***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[whywesteppin]

NFL lost themselves a real one.

 

[storm2006]

https://thehill.com/changing-americ...5162-ex-nfl-player-declares-trump-first-black
Ex-NFL player declares Trump America's 'first black president'

Yes. Yes he is. aepps20 is lucky to have had the opportunity to firmly place his right hand on the left shoulder of OUR PRESIDENT ELECT. Fortunately aepps20 knows this coronavirus is fake news so he hasn’t washed his right hand since nor will he ever.

Thank you for hosting the event below as well. The POC community was thrilled.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Brhas what's a good single malt whiskey? Srs

I turn 34 today, and given the pandemic and the fact the world is going to ****, I figured it would be a good time to start a long and somewhat problematic relationship with hard liquor.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Yes. Yes he is. aepps20 is lucky to have had the opportunity to firmly place his right hand on the left shoulder of OUR PRESIDENT ELECT. Fortunately aepps20 knows this coronavirus is fake news so he hasn’t washed his right hand since nor will he ever.

Thank you for hosting the event below as well. The POC community was thrilled.

Dwalk's professional friends are looking HANDSOME! in that pic

 

[-Red-]

I don't think Boeing should be penalized for being the only company of it's kind (Large scale Commercial + Large Defense). That entanglement alone is almost a non-stop to nationalization. Do you think the government should control commercial airplanes? If not, who steps up to buy that segment of the company (this question is also relevant if they failed and the government didn't take control)? What expertise, outside of potentially leadership, is that entity bringing that Boeing Commercial Airplanes doesn't have access to? That just leads to a series of other questions that also make this unlikely. I'm not saying they operate as if they are too big to fail. They just simply are. If the government or world wants to change that then more competition would have to enter the market. China is trying that (although their using Boeing's Design Manuals and IP from Boeing and China ) so we'll see how a nationalized aircraft manufacturer goes.The aircraft manufacturing business is extremely complex and the barrier to entry is impossible to clear in the private sector.



Why is this alternative better for employees, passengers, taxpayers, the US government, the allied nations of the US, the military, shareholders?



Yes, dividends and financial metrics are important to private sector companies. I would contend that it varies from industry to industry i.e. a financial services vs. a heavy industrial company. Safety at Boeing is paramount to the point that the 787 and 777X wing are structurally over-designed (which directly correlates) to account for safety because static, fatigue and damage tolerance issues are going to be your main sources of crashes. Overarching decisions were made to implement certain solutions to present customers with the optimal product, not dividends or EPS. Expecting the CEO or Board to know the level of detail that went into exactly what caused the crash prior to what happening is unrealistic. As I've said before, the individuals responsible for the issue getting passed along to the aircraft had no interest in dividends or stock price. A majority of them only owned Boeing stock through 401K or pensions but also weren't near retirement age. They were acting out of greed for themselves. If they argument is that the executives and Board only care about stock price there is no way this conversation is being had because it wouldn't have come to this.

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. I don't know if you work for Boeing, given your obviously extensive knowledge of the company, but I want to be clear that my point is not just about Boeing specifically—it is a general point regarding the problem of private sector companies being deemed too big to fail combined with pathologies related to the singular quest for profit in the private sector, for which Boeing is a prime case-in-point at this particular moment. You're making counterarguments based on intraorganizational minutae specific to Boeing, which all may be sound but ultimately has little to do with the fundamental contradiction inherent in a private sector company being deemed too big to fail by the public sector and treated accordingly. I mean, you just pointed out that the "barrier to entry" for aircraft manufacturing "is impossible to clear in the private sector" due to its complexity. So Boeing is not operating in anything approximating a "free market" here anyway, and, as you stated, a private sector takeover is the only viable alternative to business as usual. Yeah, give me nationalization.

As for employee salaries, I'm a bit confused. The typical argument is that the salaries of public sector employees (think teachers, sanitation workers, municipal bureaucrats, etc.) are artificially inflated relative to what they would be in the private sector, because these institutions are largely insulated from the pressures of market competition. This is a constant refrain from the right, and there is some element of truth to it, given that the expansion of the public sector was one of the major sources of middle-class growth in the postwar period (especially for black folks, but I digress). But now you're saying that presumably the salaries of Boeing employees would be artificially deflated in the public sector. I mean, sure they would be for the people in the C-suites. But on the whole, I don't buy this argument at all.

 

[whywesteppin]

Brhas what's a good single malt whiskey? Srs

I turn 34 today, and given the pandemic and the fact the world is going to ****, I figured it would be a good time to start a long and somewhat problematic relationship with hard liquor.

I would start with the Macallan. It's very good and not too harsh for rookies like yourself.

Depending on your budget, go for the 12 (~$60), 15 (~$100), or 18-year (>$200) bottles. The 12 is good enough to sip but it will only get better as you go up in price.

I know you're a lib but if you want to be a real man drink them straight with no ice.

 

[dwalk31]

Brhas what's a good single malt whiskey? Srs

I turn 34 today, and given the pandemic and the fact the world is going to ****, I figured it would be a good time to start a long and somewhat problematic relationship with hard liquor.

I've been meaning to try Uncle Nearest. Been searching to find out if it is actually black owned. Pretty interesting back story.

 

[aepps20]

Yes. Yes he is. aepps20 is lucky to have had the opportunity to firmly place his right hand on the left shoulder of OUR PRESIDENT ELECT. Fortunately aepps20 knows this coronavirus is fake news so he hasn’t washed his right hand since nor will he ever.

Thank you for hosting the event below as well. The POC community was thrilled.

And they call Ninja the most influential NTer of all time.

 

[getback]

Brhas what's a good single malt whiskey? Srs

I turn 34 today, and given the pandemic and the fact the world is going to ****, I figured it would be a good time to start a long and somewhat problematic relationship with hard liquor.

 

[boris]

Brhas what's a good single malt whiskey? Srs

I turn 34 today, and given the pandemic and the fact the world is going to ****, I figured it would be a good time to start a long and somewhat problematic relationship with hard liquor.

I got my gf’s dad some Nikka Coffey Grain. I have a hard time drinking whiskey straight, but I thought this **** was pretty good. Japanese whiskey seems to be pretty big right now.

 

[IATT]

Florida is a blue state now?

 

[dwalk31]

Can y'all PLEEEASEEEE say this louder for the people in the back. I prefaced my posts yesterday by saying that I in no way support Donald Trump or the GOP. At the same time, I defended what many may view as a contentious "openly conservative belief". That doesn't mean I'm conservative AT ALL. There was just a subject where my view did not line up of with liberals. Everyone shared their respectfully shared their perspective, we a got a glimpse into the other sides rationale and no feelings were hurt.

I don't see why it's so hard to understand that if you share your POV rationally and in good faith that no one will have a problem with what you're saying. You wonder why people call you a troll, dwalk31 but it's because the other night you showed the capacity to be able to have that type of conversation the other night when discussing that some people might want to go back to work. However, you routinely fall back on your shtick which entails a lack of accountability and manipulation of semantics and the justice system.

The times that I am doing that is in response to others. Yet you aren't discussing their clear antics. When they are being intentionally provocative. In your opinion, I should be called a pedophile, pedo-apologist, rape-defender, etc. and respond with a different energy. I try, but let's keep it 100 how these conversations actually go down.

That said, I don't know of anyone in here that isn't supporting a democratic presidential candidate over Trump--aside from me. Are you? Having openly conservative views doesn't really change that.

For instance, I have tons of what would be called liberal views. I am not against gay marriage, I am 100% against the death penalty, under any circumstance, etc.

Where people seem to take issue are my views related to welfare reform. I've seen generations of people that depend on government assistance and they never advance. I think the current form doesn't actually help people that look like me. As a result, I support stricter measures to change the trajectory.

I like the First Step Act and Fair Chance Act that was passed under this administration. My opinions are focused on black plight. One side has enjoyed the benefit of a sure voting block with not enough in return, imo.

And if you want my .02 on any other political topics I have no issue engaging in good faith. Hopefully you'll do the same.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31

 

[Belgium]

I don't see how one could square focusing on the black plight with support for the party that treats the black community with utter contempt. They actively seek to prevent black people from voting in the first place. Nixon's administration developed the 'southern strategy' and that still appears to be their electoral strategy. Consolidate the white vote, flare up racial tensions and discourage/prevent minorities, specifically black Americans, from voting.

 

[dwalk31]

I don't see how one could square focusing on the black plight with support for the party that treats the black community with utter contempt.

Which party?

Does the crime bill count?

 

[Belgium]

Which party?

Does the crime bill count?

It's not as if the Democratic party has been a savior for the black community. But it doesn't get more contemptuous than actively trying to prevent black Americans from voting in federal elections in the first place.

 

[Based Jesus]

Brhas what's a good single malt whiskey? Srs

I turn 34 today, and given the pandemic and the fact the world is going to ****, I figured it would be a good time to start a long and somewhat problematic relationship with hard liquor.

Old *** *****

 

[RustyShackleford]

Which party?

Does the crime bill count?

Not to defend the passing of the crime but, but...

You always bring up the crime bill and ignore the fact the GOP thought it was not punitive enough. And that Republican states have some of the worst tough on crime policies.

At least the left puts forward actual policy back by academic research to help the black community.

What does the GOP have besides watering down Dems policy and finally passing it under Trump they can have a PR win.

Where is the GOP's platform to help black America btw?

You don't give a real damn about black people, so spare us

 

[-Red-]

Brhas what's a good single malt whiskey? Srs

I turn 34 today, and given the pandemic and the fact the world is going to ****, I figured it would be a good time to start a long and somewhat problematic relationship with hard liquor.

Happy birth rite fambly.

 

[dacomeup]

For instance, I have tons of what would be called liberal views.

 

[dacomeup]

Claim that you’re a lib to OWN THE LIBS.

 

[-Red-]

All great points.

I would argue that bureaucracy is not limited to government, but being

I agree that our views diverge at a high level.

I for one do not think our government operates as efficiently as private firms. Funny how this shift or lack of faith in government seems to have correlated with minorities gaining more and more rights.......

As far as working for elite managerial types, my experience has been that they are good at driving the business forward and every manager I have worked with has balanced the best interest of the firm and their employees to an admirable level.

While surely there are examples of social capital being abused (Boards for an example) I actually find that most organizations within competitive industries (Tech, Finance, Engineering etc...) that are good firms (Profitable, have marketshare etc...) Can ill afford to hire and promote individuals solely off of their social capital. This puts them at a competitive disadvantage to firms that don't practice this.

I will admit that the shift is recent...There are small shifts that indicate the landscape is shifting even in traditionally skewed industries. Recently several wall street firms stated they will no longer do on campus recruiting (Which admittedly favored the Ivy League)

In general my anecdotal experience is that every executive I have worked under was the sharpest, and best communicator usually also had the best background (combination of good traits and experience) Again, I understand there are plenty of other examples that go the other way.

This has not been the case with Government, as the motives are power not profits, and power is easier to manipulate than balance sheets.

As to your second point, I Would argue that Boeing is essential to our national security not because of their products on the defense side of their business. Lockheed Martin and various other firms could step in rather quickly and supply their market share- My concern is laying way for Airbus to have a monopoly on commercial jet production.

Please share what people are supposed to exchange their labor for? If not capital? Individuals are not entitled to easy jobs. Are you saying nobody should work long hours? Investment bankers should have more rights? Autocratic? Last time I checked we have the opportunity to work and quit as we please.

I'll respond with my views later unless rexanglorum beats me to the punch, since I think our views are pretty similar with respect to these topics.

 

[dwalk31]

You always bring up the crime bill and ignore the fact the GOP thought it was not punitive enough. And that Republican states have some of the worst tough on crime policies.

At least the left pits forward actual policy back by academic research to help the black community.

What does the GOP have besides watering down Dems policy and finally passing it under Trump they can have a PR win.

Spare us

The Democratic presidential candidates literally voted for the crime bill. Trump did not.

Biden helped write it and is literally referred to as the architect of modern mass incarceration.

Spare me.

 

[dwalk31]

Where is the GOP's platform to help black America btw?

I think the welfare reform will help. The Fair Chance Act and First Step Act are helping. The Second Step Act is on its way. I think the record amount of funding for HBCUs helps, to name a few items.

 

[storm2006]

e

I think you are missing the forest for the trees here. I don't know if you work for Boeing, given your obviously extensive knowledge of the company, but I want to be clear that my point is not just about Boeing specifically—it is a general point regarding the problem of private sector companies being deemed too big to fail combined with pathologies related to the singular quest for profit in the private sector, for which Boeing is a prime case-in-point at this particular moment. You're making counterarguments based on intraorganizational minutae specific to Boeing, which all may be sound but ultimately has little to do with the fundamental contradiction inherent in a private sector company being deemed too big to fail by the public sector and treated accordingly. I mean, you just pointed out that the "barrier to entry" for aircraft manufacturing "is impossible to clear in the private sector" due to its complexity. So Boeing is not operating in anything approximating a "free market" here anyway, and, as you stated, a private sector takeover is the only viable alternative to business as usual. Yeah, give me nationalization.

I can see and agree with most of your overall assertions regarding the private sector. I just don't think they should be nationalized as a result of the fact they are in a duopoly. If the United States didn't value their contributions to the economy then sure, let them fail. However, there are foreign alternatives in terms of manufacturing locations and supply base. Boeing would just have to re-build from the ground up and the US would have to spend hundreds of billions to replicate what Boeing already has in place. Both parties are better off together but allowing the government to run the organization isn't necessarily going to improve anything, especially when the competition is not nationalized , thus efeating the entire point.

As for employee salaries, I'm a bit confused. The typical argument is that the salaries of public sector employees (think teachers, sanitation workers, municipal bureaucrats, etc.) are artificially inflated relative to what they would be in the private sector, because these institutions are largely insulated from the pressures of market competition. This is a constant refrain from the right, and there is some element of truth to it, given that the expansion of the public sector was one of the major sources of middle-class growth in the postwar period (especially for black folks, but I digress). But now you're saying that presumably the salaries of Boeing employees would be artificially deflated in the public sector. I mean, sure they would be for the people in the C-suites. But on the whole, I don't buy this argument at all.

Again, I agree that public sector salaries are higher than they would in the private sector, some of the time. Sure it works for the professions you mentioned but I have a hard time believing that the government would be able to play engineers and managers, among other functions, as much as they stand to earn in the private sector. Commercial aerospace is extremely tricky because most of their engineers are in Seattle and they are unionized which so their salaries are even higher (we're already debating so much that I'm not sure bringing in a union vs. non-union discussion will go anywhere ). I don't know exactly how government pay works - there's no overtime, right? With that and the recent revamp to the incentive structure....I'm not sure the public sector would be able to match that.