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 still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

Today, too many union workers have too much to lose to put their neck out for those without. They will be against anything that may call for some sacrifice on their part. It's just a much different dynamic from when my grandfather was a union railroad worker before I was born. They were fighting to get a piece of the pie. Now unions have a piece of the pie. My grandfather would be a Trump voter today if he were alive. Fully against those "other" people getting what he has.

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

Biden Sucks 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.

---

This is 100% truth. Democrats sold out their own citizens on trade agreements.

---

Trade is good, but there are other considerations for the welfare of a nation besides trade.

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.

---

Lobbying tells us that the government is heavily involved in deciding what the rules of the marketplace are. If the market was free, the government would abstain from trying to tweak outcomes, but they don't.

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

---

Biden isn't a King. The Senate is the problem. The Constitution was built for the Congress to be an impediment to the will of the people.

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

---

Biden isn't a King. The Senate is the problem. The Constitution was built for the Congress to be an impediment to the will of the people.

---

Didn't you just say above that Biden supports all citizens having access to healthcare?

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

---

Biden isn't a King. The Senate is the problem. The Constitution was built for the Congress to be an impediment to the will of the people.

---

Didn't you just say above that Biden supports all citizens having access to heathcare?

---

Yes

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

---

Biden isn't a King. The Senate is the problem. The Constitution was built for the Congress to be an impediment to the will of the people.

---

Didn't you just say above that Biden supports all citizens having access to heathcare?

---

Yes

---

How does he plan on people who aren't employed affording health care?

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone. The people were caught, prosecuted and forced to inform those voters that they still needed to vote.

I wonder how many more of these online scams were played on primarily left leaning voters in an attempt to limit the turnout.

I agree that the election was not perfect. But I don't think any election is perfect and the Dems. have a legitimate reason to be upset over the 2000 Florida vote. Historically electronic voting machines have been found to be questionable. A few decades ago, the state of California successfully sued Diebold for their electronic voting machines. The machines were not secure and it was fairly easy to hack into them and simply change the number digitally, grossly disenfranchising voters. California no longer uses electronic voting machines to count votes and, even though Diebold operates in many other states, most states are required to use a paper backup in order to audit those results. Furthermore, the Diebold case never proved that one party had a greater ability to hack into the system than another party. Both Dems. and Reps. benefitted. Some arguments could be made that 3rd parties are more disenfranchised by the entire system than either major party. But that is a different story.

What seems to be overwhelming clear is that the "rigged election" complaints focus only on whatever rigging hurt the Republicans and does not address other issues with the election that hurt Dems. For example, the renegade Postal Chief obstructed the flow of mail, keeping thousands of ballots from getting to election offices in time.

On balance, I doubt that Republicans were hurt by this election. More likely, they were helped. After all, I don't see how Marjorie Taylor Greene gets in otherwise.

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone.

---

Putting aside the disenfranchisement attempt, we ought to be able to vote using cell phones. If we can do financial transactions with them, we can certainly vote with them and it will greatly speed up the counting of the votes. We can create an audit trail so that a person has a copy of their vote that can be used later to audit the accuracy of the voting process.

And it would put a huge wrench into attempted disenfranchisement.

SFBear92 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone.

---

Putting aside the disenfranchisement attempt, we ought to be able to vote using cell phones. If we can do financial transactions with them, we can certainly vote with them and it will greatly speed up the counting of the votes. We can create an audit trail so that a person has a copy of their vote that can be used later to audit the accuracy of the voting process.

And it would put a huge wrench into attempted disenfranchisement.

---

If the under-30 crowd were to find out they could vote on their cell phones, it would create some initial excitement! However, once they found out it only took five minutes and they could only do it once, they wouldn't even bother anymore.

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone. The people were caught, prosecuted and forced to inform those voters that they still needed to vote.

I wonder how many more of these online scams were played on primarily left leaning voters in an attempt to limit the turnout.

