MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

You love this country by shatting on it. Interesting. Were you loving the country while antifa was burning it down? Or when the uniparty is sending our boys to die for oil..did you love it then? Maybe when you shiffted all the manufacturing work to india and china leaving the lower 25% of our population to work at ****ing Walmart. Bet you loved that shatt. Want to find a traitor. Look in the mirror.

---

I hated the summer riots and fought with OTB over his defense of it. However, I am baffled by you defending Trump and the Republican party's attempt to subvert our democracy. What type of conservative are these Republicans? What really is the Republican platform? State rights? Isn't that why we are fighting for the electoral college? Do the states not have the right to determine (with the laws interpreted by their courts) on the voting procedures? And in the midst of a pandemic, why are the Republican so ****ing intent on making it so hard to vote? Voter fraud? Where the hell are the voter frauds? I have read more instances of Trump cult members attempting voter fraud than Biden supporters. What is your objection in clear terms?

---

I'm not a republican. Hell I was a democrat up until Obama's 2nd term. I didn't even vote for Trump in 2016. But I saw what was going on. The media was turning into an attack dog. Trump was an a-hole. 100% agree, but what he did I was totally in favor of minus his healthcare platform. I was in favor of controlling immigration A LOT more than we do. I was in favor of pulling our troops out of countries we have no business in. I was in favor of decoupling with China. I was in favor or leveling out the trade inequality with a number of nations.including the bs NAFTA.

You say "Do states not have the right to interpret voting procedures?" seriously....democrats cry every single year about redistricting. You think that's fair? cause I don't. Redistricting is bull****, the same with the crap that went on this election. Hell even democrats were *****ing about electronic voting and its vulnerabilities. Now that Trump is , its a complete 180. Whether you agree or not I saw a lot of sketchy things going on in Detroit, Pennsylvania, Georgia.etc Those things deserved to be decided by the courts, but instead the courts passed the buck. They dismissed I think all legal challenges on standing (Not merit). Meaning they didn't want to be involved in election issues.

---

No wonder you and I disagree. I am more a typical conservative in favor of small government, free trade, robust legal immigration, competition, law and order, equal opportunity as opposed to equal results, end of racism of all kinds and state rights.

I don't know what you are. I wouldn't call you conservative or liberal.

---

And how much of this are you going to get with the current administration? The end of racism?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

Democrats Suck said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

And in the midst of a pandemic, why are the Republican so ****ing intent on making it so hard to vote?

---

Because the Republicans have always been about voter suppression and it's naive of you to pretend they haven't been.

Quote:

---

And you talking about globalization is very Bernie Sanderish. When did conservatives become about protecting unions and higher costs as opposed to free markets?

---

So you don't care that all the good jobs for non-college graduates in this country got shipped away by bad trade agreements?

You'd make a great Democrat.

---

I am asking him to defend the position. Not sure how that makes me naive.

Yogi, don't want to get into a debate on economic issues with you, especially when you think being snide makes you more effective, because we cannot even agree on basic premises. I did touch upon this just now to Minot.

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

BearForce2 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

You love this country by shatting on it. Interesting. Were you loving the country while antifa was burning it down? Or when the uniparty is sending our boys to die for oil..did you love it then? Maybe when you shiffted all the manufacturing work to india and china leaving the lower 25% of our population to work at ****ing Walmart. Bet you loved that shatt. Want to find a traitor. Look in the mirror.

---

I hated the summer riots and fought with OTB over his defense of it. However, I am baffled by you defending Trump and the Republican party's attempt to subvert our democracy. What type of conservative are these Republicans? What really is the Republican platform? State rights? Isn't that why we are fighting for the electoral college? Do the states not have the right to determine (with the laws interpreted by their courts) on the voting procedures? And in the midst of a pandemic, why are the Republican so ****ing intent on making it so hard to vote? Voter fraud? Where the hell are the voter frauds? I have read more instances of Trump cult members attempting voter fraud than Biden supporters. What is your objection in clear terms?

---

I'm not a republican. Hell I was a democrat up until Obama's 2nd term. I didn't even vote for Trump in 2016. But I saw what was going on. The media was turning into an attack dog. Trump was an a-hole. 100% agree, but what he did I was totally in favor of minus his healthcare platform. I was in favor of controlling immigration A LOT more than we do. I was in favor of pulling our troops out of countries we have no business in. I was in favor of decoupling with China. I was in favor or leveling out the trade inequality with a number of nations.including the bs NAFTA.

