President Donald J. Trump

[paladin1991]

It is a weird phenomena how the most (in)famous "rightists" (supposedly) dictators began as leftists and even, in some cases, named their party socialist. Like a family, or religion, sometimes the worst fights are internecine, which is why such a clash, perhaps, between them? One only has to look at the cousins during the Great War or many divorces for that. On the face of it much royals, elite society, and corporate interests liked the "right" version of socialism until it went astray and effected their interests. It is weird though. Even here a lot of the "neo-cons" and "right wing" talk-personalities (like the Savage guy who is banned from your country) were former Trotskyite or leftist types in college and early life.

I'm not sure if you are aware of US history, aside from several wars you were involved with etc. But Presidents have infamously tried to interfere with investigations, appointments, and the judiciary. Infamously Andy Jackson but more recently the "saintly" FDR who even tried to 'pack the court' to get his socialist program protected. He failed but tried hard. True we don't, yet, draw and quarter or behead- or just send wives or political opponents to dungeons but there is a great history of political conflict and we, like you, even had a civil war (so far, just one though. And we tear down our statues whereas you still keep them up, good for you, and even add foreign terrorists to the statuary.)

*looks around*  So far.  *wipes gun oil fm hands*

[PB the Deplorable]

I'll deal with the minimum wage thing too. What employer is ever going to want to pay more for unskilled labour? None. But should they? The left argues yes, while the right thinks things should be made as difficult for poor people as possible, just because. If you pay rock bottom wages, expect rock bottom employees. If you pay them more you are entitled to expect more. Say the minimum wage led to a reduction in hiring, those people in work would have more disposable income than a larger group of people who barely have a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of. More discretionary income would lead to increased hiring in time, as the economy picks up. But the right hates this idea because it would increase inflation, so they want a large underclass they can keep economically unproductive while demonizing them at the same time as lazy bastards.

That isn't what's going on, and that isn't how things work. 

The Left are the ones who need to demonize in order to get their way.  The (only) way to get better wages is to make oneself more valuable by developing job skills - by taking personal responsibility to either get an education in a useful field, or by gaining other useful skills, not by legislation.

But thanks for demonstrating why the economy is never what it can be in most of Europe, and, increasingly over the past decade and a half, here in the US as well.

[SredniVashtar]

It is a weird phenomena how the most (in)famous "rightists" (supposedly) dictators began as leftists and even, in some cases, named their party socialist. Like a family, or religion, sometimes the worst fights are internecine, which is why such a clash, perhaps, between them? One only has to look at the cousins during the Great War or many divorces for that. On the face of it much royals, elite society, and corporate interests liked the "right" version of socialism until it went astray and effected their interests. It is weird though. Even here a lot of the "neo-cons" and "right wing" talk-personalities (like the Savage guy who is banned from your country) were former Trotskyite or leftist types in college and early life.

I'm not sure if you are aware of US history, aside from several wars you were involved with etc. But Presidents have infamously tried to interfere with investigations, appointments, and the judiciary. Infamously Andy Jackson but more recently the "saintly" FDR who even tried to 'pack the court' to get his socialist program protected. He failed but tried hard. True we don't, yet, draw and quarter or behead- or just send wives or political opponents to dungeons but there is a great history of political conflict and we, like you, even had a civil war (so far, just one though. And we tear down our statues whereas you still keep them up, good for you, and even add foreign terrorists to the statuary.)

I think dictators often start as socialists because they grow up learning the tricks of the trade about party organisation. They reach a point where they conveniently forget that Marx wanted the state to wither away eventually, and egomania takes over, where they think they have all the answers.

I'm sure politicians will always be tempted to abuse their power, but that doesn't make it right, and putting all your resources into squashing the opposition comes straight out of a banana republic.

