|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 04:19 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 03:59 Kyadytim wrote:[quote] www.nbcnews.comThe Capital Gazette shooting was personal, but if you look a little deeper, the shooter's beef with the paper was that it reported facts about him. He sued it for defamation, lost because he not only failed to show that it had published any falsehoods, but in the appeal decision, the judge found that he didn't even allege that anything the offending article contained was false. That was two and a half years ago. Its pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards journalism in this country with any individual's willingness to escalate their beef with journalists into violence. And on the flip side, it's an entirely detestable act to place a crazy shooting up a newspaper years after they published an article at the feet of Trump. You don't want to go down this road. This is the kind of mind-bogging logic that puts the baseball shooter at the feet of anti-GOP rhetoric that makes the left the reason the shooter shot up a baseball stadium. This is where people blame you for being part of the anti-cop rhetoric that inspires leftists to assassinate police officers. It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing hostility towards GOP Congressmen in this country with any individuals to escalate their beef with the GOP into violence It's pretty reasonable to correlate the increasing frequency of calling GOP members Nazis in this country with any individuals inspired to shoot Republican Congressmen Just to re-purpose your conclusion to other acts that will be brought up, should more people adopt your logic. You're exploring a very deep and dark pit. I'm probably not the right sympathetic voice to relay this to you, considering last month you accused me of being a threat to your very life and celebratory if you died. But all the same, I hope you get the message. The absolute narcissism of making Ramos in Annapolis, Maryland all about Trump in Washington, DC will end very badly for all parties involved. And on the other flip side, at some point you do have to start attributing responsibility to higher authorities when they use inflammatory rhetoric that encourages and potentially normalizes violence. What is that point? Ramos doesn't cross it (at least from what I've seen) but if someone directly says "I shot up the enemy of the people" does Trump share any blame at all? You extrapolate beyond individual responsibility of authorities towards some greater concept of right and left here. It actually feels a lot like with SHS, where one person kicking someone out of their restaurant for being lying scum who hates people like them into some grand gesture against "the right." (considering whether general sentiment is linked to violence, as Kyadytim does, is also an entirely different kettle of fish from individual violence, but I assume you were just treating that as a jumping-off point) You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence. Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians. The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board. I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today. So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now. If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her.
News goes so fast I had even forgotten about the correction. They were right along with some of our astute posters alleging the Palin episode inspired the Giffords shooting. If you're in the camp of incitement to political violence, please include the less opportunistic examples to preserve integrity. You might even call such events "fake news" (and huge mistakes made six years after the fact, no less).
|
On July 03 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:15 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 10:13 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 03 2018 05:18 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You probably know enough of it yourself. Why do you say "potentially normalizes violence" instead of "it normalizes violence?" It's like you know all the "inflammatory rhetoric" is basically just your characterization of something that escalates tensions, and itself could be used against Black Lives Matter, the media, special interest groups like the SPLC, and all sorts of people and organizations. That level of fog is precisely why we do not carelessly attribute responsibility beyond the individual when he or she has a private grievance and a history of lunatic aims. The best course is to permit hateful speech is not a general incitement to violence.
Let me know when Trump says, "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" He's smart enough to not cross the line. The count of dead journalists because Trump supporters knew he was really calling on them to take matters into their own hands is quite low. If you want threats of violence, and I don't know if you do, but those are directed at Trump and his officials just as at journalists and opposition politicians.
The "share of the blame" argument is complex, because you can regress that one back five decades. I don't think you can make the case that Trump "encourages violence" against journalists. We've had an entire American history of slurs back and forth between branches of government, media, constituencies, and all he's done is insult and give fiery speeches. Your argument basically asks the reader to separate out the many speakers about what's ruining America, and say that this one will actually be seized upon to rationalize their violence. I disagree. The tradition is old and Trump's attacks on the media are vicious but stale. If you're the kind of crazy that theorizes his gun will right the wrongs Trump supposedly points out, the issue is the crazy, not that he selected Trump instead of Schumer, the SPLC, Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates to be his springing board.