You say "Do states not have the right to interpret voting procedures?" seriously....democrats cry every single year about redistricting. You think that's fair? cause I don't. Redistricting is bull****, the same with the crap that went on this election. Hell even democrats were *****ing about electronic voting and its vulnerabilities. Now that Trump is , its a complete 180. Whether you agree or not I saw a lot of sketchy things going on in Detroit, Pennsylvania, Georgia.etc Those things deserved to be decided by the courts, but instead the courts passed the buck. They dismissed I think all legal challenges on standing (Not merit). Meaning they didn't want to be involved in election issues.

---

No wonder you and I disagree. I am more a typical conservative in favor of small government, free trade, robust legal immigration, competition, law and order, equal opportunity as opposed to equal results, end of racism of all kinds and state rights.

I don't know what you are. I wouldn't call you conservative or liberal.

---

And how much of this are you going to get with the current administration? The end of racism?

---

I don't think Biden is going to promote classic conservative values. If Romney was running, then I would have voted for Romney. But Trump was not a conservative. He catered to social conservatives. Considering, other than abortion, I am more center left in social issues, his race baiting crap didn't work for me. So, if Trump is not a conservative and if he further divides and appeals to our basest emotions and trashed our constitution, what use do I have with someone like him? If anything, he represents the more xenophobic element of the far left from the 90's who were against immigration and wanted tariffs, with racism, incompetence and corruption sprinkled on top. Between the two, give me Biden everyday. Neither are conservative but I respect at least Biden's decency and desire to serve our country.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

You do a lot of conflating NAFTA and China most favored trade nation status. I think the former has been good for America while the latter not so much.

Also there is no reason why the service sector can't pay wages commiserate with manufacturing. 100 years ago labor fought for higher wages in manufacturing. The same can be done for the service sector. If that is your goal the Democratic Party is your best best. Much more effective nowadays than self serving unions.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

I think it would help if you understood where industrial technology is going. All you need to do is read Roper's, Rockwell's, Emerson's or Honeywell's 10-K or listen to their investor day presentation. Or look at where the money is going by manufacturers and how much money is being spend by manufacturers on automation, industrial software and automated workflows. All of the automation by Amazon in their warehouse is a precursor to where one of their next big revenue source is. And they are also incorporating cheap, commodity type of products to support manufacturing and maintenance as part of their AWS to bring connected manufacturing workflow into the cloud services. Countries like India and China can still provide cheap labor for now because full automation has not been fully incorporated and because they have no unions, no labor protection and no minimum wage - just mass overpopulation of people who will do anything to make something. Why would we want to compete there? Think of Pittsburg. They were falling behind in the steel industry because other countries were doing it better, cheaper. Now they are thriving in healthcare and tech and people there are economically better off. Better off than if we fought a tariff war to protect steel. Figure out better training and financial support (this was one of Yang's pitch because as an investor he also sees where manufacturing in light of automation is going) instead of propping segments that are dying.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

Anarchistbear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

I came out against China most favored nation trade status AND in favor of service sector pay commiserate with manufacturing pay AND national healthcare which unions are against AND you still posted the drivel you posted.

Honestly, liberals on this site have to waste so much time restating their opinions because of obtuseness on the part of non liberals. Which of those things I said are you against? Or are just going to continue pretending I only spoke in favor of NAFTA?

Anarchistbear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

Maybe the reason that CB93 and Dajo agree here is because you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. No matter how much people like Minot want to go back to the world where skilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs were a path to middle class success for education-averse Americans, it's not going to happen.

It's easy to blame politicians of all stripes (and both parties - as you are wont to do) but politicians aren't the reason that unskilled labor is poorly compensated in 2020 in a capitalist system like America. If we protected our unskilled laborers more, it would just accelerate the trends that CB93 is referring to. Companies are always trying to grow top line revenue and reduce costs, including cost of goods sold.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

Maybe the reason that CB93 and Dajo agree here is because you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. No matter how much people like Minot want to go back to the world where skilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs were a path to middle class success for education-averse Americans, it's not going to happen.

It's easy to blame politicians of all stripes (and both parties - as you are wont to do) but politicians aren't the reason that unskilled labor is poorly compensated in 2020 in a capitalist system like America. If we protected our unskilled laborers more, it would just accelerate the trends that CB93 is referring to. Companies are always trying to grow top line revenue and reduce costs, including cost of goods sold.

---

CB93 and I DON'T agree. We just disagree with Minot differently.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

Maybe the reason that CB93 and Dajo agree here is because you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. No matter how much people like Minot want to go back to the world where skilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs were a path to middle class success for education-averse Americans, it's not going to happen.

It's easy to blame politicians of all stripes (and both parties - as you are wont to do) but politicians aren't the reason that unskilled labor is poorly compensated in 2020 in a capitalist system like America. If we protected our unskilled laborers more, it would just accelerate the trends that CB93 is referring to. Companies are always trying to grow top line revenue and reduce costs, including cost of goods sold.

---

Because the social costs of this are epidemic- rising drug addiction, suicide, violence, two major insurrections in the last year, homelessness, lack of trust and social cohesion. This is a country teetering on the edge . Against that I'm not interested in increasing top line revenues- those are interest of corporations not a country, they aren't the same.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

Maybe the reason that CB93 and Dajo agree here is because you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. No matter how much people like Minot want to go back to the world where skilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs were a path to middle class success for education-averse Americans, it's not going to happen.

It's easy to blame politicians of all stripes (and both parties - as you are wont to do) but politicians aren't the reason that unskilled labor is poorly compensated in 2020 in a capitalist system like America. If we protected our unskilled laborers more, it would just accelerate the trends that CB93 is referring to. Companies are always trying to grow top line revenue and reduce costs, including cost of goods sold.

---

Because the social costs of this are epidemic- rising drug addiction, suicide, violence, two major insurrections in the last year, homelessness, lack of trust and social cohesion. This is a country teetering on the edge . Against that I'm not interested in increasing top line revenues- those are interest of corporations not a country, they aren't the same.

---

Look, I get your position, and this debate is as old as government has existed. My position on capitalism is adopted by both members of the left (Clinton, Biden, Bloomberg) and the right (Romney, Cheney, McConnell). Your position of economic nationalism is adopted by members on the left (Sanders, AOC) and right (Trump, Navarro and Bannon and the sycophants on the right who actually don't believe in anything other than polls). We are not debating anything new that has not at this point become trite. We just happen to disagree.

Biden Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Democrats Suck said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

And in the midst of a pandemic, why are the Republican so ****ing intent on making it so hard to vote?

---

Because the Republicans have always been about voter suppression and it's naive of you to pretend they haven't been.

Quote:

---

And you talking about globalization is very Bernie Sanderish. When did conservatives become about protecting unions and higher costs as opposed to free markets?

---

So you don't care that all the good jobs for non-college graduates in this country got shipped away by bad trade agreements?

You'd make a great Democrat.

---

I am asking him to defend the position. Not sure how that makes me naive.

Yogi, don't want to get into a debate on economic issues with you, especially when you think being snide makes you more effective, because we cannot even agree on basic premises. I did touch upon this just now to Minot.

---

You don't want to get in a debate on economic issues with me because you know you can't win that debate. Nor can anyone else on this board.

And if you honestly think the market is free right now, you are in even worse shape to debate economics than I thought.

---

Yogi, just as an advice. Delusional arrogance does not give you credibility. Nothing about your posts, your accomplishments or your life would suggest to people that you are some economic heavyweight. You can keep hitching your ego on the fallacy that the world is wrong and you are right on your genius.

Of course, I may be wrong and that I am the only one who has seen your arguments and thought this is a waste my time since we cannot even agree on what I view as basic knowledge. Maybe everyone else agrees with you on your genius. Have not taken a poll, but I don't care. Nothing in my life will change either way.

So, if it makes you feel better, keep believing that people don't want to engage you on economic debate because you are such a genius obvious to all. All that just has no importance or impact on my life.

Biden Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

A lot of people are easily conned. But many more people that still support him support him not because he's done anything for them, but because he hates the same people they hate. For a lot of people, that's "every other politician."

---

Yes. Neither party is that popular and yet they are shocked when they are routinely purged like 2016 and 2020 and then blame it on external forces or conspiracies. There is a huge disconnect between what the people of the country want and what these parties want ( power). More insurrections on the way

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

A lot of people are easily conned. But many more people that still support him support him not because he's done anything for them, but because he hates the same people they hate. For a lot of people, that's "every other politician."

