Random Political comments...

As to the Oprah discussion, I don't think she's a very good candidate, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is her complete and utter inexperience in government service, which remains a big deal to me even if Republicans have decided it's great.

*However,* she is charismatic, likeable, caring and popular, and I think that's why people are excited. Liberals need someone to be excited about, because as great at policy as Elizabeth Warren may be (I love her to death), she clearly does not energize and excite people, and often comes across as a bit of a nag. Not saying that's fair *at all,* just saying it's the truth.
 
bodhesatva said:
As to the Oprah discussion, I don't think she's a very good candidate, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is her complete and utter inexperience in government service, which remains a big deal to me even if Republicans have decided it's great.

*However,* she is charismatic, likeable, caring and popular, and I think that's why people are excited. Liberals need someone to be excited about, because as great at policy as Elizabeth Warren may be (I love her to death), she clearly does not energize and excite people, and often comes across as a bit of a nag. Not saying that's fair *at all,* just saying it's the truth.
Click to expand...
LOL. Women IMO are so much harder on other female political candidates.

HRC was called 'shrill' and a 'nag' too.
However Obama was called professorial.

Go figure.

I do believe it's dangerous when populism frowns on electing professional politicians and instead seeks the demagague who stirs their emotions and reflects their own anger and frustrations back at them.
The problem now is usually this happens during periods of economic upheaval.
Most Americans today are working, even if they aren't all great jobs with a good salary.

The populist frustration on the Right seems more driven by a sense of misguided nationalism and a shift in the nation's demographics.
 
Andreboba said:
LOL. Women IMO are so much harder on other female political candidates.

HRC was called 'shrill' and a 'nag' too.
However Obama was called professorial.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I don't think HRC was a nag, I don't think she was shrill, and I don't think Elizabeth Warren is either. Elizabeth Warren is my favorite politician right now, personally. I think she's wonderful, smart, and caring. I voted for Hillary enthusiastically and I would do so for Warren too if she became a major presidential candidate.

I'm talking about public perception, not what I personally believe/feel. It's completely unfair, but the reality is that aggressive, confident women are viewed negatively by our society in general. Oprah manages to avoid seeming aggressive, and that disarms a lot of sexist attitudes people have.

If you hear a lot of women talking about this, know that some of us (like me) aren't being hard on Hillary, or Warren, or any other strong women. We're just speaking from experience here -- being a confident, loud woman is still a challenge in modern society, and I think any woman who fits that description will face an uphill battle in the political realm.
 
I have mixed emotions about Oprah running. I like the idea of a progressive who has their own money so they don't have to suck corporate tit before considering policy. Let's also remember Obama didn't come to the table with a ton of political experience which is why I think he was optimistic enough to go hard for things like the ACA. None of the incremental crap when he first started it was lets get some shit done mode. Oprah has a long history of winning financially so it will appeal to all those dummies who think America should be ran like a business. I just worry about entering into a political sphere where the people no longer take the time to hear what issues a candidate is about, what their track record is in reflection to those issues. I don't want lip service we need action and integrity. Unfortunately we need a win far more than ideals right now maybe that's something to aspire for in 2028 but right now we need a political party that can actually lead when things get tough in the future. We can only afford a Trump in good and easy economic times, it would be absolutely and irrevocably bad if times were less than favorable.
 
The Dark King said:
I have mixed emotions about Oprah running. I like the idea of a progressive who has their own money so they don't have to suck corporate tit before considering policy. Let's also remember Obama didn't come to the table with a ton of political experience which is why I think he was optimistic enough to go hard for things like the ACA. None of the incremental crap when he first started it was lets get some shit done mode. Oprah has a long history of winning financially so it will appeal to all those dummies who think America should be ran like a business. I just worry about entering into a political sphere where the people no longer take the time to hear what issues a candidate is about, what their track record is in reflection to those issues. I don't want lip service we need action and integrity. Unfortunately we need a win far more than ideals right now maybe that's something to aspire for in 2028 but right now we need a political party that can actually lead when things get tough in the future. We can only afford a Trump in good and easy economic times, it would be absolutely and irrevocably bad if times were less than favorable.
Click to expand...
A vote for Oprah would be a vote for Black Matriarchal Tyranny. Oprah led the charge slandering black men in the 90s, there's a "shortage," we're all on the downlow, etc. School for black girls in South Africa, okay it's her money. But who will those girls marry? Oops no school for black boys, sorry. Now she'd possibly want my vote? Nope nope and nope. And of course its the factor of the black man is the first African-American POTUS so here come sistas not to be outdone instead of staying in their lane.

Hillary waited 8 years after her husband to run the first time, 16 years the second. But here come black chicks Obama not even cold

No thanks
 
RicardoCooper said:
A vote for Oprah would be a vote for Black Matriarchal Tyranny. Oprah led the charge slandering black men in the 90s, there's a "shortage," we're all on the downlow, etc. School for black girls in South Africa, okay it's her money. But who will those girls marry? Oops no school for black boys, sorry. Now she'd possibly want my vote? Nope nope and nope. And of course its the factor of the black man is the first African-American POTUS so here come sistas not to be outdone instead of staying in their lane.

Hillary waited 8 years after her husband to run the first time, 16 years the second. But here come black chicks Obama not even cold

No thanks
Click to expand...
If its her or Trump shit any Republican its no contest fam
 
Walmart, the Largest private employer in the U.S just made a huge announcement ....