I draw the line at actual incitement to violence. Not "inflammatory rhetoric" as gets tossed around so easily these days (probably even predates the latest racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic tripe that gets robbed of its meaning these days). I think the history of American politics teaches that the rhetoric was never really tame from founding to today. So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now. If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her. It’s like two posters drawing lines between Trumps rhetoric and the shooting. Not really sure how “everyone” forgot. Especially when I brought up the shooting you are referencing less than a week ago. It's a dash of hyperbole, Danglars mentioned it just last page. But everyone is always asking if posters are going to be consistent on this topic, and they forget that so far, the conservatives have been. We don't actually have to play "what if?" You folks are no more or less consistent than anyone else. Let’s not get it twisted.
Let's also be clear about who is being interrogated here. We have people itching to find a violent event to put on Trump, as evidenced by fact that, every time a journalist is attacked, that's response number one. Then we get, as we did in this thread by some, "well, it wasn't him, but he's contributing to the anti-journalist climate!"
I know who's the one out to lunch in this case.
|
On July 03 2018 10:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 09:31 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 03 2018 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway. Yeah who wants those jobs to exist...... A full time or near-to-it job that does not make enough to pay rent, in a country with next to no safety net, only serves to slightly slow down rot and put a bandaid over a still festering wound. Now you make it to 40 off of dead-end labour rather than 37. Fucking marvelous. If the jobs that weren't enough didn't exist at all and the population of the US wasn't so politically complacent / understood how bullshit the bootstrap rhetoric was, people might actually press their representatives to start making serious change. And maybe not elect people actively sabotaging the minimal safety nets that do exist. Not directed at you specifically, but I live in South Africa and I have a family member who can get proper, full-time psychiatric care without emptying the collective bank. A job that can keep you alive while sharing a 1-room apartment between two people means nothing when you get sick. It means nothing if you want a child. It means nothing if literally anything goes wrong, which it will. The situation is the US is seriously fucked, and having a few more minimum wage jobs where people get to keep an extra 10% of nothing they're paid isn't gonna improve the situation in a meaningful way, if at all. A lot of the restaurant jobs that were lost paid quite well.Here people tip at least 15% an up to 25% of the tab. The server then keeps a large % of those tips. But also "tips" out to the rest of the staff. The servers makes minimum wage the rest of the staff typically maker more. It was not uncommon for a server to make 30-50 dollars a hour. These are hard incomes for people to replace. Sooo businesses where their servers were making ~$30-$50/hr shut down because it had to pay them a minimum wage of ~$13-15/hr? You don't see the absurdity in that? Because tipping goes directly to the employees not to the owner. So the owners wage cost went up 50% and the servers wages went up 5%. I get for some reason you want to fight with me about everything. But this is not complicated.
lol I don't want to fight, I was wondering if you realized how silly it was.
So people between food and tip are paying their servers $30-50/hr but if instead it is all for the food the owner can't possibly afford $15/hr.
So the customers pay the same, the workers earn less, and somehow it's owner who is getting screwed by either collecting absurd profit or shutting down because somehow they can't turn $30-50 that was going to their employee to at least $15.
Surely the problem is the wage and not greedy incompetent ownership... lol
|
On July 03 2018 10:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:15 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 10:13 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 05:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
So whether speech crosses the line is an inherent property of the speech, rather than any consequentialist argument based on what the speech inspires? I think that is dangerous because it implies a large-scale unawareness on the part of the people making speech-if there are "crazies" out there on the border of snapping, *something* pushes that particular crazy over the border. To totally abdicate even personal responsibility (let alone legal responsibility) for all the crazies that follow you paves the way to dangerous precedent, as you point out. As I said before, the Ramos situation is not one of those situations, but I think Trump would absolutely pull those levers if he thought he could get away with it (witness: "I'd like to punch him in the face"). They're just smaller levers for now.
If someone cited something I posted here as motivation to kill Paul Ryan, I'd be like "shit, I feel terrible" and would say as much. I don't think Trump would even do that. That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights. I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her. It’s like two posters drawing lines between Trumps rhetoric and the shooting. Not really sure how “everyone” forgot. Especially when I brought up the shooting you are referencing less than a week ago. It's a dash of hyperbole, Danglars mentioned it just last page. But everyone is always asking if posters are going to be consistent on this topic, and they forget that so far, the conservatives have been. We don't actually have to play "what if?" You folks are no more or less consistent than anyone else. Let’s not get it twisted. Let's also be clear about who is being interrogated here. We have people itching to find a violent event to put on Trump, as evidenced by fact that, every time a journalist is attacked, that's response number one. Then we get, as we did in this thread by some, "well, it wasn't him, but he's contributing to the anti-journalist climate!" I know who's the one out to lunch in this case.
Not all of us are perfect. But I do remember that times you came into the thread all agro, claiming the Democrats wanted open borders(nope) to execute on a multigenerational plan to stack demographics. You know, illuminate style.
So not every political hot take can be a winner. It’s cool. Today is the left leaning posters making the less than sound theories.
|
On July 03 2018 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs? By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure.
I wouldn’t appropriate their business, but I am 100% on board with prosecuting them.
|
I like that we're no longer arguing whether Trump is doing the awful thing that hallmarks fascists and dictators, and instead arguing over whether Trump's anti-press rhetoric makes him directly culpable for the recent attack. Folks like Danglars can play dumb and insist they don't see the connection between his open hostility and acts of violence, but to me that rather goes whoosh and misses the point, which remains uncontested.
|
On July 03 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:22 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:15 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 10:13 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:08 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2018 09:57 hunts wrote:On July 03 2018 09:42 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2018 08:08 iamthedave wrote:On July 03 2018 06:01 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
That's my view of it. If you're triggered by Trump's media attacks, or media attacks on Trump officials, or SPLC, or Everytown, or Ta-Nehisi Coates, that's on you. They are absolutely within their rights to level the most blistering criticism of their opponents that they want. Anything less amounts to arguments for restricting free speech because the lunatics have all the power over your rights.
I don't really know what you're on about with "shit, I feel terrible." You do know you can feel terrible that a looneypicked your bullshit to go off of without bearing moral guilt or innocence, right? Or please quote me whatever you thought meant that. How explicit does language have to be before you are willing to attribute a little cause and effect? When Sarah Palin published a list of anti-gun Democratic senators and very shortly after one of those people got shot in the head... was that enough? Or is it only enough if they explicitly name people and say 'if you like me, shoot them'? Bearing in mind Trump has inferred or encouraged violence against people before. He said people might have to 'use their second amendment rights' in the past and outright encouraged violence against protestors at some of his rallies. And yes, he's called journalists enemies of the people. That's extremely dangerous language. I bet her name was on a list of Democratic senators currently in office. If I published that list, am I also the cause to that effect? (Also, noted that people disagree with me on what qualifies as inciting acts of violence. That is why I'm currently opposed in the argument, by the way) So if say Hillary published a list of republicans who are for seperating children from their families, and one of them happened to get murdered, you wouldn't come here and accuse "the left" of "inciting violence" ? Not sure how everyone continually forgets the fact just last year a left-wing lunatic shot a couple of congressmen at a baseball field. Did any conservative in this thread blame "left-wing rhetoric" instead of the shooter? Wasn't there a story about a day or two ago related to the FCC commissioner having a threat against him, but no one blamed lefty rhetoric? There's an actual record here. *** Also for the record, if anyone is referring to the Giffords shooting, they should be reminded that there has never been a shred of evidence that the shooter even supported Palin or cared two whits about her. The NYT even had to publish an embarrassing correction last time they tried to pass it off on her. It’s like two posters drawing lines between Trumps rhetoric and the shooting. Not really sure how “everyone” forgot. Especially when I brought up the shooting you are referencing less than a week ago. It's a dash of hyperbole, Danglars mentioned it just last page. But everyone is always asking if posters are going to be consistent on this topic, and they forget that so far, the conservatives have been. We don't actually have to play "what if?" You folks are no more or less consistent than anyone else. Let’s not get it twisted. Let's also be clear about who is being interrogated here. We have people itching to find a violent event to put on Trump, as evidenced by fact that, every time a journalist is attacked, that's response number one. Then we get, as we did in this thread by some, "well, it wasn't him, but he's contributing to the anti-journalist climate!" I know who's the one out to lunch in this case. Not all of us are perfect. But I do remember that times you came into the thread all agro, claiming the Democrats wanted open borders(nope) to execute on a multigenerational plan to stack demographics. You know, illuminate style. So not every political hot take can be a winner. It’s cool. Today is the left leaning posters making the less than sound theories.
I'm not even sure how your characterization of my argument is even relevant to this, did you just want to bring it up again?
I started out asking why conservatives (Danglars in this example) were being tested on their consistency when it comes the assignment of blame for violent acts. The record is fairly clear.
edit: oh I see. You wanted to bring it up to relate each as wild theories. Strange, but not surprising.
|
On July 03 2018 10:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs? By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure. I wouldn’t appropriate their business, but I am 100% on board with prosecuting them.
So just shutdown the corporations altogether and let small upstarts replace them?
|
oh, and for the record; a number of right-ist posters did make claims that put the blame for the attack (to a significant degree, though generally not in such explicit terms) on the left wing rhetoric rather than just the shooter.
but there's just enough room that they can pretend it's not what they meant:
here's one for instance, there's a few others in nearby pages if you care to look through them, or find this one unsatisfactory to the point.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=7861#157218
PS I'm not interested in digging through the dozens of pages in the area to cite all the other possible examples; but from a skim, there are quite a few others with varying degrees of borderline-ness.
|
On July 03 2018 10:28 NewSunshine wrote:
I like that we're no longer arguing whether Trump is doing the awful thing that hallmarks fascists and dictators, and instead arguing over whether Trump's anti-press rhetoric makes him directly culpable for the recent attack. Folks like Danglars can play dumb and insist they don't see the connection between his open hostility and acts of violence, but to me that rather goes whoosh and misses the point, which remains uncontested.
Straight up, we can pick a better vector for that discussion. Like how the news paper that was attacked received thousands of messages and emails saying “good, report the truth from now on”.
Or how the Trump administration rejected the request to have flags at half mast for to honor the victims(very common for most mass shootings)
There are better vectors for this discussion.
|
On July 03 2018 10:33 zlefin wrote:oh, and for the record; a number of right-ist posters did make claims that put the blame for the attack (to a significant degree, though generally not in such explicit terms) on the left wing rhetoric rather than just the shooter. but there's just enough room that they can pretend it's not what they meant: here's one for instance, there's a few others in nearby pages http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=7861#157218
That was pointing out a double standard, no need to misunderstand the argument.
edit: xDaunt's post was actually closer to what you were looking for, lol
|
On July 03 2018 10:33 zlefin wrote:oh, and for the record; a number of right-ist posters did make claims that put the blame for the attack (to a significant degree, though generally not in such explicit terms) on the left wing rhetoric rather than just the shooter. but there's just enough room that they can pretend it's not what they meant: here's one for instance, there's a few others in nearby pages if you care to look through them. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=7861#157218
And look at that. None of us are free from sin. Everyone rushes to score a win because we don’t trust the other side not to do the same.
|
On July 03 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2018 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs? By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure. I wouldn’t appropriate their business, but I am 100% on board with prosecuting them. So just shutdown the corporations altogether and let small upstarts replace them?
I’m not sure a shutdown is necessary. Seems unduly punitive.
|
On July 03 2018 10:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2018 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs? By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure. I wouldn’t appropriate their business, but I am 100% on board with prosecuting them. So just shutdown the corporations altogether and let small upstarts replace them? I’m not sure a shutdown is necessary. Seems unduly punitive.
