Bernie Sanders calling out low paying corporations

[Ishayu]

The only way to get a 3rd party is to support 3rd party candidates. Sorry but both major parties are warmongers and I'd rather vote 3rd party than have blood on my hands.

Yeah, but you won't get it. Good luck getting more than 33% of voters to switch to a single party in one election cycle. It ain't happening unless your country is literally in ruins.

[tyrlaan]

I'm sorry...did Trump win by one vote?

Why the fuck should I vote when I don't like either of the two options?

Because when you don't vote you are allowing for minority rule. Something around 58% of voters didn't vote in 2016.

But yeah, I guess if you care about literally nothing and no one then you're good to go with not voting, because the consequences of your inaction mean nothing to you. Otherwise you might want to reconsider your stance.

Bernie is really fond of Denmark, isn't he? Here's how we do it: If you work any hours at all, you don't get benefits, and to get benefits, you most be actively seeking a job. The government physically checks up on you, and the municipality can call you into doing jobs you might not like, but you'll have to do them to continue getting benefits.

The upshot is there is literally no market for paying anyone a terrible wage except for people who are studying and the like and don't receive benefits anyway. Any attempt to employ people into a low paying job will leave the employee worse off than not working, and they won't accept that. Meanwhile, people really want jobs because they want to avoid doing the terrible jobs and having the (mostly incompetent and annoying) municipality breathing down their necks.

Result: Almost everybody wants to work, and almost nobody wants a bad wage. Companies are now forced to accept this, and they do.

PS: We have no minimum wage.

Done.

But, like, socialism is the scary monster under the bed that we must beat back with all our strength! And, like, 'Murica is the only country on the planet that does things right so we can't learn from other countries! /s

Unless it's Trump or third party. Then only vote for who you are told to.

Not sure what agenda or angle you're playing here, but you do you I guess.

This is some real tired nonsense from politicians who just want more votes so their democracy can look more legitimate.

If there literally isn't anybody to vote for that you like, let alone prefer, it's a perfectly reasonable response to leave a blank ballot, or simply not vote at all. The blank ballot is a more clear statement of discontent, but since nobody knows who you are or why you did it, it's a pretty hollow one.

<buzzer sond> Wrong.

Disenfranchising voters is an active goal of at least one of America's major political parties, so no, just taking a back seat because you don't like the choices is a dumb move and plays into their hands. Maybe some politicians want lots and lots of votes, but most want just enough to win and want to squelch the rest.

Sometimes you have to vote for the least distasteful option, but at least you're still doing something rather than just hoping things don't go totally crappy for you later. And like you said, a blank ballot is no statement. Active voting is how you make a statement.

Another solution is to start a political movement, but that's A LOT of work, and if you're unhappy with the politics but happy with the country anyway and your life, there really is no reason to bother with it.

But if you're happy with how things are, why would you be dissatisfied to the point that you feel not voting is the right move, to make a hollow statement?

I do always vote, but then again my country isn't absolutely dominated by two colossal, equally incompetent parties. It's got more than 10, and I like that.

Jealous. Our two party system is cancerous and needs to change, but people tend to only get riled up about it right after a major election, so the change never happens. The two parties have entrenched themselves in so many ways that to change it would need that massive amount of effort you referred to earlier.

In the meantime, people should exercise their right to vote, because there is ALWAYS a difference between the options available, and there is probably something you care about that should influence which one is the best choice for you.

Because if a 3rd party candidate receives a certain percentage of votes in a general election; they receive federal funding for their campaign, more exposure, more votes, higher probability of snowballing. The problem is so many people are dead on convinced that voting 3rd party is a "wasted vote". If every single voter who either didn't vote at all because of the same reason you cited, or (worse imo) voted based on "The lesser of two evils" rationalization; went and voted 3rd party instead; we might just be able to see a 3rd party challenge the broken democrat and republican parties.

Here's a decent rundown of the details: https://www.voanews.com/a/finance-de...y/3321360.html

Our two party system sucks.

[Ishayu]

Oh I never claimed our system wasn't retarded; I only elaborated on how a small piece of it works. I also was sure to include the bit about needing a large number (I actually used the word "everyone") of those types of voters to vote for that 3rd party in order for it to have any positive effect.

I left my own opinion on all of it out intentionally. Though there is also one additional fact I'll add to the bolded: The American system will not change (for the better) under current Democrat or Republican leadership.

