#46 President Joe Biden

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

Well yes.  So in other words everyone has a problem with Amazon being able to provide a superior service at a cheaper price.  And what he's saying is no different than any other business would try to do in a similar situation, with a similarly brilliant business plan.  And none of Lex's criticism violate any part of the Sherman Act. Offending your sensibilities or thinking something is 'unfair' doesn't make it so.  

And here's the really dirty little secret that I'd challenge anyone on.  Amazon pays it people, from lower level to upper level, more than a small business owner would pay for a similar service and Amazon provides substantially better benefits than a small business.  No offense to those small business owners, but I have yet to see where small businesses compensate better than large corp for similar services on a consistent basis.  Sure you can find an example here and there, but by and large corps provide better compensation, benefits, work/life balance, severance plans, etc.   

So better product, better pay, better benefits.. yet Amazon is the bad guy.  Who exactly is the good guy here?  

You already know how I feel about Amazon, M, so I'm not going to argue, but I will answer your question:  Many independent retailers.  I've worked for a few of them and the past and and still have my own independent used book business.  Until last year, my wife co-owned and managed a used bookstore for 38 years and she is literally loved by all her former employees, most of whom still keep in touch with her.   I also (as you probably remember) manage a small used record section at out local used bookstore. 

That's all I'm going to say here.  Seeing as the net result is basically always the same, I should have known better than to get into a discussion about Amazon. Sorry about that.

Cmon Bri, the point is to discuss!

I like the service Amazon provides, however, when they beat up on other sellers with their logistics business, thats when I disagree with their actions. They are using their marketplace power to leverage their vertical/ supply chain business. 

And the point I was trying to make, as a customer i agree their service is good, bit its rich hearing bezos complain about free markets, as Amazon is using its power to destroy no only its horizontal (seller ) competition,  but the vertical (logistics and fufillment) as well .

I don't think Bezos should be commenting on this, but not because he's rich or took advantage of the system.  I just don't think he knows what is happening internally at oil companies regarding pricing right now.  Although it would not surprise me if Bezos was preparing for some sort of independent candidacy for something. 

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

Well yes.  So in other words everyone has a problem with Amazon being able to provide a superior service at a cheaper price.  And what he's saying is no different than any other business would try to do in a similar situation, with a similarly brilliant business plan.  And none of Lex's criticism violate any part of the Sherman Act. Offending your sensibilities or thinking something is 'unfair' doesn't make it so.  

And here's the really dirty little secret that I'd challenge anyone on.  Amazon pays it people, from lower level to upper level, more than a small business owner would pay for a similar service and Amazon provides substantially better benefits than a small business.  No offense to those small business owners, but I have yet to see where small businesses compensate better than large corp for similar services on a consistent basis.  Sure you can find an example here and there, but by and large corps provide better compensation, benefits, work/life balance, severance plans, etc.   

So better product, better pay, better benefits.. yet Amazon is the bad guy.  Who exactly is the good guy here?  

You already know how I feel about Amazon, M, so I'm not going to argue, but I will answer your question:  Many independent retailers.  I've worked for a few of them and the past and and still have my own independent used book business.  Until last year, my wife co-owned and managed a used bookstore for 38 years and she is literally loved by all her former employees, most of whom still keep in touch with her.   I also (as you probably remember) manage a small used record section at out local used bookstore. 

That's all I'm going to say here.  Seeing as the net result is basically always the same, I should have known better than to get into a discussion about Amazon. Sorry about that.

Brian,  I understand why you don't like Amazon.  I hope you can understand why others do like it.  

Lerxst1992 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Amazon has cornered the online market, impeding the ability of small businesses to operate independently and blocking them from having direct relationships with their customers

 Amazon steals independent businesses’ best ideas and innovations

Amazon imposes high fees on sellers, putting them at risk of going under.

Amazon compels sellers to buy its warehousing and shipping services, even though many would get a better deal from other delivery providers.

Amazon blocks independent businesses from offering lower prices on other sites.

Amazon strong-arms small brands, destabilizing their businesses and making it harder for them to grow and develop new products.

Amazonshutsdownsmallbusinesseswithoutdueprocess

..

Amazon is not only a near monopoly as an online marketplace, it’s essential to recall they use their vertical powers to crush horizontal competition. I guess some are just too accustomed to how far we strayed from Mr. Smith

Correct me, but it’s not putrid to see Bezos complaining about “market dynamics?”

A big part of the problem is the buyers.  First of all, a huge numbers of people don't care about any of the things you listed.  That's what Amazon is so big.  Too many people are cheap and short sighted.  But also, I believe there are many who are simply not aware that what you are saying is true. 

To anyone here who shops on Amazon:  I am not trying to shame you by saying the above.  I'm speaking in generalities, but I believe what I said is true.   I think a lot of people just don't understand how destructive Amazon is.  If you shop on Amazon, please re-consider. 

Well yes.  So in other words everyone has a problem with Amazon being able to provide a superior service at a cheaper price.  And what he's saying is no different than any other business would try to do in a similar situation, with a similarly brilliant business plan.  And none of Lex's criticism violate any part of the Sherman Act. Offending your sensibilities or thinking something is 'unfair' doesn't make it so.  

And here's the really dirty little secret that I'd challenge anyone on.  Amazon pays it people, from lower level to upper level, more than a small business owner would pay for a similar service and Amazon provides substantially better benefits than a small business.  No offense to those small business owners, but I have yet to see where small businesses compensate better than large corp for similar services on a consistent basis.  Sure you can find an example here and there, but by and large corps provide better compensation, benefits, work/life balance, severance plans, etc.   

So better product, better pay, better benefits.. yet Amazon is the bad guy.  Who exactly is the good guy here?  

You already know how I feel about Amazon, M, so I'm not going to argue, but I will answer your question:  Many independent retailers.  I've worked for a few of them and the past and and still have my own independent used book business.  Until last year, my wife co-owned and managed a used bookstore for 38 years and she is literally loved by all her former employees, most of whom still keep in touch with her.   I also (as you probably remember) manage a small used record section at out local used bookstore. 

That's all I'm going to say here.  Seeing as the net result is basically always the same, I should have known better than to get into a discussion about Amazon. Sorry about that.

Cmon Bri, the point is to discuss!

I like the service Amazon provides, however, when they beat up on other sellers with their logistics business, thats when I disagree with their actions. They are using their marketplace power to leverage their vertical/ supply chain business. 

And the point I was trying to make, as a customer i agree their service is good, bit its rich hearing bezos complain about free markets, as Amazon is using its power to destroy no only its horizontal (seller ) competition,  but the vertical (logistics and fufillment) as well .

Guys, it's too personal an issue for me and I should not have gotten into it.  Also, I respect you both and don't want to get into something of this nature with either of you.

Also, I would note that my not liking Amazon is not something that would stop me caring about anybody, including you two.  My own big sister- one of the people I care for most in this world- uses Amazon.  She knows how I feel, but she has her own reasons for doing what she does.  I don't hold it against her, but also I just don't talk to her about it.

Carry on good fellows!

mace1229

I assume most people feel the way I do about Amazon. I’m not excited about them, I’m not happy for  them when they put someone else out of business. Everyone wants to cheer for the little guy. But at the end of the day, if I can get something delivered to my door, often even same day now, for less than it costs me to go to the store and get it, I’m probably going to do it. Based on how popular Amazon is, seems like most people agree.
And good for you Brian for not using them (I mean that, it’s not sarcasm) it’s just too cheap and too easy for me not to. 2 days ago I had to replace a phone Jack cover. I saw online it was $3.98 at lowes, or for $3.22 I can get it on Amazon and delivered overnight, before I’d even have a chance to go to Lowes. We’re moving today, so didn’t really want to spend the hour it would take to drive to Lowes, find the right isle, find the right product and hope it’s actually in stock and drove home. It’s too hard not to use them sometimes.

Lerxst1992

Another example of Dems being terrible at politics. Yesterday was a perfect example for Biden to respond to the angry father of a parkland victim, “if you all want more gun regulations, you all need to vote for more democrats. 

…

Biden hosted hundreds of people at the White House, including bipartisan lawmakers and the families of victims of gun violence, to mark the new law. But during his remarks, the president was interrupted by Manuel Oliver, whose son Joaquin was one of 17 people killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.  

“What we’re doing here today is real. It’s vivid. It’s relevant. The action we take today is a step designed to make our nation the kind of nation we should be," Biden said. 

"Today is many things. It’s proof that, despite the nay-sayers, we can make meaningful progress on dealing with gun violence,” Biden added at the event before shouts were heard from the crowd.  

“Sit down. You’ll hear what I have to say,” Biden said, before Oliver could be heard yelling “We have to do more than that.”  

“Let him talk,” Biden added, as Secret Service agents appeared to approach Oliver.  

HughFreakingDillon

gimmesometruth27 said:

if schumer were lbj, he would be dragging manchin a sinema up and down pennsylvania avenue publicly until they got in line. what good is a majority leader that cannot even get his party in line? schumer is a national embarrassment.

I'm geniunly curious about something, not just for you gimme, but anyone....when repubs vote down party lines, we decry it as partisanship, and plead that they should vote what's right for america, not the party/their careers. but then on the flip side, we expect democrats to "fall in line". why is that?

Halifax2TheMax

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if schumer were lbj, he would be dragging manchin a sinema up and down pennsylvania avenue publicly until they got in line. what good is a majority leader that cannot even get his party in line? schumer is a national embarrassment.

I'm geniunly curious about something, not just for you gimme, but anyone....when repubs vote down party lines, we decry it as partisanship, and plead that they should vote what's right for america, not the party/their careers. but then on the flip side, we expect democrats to "fall in line". why is that?

Because Dems are usually trying to do what’s best for the country or the greatest majority of its citizens. Now, that may very well be a matter of opinion but repubs have been the party of no, and no alternatives, for the past decade, while stifling debate and not allowing compromise. ACA and BBB come to mind.

Merkin Baller

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if schumer were lbj, he would be dragging manchin a sinema up and down pennsylvania avenue publicly until they got in line. what good is a majority leader that cannot even get his party in line? schumer is a national embarrassment.

I'm geniunly curious about something, not just for you gimme, but anyone....when repubs vote down party lines, we decry it as partisanship, and plead that they should vote what's right for america, not the party/their careers. but then on the flip side, we expect democrats to "fall in line". why is that?

Maybe because letting republicans burn our federal government to the ground is bad for America? 

HughFreakingDillon

Merkin Baller said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if schumer were lbj, he would be dragging manchin a sinema up and down pennsylvania avenue publicly until they got in line. what good is a majority leader that cannot even get his party in line? schumer is a national embarrassment.

I'm geniunly curious about something, not just for you gimme, but anyone....when repubs vote down party lines, we decry it as partisanship, and plead that they should vote what's right for america, not the party/their careers. but then on the flip side, we expect democrats to "fall in line". why is that?

Maybe because letting republicans burn our federal government to the ground is bad for America? 

ironically, this has been a republican talking point for several years now. 

Lerxst1992

Halifax2TheMax said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

if schumer were lbj, he would be dragging manchin a sinema up and down pennsylvania avenue publicly until they got in line. what good is a majority leader that cannot even get his party in line? schumer is a national embarrassment.

I'm geniunly curious about something, not just for you gimme, but anyone....when repubs vote down party lines, we decry it as partisanship, and plead that they should vote what's right for america, not the party/their careers. but then on the flip side, we expect democrats to "fall in line". why is that?

Because Dems are usually trying to do what’s best for the country or the greatest majority of its citizens. Now, that may very well be a matter of opinion but repubs have been the party of no, and no alternatives, for the past decade, while stifling debate and not allowing compromise. ACA and BBB come to mind.

Not saying this is what’s above but…Starting to see this line of attack against Biden from the left leaning news networks, that he is not transformational, not accomplishing what LBJ or  FDR did. Do they just hire anyone to speak on the tv? How about hiring me, Im just some dude sitting in my backyard, but I know offhand those two former presidents had huge majorities in congress and Biden has a 50/50 Senate and just a handful of more Dems in the house.

From my point earlier  biden had the perfect response lined up when attacked by the parkland parent victim yesterday , vote for more Dems and see what we can do. That’s how the opposition handles it.

…

The 89th United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. It met in Washington, DC from January 3, 1965, to January 3, 1967, during the second and third years of Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency. The apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives was based on the Eighteenth Census of the United States in 1960.

Both chambers had a Democratic supermajority, and with the election of President Lyndon B. Johnson to his own term in office, maintained an overall federal government trifecta.

..

Through several stretches the majority wasn’t just filibuster-proof but practically opposition-proof. For example, in 1937 FDR had 76 of 96 seats in the US Senate that were of the same party he was (Democrat). In addition, he had 331 of the 433 members of the House in his party, too. 

Lerxst1992

speaking of talking heads on tv, Joe just had on a Ms. Elrod, a former chief of staff of the DCCC, a major campaign group for Dems in the house. I mean, that’s a fairly big job in national politics? She claimed the new polling for trump is 49% among republicans, and it’s not enough because for sure it’s coming down.

Does Ms Elrod know that gop primaries are winner take all, and in 2016 only 35% was enough for him to dominate early the primaries? Does she realize once he announces he is running and starts up the misinformation and bully campaign, his popularity will rise? Even if it stays the same, 49% is likely enough? Seems she was only interested in scoring political points against trump. Not seeing the danger. Overconfidence. History repeating.

brianlux

Lerxst1992 said:

speaking of talking heads on tv, Joe just had on a Ms. Elrod, a former chief of staff of the DCCC, a major campaign group for Dems in the house. I mean, that’s a fairly big job in national politics? She claimed the new polling for trump is 49% among republicans, and it’s not enough because for sure it’s coming down.

Does Ms Elrod know that gop primaries are winner take all, and in 2016 only 35% was enough for him to dominate early the primaries? Does she realize once he announces he is running and starts up the misinformation and bully campaign, his popularity will rise? Even if it stays the same, 49% is likely enough? Seems she was only interested in scoring political points against trump. Not seeing the danger. Overconfidence. History repeating.

That history repeating itself is a scary, scary thought!

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

speaking of talking heads on tv, Joe just had on a Ms. Elrod, a former chief of staff of the DCCC, a major campaign group for Dems in the house. I mean, that’s a fairly big job in national politics? She claimed the new polling for trump is 49% among republicans, and it’s not enough because for sure it’s coming down.

Does Ms Elrod know that gop primaries are winner take all, and in 2016 only 35% was enough for him to dominate early the primaries? Does she realize once he announces he is running and starts up the misinformation and bully campaign, his popularity will rise? Even if it stays the same, 49% is likely enough? Seems she was only interested in scoring political points against trump. Not seeing the danger. Overconfidence. History repeating.

I think her point would be that the percentage of support among the base is falling and falling fast.  The committee is absolutely damaging him.  And we are two years away from a convention.  

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

speaking of talking heads on tv, Joe just had on a Ms. Elrod, a former chief of staff of the DCCC, a major campaign group for Dems in the house. I mean, that’s a fairly big job in national politics? She claimed the new polling for trump is 49% among republicans, and it’s not enough because for sure it’s coming down.

Does Ms Elrod know that gop primaries are winner take all, and in 2016 only 35% was enough for him to dominate early the primaries? Does she realize once he announces he is running and starts up the misinformation and bully campaign, his popularity will rise? Even if it stays the same, 49% is likely enough? Seems she was only interested in scoring political points against trump. Not seeing the danger. Overconfidence. History repeating.

I think her point would be that the percentage of support among the base is falling and falling fast.  The committee is absolutely damaging him.  And we are two years away from a convention.  

Two years for the maga army memories to fade. The insiders got overconfident about trump losing in 2016, yet here we are again.

Merkin Baller

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

speaking of talking heads on tv, Joe just had on a Ms. Elrod, a former chief of staff of the DCCC, a major campaign group for Dems in the house. I mean, that’s a fairly big job in national politics? She claimed the new polling for trump is 49% among republicans, and it’s not enough because for sure it’s coming down.

Does Ms Elrod know that gop primaries are winner take all, and in 2016 only 35% was enough for him to dominate early the primaries? Does she realize once he announces he is running and starts up the misinformation and bully campaign, his popularity will rise? Even if it stays the same, 49% is likely enough? Seems she was only interested in scoring political points against trump. Not seeing the danger. Overconfidence. History repeating.

I think her point would be that the percentage of support among the base is falling and falling fast.  The committee is absolutely damaging him.  And we are two years away from a convention.  

Two years for the maga army memories to fade. The insiders got overconfident about trump losing in 2016, yet here we are again.

We're 28 months out from the next presidential election. 

Get a fucking grip. 

Lerxst1992

History doesn’t fucking repeat itself? He is beating DeSantis.

Halifax2TheMax

Damn you Brandon!

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

speaking of talking heads on tv, Joe just had on a Ms. Elrod, a former chief of staff of the DCCC, a major campaign group for Dems in the house. I mean, that’s a fairly big job in national politics? She claimed the new polling for trump is 49% among republicans, and it’s not enough because for sure it’s coming down.

Does Ms Elrod know that gop primaries are winner take all, and in 2016 only 35% was enough for him to dominate early the primaries? Does she realize once he announces he is running and starts up the misinformation and bully campaign, his popularity will rise? Even if it stays the same, 49% is likely enough? Seems she was only interested in scoring political points against trump. Not seeing the danger. Overconfidence. History repeating.

I think her point would be that the percentage of support among the base is falling and falling fast.  The committee is absolutely damaging him.  And we are two years away from a convention.  

I sure hope you are right, M.  Man, I sure hope you are right!

nicknyr15

Halifax2TheMax said:

Damn you Brandon!

Lol. 

Lerxst1992

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

speaking of talking heads on tv, Joe just had on a Ms. Elrod, a former chief of staff of the DCCC, a major campaign group for Dems in the house. I mean, that’s a fairly big job in national politics? She claimed the new polling for trump is 49% among republicans, and it’s not enough because for sure it’s coming down.

Does Ms Elrod know that gop primaries are winner take all, and in 2016 only 35% was enough for him to dominate early the primaries? Does she realize once he announces he is running and starts up the misinformation and bully campaign, his popularity will rise? Even if it stays the same, 49% is likely enough? Seems she was only interested in scoring political points against trump. Not seeing the danger. Overconfidence. History repeating.

I think her point would be that the percentage of support among the base is falling and falling fast.  The committee is absolutely damaging him.  And we are two years away from a convention.  

I sure hope you are right, M.  Man, I sure hope you are right!

I hope Russ is right too, but my point was it doesn’t take a high percentage to win the gop nom, based on how their delegates are awarded. A technical point. For that, somewhere on this page, I got f bombed

Halifax2TheMax

Need to cut federal spending? Let’s start in WV. Let’s also slow walk SS deposits and make sure those tax refunds in WV zip codes take just a little longer to be deposited, maybe get “lost” for a few. Manchurian Joe is a team playa, yo!

Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) told Democratic leaders Thursday he would not support an economic package that contains new spending on climate change or new tax increases targeting wealthy individuals and corporations, marking a massive setback for party lawmakers who had hoped to advance a central element of their agenda before the midterm elections this fall.

The major shift in negotiations — confirmed by two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the talks — threatened to upend the delicate process to adopt the party’s signature economic package seven months after Manchin scuttled the original, roughly $2 trillion Build Back Better Act, which President Biden had endorsed.

But Manchin told Democratic leaders he is open to provisions that aim to lower prescription drug costs for seniors, the two people said. And the West Virginia moderate expressed support with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the party’s chief negotiator, for extending subsidies that could help keep health insurance costs down for millions of Americans, one of the sources said.