American Politics

[kkck]

I have my doubts about even a two term trump president being able to irreparably destroy the US. For one thing, the guy would be president, not king of the US. If his presidency is insane enough he would simply loose support from... everyone which would severely limit him. Sure, there are actions he can take as president.... But even then there are filters he needs to pass. And even then there are a number of things which influence economic performance over which a president usually has little to no control over. The US has had bad presidents before and survived them.

 

[SharkBait]

I have my doubts about even a two term trump president being able to irreparably destroy the US. For one thing, the guy would be president, not king of the US. If his presidency is insane enough he would simply loose support from... everyone which would severely limit him. Sure, there are actions he can take as president.... But even then there are filters he needs to pass. And even then there are a number of things which influence economic performance over which a president usually has little to no control over. The US has had bad presidents before and survived them.

You think Hilary Rodham Obama will lose to Trump? Im not seeing it happening.

 

[kkck]

Theres nothing more to innovate, how will a cell phone company innovate when cell service already covers just about everywhere? How can car companies innovate when the car is already engineered to be the best it could be? How do you make a better car? Or even financial institutions, how do you innovate a bank? Or if we really want to get to it, how do you innovate toothpaste? I think companies are doing fine as they are and there have been breakout successes from companies entering these fields, see Tesla Motors managing to hold its own against heavyweights Ford and etc.

I think big and bigger companies are great,they employ lots of people, offer excellent support and job security, and you know that t they are going to be around for a long time. Meanwhile starts up go the way of the dinosaur fast unless they are absorbed into big companies which usually results in the lower tier workers in the start ups being considered redundancies and eliminated.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 25, 2016 ---

Climate change wont be relevant for any of our lifetimes. Actually there could even be benefits, areas that received little rain could now get lots of rain while farming could move to these new regions increasing food stores. People could also move from areas that are continuously ravaged by extreme weather, one wonders why people live in areas that are BELOW SEA LEVEL that constantly get flooded.

Where did you get the idea that a car is already the best it can be? Wouldn't what you say about tesla prove you wrong? There is plenty of room for improving cards... Better MPG, making them safer for accidents, better designs... And the issue with communication companies is that they intentionally don't compete with each other to keep prices up and any new competition is bought out. Which is why they are able to charge per mega or gig consumed or phone call ridiculous charges... If their practices were controlled and they had more competition these services would be significantly cheaper. 10 years back you used to pay simply for internet access on your phone and could use as much data as you wanted (and the speed allowed). Nowadays you pay per gig... At least available information online suggests transferring a gig of data costs somewhere around 1 and 25 cents at the most and the cost is going down (because of the wonders of technology). And this happens in virtually every country. Why does it make sense for these companies to charge what they do? Because they are not competing with anyone and have no motivation to innovate and improve their services.

Climate change is already relevant, it is not something that is far off. And even then, the idea that nothing should be done to start caring for the environment now because problems the problems are well into the future is wrong. You already have polluted air, polluted oceans, melting ice caps... disappearing coral reefs, . This is not the sort of thing that you can put off until it's an issue. Carbon dioxiside stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, methane for decades. The ideal scenario is to make improvements on all of those things now so that in the long run things will be better. What you are suggesting is short term backwards thinking that ignores basic facts (which you can google). What you are saying is like saying you don't need health insurance because you are healthy while being wrong about your health.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 25, 2016 ---

You think Hilary Rodham Obama will lose to Trump? Im not seeing it happening.

I want to believe this is true. However I was apparently wrong about trump being sincere about his presidential run and jeb bush being the eventual nominee so I am keeping an open mind to all possibilities.

 

[Momoni]

I think big and bigger companies are great,they employ lots of people, offer excellent support and job security, and you know that t they are going to be around for a long time. Meanwhile starts up go the way of the dinosaur fast unless they are absorbed into big companies which usually results in the lower tier workers in the start ups being considered redundancies and eliminated.

There's a lot of mom and pop shops in the bay area that thrive at fifteen to twenty dollars an hour for their lowest tier employees. So many places in San Francisco are little local places, it's really cute.

Climate change wont be relevant for any of our lifetimes. Actually there could even be benefits, areas that received little rain could now get lots of rain while farming could move to these new regions increasing food stores. People could also move from areas that are continuously ravaged by extreme weather, one wonders why people live in areas that are BELOW SEA LEVEL that constantly get flooded.

It actually caused less rain in California last year(well, it contributed to it), with a giant El Nino waiting to gobble the state up this year. Sure, there will be rain, but there will also be flooding, loss of homes, possible death. A heavily forested area, in a drought, prone to fires, is a really scary idea with the planet heating up. I know it's probably not the worst, but last year one of the fires was one hundred square miles. Can you imagine bigger, longer fires? In a hotter environment? I know it won't be as dramatic as people say - as I recall being told that California was going to have to be statewide evacuated by the end of last year. However, these are very real and scary situations.