No, it won't. You also won't get 33% of the vote on a party that wants it changed. Heck, even if you somehow do, that 3rd party will probably see why they've now got the chance to dominate and push out the party that competes with them most, and they might take it and not deliver.

There is only exactly one way this will ever change: Use your second amendment rights in massive numbers and revolt.

Have fun with that xD

[Dextroden]

Because when you don't vote you are allowing for minority rule. Something around 58% of voters didn't vote in 2016.

But yeah, I guess if you care about literally nothing and no one then you're good to go with not voting, because the consequences of your inaction mean nothing to you. Otherwise you might want to reconsider your stance.



But, like, socialism is the scary monster under the bed that we must beat back with all our strength! And, like, 'Murica is the only country on the planet that does things right so we can't learn from other countries! /s



Not sure what agenda or angle you're playing here, but you do you I guess.



<buzzer sond> Wrong.

Disenfranchising voters is an active goal of at least one of America's major political parties, so no, just taking a back seat because you don't like the choices is a dumb move and plays into their hands. Maybe some politicians want lots and lots of votes, but most want just enough to win and want to squelch the rest.

Sometimes you have to vote for the least distasteful option, but at least you're still doing something rather than just hoping things don't go totally crappy for you later. And like you said, a blank ballot is no statement. Active voting is how you make a statement.



But if you're happy with how things are, why would you be dissatisfied to the point that you feel not voting is the right move, to make a hollow statement?



Jealous. Our two party system is cancerous and needs to change, but people tend to only get riled up about it right after a major election, so the change never happens. The two parties have entrenched themselves in so many ways that to change it would need that massive amount of effort you referred to earlier.

In the meantime, people should exercise their right to vote, because there is ALWAYS a difference between the options available, and there is probably something you care about that should influence which one is the best choice for you.



Here's a decent rundown of the details: https://www.voanews.com/a/finance-de...y/3321360.html

Our two party system sucks.

Noting how the same people getting mad about people not voting would also be mad if they voted for anyone other than their approved candidate.

That's actually how democracy works. People vote how they want.

[txbone]

Yeah, but you won't get it. Good luck getting more than 33% of voters to switch to a single party in one election cycle. It ain't happening unless your country is literally in ruins.

I agree. Still, nothing changes by "voting the lesser of two evils." That's how we got into this mess in the first place. Generations being fooled into voting for one of the two parties who both work for the same corporate overlords anyway.

[tyrlaan]

Noting how the same people getting mad about people not voting would also be mad if they voted for anyone other than their approved candidate.

That's actually how democracy works. People vote how they want.

Ah. You're just bullshifting. Thanks for clarifying.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree. Still, nothing changes by "voting the lesser of two evils." That's how we got into this mess in the first place. Generations being fooled into voting for one of the two parties who both work for the same corporate overlords anyway.

Well casting your vote isn't exclusively about change, and it's not the only avenue to push for change. And it's definitely not where to push for a change to the 2-party system.

Sometimes casting a vote is about preventing change or protecting some aspect of life that you worry other candidates would attack, etc.

[Dextroden]

Ah. You're just bullshifting. Thanks for clarifying.

What's bullshit? Look how upset you got over someone defending their right to not vote.

[Ishayu]

But, like, socialism is the scary monster under the bed that we must beat back with all our strength! And, like, 'Murica is the only country on the planet that does things right so we can't learn from other countries! /s

Socialism is a scary monster under the bed and you should absolutely beat it back with all your strength.

Denmark isn't socialist, no matter how many times that idiot Bernie Sanders claims it is. He's as ignorant and stupid on the topic of Denmark as that Fox News bimbo who said we'd all opened cupcake factories after staying forever in school.

Our system works because it IS NOT socialist, and our most socialist systems are all failing horribly. We're rapidly coming to the realisation that the best way of securing equal access to something is to subsidize private companies to do it based on how many customers they have, so they're still in active competition but everyone has access - incidentally a system that Trump is pushing for Medicare and Medicaid, lol.

We're doing it with doctors, dentists, schools, daycare centers, care for the elderly, etc.

A lot of these private organisations offer or even mandate extra services on top, which you pay for, but then you also get everything you'd get as standard, but done by different people.