I agree that the election was not perfect. But I don't think any election is perfect and the Dems. have a legitimate reason to be upset over the 2000 Florida vote. Historically electronic voting machines have been found to be questionable. A few decades ago, the state of California successfully sued Diebold for their electronic voting machines. The machines were not secure and it was fairly easy to hack into them and simply change the number digitally, grossly disenfranchising voters. California no longer uses electronic voting machines to count votes and, even though Diebold operates in many other states, most states are required to use a paper backup in order to audit those results. Furthermore, the Diebold case never proved that one party had a greater ability to hack into the system than another party. Both Dems. and Reps. benefitted. Some arguments could be made that 3rd parties are more disenfranchised by the entire system than either major party. But that is a different story.

What seems to be overwhelming clear is that the "rigged election" complaints focus only on whatever rigging hurt the Republicans and does not address other issues with the election that hurt Dems. For example, the renegade Postal Chief obstructed the flow of mail, keeping thousands of ballots from getting to election offices in time.

On balance, I doubt that Republicans were hurt by this election. More likely, they were helped. After all, I don't see how Marjorie Taylor Greene gets in otherwise.

---

Do you have links for the renegade postal chief and the cell phone voting scandal in PA?

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone. The people were caught, prosecuted and forced to inform those voters that they still needed to vote.

I wonder how many more of these online scams were played on primarily left leaning voters in an attempt to limit the turnout.

I agree that the election was not perfect. But I don't think any election is perfect and the Dems. have a legitimate reason to be upset over the 2000 Florida vote. Historically electronic voting machines have been found to be questionable. A few decades ago, the state of California successfully sued Diebold for their electronic voting machines. The machines were not secure and it was fairly easy to hack into them and simply change the number digitally, grossly disenfranchising voters. California no longer uses electronic voting machines to count votes and, even though Diebold operates in many other states, most states are required to use a paper backup in order to audit those results. Furthermore, the Diebold case never proved that one party had a greater ability to hack into the system than another party. Both Dems. and Reps. benefitted. Some arguments could be made that 3rd parties are more disenfranchised by the entire system than either major party. But that is a different story.

What seems to be overwhelming clear is that the "rigged election" complaints focus only on whatever rigging hurt the Republicans and does not address other issues with the election that hurt Dems. For example, the renegade Postal Chief obstructed the flow of mail, keeping thousands of ballots from getting to election offices in time.

On balance, I doubt that Republicans were hurt by this election. More likely, they were helped. After all, I don't see how Marjorie Taylor Greene gets in otherwise.

---

Wow you think the republicans were helped!! We must stop that..let's get a signature verification for all 50 states and see. We can't let those dastardly republicans get more votes than they deserve!!

Also here's some kick azz music:

BearForce2 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

One thing the "election-was-rigged" winers leave out is that some Trump supporters were prosecuted for a massive disinformation campaign in Pennsylvania that attempted to disenfranchise thousands of, primarily African American, voters by making think they could vote on their cell phone. The people were caught, prosecuted and forced to inform those voters that they still needed to vote.

I wonder how many more of these online scams were played on primarily left leaning voters in an attempt to limit the turnout.

I agree that the election was not perfect. But I don't think any election is perfect and the Dems. have a legitimate reason to be upset over the 2000 Florida vote. Historically electronic voting machines have been found to be questionable. A few decades ago, the state of California successfully sued Diebold for their electronic voting machines. The machines were not secure and it was fairly easy to hack into them and simply change the number digitally, grossly disenfranchising voters. California no longer uses electronic voting machines to count votes and, even though Diebold operates in many other states, most states are required to use a paper backup in order to audit those results. Furthermore, the Diebold case never proved that one party had a greater ability to hack into the system than another party. Both Dems. and Reps. benefitted. Some arguments could be made that 3rd parties are more disenfranchised by the entire system than either major party. But that is a different story.

What seems to be overwhelming clear is that the "rigged election" complaints focus only on whatever rigging hurt the Republicans and does not address other issues with the election that hurt Dems. For example, the renegade Postal Chief obstructed the flow of mail, keeping thousands of ballots from getting to election offices in time.

