warehouse and collect their labor. You want to know why so many conservatives view the Democratic party as an existential threat? Because anyone who thinks about the economy the way you described clearly would destroy it through sheer incompetence alone.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Separation of church and state isn’t in the constitution or bill of rights but we sure do waste a lot of time making sure there isn’t any religion found in the government halls.

The basis for those actions is literally the first sentence in the bill of rights.

 

I'm not for the bleaching of religion from public spaces, but the concept of "separation of church and state" is quite clearly in the Bill of Rights, making it a part of the constitution.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basis for those actions is literally the first sentence in the bill of rights.
 
I'm not for the bleaching of religion from public spaces, but the concept of "separation of church and state" is quite clearly in the Bill of Rights, making it a part of the constitution.

Two things.

First saying “basis” means you admit that the separation of church and state aren’t anywhere in the bill of rights or constitution but that the basis as you claim (others may think different) is in there. It also says that you imply that it it isn’t explicitly in either document means it’s reading is subjective. And that makes it subjective to the reader what the basis is or isn’t. the constitution and bill of rights were painstakingly written so as that there wouldn’t be ambiguity in what was being said.

Second. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This in no way means that church has no place in state or state has no place in church. Just that the state won’t make an official religion or a law respecting such because of the context of how America was founded. Church was very much a part of state but it wasn’t an official or sanctioned part. Where most of the founding fathers roots were found in Europe where there were state laws and sanctioned religions.

So to clarify my point. Church and state weren’t ever designed in the bill of rights or constitution to be separate at all costs. But that the free exercise of religion (or lack there of) should be allowed. Not forced any particular religion on individuals.

Church and state comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury baptists. Which is an interesting read and doesn’t even then necessarily back up the separation of church and state as we know it today.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Jeff Bezos is worth billions because millions of people wanted to exchange their wealth for his services. He didn't trap 100,000 people in a warehouse and collect their labor. You want to know why so many conservatives view the Democratic party as an existential threat? Because anyone who thinks about the economy the way you described clearly would destroy it through sheer incompetence alone.

Devils Advocate:

There is a town with 4 competing steel mills. Most all of the town is employed by one of the steel mills with wages that are competitive and fair due to competition. Steel mill A innovates, finds a way to manufacture steel at 25% cheaper rate. The three other mills can't compete, and steel mill A eventually buys them out. Yay, innovation, steel is now made at a cheaper price. The world is better off, right?

But now everybody works for steel mill A. Steel mill A has much more influence over the labor rate than it did when it had 3 competing mills. Why not cut the wages by 25%? There are no other jobs, so the people have to take it, or starve. 

Bezos made his fortune fair and square, I agree with you, and if you over regulate you take away the incentive for innovation. But the idea that people with large fortunes don't end up with large influence over the economy and labor rates doesn't hold water.  If Bezos and Walmart put every mom and pop shop out of business, how can you say they don't have influence setting the labor rate? Now, Americans CHOSE to buy from them and therefore gave them that power, so in the end its our own damn fault. 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devils Advocate:

But now everybody works for steel mill A. Steel mill A has much more influence over the labor rate than it did when it had 3 competing mills. Why not cut the wages by 25%? There are no other jobs, so the people have to take it, or starve…. 

If only people with poor working conditions at steel mills a hundred years ago had figured out how to collectively bargain in our terribly unjust society where workers have no rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:


If only people with poor working conditions at steel mills a hundred years ago had figured out how to collectively bargain in our terribly unjust society where workers have no rights.

The suppression and decline of organized labor in the United States is a discussion/thread all its own. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:


If only people with poor working conditions at steel mills a hundred years ago had figured out how to collectively bargain in our terribly unjust society where workers have no rights.

I was commenting on Negatorys inheritance post, and it's more just a food for thought post, not a decree that I have the answer. I personally will benefit from conservative fiscal policy and lax inheritance laws, and pure socialism does not work, nor will it ever work. It just makes people lazy. 

And it was just an analogy, not really talking about the actual steel mills from 100 years ago (what a throw back to 7th grade social studies tho).

You cannot tax people to death and strip them of inheritance, that stifles innovation and motivation which hurts everybody. Why keep working if the government is just going to take it away? But you also cannot allow wealth to be increasingly consolidated among fewer and fewer people/corporations with NO limit, there has to be some sort of percentage cap or limiting instrument to encourage people to spend what they have after a certain point (exactly where that point is I have no idea). Because wealth is more than just a pile of money used to buy your kid a bicycle, it is influence and any smart person will almost always chose to use that influence.... to make more wealth…for the good of the whole or not...and the cycle goes on. 

All 4 people start the game of monopoly with the same 500 or whatever, but the principle of the game is as you own more crap, it gets easier and easier to TAKE everyone else’s crap. 1 person ends up on top, the other three homeless with nothing. Is that right? Idk. Sucks if you're not the one on top. I mean the game was fair, was it not? What if one person starts the game with 10,000, and the others 500? Will that 10,000 dollar player be content with their 10,000, or will they try and take the other 500 from everybody else? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...