The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[Tombs]

No. You refuse to answer a straightforward question when besmirching veterans. I want to know if you served. You call American veterans who are democrats "traitors".

I want to know if you served.

If they swear an oath to the constitution, then decide to burn it, then they are a traitor.

Doesn't change the fact you're deflecting from the fact you're defending a mega corporation who treats their employees worse than livestock, while talking about wealth inequality.

 

[Alpo]

Obviously, you aren't a veteran.

 

[jamil]

Why would wages rise when democrats import tens of millions of unskilled laborers willing to work for those lower wages?

It's far from a free market, especially when a corporation can lobby for licensing to keep its opposition from being able to enter into competition.

That's true about flooding the labor market with cheap. But in terms of rising wages the unskilled laborers have a fairly narrow market they can be in compared with all labor. What increases wages is a thriving economy. It's thriving now, and most people are benefiting from that. When the economy tightens up, so will pay.

 

[Tombs]

Obviously, you aren't a veteran.

I guess that's your petty way of thinking you won an argument. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

 

[jamil]

I’m sorry, whats the Clinton foundations sum up to? How many houses does Bernie own? What a joke. I’m sick of leftist talking about income inequality when they have billions of dollars.

That's a fair point. But, that doesn't make income inequality a meaningless statistic. It's useful in the gun debate. We keep getting told that the reason Europe doesn't have the high murder rates that we do is because they have stricter gun laws. Well, I did a comparison between murder rates and geni index (a measure of proximal income inequality) and murder rates vs gun ownership. Income inequality correlated WAY higher than gun ownership did. Not perfectly, but way better than gun ownership did.

I did the same thing in the US. Anti-gun zealots claim that states with stiffer gun laws have lower murder rates. It's hard to quantify "stiffer gun laws", so I thought that what "stiffer gun laws" do is limit gun ownership. So I compared each state's gini index vs murder rate to gun ownership vs murder rate, and there was almost no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates by state. There was a fairly strong correlation between gini index and murder rates.

So income inequality is not unimportant.

 

[Alpo]

I guess that's your petty way of thinking you won an argument. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

Not really. You are the one who wraps himself in your view of what this country is about and call almost half of Americans traitors. Among them are veterans and those who died carrying out the orders of the U.S. Government.

It takes balls to call those people traitors, and you'd be wise to keep that opinion to yourself.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I guess that's your petty way of thinking you won an argument. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

You wont win with him. He’ll argue in circles, then when you prove him wrong his reply is “you don’t deserve an answer”... then *ignored* He did it in the general politic thread, he can’t back up his “facts” so argues on emotion. Even the links he posts don’t prove his point, it’s usually the opposite. Just another gun grabber supporter. Don’t waste your time, he insults people then plays the “making it personal” card like he does with bug.

Not sure why he thinks veterans are unable to betray the country. Every German vet from the 30s and 40s did just that. I respect our vets like no other, but they very well can go against the constitution, and they have, and will again.

 

[Alpo]

Another guy who didn't serve.

 

[Tombs]

Not really. You are the one who wraps himself in your view of what this country is about and call almost half of Americans traitors. Among them are veterans and those who died carrying out the orders of the U.S. Government.

It takes balls to call those people traitors, and you'd be wise to keep that opinion to yourself.

If you swear an oath to it, you do not spit on it. I have no shame in calling someone a traitor who would spit on the constitution. I don't care if it's 90%, rights are not granted by the majority. This is not a democracy.

And I will not and do not have a problem making that opinion known.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

That's a fair point. But, that doesn't make income inequality a meaningless statistic. It's useful in the gun debate. We keep getting told that the reason Europe doesn't have the high murder rates that we do is because they have stricter gun laws. Well, I did a comparison between murder rates and geni index (a measure of proximal income inequality) and murder rates vs gun ownership. Income inequality correlated WAY higher than gun ownership did. Not perfectly, but way better than gun ownership did.

I did the same thing in the US. Anti-gun zealots claim that states with stiffer gun laws have lower murder rates. It's hard to quantify "stiffer gun laws", so I thought that what "stiffer gun laws" do is limit gun ownership. So I compared each state's gini index vs murder rate to gun ownership vs murder rate, and there was almost no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates by state. There was a fairly strong correlation between gini index and murder rates.

So income inequality is not unimportant.

I don’t like the phrase income inequality. It makes it sound as if income should be equal. It shouldn’t. A janitor shouldn’t make the same as the engineer that went to school. As for the murder rates, I looked into the claim pretty heavy a few years back. You’re 100% right, poorer neighborhoods have higher crime all around. One thing people don’t take into consideration is cities. In the UK there’s only a few big cities. In America we have hundreds. California has a dozen alone. Texas. New York. Etc. Cities are usually where the poorest population lives, so cities hold the highest crime rates. Can’t really compare a country with a few cities to a country with over a hundred.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

I guess we don’t get to vote. We didn’t serve. Only alpos opinion matters. He served.

 

[jamil]

I thought all the giant corporations (owned by republicans, by and large) shipped the jobs offshore?

You'd think that. But "by and large" isn't all that true. The filthy richest people in the US are democrats too.

• Bill Gates: $106.8 billion. Not a republican.
• Warren Buffett: $80.8 billion. Not a republican.
• Mark Zuckerberg: $69.6 billion. Bat **** crazy progressive.
• Larry Ellison: $65 billion. Hard to say, he donates to both. Might lean Republican though.
• Larry Page: $55.5 billion. Bat **** crazy progressive.
• Sergey Brin: $53.5 billion. Bat **** crazy progressive.
• Michael Bloomberg: $53.4 billion. Former Democrat then RINO then independent then democrat.
• Steve Ballmer: $51.7 billion. Not a republican.
• Jim Walton: $51.6 billion. Probably republican.