On balance, I doubt that Republicans were hurt by this election. More likely, they were helped. After all, I don't see how Marjorie Taylor Greene gets in otherwise.

---

Do you have links for the renegade postal chief and the cell phone voting scandal in PA?

---

It's very telling what RWNJ's know nothing about

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-technology-arrests-michigan-voting-rights-5f035e2a68394f9765d9c0d500538d94

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.news-press.com/amp/5689566002

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

Quote:

---

I still disagree with that assessment. 100 years ago the argument was that factory work was too low skilled to warrant higher pay. The same argument used against service workers today. We can pay service workers more. A $15 minimum wage is a good start. Everybody needs healthcare.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Andrew Yang is probably the future. There's more we can do before we go that route, imo. Unions aren't going to get us there. Bernie Sanders is not the answer. I keep pushing the Democratic party left.

---

What is the answer then? Sanders may not be the answer, but Hillary and Biden aren't the answer either.

Who are your Congressman and Senators, if I may ask?

---

Biden supports a $15 minimum wage and he supports all citizens having access to healthcare. He is not the problem. The undemocratic Senate is the problem. They voted down the wage hike a couple days ago.

I live in NJ.

---

So Booker and Menendez. I don't know anything about any of New Jersey's congressmen for good or ill.

I don't really see Biden as a solution to anything regarding health care unless you think the status quo is working well for the country (I don't).

---

Biden isn't a King. The Senate is the problem. The Constitution was built for the Congress to be an impediment to the will of the people.

---

Didn't you just say above that Biden supports all citizens having access to heathcare?

---

Yes

---

How does he plan on people who aren't employed affording health care?

---

https://www.healthcare.gov/unemployed/coverage/

Quote:

---

Medicaid. Medicaid provides coverage to millions of Americans with limited incomes or disabilities. Many states have expanded Medicaid to cover all people below certain income levels. Learn more about Medicaid and how to apply.

---

The system is not a good system. It is a patchwork of what special interests will accept. Biden wants to improve the current system by offering a Medicare option. Individuals in some states don't have access to Medicaid because the Constitution (backed by the Supreme Court) places such a high value on states rights, the Federal government was blocked from imposing Medicaid on states (stupid, right?).

I would prefer to go farther than what Biden has suggested but the point is moot. Nothing will happen without the Senate and even though this a very liberal Senate by historical standards, it is still not enough to clear the required undemocratic hurdles in the Senate. As long as Appalachia has equal power to California and New England combined this will be a problem.

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Where is the clown emoji when you need one?

calbear93 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.

---

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.

---

The issue is, 93, that they want what they want whether that exists anymore or not.

They do not understand the basic fact that the world is in constant evolution and the rate of that evolution only increases. You cannot dictate the flow of an economy. To use a simplistic analogy, the world economy is a wave and you are on a surf board. You try to tell the wave where to go you wipeout. The best you can do is direct the surfboard to let the wave take you.

World governments did not dictate globalization. Technology created it. NAFTA and free trade policies did not create globalization. They were a response to it. We were losing out on manufacturing already. We were always going to lose out on manufacturing unless we put in place protectionist policies that would have destroyed our ability to compete overseas, made goods and services at home extremely expensive, and ultimately tanked the US economy. Taking a heavy hand with the economy always fails. Anti-trade policies in Europe caused England to lose the American colonies and were a significant underlying cause in the French Revolution and in the end of monarchies and empires throughout Europe.

They do not want to accept that it was not the 1950's anymore. There were two major technological revolutions that impacted manufacturing. 1. Automation. 2. The ability to move people, goods and information around the world. We started a century with biplanes and the telegraph. By 1970 we landed on the moon and could talk to each other virtually instantaneously. By the end of the century we had big data, advanced robotics, the internet, the ability to meet virtually easily and efficiently. Technologically, we can move parts and finished goods extraordinarily cheaply. A person in one country can provide the designs, for a plant in another country. Yeah, fine. I can jack up taxes on imports 500% to make it more expensive to import goods into my country. Of course other countries aren't doing that, so they will get the massive advantages of that efficiency while your country is left decades behind. Barring that, the labor force is now competing globally whether they want to or not. So, I can 1. artificially prop up my unskilled labor force and tank my economy or 2. I can adjust to the world economy, create higher paying, skilled labor jobs, and give people the ability to get skilled.

There are billions of unskilled workers in this world. More than there are good jobs for them. This is not due to government policy and certainly not due to NAFTA. In the mid 50's, union membership was 35%. By the early 80's it was 20% and sinking like a stone. That is before any free trade policies. The rate of decrease in union membership was not influenced AT ALL by NAFTA.

If Minot was around in the 80's a constant story was the fact that Japan was kicking our ass economically. As a pop culture reference I'll point to a 1986 Ron Howard comedy starring Michael Keaton called Gung Ho (Because "gung ho" is remotely Japanese) about a Japanese company buying a US car plant and imposing their ways. Throughout much of the 80's Japan was just kicking our teeth in.

We were largely saved by what America always excels in - technology and innovation. We automated. We created high skilled jobs. Clinton rode the wave by trying to open up markets to our technology. As a country, we prospered. But here is a fact of American history. Technology and innovation have always required that workers who wish to prosper increase the amount of time developing skills. Through much of the country's history, school was not even necessary. For instance, many people worked on farms and if they went to school at all it was short and it always took a back seat to work from an early age. My mother would tell me about how when she was in high school there were almost no boys in her senior class because they all quit at 16 to go work in the local lumber industry. Then you needed a high school education. Then you needed a college education or at least a trade skill. That is simply the way it is. It used to be most people didn't have a high school diploma and that helped you. Now, almost everyone has one. If you can't distinguish yourself from the next guy, your value is low.

The bottom line is you can't just go work in the local plant anymore. Those jobs are largely automated. What aren't are much cheaper overseas. If a robot can do your job for $5 an hour, or if an overseas worker will do it for $3 an hour and transport it for the equivalent cost of $2 an hour, you are not going to make enough doing that job to buy a house and raise a family. There is no amount of government interference, other than communism, that is going to make that happen and communism won't keep that going long.

I was always for making a college education cheaper and easier so people can get trained. I was always for supporting people developing skilled trades. I was always for helping people transition. The problem is too many people do not want that. They want what doesn't exist. They want the same job their grandfather had in the same town at the same money. I wish I could give it to them. I can't. And too many just do not want to get a higher education, do not want to learn a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical, and do not want to move to where the jobs are. And many politicians are willing to engage the fantasy that they will bring those jobs back. They get the votes and they never come back. Or worse. They blame it on immigrants. They blame it on the Chinese. They blame it on Jeff Bezos. They blame it on the liberals. And that is what people want to hear because the idea that a political battle can be won and then the job will magically appear is a lot easier to face than having to accept the great challenge of doing something new, or accept maybe losing your kids to them moving away for prosperity. The politicians that level with them get chased out of town. We can see this in the coal industry. The primary reason coal has gotten crushed is not environmentalism. It is significant technological advances in the natural gas industry (that many environmentalists would stop if they could)

The thing is, I am over 50. I am much closer to the end of my work career than the beginning. When I was in high school, it was very obvious you needed a college degree or some other unique skill to prosper. Some people were not realistically afforded that opportunity and I feel sorry for them and that is why I want everyone to be afforded that opportunity. However, a large percentage chose not to take that opportunity, basically because they didn't wanna. Yeah, I know. College isn't for everybody. You know what? High school isn't for everybody either but everybody goes. There are a hell of a lot of college kids that don't want to be there. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. If you do not want to develop a skill that distinguishes you, you are left with the jobs anyone can do and you will be paid accordingly. If you want to work when you are 18, and you want to start a family, and you want to live where you want to live, that is a choice. You cannot blame someone who puts their life on hold to train for 4-8 years, start a career, move where they need to, maybe not be able to start a family or get a house until they are in their 30's, when they prosper more than you do at the end of that process as a result of all of that patience and work. Life is a series of trade offs.

And right now we are facing a big challenge with AI coming to fruition. I would not have voted for Andrew Yang because I think his answer is simplistic and will not work. But he was the only one asking the question. We are getting to the point where the productivity created by technology will soon make it impossible to maintain 40 hour work weeks and full employment and it will not allow us to maintain a culture where many highly paid salaries workers can continue to work 60-80 hours a week and maintain enough good jobs. Either we are going to end up with a lot of part time workers or we are going to redefine what full time means.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 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.

---

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.

---

The issue is, 93, that they want what they want whether that exists anymore or not.

They do not understand the basic fact that the world is in constant evolution and the rate of that evolution only increases. You cannot dictate the flow of an economy. To use a simplistic analogy, the world economy is a wave and you are on a surf board. You try to tell the wave where to go you wipeout. The best you can do is direct the surfboard to let the wave take you.

World governments did not dictate globalization. Technology created it. NAFTA and free trade policies did not create globalization. They were a response to it. We were losing out on manufacturing already. We were always going to lose out on manufacturing unless we put in place protectionist policies that would have destroyed our ability to compete overseas, made goods and services at home extremely expensive, and ultimately tanked the US economy. Taking a heavy hand with the economy always fails. Anti-trade policies in Europe caused England to lose the American colonies and were a significant underlying cause in the French Revolution and in the end of monarchies and empires throughout Europe.

They do not want to accept that it was not the 1950's anymore. There were two major technological revolutions that impacted manufacturing. 1. Automation. 2. The ability to move people, goods and information around the world. We started a century with biplanes and the telegraph. By 1970 we landed on the moon and could talk to each other virtually instantaneously. By the end of the century we had big data, advanced robotics, the internet, the ability to meet virtually easily and efficiently. Technologically, we can move parts and finished goods extraordinarily cheaply. A person in one country can provide the designs, for a plant in another country. Yeah, fine. I can jack up taxes on imports 500% to make it more expensive to import goods into my country. Of course other countries aren't doing that, so they will get the massive advantages of that efficiency while your country is left decades behind. Barring that, the labor force is now competing globally whether they want to or not. So, I can 1. artificially prop up my unskilled labor force and tank my economy or 2. I can adjust to the world economy, create higher paying, skilled labor jobs, and give people the ability to get skilled.

There are billions of unskilled workers in this world. More than there are good jobs for them. This is not due to government policy and certainly not due to NAFTA. In the mid 50's, union membership was 35%. By the early 80's it was 20% and sinking like a stone. That is before any free trade policies. The rate of decrease in union membership was not influenced AT ALL by NAFTA.

If Minot was around in the 80's a constant story was the fact that Japan was kicking our ass economically. As a pop culture reference I'll point to a 1986 Ron Howard comedy starring Michael Keaton called Gung Ho (Because "gung ho" is remotely Japanese) about a Japanese company buying a US car plant and imposing their ways. Throughout much of the 80's Japan was just kicking our teeth in.

We were largely saved by what America always excels in - technology and innovation. We automated. We created high skilled jobs. Clinton rode the wave by trying to open up markets to our technology. As a country, we prospered. But here is a fact of American history. Technology and innovation have always required that workers who wish to prosper increase the amount of time developing skills. Through much of the country's history, school was not even necessary. For instance, many people worked on farms and if they went to school at all it was short and it always took a back seat to work from an early age. My mother would tell me about how when she was in high school there were almost no boys in her senior class because they all quit at 16 to go work in the local lumber industry. Then you needed a high school education. Then you needed a college education or at least a trade skill. That is simply the way it is. It used to be most people didn't have a high school diploma and that helped you. Now, almost everyone has one. If you can't distinguish yourself from the next guy, your value is low.

