A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 5 of 725
If Hillary was popular (she's not), that'd be one thing.
She hoped to become the first woman president of the USA.
The USA may not be ready for that, despite all our talk of equality.
On a ticket with a popular male candidate for pres, had she run for
vice-president, easier for voters to accept that role.
Evenso, I think there are many women politicians in the USA who are
more respected than Hillary.
... oooOO}{OOooo ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hillary would never have run as VP. Way too big of an ego.
She technically did win the popular vote. I think a lot of people who voted for Trump were simply voting against the Clinton family and the status quo.
I think say, a female version of Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide against Trump.
I don't think it had much to do with a fact she was a woman in the end. Sure, there are some people who were voting against that, but they generally speaking would have been voting against any democrat these days for a lot of other reasons anyhow.
You guys (and gals) just put the wrong woman up. She's just a shitty person all around. If you put another woman up next time, I suggest that it be somebody people actually like. Don't want to make a streak of females losing in that race and set a precedent of it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Good article.
Wen skamz and mistakes are too big, peepl cant see them.
The article is trying to make the point that it isn't a question of "skamz" ... not even BIG skamz ... but a SYSTEMS problem. That's why they keep using the word "algorithm".
That's the point that I've been trying to make: It doesn't matter how honest, or greedy, any particular business people are. Once you set up a system of rewards (a system or algorithm) it tends to impose its logic on the people who are in it.
For example, let's assume that you have a very generous business person who pays workers, salespeople, and suppliers fairly. Mr/Ms Generous doesn't make as large of a profit as Mr/Ms Chiseler, who pays poorly. Mr/Ms Chiseler can use that profit to expand. Eventually, Mr/Ms Chiseler can even buy up Mr/Ms Generous.
Play that out over multiple iterations of multiple businesses, and eventually you'll see that the businesses which make the largest profit are the ones who "win" the business space, because those are the rules of the game. Because there are very few ethical requirements on businesses ... and there are reasons why that's so, but I don't want to get into that now ... the least ethical will always overtake the most ethical, given time.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree.
Wun Goverment's main jobz iz to keep companyz from running amok.
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.7532020.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is because one particular party (I can't say which because saying always causes 6stringJoker to stop thinking since the conversation is now "partisan" ) despises the idea of government enforcing ethics. With that unnamed political party, it's always the "Market" that will enforce better behavior.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Play that out over multiple iterations of multiple businesses, and eventually you'll see that the businesses which make the largest profit are the ones who "win" the business space, because those are the rules of the game. Because there are very few ethical requirements on businesses ... and there are reasons why that's so, but I don't want to get into that now ... the least ethical will always overtake the most ethical, given time.
I'll give you an example of the difference between the two parties from yesterday's Houston Chronicle:
www.pressreader.com/usa/houston-chronicle-sunday/20171008/284064846941
489
CEO Smith told Congress that Equifax’s failure was caused by one person failing to make sure a manual patch was applied to vulnerable software. He chalked it up to one human’s error.
A closer examination, though, shows a pattern of his executive team taking shortcuts on cybersecurity. For example, personally identifying information was not encrypted, and executives scheduled security reviews only once a quarter.
The data breach may ultimately generate higher profits for Equifax and its competitors.
Smith need not fear any criminal consequences, though.
The Federal Trade Commission may sue Atlanta-based Equifax for the leak under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, but the settlements rarely amount to more than a slap on the wrist. Consumers can bring a class action lawsuit, but odds of a significant settlement are slim. And under current U.S. law, consumers can’t stop Equifax from stockpiling our personal information.
“I never said it was OK to have all my information, and now I want out. I want to lock out Equifax. Can I do that?” Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., asked Smith on Tuesday. [Did you notice it was a Democrat saying this?]
“That requires a much broader discussion around the role of the credit reporting agencies,” Smith said, dodging the question.
The data breach may ultimately generate higher profits for Equifax and its competitors because more consumers will need to pay for credit monitoring and freezes.
Democrats have proposed legislation that would force credit agencies to offer free credit freezes, but no Republicans have signed on. Democrats have also proposed giving more power to federal regulators to protect consumer data, but again, there is no Republican support. [Did you notice it was Republicans not supporting change?]
At a time when President Donald Trump is promising fewer regulations, Republicans don’t want to give more authority to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Obama-era agency that the president has promised to eliminate.
That leaves consumers paying credit agencies not to share our information.