---

Yes. Neither party is that popular and yet they are shocked when they are routinely purged like 2016 and 2020 and then blame it on external forces or conspiracies. There is a huge disconnect between what the people of the country want and what these parties want ( power). More insurrections on the way

---

Yes, I was shocked when the Electoral College purged the Democrats out of the White House in 2016 despite the people voting for a Democrat for the 6th time in 7 elections (now 7 out of 8).

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

Maybe the reason that CB93 and Dajo agree here is because you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. No matter how much people like Minot want to go back to the world where skilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs were a path to middle class success for education-averse Americans, it's not going to happen.

It's easy to blame politicians of all stripes (and both parties - as you are wont to do) but politicians aren't the reason that unskilled labor is poorly compensated in 2020 in a capitalist system like America. If we protected our unskilled laborers more, it would just accelerate the trends that CB93 is referring to. Companies are always trying to grow top line revenue and reduce costs, including cost of goods sold.

---

CB93 and I DON'T agree. We just disagree with Minot differently.

---

You both just agree in that you are willing to accept the reality that the old 1950s economy based on manufacturing and other low-skilled work is not coming back, regardless of what any politician tries to do.

To me, the progressives (including Andrew Yang) have it "more right" on this front in that the government will need to take a more active role in providing for its citizens. I'm not sure I see current conservative policy on this issue leading us anywhere but back to the same bad spot we're in. But perhaps there is a better argument I haven't read yet.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

A lot of people are easily conned. But many more people that still support him support him not because he's done anything for them, but because he hates the same people they hate. For a lot of people, that's "every other politician."

---

Yes. Neither party is that popular and yet they are shocked when they are routinely purged like 2016 and 2020 and then blame it on external forces or conspiracies. There is a huge disconnect between what the people of the country want and what these parties want ( power). More insurrections on the way

---

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think what you propose is what people want, maybe socialism will win big in the future. They haven't yet but it seems like you think they will in no time. If you have power, you are right instead of you thinking you will have power because you think you are right. Reminds me of the Supreme Court not being final because they are infallible but more that they are infallible because they are final.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

I'm probably closer to an 80s democrat. They use to be a lot more rigid on stuff. Clinton changed the party for the worse imho. Heck my mother was the head of a union here in California. I remember when NAFTA happened and the unions got destroyed. That moment changed me a lot.

---

And how did the Democrats do in elections in the 1980s?

If Clinton did anything it was follow the people where they wanted to go. Then unions stabbed him in the back when he tried to bring us national healthcare. Was your mother in on that?

---

The Democrats sold NAFTA as a huge win for trade and the union leadership swallowed it whole. The membership honestly had no clue how NAFTA would effect things. It was packaged as huge win for trade. That lasted all of like 6 months before they figured out the race to lower wages led to India first and then China because they had better infrastructure. If Bill Clinton was good at something it was selling. Just like Obama.

---

Life is full of compromises. Unions got private health insurance like they wanted and the rest of America got NAFTA.

---

If you have no job, you have no health insurance.

---

Yes, that is the union position.

---

Asking americans to compete for their jobs with India and China shouldn't have been the bargain.

---

I apologize for not understanding this issue well, but please help me understand this. You clearly have a more personal and not theoretical perspective.

Without allowing our companies access to cheaper manufacturing labor outside the US, our products would have greater costs and higher price than foreign products. The only way to counter this would be to create tariffs to even the price of imports. That will not only raise prices for consumers and deflating real wages (same wages buy less) but it will start trade wars where other industries where we excel are now harmed (agriculture, innovation, services). I am wondering whether protecting manufacturing at high costs in the US is worth all the other impact (what your mom experienced would then be shifted to others). And countries like India and China, as their economy improves from globalization, will have a bigger middle class reducing access to low labor. I think we need to protect our IP better, continue to innovate and focus on service. The reality is that with or without globalization, automation will eliminate a big part of manual labor. Seems like we need to focus on the future and how to create a society that elevates instead of clinging to things of the past like coal. My two cents.

---

It's pretty simple, manufacturing is work that can keep the lower 25% of our population to have a house and savings so they can have children. I really have no other concern than that. The US isn't the worlds keeper. Our job is to protect the people here.