[Gd5150]

I'll deal with the minimum wage thing too. What employer is ever going to want to pay more for unskilled labour? None. But should they? The left argues yes, while the right thinks things should be made as difficult for poor people as possible, just because. If you pay rock bottom wages, expect rock bottom employees. If you pay them more you are entitled to expect more. Say the minimum wage led to a reduction in hiring, those people in work would have more disposable income than a larger group of people who barely have a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of. More discretionary income would lead to increased hiring in time, as the economy picks up. But the right hates this idea because it would increase inflation, so they want a large underclass they can keep economically unproductive while demonizing them at the same time as lazy bastards.

You just made his point, well done! See the problem is you double minimum wage:

you cut the number of minimum wage jobs in half. You lose 1/4 of the businesses completely that rely on minimum wage employees. That 1/4 will be all small businesses, so you lose jobs at all levels. Corporations find ways to survive. Like incorporating automation, or just placing higher demands on the fewer employees Who remain.

The price of everything the lower class relies on goes up, thus making the increase pointless and hurting those the most they claim it'll help.

See minimum wage increases don't affect the price of yachts, they affect the cost of groceries, and Starbucks, and movies, and everything else the lower/middle class relies on.

The result, fewer entry level opportunities for those looking to get into the working world and Less purchasing power, which means more people on government handouts. Which is EXACTLY why the Democrats love the minimum wage issue. More control.

It doesn't just affect minimum wage workers either. Say someone makes $20hr. Not bad when it's 2x minimum wage. Do you think their pay will increase when the govt increases minimum wage? Hint: the answer is hell no. So now they essentially just took a huge pay cut.

The lemming left loves it because it's just another example of how their simple minds can't wrap around the results of their proposed simpleminded plans.

And right there you have a classic example of why the modern left is totally worthless. Welcome to left wing failures 101. You're welcome.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm not doing anything, apart from tutting loudly. PB wants the judiciary used as a tool to silence political opponents. Mussolini would approve too.

We have an unfortunate tradition in this country of holding politicians above the law.  We rarely prosecute them, or at least it is far too rare.  Oh sure, every once in awhile some out of favor pol or the occasional hapless Republican gets charged with something, and even goes to jail, but it's rarely if ever one of the 'in crowd'.

Silence political opponents?  There has been a full court press by the Ds and the Democrat Fake New Media to ''silence political opponents'' - to obstruct the Trump agenda with a deluge of false claims.  It's truly unprecedented.  I'm merely suggesting that the best way to fight months and months of false charges is to begin prosecute real crimes committed by some of their leaders.

[SredniVashtar]

That isn't what's going on, and that isn't how things work. 

The Left are the ones who need to demonize in order to get their way.  The (only) way to get better wages is to make oneself more valuable by developing job skills - by taking personal responsibility to either get an education in a useful field, or by gaining other useful skills, not by legislation.

But thanks for demonstrating why the economy is never what it can be in most of Europe, and, increasingly over the past decade and a half, here in the US as well.

Hey, here's an idea. Someone without an education has to take a minimum wage job to live. If you pay them a decent wage they don't have to work every shift (they might have kids too) and can spend their free time getting an education and making themselves more valuable in the workforce.

Is this left wing? No, it is encouraging people by giving them incentives to better themselves. I actually think the right has a useful role to play, but people like you just get in the way. You'd much rather whinge and get caught up in the media soap opera.

[PB the Deplorable]

I think dictators often start as socialists because they grow up learning the tricks of the trade about party organisation. They reach a point where they conveniently forget that Marx wanted the state to wither away eventually, and egomania takes over, where they think they have all the answers.

I'm sure politicians will always be tempted to abuse their power, but that doesn't make it right, and putting all your resources into squashing the opposition comes straight out of a banana republic.

They start out as Leftists, and remain so.  It's just that when the horrors and failures come to light, the Leftists in the West feel they need to disavow them.

The problem with Marx's ideas is they didn't take human nature into consideration, and can't work.  Bigger and bigger government is needed to continue to force them on the people, and with that ever larger bureaucracy come harsher and harsher repression.

[3OctaveFart]

Your bitter, sneering contempt for people is why you lost the election. Keep it up! 

I haven't lost a thing, champ. My life is berry good. Broomhilda ($30M net worth) really hasn't lost much either.