A credit freeze, though, only prevents a criminal from obtaining a new credit card or loan using your information. A freeze does nothing to stop thieves from accessing your existing credit cards or bank accounts, which constitutes 86 percent of identity fraud cases, according to Bureau of Justice statistics.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
The European Union has much stricter rules protecting a person’s right to privacy and sets very high cybersecurity standards on companies and government agencies that possess sensitive personal information. . . .
More at www.pressreader.com/usa/houston-chronicle-sunday/20171008/284064846941
489
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That is because one particular party (I can't say which because saying always causes 6stringJoker to stop thinking since the conversation is now "partisan" ) despises the idea of government enforcing ethics. With that unnamed political party, it's always the "Market" that will enforce better behavior.
Oh, you mean like how Bill Clinton set in motion the 2008 financial mayhem by repealing Glass-Steagall and signing the Commodities Futures Trading Act, promoting runaway corporations with various "free trade" agreements, and rewarding a "rentier" economy of ideas by promoting the DMCA?
[snark] You mean like how Obama sent those writers of fraudulent mortgages and fraudulent investment products to jail; sternly allowing "market forces" to crush those "too big to fail" banks by allowing them to fail instead of bailing them out; re-instituting Glass Steagall; refusing to sign the extortionate "bail in" procedures which allow banks to dip into their depositors' accounts to make themselves whole; re-industrializing the USA and restoring our sovereignty by repudiating the various "free trade" agreements and their extra-judicial secret trade tribunals; and disallowing nearly all of the M&A's which came before the SEC for approval? [/snark]
You mean like THAT Democratic enforcement of honest business practices and promotion of competition?
SECOND, I'd be the last person to say that Republicans enforce better business practices, but then - neither do Dems. All you have to do is look at the results: That xfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, which began under Reagan? It continued unabated whether the President had a "D" or an "R" after his name; and Bush's business policies continued without a hiccup under Obama. And like I said, if you don't believe me, just look at the results.
There is SO MUCH systemically wrong with our entire business system, starting with fractional reserve banking, any President who attempted to reverse course on anything fundamental would be assassinated in short order. Again, not dependent on whether there was a "D" or an "R" after their name.
But if you want some ideas on how to REALLY reform the system:
Get rid of fractional reserve lending. Lending money that an institution doesn't have is really money-creation; which means that SOME institutions get to "print money" for profit, while most of the rest of us have to WORK for a living.
Revise incorporation laws to require ethical standards in their business practices; right now, corps only have to mind their "fiduciary duty" to their shareholders. Create a "death penalty" - i.e. forced disbandment - for corporations which fail to meet their ethical standards, in addition to punishing individual decision-makers.
Another possibility is to simply require that all businesses be owned by their employees.
Either do away with the stock market entirely, or ban stock trades that take place in less than six months after purchase. The stock market used to be a reasonable way for a company to raise cash for investment; now it's just a gambling casino of microsecond speculation: a travesty of what it was supposed to be.
I don't even know WHAT to do with hedge funds and derivatives! The only thing I can hope for is that if their source of cheap funding (money conjured out of thin air by investment banks) is shut off, the speculation will be shut off too.
Reverse Citizen's United. Remove "personhood" from corporate status by Congressional law. Define "free speech" as speech that one does not have to pay to have distributed; any bought-and-paid-for speech is automatically considered "advertising", even if it's news.
Redefine anti-trust action as not just applying to "monopolistic practices" but also to corporations over a certain size.
Revise corporate tax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My proposal for "free speech" just met with some resistance. Long story but there are unintended consequences with my proposal. So maybe simply have a democratically-elected commission run the internet instead, just like the government maintains the interstates.
This thing with Equifax ... it's just nibbling around the edges of "what is wrong with our system" by attacking a momentarily unpopular business, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem of a system based entirely on profit (to the exclusion of everything else).
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I'm going to start with a mention of Trump. Whether by accident or design, in international terms, he's doing exactly what the Deep State wants him to do*.
Even better, the Deep State gets to coast. Consider the alternative, under Hillary. Can you imagine how much fluffing of the American public it would take to get this all done with Hillary instead? Yeah, she's on-board and all that, but, wow. They'd have to make all this look statesman-like. Done with regrets and after deep and serious consideration of the potential consequences. With nothing but freedom, justice, and the American way in mind. We'd be treated to a full-on propaganda campaign, the likes of which we haven't yet seen, not even for Hussein's purported WMDs. Because, without all the kabuki, it would look like the foregone result of an uncaring party being crammed down the throats of a powerless populace.
