I don't know that Hillary can govern. She certainly has experience as a government official (as senator and secretary of state), but I am not sure I would consider this to be "governing". Maybe being secretary of state involves governing of some sort (I don't really know), but being a senator is not governing. Being a legislator involves doing what the people who give you money tell you and collecting that money. This is why we have so many incompetent legislators. It takes no skills or talent other than winning an election.
Yeah, Bill and Hillary have endured witch hunts. And to a large extent Trump is enduring a witchhunt as well. It seems like about half the accusations against trump are not true. He is still a shitty human being. I would put Hillary and certainly Bill in this same category. They are all shitty.
Some of those choices were made when these people were still children. It's much harder for a child born into a broken home with no culture of education to break the mold, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and become a great student. It's not as hard for a child to make good choices when they were born into an affluent family that was able to give them the tools to make good choices.
I think making people accountable for their choices is a good thing when it is actually fostering better choices. When you are holding people accountable for the choices they made as children, and the choices their parents made, especially when those consequences are a primary roadblock to making good decisions, is cruel.
To me this is like punishing people for being obese by withholding healthy food from them.
They already ARE in desperate situations, as many minimum-wage earners (or even close by in some areas) are beholden to their jobs
I think I already implied that when I said losing their current job would leave them in a *more* desperate situation (i.e. that their situation was already desperate).
US and state federal laws protect some, but for others, they really ARE beholden to their employers, on an inclining scale.
They are certainly dependent on their employers. Whether our society unfairly forces people to be dependent on their employers is another question. But actual slaves are not dependent on their owners, which is why so many slaves tried to escape (i.e. they were much better off without them).
If I go to a third world country and start handing out $1 bills to everyone, those people might come to depend on me. That doesn't mean it is my fault that they only have $1. I am the reason they don't have $0. I am not saying that employers are being charitable, or that they are not sometimes exploitive. I am saying that the employer regardless of how good or bad they are, are providing another option that the workers can refuse if another better opportunity comes along. Actual slaves do not have that option.
Wage slaves are still free to choose the best option out of whatever limited options they have. Even exploitive employers are increasing rather than decreasing those options.
If the foxconn plant in China closes the ratio of labor supply to demand has just increased, driving the price of labor even further down, and those workers will now be forced to work in an even worse plant getting paid even less money.
Work with a few, directly, to understand their concerns, and how they are sucked dry of things like withholdings for uniforms, arcane unpaid travel to sites, and more.
Being a wage slave is different than beign a victim of fraud, even if those 2 things can and often do go together.
The workers in Dubai are probably actually just slaves (rather than just wage slaves). They are victims of fraud. Their contracts are not honored. Their passports are confiscated. They are not allowed to leave. The justice system is rigged against them. They are wage slaves in that they make low wages, but they are not *just* wage slaves.
Slavery doesn't necessarily mean chattel. And the subtleties can be gruesome.
Not anymore. Thanks to "wage slavery", it can also refer to poor people in America making minimum wage.
I think it should be possible to feel empathy for people in a difficult situation, and want to do something to help those people without needing to conflate the situation they are in slavery. At the same time it is important to recognize that there is still actual slavery happening in the world today even if it is not labelled as such.
The label "wage slavery" and the phenomenon to references certainly exist. I don't think it's good, but I think the label trivializes actual slavery. I think underpaying people can certainly be exploitive, but I don't think this should be conflated to what actual slaves were/are subjected to (e.g. being treated as property). Slaves could be (and were sometimes) murdered and raped by their masters with accountability. Slaves were split up from their families.
This isn't about Trump or the Republicans. Someone can be a sleazy politician on their own merit. I don't give a shit how many times she says "radical islamic terrorism". Bengazi is obviously a witchhunt. It's obvious republicans are just attacking her any way they can and seeing what sticks.
Here is what actually bothers me about her in no particular order
1. She was willing to lie about being shot at by snipers in order to boost her foreign policy cred.
2. She fucked up on the whole email server thing. Rather than just admitting it, she maintained that even though it was a bad decision, that nothing she did was against the rules.
3. She says she stood up to wall street when she told them to "cut it out". She says the reason wall street donated money to her was because she was keeping them safe after 9/11.
4. The timing of when her opinions change make it seem like she is just jumping on popular trends rather than actually having any sort of moral conviction. (e.g. her position on gay marriage, fracking, etc)
Is she the most dishonest politician there ever was? No. Are other politicians just as dishonest or even more dishonest than she is? Probably. Are the Republicans and Donald Trump unfairly trying to make her seem more dishonest than she really is? Yes. Has she been held to a different standard because of gender bias? probably.
All of this is important to note, but it doesn't change the fact that she is dishonest. She is willing to lie when she thinks it will benefit her. She is a liar. She is not more of a liar than other politicians especially republicans or Trump, but she is a liar nonetheless.
Attacking the wild accusations against hillary from the right is easy. That doesn't mean that there are not legitimate issues with her honesty.
I get that Donald Trump is worse. Given the choices, I hope she wins. But I don't see the point in sugar coating what we are getting, if/when we stop Trump.
Guardian is reporting that Apple will "rake in $3 billion in revenue from Pokemon Go in the next one to two years as gamers buy 'PokeCoins' from its app store, according to analysts."
If we extrapolate this trend out to 50 years, apple will make at least $150 billion in revenue not counting inflation. There is no reason to think this is a fad that will be over in 2 weeks...
"Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows." -- Robert G. Ingersoll