 

[xi0]

Passion, too. If I lived my whole life without working in a field that I'm passionate about, I'd definitely feel sad at the end of it. ^^

Ultimately that's secondary for most people in the workforce. If working wasn't a necessity, people could put more time into their passions period, regardless of what they are.

That's what I'm thinking, but sadly the damage will be so far done that the US might never recover. But that said, I do have a question about Gerald Ford; did he really run on an anti-semitic platform, which in turn inspired Hitler? Because I came across an interesting article that compares Trump to him. Trump may or may not win the whole thing, but what comes after will be important. Is it reasonable to assume we'll have our 21st century Hitler?

I don't know. I'm sort of dubious on the matter now. Not enough to be doomsayer about it like some.

I don't see how Ford would have inspired Hitler, considering he hadn't ran for public office until after he had died.

 

[SharkBait]

Where did you get the idea that a car is already the best it can be? Wouldn't what you say about tesla prove you wrong? There is plenty of room for improving cards... Better MPG, making them safer for accidents, better designs... And the issue with communication companies is that they intentionally don't compete with each other to keep prices up and any new competition is bought out. Which is why they are able to charge per mega or gig consumed or phone call ridiculous charges... If their practices were controlled and they had more competition these services would be significantly cheaper. 10 years back you used to pay simply for internet access on your phone and could use as much data as you wanted (and the speed allowed). Nowadays you pay per gig... At least available information online suggests transferring a gig of data costs somewhere around 1 and 25 cents at the most and the cost is going down (because of the wonders of technology). And this happens in virtually every country. Why does it make sense for these companies to charge what they do? Because they are not competing with anyone and have no motivation to innovate and improve their services.

Why would they make better designs? Youre kind of limited in space alloted for cars and not adding stuff to make it inconvenient to park. Aerodynamic rules exists too. I highly doubt todays cars arent as aerodynamically efficient as possible. The other stuff doesnt really make sense from a money making perspective. Why would a company want something with more MPG when that means less time the purchaser will be purchasing gas. It makes more sense financially if money is continuously being poured into other industries once the purchase of a car is made. More gassing up = more trips to the gas station = more money on gas + whatever else is there, maybe a car wash or buying snacks or getting air in the titres. Cars are plenty safe already, accidents only happen because drivers make mistakes (drunk driving) or nonAmerican companies trying to avoid American core values and create faulty products (see the Airbag crises of last year).

Why would you say companies, if they competed, would charge differently for data? Again, from a money making perspective, I think it makes logical sense to charge for data as the goal of a company is to make more money. Companies can't give out handouts like it's nobodies business. They have to make money somehow. People arent forced to use their services, if they dont want to pay for data then dont get it. If they dont want the company than use email or any other form of communication, USPS still delivers letters you know.

 

[Momoni]

Why would you say companies, if they competed, would charge differently for data?

A lot of people buy for price over quality. Wal-Mart, for example, has some of the worst quality anything I've ever seen, but also low prices. If the companies competed, the prices would go down to some degree for competition.

 

[SharkBait]

Not a good night for Trump but an awesome one for Marco.

 

[xi0]

Yeah, Rubio not telegraphing his intentions at all. The guy hasn't won a single primary and isn't leading in any state. I mean, even Cruz won oddball Iowa and is carrying his home state so far. Rubio can't say either of those things.

Just funny to me how even Republicans like to pretend that Trump doesn't exist. The Republican establishment finally decided 9 debates in to give full backing to their golden boy, yet Trump is still crushing everyone. I'm not sure why anyone would bet on the situation changing after this debate either.

I feel pretty bad for someone like Kasich. I don't necessarily agree with his views, but at least he's someone who focuses on and knows policy. The rest of the Republican field is full of liars, self-aggrandizers, and pretty boys who've accomplished nothing.

Why is Carson still invited to these debates? Who the hell is still backing this guy?

 

[M3J]

but uber is putting taxi drivers out of jobs, however I would put taxi driving as a lazy job, since all you do is sit all day and drive to and from. There is no brain power especially since the advent of GPS, which provides guidance. And soon with self driving cars, well anyone in an industry to drive folks around will have no more jobs.

Technology creates jobs, the rise of the Model T created one of the most powerful and necessary industries in the world. The rise of computers brought forth the creation of the powerful and lucrative financial trading in the world. Technology has also enabled the creation of 50+ floor buildings creating hundreds of jobs of skilled laborers and specialized industry folk to build these godly structures.

I still dont see how there is any need to make Climate Change a here and now thing. How is it going to affect me today or tomorrow? It won't so since it isnt going to then its pointless to pick candidates who use it as a platform.

