Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
In the U.S, I was also incredibly dissapointed to not find any fundies raging mad about stuff. Also, fourth of july? You call THOSE fireworks? HAH. Also, from random conversations that I very awkwardly was thrust upon in lines for books (Calvin & Hobbes comics as well as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Graphic Novel, Omnibus edition), the interest in politics seems either scarce, or tense.
but that was just one case, so.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesMany Americans are tense about politics for two main reasons. First, there is a lot of disinformation — so much that it's very difficult to have a conversation with someone who doesn't disagree with you in some points, and finding accurate evidence to support one's views is extremely challenging for the layman. Second, the conservative wing is so strident, so adamant, that inadvertently triggering one can lead to verbal violence at the very least, if not physical violence. In a mud-slinging match, if you don't want to get dirty, you learn to keep your head down.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Just in Time scheduling feels like one of those things where every firm does it because if it doesn't, they're at a disadvantage, but EVERYONE would be better off if NO ONE did it.
Prisoner's Dilemma type stuff. That's the kind of thing where regulation is sorely needed.
Also applies to campaign finance.
I think it's just part of the ever-present need to deliver higher profits to investors, which force companies off into weird and potentially counterproductive territory because they have to squeeze costs wherever they can, and labor's a huge drag on thin-margin businesses like retail. Combine that with increasing analytics powers and you get a nasty recipe for workers and low-level management alike.
I was thinking of putting just that in my last post, yeah. Word of advice: never take an "Assistant Manager" or "Shift Manager" position unless you are explicitly aiming to become a store manager. Store manager is a real job, with good-ish pay and a stable schedule, if you have the right degree could even be a path to sub-executive track if you're at a nice company that tries to hire within. "Shift Manager" is where responsibility gets dumped on you from above and below and the pay bump is not worth the increased aggravation.
Former president HW Bush is in hosptial after breaking a bone in his neck in a fall.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33546454
Regarding Trump's wealth, I'm not too shocked. The guy can be a piss-poor businessman, but he also has a history of being smart enough to put someone else's money on the line rather than his own.
But holy fuck does the guy just ooze arrogance.
This report was not designed for a man of Mr. Trump's massive wealth," the press release said. "As an example, if a building owned by Mr. Trump is worth $1.5 billion, the box checked is "$50,000,000 or more."
edited 16th Jul '15 11:25:23 AM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"He's not even necessarily a bad businessman. Being an asshole and being good at making money are not in any way opposing traits; quite the converse: most successful executives show some degree of sociopathic affectation. Moreover, Trump is the sort of guy who seems to take a lot of risks, which makes his successes all the bigger. Certainly, a degree of luck is involved, and while we can assume a degree of unscrupulousness, none has been proven that I know of.
This still doesn't mean he's worth squat as a politician, only that he may indeed be as awesome at making money as he claims.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well, it's pretty simple actually.
In a financial market, you're generally not able to "beat" the market. But beating the market is in regards to a certain risk premium. If you're willing to accept more risk, you're generally able to get more returns. What this means as a practical matter, though, is that if you are able to accept large amounts of risk because for you a loss in that sense is not material you can effectively receive higher rates of return than the rest of the market, since you're operating under a different beta.
In short, it takes shit tons of money to make shit tons of money.
The important point is he's in this for realsies, which means he's going to be dragging the argument in the crazy direction at least until January and possibly as far as March and Super Tuesday (or longer, but i still don't see him as a serious contender, it would buck all U.S. political trends, since we haven't had a non-politician as a major party presidential candidate since Wendell Willkie got the nom from Republicans in 1940, and that was as a dark horse in a brokered convention, he was the only one before or since.)
![]()
Exactly. I cannot afford an investment with, say, a 10% risk of default, because if that die rolls poorly, I've just pissed away my life's savings. Trump does not operate with that constraint.
Ahem. Ross Perot.
edited 16th Jul '15 11:34:17 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Come on. Dragging the argument? That would imply he is a serious contender for President at all! The guy is as likely to win as I am! Just because he says he is it does not actually mean he will.
Best you can get out of him, really, is the free entertainment value of all the stupid crap he says.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesThe thing is that Trump has no incentive to drop out of the race given that he is not dependent on external financing. He can spend as much as he pleases no matter how many potential donors he pisses off. That plus the fact that a sizable portion of Republicans desperately want him to win could be significant.
I don't think he'll win the nomination, either; that will probably be Jeb Bush. But he's going to be in it until the end, or until his ego is sufficiently satiated.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That only holds as long as GOP efforts to disenfranchise Hispanics don't bear sufficient fruit, and if 2016 is like 2012 and 2014, they'll be pulling out the stops.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hmm. I dunno, I almost think he'd do more damage as a the Republican nominee than by splitting the vote.
SCENARIO 1: TRUMP THE NOMINEE
Moderate republicans (who don't realize that there's not a place for them in the party anymore, until just now) don't show up to vote. They don't vote in congressional elections either.
Crazy republicans vote straight party ticket.
SCENARIO 2: TRUMP THE THIRD PARTY
Moderate Republicans show up to vote, they vote for Jeb, they vote in congressional elections.
Crazy Republicans vote for Trump, but vote for republicans in congressional elections.
edited 16th Jul '15 11:47:53 AM by TheyCallMeTomu
I don't think Trump has a serious chance at the presidency. Remember, Mitt Romney managed to turn off voters with his 47% commentary. People don't eat that shit up. The crazies are gonna turn out anyway. Trump doesn't cause the crazies to turn out anymore than they're already going to.
About the only chance I could see of Trump winning would be if Grexit causes a global financial meltdown and this leads to a year of high unemployment stateside.

There is intense pressure in service industries to cut unit labor costs by any means necessary, but those cuts don't really translate into the bottom line.
edited 16th Jul '15 8:47:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"