The Political Discussion Thread

[Chaka-Z0]

It wouldn't. Which is why it will never make it through the legislature. Although I can understand the reasoning behind the idea, I was mostly just commenting on the end run around the proper process.

Reasoning being let's score election points by making rich richer?

[Annoyed]

Reasoning being let's score election points by making rich richer?

No, reasoning being that many other things are indexed to inflation as well.

[Gatefan1976]

No, reasoning being that many other things are indexed to inflation as well.

Your pay isn't, republicans made sure it wasn't
insurance, well that's social welfare, so guess who voted against that?
Healthcare?
A failed system that ranks your ire more than anything is based on republican principles, rather than democratic ones.

You are so blind to partisanship, it's accutally amusing.

What would you do if Obama coulleded with Africa?

[aretood2]

I think this is the stupidest thing you have ever posted.
Star wars fans don't affect the law or public policy in the slightest, and comparing them to voting for government?
You claimed I moved the goalposts, you are playing a different game here.

It's called an "analogy" you see analogies are these things that help illustrate a point by using unrelated things following the same line of logic. Now that you know what an analogy is, let's analyze what I was saying.

You said that Christians somehow want something more, which is pretty darn hard to measure. Where's your data that proves that? So I pointed out other groups, mainly religious, that also want that thing for the same reasons. Then you countered that by saying that there being less of any of those other groups mean it that they somehow, through magic I guess, are less motivated to obtaining that thing. What impacts that is how much any given group of people want something you have to look at the following,: how much they are willing to sacrifice, and what level of priority they place that thing in. I countered by using this analogy of star wars fans wanting something more than non star wars fans. Then I changed the parameters to show that number of individuals that want something does not impact how much sad individuals want it. Star Wars fans would be willing to sacrifice more, be more motivated, and give it a higher priority than non Star Wars fans. Now read the next paragraph to see how that translates to the actual thing we are talking about, because that's how analogies work.

So show me that Christians give Abortion more importance, are willing to sacrifice more, and give it a higher priority than Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims. And I don't see how they may or may not share respective deities changes any of that.

[Gatefan1976]

It's called an "analogy" you see analogies are these things that help illustrate a point by using unrelated things following the same line of logic. Now that you know what an analogy is, let's analyze what I was saying.

You said that Christians somehow want something more, which is pretty darn hard to measure. Where's your data that proves that?

Amount of INFLUENCE, you see star wars fans affecting actual real things?
You see Hindi or Buddhist beliefs affecting secular law?
There's my data, more than 200 years of it, enjoy.

So I pointed out other groups, mainly religious, that also want that thing for the same reasons.

Which I did not deny

Then you countered that by saying that there being less of any of those other groups mean it that they somehow, through magic I guess, are less motivated to obtaining that thing.

No, and here is were your analogy falls flat on it's arse, because I am talking about the ability to actually affect change in the real world and that is done via voting, not "desire". 100 people, 10 of them believe 1 thing with all their body and soul will NOT change a society where the other 90 think it's wrong.
It's not "magic", it's mathematics. (changing the 90 people though, that would be magic)
When a vegetarian walks in alone into a steakhouse, you think the diners are suddenly going to stop eating meat when they go on a rant?
Please.

What impacts that is how much any given group of people want something you have to look at the following,: how much they are willing to sacrifice, and what level of priority they place that thing in. I countered by using this analogy of star wars fans wanting something more than non star wars fans.

And when the studio says "no", the "group of people" is impotent, no matter what they desire.
I want a better, fairer world, but I am S.O.L. because there are more Annoyed's than Gatefan1976's
"but I really want it" is going to do exactly SQUAT.

Then I changed the parameters to show that number of individuals that want something does not impact how much sad individuals want it. Star Wars fans would be willing to sacrifice more, be more motivated, and give it a higher priority than non Star Wars fans. Now read the next paragraph to see how that translates to the actual thing we are talking about, because that's how analogies work.

I know how they work, but you were speaking to desire, I was speaking to reality.

So show me that Christians give Abortion more importance, are willing to sacrifice more, and give it a higher priority than Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and Muslims. And I don't see how they may or may not share respective deities changes any of that.

That is NOT what I am speaking to Tood.
"Who want's it more" was a mistake in phrasing on my part for us to end up here, I SHOULD have said, "who can actually make it happen?"

[Chaka-Z0]

No, and here is were your analogy falls flat on it's arse, because I am talking about the ability to actually affect change in the real world and that is done via voting, not "desire". 100 people, 10 of them believe 1 thing with all their body and soul will NOT change a society where the other 90 think it's wrong.
It's not "magic", it's mathematics. (changing the 90 people though, that would be magic)
When a vegetarian walks in alone into a steakhouse, you think the diners are suddenly going to stop eating meat when they go on a rant?
Please.

Not entirely true. You don't need to vote to change things. I'll use the same example you took in this quote. Obviously steakhouses won't offer vegetarian meals, but if you didn't notice almost every single restaurant out there nowadays have at least one vegetarian meal. The vegan / vegetarian movement is trending and if there's enough potential customers that want it, they will give it to them. Simple business decision, there's a potential market you'll try to get your share of it.

Unions change things, they don't vote. Protest, strikes, manifestations, etc. sometimes change the orientation taken by our politicians.

I would even go as far as to say that voting has the least impact on the changes you, a simple citizen, want for your country. We all know that most of the promises made by politicians are never respected.

[Annoyed]

Not entirely true. You don't need to vote to change things. I'll use the same example you took in this quote. Obviously steakhouses won't offer vegetarian meals, but if you didn't notice almost every single restaurant out there nowadays have at least one vegetarian meal. The vegan / vegetarian movement is trending and if there's enough potential customers that want it, they will give it to them. Simple business decision, there's a potential market you'll try to get your share of it.

Unions change things, they don't vote. Protest, strikes, manifestations, etc. sometimes change the orientation taken by our politicians.

I would even go as far as to say that voting has the least impact on the changes you, a simple citizen, want for your country. We all know that most of the promises made by politicians are never respected.

You've never lived in The People's Republic of NY, have you?

NY State is pretty much operated by and for the benefit of it's public employee unions. This is true of other mostly blue states as well, but NY is a shining example.

Public employee unions up till now* have very large wallets, supported by mandated dues paid by their members, which despite laws prohibiting such use, are used to financially support Democratic candidates which in turn support these unions with public policy once in office. The unions funnel large amounts of cash to the campaigns, and once in office, the bought & paid for officials do the unions' bidding. A corrupt symbiosis exists. The people who pay for this, the taxpayers, are cut out of the loop altogether.

Just as an example, why do you think NY and many other states are beyond bankrupt solely due to public employee retirement packages?

The unions have used this symbiotic relationship over decades to get the states to agree to extremely generous defined benefit retirement packages, far better than what the taxpayers in the state can get from their private employers and far more expensive than the taxpayers can afford.

So, while the unions themselves, as entities can't vote, they have by far the largest influence on the state's politics.

*this is all gonna get turned on its head by the recent SCOTUS/Janus decision, which says that govt. employees do not have to join the union or pay dues if they don't want to, so these unions are going to find themselves strapped for cash very soon.

[Chaka-Z0]

Nice try twisting this into a blue and red discussion, unions have the same impact in any country, mine included. NYC is no different.

You just proved my point with your post. Simply by pressuring politicians with voting leverage is but one way to influence and obtain this leverage. This is true for unions, this is true for numerous cultural groups such as religious communities / LGBTQ or any other kind of group.

Non-political: You might recall, a few years back, Loblaws, a grocery store franchise, was put on the spot when one of their sub-contractor in Bangladesh saw their factory burn alongside with hundreds of workers that were trapped inside. It was revealed and exposed that the factory was actually more of a prison, with windows barred that prevented any escape in case of an emergency such as this. This caused major uproar in public opinion and Loblaws had to do many PR conferences, cancel their contract with that company and then double-check every single sub-contrators they had and cancel deals if it turns out they were exploiting workers.

Journalists succeeded in changing things by exposing the disgusting conditions the workers had to deal with. Nike had similar bad press a long time ago in regards to their shoes factories in Africa.

As for political matters, obviously the voting potential of a given group is the only element that has impact. Nonetheless, saying that nothing but voting can change things in this world is a really pessimist point of view of humanity.

clarification: I re-read my post and can understand where the confusion comes from, what I meant is exactly what you said I quote : So, while the unions themselves, as entities can't vote, they have by far the largest influence on the state's politics. I was responding to GF's comment stating that the only way to change things in this world is to vote, I do not concur.

[jelgate]

You are wasting your time. Annoyed is incapable of seeing something outside of political

[Gatefan1976]

Not entirely true. You don't need to vote to change things. I'll use the same example you took in this quote. Obviously steakhouses won't offer vegetarian meals, but if you didn't notice almost every single restaurant out there nowadays have at least one vegetarian meal. The vegan / vegetarian movement is trending and if there's enough potential customers that want it, they will give it to them. Simple business decision, there's a potential market you'll try to get your share of it.