The bottom line is you can't just go work in the local plant anymore. Those jobs are largely automated. What aren't are much cheaper overseas. If a robot can do your job for $5 an hour, or if an overseas worker will do it for $3 an hour and transport it for the equivalent cost of $2 an hour, you are not going to make enough doing that job to buy a house and raise a family. There is no amount of government interference, other than communism, that is going to make that happen and communism won't keep that going long.

I was always for making a college education cheaper and easier so people can get trained. I was always for supporting people developing skilled trades. I was always for helping people transition. The problem is too many people do not want that. They want what doesn't exist. They want the same job their grandfather had in the same town at the same money. I wish I could give it to them. I can't. And too many just do not want to get a higher education, do not want to learn a skilled trade like plumbing or electrical, and do not want to move to where themany politicians are willing to engage the fantasy that they will bring those jobs back. They get the votes and they never come back. Or worse. They blame it on immigrants. They blame it on the Chinese. They blame it on Jeff Bezos. They blame it on the liberals. And that is what people want to hear because the idea that a political battle can be won and then the job will magically appear is a lot easier to face than having to accept the great challenge of doing something new, or accept maybe losing your kids to them moving away for prosperity. The politicians that level with them get chased out of town. We can see this in the coal industry. The primary reason coal has gotten crushed is not environmentalism. It is significant technological advances in the natural gas industry (that many environmentalists would stop if they could)

The thing is, I am over 50. I am much closer to the end of my work career than the beginning. When I was in high school, it was very obvious you needed a college degree or some other unique skill to prosper. Some people were not realistically afforded that opportunity and I feel sorry for them and that is why I want everyone to be afforded that opportunity. However, a large percentage chose not to take that opportunity, basically because they didn't wanna. Yeah, I know. College isn't for everybody. You know what? High school isn't for everybody either but everybody goes. There are a hell of a lot of college kids that don't want to be there. WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY. If you do not want to develop a skill that distinguishes you, you are left with the jobs anyone can do and you will be paid accordingly. If you want to work when you are 18, and you want to start a family, and you want to live where you want to live, that is a choice. You cannot blame someone who puts their life on hold to train for 4-8 years, start a career, move where they need to, maybe not be able to start a family or get a house until they are in their 30's, when they prosper more than you do at the end of that process as a result of all of that patience and work. Life is a series of trade offs.

And right now we are facing a big challenge with AI coming to fruition. I would not have voted for Andrew Yang because I think his answer is simplistic and will not work. But he was the only one asking the question. We are getting to the point where the productivity created by technology will soon make it impossible to maintain 40 hour work weeks and full employment and it will not allow us to maintain a culture where many highly paid salaries workers can continue to work 60-80 hours a week and maintain enough good jobs. Either we are going to end up with a lot of part time workers or we are going to redefine what full time means.

---

My sentiments exactly.

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

World gone wrong

Oaktown Bear going all Joe McCarthy with traitor bull****

CB93 stepping in as conciliator.

Is this really supposed to be a community of people with something in common ( our school) Because this isn't what happens or how you treat people in a community.

---

Go Bears!

---

Yes. How many schools have two words that provide instant solidarity when you see someone with a cap or a sweatshirt in near or distant places?

---

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times I've seen someone wearing a "California" or similar sweatshirt/hat/etc. and said "Go Bears!" only to get the response: "I don't really follow sports" or something like that.

Of course, there are plenty of times the response is positive, but it also seems a very Cal thing for students to not care about sports at all.

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

World gone wrong

Oaktown Bear going all Joe McCarthy with traitor bull****

CB93 stepping in as conciliator.

Is this really supposed to be a community of people with something in common ( our school) Because this isn't what happens or how you treat people in a community.

---

Go Bears!

---

Yes. How many schools have two words that provide instant solidarity when you see someone with a cap or a sweatshirt in near or distant places?

---

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times I've seen someone wearing a "California" or similar sweatshirt/hat/etc. and said "Go Bears!" only to get the response: "I don't really follow sports" or something like that.