In Holbæk, which is my home town, the public institution doing care for the elderly has shrunk dramatically. It's almost completely gone, replaced by private companies that simply do a better job. It's going to disappear entirely soon I expect.

<buzzer sond> Wrong.

Disenfranchising voters is an active goal of at least one of America's major political parties, so no, just taking a back seat because you don't like the choices is a dumb move and plays into their hands. Maybe some politicians want lots and lots of votes, but most want just enough to win and want to squelch the rest.

Sometimes you have to vote for the least distasteful option, but at least you're still doing something rather than just hoping things don't go totally crappy for you later. And like you said, a blank ballot is no statement. Active voting is how you make a statement.

Oh, well they say it is.

A major reason to get disenfranchased in politics is a lack of trust. Sure, you might think that not everything is terrible, but some things you'd like changed - but you don't think any of them are going to deliver on that anyway.

And hey, some people even have this "crazy" idea that they just don't know how the country should be run, and everyone else is doing it just fine. They really just don't care. Why is this a problem, exactly?

But if you're happy with how things are, why would you be dissatisfied to the point that you feel not voting is the right move, to make a hollow statement?

What if you think they're both equally competent at runnign the country? Or equally competent, as the case may be, and you just can't decide? Perfectly reasonable argument provided you're not an idealogue.

Jealous. Our two party system is cancerous and needs to change, but people tend to only get riled up about it right after a major election, so the change never happens. The two parties have entrenched themselves in so many ways that to change it would need that massive amount of effort you referred to earlier.

In the meantime, people should exercise their right to vote, because there is ALWAYS a difference between the options available, and there is probably something you care about that should influence which one is the best choice for you.

Probably. There might even be multiple reasons you care, and both of the parties are promising to do exactly half of them each. What now?

[tyrlaan]

What's bullshit? Look how upset you got over someone defending their right to not vote.

Bullshift.

You're trying to make this about getting mad at people for voting for the candidate you don't like. I'm not saying anything to this effect. hence you are bullshifting.

[AcidicSyn]

No, it won't. You also won't get 33% of the vote on a party that wants it changed. Heck, even if you somehow do, that 3rd party will probably see why they've now got the chance to dominate and push out the party that competes with them most, and they might take it and not deliver.

There is only exactly one way this will ever change: Use your second amendment rights in massive numbers and revolt.

Have fun with that xD

Hehahahahahahaha! Nope! I'll just come stay with you folks over in Denmark instead!

[txbone]

Ah. You're just bullshifting. Thanks for clarifying.

- - - Updated - - -



Well casting your vote isn't exclusively about change, and it's not the only avenue to push for change. And it's definitely not where to push for a change to the 2-party system.

Sometimes casting a vote is about preventing change or protecting some aspect of life that you worry other candidates would attack, etc.

It's not the only avenue where I push for change. Also on my own principles I won't vote for someone that I know will do terrible things. Leaders bombing children around the world is not something that I'll cast a vote for and have a hand in. I don't care if Hillary would have been 8% better than trump, I just won't do it.

[Dextroden]

Bullshift.

You're trying to make this about getting mad at people for voting for the candidate you don't like. I'm not saying anything to this effect. hence you are bullshifting.

Except how mad you got over someone not voting and something something minority rule. So, hard to pretend this anger would'nt exist if that person voted third party.

[tyrlaan]

Our system works because it IS NOT socialist, and our most socialist systems are all failing horribly. We're rapidly coming to the realisation that the best way of securing equal access to something is to subsidize private companies to do it based on how many customers they have, so they're still in active competition but everyone has access - incidentally a system that Trump is pushing for Medicare and Medicaid, lol.

You think Trump is pushing a Medicare for all agenda...?

A major reason to get disenfranchased in politics is a lack of trust. Sure, you might think that not everything is terrible, but some things you'd like changed - but you don't think any of them are going to deliver on that anyway.

And hey, some people even have this "crazy" idea that they just don't know how the country should be run, and everyone else is doing it just fine. They really just don't care. Why is this a problem, exactly?

What if you think they're both equally competent at runnign the country? Or equally competent, as the case may be, and you just can't decide? Perfectly reasonable argument provided you're not an idealogue.

Probably. There might even be multiple reasons you care, and both of the parties are promising to do exactly half of them each. What now?

