Congratulations

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The only thing Trump can really do is show he's willing to use force so that's what he's doing.

Will he use force against the Police?

Because that is what is needed. The police are killing black people. They're fed up. It's natural. Not condoning, but understand, it's a normal reaction to getting murdered in the streets.

a reply to: chr0naut

The number of business owners who, instead of riding out a temporary lockdown, shed staff (and also probably requested government support) is indicative of the danger of a pure profit motive taking precedence over people's lives. I'm as Capitalist as the next guy, but surely money is of less value than people.

Just because a person owns a business, or even large corporations for that matter, doesn't mean they have an unlimited money supply to keep paying people with no sales attached to it. Given the lockdowns and the fact that GDP dropped by like 50% in one quarter, companies are trying to retain cash just to survive. Survival of the company is not just for the owners or the shareholders. It is also for the workers, because if the business doesn't survive there are no jobs to come back to.

Money is of less value than people, but money buys the things people need to survive, ie food, clothing, shelter, healthcare. Money makes the world go around. That is why shutting down the economy over a virus was not a very bright idea. The world needs a functioning economy in order for people to live.

Somebody has to work to drive the trucks that bring products from factories to market. Someone needs to process the food. Someone needs to man the stores for people to get food. Most people don't have a few cows, pigs, and chickens in their backyards to survive a pandemic.

There is no business person, manager, etc that looks forward to laying off people, but sometimes you have no choice but to sacrifice the few for the many.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I'm betting in 6 months most ppl will have moved on. Trumps impeachment hearings were in Jan. At the time it seemed like a HUGE deal and now that feels like yesterdays news. Could be wrong. Just my opinion

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: chr0naut

The number of business owners who, instead of riding out a temporary lockdown, shed staff (and also probably requested government support) is indicative of the danger of a pure profit motive taking precedence over people's lives. I'm as Capitalist as the next guy, but surely money is of less value than people.

Just because a person owns a business, or even large corporations for that matter, doesn't mean they have an unlimited money supply to keep paying people with no sales attached to it. Given the lockdowns and the fact that GDP dropped by like 50% in one quarter, companies are trying to retain cash just to survive. Survival of the company is not just for the owners or the shareholders. It is also for the workers, because if the business doesn't survive there are no jobs to come back to.

Money is of less value than people, but money buys the things people need to survive, ie food, clothing, shelter, healthcare. Money makes the world go around. That is why shutting down the economy over a virus was not a very bright idea. The world needs a functioning economy in order for people to live.

Somebody has to work to drive the trucks that bring products from factories to market. Someone needs to process the food. Someone needs to man the stores for people to get food. Most people don't have a few cows, pigs, and chickens in their backyards to survive a pandemic.

There is no business person, manager, etc that looks forward to laying off people, but sometimes you have no choice but to sacrifice the few for the many.

Multi-millions of job lay-offs occurred in the very first week. I think the government should look into those companies and business owners, but that probably will never happen.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: chr0naut

The number of business owners who, instead of riding out a temporary lockdown, shed staff (and also probably requested government support) is indicative of the danger of a pure profit motive taking precedence over people's lives. I'm as Capitalist as the next guy, but surely money is of less value than people.

Just because a person owns a business, or even large corporations for that matter, doesn't mean they have an unlimited money supply to keep paying people with no sales attached to it. Given the lockdowns and the fact that GDP dropped by like 50% in one quarter, companies are trying to retain cash just to survive. Survival of the company is not just for the owners or the shareholders. It is also for the workers, because if the business doesn't survive there are no jobs to come back to.

Money is of less value than people, but money buys the things people need to survive, ie food, clothing, shelter, healthcare. Money makes the world go around. That is why shutting down the economy over a virus was not a very bright idea. The world needs a functioning economy in order for people to live.

Somebody has to work to drive the trucks that bring products from factories to market. Someone needs to process the food. Someone needs to man the stores for people to get food. Most people don't have a few cows, pigs, and chickens in their backyards to survive a pandemic.

There is no business person, manager, etc that looks forward to laying off people, but sometimes you have no choice but to sacrifice the few for the many.

