What makes you believe the working class accomplishments over the past century, like the ones I cited in the previous post, are a result of cooperation between workers and business owners when business owners have been the main antagonists to working class accomplishments the entire history of a working class economy in the United States? Like I said, workers have had to fight tooth and nail for any advancement against business owners throughout the entire history of achieving working class rights in America.
I do not doubt your sincerity in believing what you have read. I would just point out that it is a very edited version of reality. Some business owners have indeed been dicks, no question. But it is just a narrative, our world is too complex to distill it down to workers vs business owners being in conflict. This ignores humanity and how it works. Mostly people are good, very few employers throughout history will let the people under them suffer more than they are willing to themselves. The further removed they are from the process and don't see what is happening, the worst it gets.
But luckily the last 50 years it has become impossible (almost) for people to be blind to what is happening around them since everything has a camera on it now. So the same blindness that affected humanity for all recorded history is no longer the case mostly.
On this point, we are saying the same thing. It's not that business leaders/owners are bad people, I don't believe every wealthy person who owns a corporation is a bad person, not at all. I think everyone who owns a business is simply looking out for themselves, their family, and their own best economic interest. What I do think, though, is with that, comes an inherent conclusion; that those who own businesses within a crony capitalistic system, have to support and/or enact economic policies within that system that are fully legal within the letter of the law that are detrimental to the vast majority of the members of an ostensibly democratic society for their own businesses to exist and thrive.
I say you go too far with the laws are detrimental to the majority of America, and because of this it become a 'gut' feeling and no longer represents reality.
And I guess I really don't understand what you mean by 'crony capitalism'. I know it is a great soundbite that gets used, but I think this is right up there with 'illegal aliens' and is more a branding to stir up emotions than anything.
I disagree with your premise and conclusion. It's not "micro managing private industry", and it would be very easy to accomplish through legislation
Do you agree or disagree that business owners in America should not be earning hundreds to thousands more than their average employees?
I do not think that someone who is paid to come in and say sweep out cages at a local pet store as a summer job before college starts up should expect to earn as much as a person who has built up the business from scratch and has devoted their life to that business.
Micro Managing is not easy to legislate, everything changes far too fast and has too many ways that it can go wrong for legislation to keep up with it.
I am all for paying people well, safe workplaces, and higher taxation of the wealthy of our country to pay for the efficiencies that government is actually good at providing over private industries. I think it is disingenuous though to look at the lowest wage person at a company and compare them to the highest paid.
What time on your clock was Bernie Sanders wrong? I'd like to know because I don't support the man, I support the policies. If you think Sanders was wrong at any time during his career, please highlight it so I know
I don't know what you are talking about here, being a broken clock is more about spamming shit nonstop and eventually what is being said happens. This is the same as the 'This investor got this random negative (or positive) event right, so trust them with your money' scam. I could go through everything in Bernie's past and try to find examples of what I don't like about him, but I am not trying to break Bernie down. If he wins the Democratic nomination I will vote for the guy, even if it is suspicious to me (and a big gamble imo) that Russia supported him for President of the United States.
Trump has been proven to be incompetent, the only thing Sanders could do worse is maybe have Tulsi as VP and die in office making her President.
Sanders convictions have been tested his entire career. His convictions were tested when the vote to invade Iraq came up, when the USA Patriot act was passed, when he opposed the Hyde amendment, when he supported an end to discrimination within the justice system, when he supported LGBTQ+ entering the military or getting married, when he supported an end to the war on poor people who use drugs..
That all sounds great, but it is easy to support things that are in favor of humanity, it is harder to get legislation passed that is going to affect peoples lives. Sanders is a great voice in the Senate, that doesn't mean he would be as effective as POTUS.
24% of Clinton supporters voted for McCain over Obama, ~12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump over Clinton
I think you owe me an apology
But I do not think I was wrong about the voter thing, but sure I apologize. Bernie did not support Clinton when he was obviously not going to become the nominee and his pride? helped the Russians to run their disinformation campaign on Clinton far longer than it should have, turning a lot of Bernie voters to hem and haw over voting for her which was enough to slip those 70,000 voters in key states that got Trump elected.
Your stat says nothing about how many Bernie voters then voted for Clinton/3rd party, nor Clinton voters who voted for Obama/3rd party
The academic study conducted at Princeton Law concluded American elites have more influence over political policy than average voters through manipulation of the lack of campaign finance regulation, and because of that, American democracy at large is threatened
I didn't see anything in that article saying democracy is threatened. And of course rich people have more influence than average voters who mostly never even lay eyes on a politician. They are spending a lot of money to sit down and talk with their politicians.
That still doesn't mean that the politician 'owes' them anything other than what they promise in their campaign. Getting perspectives of how businesses survive from the people running those businesses is important. Businesses are not evil.
You said previously the money they accept doesn't influence their vote, so I'm curious why you would take this position?
You are reading into what I said, I do not believe I went as far as you claim I went. So I am curious why you would say that a politician is forced to do what a donor tells them to do?
