Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2161 of 4573 (836383)
07-16-2018 8:20 AM


Trump's Trading Foes list.
So far it seems Trump considers the two largest economies in the world, China & the EU as trading foes. Add in Canada and Mexico, the two other NAFTA trading partners. Germany and the UK as well as France and Italy have also been cited as issues, for example Germany being "totally controlled by Russia".
Perhaps Trump would like to see Germany return to it's prior position as in the early 1900s and again in 1933?
That certainly worked in the past.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2162 of 4573 (836387)
07-16-2018 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2146 by Percy
07-06-2018 11:18 AM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
Percy writes:
You questioned what I said, then agreed with me, except you said "maybe". There's no "maybe" about it. If you reduce the income of any entity sufficiently, be it a business, a union, a non-profit, a church, then it dies (or if you prefer some other term, then it goes bankrupt or decertifies or disbands or ceases operations or whatever). That's just a fact.
Of course it's a fact. That's why I agreed.
The point wasn't to agree/disagree with you on if a union would die if it's income was reduced "sufficiently."
The point was to understand what you think would be "sufficient" to kill a union.
Do you think once this law comes into effect that unions will all die in a week? A month? A year?
Maybe 85% die within 5 years?
Maybe only 10% in 10 years?
The point was to get you away from some vague (and obvious) claim that a union will die if you remove enough of it's income... to understand the specifics you're warning against along the way.
Is "any" reduction absolutely a death blow?
"But if a large percentage aren't getting vaccinated - isn't this an indication that vaccination isn't effective?"
Again, with vaccinations there are no alternative protections. With unions, there are many labour laws that exist now for alternative protection that will sustain worker rights without the existence of unions. So this use of the analogy is flawed.
I agree that ignorance can become an issue.
I would propose that most workers are not flat-earther-level ignoramuses, though. I think they'll be just fine.
Where people are involved nothing is perfect, but we need both employers and unions.
I'm not sure if I agree with the word "need" (many businesses prosper and have very happy employees without unions).
However, again, I'm not attempting to get rid of unions. I'm merely okay with them not being able to force non-member employees to pay their fees.
Abuse of power is a problem everywhere, and we could tell stories about abuse of power in all human endeavors, including government, commercial companies, unions, non-profits, charities, churches, and on and on. Examples of abuse of power only tell us that people are the same no matter where they work, not that the entities they work for are bad ideas.
Right.
Does this mean you agree with me?
Because abuse of power is a problem everywhere... you agree that certain restrictions on the power of unions should be implemented to limit them?
Or are you attempting to say that because abuse of power exists everywhere we shouldn't do anything about it in the case of unions?
Also, too many people see the abuses unions opposed in the past as solved problems, when the reality is that eternal vigilance is necessary to protect the hard won victories of the past.
...
Anti-vaxers think the problem of disease is solved, and anti-unionists and union agnostics think the problem of worker exploitation is solved.
...
The point is that it's in the company's best interest to get the most work from workers at the least cost. This is an unrelenting motivation for abuse. Unions protect against that.
...
And workers shouldn't need a return of company abuses to tell them they need unions.
This all seems to lump into one idea: That you think I am against the existence of unions.
Again, I don't have an issue with the existence of unions.
I have an issue with the existence of unions that are so powerful they can destroy the company.
I am for restrictions on unions to limit their power.
I agree that unions should remain in order to balance the company's power over the employee.
I don't think any problem of worker exploitation is "solved" (for all time).
I just don't see an issue with limiting unions by allowing non-member-employees to not pay union fees.
It seems to me that this way the unions will gain strength when workers require help attaining industry-standard compensation, and lose strength when workers are content with the compensation they are currently receiving.
Do you have an issue with that idea? Or just issues with wiping out the existence of unions? Because I agree with you that removing unions entirely can easily be a bad thing. I'm not arguing such a position and you seem unable to respond to the idea of limiting the power of unions while keeping them alive and well when required.
Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2146 by Percy, posted 07-06-2018 11:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2163 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 10:51 AM Stile has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 2163 of 4573 (836391)
07-16-2018 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 2162 by Stile
07-16-2018 9:33 AM


Re: A Disaster of a Day
The point was to understand what you think would be "sufficient" to kill a union.
Do you think once this law comes into effect that unions will all die in a week? A month? A year?
Maybe 85% die within 5 years?
Maybe only 10% in 10 years?
How would I know? What we do know is that the power of unions has been greatly reduced in the 40 years since Reagan took office. Here's an interesting graph for you showing declining union participation coincident with declining middle-class income:
"But if a large percentage aren't getting vaccinated - isn't this an indication that vaccination isn't effective?"
Again, with vaccinations there are no alternative protections. With unions, there are many labour laws that exist now for alternative protection that will sustain worker rights without the existence of unions. So this use of the analogy is flawed.
Same answer. Hard fought-for rights and laws gained by unions are being continuously eroded.
I would propose that most workers are not flat-earther-level ignoramuses, though. I think they'll be just fine.
I think that anyone who believes employer/worker relations is a solved problem and that unions no longer deserve their support is being shortsighted and is ignorant of the erosion of worker rights over the past 40 years.
Where people are involved nothing is perfect, but we need both employers and unions.
I'm not sure if I agree with the word "need" (many businesses prosper and have very happy employees without unions).
The importance of unions is a function of the degree to which workers are commodities. Truck drivers, for example. I worked in a non-union industry, but it was only non-union because workers were not commodities. By the time I retired that was no longer true. Run-of-the-mill programming is no longer a rare skill. Employment in hi-tech is generally "at will", meaning you can be let go without reason at any time. It's always been that way, but it didn't matter back when programmers were hard to replace. Now it matters. Programmers can no longer sign on to a company expecting a 40-year career of growth and advancement. Except for those with the more rare skills, employment is a continuous cycle of work/layoff/job-hunt. Hi-tech could use a union.
However, again, I'm not attempting to get rid of unions. I'm merely okay with them not being able to force non-member employees to pay their fees.
That path leads to the end of unions.
Abuse of power is a problem everywhere, and we could tell stories about abuse of power in all human endeavors, including government, commercial companies, unions, non-profits, charities, churches, and on and on. Examples of abuse of power only tell us that people are the same no matter where they work, not that the entities they work for are bad ideas.
Right.
Does this mean you agree with me?
Not likely.
Because abuse of power is a problem everywhere... you agree that certain restrictions on the power of unions should be implemented to limit them?
While I wouldn't use your language, all entities operate under laws and regulations that strive to represent everyone's best interests. Unions are no different.
Or are you attempting to say that because abuse of power exists everywhere we shouldn't do anything about it in the case of unions?
Abuse of power exists everywhere and so cannot be used as a reason to target unions.
Also, too many people see the abuses unions opposed in the past as solved problems, when the reality is that eternal vigilance is necessary to protect the hard won victories of the past.
...
Anti-vaxers think the problem of disease is solved, and anti-unionists and union agnostics think the problem of worker exploitation is solved.
...
The point is that it's in the company's best interest to get the most work from workers at the least cost. This is an unrelenting motivation for abuse. Unions protect against that.
...
And workers shouldn't need a return of company abuses to tell them they need unions.
This all seems to lump into one idea: That you think I am against the existence of unions.
That's a fair conclusion given your support of policies that would reduce both union influence and the existence of unions.
Again, I don't have an issue with the existence of unions.
Yeah, sure, you don't have a problem with unions, you just don't want them to have the resources necessary to exist.
I have an issue with the existence of unions that are so powerful they can destroy the company.
So do I.
I am for restrictions on unions to limit their power.
That's already happened. Learn some history. Just how far do you want the pendulum to keep swinging toward reduction of union power?
I agree that unions should remain in order to balance the company's power over the employee.
But you don't agree that people should pay for that representation.
I don't think any problem of worker exploitation is "solved" (for all time).
Then your position is contradictory, since you believe that unions are important but giving them the means to survive is not.
I just don't see an issue with limiting unions by allowing non-member-employees to not pay union fees.
That's like saying you want the benefits of insurance coverage but you don't want to pay insurance fees.
It seems to me that this way the unions will gain strength when workers require help attaining industry-standard compensation, and lose strength when workers are content with the compensation they are currently receiving.
I agree that there will be cycles of good times when workers think they don't need the union, and bad times when they realize they do, causing union power to wax and wane. This is the shortsightedness and ignorance I referred to before. Worker abuse is not a solved problem.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2162 by Stile, posted 07-16-2018 9:33 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2170 by Stile, posted 07-17-2018 12:34 PM Percy has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 402 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 2164 of 4573 (836396)
07-16-2018 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 2158 by marc9000
07-15-2018 9:31 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
marc9000 writes:
Do you mean he pretends to be a Christian and is really not, or do you mean he has something tricky up his sleeve, for a non-Christian act he plans to do in the future?
I'd rephrase that question as, "Is he a smart crook or an honest fool?" My policy is that if somebody wants to be seen as an honest fool, I take his word for it.
In Trump's case, I think he's every bit as honest a Christian as the Christians who support him.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2158 by marc9000, posted 07-15-2018 9:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


(4)
Message 2165 of 4573 (836440)
07-16-2018 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 2157 by Hyroglyphx
07-13-2018 6:10 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
The vast majority of Christians have no idea what is in their book. They let barely educated "pastors" spoon feed them crap that isn't even in the bible.
The average atheist knows more of what is in the bible than the average Christian. Most atheists I know have read the bible more than Christians. Also, when most Christians have reduced the bible to pithy phrases and taking verses out of context.
There is no surprise to me that evangelicals support Donnie. It is par for the course. Their religion has reduced them to beg for an authoritarian figure to remove all decisions from them. Patriarchy at it's finest.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2157 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2018 6:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9486
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 2166 of 4573 (836449)
07-17-2018 2:55 AM


Treaonable Trump
wtf is your guy up to with Putin?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2167 by Heathen, posted 07-17-2018 5:22 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 2168 by Theodoric, posted 07-17-2018 9:48 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 2169 by Chiroptera, posted 07-17-2018 10:56 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


(7)
Message 2167 of 4573 (836451)
07-17-2018 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2166 by Tangle
07-17-2018 2:55 AM


Re: Treaonable Trump
Just having his annual performance review with his boss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2166 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2018 2:55 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2168 of 4573 (836455)
07-17-2018 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2166 by Tangle
07-17-2018 2:55 AM


Re: Treaonable Trump
Spilling state secrets so Putin won't release the "pee" tape.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2166 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2018 2:55 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 2169 of 4573 (836456)
07-17-2018 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2166 by Tangle
07-17-2018 2:55 AM


Re: Treaonable Trump
Trying to understand the President's behavior is all very well and good, but remember that he's a deranged imbecile. It won't be very fruitful if you assume that there is some sort of rational basis to his motivations.


What do you despise? By this are you truly known. -- Frank Herbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2166 by Tangle, posted 07-17-2018 2:55 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 2170 of 4573 (836461)
07-17-2018 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2163 by Percy
07-16-2018 10:51 AM


Unions
I think that anyone who believes employer/worker relations is a solved problem and that unions no longer deserve their support is being shortsighted and is ignorant of the erosion of worker rights over the past 40 years.
Okay.
Seems irrelevant since that's not the position I'm proposing.
I'm saying that employer/worker relations is an issue that unions are required to support, just not by forcing non-union member employees to pay union fees.
You keep implying that a reduction in union power via non-union members no longer paying union fees is equivalent to the death of all unions.
I don't think that's true.
The importance of unions is a function of the degree to which workers are commodities. Truck drivers, for example. I worked in a non-union industry, but it was only non-union because workers were not commodities. By the time I retired that was no longer true. Run-of-the-mill programming is no longer a rare skill. Employment in hi-tech is generally "at will", meaning you can be let go without reason at any time. It's always been that way, but it didn't matter back when programmers were hard to replace. Now it matters. Programmers can no longer sign on to a company expecting a 40-year career of growth and advancement. Except for those with the more rare skills, employment is a continuous cycle of work/layoff/job-hunt. Hi-tech could use a union.
Agreed. At least certain segments of "Hi-tech" anyway. Probably any where the workers want a union and are willing to pay fees to have one... which is entirely my point.
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
However, again, I'm not attempting to get rid of unions. I'm merely okay with them not being able to force non-member employees to pay their fees.
That path leads to the end of unions.
That's not true though, it is?
It has the potential to lead to the end of unions. (Must be admitted - I can't read the future)
And it also has the potential to lead to much healthier unions (ones that cannot be corrupted easily) as ones existing today.
You seem to be arguing the former.
I seem to be arguing the latter.
Abuse of power exists everywhere and so cannot be used as a reason to target unions.
This seems naively inappropriate.
Why can't abuse of union power be used as a reason to target unions having too much power?
It can't because other people abuse power too?
Why not point out when power is being abused and attempt to prevent it everywhere and anywhere?
Why can't we focus on this one issue and see if it's possible to prevent power corruption?
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
This all seems to lump into one idea: That you think I am against the existence of unions.
That's a fair conclusion given your support of policies that would reduce both union influence and the existence of unions.
Have you missed the parts where I keep repeating that I am not against the existence of unions?
If you do read those parts... how is your conclusion fair?
Again, I am in support of a policy that allows non-union-member employees to not pay union fees.
In order to give power to unions when it's desired by workers, and lower the union's power when it's not desired by workers.
Yeah, sure, you don't have a problem with unions, you just don't want them to have the resources necessary to exist.
Where do you get this idea from?
Again, you seem to imply that all unions are going to die as soon as this regulation starts.
I think you're overstating your case. Or, at least, you have yet to describe why such a thing would happen.
I agree they would weaken.
But I also don't think they will all dissolve in the next 12 months.
You do think all unions will be completely gone a year from now?
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
I agree that unions should remain in order to balance the company's power over the employee.
But you don't agree that people should pay for that representation.
This is incorrect.
I do think they should pay for the representation.
I think that when the majority of workers want a union to represent their desires... they should pay the fees and grow the union's strength.
And when the majority of workers do not want a union to represent their desires... then they should be free to stop paying the fees and the union's strength will then weaken.
Then your position is contradictory, since you believe that unions are important but giving them the means to survive is not.
This only makes sense if you equate union's getting fees from all employees to the union's existence.
If 2% of employees do not pay the union fees. I'm sure the union will survive just fine.
If 80% of employees do not pay the union fees... it's highly likely that the workers are content with their current compensation plan and do not require a union's services right now... so they don't care if the union weakens (but doesn't entirely die).
And if the company progresses in a way that begins to take advantage of the workers again... leading to the workers desiring a union to defend their rights to proper compensation... then they can pay the union fees and grow the union again.
The union survives throughout this entire balancing act as it goes back and forth.
It doesn't make sense that you imply I don't want to give unions "the means to survive" when I am specifically for allowing the workers to control exactly how much they want the union "to survive."
If the union is wonderful... if the workers love it, and feel it's required for their continued levels of compensation... then nothing should change. Union fees would never go down.
Percy writes:
That's like saying you want the benefits of insurance coverage but you don't want to pay insurance fees.
Can you explain why a union is an insurance policy and not a provider of current, continual service to the worker?
I think most unions would disagree with you...
It's more like I'm saying a union shouldn't be able to force employees to pay them when the employees do not require their current, continual service.
It's like not paying a plumber a forced, yearly fee after he's already replaced the deteriorating pipes.
Pipes will always deteriorate.
But you don't always need a plumber.
I agree that there will be cycles of good times when workers think they don't need the union, and bad times when they realize they do, causing union power to wax and wane. This is the shortsightedness and ignorance I referred to before. Worker abuse is not a solved problem.
So what, specifically, is it about unions that you think they are more like insurance policies covering possible future issues... and less like plumber's required to fix issues as they arise?
I fully agree that if unions are easily disbanded... and/or difficult to re-instate or revive, then other problems occur. But perhaps then the solution is making unions difficult to disband and easy to re-instate and revive instead of forcing a majority of workers to pay for a service they deem as currently unnecessary?
Edited by Stile, : Adding another portion of the message.
Edited by Stile, : Adding remainder of message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2163 by Percy, posted 07-16-2018 10:51 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2174 by Percy, posted 07-18-2018 9:46 AM Stile has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2171 of 4573 (836469)
07-17-2018 2:25 PM


Vocabulary list
And let us remember: those partners with whom the US has voluntarily signed trade agreements that are (allegedly) unfair...those are foes.
A dictator who poses a threat to neighboring nations and attempts to interfere with the electoral process of democratic nations: he's a competitor, and that's a compliment.


What do you despise? By this are you truly known. -- Frank Herbert

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1492
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


(1)
Message 2172 of 4573 (836474)
07-17-2018 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2159 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2018 12:41 AM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
marc9000 writes:
Do you mean he pretends to be a Christian and is really not, or do you mean he has something tricky up his sleeve, for a non-Christian act he plans to do in the future?
The first one
Okay.
Trump didn't announce his candidacy for the presidency until mid 2015, and yes, I don't think many Christians put him at the top of their list for Christian role models up until that time. Like most Christians I'm sure, I didn't think about him much at all. Just another high-roller New York hotshot, who seemed to be most notable for his television show where he sits behind a desk and arrogantly tells most people "you're fired". I never watched the show, just saw a few promo's of it etc. But I didn't hate him, he never did anything to me - I wasn't jealous of him. Just a little Christian trait that I, and many Christians have.
Now it's mid-2015, we have the usual group of ho-hum Romney-esque clowns thinking about running as a Republican for president. Obama hadn't come anywhere near his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, among many other disappointments of his presidency. Then Trump comes down the escalator and begins to speak. As I said, I didn't hate him, so I listened. He said things that made sense, like "China is killing us on trade", and "our porous southern border really is a threat to our national security". "We're going to build a wall, and China is going to pay for it". A lofty promise for sure, but no more lofty than Obama's promise to cut the deficit, while doing everything he could to increase the size and scope of government.
Then the campaign began, and other things about him started getting noticeable. He seemed to have pretty decent, hard working children, like maybe he's a good father. It's possible of course to be a liberal / atheist good father, but being a good father is a Biblical Christian trait. I've yet to see any sign that he is, or had ever been, a drunk. Another good Christian trait, one that many of our current and past politicians cannot claim.
While many here seem to base Christianity on a few cherry picks of New Testament teachings, of turning the other cheek and being meek and quiet and all of that, it must be remembered that there were some very Godly Old Testament kings, who understood that being LEADERS, that representing a country full of people required being assertive. King David killed a few more people that Trump has, King Solomon had a few more wives than Trump has. Many Christians feel that the time has come for a Theodore Roosevelt type of president, one who has the ability to speak bluntly when necessary. He has coined a phrase that is about 40 years overdue - FAKE NEWS. The term is here to stay, it's very descriptive.
Trump is 72 years old. I was up at 8:00 last Saturday morning, turned on the news, and there he is out on the golf course. He had met with people coming in to U.S. airports at 2am in the past, with a full schedule in the coming days. Even those who hate him have to admit that he is energetic. Christians like that. I never noticed that kind of energy from past presidents. A big part of his victory was the result of his hard work. I'm 63 and wish I had his energy. I guarantee that a lot of people don't appreciate a thing called physical aches and pains that most all 72 year olds have.
But the main reason his support increases among Christians today? Because of the way he reacts to the SATANIC HATRED that comes at him from all directions. Most anyone else would have resigned the presidency by now. He deals with it in a very measured, Christian way. He could have gloated a lot more than he did after so many prominent haters laughed at the possibility of him becoming president, including Obama. And the geniuses of the Democrat party, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi.
Sure, his earlier public life didn't indicate a passion for Christianity, with his casino developments etc. but it was a long time ago. He is older and wiser now, and Christians believe he has a genuine love for the U.S. Christians believe he represents their knowledge that the bigger and more prominent a nation is, the less ability it has to just coast along with no effort. It takes effort for the U.S. to function. Right now, about 50.1% of the U.S. population desires to live at the expense of the other 49.9%, the recent popular vote victories of Hillary, and Al Gore before her, are proof of that. So far, the electoral college has saved us from that mob, but all the Democrats need is a little more illegal immigration, and they can render the electoral college useless. That's when Christians, knowing something about human nature, understand that many of the 49.9% will bolt to the do-nothing 50.1% side in short order, and that's when food store shelves start getting empty, when gas stations start closing.
I know of course, that everyone else in this thread thinks Christians are wrong about these things. I'm not here to discuss that, I just wanted to answer your question about why Christians support Trump. I hope it helps.
P.S. I'm also not here to discuss evolutionist's versions of what Christianity is and who Christians are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2018 12:41 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2173 by NoNukes, posted 07-18-2018 2:33 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 2175 by Percy, posted 07-18-2018 11:07 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 2184 by caffeine, posted 07-18-2018 4:16 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 2225 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-22-2018 6:10 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2173 of 4573 (836482)
07-18-2018 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 2172 by marc9000
07-17-2018 5:38 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
While many here seem to base Christianity on a few cherry picks of New Testament teachings
Yikes. Talk about cherry picking...
Let's start with the most basic statement of faith and grace from Trump. Trump has stated that he does not regret not asking God for forgiveness for his sins. If you can find some way to make a Christian out of someone who departs from the absolute sine qua non of Christianity, well, I for one am not interested in debating the issue with you here.
S. I'm also not here to discuss evolutionist's versions of what Christianity is and who Christians are.
Right. I wonder what version it is that you would discuss?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication. -- ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2172 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2018 5:38 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 2174 of 4573 (836506)
07-18-2018 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 2170 by Stile
07-17-2018 12:34 PM