You will report if you are one of the ones who lose your health care, so I can pour a finger of Jameson. Have a nice afternoon.

[PB the Deplorable]

Hey, here's an idea. Someone without an education has to take a minimum wage job to live. If you pay them a decent wage they don't have to work every shift (they might have kids too) and can spend their free time getting an education and making themselves more valuable in the workforce.

Is this left wing? No, it is encouraging people by giving them incentives to better themselves. I actually think the right has a useful role to play, but people like you just get in the way. You'd much rather whinge and get caught up in the media soap opera.

How many ways are there to tell people to stay in school, show up for class, to study.  HS isn't that hard, even for the poorest student.  Don't get married and have kids before you can afford them.  Don't drink, do drugs, and party to the point it affects school and work.  Be a good employee when on the job.

Yes, people should be encouraged.  There are endless resources and people available for those who want to improve themselves, even if they didn't get it right during their teenage years and early 20s.

At some point though, people should be allowed to fail if that's what they choose to do.  And the rest of us shouldn't be required to support it.

[SredniVashtar]

You just made his point, well done! See the problem is you double minimum wage:

you cut the number of minimum wage jobs in half. You lose 1/4 of the businesses completely that rely on minimum wage employees. That 1/4 will be all small businesses, so you lose jobs at all levels. Corporations find ways to survive. Like incorporating automation, or just placing higher demands on the fewer employees Who remain.

The price of everything the lower class relies on goes up, thus making the increase pointless and hurting those the most they claim it'll help.

See minimum wage increases don't affect the price of yachts, they affect the cost of groceries, and Starbucks, and movies, and everything else the lower/middle class relies on.

The result, fewer entry level opportunities for those looking to get into the working world and Less purchasing power, which means more people on government handouts. Which is EXACTLY why the Democrats love the minimum wage issue. More control.

It doesn't just affect minimum wage workers either. Say someone makes $20hr. Not bad when it's 2x minimum wage. Do you think their pay will increase when the govt increases minimum wage? Hint: the answer is hell no. So now they essentially just took a huge pay cut.

The lemming left loves it because it's just another example of how their simple minds can't wrap around the results of their proposed simpleminded plans.

And right there you have a classic example of why the modern left is totally worthless. Welcome to left wing failures 101. You're welcome.

This is the standard argument, with added tedium. As usual it's a combination of paranoia and a lack of imagination. And it's too simplistic to claim that everything immediately goes up, but I know your right wing fairy tale is very precious to you. I'd rather risk inflation ( which is often a good thing, not the bogey of the right) than the sort of deflationary death spiral you boys want.

There's never any attention paid to investing in the future, or optimism at all. Just this bleak Darwinian world that benefits a handful of people.

[PB the Deplorable]

This is the standard argument, with added tedium. As usual it's a combination of paranoia and a lack of imagination. And it's too simplistic to claim that everything immediately goes up, but I know your right wing fairy tale is very precious to you. I'd rather risk inflation ( which is often a good thing, not the bogey of the right) than the sort of deflationary death spiral you boys want.

There's never any attention paid to investing in the future, or optimism at all. Just this bleak Darwinian world that benefits a handful of people.

If socialism worked, we'd be all for it.  I'm sorry that it doesn't - on anything larger than a small farm or business that a handful of people agree to buy into - but at some point we need to come to grips with that fact.

[SredniVashtar]

How many ways are there to tell people to stay in school, show up for class, to study.  HS isn't that hard, even for the poorest student.  Don't get married and have kids before you can afford them.  Don't drink, do drugs, and party to the point it affects school and work.  Be a good employee when on the job.

Yes, people should be encouraged.  There are endless resources and people available for those who want to improve themselves, even if they didn't get it right during their teenage years and early 20s.

At some point though, people should be allowed to fail if that's what they choose to do.  And the rest of us shouldn't be required to support it.