---

But again. Manufacturing is going away to automation and AI. And protecting manufacturing means the same thing as a tax on American people and harm to other industries to artificially protect something where we cannot compete well. Better ways to provide subsidy if that is your hope. But wouldn't it be better to focus on where the future of jobs will be? It is again like coal. I understand the impact of reducing reliance on coal will have on certain segment of the economy but that is the way our world is. It was hard for the locomotive industry when we shifted from reliance on trains. It was hard when we shifted from telegrams. It was hard when we shifted from print to digital media. Everywhere, people who fail to adapt to changes will be more greatly impacted but there are better ways to help those impacted than artificially clinging to things that the world is moving past and then fall behind overall and become less relevant as a nation. What are we good at? It isn't manufacturing better quality at lower cost. Consider where companies like Roper, Honeywell, Amazon etc are focusing with its industrial technology where machines will soon overtake even the cheap labor from India.

---

You keep saying manufacturing is going away to AI and automation..then why are they manufacturing in those countries? That's a BS argument by globalists lol. Then you go on with taxing americans? Why wouldn't you pay a little more so that your own citizens can live like humans? They get money, they spend money, keeping a healthy economy. I'd rather subsidize my own citizens than those somewhere else. Fix our house first then we can help others.

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

Maybe the reason that CB93 and Dajo agree here is because you can't put toothpaste back into the tube. No matter how much people like Minot want to go back to the world where skilled or semi-skilled manufacturing jobs were a path to middle class success for education-averse Americans, it's not going to happen.

It's easy to blame politicians of all stripes (and both parties - as you are wont to do) but politicians aren't the reason that unskilled labor is poorly compensated in 2020 in a capitalist system like America. If we protected our unskilled laborers more, it would just accelerate the trends that CB93 is referring to. Companies are always trying to grow top line revenue and reduce costs, including cost of goods sold.

---

CB93 and I DON'T agree. We just disagree with Minot differently.

---

You both just agree in that you are willing to accept the reality that the old 1950s economy based on manufacturing and other low-skilled work is not coming back, regardless of what any politician tries to do.

To me, the progressives (including Andrew Yang) have it "more right" on this front in that the government will need to take a more active role in providing for its citizens. I'm not sure I see current conservative policy on this issue leading us anywhere but back to the same bad spot we're in. But perhaps there is a better argument I haven't read yet.

---

I happen to agree more with Yang on this front than the Republicans although instead of everything based on just a paycheck from the government, a big part of that has to be in the form of service and IT trade training.

Biden Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Also there is no reason why the service sector can't pay wages commiserate with manufacturing. 100 years ago labor fought for higher wages in manufacturing. The same can be done for the service sector. If that is your goal the Democratic Party is your best best. Much more effective nowadays than self serving unions.

---

Instead of "Be Better, be Best Best"?

The Democratic Party has no interest in fighting for better wages for non-college graduates and you are a moron for thinking that they do.

---

Hard to argue with this

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

A lot of people are easily conned. But many more people that still support him support him not because he's done anything for them, but because he hates the same people they hate. For a lot of people, that's "every other politician."

---

Yes. Neither party is that popular and yet they are shocked when they are routinely purged like 2016 and 2020 and then blame it on external forces or conspiracies. There is a huge disconnect between what the people of the country want and what these parties want ( power). More insurrections on the way

---

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think what you propose is what people want, maybe socialism will win big in the future. They haven't yet but it seems like you think they will in no time. If you have power, you are right instead of you thinking you will have power because you think you are right. Reminds me of the Supreme Court not being final because they are infallible but more that they are infallible because they are final.

---

The problem with the 60% that do vote and the 40% that don't is that two parties with the same economic and foreign policies control who runs, who serves and the country's agenda which is that of their monied interests. This is top to bottom all over a country of 300 million. Until there is more representation to break this duopoly of power and interests so that there are voices outside of two any change is marginal

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

A lot of people are easily conned. But many more people that still support him support him not because he's done anything for them, but because he hates the same people they hate. For a lot of people, that's "every other politician."

---

Yes. Neither party is that popular and yet they are shocked when they are routinely purged like 2016 and 2020 and then blame it on external forces or conspiracies. There is a huge disconnect between what the people of the country want and what these parties want ( power). More insurrections on the way

---

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think what you propose is what people want, maybe socialism will win big in the future. They haven't yet but it seems like you think they will in no time. If you have power, you are right instead of you thinking you will have power because you think you are right. Reminds me of the Supreme Court not being final because they are infallible but more that they are infallible because they are final.