They're raising their starting hourly wage to $11.

"Tax reform gives us the opportunity to be more competitive globally and to accelerate plans for the U.S," CEO Doug McMillon said Thursday.

President Donald Trump cheered the announcement with a tweet, saying, "Great news, as a result of our TAX CUTS & JOBS ACT!".

Dozens of other companies have announced worker bonuses following the passage of the Republican tax plan. Large employers also have been under pressure to boost benefits for workers because unemployment rates are at historic lows, allowing job seekers to be pickier.

The nation's unemployment rate has sat at 4.1 percent for three months now, the lowest level since 2000.

The average for hourly earnings rose 2.5 percent in December from a year earlier. Still, that's about a full percentage point lower than is typical in a healthy economy. And wages for hourly retail workers have risen less than 9 percent since 1990, compared with 18 percent for overall workers in the private sector.

Walmart says the wage increase benefits all hourly U.S. workers within its stores, including Sam's Club, its website and logistics.

Rival Target Corp. had raised its minimum hourly wage to $11 in October, and said it would raise wages to $15 by the end of 2020.
 
Bliss said:
Walmart, the Largest private employer in the U.S just made a huge announcement ....

They're raising their starting hourly wage to $11.

"Tax reform gives us the opportunity to be more competitive globally and to accelerate plans for the U.S," CEO Doug McMillon said Thursday.

President Donald Trump cheered the announcement with a tweet, saying, "Great news, as a result of our TAX CUTS & JOBS ACT!".

Dozens of other companies have announced worker bonuses following the passage of the Republican tax plan. Large employers also have been under pressure to boost benefits for workers because unemployment rates are at historic lows, allowing job seekers to be pickier.

The nation's unemployment rate has sat at 4.1 percent for three months now, the lowest level since 2000.

The average for hourly earnings rose 2.5 percent in December from a year earlier. Still, that's about a full percentage point lower than is typical in a healthy economy. And wages for hourly retail workers have risen less than 9 percent since 1990, compared with 18 percent for overall workers in the private sector.

Walmart says the wage increase benefits all hourly U.S. workers within its stores, including Sam's Club, its website and logistics.

Rival Target Corp. had raised its minimum hourly wage to $11 in October, and said it would raise wages to $15 by the end of 2020.
Click to expand...

Great, so know full-time employees are slightly less poor. Also Wal-Mart closed 63 Sam's clubs without warning, costing thousands of people their jobs. So I hope the remaining employees think of the men and women who lost their jobs when they are making it rain with the extra $1.25 an hour they are now getting.
 
Last edited:
Thump said:
Great, so know full-time employees are slightly less poor. Also Wal-Mart closed 63 Sam's clubs without warning, costing thousands of people their jobs. So I hope the remaining employees think of the men and women who lost their jobs when they are making it rain with the extra $1.25 an hour they are now getting.
Click to expand...
When a Business closes, it means it's no longer profitable where it performs, yeah?Walmart still operate 600 Sams Clubs.
Look to find out why, before begrudging the closures.

....Thump, l'm going to offer you $2600 more to do the exact same job you're doing now. Do you want it?
Because you can complain and decline it, or accept it and figure out which bills you want to put it towards.
Those extra $'s difference alone can mean the world to some people.
 
Bliss said:
When a Business closes, it means it's no longer profitable where it performs, yeah?Walmart still operate 600 Sams Clubs.
Look to find out why, before begrudging the closures.

....Thump, l'm going to offer you $2600 more to do the exact same job you're doing now. Do you want it?
Because you can complain and decline it, or accept it and figure out which bills you want to put it towards.
Those extra $'s difference alone can mean the world to some people.
Click to expand...

I've had 16 jobs in my life, of all the jobs I've had I've never seen a job make as much money and have as many poor employees as Walmart. Walmart is one of the most profitable businesses in the history of the world, so excuse me if I don't roll out the cake and balloons because they raise their base pay from far below a living wage to slightly higher, (but still far below) a living wage.
 
Thump said:
I've had 16 jobs in my life, of all the jobs I've had I've never seen a job make as much money and have as many poor employees as Walmart. Walmart is one of the most profitable businesses in the history of the world, so excuse me if I don't roll out the cake and balloons because they raise their base pay from far below a living wage to slightly higher, (but still far below) a living wage.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I hear Amazon has as many poor employees and work their employees like dogs.

16 jobs? You must be an old head
(...cause if you aren't..lol :p )
 
I'm so sick of people trying to pretend as if when a company creates jobs its a charity. IT'S CALLED CAPITAL INVESTMENT. You aren't people you are capital to be exploited for the purpose of getting more capital. There are no favors being done here.
 
The Dark King said:
I'm so sick of people trying to pretend as if when a company creates jobs its a charity. IT'S CALLED CAPITAL INVESTMENT. You aren't people you are capital to be exploited for the purpose of getting more capital. There are no favors being done here.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and of course when that bottom line (and dividend payments) isn't looking rosy enough... That capital will be shown the door with the quickness.
 
The Dark King said:
I'm so sick of people trying to pretend as if when a company creates jobs its a charity. IT'S CALLED CAPITAL INVESTMENT. You aren't people you are capital to be exploited for the purpose of getting more capital. There are no favors being done here.
Click to expand...
So do you work for a company, or nah?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom