i used them to make an earl bingo card

10/22/2019 3:14:50 PM

horosho's post was good and everyone should listen to Richard Wolff

Quote :

"They are paid for their time and skills to deliver a directive. This varies in degrees of tactical and strategic, based on level within the company. As ^ points out, in some ways their directive is to engage in the day to day operations but this is in no way the same as carrying out the strategic directives of a company, such as which plants to close, what lines of business they will invest in, the extent to which they'll hire or acquire, etc. Salary in exchange for labor is the agreement between company and employee, not percentage in influence of strategic direction. Traditionally, this is reserved for investors, who instead of receiving direct funds from the company contribute their own funds, and as a return on their investment get a say in the direction. Simply put company pays employee as their return and shareholders get ownership rights (return on the equity, say in operations) as a return for paying the company."

Why can't a worker co-op (or democratically elected council) manage strategic direction?

10/22/2019 3:55:56 PM

I have no problem if a company builds itself and elects to operate that way. I disagree government regulating existing companies to function that way, which is the concern I noted with the candidates earlier. Although, I'd still vote for them because I view Trump as an increasingly dangerous (to our actual existence) force to have with that much power.

10/22/2019 4:28:31 PM

Quote :

"I disagree government regulating existing companies to function that way, which is the concern I noted with the candidates earlier."

If democracy is important for governing fairly, why shouldn't we require it in our workplaces?

10/22/2019 4:43:29 PM

I honestly believe I have covered that clearly earlier. If you really, earnestly don’t see the answer to it, then please let me know.

10/22/2019 7:48:29 PM

The corporate structure we have now was created by and is regulated by the government.

10/22/2019 9:23:57 PM

I missed one of your posts, sorry. So basically you see corporations as existing purely to earn a profit for shareholders and government existing to provide a public good. And so you don't see any reason for corporations to be democratic like the government.

Why shouldn't corporations also exist to provide a public good and as good a life as possible for its workers? Why are shareholders and owners more important?

[Edited on October 22, 2019 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/22/2019 9:42:32 PM

^^regulated, yes, but created no. I'd also suggest that there is a big difference between setting limits on pollution, discrimination, noncompetitive practices, and even work weeks and fundamentally changing how organizations are structure and the risk/reward mechanism for starting or investing in a company.

^ Shareholders and owners are more important because the company belongs to them, while it does not belong to the employee. It is the same reason that for the home I own (ownership) I would not expect a cleaning lady or a nanny (I have neither of these but they are examples of people employed at a place that you own) to be able to have input on my household budget, or whether or not I could move from my house, which may result in their unemployment, etc.

Owners have put money into the company and having a direct say is their form of compensation for that investment. Employees do invest their time, but direct wages (often times regardless of company performance, which isn't a luxury owners have) is their compensation for that investment.

If someone here wants to say they believe instead of wages that all employees should be granted shares of a company and thus this justifies their place on a board, or as owners, then I would say okay. I'm not sure most employees would take that exchange however, which would lead me to believe they are more comfortable with their current model than ownership, whether they realize it or not.

10/23/2019 8:25:39 AM

For you

Quote :

"How much do you want to bet your friends also thought impeachment would be a disaster, Donald Trump could never win, and so forth Your friends, and everyone's friends, are bad pundits and we shouldn't listen to them https://t.co/0Z9P6kQPP7"

https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1186849228108132352?s=19

10/23/2019 10:05:45 AM

Quote :

"Shareholders and owners are more important because the company belongs to them, while it does not belong to the employee. It is the same reason that for the home I own (ownership) I would not expect a cleaning lady or a nanny (I have neither of these but they are examples of people employed at a place that you own) to be able to have input on my household budget, or whether or not I could move from my house, which may result in their unemployment, etc. Owners have put money into the company and having a direct say is their form of compensation for that investment. Employees do invest their time, but direct wages (often times regardless of company performance, which isn't a luxury owners have) is their compensation for that investment. If someone here wants to say they believe instead of wages that all employees should be granted shares of a company and thus this justifies their place on a board, or as owners, then I would say okay. I'm not sure most employees would take that exchange however, which would lead me to believe they are more comfortable with their current model than ownership, whether they realize it or not."

Employees, even if given the option, couldn't take the shares because they need the wages. Because they don't have the existing wealth to support themselves. Basically your philosophy is "if you have money, you can make money". All this does is perpetuate generational wealth and, by effect, institutional racism and white supremacy.

A fair system would say "if you'd like to start a company, you have to be willing to share x amount of the profits with your employees, who are working just as hard, if not harder". Not what we have, which allows the rich to become more rich off the backs of the working class.

Quote :

"It is the same reason that for the home I own (ownership) I would not expect a cleaning lady or a nanny (I have neither of these but they are examples of people employed at a place that you own) to be able to have input on my household budget, or whether or not I could move from my house, which may result in their unemployment, etc. "

Your home does not generate profit based on the labor of your cleaning staff.

[Edited on October 23, 2019 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

10/23/2019 10:54:50 AM

Beyond a gross characterization of what I said. But you know it is, which is why you said it.

10/23/2019 10:59:29 AM

It's not at all, you're just offended at the idea that your meritocratic beliefs contribute to a white supremacist system.

10/23/2019 11:01:35 AM

Clearly.

10/23/2019 11:31:25 AM

Sanders in 2nd within margin of error in national poll
https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/october-national-poll-biden-sanders-warren-maintain-front-runner-status-in-democratic-primary

"someone else" tied in 9th

In Florida however Sanders got 0% over Trump... because they didn't even included him in the poll, lol https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/466888-poll-biden-and-warren-both-beat-trump-and-pence-in-florida?amp&__twitter_impression=true

10/23/2019 12:03:35 PM

isn’t the Emerson poll routinely looked down on?

10/23/2019 12:19:47 PM

it's the one dems shamed into using less positive language for sanders, right?

10/23/2019 12:22:27 PM

CNN poll
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/22/rel12b.-.2020.pdf

Biden seeing a good ukraine bump

10/23/2019 12:38:11 PM

538 gives Emerson a B+ and UNF an A- based on perceived past accuracy

10/23/2019 1:20:10 PM

10/23/2019 5:00:44 PM

well thats odd.

10/24/2019 9:20:37 AM

just two normal humans, totally not robots

10/24/2019 10:01:56 AM

All the stuff that gepp and Dave go on about still has nothing to do with "anti business". It's just difference of opinion on how do to business.

And my initial question of "what does that mean" is more bc "business" is a made up thing that shouldn't be driving policy positions. I want to know what people your policies going to help or hurt. Are the policies pro/anti owner, pro/anti worker, pro/anti stockholders etc.

And also, curious the take on whether Trump is considered anti or pro "business".

10/24/2019 12:52:35 PM

Tim Ryan officially out

10/24/2019 12:58:03 PM

Quote :

"All the stuff that gepp and Dave go on about still has nothing to do with "anti business". It's just difference of opinion on how do to business."

Anti-business as most people interpret it essentially means anti-business-owner. It's dumb and bad but people don't really treat workers as a part of "business".

10/24/2019 12:59:54 PM

Anti-business isn't entirely anti-owner. It is more so represents policy or behavior that is antithetical to maximizing, or even increasing, profitability. Basically, that which is conflicting or contrasting with the goals of a business, which is ongoing profitability.

10/24/2019 2:16:15 PM

In your opinion.

They aren't "anti business" they just have economic policy that you don't like.

They are actively, in my opinion, pro worker and pro consumer. They're working to improve people's lives.

10/24/2019 2:28:35 PM

Sure, phrase it how you like if the term makes you uncomfortable. I directly expressed that she had policies with which myself, and some others, on the left and right, disagree. Policies that reduce how effectively businesses can run.

We could likewise say those policies are a poor implementation of pro-worker and pro-consumer policies (using your terms), as in they don't take into account downstream effects of those policies. One can reach that conclusion if one believes that businesses can offer various goods, services, and employment to people and businesses need to continue to be profitable in order to provide those benefits to people.

