It's almost time to vote

Chimpy Chompy on 6/11/2012 at 12:04

Quote Posted by faetal

The trouble with our recent model of capitalism is the legal obligation to serve shareholders beholden to any traded company. It is literally against the law to not do everything within your power to achieve continual growth,

Hadn't heard that one before. (http://www.linkedin.com/answers/law-legal/corporate-law/corporate-law/LAW_COR_CRL/834796-1078684) first link I found... sounds like someone's questionable interpretation of a court case? TTLG lawyers report to thread!

faetal on 6/11/2012 at 12:30

(http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/09/articles/series/special-comment/ebay-v-newmark-al-franken-was-right-corporations-are-legally-required-to-maximize-profits/) Unf

Source seems ok. It makes a good point that perhaps it is a grey area since most companies willingly do this anyway. The point though is that the whole thing is shareholder driven. In order to cream more and more money off of the top, the equilibrium has to be pushed way past the point where everyone benefits. Put simpler - rich get richer, poor get poorer.

Kolya on 6/11/2012 at 19:49

Quote Posted by hopper

Try this. It's also kind of leftist (it's Der Spiegel, after all), but much easier on the hyperbole, and in my opinion, a mostly very accurate analysis: (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/divided-states-of-america-notes-on-the-decline-of-a-great-nation-a-865295.html) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/divided-states-of-america-notes-on-the-decline-of-a-great-nation-a-865295.html

Good article. Obviously much more thorough than the comment by Augstein that I posted and without the ideologic shortcuts. Although it does point out many of the same problems, especially in the first part, it's more interesting and indepth in the analysis. Thanks.

june gloom on 6/11/2012 at 22:34

Voted a little while ago. Feeling a little meh about it. I don't like voting strictly one-party. I mean, the big races were obvious enough -- Obama and Brown, despite my ambivalence about Obama (would rather have voted for Gary Johnson) and my intense displeasure with the SOPA-writing Brown. But the alternative to Brown was Josh Mandel, and seriously, fuck that guy. And because I'm pretty disturbed by what the Republican party's become at all levels of government I ended up voting Democrat in all the smaller races too... but I can't help this nagging feeling I should've done something different.

Pyrian on 6/11/2012 at 22:57

Quote:

...but I can't help this nagging feeling I should've done something different.

Primaries.

I feel much better about voting for the lesser evil in the general election, if I had a chance to vote for someone actually decent in the primary.

Fafhrd on 6/11/2012 at 23:49

Quote Posted by heywood

BF's point is about the length of time between the election and inauguration. Obama avoids being drawn into executive branch policy making prior to becoming President, and you interpret that as Obama fucking the middle class and deliberately adopting a policy of exploding inequality.

Don't be silly, heywood. Matt Stoller is a telepath and knows exactly what the President is thinking all the time, and the fact is that he hates the American middle class just as much as Romney does, but he's more sneaky about it. Don't let realities like (http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/?p=2442) the Dems only having a senate super-majority for 24 days, or (http://libertyrocks.org/2011/02/21/house-stops-all-funding-gitmo-detainee-transfers-to-u-s/) Congress blocking funding for transferring GitMo detainees get in the way of blaming Obama for legislative failures instead of the legislative branch.

Lazarus411 on 7/11/2012 at 00:47

Quote Posted by faetal

Capitalism as is, demands that the rate of money going up to the top must increase year on year and the rate trickling back down must decrease.

Cost of living vs. average salary has been on an unfavourable curve since the '70s, but only for people below a certain income bracket.

Without growth then, yeah, eventually the banks own everything.

Renzatic on 7/11/2012 at 00:50

Quote Posted by DDL

I heard there were households in california where people didn't have enough time to play dishonoured. I mean, what the FUCK, Obama.

I ONLY HAVE TWO...TWO...FUCKING CARS! HOW THE SHIT CAN I CALL MYSELF AN AMERICAN WHEN I DON'T HAVE A VEHICLE TO DRIVE DEPENDING ON MY MOOD? I WANT A RED CAR FOR WHEN I'M ANGRY! A BLUE ONE FOR WHEN I'M SERENE! A GREEN ONE WHEN I WANT TO BE A HIPPY FUCK LIKE YOU WHO BOUGHT IN THE SOCIALIST LIE THAT IS GLOBAL WARMING!

OBAMA'S AMERICA, INDEED! :mad:

CCCToad on 7/11/2012 at 01:27

Quote Posted by heywood

Way to add to the reality distortion CCCToad. It took me a few minutes to find the original source for your claim, but here it is

Incorrect:

(http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/)

Edit: I was overjoyed to find that Colorado still uses a paper ballot. I voted in favor of legalizing weed, extend a local transit tax (because they had a list of specific infrastructure projects the money would be used for), and to throw out some extremely crappy local judges.

CCCToad on 7/11/2012 at 02:19

Quote Posted by Renzatic

Pffft. What's more American than having four cars?

Having one of these:

Inline Image:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3560560909_18887845bf.jpg