Because the companies will just whine about not being able to get workers, rather than raise wages to attract new workers. At the end of the day, their owners/investors are to addicted to their profit margins. They would rather wait it out and see if government will cave. Better to replace them and get it over with.
|
On July 03 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2018 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs? By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure. I wouldn’t appropriate their business, but I am 100% on board with prosecuting them. So just shutdown the corporations altogether and let small upstarts replace them? I’m not sure a shutdown is necessary. Seems unduly punitive. Because the companies will just whine about not being able to get workers, rather than raise wages to attract new workers. At the end of the day, their owners/investors are to addicted to their profit margins. They would rather wait it out and see if government will cave. Better to replace them and get it over with.
You don’t need to replace them. You just need to have penalties in place to create an adequate deterrent.
|
On July 03 2018 10:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2018 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs? By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure. I wouldn’t appropriate their business, but I am 100% on board with prosecuting them. So just shutdown the corporations altogether and let small upstarts replace them? I’m not sure a shutdown is necessary. Seems unduly punitive.
without the people who ran it there (instead in prison) and with unpayable fines (that we don't want falling into a bottomless government coffer anyway) it seems far more practical to use the debt owed by way of fine to redistribute the assets to the workers and turn the business into a worker owned-operated business.
|
On July 03 2018 10:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2018 10:40 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2018 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 10:28 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2018 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 03 2018 09:40 xDaunt wrote:
Here’s a thought: why don’t we restrict the amount of cheap labor coming into the US so as to create upwards pressure on low paying jobs? By prosecuting the largest employers of undocumented workers and appropriating their businesses to the people? Sure. I wouldn’t appropriate their business, but I am 100% on board with prosecuting them. So just shutdown the corporations altogether and let small upstarts replace them? I’m not sure a shutdown is necessary. Seems unduly punitive. Because the companies will just whine about not being able to get workers, rather than raise wages to attract new workers. At the end of the day, their owners/investors are to addicted to their profit margins. They would rather wait it out and see if government will cave. Better to replace them and get it over with. You don’t need to replace them. You just need to have penalties in place to create an adequate deterrent.
Please. These are business owners hiring illegal immigrants for jobs folks in the US don’t want that much. You got a group of laborers that no one gives a shit about and can’t vote and business people who are the tax base for whatever community they are set up in. The political will to enforce those penalties will be zero. It always has been zero.
And who am I kidding? The political will to seize the company will also be zero. There is a reason this has gone on as long as it has.
People want higher wages in the US, the way forward is collective bargaining and labor organization. Unions have always been good at dealing scab labor.
|
On July 03 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2018 09:31 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 03 2018 09:16 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2018 09:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
I like a federal jobs guarantee more than a minimum wage, but I don't trust our elected officials not to turn it into conscripted labor.
As for minimum wage it doesn't cause businesses to close, but if it does, good. The business shouldn't exist anyway. Yeah who wants those jobs to exist...... A full time or near-to-it job that does not make enough to pay rent, in a country with next to no safety net, only serves to slightly slow down rot and put a bandaid over a still festering wound. Now you make it to 40 off of dead-end labour rather than 37. Fucking marvelous. If the jobs that weren't enough didn't exist at all and the population of the US wasn't so politically complacent / understood how bullshit the bootstrap rhetoric was, people might actually press their representatives to start making serious change. And maybe not elect people actively sabotaging the minimal safety nets that do exist. Not directed at you specifically, but I live in South Africa and I have a family member who can get proper, full-time psychiatric care without emptying the collective bank. A job that can keep you alive while sharing a 1-room apartment between two people means nothing when you get sick. It means nothing if you want a child. It means nothing if literally anything goes wrong, which it will. The situation is the US is seriously fucked, and having a few more minimum wage jobs where people get to keep an extra 10% of nothing they're paid isn't gonna improve the situation in a meaningful way, if at all. A lot of the restaurant jobs that were lost paid quite well.Here people tip at least 15% an up to 25% of the tab. The server then keeps a large % of those tips. But also "tips" out to the rest of the staff. The servers makes minimum wage the rest of the staff typically maker more. It was not uncommon for a server to make 30-50 dollars a hour. These are hard incomes for people to replace.
IIRC for tipped jobs owners can pay a "server's minimum" of around 2 bucks an hour, but if tips do not bring hourly compensation to the federal minimum they have to make up the difference. Did that change or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