People make mistakes, should they be penalised for the rest of their lives? And I'm suggesting they can improve themselves while contributing to the economy. These 'resources' of yours, are they state funded? I'm trying to use language you will understand (not being patronising here, seriously) to make a point. And even if they don't go to college, it could be a single mother who doesn't need to work every single hour she can to survive, and can pay more attention to raising her kid to stay out of trouble. If that leads, ultimately, to less crime then it is worth it. I know these kinds of arguments are like a foreign language to the right

[Dr. MD MD]

I haven't lost a thing, champ. My life is berry good. Broomhilda ($30M net worth) really hasn't lost much either.

You will report if you are one of the ones who lose your health care, so I can pour a finger of Jameson. Have a nice afternoon.

Exactly! How could people not hate you?! You're so full of contempt for anyone you consider beneath you (which is everyone) that you're the kind of jerk the left has traditionally loved to hate...and now you're one of them. 

[SredniVashtar]

If socialism worked, we'd be all for it.  I'm sorry that it doesn't - on anything larger than a small farm or business that a handful of people agree to buy into - but at some point we need to come to grips with that fact.

I don't consider myself a socialist. I'm not a Corbyn supporter. The left is more interested in spending money than how it is generated. There are decent arguments from the right that need to be made, but a lot have gone mad, for various reasons. I'm more of a humanist than anything.

[Lilith]

If socialism worked, we'd be all for it.  I'm sorry that it doesn't - on anything larger than a small farm or business that a handful of people agree to buy into - but at some point we need to come to grips with that fact.

I agree with this.  Socialism works great in small groups of people in agreement.  There can be multitudes of various different kinds of small socialist groups, each with their own different agreed upon arrangements.  To have an entire World, Country or State controlled by one "government" under one set of arrangements, can never work.  It is anti-freedom in every sense of the word, and takes away the ability for communities to try and compare various different ideas. IMO.

[3OctaveFart]

Exactly! How could people not hate you?! You're so full of contempt for anyone you consider beneath you (which is everyone) that you're the kind of jerk the left has traditionally loved to hate...and now you're one of them. 

Have you ever been through that part of Tennessee? I have, and there isn't any putting lipstick on that pig - it is what it is. Mayberry with a mean streak.

Forty percent of a lily-white town on government assistance, and this is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility.

[PB the Deplorable]

People make mistakes, should they be penalised for the rest of their lives? And I'm suggesting they can improve themselves while contributing to the economy. These 'resources' of yours, are they state funded? I'm trying to use language you will understand (not being patronising here, seriously) to make a point. And even if they don't go to college, it could be a single mother who doesn't need to work every single hour she can to survive, and can pay more attention to raising her kid to stay out of trouble. If that leads, ultimately, to less crime then it is worth it. I know these kinds of arguments are like a foreign language to the right

We do plenty for the poor of this country.  Some take advantage and improve their situations, most simply take advantage.

Let me ask you this:  how much is enough to assist those truly deserving of help?  During the 2012 campaign, we learned 47% of US households have at least one member receiving a government benefit - and I'm guessing that doesn't include things like benefiting from government mandates (like minimum wage), refundable income tax credits for low income families, etc.

Is there ever a point where we've done enough, spent enough, wrung our hands enough, chastised successful people enough, and those not taking advantage simply may not be willing to do what it takes to be productive and happy?  Have we reached that point?  I personally think we should remove every Lib from office, defund their failed programs, and try something else.  But that's just me.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JApAQlANyzg

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't consider myself a socialist...

Well, ok, you were the one quoting Marx earlier and advocating for socialist ideas

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA2lCBJu2Gg

[SredniVashtar]

We do plenty for the poor of this country.  Some take advantage and improve their situations, most simply take advantage.

Let me ask you this:  how much is enough to assist those truly deserving of help?  During the 2012 campaign, we learned 47% of US households have at least one member receiving a government benefit - and I'm guessing that doesn't include things like benefiting from government mandates (like minimum wage), refundable income tax credits for low income families, etc.

Is there ever a point where we've done enough, spent enough, wrung our hands enough, chastised successful people enough, and those not taking advantage simply may not be willing to do what it takes to be productive and happy?  Have we reached that point?  I personally think we should remove every Lib from office, defund their failed programs, and try something else.  But that's just me.

