Hillary won more votes for President

Jearlpam0925

ledvedderman said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

How can our economic system be considered capitalism when we import so much from China?
I'm not just talking about end products, I'm including materials.

What does one thing have to do with the other? Capitalism is not the same as self sufficient.

Capitalism is based on privately owned entrepreneurial ventures, China has mixed enterprises, wholly state own, wholly private and and mix of state and privately owned enterprises. Can it be truly capitalistic when it relies so heavily on socialism?

That's a stretch. Taht's like saying ExxonMobil is not engaged in capitalism because it pays the Argentinian gov't fees for extracting oil. And the gov't is socialist.

Understood... I'm involved in digital billboards, 100% of the product comes from China, I don't consider myself a capitalist. I wouldn't exist without China, period. I'm not sure digital advertising would exist without China, times square would be unrecognizable.

Nice try.. you're involved in a capitalism. Is your company for profit? If you answered yes, then you are contributing to the capitalist system.

I didn't say I'm not contributing to or involved in the capitalistic system, I'm saying without China, the business wouldn't contribute to the capitalistic system because there wouldn't be a business. If I had to build a mousetrap within the pure capitalistic system, mice would rule!

If there was no china, you would get your materials from somewhere else. Presumably a higher price which would then be passed onto your customers. The business would go on.. I guarantee it.

Doubt it...clothing, shoes, yes. Digital billboards, not so sure.
You think without China Jerry Jones installs 60yard HDTV in his stadium?
You think I95 would be littered with dig billboards, every inch of times square facade covered?

You think China is the only country with the technology to make digital billboards? I doubt that. Isn't the technology from Japan?

That's always what I believed as well. In regards to the technology being from Japan.

Yeah, the one specifically in Dallas is from Mitsubishi - Japan.

And when I think of fucking sweet digital screen goodness I think of Samsung/South Korea.

Jason P

Worst. Day. Ever

tbergs

Jason P said:

Worst. Day. Ever

Nice picture. Haha!

rssesq

She looks like she wants to MURDER someone with that Sardinian Assassin ice grill. She looks more ruthless than Richie Aprile.

Ledbetterman10

Jason P said:

Worst. Day. Ever

Lookin' like Buckner walking into Shea for game 7.

rssesq

rssesq

"Madd Face, aint no disguise. SHIFTEE LOWDOWN GREEDY GRIMMEE." Onyx

LongestRoad

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

How can our economic system be considered capitalism when we import so much from China?
I'm not just talking about end products, I'm including materials.

What does one thing have to do with the other? Capitalism is not the same as self sufficient.

Capitalism is based on privately owned entrepreneurial ventures, China has mixed enterprises, wholly state own, wholly private and and mix of state and privately owned enterprises. Can it be truly capitalistic when it relies so heavily on socialism?

That's a stretch. Taht's like saying ExxonMobil is not engaged in capitalism because it pays the Argentinian gov't fees for extracting oil. And the gov't is socialist.

Understood... I'm involved in digital billboards, 100% of the product comes from China, I don't consider myself a capitalist. I wouldn't exist without China, period. I'm not sure digital advertising would exist without China, times square would be unrecognizable.

Nice try.. you're involved in a capitalism. Is your company for profit? If you answered yes, then you are contributing to the capitalist system.

I didn't say I'm not contributing to or involved in the capitalistic system, I'm saying without China, the business wouldn't contribute to the capitalistic system because there wouldn't be a business. If I had to build a mousetrap within the pure capitalistic system, mice would rule!

If there was no china, you would get your materials from somewhere else. Presumably a higher price which would then be passed onto your customers. The business would go on.. I guarantee it.

I can't even believe what I'm reading. You truly believe your business couldn't exist without products made in China???
I remember back in the 90's everyone would say don't buy products made in china, they're going to take over and take our jobs. They did. Now people are bitching that we might not get to buy products made in China. lol

mrussel1

LongestRoad said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

How can our economic system be considered capitalism when we import so much from China?
I'm not just talking about end products, I'm including materials.

What does one thing have to do with the other? Capitalism is not the same as self sufficient.

Capitalism is based on privately owned entrepreneurial ventures, China has mixed enterprises, wholly state own, wholly private and and mix of state and privately owned enterprises. Can it be truly capitalistic when it relies so heavily on socialism?

That's a stretch. Taht's like saying ExxonMobil is not engaged in capitalism because it pays the Argentinian gov't fees for extracting oil. And the gov't is socialist.

Understood... I'm involved in digital billboards, 100% of the product comes from China, I don't consider myself a capitalist. I wouldn't exist without China, period. I'm not sure digital advertising would exist without China, times square would be unrecognizable.

Nice try.. you're involved in a capitalism. Is your company for profit? If you answered yes, then you are contributing to the capitalist system.

I didn't say I'm not contributing to or involved in the capitalistic system, I'm saying without China, the business wouldn't contribute to the capitalistic system because there wouldn't be a business. If I had to build a mousetrap within the pure capitalistic system, mice would rule!

If there was no china, you would get your materials from somewhere else. Presumably a higher price which would then be passed onto your customers. The business would go on.. I guarantee it.

I can't even believe what I'm reading. You truly believe your business couldn't exist without products made in China???
I remember back in the 90's everyone would say don't buy products made in china, they're going to take over and take our jobs. They did. Now people are bitching that we might not get to buy products made in China. lol

Not me... JC.

BS44325

Time to close this thread too Kat

benjs

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.

Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.

I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!

Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.

The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.

really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

We are a representational democracy, created to ensure some power is retained to the state. Whether you agree with it or not, it is what was ratified by the states and it is longest functioning constitution in history. So there must be something okay about it.

And the 3/5ths clause was eliminated 150 years ago.

no. there is nothing okay with a system that allows a person who procures millions of votes LESS than their opponent the right to govern. 54% of the american public who voted, allegedly voted AGAINST trump, yet he is in charge for the next 4 years. how is that democratic? simpy put, its not. and you know i dont necessarily see it as a fault of modern democracy, cause when we look bak to ancient athenian democracy, that great example of governemnt for the people , of the peple, we see that not ALL the peope were represented.. and if that is the case, i repeat HOW is that democratic? and again the answer is its not. its okay to admit that the system of government youve been born into ,and currently live under is not democratic... its okay that we dont fool ourselves into thinking that despite the rhetoric that says we live in a free and equal society, we admit that in actuality we dont. elections are a popularity contest and when the person who wins the most votes by millions DOES NOT WIN the election then you have to question the system. and you have ask yourself what exactly is democracy. and does it even exist or is it simply a buzz word people use, and have used against them, to make themselves feel good about the broken system they live in as a measure against the 'enemy' in order to keep us in line?

Anytime enough people, as represented by their elected officials, want to call a Constitutional convention to eliminate the electoral college, they can do it. There are mechanisms within the document that allow for it. Democracy is not purely defined by majority rules. Democracy is not purely a popularity contest. There have been five presidents to take office without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton took office in 92 after winning a measly 43% of the popular vote. 43%!! Does that mean 57% of the people voted against Clinton? What should have happened in his case?

Don't get me wrong... I dislike Trump as much as anyone on this board. I was a Hillary supporter to the point where @Free consistently accused me of being a paid HIllary-bot. But his victory is an indictment of lots of things.. media, Russia, wikileaks, the least sophisticated voter, racism, nationalism, anti-trade.. lots of things. But it's not an indictment of democracy or our Constitution. It worked precisely as designed, residing substantial power to the states. That's the point. And again, it is leading to a peaceful transfer of power which is something that is uniquely American.

If you want to change the process, use the tools that the Founders set forth. Start a group, raise money, lobby your congressmen or state legislature. There are mechanisms at your disposal.

to be honest i think the average voter is too unsophisticated, or disenfranchised to give a shit. i agree trump victory is an indictment on a lot of things, not the least being the aforementioned disenfranchisemnt and lack of sophistication. i dont believe in democracy and havent done for a great many years. i see too many goverments ignoring the will of the people at the expense of the freedom and lives of those of other countries as well as those of the countries said governments are supposed to represent. the biggest disjoint i see i regard to alleged democracy is capitalism. i dont have the answer, but what i do is that capitalism is not the answer. too many people suffer at its expense... and how can that be democratic? simple answer... its not. it was never mean to be. if democracy is meant to work then it has to work for everyone, not the 1%.

Back on point.. I hear what you are saying and we have the makings of a good discussion here. So some of what I write is for discussion, some is what I truly believe.

There is no connection between democracy and capitalism. They can co-exist, like they do in the US and they can be world's apart. There examples of countries that have capitalism (mostly crony) but do not have free elections. We also have socialist countries (or that have socialist services, not pure socialism) that are democracies.
Capitalism creates winners and losers. Of that, there is no doubt. But no other economic system has proven itself to be any better. Socialism (not the light Canadian kind, but the Argentinian or Soviet type) have been utter failures. Collectivism? Feudalism? What is the better solution that capitalism? It does create losers but it has the ability to be egalitarian too. You have the ability to control or change your course. That doesn't mean everyone can be Donald Trump. Money begets money. That's true. But poor can move to middle class, middle class can move up in our society. Again, that's not the historical norm.

Mrussel, your point about democracy and capitalism being able to co-exist... Do you think they're able to co-exist well?

In America, politicians take money from lobbyists in return for producing laws which favour them. Democracy is about balancing power equally whereas capitalism is about pursuing power (and since power is finite, that means taking power from others), and as in the case above, this would be a capitalist transaction with no net gain for democracy. Based on situations like that, isn't a capitalist democracy inherently paradoxical?

Gern Blansten

LongestRoad said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

How can our economic system be considered capitalism when we import so much from China?
I'm not just talking about end products, I'm including materials.

What does one thing have to do with the other? Capitalism is not the same as self sufficient.

Capitalism is based on privately owned entrepreneurial ventures, China has mixed enterprises, wholly state own, wholly private and and mix of state and privately owned enterprises. Can it be truly capitalistic when it relies so heavily on socialism?

That's a stretch. Taht's like saying ExxonMobil is not engaged in capitalism because it pays the Argentinian gov't fees for extracting oil. And the gov't is socialist.

Understood... I'm involved in digital billboards, 100% of the product comes from China, I don't consider myself a capitalist. I wouldn't exist without China, period. I'm not sure digital advertising would exist without China, times square would be unrecognizable.

Nice try.. you're involved in a capitalism. Is your company for profit? If you answered yes, then you are contributing to the capitalist system.

I didn't say I'm not contributing to or involved in the capitalistic system, I'm saying without China, the business wouldn't contribute to the capitalistic system because there wouldn't be a business. If I had to build a mousetrap within the pure capitalistic system, mice would rule!

If there was no china, you would get your materials from somewhere else. Presumably a higher price which would then be passed onto your customers. The business would go on.. I guarantee it.

I can't even believe what I'm reading. You truly believe your business couldn't exist without products made in China???
I remember back in the 90's everyone would say don't buy products made in china, they're going to take over and take our jobs. They did. Now people are bitching that we might not get to buy products made in China. lol

There would likely be some price increases but then competition would bring them down again....to some degree at least

mrussel1

benjs said:

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

mrussel1 said:

catefrances said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

JC29856 said:

The Juggler said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:

The cowboys had more total yards than the packers last night, more time of possession, more yards per play, more total plays, way more rushing yards and more yards per carry.

Unimportant because they still lost.

What's the point? You can bat .430 and still lose to a team who batted .150 if they scored more runs.

How many votes isn't how you win an election, and nobody was complaining before the election about the rules.

Weirdo won it, all the complaining about the popular vote is getting sad.

Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people would be akin to Arron Rogers repeatedly saying the Packers blew out the Cowboys despite winning by the slimmest of margins.

Good analogy though.

I like this analogy better, its like saying the Chiefs beat the Steelers because they scored more touchdowns! The winner is decided by points not number of touchdowns!

Trump and his surrogates repeatedly saying they won in a landslide, despite losing the pop vote by almost 3 million people, is akin to Mike Tomlin saying they blew out the Chiefs when, in fact, they only won by the slimmest of margins.

The amazing thing is the guy never won the popular vote in any race he's been in - the results this past year really are an anomaly. One which we need to live within for four years.

really, anomaly? so long as the electoral college exists this kind of result will persist. this is not democracy... then again define democracy. so long as you have a system thats historically based on slavery and the fact that yeah we'll count slaves as part of the population cause itll serve our purpose but hell no we wont allow them to vote, you cant consider yourself, as a nation, democratic. it fucking boggles my mind that the president elect can have 54% of the vote against him and yet still 'win' the election. anyone that thinks that this is representative of democracy is as big a fool as the man just about to step into the oval office.

We are a representational democracy, created to ensure some power is retained to the state. Whether you agree with it or not, it is what was ratified by the states and it is longest functioning constitution in history. So there must be something okay about it.

And the 3/5ths clause was eliminated 150 years ago.

no. there is nothing okay with a system that allows a person who procures millions of votes LESS than their opponent the right to govern. 54% of the american public who voted, allegedly voted AGAINST trump, yet he is in charge for the next 4 years. how is that democratic? simpy put, its not. and you know i dont necessarily see it as a fault of modern democracy, cause when we look bak to ancient athenian democracy, that great example of governemnt for the people , of the peple, we see that not ALL the peope were represented.. and if that is the case, i repeat HOW is that democratic? and again the answer is its not. its okay to admit that the system of government youve been born into ,and currently live under is not democratic... its okay that we dont fool ourselves into thinking that despite the rhetoric that says we live in a free and equal society, we admit that in actuality we dont. elections are a popularity contest and when the person who wins the most votes by millions DOES NOT WIN the election then you have to question the system. and you have ask yourself what exactly is democracy. and does it even exist or is it simply a buzz word people use, and have used against them, to make themselves feel good about the broken system they live in as a measure against the 'enemy' in order to keep us in line?

Anytime enough people, as represented by their elected officials, want to call a Constitutional convention to eliminate the electoral college, they can do it. There are mechanisms within the document that allow for it. Democracy is not purely defined by majority rules. Democracy is not purely a popularity contest. There have been five presidents to take office without winning the popular vote. Bill Clinton took office in 92 after winning a measly 43% of the popular vote. 43%!! Does that mean 57% of the people voted against Clinton? What should have happened in his case?

Don't get me wrong... I dislike Trump as much as anyone on this board. I was a Hillary supporter to the point where @Free consistently accused me of being a paid HIllary-bot. But his victory is an indictment of lots of things.. media, Russia, wikileaks, the least sophisticated voter, racism, nationalism, anti-trade.. lots of things. But it's not an indictment of democracy or our Constitution. It worked precisely as designed, residing substantial power to the states. That's the point. And again, it is leading to a peaceful transfer of power which is something that is uniquely American.

If you want to change the process, use the tools that the Founders set forth. Start a group, raise money, lobby your congressmen or state legislature. There are mechanisms at your disposal.

to be honest i think the average voter is too unsophisticated, or disenfranchised to give a shit. i agree trump victory is an indictment on a lot of things, not the least being the aforementioned disenfranchisemnt and lack of sophistication. i dont believe in democracy and havent done for a great many years. i see too many goverments ignoring the will of the people at the expense of the freedom and lives of those of other countries as well as those of the countries said governments are supposed to represent. the biggest disjoint i see i regard to alleged democracy is capitalism. i dont have the answer, but what i do is that capitalism is not the answer. too many people suffer at its expense... and how can that be democratic? simple answer... its not. it was never mean to be. if democracy is meant to work then it has to work for everyone, not the 1%.

Back on point.. I hear what you are saying and we have the makings of a good discussion here. So some of what I write is for discussion, some is what I truly believe.

There is no connection between democracy and capitalism. They can co-exist, like they do in the US and they can be world's apart. There examples of countries that have capitalism (mostly crony) but do not have free elections. We also have socialist countries (or that have socialist services, not pure socialism) that are democracies.
Capitalism creates winners and losers. Of that, there is no doubt. But no other economic system has proven itself to be any better. Socialism (not the light Canadian kind, but the Argentinian or Soviet type) have been utter failures. Collectivism? Feudalism? What is the better solution that capitalism? It does create losers but it has the ability to be egalitarian too. You have the ability to control or change your course. That doesn't mean everyone can be Donald Trump. Money begets money. That's true. But poor can move to middle class, middle class can move up in our society. Again, that's not the historical norm.

Mrussel, your point about democracy and capitalism being able to co-exist... Do you think they're able to co-exist well?

In America, politicians take money from lobbyists in return for producing laws which favour them. Democracy is about balancing power equally whereas capitalism is about pursuing power (and since power is finite, that means taking power from others), and as in the case above, this would be a capitalist transaction with no net gain for democracy. Based on situations like that, isn't a capitalist democracy inherently paradoxical?

I agree that unfettered capitalism will lead to the result of functioning poorly together. I would argue the same for democracy. The Roman people (and the Senate willingly gave their country to Caesar..same with Napoleon). However in this country both are checked, to varying results. For example, capitalism is not unfettered. We have anti-trust laws, anti-corruption statutes, etc. I'm not saying we don't need more or to adjust with the times. We absolutely do. For democa

PJPOWER

Lol

JC29856

Never count Hilliary out!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4156564/Hillary-television-groundwork-White-House-run.html

rssesq

perdador

PJPOWER

JC29856 said:

Never count Hilliary out!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4156564/Hillary-television-groundwork-White-House-run.html

Has the lesson not been learned???? I highly doubt she could ever be the democratic nominee again...Seems about time for the Clintons to fuck off.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

JC29856 said:

Never count Hilliary out!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4156564/Hillary-television-groundwork-White-House-run.html

Has the lesson not been learned???? I highly doubt she could ever be the democratic nominee again...Seems about time for the Clintons to fuck off.

good god no. that would just guarantee 8 years of trump. if he doesn't get grassy knolled first.

HughFreakingDillon

not to mention @Free 's head would explode.

HughFreakingDillon

rssesq said:

perdador

termador