I'm good either way.

10/24/2019 2:57:54 PM

^^^
Increased benefits and wages cut into profits, so by your and most people's definition, these things are anti-business.

We need to redefine the function of a business. Should it be to maximize profit at all costs (benefiting a few), or to maximize societal value (benefiting everyone)?

We already know that co-ops are more beneficial to society. We also know that they can be as or more profitable. So what's the problem?

[Edited on October 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2019 3:00:58 PM

^^It doesn't make me uncomfortable it's just a politically loaded propaganda term. Same as pro life vs pro choice. It over simplifies something that isn't simple. Hence, "what does that even mean".

[Edited on October 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM. Reason : 3]

10/24/2019 3:01:44 PM

Going on Fox News for a town hall or with one of their real news shows is fine. Gotta reach out and I’m ok with it. Bernie did a town hall and I respect that.

But what fucking possible utility is there for a “Dem candidate” to go on Sean Fucking Hannity? Enough with her...

10/24/2019 10:12:09 PM

I don't even know but I assume it's Tulsi

Her and Yang love consorting with the racists

10/24/2019 10:13:04 PM

I thought Buttugieg would have a great career as an establishment den, if he could figure out his problems with POC, but is wanting another justice like Kennedy too much for centrist Dems?

10/24/2019 10:55:35 PM

Too much in what way?

10/24/2019 11:00:28 PM

Too much in that Kennedy is a Trumper hardcore republican maybe?

He handed the majority to Trump

[Edited on October 24, 2019 at 11:05 PM. Reason : E]

10/24/2019 11:03:18 PM

Kennedy is- Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Muslim Ban, Shelby County v. Holder, voted to end all of ACA, etc... Even when he voted with more liberal judges his opinions were often legally weak making it more vulnerable to future attacks.

It's a weird choice for a dem

10/25/2019 5:53:12 AM

I thought at first he was being savvy and seeing Biden’s weak support and just trying to run in his lane to get some votes but now... he’s indistinguishable from a semi-moderate Republican in a lot of ways.

Quote :

"I don't even know but I assume it's Tulsi"

It was her. She announced last night she is NOT running for re-election to Congress. Very curious to see if she is a third-party candidate. I’m not even sure that hurts the eventual Dem candidate though, considering her biggest base of support is Alt-right and other concern trolls.

[Edited on October 25, 2019 at 8:06 AM. Reason : breaking news on Sputnik and RT!]

10/25/2019 8:03:20 AM

She pushed the right wing nonsense that the impeachment inguiry is a secret witch hunt behind closed doors

Has earl posted about it yet?

10/25/2019 10:29:44 AM

People like Tulsi can't exist in the Democratic party. Just look at the replies in this thread.

Anything other than absolute, blind allegiance to the cause is enough to get you blacklisted. If you have a difference of opinion on even one issue, you might as well be Ronald Reagon.

Libs can't seem to wrap their heads around how Tulsi could possibly have these differences of opinion without being a Russia spy. Imagine being that delusional and detached from reality.

Then you've got guys like Bernie, who get steamrolled by Hillary, and then just take it without a fight. Bernie shouldn't be President for that reason alone - he doesn't have a spine.

[Edited on October 25, 2019 at 3:41 PM. Reason : ]

10/25/2019 3:41:11 PM

destroyer are we in the investigation stage or the public hearing stage of impeachment right now?

10/25/2019 3:54:57 PM

Believing that this impeachment inquiry is being done in a shady way and going on tucker Carlson to push this bad faith nonsense is more than a difference of opinion

10/25/2019 4:41:12 PM

Quote :

"If you have a difference of opinion on even one issue, you might as well be Ronald Reagon."

Hillary has more in common with Reagan than she does with any progressive candidate.

10/25/2019 5:49:13 PM

I just think its funny how no one is denouncing Hillary's wild conspiracy theories nor are they even talking about them. This isn't just some random troll trying to interfere in the election by spreading lies. This a person who most of you wanted to be the president. Its a big deal because she's insinuating that all of her political opponents are foreign agents guilty of treason. She's paving the road towards an environment where political opposition is jailed for treason.

