Anonymous wrote:I'll bite. Broadly, I'd take anytime before early 2000s (I distinctly view forever wars that started after 9/11 as NOT great) but in particular, 1960s- technical innovation, rigorous schools, low crime, civil rights, nuclear family still intact, low cost of living, cheap college. Very much admire President Kennedy and what he wanted for this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard an interview the other day with a reporter who has been asking this question of Republicans, most recently at the RNC. Here’s how she summarized the answers:

In others words, the GOP comprises a group of “failure to launch” people. No wonder they like simplistic solutions to complex problems.

The Democratic party that I have always supported is one that focuses on the less fortunate rather than the elites. What happened to that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard an interview the other day with a reporter who has been asking this question of Republicans, most recently at the RNC. Here’s how she summarized the answers:

In others words, the GOP comprises a group of “failure to launch” people. No wonder they like simplistic solutions to complex problems.

Anonymous wrote:I heard an interview the other day with a reporter who has been asking this question of Republicans, most recently at the RNC. Here’s how she summarized the answers:

Anonymous wrote:I heard an interview the other day with a reporter who has been asking this question of Republicans, most recently at the RNC. Here’s how she summarized the answers:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you love unions. However, unions price themselves right out of business. They demand pay that's unrealistic.

Just look at many of our domestic car companies. The workers demand X pay. Meanwhile, the consumer gets sticker shock and stops purchasing cars, so lots of unsold cars sit for months or longer. The car manufacturers have literally put a bunch of features on cars that people don't want, to raise the price so they can pay the union's wage demands.

Meanwhile a car company halfway around the world can bring you a lower cost product even with shipping it here. Guess where the consumer is going?

How the hell do you expect to demand a certain wage when people stop purchasing your product altogether? Where do you think your pay comes from?

You're right. Let's just keep paying CEOs 300 times the pay of the average worke, and give them tax cuts too!

The US is the only developed country where the executive pay far exceeds the regular worker's wages. That causes a huge pay gap, which in turn leads to unhappy masses. The US also has one of the lowest minimum wage in the developed world.







https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/business/ceo-pay-compensation-stock.html

Anonymous wrote:I know you love unions. However, unions price themselves right out of business. They demand pay that's unrealistic.

Just look at many of our domestic car companies. The workers demand X pay. Meanwhile, the consumer gets sticker shock and stops purchasing cars, so lots of unsold cars sit for months or longer. The car manufacturers have literally put a bunch of features on cars that people don't want, to raise the price so they can pay the union's wage demands.

Meanwhile a car company halfway around the world can bring you a lower cost product even with shipping it here. Guess where the consumer is going?

How the hell do you expect to demand a certain wage when people stop purchasing your product altogether? Where do you think your pay comes from?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm always suprized some liberals think insulting another person's rose-colored dream is a winning tact. effectively you are pointing out that life is horrible now and always was horrible. why do you think this vision will move anybody in a useful direction? why not acknowledge that there were some good things for some people in the past? wouldn't that be more balanced, more honest,
m

The good things were mostly for white males. The goal is to try to make it for all people. And that is where the GOP white male grievance comes in. They cannot fathom sharing the pie.

Especially when they didn’t deserve the pie to begin with. If you genuinely believed in the best person for the job or the smartest getting into the Ivies, Dubya and Trump and countless other white males, would be the ones working in slaughterhouses and landscaping

What about Bill Clinton? What about Harry Truman? What about Barrack Obama? What about Jimmy Carter? Your post is ignorant.

Jesus, you guys really are embarrassingly dumb. No wonder Trump appeals to you.

Explain please - what's so dumb about citing 4 presidents (against your two) that had nothing handed to them?

Seriously? I have to further explain the point? The whole point of being a MAGA/right-winger is telling yourself "Affirmative Action" and "DEI" (and all of the other racist buzzwords used to diminish the accomplishments of predominantly non-whites), is how anyone non-white gets ahead. Meanwhile, you have complete idiots handed everything to them or you simply ignore how dumb they are (like Palin and her 6 years/5 mediocre colleges to get a BA in communications) and pretend they deserve to be president or VP or heading up Fortune 500 companies.

The four presidents mentioned all earned what they have. This isn't about saying NO white males/females deserve to be in positions in power, it's the audacity on the right to shriek "DEI" when you vote for clowns handed everything and who had no business being accepted to the schools they got into. I don't understand how you people can't see your glaring hypocrisy when it comes to meritocracy.

ok, we agree. But you only mentioned the two didn't to make your earlier point, which was why I asked.

My apologies. I should've been clearer. It's just galling to me listening to right-wing hypocrites pretend they care about "the best (wo)man for the job" and then try to tell me people who never had to earn what they have (all of whom are white), deserve what they have. No, Bush never deserved to be at Yale or HBS, so why are they so obsessed with some black kid with a 3.8 getting in, but ignoring the white legacy with the 2.0 (if that)? The instinct of the right-wing to believe anyone non-white got handed their place at a university or on the SC, is why I'm disgusted by them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know you love unions. However, unions price themselves right out of business. They demand pay that's unrealistic.

Just look at many of our domestic car companies. The workers demand X pay. Meanwhile, the consumer gets sticker shock and stops purchasing cars, so lots of unsold cars sit for months or longer. The car manufacturers have literally put a bunch of features on cars that people don't want, to raise the price so they can pay the union's wage demands.

Meanwhile a car company halfway around the world can bring you a lower cost product even with shipping it here. Guess where the consumer is going?

How the hell do you expect to demand a certain wage when people stop purchasing your product altogether? Where do you think your pay comes from?

You're right. Let's just keep paying CEOs 300 times the pay of the average worke, and give them tax cuts too!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They think Leave it to Beaver was real and there is this imaginary post-war 50s utopia they can go back to.

Pure fantasy.

You mean it wasn't?