Multi-millions of job lay-offs occurred in the very first week. I think the government should look into those companies and business owners, but that probably will never happen.

My first question would be why would the government need to investigate a company for laying off anyone for any reason (other than layoffs based purely on race or age) since they are free to do so?

Also, early job lay-offs make sense for company owners when the government chooses to shut down their business and they know they aren't going to have any revenue due to that fact.

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: smurfy
I find it funny, (as in funny peculiar) that the rioters seem to vanish before being detained, while the non-violent, and innocent protesters get charged at, fisted, knocked down, batoned, tear gassed equivalent, struck with police shields and rubber bullets in the neck....by the police, at the behest of Trump's cue.

I wonder how the learning curve gets so twisted, when the elephant in the room is so obviously in the White House.

Why don't you put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the actual people responsible? The looters and rioters. Almost everything you just attributed to Trump is false. I don't care if it had been Bush or Obama or even Clinton, the lies from your side are disgusting.

Who told the police to attack (and attack they did) a peaceful gathering then...Billy Barr?

My, "disgusting lies" which are actually true, should be more applicable to your, 'disgusting rhetoric' .....or could it be you just don't watch the news as it is happening, as I did, and I dare say as did lot of people, and I dare say a lot of those went into 'damage control' trying to salvage a totally irresponsible and corruptive, would be dictator, and at the same time trying to save their own faces.

I know several people that have a strong dislike for Trump, yet love his policies. As for myself, I will stand with the President. Listening to the Democrats make me ill.

originally posted by: smurfy

Who told the police to attack (and attack they did) a peaceful gathering then...Billy Barr?

My, "disgusting lies" which are actually true, should be more applicable to your, 'disgusting rhetoric' .....or could it be you just don't watch the news as it is happening, as I did, and I dare say as did lot of people, and I dare say a lot of those went into 'damage control' trying to salvage a totally irresponsible and corruptive, would be dictator, and at the same time trying to save their own faces.

What the hell are you talking about? Barr didn't tell anyone to do anything to looters and rioters. Police were overwhelmed in all of those large cities. Very few were able to do anything but sit back and watch the criminals destroy businesses.

That was no peaceful gathering and you know it.

originally posted by: MRinder

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: MRinder
a reply to: chr0naut

The number of business owners who, instead of riding out a temporary lockdown, shed staff (and also probably requested government support) is indicative of the danger of a pure profit motive taking precedence over people's lives. I'm as Capitalist as the next guy, but surely money is of less value than people.

Just because a person owns a business, or even large corporations for that matter, doesn't mean they have an unlimited money supply to keep paying people with no sales attached to it. Given the lockdowns and the fact that GDP dropped by like 50% in one quarter, companies are trying to retain cash just to survive. Survival of the company is not just for the owners or the shareholders. It is also for the workers, because if the business doesn't survive there are no jobs to come back to.

Money is of less value than people, but money buys the things people need to survive, ie food, clothing, shelter, healthcare. Money makes the world go around. That is why shutting down the economy over a virus was not a very bright idea. The world needs a functioning economy in order for people to live.

Somebody has to work to drive the trucks that bring products from factories to market. Someone needs to process the food. Someone needs to man the stores for people to get food. Most people don't have a few cows, pigs, and chickens in their backyards to survive a pandemic.

There is no business person, manager, etc that looks forward to laying off people, but sometimes you have no choice but to sacrifice the few for the many.

Multi-millions of job lay-offs occurred in the very first week. I think the government should look into those companies and business owners, but that probably will never happen.

My first question would be why would the government need to investigate a company for laying off anyone for any reason (other than layoffs based purely on race or age) since they are free to do so?

Also, early job lay-offs make sense for company owners when the government chooses to shut down their business and they know they aren't going to have any revenue due to that fact.

because the government provided assistance to employers so that they wouldn't lay off staff.

Let me explain with a hypothetical:

Business owner 'A' sees a budgetary shortfall of only $1,000 on his books in the next month. He knows the applicant market is flooded with hopefuls. He is paying employee 'B' about $1,000 a month. So you can balance the shortfall by just bumping an employee, and you can even start the hiring process before they've even left the building and have a new employee in the position next month, and that annoying $1k all gone.