Of course, there are plenty of times the response is positive, but it also seems a very Cal thing for students to not care about sports at all.

---

Maybe it's a Norcal thing but I've literally never gotten that response and I've never viewed "Go Bears" as a sports thing. It is a greeting to a fellow alum.

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

World gone wrong

Oaktown Bear going all Joe McCarthy with traitor bull****

CB93 stepping in as conciliator.

Is this really supposed to be a community of people with something in common ( our school) Because this isn't what happens or how you treat people in a community.

---

Go Bears!

---

Yes. How many schools have two words that provide instant solidarity when you see someone with a cap or a sweatshirt in near or distant places?

---

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times I've seen someone wearing a "California" or similar sweatshirt/hat/etc. and said "Go Bears!" only to get the response: "I don't really follow sports" or something like that.

Of course, there are plenty of times the response is positive, but it also seems a very Cal thing for students to not care about sports at all.

---

Maybe it's a Norcal thing but I've literally never gotten that response and I've never viewed "Go Bears" as a sports thing. It is a greeting to a fellow alum.

---

I have gotten that response all over the world when I wear a UC Berkeley or Cal sweatshirt or cap, including in Fiji. Rarely in the NorCal since it is more common to see someone wearing Cal gear, but it is a common connection in other places.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

World gone wrong

Oaktown Bear going all Joe McCarthy with traitor bull****

CB93 stepping in as conciliator.

Is this really supposed to be a community of people with something in common ( our school) Because this isn't what happens or how you treat people in a community.

---

Go Bears!

---

Yes. How many schools have two words that provide instant solidarity when you see someone with a cap or a sweatshirt in near or distant places?

---

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times I've seen someone wearing a "California" or similar sweatshirt/hat/etc. and said "Go Bears!" only to get the response: "I don't really follow sports" or something like that.

Of course, there are plenty of times the response is positive, but it also seems a very Cal thing for students to not care about sports at all.

---

Maybe it's a Norcal thing but I've literally never gotten that response and I've never viewed "Go Bears" as a sports thing. It is a greeting to a fellow alum.

---

I have gotten that response all over the world when I wear a UC Berkeley or Cal sweatshirt or cap, including in Fiji. Rarely in the NorCal since it is more common to see someone wearing Cal gear, but it is a common connection in other places.

---

Or you can go to school in Chicago like I did and suddenly everyone is happy to give a "Go Bears!" back even if they didn't go to Cal.

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

World gone wrong

Oaktown Bear going all Joe McCarthy with traitor bull****

CB93 stepping in as conciliator.

Is this really supposed to be a community of people with something in common ( our school) Because this isn't what happens or how you treat people in a community.

---

Go Bears!

---

Yes. How many schools have two words that provide instant solidarity when you see someone with a cap or a sweatshirt in near or distant places?

---

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times I've seen someone wearing a "California" or similar sweatshirt/hat/etc. and said "Go Bears!" only to get the response: "I don't really follow sports" or something like that.

Of course, there are plenty of times the response is positive, but it also seems a very Cal thing for students to not care about sports at all.

---

Maybe it's a Norcal thing but I've literally never gotten that response and I've never viewed "Go Bears" as a sports thing. It is a greeting to a fellow alum.

---

I have gotten that response all over the world when I wear a UC Berkeley or Cal sweatshirt or cap, including in Fiji. Rarely in the NorCal since it is more common to see someone wearing Cal gear, but it is a common connection in other places.

---

To be clear, I meant I have never gotten the "I don't follow sports" response. Maybe it is because people that where Cal gear locally are more likely connected to the school.

Once I was in a store in Davis wearing a Cal shirt. A guy wearing a Duke shirt passed me and gave me a "Cal sucks" with a beavis and butthead laugh. I will also say because it is relevant that it was extremely clear this was not someone who went to Duke. I was thinking "Dude. I'm wearing it because I went there. Idiot".

As an aside, 2 months later Cal beat Duke in the NCAA tournament.

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

World gone wrong

Oaktown Bear going all Joe McCarthy with traitor bull****

CB93 stepping in as conciliator.

Is this really supposed to be a community of people with something in common ( our school) Because this isn't what happens or how you treat people in a community.

---

Go Bears!

---

Yes. How many schools have two words that provide instant solidarity when you see someone with a cap or a sweatshirt in near or distant places?

---

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times I've seen someone wearing a "California" or similar sweatshirt/hat/etc. and said "Go Bears!" only to get the response: "I don't really follow sports" or something like that.

Of course, there are plenty of times the response is positive, but it also seems a very Cal thing for students to not care about sports at all.

---

Maybe it's a Norcal thing but I've literally never gotten that response and I've never viewed "Go Bears" as a sports thing. It is a greeting to a fellow alum.

---

I have gotten that response all over the world when I wear a UC Berkeley or Cal sweatshirt or cap, including in Fiji. Rarely in the NorCal since it is more common to see someone wearing Cal gear, but it is a common connection in other places.

---

Or you can go to school in Chicago like I did and suddenly everyone is happy to give a "Go Bears!" back even if they didn't go to Cal.

---

That is true. Different Bears but the same term none the less.

OaktownBear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

World gone wrong

Oaktown Bear going all Joe McCarthy with traitor bull****

CB93 stepping in as conciliator.

Is this really supposed to be a community of people with something in common ( our school) Because this isn't what happens or how you treat people in a community.

---

Go Bears!

---

Yes. How many schools have two words that provide instant solidarity when you see someone with a cap or a sweatshirt in near or distant places?

---

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at the number of times I've seen someone wearing a "California" or similar sweatshirt/hat/etc. and said "Go Bears!" only to get the response: "I don't really follow sports" or something like that.

Of course, there are plenty of times the response is positive, but it also seems a very Cal thing for students to not care about sports at all.

---

Maybe it's a Norcal thing but I've literally never gotten that response and I've never viewed "Go Bears" as a sports thing. It is a greeting to a fellow alum.

---

I have gotten that response all over the world when I wear a UC Berkeley or Cal sweatshirt or cap, including in Fiji. Rarely in the NorCal since it is more common to see someone wearing Cal gear, but it is a common connection in other places.

---

To be clear, I meant I have never gotten the "I don't follow sports" response. Maybe it is because people that where Cal gear locally are more likely connected to the school.

Once I was in a store in Davis wearing a Cal shirt. A guy wearing a Duke shirt passed me and gave me a "Cal sucks" with a beavis and butthead laugh. I will also say because it is relevant that it was extremely clear this was not someone who went to Duke. I was thinking "Dude. I'm wearing it because I went there. Idiot".

As an aside, 2 months later Cal beat Duke in the NCAA tournament.

---

Got it.

And that is a great story. Kidd and Murray....hope that is not the apex of our basketball experience in my lifetime.

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

edit: Actually, in fairness to people like 93, you are probably right. Conservatives don't want things to change and they generally use democratic means to achieve their aims.

You are a reactionary. Reactionaries want things to regress and they'll achieve their aims by any means necessary.

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

---

I bet the Russians made me conservative.

fyi: that's not what a reactionary is, you should learn the meaning of things before you use them. What you're describing is an anarchist. Yeah, I'm not one of those.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

Angry, yes, but this response is a bit harsh.

---

Dude was on here on Jan 6 giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. His original post has everything to do with wanting to instigate violence against our government or at best not giving a shyte that is what he is doing.

---

This is what a brownshirt sounds like.

---

Funny how often conservatives like to invoke Godwin's law and how often they violate it themselves.

---

I'm not a conservative, so ...that makes you look pretty stupid.

---

Funny how often conservatives are ashamed to admit they are conservatives.

---

I bet the Russians made me conservative.

---

The Russians don't care if you are conservative or not. The Russians merely sow discord. Their tactics as well as those of several other countries, are clear and Americans of all political views should want to counteract the influence of foreign national entities on our social media.