Unless you were a taxi driver, you have no right to call it a lazy job because you don't know what they do. Of course, republicans love calling everything and everyone who doesn't make much money lazy, even when the same republicans just sit around and do nothing. Again, this proves you know absolutely nothing about the real world.

No, technology takes away jobs. Automated machinery stole jobs from workers in factories while switchboard operators lost their jobs to computerized telephone dialing systems. As things become more automated, there is less need for people.

If you don't understand why climate change is an important issue by now, then you're a lost cause. People are already affected by climate change, whether you want to admit it or not. If you choose to ignore the obvious, that's on you.

I have my doubts about even a two term trump president being able to irreparably destroy the US. For one thing, the guy would be president, not king of the US. If his presidency is insane enough he would simply loose support from... everyone which would severely limit him. Sure, there are actions he can take as president.... But even then there are filters he needs to pass. And even then there are a number of things which influence economic performance over which a president usually has little to no control over. The US has had bad presidents before and survived them.

The US hasn't really survived as much as they received more and more damage. I'm sure a president who believes in spending more on military and reducing spending in social programs will come very close to irreparably destroying the US, in a best case scenario. Conservatives, oddly enough, believe in spending more on military, which will no doubt hurt us.

Yeah, Rubio not telegraphing his intentions at all. The guy hasn't won a single primary and isn't leading in any state. I mean, even Cruz won oddball Iowa and is carrying his home state so far. Rubio can't say either of those things.

Just funny to me how even Republicans like to pretend that Trump doesn't exist. The Republican establishment finally decided 9 debates in to give full backing to their golden boy, yet Trump is still crushing everyone. I'm not sure why anyone would bet on the situation changing after this debate either.

I feel pretty bad for someone like Kasich. I don't necessarily agree with his views, but at least he's someone who focuses on and knows policy. The rest of the Republican field is full of liars, self-aggrandizers, and pretty boys who've accomplished nothing.

Why is Carson still invited to these debates? Who the hell is still backing this guy?

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are backing Carson?


I wonder how the conservatives feel about this? But then again, they don't believe in reading or believing anything that disagrees with their views. Also, is Trump serious in demanding an apology from Mexico for saying "fuck?" I mean...

Also, can't see Rubio ever coming close to beating Trump. Trump is far too popular, and Rubio and Cruz aren't seen as trustworthy, if at all. They do realize Trump's biggest draw is his ability to say the "truth," no matter how dumb or outlandish it is, as well as his racism?

 

[Momoni]

Why is Carson still invited to these debates? Who the hell is still backing this guy?

One of my friend's is. He says that Carson is the only guy to say anything real about people and individuals.

 

[kkck]

The US hasn't really survived as much as they received more and more damage. I'm sure a president who believes in spending more on military and reducing spending in social programs will come very close to irreparably destroying the US, in a best case scenario. Conservatives, oddly enough, believe in spending more on military, which will no doubt hurt us.

Well, in strictly economic terms there isn't such a thing as "irreparably destroyed". Just look at the great depression. It took a while but the US eventually recovered. Then look at the great recession. The economy naturally goes up and down even regardless of who is president. I am not sure if having a bigger military budget will hurt the US, my impression is that this is simply pointless. Just throwing more money at it won't make the US safer (if anything most of the wars the US has fought over the past few decades have specifically made it less safe) or terrorist go away.

 

[z.5]

I am not sure if having a bigger military budget will hurt the US, my impression is that this is simply pointless. Just throwing more money at it won't make the US safer (if anything most of the wars the US has fought over the past few decades have specifically made it less safe) or terrorist go away.

Well, it depends on your definition of the word 'hurt'.
Surely, it will 'hurt' the US in that the money could be used for other purposes, many of which could help improve the US.

 

[kkck]

Well, it depends on your definition of the word 'hurt'.
Surely, it will 'hurt' the US in that the money could be used for other purposes, many of which could help improve the US.

Fair enough. What I had in mind when I wrote that is strictly the economy. Basically, the US economy won't be hurt by having a greater military budget. Of course, if that money could be used to improve education or invest in infrastructure ( which some sources suggests meets third world country standards) then it would definitely be hurting them in a somewhat more tangible way.

 

[SharkBait]

A lot of people buy for price over quality. Wal-Mart, for example, has some of the worst quality anything I've ever seen, but also low prices. If the companies competed, the prices would go down to some degree for competition.

There are other supercenter stores like Walmart out there though. I also do see extensive companies competing in the same realm of walmart. People do choose quality or price to some extent. If they didnt, then we would see lots of mom and pop stores and specialty retailers going the way of the dinosaur. We should be praising walmart for having an extensive work force helping people have financial stability and economic freedom.