But, of course, one has to have a reason to get rid of a good worker, don't they? Otherwise union, or court action, or statutory bodies might get a bit iffy.

Do you think that is an ethically good thing to do to a worker who may not have done anything to deserve dismissal? You'd expect employees to be loyal, shouldn't employers be too?

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: smurfy

Who told the police to attack (and attack they did) a peaceful gathering then...Billy Barr?

My, "disgusting lies" which are actually true, should be more applicable to your, 'disgusting rhetoric' .....or could it be you just don't watch the news as it is happening, as I did, and I dare say as did lot of people, and I dare say a lot of those went into 'damage control' trying to salvage a totally irresponsible and corruptive, would be dictator, and at the same time trying to save their own faces.

What the hell are you talking about? Barr didn't tell anyone to do anything to looters and rioters. Police were overwhelmed in all of those large cities. Very few were able to do anything but sit back and watch the criminals destroy businesses.

That was no peaceful gathering and you know it.

Don't bull#e me, the Washington protest was peaceful, the world press is unanimous witness to that, the attack by police is documented on video...and disturbing.



That's not even the youngsters who got attacked, that's an Australian camera crew taking pictures???
Now, how stupid do you want to be?...i'ts not my fault, but I'm not going to sit by and let you bluster without 1 iota of credible anything.

I keep wondering, how many of these rioters are getting big unemployment checks from the government. Or is it that they can't collect them and are mad that they can't get that money since they didn't qualify because they did not have a job that qualified them...jealousy.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Biden can't win, no matter what President Trump does, or does not do.

You name it...Biden Loses...for the 3rd time!

originally posted by: rickymouse
I keep wondering, how many of these rioters are getting big unemployment checks from the government. Or is it that they can't collect them and are mad that they can't get that money since they didn't qualify because they did not have a job that qualified them...jealousy.

I'm jealous I didn't get a stimulus check; what can I burn down to change that?

originally posted by: smurfy
Who told the police to attack (and attack they did) a peaceful gathering then...Billy Barr?

It is called self defense. If the rioters didn't want to be attacked, they shouldn't have attacked first.

I say - use the opportunity for sniper target practice. Set them up on tops of buildings, and start taking out the rioters one by one, leaving the so-called peaceful protestors untouched. I say so-called, because if they are there, while the riots are going on, they aren't really peaceful protestors, they are fake peaceful protestors. Kind of like how those peaceful muslims silently and quietly condone and support what the jihadists are actively doing.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: smurfy
Who told the police to attack (and attack they did) a peaceful gathering then...Billy Barr?

It is called self defense. If the rioters didn't want to be attacked, they shouldn't have attacked first.

I say - use the opportunity for sniper target practice. Set them up on tops of buildings, and start taking out the rioters one by one, leaving the so-called peaceful protestors untouched. I say so-called, because if they are there, while the riots are going on, they aren't really peaceful protestors, they are fake peaceful protestors. Kind of like how those peaceful muslims silently and quietly condone and support what the jihadists are actively doing.

What spaceship have you just got off....hint; 'police attacked crowd of protesters' police had been confining, it was a peaceful protest.

originally posted by: smurfy
'police attacked crowd of protesters' police had been confining, it was a peaceful protest.

That is fake propaganda. They were throwing # at the police. They were not 'peaceful protestors'. Those do not exist any more. If you're out 'protesting' during this #, you get what you deserve - hopefully sooner rather than later. This # must stop. NOW.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Both sides believe that the protests and/or riots will hurt the other side.

I don't think any of them know what their talking about.

To the OP: I always vote for the lesser of two evils. I’ve never agreed 100 percent with any politician. In November, the choice will be either Trump or Biden. I think Trump cares far more about American workers than Biden or the Dems in general. He does his best to create jobs for them instead of new government subsidies we can’t afford. He’s the first president in decades to challenge China. He’s trying to control illegal immigration, despite fanatical opposition. Biden offers nothing but the same old tired, big government solutions that haven’t ended poverty — not even close. He wants to continue importing millions of poor people. How can that be good for American workers?