And that in fact is the function of the 'democratic party'. To bring us on-board with things that hurt us but benefit business and internationalists - people like the Podestas, for example. People with agendas who view us as less than pawns.
*After they stopped Trump from normalizing relations with Russia (through an unrelenting and Deep State/ media coordinated campaign that included daily anonymous leaks and unevidenced claims) everything else was a bonus. And if Trump was doing something significantly challenging to the Deep State at the moment, he'd either not be alive, or not in power.
Trump is not the problem. He set himself against the Deep State's agenda. And the Deep State's been heading for WWIII for years.
As for you, you're just a Deep State useful idiot, furthering its agenda. So I hope you enjoy cesium in your coffee. You've earned it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, you started with the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. I don't believe that is true. Politics is entertainment for the masses and Democrats are the equivalent of documentary makers, while Republicans make the equivalent of Hollywood's summer movies. Note that even the very best documentary Oscar-winners get far less attention than the crappiest comic book movie.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I'd be the last person to say that Republicans enforce better business practices, but then - neither do Dems. All you have to do is look at the results: That xfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, which began under Reagan? It continued unabated whether the President had a "D" or an "R" after his name; and Bush's business policies continued without a hiccup under Obama. And like I said, if you don't believe me, just look at the results.
There is SO MUCH systemically wrong with our entire business system, starting with fractional reserve banking, any President who attempted to reverse course on anything fundamental would be assassinated in short order. Again, not dependent on whether there was a "D" or an "R" after their name.
But if you want some ideas on how to REALLY reform the system:
Get rid of fractional reserve lending.
Revise incorporation laws to require ethical standards in their business practices; Create a "death penalty" - i.e. forced disbandment - for corporations which fail to meet their ethical standards, in addition to punishing individual decision-makers.
Either do away with the stock market entirely, or ban stock trades that take place in less than six months after purchase.
I don't even know WHAT to do with hedge funds and derivatives!
Reverse Citizen's United.
Redefine anti-trust action as not just applying to "monopolistic practices" but also to corporations over a certain size.
Revise corporate tax law to make it similar to individual income tax law; institute a Value Added Tax to be applied at the point of manufacture or assembly; eliminate most of the specialized deductions, exemptions, depreciations, and expenses which benefit mostly large corporations.
Re-institute a "border tax" to promote domestic manufacturing.
Nationalize certain important and infrastructural businesses, like health care insurance, electrical distribution, and energy extraction. Create a REAL national bank, not just a private bank which lends to the US government. Foster the creation of state and local banks.
That's just for starters.
www.imdb.com/list/ls000528998/
Signym's reforms all revolve around money. The cheaters can make money very fast, sometimes within seconds, but when they are caught cheating, their money can't be taken away quickly. It's months, years, but most of the time, never does the money get returned that the cheater stole. You need to devise a system with less friction when returning stolen wealth. Since Firefly is science fiction, can America do away with money completely to make that happen? I think it could be done, but the cheaters would fight that change even harder than they fight to hold on to money they steal under the present system, the one they have been building all their lives.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, then you're religious about your politics because (for you) it's a matter of belief and not fact.
Signym, you started with the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans. I don't believe that is true.
Quote:Wrong. BOTH Dems and Repubs engage together in creating a Punch-and-Judy show for the masses. But while they're performing .... whatever it is that they're performing ... the oligarchs (the REAL persons in power) get to decide where manufacturing goes, what our tax rates will be, what monetary policy the central banks will follow and whether "austerity" will be visited on the populace, how much our pockets will be picked by TPTB, and where we will go to war. The Dems have not slowed down this process one jot.
Politics is entertainment for the masses and Democrats are the equivalent of documentary makers, while Republicans make the equivalent of Hollywood's summer movies.
Quote:Because the original article was about PROFIT. You want ideas on reforming our political process? I've got ideas for that, too.
Signym's reforms all revolve around money.
Quote:There are already agreements between various nations that do away with money. But, in answer: No, you CAN'T just do away with money. The only way to "do away" with money is to create a totally electronic ledger, but that is subject to natural disaster- just look at Puerto Rico. Cryptocurrency, if that's what you're aiming at, suffers from all of the same deficiencies as fiat currency, including the problem of being hoarded.
You need to devise a system with less friction when returning stolen wealth. Since Firefly is science fiction, can America do away with money completely to make that happen? I think it could be done, but the cheaters would fight that change even harder than they fight to hold on to money they steal under the present system, the one they have been building all their lives.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME