Reserved will post more comedy movies :d if your into these
Comment has been collapsed.
i think this are some sad times for Americans I will add that sad times will come for all humanity and planet regardless the result cause both suck for different reasons! :D
Comment has been collapsed.
for all humanity and planet
How so? Sure, they may be influencial, but in an everyday life you really don't hear much (if anything) about the US political stuff if you live outside the US (at least not where I live)...
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course they didnt affect me directly.. One is stupid as hell and the other is a cheated old lady that she is involved in many dirty stuffs...And also USA is one of the most biggest player in the world! Now you can imagine if this player ruled by a dump/dirty person?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, they may be powerfull, but that doesn't mean that they will directly affect the entire world. If they suddenly decide to go on a rampage across the world, I'm pretty sure that many countries will unite against them and will be able to withstand them...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think way to answer this is that the US dollar is the cornerstone of the world economy. And, probably no matter who gets elected between the two candidates the US will begin to crumble(through various means). When that happens so does the US dollar, which will affect the world economy. This is an over simplification of how this election will affect the rest of the world, but I think you will understand.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't say they both suck in the same way.
One is an old-time politician, involved in some worrying affairs, and probably getting funds where she shouldn't, but still experienced enough to be somewhat careful and able to keep things running more or less the same as they are today, until a next generation of leaders (hopefully) emerge. We could safely say that, while nobody expects her to make things better, she probably won't make them much worse either.
The other one might as well start World War 3 due to incompetence mixed with some degree of madness, intemperance and aggressiveness. He appears not to have a filter between his brain and his mouth and, while that thing can be good while talking with his own people (those who share his vision), it can be terrible when dealing with other nations leaders. And that is in addition to all his shady affairs, that are probably on par or even worse than Clinton's. And, he also seem to admire the wrong people (autocrats and generally "crooked democracies" and their leaders).
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldnt agree more!That's why i wrote for different reasons
Comment has been collapsed.
In any previous year, neither would be viable candidates. Keep the comedy coming, the world needs something to make the pain less.
Comment has been collapsed.
WHITELIST!
Also, have you seen Ambassador Mervin? He's wanted back on decapod-10.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is like the train problem. But there is always an answer.
Comment has been collapsed.
3rd party candidate ;)
Now when that fails we'll really need some of that comedy
Comment has been collapsed.
If the 3rd party candidate gets equal votes to the other two (unlikely), then the House gets to pick. The most likely successful third party candidate would be one of the republicans who wouldn't back Trump.
So one of the people America already said wasn't good enough becomes president. Essentially the Republican side gets a do-over.
Comment has been collapsed.
What a luck that the US are not ruling the world....otherwise the humankind would have been destroyed years ago....
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol yeah. I just love it how americans always seem to think that they're the most important to everyone in the world, while over where I live, we rarely even talk about them...
Comment has been collapsed.
oh boy - both candidates suck... with that said, there is a theory of the presidential status quo that states that regardless of who is elected as president nothing will actually change - and considering you need congress to pass laws for signing, nothing major will change. That said, if nothing changes - then would you rather hear trump address congress or hillary? I think trump is actually hilarious - so in that regard vote trump.
If you think the presidential status quo is a myth then I suppose you will tow the party line despite both parties bringing losers to the big show.
Comment has been collapsed.
that theory is very, very wrong.
If you look back at the past, you can see many instances where a president has left an indelible mark. You can also imagine how easily things would have been quite different had someone else filled the seat.
More importantly, history has also shown that even where power is ostensibly restricted, it is entirely possible for a person in power to subvert the current system for their own ends, including changing the system themselves.
Anyone who actually believes that theory is, quite simply, an ignoramus.
Comment has been collapsed.
Really dingbat? Anyone who believe in the Tyranny of the Status Quo is ignoramus?
Milton Friedman - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRXEk7su62w - arguably the most intelligent economist in the history of the USA most be quite the ignoramus then... I can't help but wonder why he won a bunch of awards and the nobel prize in economic sciences and you are just a member of steamgifts?
Comment has been collapsed.
Milton Friedman also was a hardcore believer in supply-side economics, which history has shown time and again to be problematic.
He also refused to acknowledge the possibility that markets can go wrong (again, happens all the time) or that government intervention can serve a useful purpose (again, proven wrong by history).
Milton Friedman has made many contributions to the world of economics, but he was ideologically blind. Strictly following his policies do more harm than good; it results in the rich getting richer and in corporations becoming more and more powerful.
oh, and, I may "just be a member of steamgifts" but you have absolutely no idea what I, or almost anyone else here) does outside of steamgifts. but feel free to assume I'm a loser
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't assume you were a loser, just that your opinion falls short when compared to nobel economic science winners opinions - who according to your statement is an ignoramus.
And since you mentioned supply-side economics, he was a believer in that because it is - what we commonly refer to as paul pierce - THE TRUTH. What history has shown that to be problematic? Please provide an example when making such a bold statement.
Furthermore, government intervention can serve a useful purpose - it doesn't do so currently - but assuming it did so responsibly and under no intent to use as political currency or leverage it can be useful - or I suppose you would suggest that the US war economy (manufacture and supply of allies - and then self) which brought about the end of the great depression was an 'unuseful purpose'?
Are you operating from some alternative history or do you have any actual examples to provide with your first year economics lecture ideology?
Comment has been collapsed.
Supply side economics resulted in or exacerbated both the great depression and the great recession, for starters.
Here's a simple bit of logic. You give Bill Gates $100, it'll just go into the bank, he won't spend a penny more than he would otherwise. You give $100 to an alcoholic bum, that bum will spend the entire $100 at the local liquor store. The liquor store owner will spend part of that money on wages, part of it on supplies, and will spend part of what's left over on something s/he wants, like maybe a nicer sandwich. His employees will spend what they receive.
The problem with supply-side economics is that it talks about increasing supply to drive down price, without taking into account there's a lower limit to how cheap goods can be produced.
I do agree with you that a lot of government intervention does not currently serve a useful purpose. Hell, I completely agree with you that the US war economy helped (although the turning point was years before that). But that actually bolsters my argument for Keynesian economics. Though it's nor perfect, it does work.
Basically, economies will go through a boom/bust cycle regularly. Government policies can reduce the length and severity of a depression. (or, in the case of the 1907 recession, JP Morgan stepped in and took on the role of central bank, as there was none).
The problem with government intervention is that government is very bad at picking winners, and, government can be prone to bribery. The U.S. even managed to legalize not only bribery, but extortion.
There's a great anecdote and I wish I still had the source, where the former CEO of Shell described how he would be summoned for a congressional or senate hearing. On the way to the hearing, politicians would ask him if he'd contribute to their reelection campaign. If he contributed, the hearing would be friendly and short. If he didn't, they'd grill him for days.
Anyway, at the risk of rambling, no government intervention is bad. some intervention is good. Too much and/or the wrong intervention is bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
dingbat, don't engage me by using intellectual dishonesty. Your $100 example has nothing to do with supply side economics.
Supply side economics is based on one sole principle - lower barriers on the production of goods most effectively spurs economic growth. No where in that principle is anyone pocketing money.
"Milton Friedman has made many contributions to the world of economics, but he was ideologically blind. Strictly following his policies do more harm than good; it results in the rich getting richer and in corporations becoming more and more powerful."
The rich get richer regardless of any economic theory. That will continue to be the case so long as there is an incentive to do so. Furthermore, the consumer and the free market dictate who of the rich will be getting richer until the free market adjusts and the consumer is offered a comparable good and/or service.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wikipedia: "Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory[1][2] that argues economic growth can be most effectively created by investing in capital and by lowering barriers on the production of goods and services. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices; furthermore, the investment and expansion of businesses will increase the demand for employees and therefore create jobs."
The problem is that it doesn't work in practice. The biggest issue is that it doesn't allow for short-term corrections and interventions.
Investors don't care anywhere near as much about barriers as they do about opportunity. Investing in a business or production of goods comes down to just two questions:
(1) How much do I need to put in? (2) how much will I get out? (and 3, what's the risk?)
For an investor to be willing to invest, the ratio has to be sufficient.
Supply-side economics only addresses question 1. By reducing barriers to entry, it makes the investment less costly. But, it doesn't address question 2.
The great depression is a great example in why this approach doesn't work. When people don't have anything, they can't afford to buy goods, no matter how cheap.
Now that's a little extreme, but, there's a lower limit to the cost of goods. Take a phone. The cost of production consists of the following (1) the raw material that goes into the phone, (2) the factory that can make the phone, (3) the cost of labor & management, and (4) the cost of transportation, to get the raw materials to the factory and to get the finished phone to customers.
There are a lot of cuts to be made, but you still need to be able to cover all those costs. (It's also worth noting that economies of scale mean that the more phones get made, the cheaper they get). If there aren't enough people working who can afford to buy the phone, then the factory will close down (or not get built)
If you want a good thought-experiment about supply-side economics, I'd like you to think about how German government bonds have a negative yield. That means that a large amount of capital is sitting on the sidelines, because investors do not believe there are investments worth making. It means they'd rather take a guaranteed small loss, because there are no market opportunities that would give a positive yield. It flies in the face of supply-side economics
Comment has been collapsed.
" It means they'd rather take a guaranteed small loss, because there are no market opportunities that would give a positive yield. It flies in the face of supply-side economics"
Thanks for the response - I don't need a lesson in what a negative bond yield means. In every post you have made, you have ensured that you have made some type of insult against my intelligence or my opinion - as such you are not interested in the exchanging of ideas - only in conquering those who disagree with yours. The result of which is that I will no longer be engaged with you on this topic and I would strongly suggest that if you ever want to have an intellectual conversation with someone who shares a different viewpoint than you, to check your insults and rhetoric at the keyboard. Good day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Many Trump supporters share your persecution complex.
Comment has been collapsed.
that's my point. I reread everything I wrote to you, and only found 2 insults (now 3). That's quite far from "in every post".
Comment has been collapsed.
just so you know, an insult doesn't always have to take the form of 'you're a big stupid meany head'. You can insult someones intelligence by explaining rudimentary concepts. You can insult someone by being condescending. You can insult someone by patronizing them.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand, this is a public forum and I just learnt something thanks to the explainations of 'rudimentary' concepts.
Thanks dingbat!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm glad you brought up the unfortunate status quo theory because I've actually thought about that myself sans any outside influence and that's kind of how I feel. I can honestly say that this country has not had a great president in a very long time, certainly not in my lifetime, and I think it is because the president no longer has the influence that they did in past times in order to be able to make a real difference. I almost feel as though the president is more of a showpiece for the American people, and the real person(s) running the country and making the big decisions are carefully obscured from public view, so in that respect it probably doesn't really matter in the end who you throw up there as the next president. Now I'll admit I do not follow politics closely, but a big reason why is because I'm somewhat disillusioned with the whole thing given the above. I never thought I would say this, but if nothing else I am inclined to give Trump a shot just to try something different. Not unlike the newer trilogy of Star Wars films that were painfully stale and devoid of character compared to the originals, the presidency has become the same way.
Comment has been collapsed.
I call for a vote of no confidence in Obama and nominate Trump to become the next supreme chancellor! ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
well, most politicians are just a pretty mouthpiece, and it's their billionaire and/or corporate backers who truly pull the strings. To the question usually is whether you prefer the politician paid for by the oil & gas industry versus the politician paid for by the wall street banks vs the politician paid for by the tech industry, etc.
However, considering the many, many parallels between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler, not to mention the many red flags about his campaign, I think that while Trump will almost definitely result in something different, that something different will almost definitely be worse
Comment has been collapsed.
after someone who is having an intellectual conversation a few posts up compares Trump to Hitler, there just is no point in continuing the engagement - ESPECIALLY AS A RESPONSE TO A STAR WARS JOKE!
Comment has been collapsed.
Regardless of what I agree/disagree with dingbat, being so blind to the obvious parallels between Trump and Hitler is quite... hillarious. :/
Here's a few.
In regards to what I antecipate as comments such as oh, given source is this, given source is that, there was a gentleman by the name of Albert Einstein that had several quotes that shouldn't be held as dogma (far from it), but should neither be easily dismissed.
I would merely like to highlight 2 that complement each other very well, in my honest opinion, given you strike me as someone who cares more about who says what, then what is actually being said (for which I sincerely apologize beforehand if I misunderstood, but that is how you came across in your previous posts - no ill intent harboured towards you, it was merely what i picked up).
Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized.
To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself.
Meaning quite simply this, if i wasn't clear... try not to be so quick to jump on someone's bandwagon just because they're held in high regard nor so quick to disregard someone's opinion because of who they are, as the wisest of men can get it wrong and the most foolish of men can get it right at any given day. Like they usually say... even a broken clock is right twice a day. ;)
And the 2 quotes from Einstein meant that even though he himself knew the world viewed him as wise / wiser than most, he resented (to a degree) that people latched to his words instead of forming their own. And no, the irony isn't lost in me for quoting him on it, I just so happen to agree with what he said regardless, simply put. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I will simply ask you this one question: What is more likely?
A successful billionaire businessman with hundreds of thousands of employees of all genders, races, religions and creeds is really a racist and sexist (FYI the Trump Organization Executive Vice President of Global Licensing is a woman).
or
A successful billionaire entertainer knows how to invoke the passions and loyalties of his viewers - and now as a politician will be looking to increase his viewer counts and turn them into votes through increases of emotionally charged topics.
Is his campaign ethical for doing that? eh... is any campaign ethical? They all seem to be liars, patronizers, and panderers - so what difference does it make?
As far as who had to say what... Dingbat suggests that the tyranny of the status quo is invalid because dingbat says so - and anyone who doesn't agree with him is "an ignoramus". I only pointed out who originated the idea of the tyranny of the status quo as a way to lend credibility to other readers who are not familiar with it at all - and that, obviously, a nobel winner of economic sciences has much more credibility than random SG user. I don't care the quote source so long as the idea has merit - dingbats idea however not only has no merit but has been proved to have no merit many times prior to this forum.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is more likely?
The former hands down, unless (no offence) you really don't inhabit the same planet i do. Those on ivory towers never have a broad view of the world, it's the other way around. The 1% never have the little guy's back, they're too busy scratching each other, they look down at ants, not people. Which does not mean they're not surrounded with a plethora of people advising them what political moves to make so that they sound like they give a damn.
In a one-sided economy where even an idiot can inherit a fortune and make more fortune, because... money generates money, whereas debt generates debt, arguing that being a billionaire stands automatically for merit is a fallacy. Yes, there are people who have earned their wealth entirely the hard way. That was eons ago and still only a handful of those that earned certain amounts of wealth did it in that manner. Everyone else just lobbied their way to fortune in a dysfunctional global economy that allows exactly for that. And please don't resort to the usual rhetoric of calling me a communist or utopian socialist, just because i firmly believe world economy based on pure capitalism without restrictions is just as broken, despite the fact that for the vast majority of the world, that hasn't quite sunk in yet.
FYI the Trump Organization Executive Vice President of Global Licensing is a woman
Don't mistake political moves for appearance's sake with actual caring. Heck, i'm not an actual fan of Hillary, to be perfectly honest, so don't think for a second that what i just said doesn't go for both of them. That kind of moves by both of them means crap to me, sorry. I care more about what they intend to do should they be elected, and as far as Trump goes, like i said, the parallels between him and Hitler are more than just a few.
Except to be perfectly honest, I kinda get how in an early 20th century with very little to no information, a guy who wasn't a billionaire swaying the opinion of the working class in that way was feasible. It baffles me how a billionaire accomplishes the same crap 80 years after all that.
As far as who had to say what... Dingbat suggests that the tyranny of the status quo is invalid because dingbat says so - and anyone who doesn't agree with him is "an ignoramus".
I never claimed to agree with everything he said. Stooping to mud-flinging / insulting is hardly a good way of getting a point across. It's hardly a way at all... good or bad. It accomplishes the opposite.
That said, i could've misunderstood the rest, but I don't think he disagrees with Milton Friedman just because he says so. Let's face it, in a world whose economy is fundamentally flawed, putting stock in which awards were given to whom by the same people that wish to maintain it as is, is a bit of confirmation bias, no?
You can disagree that the economy is flawed, that's another debate alltogether, but ask yourself this... If it's so peachy and functional, why are we all (or the vast majority) starting to come to terms that this is all hitting our fans all around the globe? Granted, it's hitting some countries more rapidly than others, but even those that appear to be in the clear, it's all a glass house. But don't believe me, ask the residents in those countries. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
"Let's face it, in a world whose economy is fundamentally flawed, putting stock in which awards were given to whom by the same people that wish to maintain it as is, is a bit of confirmation bias, no?"
Really? You don't think that is a stretch huh? That the nobel prize board is attempting to stifle the innovation of ideas in an effort to uphold the status quo despite MF being part of the movement that didn't agree with the status quo in Keynesian economics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7LWJaBFIFw
I suppose we are just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You misunderstand me.
I expressed no opinion on their intent on maintaining global economy as is, merely their action.
It's not that I believe the nobel prize board wishes to stifle anything, but merely that they agreed that Friedman's policies were the right move at that time. I'm not questioning their morality, just how broad their view of the world really was, or rather... wasn't. I don't think they have any evil agenda, I just think they were not necessarily right from a logical standpoint, plain and simple. And the case in point is the amount of examples all around the globe now pointing exactly to that.
Also, your video, by a clearly biased individual, which is not going to be my point of contention, because it's not about the guy, since to be fair, i know nothing of the guy (not that it would matter), but to say Hitler was clearly left-wing so confidently is an absolute joke and makes the bias so obvious it's painful. Because, clearly genocide is a left-wing move. -.-''
As ALL tyrants since the beginning of time that got to power by swaying public opinion, the narrative shifts to meet the agenda. Hitler may have described himself as a left-wing socialist, but you are aware the socialists were also subject of persecution by Hitler, not just the Jews, right? And then the narrative shifted again when needed, that simple, as is... with ALL populists. He did what he needed to have blind followers, plain and simple.
Oh and to wrap it up, even I, who am not a US citizen, know that Hillary's allegedly proposed attack on the middle class was not actually real, just because folks misheard it as we are going to raise taxes on the middle class instead of aren't. The fact that either the guy in the video doesn't know that or pretends not to, makes the bias even more obvious, as if needed. :)
Again, i'm hardly her fan, but there are limits to even how biased someone can be, imo.
As for agreeing to disagreeing, that's more than fine, I don't mean to have the last word in anything, but you did misunderstand what I meant to say regarding MF's awards (arguably I could have expressed myself better there, I'll give you that). Just going back to the beginning and keeping it simple, again... I merely meant, awards don't make a man necessarily right... by no standards.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except he's not that successful.
If he had taken the money he inherited and invested it in the S&P 500, he'd be worth more than he is today.
Most of his business ventures have failed; it's the spaghetti approach: throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. He is very shrewd in managing to take his share regardless of how the business does.
But, all that talk aside, do you even know what his business is? He basically only has 2 businesses: owning and developing real estate, in which he does quite well, and licensing his name, in which he does even better. The vast majority of "Trump" properties aren't actually built, owned, and operated, by Trump, but by licensees who use his name for marketing.
Also, you completely misunderstand the tyranny of the status quo if you think it means that it doesn't matter who gets elected. It means that generally things stay more or less the same, that the trajectory doesn't change a lot. which is very true. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter who's at the helm. It most certainly doesn't equate to " there is a theory of the presidential status quo that states that regardless of who is elected as president nothing will actually change"
But if you want concrete examples of how certain presidents have had an effect, you can look at Herbert Hoover refusing to interfere with the great depression, and exacerbating the problem. Franklin Roosevelt ushering in the New Deal. Truman pushing through the Marshall Plan, Eisenhower developing the interstate highway system, Johnson pushing through the voting rights act. Nixon, if nothing else, pulling out of vietnam. Carter's inability to get a grip on the economy. Gonna skip a few, to the Bush Doctrine (justification for war with Iraq and Afghanistan), and then Obamacare.
oh, and, if you want to see how well Friedman's economic theories work in practice, just study the Chilean economy of the 1970s, which he practically designed. It included inflation of 340%, a drop in GDP of 15%, and unemployment skyrocketed from 3% to over 10%. Or, to quote the economist Orlando Letelier:
Three years have passed since this experiment began in Chile and sufficient information is available to conclude that Friedman's Chile disciples failed
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you know what all of your examples have in common? Congressional approval. I am well versed in the tyranny of the status quo but thank you for your backhanded insult. Quite frankly - I am done speaking with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I did not blacklist you. I am not a child. I am choosing to no longer engage with you on this topic - as I see no point in continuing to do so. It is called agreeing to disagree. But if you blacklisted me, more power to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
then I apologize. during the time of our debate, my blacklist increased by 1. I made an incorrect assumption. Sorry.
Comment has been collapsed.
tbf, Trumps campaign has literally used white nationalist propaganda.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, you can make arguments like that about pretty much anything, it doesn't really mean anything.
Both Trump and Hillary are shitty people. I don't believe either want to make death camps, but trump has literally used neonazi arguments in his campaign.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hillary's view on Gun Control were taken from Nazi Gun Control laws, made into the Gun Control Act of 1968, and expanded from there.
Comment has been collapsed.
^ pretty much this. They were doing somewhat okay until they equated Trump to what is arguably a real world physical embodiment of the antichrist and then lost all credibility. It's at that point that I realized that there is no point in taking the discussion any further.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am a proponent of the free trade of ideas and sharing of knowledge in a non hostile manner with no political agenda. I genuinely enjoy sharing ideas and hearing other ideas. The problem with most discussions is this perpetual notion that somehow someone has to win. People today do not listen and respond, they simply wait to talk again in an effort to steamroll and push their ideas and agendas on to others. Why is the celebration of other ideas no longer important? How does pushing one single ideology onto everyone you come across make your life or your world better?
I'm not saying that I am a Trump fan or hater - I'm not even registered to vote and no have political agenda - I am just simply a proponent of truth. The problem with truth during the political season is that there is no truth - there is every truth. The truth to Democrats is whatever their media and party lines have spoon fed them through manipulation and intellectual dishonesty, and the truth to Republicans is the same thing from their media and their party lines. It's like normal rational adults who are very intelligent somehow decided one day that - self growth isn't a thing anymore and we should no longer challenge ourselves to seek the truth in politics because we have some preconditioned psychological notion that our values or our party is right and we should force them on everyone around us.
Imagine if government was a burger joint. 100 people walk in, 51 people order a burger and 49 people order chicken nuggets. Well sorry everybody, all 100 get a burger because we had more votes for it. What if I could get the government I voted for. If you voted Hillary, you get more healthcare, more immigration, more government provided subsidies and handouts, you get lower education cost, and you get more taxes. If you voted Trump, you get less healthcare, less immigration, less government handouts, less taxes. Wouldn't that make things interesting? It certainly would.
But just because you don't like a candidate, for whatever reason, doesn't give you the right to compare them to Adolf Hitler - especially when comparatively speaking the other candidate has the same political virtues. I didn't come in here talking about how Hillary is actually Hitler - but if I had, I would have a better argument as to why.
How do you even begin to have a subjective conversation with someone who frames someone in this light? Impossible. And yet, even when I politely decline to discuss, I am pursued, I am hounded, I am attacked. I don't want to say these are the tools of liberals because they are the tools of conservatives too - truthfully they are the tools of the ignorant who have nothing of value to add to the conversation from an intellectual capacity. Dismiss the other ideas credibility by dismissing the individual providing the idea through insults.
Comment has been collapsed.
America has two truly evil people running for president and you have to choose between one of them, i don't think democracy is working guys.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree, except that I prefer the status quo over what Trump represents.
Xenophobic nationalism where you blame foreigners and a minority religion, railing against the physically infirm, while advocating for trade restrictions and closed borders has historically led to disaster
Comment has been collapsed.
You are entitled to your opinion, however I must disagree. Illegal aliens are a big problem in this country, they take away jobs from honest hard-working Americans because they are willing to accept less, all the while paying no taxes like everyone else and just being a general drain on the system. There's no reason why resources should be spent assisting people who are here illegally. Among other things, John Q. Public shouldn't have to pay for some illegal alien's medical treatments. If building a wall on the US/Mexico border and taking enforcement much more seriously is what it is going to take, then so be it. And I say this as someone of Latino/Hispanic heritage whose parents legally immigrated and became citizens. What's going on is a slap in the face to every legitimate immigrant who paid their dues, became naturalized through the proper channels, and actually contributed something to the system and society rather than detracting from it. Anyway, I'm not going to get involved in a lengthy debate, because honestly I don't have time for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough. I won't mention that there's negative net migration from mexico (i.e. more people are leaving for mexico than there are coming in), or that net immigration as a percentage has been fairly steady for over 150 years, or that it is physically impossible to build a wall along about half the border. Nor am I going to ask how much it's going to cost. I most certainly won't enter into a discussion about the concept of "honest hard-working Americans".
note: I am willing to concede either that you're right, or that there is significant room for debate, on the rest of your points
But yes, if your number one concern is that there are too many immigrants in this country, then you should absolutely vote for someone who speaks in platitudes and offers unworkable solutions
Comment has been collapsed.
So Trump and Hillary are both drowning, and you can only save one... what kind of sandwich do you make?
Nahh, as others have said both are terrible choices. I'm not enamored with my party's candidate this year (Gary Johnson) but he's way ahead of the other two, so he'll get my vote.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would you have any regret for this decision if Trump or Clinton end up winning? If so, vote the the other candidate among these two.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope. And I'm not going to fuel the false dichotomy of choice by voting for one of the establishment players. Change can only come once enough people reject the paradigm.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree totally, all these people just voting for someone because they're more scared of the other option and think that anything else is a wasted vote is just stupid. Vote for what ya believe in guys.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vote Limberbutt McCubbins!
https://limberbutt.com/
Comment has been collapsed.
The best description I have heard described it like choosing between eating an entire live chicken whole or having it shoved up your ass.
I personally see it as taking a shotgun blast to the foot or putting the barrel in your mouth as they are both horrible, but one definitely is definitely worse than the other.
Personally can't decide whether I am voting Stein or writing Sanders name in. I know they both stand virtually no chance of winning but not throwing my vote away on Trump or Clinton, I would stay home before I do that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You do know that not voting Trump or Clinton has the exact same effect as splitting your vote 50-50 between these two?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, not voting for Trump or Clinton is not voting for Trump and Clinton.
If enough also do so, you can actually end up taking electoral votes from them and force it to convention which sends a huge signal flare to both sides that they need to adapt to the will of the people or risk being replaced but another party over time.
It also emboldens more like minded individuals similar to that candidate to run for other offices as well.
While voting for the best candidate even though they probably won't win might be a short term loss, it can turn into a long term gain if support can continue.
Supporting the candidate you don't want just because they are considered more electable by the news talking heads caring more about an agenda than the news on the other hand may be a smaller short turn loss but it can turn into a bigger long term loss as well since you made no attempt to fix anything.
Also part of the reason why the people become "Unelectable" is because others fall for that same con turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy, if they voted whom they wanted, they might actually win more and even losing it forces future candidates to take that into account.
Comment has been collapsed.
No disrespect intended, but... I heavily, heavily disagree, especially given so many people out there mentioning a status quo.
That kind of mindset you claim is quite sadly all too present everywhere (here as well), which does indeed result in a status quo for which the people, and the people alone are to blame.
If he wholeheartedly and firmly believes in a candidate being better than those 2, he should definitely vote for that candidate, regardless of who it is. He can't be faulted for everyone else that prefers to tow some party line. He should do his part and as prepared as he may be for the worse, hope for the best, as in... that everyone does the same. He can't be faulted if they don't!
The minute you give up hoping anyone can win is when democracy truly fails. And that is not blind idealism, that has more pragmatic realism than you may think, at the very least, in the long run.
But that is sadly the time and age we live in, where press pollings clearly influence votes, thus resulting in a perpetual we were right after all, or like Fugus said in his own post, a self fulfilling prophecy - notice how polls very conveniently always shift from first to last day, regardless of which direction they shift in. I for one, am not paranoid, but certainly don't believe in that many coincidences either.
I'll even say more...
Some people who lived in an actual dictatorship may find this offensive, but someone wrote a satyrical piece some time ago, comparing some dictatorships of the past to some democracies of the present, stating that they weren't that different in the big picture and the actual biggest difference was something along these lines:
Previously, dictatorship would knock your door down with hand in fist and force you to subjugate. Now it knocks politely on your door and convinces you that you need to drop your beliefs for whatever reason, but always for your own sake... For all its flaws, at least then, you knew you were in a dictatorship.
It may be a bit blown out of proportion (at least for now), to be honest, but it's not without its argumentative merits, in my honest opinion. But maybe that's the point, maybe it's meant to be intentionally blown out of proportion and intentionally alarmist, for I for one, see it as a very real possibility in the future that it may not be so blown out of proportion at all if we continue to let ourselves be swayed like that. ;)
P.S.: Sorry for the rambling, I hope you understand my intent was not an antagonizing one. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
They're both horrible human beings. I mean, at least the communist guy is out of the race, but now we get to choose between two idiots who can only say:
"I'm Trump, and I said something offensive."
"I'm NOT Trump, what Trump said was offensive!"
The Youtube comments have more rational arguments! I don't want pre-schoolers running my country!
Comment has been collapsed.
There was no communist guy running. There was a democratic socialist who was the only one of the main ones who would have gotten millions off welfare and paying taxes and was projected to eliminate the national deficit by their second term and actually pay down the debt.
But evidently all that is considered freeloading now.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, evidently, anyone who has money is evil, that's why we should give up our individual economic freedoms for the good of the collective. Guns are the reason murders happen, so we should ban all of those of course so nobody will die(kidding, it's the VIDEO GAMES that really cause murder, did you know Cain was the first gamer?). And of course, drugs are harmless so we should make them all legal.
Okay, I was exaggerating. Still, "democratic socialist" just brings imagery of those European countries where college is free so people can go around getting art degrees and smoking weeds(not marijuana, just whatever the hell they find on the ground) while the people running tech startups beg for handouts in the street.
Comment has been collapsed.
You evidently weren't paying attention if you think his policies were about that.
His main change to his tax plan was having capital gains taxed as normal income about $250,000 per year. That wasn't hating on the rich, that was actually treating their income like income. Past that, he added higher tax brackets that still capped out at I think 54% if you were making over $10 MILLION per year to even hit that rate.
I don't remember him saying anything about banning guns or anything like that, I would have been against that change myself.
And the ONLY drug he was talking about legalizing is pot and he was going to legalize, regulate and tax it like tobacco and alcohol keeping hundreds of millions per year in the US and generating tax revenue per year instead of funding crime and cartels.
Other that you had his healthcare plan which was estimated to save us an estimated for $4000 per year per person compared to what we had now with full coverage.
And his College plan which I am not completely educated myself on to actually say much about but I can agree that our college system need massive fixes with the prices and such but from what I know about it, it would have been a net gain for us as a nation.
Edit:
He was also against Money in politics and public funding of elections and anyone educated in the system should agree with that unless you are trying to buy politicians to go against the will of the voters and he was against private prisons which is another no brainer to agree with.
Lets face it, he was the single best option for president we have had that I have seen in the past 16 years I have been actively paying attention.
Edit Again: Also wanted a $15 minimum wage which would have gotten millions of American off welfare and paying taxes instead of tax exempt and collecting welfare and also forcing companies to pay the full cost of their labor instead of having the American tax payer subsidizing their business by subsidizing their payroll for them.
And no, this would not lead to doubling of costs or anything, that has already been debunked and is mathematically impossible due to a $15 minimum wage.
Last Edit: AFK off to bed, won't be able to respond anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Also wanted a $15 minimum wage"
Because some 15 year old defrosting a crappy burger is worth that much because he said so. I'm not concerned with ALL the wages getting messed up or something, I just don't want people paid more for jobs that are worthless(they ARE getting paid minimum wage) anyways.
"He was also against Money in politics and public funding of elections and anyone educated in the system should agree with that unless you are trying to buy politicians to go against the will of the voters"
The fact that he was at least a half-decent human being doesn't mean I agree with any of his beliefs.
"our college system need massive fixes with the prices"
Switch all the textbooks onto kindles or something, should save a lot of money without "free college".
To me, the same way Trump stereotypically appeals to inbred rednecks or whatever, Bernie stereotypically appeals to 20 year old hipsters that hang out at Starbucks and talk about how right the Soviets had it.
"Yo, man, I was smoking my weed the other day and realized how great it was when the Khmer Rouge owned Cambodia, then no posers could pick a fruit without permission to get ahead of the others, and everyone was equal maaaaan...." --Average cartoonishly exaggerated Bernie supporter I wrote mostly to laugh at making it pointless for the sake of this argument.
And fine, he didn't say anything about guns, that's just something that pisses me off about politics in general.
"And the ONLY drug he was talking about legalizing is pot and he was going to legalize, regulate and tax it like tobacco and alcohol keeping hundreds of millions per year in the US and generating tax revenue per year instead of funding crime and cartels."
Well, on one hand I do recognize we can't just blow the (oh gosh the censoring I am doing as I type this) out of the cartels, I don't like the idea of making that (the censoring I'm doing now is even worse this post would've been rated M) legal. Drugs only serve to destroy an individual, and everyone they have any connection with. I can understand people wanting to legalize it for research and medicine, but recreation? I have not a grain of sympathy in my soul for those (yeah...I actually typed out my words before I censored them this time).
Comment has been collapsed.
If the jobs are worthless, then they shouldn't exist at all. But so long as the job as there and needs to be done, the absolute minimum any job is worth is the cost of supporting the person doing it without them being required to rely on welfare to survive.
If you think Sanders appealed to 20 year old hipsters, you might want to reread the demographics. He generally appealed to those below 40 years old in general. The ones who actually was stuck growing up in the world we have now. At least from I have read. He also appealed more to the college educated types. The thing is the older generations who remember growing up in a world that doesn't exist anymore tend to be the main ones voting nowadays still.
In that equation, I am 35 years old and college educated. But also out of the work force at this point due to the US military and nerve damage.
Again, lack the information to have an informed debate over his college plan as I haven't really researched it any, so will leave that alone.
I don't smoke weed either, but if you are against it, you better be against Tobacco and Alcohol and in favor of outlawing them as well otherwise you are worse than a hypocrite as they are both proven to be more dangerous than weed at any level. The fact of the matter is, Weed is better legalized and regulated than outlawed and left to the black market and having the legal system ruining lives over an effective non-issue with the level of demand there is for it and the fact it is several times safer than what we already have legalized.
Outlawing Weed and legalizing Alcohol is like outlawing the pellet rifle and legalizing the bazooka.
Comment has been collapsed.
"you better be against Tobacco and Alcohol and in favor of outlawing them"
Well, I certainly don't SUPPORT them.
"If the jobs are worthless, then they shouldn't exist at all. But so long as the job as there and needs to be done, the absolute minimum any job is worth is the cost of supporting the person doing it without them being required to rely on welfare to survive."
A job is only worth how much it can actually benefit an employer. You don't give someone a job out of pity, you give it to them because they can help in some way in supporting your product or service.
Comment has been collapsed.
At least you are consistent on the Pot, Tobacco, and Alcohol. I don't do them either, won't even date a girl who does. But the fact remains that logically it is more detrimental to the individual and society as a whole to keep them outlawed as the act of outlawing it is causing several times more damage to all than the cost of legalizing, regulating and taxing.
If the job isn't worth it to support the person doing it, then it isn't worth having to begin with. To do otherwise is to subsidize the cost of the job onto others. Either that employer pays the cost of supporting the person doing the work or the tax payer is stuck dragging that employers dead weight supporting their workers for them.
So if the employer doesn't find it is worth it to get the job done while actually paying the full cost of the labor to do it, then he evidently doesn't need it done.
One major thing people mistake on these things, many think a job is only worth whatever some poor desperate or ignorant sap is willing to do it for, the truth of the matter is the job is technically worth what it brings in or saves the company in value. The actual employees wage should be a compromise between that amount and the minimum amount needed to support that worker. If the value falls out of that range, than the job isn't worth doing.
I never said anything about giving jobs out of pity, I said about paying the full cost of your labor rather than getting the government to subsidize your business though subsidizing your labor. That is how you get plenty of company who end up being either revenue neutral or a cost sink to the US tax payer as the welfare to cover their payroll to their employees is higher than the tax revenue collected from them. Last I checked Walmart fell into this zone where the corporate welfare paid to them both directly and indirectly via their employees zeroed out their entire tax burden they paid in.
Since you are treating workers like tools for this logic, Having a worker do your job and expecting the government to pay a portion of their paycheck in welfare is about if you had a car to deliver goods and then expected the government to pay for your gas and a portion of your repairs so you didn't have to.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If the job isn't worth it to support the person doing it, then it isn't worth having to begin with."
Aren't fast-food jobs and the like mostly just to give high-schoolers work experience and spending money?
"Either that employer pays the cost of supporting the person doing the work or the tax payer is stuck dragging that employers dead weight supporting their workers for them." Okay, I do kind of see your point there, can we fire all the fast food people then? I honestly believe we should've replaced McDonalds with vending machines decades ago.
"many think a job is only worth whatever some poor desperate or ignorant sap is willing to do it for"
Yeah, that's wrong, that's why we DO have a minimum wage, totally agree that's a wrong philosophy.
Okay, so the general idea of "pay them enough that the government doesn't have to pay for them" makes enough sense, doesn't change the fact I hate ideas like free college and healthcare.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, Fast Food jobs are not mostly to give High Schoolers work experience and spending money and hasn't been in over a decade minimum. The average age of their workers is either 28 years old or older but can't remember exactly anymore. At McDonalds and I am guessing most other fast food jobs, labor represents less than 20% of their total operating costs, McDonalds has their officially at 17% roughly.
They could literally double their minimum wage and the costs of their products would only go up by 17%.
Minimum wage is supposed to be a livable wage which it isn't currently which is why this whole debate is going. If adjusted solely for inflation in a vacuum which is doing it wrong, it would be at about $10.50 per hour now while if adjusted for productivity as well it would be over $22 an hour.
Once minimum wage does its job and actually at the level it needs to be, then your logic holds water as they will be the same thing, but till then you are leaning on a broken mechanic to support your argument.
But I am not wrong, the job is actually worth to the company the money it brings in or saves them, that is what the job is actually worth but you can't pay that to the employee or else the employer sees none of the benefit. So the actual workers pay is SUPPOSED to be a compromise between that value and the minimum cost of supporting that worker. The thing is minimum wage is supposed to be that level but has failed to keep up for decades and as such no longer fits that description till it is fixed.
As I said about the colleges, I did not educate myself on his college plan enough to give any real input, so I must kindly back off from that debates beyond just stating opinions which I generally choose not to because everyone has them and I lack the evidence to back up what I say. And I have family members who want to argue and debate based on feelings while ignoring facts or not even knowing them, my god I never want to sound like that.
Edit: Had to edit the 3rd paragraph as I messed up on my wording.
Comment has been collapsed.
"labor represents less than 20% of their total operating costs, McDonalds has their officially at 17% roughly"
Makes sense to me, there are a lot of costs involved with running a business, a bit under 1/5 of that cost going to a job that shouldn't even exist.
And yes, I'll back off on the college thing now, that is a bit general.
I think my position on the minimum wage issue is largely based on the fact I don't see value in a lot of people, I just don't have any sympathy whatsoever for fast food workers who from my perspective SHOULD be replaced by automated machines. Easier to manage, supply, and operate 24 hours. Cheaper in property(Imagine a vending machine the size of a large parking lot coffee stand in place of a huge restaurant), and more efficient with the supplies given. Oh, and it would provide jobs for people restocking and maintaining the machines anyways, which I see more value in, especially because they could service many "restaurants" daily.
Comment has been collapsed.
For me, I see a lot of people who would be considered worthless, but the fact remains either their employer does their job and pays them to live or the tax payers end up paying them to offset it and you are effectively paying a company you never even set foot in.
Walmart again by comparison is estimated to cost the american people roughly 1 million dollars per store per year in government aid to their employees in welfare so the company doesn't have to.
But they will be replaced in relatively short order as automation is getting cheaper and better as is most other jobs. We have actually lost a great deal of middle class jobs to these same things.
But replacing these workers does not get rid of the people whom still need to live and the more this happens, the more there will be a push for a Universal Basic Income and such as the alternative to that is mass killings to thin out the herd which also leads to lower demand which will require a further thinning which is a far worse alternative to a basic income. And a UBI will still end up having to be paid by these companies in some form or the companies become nationalized since it employs few to nobody at which point it serves no function to a civilized society beyond a non-profit delivering them instead.
Skilled jobs are just as susceptible to being replaced and is also what has put many workers stuck in those entry level jobs and is continuing further.
Just this year, Foxconn automated over 60,000 jobs at a single plant and these workers built integrated computer components for companies including Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Samsung, Apple, and Oracle and they only made $1.80 to $2.20 an hour and it was still cheaper to replace them with automation and the prices are still falling while their AI is continuing to get better. We have AI and Automation now starting to the point they are starting to break into surgery where after they fine tune they can replace the bulk surgeons, we have automated cars within a decade that will be good enough to replace the trucking, taxi, and even the pizza and package delivery services, we already have our first board certified AI program as a lawyer now too.
Comment has been collapsed.
"But they will be replaced in relatively short order as automation is getting cheaper and better as is most other jobs. We have actually lost a great deal of middle class jobs to these same things."
Yeah, automation should hopefully start weeding out the...less important jobs soon, as we refine and integrate such systems better. As for middle class jobs, at least more automation DOES create(or at least make up for SOME of the losses of) jobs for the middle class in the long run.
"But replacing these workers does not get rid of the people whom still need to live and the more this happens, the more there will be a push for a Universal Basic Income"
Aw, starstarstarstar...can't we just start educating people decently so they can work in technology more or something once...you know, we have more technology to support?
"such as the alternative to that is mass killings to thin out the herd"
Okay...that's not going to happen...China will probably INVADE us before that happens. I'm not saying China is guaranteed to invade us, but it's more likely than mass random executions getting the greenlight, and it would probably thin the population.
"automated over 60,000 jobs at a single plant and these workers built integrated computer components"
We're not really the manufacturing economy of the world anymore. Yeah, that's a LOT of jobs lost, but if they were making 2 dollars an hour(okay, regardless of how you feel about the $15 minimum wage, 1.80 an hour is just stupid, did the party need to employ people or something?) and it was still cheaper to replace them...well...I guess the machines were just better.
"AI is continuing to get better" Pretty much unrelated, machine learning, as far as I know, is not a major part of automating manufacturing and service(maybe a little bit for service).
Actually, now that I think about it, this abundance of unskilled labor could be a major issue...the Renaissance was started when Europe got nuked by the plague and suddenly workers were worth something, bringing forth an age of enlightenment, invention, and art...we're currently in what could be considered an age of art and invention, but on the verge of workers becoming entirely expendable and unjustifiable to pay for...
Well, enjoy the apocalypse I guess.
P.S. I saw the political debates a bit today, I think I need a break from politics. It was just a sitcom. The two candidates were cartoon characters constantly making "subtle" jabs at each other while the studio audience broke down laughing. Either that, or they knew what a joke it was and added a laugh track.
Comment has been collapsed.
Automation isn't coming just for less important or less skilled jobs. They are going for the vast majority of them within the next 100 years, probably within the next 50 years.
Any job that relies on routine or priority systems are very prone to automation.And that covers just about every job.
As for educating the people to get a new job after theirs is automated away, that wouldn't be a solution either as you would still end up with MANY more people than you would have jobs for them to do. We are already at that tipping point now if not past it.
Foxconn was located in China if I remember correctly and yes, it has gotten cheaper to replace them even at $2 an hour and getting cheaper constantly.
And AI is actually getting more and more into replacing jobs and has lots already. Just look at what happened to Travel Agents getting replaced by Expedia and such or Tax Agents getting replaced by Turbo Tax then we have the desk jobs which many times were automated with improved computer systems and such which improved productivity to the point it prevented the need to hire or even replace many people when they left.
AI is also currently breaking into the medical field as they are working on automated surgeons for simple jobs which they can later be improved to the more complex ones replacing skilled surgeons as their job is more about memorization, routine, and priorities than actual creativity. They are also breaking into the field of Lawyers, we have an AI teacher assistant even being tested and soon to be vehicles replacing multiple industries by itself.
And yea, I saw the debates to. I agree, it is a disgrace to have it turn into that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know, what you've really done here is make me stop thinking about politics. Now I'm just trying to think of useful future applications of human labor. Thank you for making the endless laugh track stop.
We should really send people to space already. Mining towns and railroad stops provided many jobs and economic opportunities during the Westward expansion...landing a few colonies on Mars in a few decades might just save us from total collapse. New jobs, in many different fields. Sure, a lot of the actual construction and mining would be done by robots, but with a large-scale industrial operation, rather than a scientific study, you need a lot of people to support those robots. And people to support those people...and if it's a long term operation they'll need experts who can make new equipment....
I'm just dreaming about people caring about space again, aren't I?
Okay, what I do know is socialism won't stop automation from ending jobs, and even if they're guaranteed a wage, people will always want to have a chance to move up or benefit themselves. It's not a long term solution, it's an emergency plan.
What about...more jobs in entertainment(movies/games/etc.)? Even if a robot could write good fiction, it would be from a very different perspective than from a human's. Design? I guess realistically programs could do automatic basic elements of design....
Comment has been collapsed.
You are more than welcome.
Nothing will end the automation of jobs away. The thing is they are getting to the point where they can do the jobs good enough while also never needing breaks and being cheaper. Overall, society will have to eventually transition away from the notion that everyone has to work for a living as it just won't be a viable way anymore.
Even if we moved to Mars, once everything was established, would be in the same boat as here as far as jobs go. Not saying that all jobs will disappear, I doubt that will happen within our lifetimes and I honestly hope it never happens as I want to keep a human behind the wheel in case it derails with a way to make sure that human doesn't derail it either.
But you aren't dreaming about going into space alone, a lot of us want that to go too. But you have those in power trying to siphon money off it in the budget to cover their pork projects when the fact of the matter is NASA is actually a very profitable endevour for the US and I think they estimated that for every dollar spent into it, it has generated $8 in profit in return it is just it actually does it right and focuses on the long game so those profits aren't instantly realized.
And even with a society where people no longer had to work, a great deal of them would as doing nothing gets REALLY boring after a while I know from personal experience due to nerve damage courtesy of the US Military. People would still do things they enjoyed for a job while others would do so just because they want more money by finding something to do, even if that thing wouldn't be viable nowadays where profitability is king, afterward, you might have things that companies wouldn't think twice about because it wasn't worth it and individuals wouldn't bother because it wouldn't make enough that then becomes worth doing because you already can survive and everything you are making is just added spending money. Then you have a great deal of them doing charity and such for fun. You would still have people doing jobs and tasks and such, you just wouldn't be forcing them to do crap they hated or making them feel like they had no choice and such like we have now.
As far as creative jobs like you are mentioning, those will still be around for the foreseeable future as while they are good at making programs and machine that is great for anything priority or routine driven, they are still working on creativity based stuff which is also largely driven by the taste of the person. So those will probably be around for a LONG time to come.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I know from personal experience due to nerve damage courtesy of the US Military"
I really hope you mean you were a veteran and you weren't shot or something...you were probably a veteran, so I don't know why I'm bringing this up....
The only way I'd ever be okay with guaranteed wage is if
- We really had no jobs left for people(not just high unemployment, but like, the world is ending), which hopefully would slow to a limited extent, as people have more free time, there will be more time spent on leisure, which would hopefully make raises in those "irreplaceable" entertainment jobs.
- We actually had the resources, cheap production ability, and prosperity to handle that without raising the crap out of taxes to a nightmarish extent or something...
I just hate the idea, honestly, but I'd accept it if it were really the only option.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as the injury goes, I wasn't shot. I got injured doing my 3rd week of training in a combatives class only to not be allowed to see a doctor for 2 days and only to have that doctor lie to me and on my paperwork to cover his butt. He misdiagnosed a disc hitting a nerve as a pulled muscle and lied on paperwork about it and it ended up sitting till my leg starting getting hard to move and going limp before anyone was willing to check behind him which was too late. Turning what would have been a 30 minute surgery and some con-leave into permanent nerve damage.
Sorry but if the unemployment is too high and will not go down, the world just might end for that nation unless they did it. At the rate it is going, it WILL be our only option.
They can start mandating lower hours and increased wages to offset the automation and such to force the employers to spread the jobs and money around better and that would help some and would even help now with our current rates. But that would still be a stop gap at best and the higher the wages got compared to the machines and AI, the more the employers would accelerate the process. So eventually that wouldn't work either.
And as far as raising the taxes to nightmarish levels, if automation removes the workers, that will be the only option as those people still need a way to live even without working and the money will be housed within only the business owners at that point and a small other few.
There overall options long term with the way things are going would either but a UBI or mindless busy work which is a horrible way to do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Realistically wouldn't a UBI only work in an economy where the majority of people are still working though? How could you really pay for it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Society isn't ready for a decent UBI yet in it's current state. Automation and such isn't there yet which is what it would require.
It COULD handle a basic UBI where it isn't enough to live well but you could still survive on without any other form of aid. That could be done and would probably do us good as then the workers have more power even without Unions as then they actually have the options of doing without if they don't like the terms of the work.
It would remove virtually all other forms of welfare so no more foodstamps, WIC or anything like that anymore along with their redundant overhead and all and would also remove the need for a minimum wage since the UBI already covers the minimum wage.
But even that would take some massive price controls on housing and such otherwise landlords and such would automatically adjust rents and such to eat every penny of it so that it could no longer perform the roll it was meant to. And it would have to be annually adjusted to account for inflation and such. And make sure it is done automatically without the congress and such doing it otherwise the rich would lobby to make sure it was skipped on it's raises or them using it as a political football every election season.
But a UBI a nice UBI where you can live a decent life without even a hint of work like Star Trek or something, we aren't there yet.
Edit:
We ARE at the stage were we could start mandating lower hours and increased wages though with the level of automation we have now. We honestly need to do that at this point anyways. We would be better off globally at this point with full time counting as 32 hours instead of 40 and a massive minimum wage hike even without taking that into account.
I must be tired, rereading that, I think I killed the word "Such"......
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, you got me thinking of something relating to the idea of changing labor laws. I'm sure you heard Amazon is hell to work at. However, a lot of workers want Amazon on their resume. So what they do, is they work there 2 years, and then quit.
The thing about messing with economics is, you can't find anyone on Earth who understands every little subculture and occupation and detail. A labor solution that might work for factory workers might work very poorly for those in IT or entertainment. I'm not saying that changes the fact we should consider regulating work differently, I just think it's important to consider every possible effect, and to lay them out clearly so we can all make more informed choices. Different people are willing to sacrifice different things, after all.
I also think that landlords and such might be a problem if there's a UBI, but for the most part I think only laying out basic extreme cases is nesescary unless it really does become a widespread problem of exploitation. I heard a while back it was so expensive to live in San Francisco tons of people were leaving--keyword leaving. I think real estate is competitive and disorganized enough people would keep that in check as long as extreme cases were dealt with. However, I don't know anything about real estate, so I should shut up now. There's probably some massive group of random people who own apartments agreeing to drive up their prices or something, isn't there?
Comment has been collapsed.
Heard about Amazon, crappy work place environment while also spearheading automation in their warehouses removing as many jobs as possible.
As far as economics in general, we are slowly approaching uncharted territory in the near to semi-near future. Before, we had many more jobs than people to do it but over time, we have been replacing jobs and each time, while it would create new jobs, it never created as many as it destroyed. And we are at the tipping point where we now have more people than jobs which is something that never really happened before. So economists will have to figure this one out as they go going with what we know so far. But the one thing we know, eventually we will have to transition us as a society that thinks you have to work to survive as that will just not be an option for most as you can't work jobs that don't exist and will never exist again.
As far as IT and all, computer entry jobs are actually among the easiest to automate because all it is doing is moving data around. It is the more physical jobs that are the harder to automate. And the better they get at programming the AI, the more computer positions they can remove or consolidate where they have one person doing the job load of what was shortly before that of many.
As it stands, the only really safe jobs for the foreseeable future are creative jobs as that is something they are still a ways from getting to acceptable levels. Anything based on routine or priorities though are fairly easy to automate away and getting easier with the less physical jobs being among the easiest. And while it may have bumps here and there as they first start, one advantage of a computer program over a person, they can program that computer program to learn from that mistake and apply it to all of them with a software update, humans will have to relearn that every time they are replaced.
Rent control would definitely be a major deal as far as a UBI was concerned with the nature of it. The moment a UBI raise came to be, all of the landlords wouldn't have to jack up the costs right away. The few that did it would end up dragging the entire market up which would still lead to them eventually raising rates to match the market.
As far as the current housing market, I still think it is in a bubble. I know they said it popped a while back, but I don't think it actually popped, I think it just deflated slightly and still waiting for the actual crash. The median national personal income now is about $26,900 per year gross while the national median home cost is about $185k. Not even remotely possible to by the average home on the average income with that discrepancy between them.
On that note, I am off to bed, got to get up in 5 hours, hitting a doctor over the spine and then hitting a lawyer. The Military disabled me and even has their own doctors telling me I will never work again and even putting in writing and their paper pushers are breaking their own rules trying to ignore the doctors and leave me for dead. Going on year 4 of fighting those turds. They definitely do everything they can to earn their bad reputation. Hoping to be done within the next year so I can actually live without relying on family.
Later man, was fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
"As far as IT and all, computer entry jobs are actually among the easiest to automate because all it is doing is moving data around." I assure you there's more to IT than anyone could imagine on their own. It's a general rule in technology to automate things, why do a simple task many times when you could write code that does it for you? I think IT will continue to grow for a while, though that obviously won't stop the automation job loss.
"As it stands, the only really safe jobs for the foreseeable future are creative jobs as that is something they are still a ways from getting to acceptable levels."
Unless Disney keeps making awful remakes of things!
No seriously, who greenlit LIVE ACTION Winnie the Pooh!? There's only ONE human character in that story! Even hiring some guy off the internet to make flash animation of Winnie the Pooh would make more sense!
"median national personal income now is about $26,900 per year gross while the national median home cost is about $185k"
Isn't that why people buy homes over a period of many years? I mean, that's still pretty awful, considering there are MANY expenses over a year, but...no, that's pretty much just terrible.
"hitting a lawyer."
Don't recommend it, they're pretty good at suing people who do that stuff. Ha...ha....
But yeah, good luck with getting justice, people shouldn't be allowed to get away with things like that. I've actually heard Veterans hospitals have driven people to suicide. Goodnight, and again, good luck. Hopefully the election, regardless of the result, at least won't affect us TOO much and the next 4 years will give us decent candidates....
Comment has been collapsed.
I will take your word on it for IT. While I have college for computer programming under my belt, I was never able to finish due to money and as such never actually got to experience it personally.
No worries on Disney killing creativity than any other company. Even if all of them were to go, we still have the places like Youtube and other places which, while mostly garbage, does have occasional gems. Creativity predates all this crap we have now and will outlive it all as well. It just might result in a change of medium. Didn't hear about a live action Winnie the Pooh, that even sounds like a bad idea.
I actually have the VA hospital on my side at this point actually. In the beginning they were earning their reputation entirely because the first guy who lied on his paperwork, they all thought I was lying and faking trying to get high. Once my leg started going limp and they had to look regardless of what they thought, they saw what was there at which point they knew I was legit and changed their tone immediately, but at that point it was too late.
As this point, the paper pushers whom control disability are now fighting me, their own MRI results, the results of the surgeon, and their own doctors. Their own doctors and the surgeon were recommending I got a VSO or Lawyer and I had tried a few VSO's and most of them honestly didn't seem to care and did just the bare minimum till I found this Lawyer.
You want to see doctors get angry, show them paperwork where they have guys who aren't even doctors trying to make up excuses of why their opinions didn't matter due to phrasing or flat out ignoring 8+ months of medical records like they tried to do with me. You get to see doctors so pissed of they start studdering.
But the sad thing about that is part of the reason why the VA has a high turnover rate with doctors is because they make sure the doctors can't properly diagnose anyone. They make sure they are too overcrowded to. For me, I actually only get to see my primary doctor between 3 to 8 minutes per year on average and outside of that, our main correspondence is through email and the VA will actually retaliate against them if they help the veteran out too much too often. I have personally seen how they act when it comes to help. You ask one of them what their opinion is, many of them will deflect or pretend they don't have one but if you get one to give it to you and you ask if they could please put it in writing and many of them will look at you like you just put them on the spot in front of their boss as you kinda did. As it stands, the main reason I got so much help now I think is because I would actively show the doctors when the VA tried to ignore them and they did it VERY often including trying to ignore a full 8 months of medical records and an MRI twice even when it was mailed to them and confirmed they received it to the point the doctors had to stand up on my behalf just to get them to acknowledge MRI results done by their own people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Have you ever even been in Europe? Because according to what you've write, you are talking nonsense
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sick of hearing about what a "utopia" some of those countries are for having free whatever and literally demanding "everything offensive be removed from social media within 24 hours". No, they really did that second thing I think. But it all really doesn't boil down to all my angry ranting, the simple fact is I'm against socialism as a concept. I don't believe in taking money away from everyone to pay for things they should be allowed to choose to pay for themselves, and I also don't believe in being required to pay for others.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Taking from others"? Explain how I'm taking from others by saying people should be allowed to choose what they should spend money on.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're a perfect example of why socialism works, SteamGifts is voluntary, you can take and give back as you please, out of your own volition, you have decided to take 10 games from other people and give absolutely nothing back. If this was a country's social fund, it would only take a few bad apples like you to cause serious financial harm.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a giveaway site, and I don't have any extra spending money at the moment. Just because I'm entering free giveaways because they're free giveaways doesn't mean I'm a thief. Thank you for making a massive, hurtful judgement in an unrelated argument.
Oh, and maybe I was intending to make the giveaway for a full game I catch at a good price instead of whatever the current miscellaneous whatever bundle is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, and this is why socialism DOESN'T work. You made a complete judgement of my character from a statistic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please don't take any offence, I was using you as an example. I have made no judgement of you, you seem like a cool guy to me. My point was that when you give people the opportunity to take and not to give back, of course they're going to do it, it's human nature to try and get something for free. That's why we need a socialist government who forces us by law to pay into a collective pot.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree, for multiple reasons.
- Socialists tend to believe some people "deserve" to pay more. Just tax the rich people 95%, they have enough money to live. Not like things like Space-X or Tesla deserve to exist, private companies just screw people over as much as possible for the hell of it.
- I DO understand people do bad things for money, but I feel like it's more the responsibility of people to stay informed--and to inform others. We live in a world where live action Winnie the Pooh is in the making, and Nintendo is bringing Mario to mobile after cutting corners by removing the super-difficult-to-program LEFT DIRECTION. Media and entertainment are a great example of where quantity is being put over quality to a gross extent. However, I feel like it's better to have a more capitalist leaning economic philosophy in this case(not entirely, I still think there should be limits to what corporations can do, and the government SHOULD provide SOME things, I'm not an extremist libertarian or something), so that others with better ideas and more commitment to quality can provide better entertainment. Since we're sort of on a gaming site, I'm sure the number of great indie titles out there becoming more popular than games like Battlefield 17: Harderline(we updated the engine slightly again!) shows that people DO get sick of companies doing lousy things, and some of them really do something about it.
Annndd...I had another example but I forgot, maybe I'll remember later.
Edit: Here's my example I remembered!
Another type of company constantly screwing us with little to no public retaliation? Phone and tablet companies. Give me full access to my devices, stop filling them with useless crap, etc. Seriously, you may as well be renting that Samphone 7 Now-has-an-edge-so-it-will-shatter-easier. Well, I recently found out that an independent team crowdfunded(and is preparing to release) a handheld computer(which is sorta-kinda ripping off the design of the Nintendo DS) with a completely open linux operating system and phone abilities, that's pretty cool, right?
I just thought that was cool. It's harder to do things like that and independently take on the big competitor in a socialist economy. Even if you tax the big company to hell they'll survive on brand recognition and existing influence, it just means it's harder for others to pay for their innovations when they're the bad guy as well, paying for the free college or whatever because they're an evil corporation too and they have money because it costs money to make useful things.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like how you rail against the welfare state and people's inability to hold a better job than lowly fast-food worker but when someone points out that you've been here five months and all you've done is take, you play the victim card.
If you were a little more disingenuous and selfish you'd be a Trump voter. Congrats.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like how since you've joined these debates you've done nothing but personally attack me. Not my ideas, you go out of your way to point out why I'm horrible because I disagree with you. I get heated sometimes, yes, but after all that cools off, if you had been paying attention to the more recent posts, a lot of argument actually evolved into the discussion of how an impending labor crisis caused by automation should be dealt with in the future. I'm not perfect, but sit down, cool off, and join the debate for real, instead of just making blows at me, bring in some real ideas and philosophy.
Also, a giveaway site seriously doesn't determine someone's entire character. The entire point of the site is to enter free giveaways. Yes, many people won't make giveaways, but making giveaways gives you access to higher-tier giveaways anyways.
Oh, and there's a particular game I kind of want to give away, and I'm waiting until I have a good chance to hand out a copy or two of that instead of cheap bundle games or something. I might end up giving away some cheap bundle games eventually just to keep people from using a giveaway counter as a personal attack method.
P.S. Oh, and maybe the reason all those lousy Trump voters disagree with you is because you think it's more fun to talk about why they suck rather than why your idea is better, or why you like your ideas more.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like how since you've joined these debates you've done nothing but personally attack me.
Based upon your statements here I thought you enjoyed hyperbole disguised as wit. If that isn't the case, I'm sorry.
I get heated sometimes, yes, but after all that cools off, if you had been paying attention to the more recent posts, a lot of argument actually evolved into the discussion of how an impending labor crisis caused by automation should be dealt with in the future.
I responded to an older post where you appeared to be foaming at the mouth. (That's more hyperbole, BTW.)
Also, a giveaway site seriously doesn't determine someone's entire character. The entire point of the site is to enter free giveaways. Yes, many people won't make giveaways, but making giveaways gives you access to higher-tier giveaways anyways.
Nonetheless if everyone gave away nothing, as you have, the site wouldn't exist. I just found it to be an ironic that someone parroting that elitist nonsense about how service jobs shouldn't exist and railing against the welfare state has a clear instance of being a beneficiary of largesse, especially since you acted like money was too tight to give games right now and made reference to future hypothetical giveaways you could do. I just find it funny. I apologize if my amusement has injured you.
P.S. Oh, and maybe the reason all those lousy Trump voters disagree with you is because you think it's more fun to talk about why they suck rather than why your idea is better, or why you like your ideas more.