 

[jamil]

You continue to make it personal.

Yes, I was a board member of the United Way for years. I would have to say I was the strongest advocate on the internal board for wage fairness and assuring benefit programs were fairly distributed.

How about you? What did you do for others?

If I'm being honest, you kinda do that too sometimes.

BTW, no offense intended, but United Way is evil. I will not give a ***damn dime to that .org.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, but that's not corporate ownership Jamil. You'd have to look at the stockholders of the S&P and the governing boards. By and large the people in charge donate money to both sides but lean conservative on economics.

 

[Alpo]

If I'm being honest, you kinda do that too sometimes.

BTW, no offense intended, but United Way is evil. I will not give a ***damn dime to that .org.

Yeah, I do that with Bug, but we got under each other's bonnets and it hasn't worked itself out yet. I expect it will over time.

The national United Way I cannot make any judgement about. The county I was in did a great deal helping people in need. All for less than 10% of the money contributed.

 

[jamil]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon-warehouse-jobs-push-workers-to-physical-limit/

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...to-amazon-warehouses-600-times-in-three-years

https://medium.com/@rmcmackin2/have-fun-with-alexa-working-for-amazon-is-a-living-hell-1a89a99a6a4e

https://www.thedailybeast.com/amazon-the-shocking-911-calls-from-inside-its-warehouses

https://www.thestreet.com/story/14312539/1/amazon-warehouse-employees-discuss-grueling-work.html

https://www.seattletimes.com/busine...ould-put-workers-in-a-cage-on-top-of-a-robot/

Need more?



It takes more than being good to make it into the big league, but being good is a requirement to have a shot at it, which is why I label luck as a factor.

That's why I think what you were getting at is privilege. Random luck has something to do with the opportunities you get, but you also make your own opportunities. Or, privilege gives you opportunities that the people who have to rely on luck and competence don't get.

 

[jamil]

I volunteer my time with local charities as well as support a broader range of charities financially. Typical small town America stuff

I received charity the other day. I was in the drive-through at Panera the other day and at the window they said the lady behind me "paid it forward". Sigh. So I looked behind me and I thought, lady, it's a nice gesture and all, and I appreciate it, but I'd appreciate it a lot more if you gave it to someone who needed it.

I don't want to sound ungrateful about it, I really don't. Because the thought was touching and I tried to get her attention to wave and say thanks, but she kept being into whatever she was into and didn't look up. But then I got to thinking, why do they do this "pay forward" thing? Especially here. I'm really trying hard not to rant this. But it's in a nice neighborhood in a drive through line for a restaurant that's a bit more scaled than a White Castles, and every car around us is late model, not cheap. So why pay it forward in that situation. There's no one in that parking lot that looks like they need anything.

I mean, why just randomly pay for someone else's meal in a situation like that? Does it make her feel better to "pay it forward"? I guess I get that she might not feel safe going to where people might really need it. It's always struck me as a sort of liberal elitist slogan that gives unearned virtue. How about this for paying it forward? You see a homeless person, go buy them a meal. Don't give them money, because they'll probably use it for something you don't want to support, but while you're in that drive through, order another one of whatever you're having, go find a homeless person, and give them your extra. If you're too afraid of them, just drive by and throw it at them while yelling, "I"m paying it forward!"

But no. It's within familiar comfort zones to see some dude in a drive through line, in a nice, clean neighborhood, where everyone is driving nice clean cars, and pay for his meal. Everything's clean that way.

 

[jamil]

There are only two of us who generall call you guys on your ****. I'm one of them. If that makes me condescending in your opinion then so be it. I ask that you look at your own responses that many times are glib or contain a smidgen of condescension.

Well. There's probably a way to do it. You don't have to act like you enjoy it.

I call everyone on everyone's ****, except for mine. That's sacred.

 

[BugI02]

I received charity the other day. I was in the drive-through at Panera the other day and at the window they said the lady behind me "paid it forward". Sigh. So I looked behind me and I thought, lady, it's a nice gesture and all, and I appreciate it, but I'd appreciate it a lot more if you gave it to someone who needed it.

I don't want to sound ungrateful about it, I really don't. Because the thought was touching and I tried to get her attention to wave and say thanks, but she kept being into whatever she was into and didn't look up. But then I got to thinking, why do they do this "pay forward" thing? Especially here. I'm really trying hard not to rant this. But it's in a nice neighborhood in a drive through line for a restaurant that's a bit more scaled than a White Castles, and every car around us is late model, not cheap. So why pay it forward in that situation. There's no one in that parking lot that looks like they need anything.

I mean, why just randomly pay for someone else's meal in a situation like that? Does it make her feel better to "pay it forward"? I guess I get that she might not feel safe going to where people might really need it. It's always struck me as a sort of liberal elitist slogan that gives unearned virtue. How about this for paying it forward? You see a homeless person, go buy them a meal. Don't give them money, because they'll probably use it for something you don't want to support, but while you're in that drive through, order another one of whatever you're having, go find a homeless person, and give them your extra. If you're too afraid of them, just drive by and throw it at them while yelling, "I"m paying it forward!"

But no. It's within familiar comfort zones to see some dude in a drive through line, in a nice, clean neighborhood, where everyone is driving nice clean cars, and pay for his meal. Everything's clean that way.

Maybe you look scruffier than you think?

 

[jamil]

No. You refuse to answer a straightforward question when besmirching veterans. I want to know if you served. You call American veterans who are democrats "traitors".

I want to know if you served.

I think I need to call you on your ****. He didn't besmirch veterans, he besmirched Amazon. Whether or not he served is irrelevant. But I do agree that it is ridiculous to call American veterans who are democrats, "traitors". Is that his actual position?