Small scale business does not have the same constraints, or needs of big business, and while we are talking in analogy (which is dumb as hell at this point), your market for a vegan is the 1 customer who comes in every week for one meal, when you serve 100 a week.
The question is not "should you accomadate the one" (which you should, if reasonable) but can you offer that option from a business perspective?
If only one customer per week wants a vegi-burger, and it costs more to have that option on hand than what you make from that one burger, you don't sell vegi-burgers.
This is supply and demand on the ground floor. It's not discriminatory, it's a purely business decision.
When the cost of NOT having a Vegi-burger overrides that, you have vegi-burgers on the menu.

Unions change things, they don't vote. Protest, strikes, manifestations, etc. sometimes change the orientation taken by our politicians.

Unions represent masses of people, and those people DO vote, be it to strike or take any other industrial action, AND they vote at the polls. Unfortunately, wealthy donors give something directly to politicians, the chance for them to get even more money.
Unions don't do that, or more correctly, union members.

I would even go as far as to say that voting has the least impact on the changes you, a simple citizen, want for your country. We all know that most of the promises made by politicians are never respected.

I really disagree with that. Obama wanted change, Trump wants change, BOTH impact our lives as simple citizens, of any country.

[Annoyed]

Nice try twisting this into a blue and red discussion, unions have the same impact in any country, mine included. NYC is no different.

You just proved my point with your post. Simply by pressuring politicians with voting leverage is but one way to influence and obtain this leverage. This is true for unions, this is true for numerous cultural groups such as religious communities / LGBTQ or any other kind of group.

Non-political: You might recall, a few years back, Loblaws, a grocery store franchise, was put on the spot when one of their sub-contractor in Bangladesh saw their factory burn alongside with hundreds of workers that were trapped inside. It was revealed and exposed that the factory was actually more of a prison, with windows barred that prevented any escape in case of an emergency such as this. This caused major uproar in public opinion and Loblaws had to do many PR conferences, cancel their contract with that company and then double-check every single sub-contrators they had and cancel deals if it turns out they were exploiting workers.

Journalists succeeded in changing things by exposing the disgusting conditions the workers had to deal with. Nike had similar bad press a long time ago in regards to their shoes factories in Africa.

As for political matters, obviously the voting potential of a given group is the only element that has impact. Nonetheless, saying that nothing but voting can change things in this world is a really pessimist point of view of humanity.

clarification: I re-read my post and can understand where the confusion comes from, what I meant is exactly what you said I quote : So, while the unions themselves, as entities can't vote, they have by far the largest influence on the state's politics. I was responding to GF's comment stating that the only way to change things in this world is to vote, I do not concur.

Wow. That's a name I haven't heard in around 40 years. They were operating their grocery chain in upstate NY back in the 70's till they were driven out by Wegmans, which has gone on to drive every other major full service chain out of the region since, with one exception, and that is on its last broken leg, too. Myself, I hate shopping at Wegmans, but I have to admit they are phenomenally successful at their business.

But as far as the Unions and Democrats.. One thing that many outsiders to our political system don't understand is that money talks, BS walks. In order to get a message out, in today's media driven society, if you can't buy ads, don't even bother. And that is very expensive.

I don't like that, but that's the way it is. What I would like to see is licensed TV/Radio stations be required to carry political adds during silly season for legitimate (petition qualified?) candidates as part of their public service requirements for holding the broadcast license. Yeah, you can't force cable operators to do this, they're not broadcasting over the airwaves, but at least letting poorer candidates get their message out via broadcast outlets would be a good thing.

[Chaka-Z0]

Small scale business does not have the same constraints, or needs of big business, and while we are talking in analogy (which is dumb as hell at this point), your market for a vegan is the 1 customer who comes in every week for one meal, when you serve 100 a week.

Why is it dumb? They are perfectly fine in a discourse if facts supports them.

Perhaps it's different where you live, in Ottawa you should see how trending the vegetarian movement is, many people that are not veg. themselves are actually wanting vegetarian meals (to distinguish from vegan, which is another game entirely). I am convinced this is not an isolated case. I'm not a veg. myself but have lots of friends that are now and I've noticed many restaurants now have vegetarian options on their menu. It's a booming, really profitable market. One would be stupid not to try and get his share of it. In a 5 minutes walk radius of my workplace, I have about 10-12 establishments that are either completely vegetarian or offer vegetarian meals. Granted I work in the heart of the city, but still.

The question is not "should you accomadate the one" (which you should, if reasonable) but can you offer that option from a business perspective?
If only one customer per week wants a vegi-burger, and it costs more to have that option on hand than what you make from that one burger, you don't sell vegi-burgers.
This is supply and demand on the ground floor. It's not discriminatory, it's a purely business decision.
When the cost of NOT having a Vegi-burger overrides that, you have vegi-burgers on the menu.

What's your point? The reason that motivates change is irrelevant, a big enough mass of consumers will force change to business entrepreneurs. That, was my point.

Unions represent masses of people, and those people DO vote, be it to strike or take any other industrial action, AND they vote at the polls. Unfortunately, wealthy donors give something directly to politicians, the chance for them to get even more money.
Unions don't do that, or more correctly, union members.

Read my second post, I tried clarifying my position on this. Unions actually send memos to their members prior to an election stating clearly which party they favor and should vote for. Obviously an individual has the right to pick according to his own choosing, but still it influence greatly the outcome of a vote. Politicians are literally the unions and lobbies b***h (sorry not sorry).

I really disagree with that. Obama wanted change, Trump wants change, BOTH impact our lives as simple citizens, of any country.

Obviously any politician will advocate change, I've never heard of any leader being elected by saying *Hey! Get me in Office! I won't change Squat! Statu-Quo on everything!* You vote according to a candidate that has the same ideals than you, not the other way around unless you jump into politics yourself.

I might be a cynic in regards to politics, I guess you're right in the fact that we can in a small way provoke change by voting for a specific candidate. I just think its sad that most people I hear whining and complain about politicians don't even vote themselves. The biggest portion of voters are mostly people of the older generations, which in general tend to have anchored opinions and a point of view at the other side of the spectrum of let's say, a young buck of 20 years old. How many times have I heard my grandparents (RIP), uncles, ants, etc. say: I've always voted red, nothing will ever change that and that's what I'm going to vote next!

[Chaka-Z0]

But as far as the Unions and Democrats.. One thing that many outsiders to our political system don't understand is that money talks, BS walks. In order to get a message out, in today's media driven society, if you can't buy ads, don't even bother. And that is very expensive.

I don't like that, but that's the way it is. What I would like to see is licensed TV/Radio stations be required to carry political adds during silly season for legitimate (petition qualified?) candidates as part of their public service requirements for holding the broadcast license. Yeah, you can't force cable operators to do this, they're not broadcasting over the airwaves, but at least letting poorer candidates get their message out via broadcast outlets would be a good thing.

This is not true anymore Annoyed. Things have changed a lot in the past few years. You don't need media time anymore, social media do the job well enough. People listen to spotify, not the radio. People watch Netflix and on-demand shows, not so much cable tv anymore.

[Annoyed]

This is not true anymore Annoyed. Things have changed a lot in the past few years. You don't need media time anymore, social media do the job well enough. People listen to spotify, not the radio. People watch Netflix and on-demand shows, not so much cable tv anymore.

I dunno about that. There are a lot of people who don't even have twitter/whatever accounts, and some of those that do don't really care what a bunch of idiots in the twitterverse are babbling about.

You can count me among such people. I have no twitter account, and I don't pay much attention to facebook. Any damned fool can post whatever he wants on social networking, I'd rather listen to someone who has invested real time and effort to send a message.

[mad_gater]

Wow. That's a name I haven't heard in around 40 years. They were operating their grocery chain in upstate NY back in the 70's till they were driven out by Wegmans, which has gone on to drive every other major full service chain out of the region since, with one exception, and that is on its last broken leg, too. Myself, I hate shopping at Wegmans, but I have to admit they are phenomenally successful at their business.

But as far as the Unions and Democrats.. One thing that many outsiders to our political system don't understand is that money talks, BS walks. In order to get a message out, in today's media driven society, if you can't buy ads, don't even bother. And that is very expensive.

I don't like that, but that's the way it is. What I would like to see is licensed TV/Radio stations be required to carry political adds during silly season for legitimate (petition qualified?) candidates as part of their public service requirements for holding the broadcast license. Yeah, you can't force cable operators to do this, they're not broadcasting over the airwaves, but at least letting poorer candidates get their message out via broadcast outlets would be a good thing.

The supermarket I remember from my childhood days was Bell's *eyes grey hairs in beard*

Whole Foods isn't done for yet either and even though it might not have the variety of Wegman's, our focus is on the harder-to-find organic/natural stuff so that business model still might ensure some success