Come on now. Be serious. You were coming off as a lot more reasonable in your later statements and your replies to me. Don't undo all that by implying that Trump voters are consistent or rational in their support of him. These are people who support a man who says that Hillary is the big liar, and the one who lacks ethics. Collectively Trump voters are disingenuous, irrational, or stupid.
Unlike Hillary I'm not running for office so I'm not going to need to run back on how many I think are deplorables.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Don't undo all that by implying that Trump voters are consistent or rational in their support of him."
I'm not, I'm saying they're humans, and after I'm done being a screaming bastard even I recognize my debate style is useless at convincing people who aren't neutral or somewhat in agreement already. Unfortunately, that's the main tactic used on Trump supporters, and it's not effective. Telling people they're wrong doesn't work, you have to suggest to them why your ideas could be considered right.
"being a beneficiary of largesse"
Well, there's more to my ideals than the fact they have the potential to benefit me. Let's not pretend people who support any cause wouldn't have any personal motives, "benefiting others" is a fun bonus that comes with a financial benefit, a social benefit(being seen as a "good" person is easy if you just say "yes" to everything, it turns out), etc. But if I were only out for myself, I would choose the popular option, then just twist the fine print slightly so it benefits me. I legitimately think giving people individual economic choice is beneficial to society.
Okay, that was ALMOST well written, maybe I should scream into a mirror for a minute or so before I get into these arguments....
"Based upon your statements here I thought you enjoyed hyperbole disguised as wit."
I usually try to go for something more clever than that, but this election is making me foam at the mouth.
"you appeared to be foaming at the mouth."
Hey, guess we can agree on something.
"Unlike Hillary I'm not running for office so I'm not going to need to run back on how many I think are deplorables."
Wee, welcome to the hating people club! We have great coffee, drinks, beverages, and redundant idiots who welcome people to the club!
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, there's more to my ideals than the fact they have the potential to benefit me.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make in that paragraph.
I'm not, I'm saying they're humans, and after I'm done being a screaming bastard even I recognize my debate style is useless at convincing people who aren't neutral or somewhat in agreement already. Unfortunately, that's the main tactic used on Trump supporters, and it's not effective. Telling people they're wrong doesn't work, you have to suggest to them why your ideas could be considered right.
The problem with your statement is that you assume that these people would respond to facts and intelligent discourse. They don't. These people either do not have the ability or willingness to comprehend, listen to, or seek out the truth; or they know the truth and ignore it because they are racists, sexists, and xenophobes. Or they're just not bright enough to realize that voting for Trump is not a useful middle finger at the system with which they're angry.
We already know what it looks like when Hillary talks about policy and the issues; we saw how Trump dominated the headlines during the primaries. Talking issues is not not necessarily going to help the people who "aren't sure" about Trump back away from him. Those people are like a flashlight with a minor short. You know that batteries are good, and you flip the switch, and the light doesn't come on. So you smack the flashlight against your hand a few times. Then it works. These undecided people are that flashlight. They need to be smashed against and again until their dim light illuminates.
Comment has been collapsed.
"because they are racists, sexists, and xenophobes"
I know people who "kind of" favor Trump. These are not the reasons people choose Trump, I've yet to directly meet someone who favors Trump(not an "I love Trump" person, people who just hate both of them but think they're 50.1% for Trump) who is racist, sexist, or xenophobic. Reminding them Trump does stupid things isn't enough to win. Go ahead and believe they're stupid for being that way, but if you want to win, it would be better to humor them and actually try to convince them Hillary has potential benefits, other than not being Trump.
Comment has been collapsed.
You took an excerpt of several characterizations about Trump supporters as if it was the only characterization.
Come on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this directed at me or at the user I responded to (ArtificialInsanity)?
Comment has been collapsed.
You know, it's nothing in particular to be honest, I think it's just a combination of factors that makes me want to avoid voting for her at all costs. She's not particularly likable, I guess, and bad enough at marketing herself to fail to counteract that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You seem greatly uninformed about the 2016 candidates for the primary nomination and presidential election. That you would even characterize Hillary as an "idiot" is proof that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Bernie Sanders is not a communist.
And anyone who implies that Hillary and Trump are comparably awful is a goof. Hillary is a pretty regular candidate with experience who lies like a politician, is well-informed in domestic and foreign issues, and has more baggage than most, in part because she's always been scrutinized and criticized, even when her job was, "wife of President, mother of teen." The other is a bloviating, temperamental, narcisisstic dissembler who lies like a rug, bullshits much of the rest of the time, has no experience and inadequate knowledge both on domestic and foreign issues, overstates his success, and lacks the ability to engage in contentious public discourse without resorting first and foremost to ad hominems.
That's not to say that you or anyone has to like Hillary, or think she's a great candidate. But your characterization of her should be accurate, and it should not put her into the same bucket as Trump. No one belongs in Trumps bucket. Hillary is qualified on her own merits (though she would probably lose to another regular politician this year) whereas Trump is well-qualified only if your objective is to hasten the death of a nation or species.
Please stay home on Election Day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do I think Hillary is an idiot? Because all she seems to do is point out how offensive Trump is. We all know this. I have no desire to vote for someone who markets themselves based on the fact their opponent is terrible. I am not in support of the few actual issues Hillary claims to support. I just find her to be a conventionally repulsive candidate who only talks about why Donald Trump is bad, which is something people are either aware of, or unwilling to accept. I'm very solidly in the former category.
Just because I think Hillary sucks doesn't mean I don't hate Trump with a passion.
Trump is more than an idiot, he should be examined to see if he can be considered legally responsible for his actions! His only weapon is manipulating the media into short-term controversy with statements that are either stupid, or obviously fake for the sake of controversy! Someone asked him if he's made sacrifices in the context of a FALLEN VETERAN, and what did he do?
Attack the culture of the family by implying the mother didn't have the right to speak, and claim he's made sacrifices because he's rich. I've heard people say "he's fine, he just speaks his mind and doesn't have a filter". I will not deny that I can get a bit pissed off at these people, even people I know well, believing any human being that doesn't crap themselves every 10 minutes is capable of what Trump does.
But here's the thing. I'm not willing to go to Hillary because Trump sucks. I would rather support that other-party-that-never-wins guy, just to avoid saying "Yes, I believe one of these toddlers can effectively lead our nation". It only takes a minute of watching the debate to see they were just making personal blows at each other while the studio audience breaks down laughing. Their arguments are less intelligent than this argument on the forum of a Steam giveaways website.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because all she seems to do is point out how offensive Trump is.
False. This has been a long election cycle and she has talked about a lot more than Trump. In fact, in order to stave off Sanders she has to embrace positions a bit more left than she initially had.
But here's the thing. I'm not willing to go to Hillary because Trump sucks. I would rather support that other-party-that-never-wins guy, just to avoid saying "Yes, I believe one of these toddlers can effectively lead our nation".
But in the end, neither third-party candidate is going to win. Casting a symbolic vote that changes nothing is empty symbolism. If people want to actually subvert and diminish the two major parties, this is likely going to have to start at the county and state level.
Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 and walked away with 0 electoral votes. His presence in the election certainly affected it but voting for him did not change that the president was going to be Clinton or Bush.
The same is true here. The whole "vote for the lesser evil" is a deplorable indictment of our election process but in the end if you aren't voting for a Hillary presidency over a Trump presidency, or a Trump presidency over a Hillary presidency, you are just running in place.
Comment has been collapsed.
USA is fu*ked ;) Vote witch or clown...no hope for USA ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, he thinks Trump is a clown. If he is, he's terrible, he only has one joke, and it sucks. "I'm OFFENSIVE the clown kids! I say offensive things, and people get mad! I'm a beginner internet troll running for prez!"
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, and we all have the freedom to say that we, as a nation, honestly believe Trump is mentally ill. Anyone I've heard favoring Trump is driven to considering him because Hillary is so unbelievably unlikable.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hear this on tv every day :D I hate UK news ,more talks about USA then UK :D
Comment has been collapsed.
+∞
The only rational comment in here. The US is bought and sold and it doesn't matter who becomes the """"""The President"""""", the consequences will be similar.
Comment has been collapsed.
sadly this, most likely
trump at least is against the saudi... unlike hillary that got millions from them (while preaching about feminism and lgbt, so much for coherence).
and the propaganda against trump is getting pretty aggressive. now even the avengers are against him. the italian news barely mention him at all, while preaching about how good and progressist would be to have a woman as president. would be interesting to know why the italiam ministry for the environment gave about 250k of public money to the clinton foundation
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really...
i think these are some sad times for Americans according to Americans on the internet
i am not an american :c
so ill post some nice comedy movie trailers so u can check out these movies during elections :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT6ARbhTjiU - Head of State
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqfJqLFQSIk - Coming to America (1988)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1BF53bXP8I - The Longest Yard (2005)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79uuJdcC8wQ - Anger Management (2003)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1emDAYCfVQ - Happy Gilmore 1996
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBwcksgKcFs - The Animal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VilFTikXYh8 - Deuce Bigalow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTU4-tLR_g - Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo
PS - THESE MOVIES WILL BE MORE FUN IF U WATCH THEM WITHOUT WATCHING TRAILER
^ mostly comedies
Comment has been collapsed.