Re: Unions
Stile writes:
I think that anyone who believes employer/worker relations is a solved problem and that unions no longer deserve their support is being shortsighted and is ignorant of the erosion of worker rights over the past 40 years.
Okay.
Seems irrelevant since that's not the position I'm proposing.
Yes, you're correct. It is not a position that you're proposing. It's not a position anyone is proposing. It's simply a fact that anyone in a union shop who believes they're not benefiting from the union is being both shortsighted and ignorant. Do non-union members get raises the union negotiates? Yes. Do non-union members have access to work environment improvements the union negotiates? Yes. Do non-union members receive benefits the union negotiates? Yes. If non-union members stop paying union dues are the answers to these questions still yes? Yes.
Now if non-union members didn't receive any of the benefits the union negotiates then I'd say they shouldn't have to pay union dues, though of course who would refuse to pay union dues if it meant lower pay, lesser insurance, no representation in disputes with management, no access to some things like perhaps the company cafeteria, workout room, exercise classes, basketball court or volleyball court, and no side-benefits like company paid activities (annual party, outings, clubs, etc), gym memberships, discounts, etc.
But ignorance and shortsightedness will likely win out, and with dues optional the ability of unions to represent workers effectively will continue to decline and diminish coincident with their declining income. Once unions are a mere shadow of their former selves it will take a repeat of the same great effort made to establish the union movement during the first third of the twentieth century to make unions strong again.
You keep implying that a reduction in union power via non-union members no longer paying union fees is equivalent to the death of all unions.
I don't think that's true.
Well, sticking with the medical metaphor, compared to the 1950's and 1960's the unions of today are sickly, and if we keep letting their blood they *will* eventually die.
Abuse of power exists everywhere and so cannot be used as a reason to target unions.
This seems naively inappropriate.
More accurately, your argument about abuse of power was beside the point.
Why can't abuse of union power be used as a reason to target unions having too much power?
That's your criteria for when an entity or office has too much power, that power has been abused? And that fallacy aside, how, exactly, are unions in general abusing their power today?
It can't because other people abuse power too?
Again, abuse of power is not the measure of whether there's too much power. Part of the determination, perhaps, but not the measure. Given the decline of union power over the past 40 or 50 years I don't know how anyone could conclude that unions today have too much power.
Why not point out when power is being abused and attempt to prevent it everywhere and anywhere?
I'm sure we're all in favor.
Why can't we focus on this one issue and see if it's possible to prevent power corruption?
Huh? Are you saying mandatory union dues are an example of power corruption?
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
This all seems to lump into one idea: That you think I am against the existence of unions.
That's a fair conclusion given your support of policies that would reduce both union influence and the existence of unions.
Have you missed the parts where I keep repeating that I am not against the existence of unions?
If you do read those parts... how is your conclusion fair?
I've missed neither of your contradictory claims: a) that you're not anti-union; and b) that you're in favor of policies that will further weaken unions. I think the former is what you'd like to believe about yourself and that the latter represents a disconnect in your thinking between the policies you favor and the effects they'd cause.
Again, I am in support of a policy that allows non-union-member employees to not pay union fees.
And you deny the effects of that policy. As long as you pretend the policy has no seriously ill effects you think the policy justified, despite the fact that it's more akin to government authorized theft of services.
In order to give power to unions when it's desired by workers, and lower the union's power when it's not desired by workers.
But that's not what this is. It's actually a case of, "Can I get the benefits of unionization without suffering any of the costs?" And the Supreme Court's answer for public sector unions is, "Sure, fine."
Yeah, sure, you don't have a problem with unions, you just don't want them to have the resources necessary to exist.
Where do you get this idea from?
This idea comes from your denial of the negative ramifications of the policies you advocate.
Again, you seem to imply that all unions are going to die as soon as this regulation starts.
I don't recall implying an instant effect, nor any specific timeframe at all, but this will certainly accelerate the already significant decline of unions. Here's a graph in case you doubt there's already been a decline:
Notice that the decline was already underway in 1983 when the graph begins, and the decline corresponds with middle class wage stagnation.
I think you're overstating your case. Or, at least, you have yet to describe why such a thing would happen.
Again, I don't recall implying an instant effect. It's common for the effects of policy changes and court rulings to play out over time. So of course the ultimate impact of this Supreme Court ruling isn't instantaneous, I don't recall ever saying it would be, but the effects begin whenever the judges' ruling takes effect.
I agree they would weaken.
But you don't think they'd weaken enough that it would matter. But it already matters and will continue to matter. For another example, did you know many union pension funds are in trouble because of declining union membership, and that pension funds that are in danger of running dry within 10 years have the right to cut benefits to retirees who are depending upon that money? The policy you favor will accelerate this process. The Republicans in Congress and the current administration both favor reductions in the social safety net, making things even worse for retirees.
But I also don't think they will all dissolve in the next 12 months.
Who said they would?
You do think all unions will be completely gone a year from now?
I can't imagine what I said that led you to ask such a question.
Percy writes:
Stile writes:
I agree that unions should remain in order to balance the company's power over the employee.
But you don't agree that people should pay for that representation.
This is incorrect.
I do think they should pay for the representation.
Well now you're contradicting yourself again. Your position is that workers should not be compelled to pay union dues even though they still reap all the benefits of working in a union shop.
I think that when the majority of workers want a union to represent their desires... they should pay the fees and grow the union's strength.
But your position is that the minority of workers who didn't want a union shouldn't have to pay the fees while still reaping all the benefits of unionization.
And when the majority of workers do not want a union to represent their desires... then they should be free to stop paying the fees and the union's strength will then weaken.
This seems a strange thing to say. Wouldn't it make more sense that when a majority of workers do not want a union that they would vote the union out?
Then your position is contradictory, since you believe that unions are important but giving them the means to survive is not.
This only makes sense if you equate union's getting fees from all employees to the union's existence.
If 2% of employees do not pay the union fees. I'm sure the union will survive just fine.
I'm sure you're right that a 2% freeloader rate would have negligible effects. Is that the rate you think will be typical in the long term as a result of this Supreme Court ruling?
If 80% of employees do not pay the union fees it's highly likely that the workers are content with their current compensation plan and do not require a union's services right now... so they don't care if the union weakens (but doesn't entirely die).
About this compensation that the 80% of employees not paying union dues are happy with, would that be the compensation negotiated by the union? Did you know that by law unions are required to negotiate with management for the benefit of all workers, whether they pay dues or not?
And if the company progresses in a way that begins to take advantage of the workers again... leading to the workers desiring a union to defend their rights to proper compensation... then they can pay the union fees and grow the union again.
I don't have any statistics to back me up, but a union where only 20% of the workers pay dues seems like one that would be in a precarious position financially, one serious enough that it would significantly hinder the union's ability to effectively represent their members (and the non-members, too, as required by law). While looking for statistics I did discover that workers in union shops make about 25% more than those who don't. Union shops also tend to have better health plans.
The union survives throughout this entire balancing act as it goes back and forth.
Eh, maybe the union survives, maybe not. 20% is a pretty low participation rate.
By the way, a low membership rate does not mean a low opinion of the union. All it means is that people aren't stupid and tend to avoiding paying for things they can get for free. Check out Supreme Court rules against paying for union representation in Janus v. AFSCME. It's full of good information, and at one point it says:
quote:
Across the border from Illinois, AFSCME Iowa Council 61 enjoys an overwhelming 83 percent support among covered workers -- but only 29 percent of those workers are dues-paying members, according to On Labor.
Got that? Only 29% of workers pay dues, but 83% of workers support the union. Your mistake is in thinking that workers not paying dues means they have a low opinion of how well the union represents their interests, and that's not true. In this particular case, which seems representative, the low dues-paying rate seems to indicate an economic decision: why pay for something you can get for free?
It doesn't make sense that you imply I don't want to give unions "the means to survive" when I am specifically for allowing the workers to control exactly how much they want the union "to survive."
Workers already have the right to decertify (through a vote) a union's representation. What doesn't make sense is drawing a connection between your position on union dues and how workers perceive their union's performance. Not paying dues for benefits you get anyway is just a smart economic decision, though shortsighted and indicative of an ignorance of both the history of labor/management relations and of the simple fact that representing workers' interests costs money.
If the union is wonderful... if the workers love it, and feel it's required for their continued levels of compensation... then nothing should change. Union fees would never go down.
I think you meant that if paying union dues were optional but that the workers loved the union then union income from dues would not decline. The example I cited above says this is untrue. I'll say it one more time: people tend not to pay for what they can get for free.
Percy writes:
That's like saying you want the benefits of insurance coverage but you don't want to pay insurance fees.
Can you explain why a union is an insurance policy...
It was an analogy, not an equivalence, and I was not analogizing unions to insurance policies. I was analogizing wanting to get insurance benefits for free to wanting to get union benefits for free.
...and not a provider of current, continual service to the worker?
I think most unions would disagree with you...
I think most English teachers would roll their eyes at you.
It's more like I'm saying a union shouldn't be able to force employees to pay them when the employees do not require their current, continual service.
Risking another analogy, that's like saying you shouldn't have to pay income tax because you didn't vote for it. Groups of people, whether clubs or workers or geographic regions, usually decide things by votes, and everyone abides by the outcome. In their ruling the Supreme Court has just thrown a monkey wrench into this time honored principle.
It's like not paying a plumber a forced, yearly fee after he's already replaced the deteriorating pipes.
Pipes will always deteriorate.
But you don't always need a plumber.
No one's claiming unions are always needed.
I agree that there will be cycles of good times when workers think they don't need the union, and bad times when they realize they do, causing union power to wax and wane. This is the shortsightedness and ignorance I referred to before. Worker abuse is not a solved problem.
So what, specifically, is it about unions that you think they are more like insurance policies covering possible future issues... and less like plumber's required to fix issues as they arise?
See above about your misinterpretation of the analogy.
I fully agree that if unions are easily disbanded... and/or difficult to re-instate or revive, then other problems occur. But perhaps then the solution is making unions difficult to disband and easy to re-instate and revive instead of forcing a majority of workers to pay for a service they deem as currently unnecessary?
If a majority of workers don't want the union then the obvious course of action is to hold a decertification vote.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2170 by Stile, posted 07-17-2018 12:34 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2176 by Stile, posted 07-18-2018 12:29 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(4)
Message 2175 of 4573 (836508)
07-18-2018 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2172 by marc9000
07-17-2018 5:38 PM


Re: .50 Cal Jesus Kills for your Sins
marc9000 writes:
I've yet to see any sign that he is, or had ever been, a drunk.
I don't think Trump was ever a drunk, but he's definitely been drunk. See How often does President Trump drink alcohol?. As in most things, Trump lies about his drinking, too. He has claimed many times that he doesn't drink. This is a lie.
Many Christians feel that the time has come for a Theodore Roosevelt type of president, one who has the ability to speak bluntly when necessary.
There's nothing wrong with speaking bluntly. The problem with Trump is his lying. Trump has turned the old joke, "How do you know he's lying? His lips are moving," into a truism. It's pathological with him. Even when no lie is necessary he lies anyway.
He has coined a phrase that is about 40 years overdue - FAKE NEWS. The term is here to stay, it's very descriptive.
Trump didn't coin the phrase fake news, he merely uses it with a different definition. Check out The (almost) complete history of 'fake news' for details of the phrase's origins, but here's a few brief excerpts:
quote:
It was mid-2016, and Buzzfeed's media editor, Craig Silverman, noticed a funny stream of completely made-up stories that seemed to originate from one small Eastern European town.
...
And so the Macedonians and other purveyors of fakery wrote stories with headlines such as "Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President" and "FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide".
They were completely false. And thus began the modern - and internet-friendly - life of the phrase "fake news".
...
But to say that President Trump was the first politician to deploy the term would itself be, well, "fake news".
On 8 December 2016, Hillary Clinton made a speech in which she mentioned "the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year."
...
President-elect Trump took up the phrase the following month, in January 2017, a little over a week before taking office. In response to a question, he said "you're fake news" to CNN reporter Jim Acosta. Around the same time he started repeating the phrase on Twitter.
Got that? Fake news means actual for-real fake news, i.e., news that is made up out of whole cloth. The phrase entered the lexicon when many websites and Facebook pages promoting fake news began gaining attention in mid-2016. Hillary used the phrase first, correctly.
Trump used the phrase a bit later, incorrectly. To Trump, fake news is any news unfavorable to him. For instance, if CNN were to report:
quote:
Sen. John McCain released a powerful statement Monday criticizing President Donald Trump, calling his news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory."
Trump would call this fake news, even though it is completely true. Don't believe the CNN report? Here is Fox News reporting the exact same thing:
quote:
In a lengthy and fiery statement, Senator John McCain of Arizona called the Finland summit a "tragic mistake" and "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in recent memory."
So Marc, do you understand what I said earlier, that Trump is using the term fake news incorrectly, that when he uses it means any news unfavorable to him? Do you understand that when he calls something fake news that he is usually lying?
Trump is 72 years old. I was up at 8:00 last Saturday morning, turned on the news, and there he is out on the golf course.
He used a golf cart. You never hear about his handicap, so I assume he's a poor golfer shooting between 90 and a 100. So to play a round he has to climb in and out of his golf cart a hundred times, and swing a golf club a hundred times, about half of which are putts.
Even those who hate him have to admit that he is energetic. Christians like that. I never noticed that kind of energy from past presidents. A big part of his victory was the result of his hard work. I'm 63 and wish I had his energy. I guarantee that a lot of people don't appreciate a thing called physical aches and pains that most all 72 year olds have.
Christians would really love me, then. I'm older than you and I play tennis for a couple hours four times a week. A couple weeks ago during the heat wave I played 2 hours in 94 degree heat. I doubt Trump would hold up for 10 minutes.
More reasons why Christians should love me more than Trump: I've been married and faithful to the same wife for 34 years, none of my children are being investigated by a special counsel, I've never gone bankrupt, I've never cheated people out of money I owed them, I've never said anything misogynistic like about about grabbing women by the pussy (let alone being recorded saying it), I never lie because I conduct my life in a way that means I never have to, I'm not a racist or a bigot, and I haven't alienated our allies while chumming it up with brutal dictators. My main flaw from a Christian standpoint is is that I don't believe in the Christian God, but then neither does Trump.
But the main reason his support increases among Christians today? Because of the way he reacts to the SATANIC HATRED that comes at him from all directions. Most anyone else would have resigned the presidency by now. He deals with it in a very measured, Christian way.
Trump mainly deals with criticism by lying. I don't think that's the "Christian way."
Sure, his earlier public life didn't indicate a passion for Christianity,...
His current public life doesn't indicate a passion for Christianity, either. It does indicate a passion for the Christian vote.
He is older and wiser now,...
He is older and more paranoid and more adversarial and more chaotic and more resistant to detail and truth.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2172 by marc9000, posted 07-17-2018 5:38 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2185 by marc9000, posted 07-18-2018 7:07 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024