No, you're missing the point. I'm specifically talking about getting something for something, not handouts. A minimum wage isn't a welfare programme.

[SredniVashtar]

Well, ok, you were the one quoting Marx earlier and advocating for socialist ideas

I didn't quote him, but if you are gagging for some Marx I'd be happy to oblige. I disagree with plenty of socialist ideas while agreeing with others. Just as I don't support Corbyn but think he is making an important contribution.

[Dr. MD MD]

I'll deal with the minimum wage thing too. What employer is ever going to want to pay more for unskilled labour? None. But should they? The left argues yes, while the right thinks things should be made as difficult for poor people as possible, just because. If you pay rock bottom wages, expect rock bottom employees. If you pay them more you are entitled to expect more. Say the minimum wage led to a reduction in hiring, those people in work would have more disposable income than a larger group of people who barely have a pot to piss in and a window to throw it out of. More discretionary income would lead to increased hiring in time, as the economy picks up. But the right hates this idea because it would increase inflation, so they want a large underclass they can keep economically unproductive while demonizing them at the same time as lazy bastards.

I kind of agree with you on this critique. For all the accurate criticism of the left here this kind of demagoguery has traditionally been the Achilles heel of the right. It's probably good for an economy to allow for some reasonable amount of inflation to occur. I think the most successful political system will be a synthesis of free market capitalism and socialism where there is clear majority opinion about something and it makes the best economic sense; which is why I think a single payer system here is probably an inevitability. Obamacare was a wet kiss to the insurance industry.

[PB the Deplorable]

No, you're missing the point. I'm specifically talking about getting something for something, not handouts. A minimum wage isn't a welfare programme.

It's not a program at all.  As with rent control, its forcing someone in the private sector to do something the government should be paying for if it wants the benefit to be made.

Here's the thing about the minimum wage the Fake News Media somehow forgets to report when discussing it:  many (most?)labor union contracts are tied to the minimum wage.  When the minimum wage goes up, so do the union pay rates.  And guess which party the union bosses support and contribute to.

This is not about the poor, although that's of course what it's being sold as.  If the Ds actually cared about the poor, they've be implementing policies that actually helped people get out of poverty.  They've been in control of our big cities for 60+ years, and look at the condition of the poor there.  That's care?

[PB the Deplorable]

... It's probably good for an economy to allow for some reasonable amount of inflation to occur...

Ask yourself how much is reasonable, then look up the buying power of the dollar over any period of time you like

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, ok, you were the one quoting Marx earlier and advocating for socialist ideas

You've quoted Obama, does that mean you're him?

[Yorkshire pud]

Ask yourself how much is reasonable, then look up the buying power of the dollar over any period of time you like

Negative inflation just makes stagnation of economies a fact. Inflation along the lines of Zimbabwe is chronic and also leads to stagnation. As long as currency is the means of commercial transactions then inflation fluctuation is a fact.

[Yorkshire pud]

Okay; Can we open a sweep stake how many more hours will Jeff Sessions endure the humiliation from Trump?

An hour? Three?

[SredniVashtar]

It's not a program at all.  As with rent control, its forcing someone in the private sector to do something the government should be paying for if it wants the benefit to be made.

Here's the thing about the minimum wage the Fake News Media somehow forgets to report when discussing it:  many (most?)labor union contracts are tied to the minimum wage.  When the minimum wage goes up, so do the union pay rates.  And guess which party the union bosses support and contribute to.

This is not about the poor, although that's of course what it's being sold as.  If the Ds actually cared about the poor, they've be implementing policies that actually helped people get out of poverty.  They've been in control of our big cities for 60+ years, and look at the condition of the poor there.  That's care?

Yes, unions are on the left. Breaking News.

So where are all these brilliant programmes to fight poverty that the right has? Did they fall down the back of the couch? Let me guess, 'leave everyone alone, and let the losers starve'.

[Philosopher]

Okay; Can we open a sweep stake how many more hours will Jeff Sessions endure the humiliation from Trump?

An hour? Three?

Maybe he will just recuse himself from the humiliation.