I think he's referring to partisans.

Then it's a fucking stupid thing to say. Of course partisan Republicans don't vote Democrat.

Otherwise they wouldn't be partisan.

I'm not talking about entry level jobs, I'm talking about people who have to work in factories as a career because the job market is shit. Even if you're working on an assembly line, you're entitled to the same safeties and regulations as anyone else. The problem is that without unions, employers could treat their employees any way they wanted to, and the only way to change it would be through the federal government. Unions allow any common worker to actually get things done outside Uncle Sam.

TIL henry ford and efficiency wages dont real

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 14, 2015, 08:08:20 PM

Thinking union bosses care any more about workers than the employers is intensely naive.

Except they objectively do. Ever met Lee Saunders? One of the most respectable and honest people in the world, and he's the president of one of the biggest US unions. Employers care only about money, on the other hand.

Oh, gee, well done. You can tag the word objectively into a sentence and make it look as if you're saying something substantial.

You know there are a lot of decent employers, right? Sectors which tend to have low employee satisfaction tend to have exceptionally high rates of turnover precisely because they are entry-level jobs. You start moving up the pay gradient and your employer is probably going to be bending over kissing your ass and begging you to stay.

Unions are pretty fucking shit as a means of collective bargaining.

The Conservatives have drafted a bill which will make it mandatory for unions to have a majority in favour of striking before they will be allowed to do so, and public sector unions will have to have to turnout of 40pc. This seems like a pretty good guideline to me as to policies regarding labour unions (although it'd be nice to have a turnout requirement on non-public unions). Governmental unions in the US--such as teachers unions--are fucking awful and tend to harm the service being delivered.

On the whole, works councils are a hell of a lot better and tend to reach much more equitable solutions than politically-motivated unions. Thinking union bosses care any more about workers than the employers is intensely naive.

Trump and Carson (And to a degree, Fiorina), have really shined in the early months of this election cycle - it shows that the GOP base and beyond are annoyed with the establishment, and want someone new.

I'm not surprised, it's exactly the same in the UK with the election of Corbyn for Labour.

Although, to be honest, I doubt Trump will last. Or Carson, for that matter; he doesn't seem to have much content.

You have a friend that's a girl

FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

I keep thinking you're Cheat.

Icy, who would be your preferred GOP nomination?

There is no such thing as a moral government

/thread

A lot, emotionally.

I'm not as dead to the world. But I'm also much more depressed.

Quote from: Executioner Sigma on September 14, 2015, 11:20:17 AM

Quote from: Flee on September 14, 2015, 08:45:53 AM

literally everyone knows that FN makes the objectively best guns in the world.

Fuck off, Continentalfag.

It's obviously BAE Systems.

You're comparing one of the premier small arms manufacturers to a contractor that builds fucking naval guns.

FN doesn't make naval guns. . .

I know they make aircraft weaponry, but not naval guns.

Nevertheless, who gives a fuck? Flee brought up FN in a small arms thread; I'm entitled to stick it to his Dutch ass.

You can have Trump.

We already have Boris Johnson.

I do it a lot in Fallout.

that doesn't mean you're incapable of elucidating your tastes

I love strategy because of. . . Well, the strategy. Most games obviously have a degree of strategy involved, but there's nothing quite so satisfying as being able to wipe a country off the map because you were able to plan your diplomatic, military and economic actions ahead of time and respond to any changes in your situation.

Of course they arise from biology. Everything everyone does arises from biology.

The point is that these gender roles have a solid basis in biology themselves, which seems to be lost on a lot of people. I don't disagree that gender roles are a social phenomenon, or that they can constrain or elevate people in certain circumstances, my problem is when people ignore the underlying causes for these gender roles--as so many seem to do. It's no accident we see gendered behaviour in neonatals, or that more developed and egalitarian countries have greater differences in both personality and professions between men and women.

The problem with defining gender as a social construct is that it tends to lead to the conclusion that no real differences actually exist between men and women when it comes to personality or the interests they will pursue.