---

The problem with the 60% that do vote and the 40% that don't is that two parties with the same economic and foreign policies control who runs, who serves and the country's agenda which is that of their monied interests. This is top to bottom all over a country of 300 million. Until there is more representation to break this duopoly of power and interests so that there are voices outside of two any change is marginal

---

I would argue that the primaries would indicate otherwise. The socialist wing, if it is that popular, will win the primaries when they are reaching out to the liberal half. If they cannot even win the primaries on the left, especially when so much of the funding now comes from grassroots efforts, it is hard to be convinced that socialism is what most Americans want. And sorry if I don't have too much sympathy to worry about helping those who cannot even bother to show up to vote.

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

A lot of people are easily conned. But many more people that still support him support him not because he's done anything for them, but because he hates the same people they hate. For a lot of people, that's "every other politician."

---

Yes. Neither party is that popular and yet they are shocked when they are routinely purged like 2016 and 2020 and then blame it on external forces or conspiracies. There is a huge disconnect between what the people of the country want and what these parties want ( power). More insurrections on the way

---

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think what you propose is what people want, maybe socialism will win big in the future. They haven't yet but it seems like you think they will in no time. If you have power, you are right instead of you thinking you will have power because you think you are right. Reminds me of the Supreme Court not being final because they are infallible but more that they are infallible because they are final.

---

The problem with the 60% that do vote and the 40% that don't is that two parties with the same economic and foreign policies control who runs, who serves and the country's agenda which is that of their monied interests. This is top to bottom all over a country of 300 million. Until there is more representation to break this duopoly of power and interests so that there are voices outside of two any change is marginal

---

I would argue that the primaries would indicate otherwise. The socialist wing, if it is that popular, will win the primaries when they are reaching out to the liberal half. If they cannot even win the primaries on the left, especially when so much of the funding now comes from grassroots efforts, it is hard to be convinced that socialism is what most Americans want. And sorry if I don't have too much sympathy to worry about helping those who cannot even bother to show up to vote.

---

The parties control candidates, money, endorsements. It's really hard to buck that- AOC's win was pretty remarkable. The parties don not like challengers and have ostracized them. More open primaries are needed; more parties are needed. Btw, socialism is not what I'm advocating though their policies are more attractive to me. It's a question of grass roots democracy and more voices against the current authoritarian party lines. You know there are people out here who like raising the minimum wage and don't like gun control; who like Medicare for all but don't care about transgender bathrooms ; and many
who hate both government and corporations.

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Biden Sucks said:

---

Quote:

---

It's interesting that ardent antagonists CB93 and Dajo are both arguing against you but also illustrative that there is little difference between these parties on this score. Both are committed to return on capital not on labor. The problem then is one of lack of representation in a "democracy" run by the two most ardent capitalist parties in the world. But why Trump? Did you really believe he has your interests and those of labor at heart?

---

A lot of people are easily conned. But many more people that still support him support him not because he's done anything for them, but because he hates the same people they hate. For a lot of people, that's "every other politician."

---

Yes. Neither party is that popular and yet they are shocked when they are routinely purged like 2016 and 2020 and then blame it on external forces or conspiracies. There is a huge disconnect between what the people of the country want and what these parties want ( power). More insurrections on the way

---

Well, then you have nothing to worry about. If you think what you propose is what people want, maybe socialism will win big in the future. They haven't yet but it seems like you think they will in no time. If you have power, you are right instead of you thinking you will have power because you think you are right. Reminds me of the Supreme Court not being final because they are infallible but more that they are infallible because they are final.

---

The problem with the 60% that do vote and the 40% that don't is that two parties with the same economic and foreign policies control who runs, who serves and the country's agenda which is that of their monied interests. This is top to bottom all over a country of 300 million. Until there is more representation to break this duopoly of power and interests so that there are voices outside of two any change is marginal

---

I would argue that the primaries would indicate otherwise. The socialist wing, if it is that popular, will win the primaries when they are reaching out to the liberal half. If they cannot even win the primaries on the left, especially when so much of the funding now comes from grassroots efforts, it is hard to be convinced that socialism is what most Americans want. And sorry if I don't have too much sympathy to worry about helping those who cannot even bother to show up to vote.

---

The parties control candidates, money, endorsements. It's really hard to buck that- AOC's win was pretty remarkable. The parties don not like challengers and have ostracized them. More open primaries are needed; more parties are needed. Btw, socialism is not what I'm advocating though their policies are more attractive to me. It's a question of grass roots democracy and more voices against the current authoritarian party lines. You know there are people out here who like raising the minimum wage and don't like gun control; who like Medicare for all but don't care about transgender bathrooms ; and many
who hate both government and corporations.

---

OK, that's fair.