This feels like a strawman to me. I think it's pretty unlikely that everything will just balance out between the available candidates and you could honestly say "they're all the same". Speaking within the context of America since that's my experience, of course. But to me, every time I've heard a "both sides" argument or something similar, it's really just someone trying to justify some sort of bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Except how mad you got over someone not voting and something something minority rule. So, hard to pretend this anger would'nt exist if that person voted third party.

You are trying to call me out based on what you might think I might say if someone might have said something.

So yes, you are bullshifting. Get back on topic.

[Ishayu]

You think Trump is pushing a Medicare for all agenda...?

No, I didn't intend to say that. I don't think I did? He's quite actively against it, it seems to me.

What I meant is that he's pushing a system where people on medicare and medicaid can choose any doctor they want, and that doctor gets subsidized to pay for this care, instead of there being dedicated medicare and medicaid centers that you must go to. He claims they are poorly run; expensive and really bad at their jobs.

I wouldn't know, but his argument makes sense to me.

This feels like a strawman to me. I think it's pretty unlikely that everything will just balance out between the available candidates and you could honestly say "they're all the same". Speaking within the context of America since that's my experience, of course. But to me, every time I've heard a "both sides" argument or something similar, it's really just someone trying to justify some sort of bullshit.

I don't know, really. If I sat here in Denmark being forced to choose between Socialdemokratiet and Venstre, which are definitely our two biggest parties and would dominate under a FPTP system, I honestly wouldn't know which one to choose. Honestly, they appear literally identical to me.

[helebelemon]

To be fair, Amazon isn't exactly low paying. They pay around 25%-50% higher than Walmart depending on their state with factory workers in the greater Seattle area getting $15/hr and drivers getting $18+/hr. And that ignores tech, which is commonly misconstrued as low-paying visa exploitative.

[tyrlaan]

No, I didn't intend to say that. I don't think I did? He's quite actively against it, it seems to me.

What I meant is that he's pushing a system where people on medicare and medicaid can choose any doctor they want, and that doctor gets subsidized to pay for this care, instead of there being dedicated medicare and medicaid centers that you must go to. He claims they are poorly run; expensive and really bad at their jobs.

I wouldn't know, but his argument makes sense to me.

Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.

But yeah, he tends to say one thing to get his base all excited and then just to whatever keeps the rich happy or gives them more money. I don't believe Trump has any plan for addressing the medical industry and all its myriad problems here in the US. I've heard him complain about drug prices a few times, and attack Affordable Care Act because the law has too many pages...

But that's probably a massive off topic discussion if we were to go on about this

[Dextroden]

You think Trump is pushing a Medicare for all agenda...?



This feels like a strawman to me. I think it's pretty unlikely that everything will just balance out between the available candidates and you could honestly say "they're all the same". Speaking within the context of America since that's my experience, of course. But to me, every time I've heard a "both sides" argument or something similar, it's really just someone trying to justify some sort of bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -



You are trying to call me out based on what you might think I might say if someone might have said something.

So yes, you are bullshifting. Get back on topic.

Not really might when you got upset over how they voted. Toss on a complaint about the lesser of two evils and it's easy to tell you're full of shit about people voting.

And you made it the topic.

[Kithelle]

snip

I'll tell you what pal, if you can prove Trump won by one vote...feel free to blame me...until then you have no real room to talk.

I'm sure as fucking hell not going to vote for someone I don't want.

[araine]

Yes, that can happen as well, meaning the newly unemployed that were working for the corps because they didn't have the skill/money to do otherwise, will now be fully paid by the gov. support of taxpayers.

So be it, as long as we dont give welfare checks to billionaires , no reason they should get them period and if your business model cant handle folks having a living wage working for you guess what i hope you go out of business since slavery is so 1830s business model

[Ishayu]

Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote.

But yeah, he tends to say one thing to get his base all excited and then just to whatever keeps the rich happy or gives them more money. I don't believe Trump has any plan for addressing the medical industry and all its myriad problems here in the US. I've heard him complain about drug prices a few times, and attack Affordable Care Act because the law has too many pages...

But that's probably a massive off topic discussion if we were to go on about this

That's certainly not my impression. In fact he appears to do what he says he will do almost to a fault - because a lot of things he says he will do are mediocre or even bad ideas. For example, he promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. A campaign promise, but... yeech, there's a reason he was the first one to actually do it. What a meltdown that caused.