Unless you were a taxi driver, you have no right to call it a lazy job because you don't know what they do. Of course, republicans love calling everything and everyone who doesn't make much money lazy, even when the same republicans just sit around and do nothing. Again, this proves you know absolutely nothing about the real world.

No, technology takes away jobs. Automated machinery stole jobs from workers in factories while switchboard operators lost their jobs to computerized telephone dialing systems. As things become more automated, there is less need for people.

If you don't understand why climate change is an important issue by now, then you're a lost cause. People are already affected by climate change, whether you want to admit it or not. If you choose to ignore the obvious, that's on you.

Climate change isnt affecting me so why should I care about it?

I don't see how driving a taxi isnt a lazy job. People get their driver's license as early as 16 years old. Theres no additional skills required for a driving a taxi. You don't even have to speak to the passengers after just saying hello. In fact most taxi drivers just play their music, boot up the gps and drive. Maybe they will help put your bags in your car but otherwise nothing. The most challenge they may deal with is the occasional drunk person and thats it. I drive a car and I can say that it is not hard or require brain power to drive, its pretty mindless at times, especially when you drive across the state constantly for work.

Technology created jobs, even though switchboard operators went the way of the dinosaur, cellphone companies and bigger telecommunications companies brought about the rise of massive call centers. So as technology has risen more jobs were created. We can even extend this to the electronics market, before the rise of electronics (before the tvs and computers) people were living in the dark ages farming, now, with the advent of tvs, hundreds of thousands of people found employment making and assembling computers as well as becoming very learned professionals as computer engineers and other sorts of engineers advancing technology to build the better display technologies. Isnt this a much more rewarding job than switchboard operating or driving people from the airport to the hotel? I think so.

Fair enough. What I had in mind when I wrote that is strictly the economy. Basically, the US economy won't be hurt by having a greater military budget. Of course, if that money could be used to improve education or invest in infrastructure ( which some sources suggests meets third world country standards) then it would definitely be hurting them in a somewhat more tangible way.

Funding the military more helps everyone, better health for military often leads to vaccines enjoyed by all, additionally, infrastructure is improved in states having large military bases, more people more benefits to the greater economy as a whole. Mom and pop shops, retailers, trade shops, education and more benefits. I dont see any loss in this scheme for anyone.

 

[kkck]

There are other supercenter stores like Walmart out there though. I also do see extensive companies competing in the same realm of walmart. People do choose quality or price to some extent. If they didnt, then we would see lots of mom and pop stores and specialty retailers going the way of the dinosaur. We should be praising walmart for having an extensive work force helping people have financial stability and economic freedom.


Climate change isnt affecting me so why should I care about it?

I don't see how driving a taxi isnt a lazy job. People get their driver's license as early as 16 years old. Theres no additional skills required for a driving a taxi. You don't even have to speak to the passengers after just saying hello. In fact most taxi drivers just play their music, boot up the gps and drive. Maybe they will help put your bags in your car but otherwise nothing. The most challenge they may deal with is the occasional drunk person and thats it. I drive a car and I can say that it is not hard or require brain power to drive, its pretty mindless at times, especially when you drive across the state constantly for work.

Technology created jobs, even though switchboard operators went the way of the dinosaur, cellphone companies and bigger telecommunications companies brought about the rise of massive call centers. So as technology has risen more jobs were created. We can even extend this to the electronics market, before the rise of electronics (before the tvs and computers) people were living in the dark ages farming, now, with the advent of tvs, hundreds of thousands of people found employment making and assembling computers as well as becoming very learned professionals as computer engineers and other sorts of engineers advancing technology to build the better display technologies. Isnt this a much more rewarding job than switchboard operating or driving people from the airport to the hotel? I think so.



Funding the military more helps everyone, better health for military often leads to vaccines enjoyed by all, additionally, infrastructure is improved in states having large military bases, more people more benefits to the greater economy as a whole. Mom and pop shops, retailers, trade shops, education and more benefits. I dont see any loss in this scheme for anyone.

I honestly can't tell if you are outright trolling and doing some sort of satire or this are your genuine opinions.

 

[xi0]

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are backing Carson?

No. They're liberals...lol

One of my friend's is. He says that Carson is the only guy to say anything real about people and individuals.

What does that even mean?

 

[SharkBait]

I honestly can't tell if you are outright trolling and doing some sort of satire or this are your genuine opinions.

What do you mean? Any one looking at areas of the united states that have a heavy Military presence will see these areas have great economic benefits and greater improvement in Quality of Life for people in the areas around them.

 

[kkck]

What does that even mean?

Maybe carson defending his alleged attempt to hammer-smack his mother is somehow relatable??

 

[SharkBait]

The recaps for last night make Trump look pretty weak while Rubio clearly indicated that he has what it takes to get things done and has feasible plans.