Tulsi isn't on Hannity because thats who she likes. Its just that MSM is in the midst of a partial black out against any non-establishment candidates. I showed you the debate times.

Non establishment candidates are just supposed to sit around while MSM ignores them and pounds the narrative that polling data is how their viewers should pick candidates?

Going on Hannity or RT is fine because there are no other options. Foxnews is just as legitimate as the Clinton news network and the never bernie corporation. You have to reach an audience somehow.

Quote :

"Believing that this impeachment inquiry is being done in a shady way and going on tucker Carlson to push this bad faith nonsense is more than a difference of opinion"

You will never admit that anything on behalf of Trump is anything other than "right wing nonsense". We all want trump out but honest people (like tulsi) admit that the critics have some good points. Wheres the vote? Why are things being done in secrecy?

Trump already admitted to what he is being accused of. Everyone believes he did it and no one is trying to stop the inquiry so why wouldn't you bend over backwards to be transparent? My guess is that its being done this way because Pelosi wants a train wreck. Think about the picture pointing at Trump. Its a campaign photo for Pelosi now.
#Shahidforchange



[Edited on October 25, 2019 at 10:55 PM. Reason : anyone who disagrees with my post is a spy]

10/25/2019 10:50:50 PM

lol

10/25/2019 10:52:05 PM

He’s 100% voting for Trump or third party. 100%.

Quote :

" he's paving the road towards an environment where political opposition is jailed for treason. "

Holy shit, this is bananas. Clinton is the one doing this??? Not the guy literally and explicitly saying sitting congressmen have committed treason.

I bet Earl thinks Adam Schiff should be in jail because he falls for Federalist articles on a daily basis.

[Edited on October 26, 2019 at 11:47 AM. Reason : X]

10/26/2019 11:45:28 AM

If impeachments were a trial these closed door hearings would be equivalent to an interview or deposition... neither of which are public. There is nothing shady about what they are doing.


When hearings are done open to the public Republicans say it's just for show to attack trump. When hearings or depositions are done behind closed doors Republicans say its shady.


This is the investigation, there will be a public part where findings are shared and accusations made clear.



[Edited on October 26, 2019 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2019 12:30:44 PM

Quote :

"Holy shit, this is bananas. Clinton is the one doing this??? Not the guy literally and explicitly saying sitting congressmen have committed treason."

No one said Trump wasn't doing it. Thats the thing though. The more it happens the more it becomes normalized.
The fact that Trump has already taken us along that path makes Hillary's actions all the more dangerous. It certainly doesn't excuse them.

I'm also looking at all of the people who have supported Hillary wondering why they haven't denounced this behavior? Silence.

10/27/2019 2:30:32 PM

lol, how many hillary supporters are even on this site? 2?

10/27/2019 6:31:58 PM

Moron? And the dude that quit (can’t remember his name).

The rest of us supported her against Trump only. But not Earl. Because he’s essentially an Alt-right grift victim.

10/27/2019 6:56:46 PM

As someone in an upper middle class household Hillary would make a great president for my demographic but I’m not a Hillary supporter.

I could almost see Biden picking her as veep though.

A Bernie/Gillum or Warner/Gillum would be my dream ticket at this point

10/27/2019 10:38:56 PM

So just to clarify, you're saying that you voted for Hillary but that doesn't make you a hillary supporter because she was running against Trump while I voted for Stein and that makes me a Trump supporter? I hope you can see the inconsistency in this.

FYI, your votes and your money are the only way you can support a politician. Posting on TWW that they did one good thing does not actually help them at all. All of your politcial power lies in your vote and your money.

If you voted for someone, you supported them. Period.

If you didn't vote for them or donate to their campaign, you did not support them. Period.

Thats how this works. You are all Hillary supporters regardless of your excuse.

^Trump is a much better president for your demographic. The numbers don't lie.

10/28/2019 3:37:47 AM