President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Now let's do exorbitant CEO packages for horribly failing companies.

Just think what dire straits McClatchy would be in without Craig Forman's guiding hand.

 

While I understand the importance of the early primary states - I wish primary polling would be emphasized in the swing states like Ohio, Florida and Pa. I do realize that primary voters aren't going to decide those states, non-affiliated voters will - but they're also all more representative of America at large than Iowa, SC, NH and Nevada.

 

[Insert Jennifer Lawrence Ok GIF]

 

Who is that laughing man?

 

Freight trains of brownos coming!!

Fox News Reports Migrants Heading to Southern Border on a Freight Train Called ‘The Beast’

 

Aquaman

 

Agree with all of this. The notion that all prisoners should have the right to vote is as close to a demonstrably incorrect policy opinion as you can get. The whole purpose of an election is to appoint the people who will make the laws by which we will collectively abide. I don't think it is too far of a stretch to say that an individual's right to vote comes with an implicit agreement that he/she will abide by those laws. The whole system of participatory democracy is contingent upon voters' acceptance of the results of the vote, which is a de facto acceptance of the resulting law. If you do not abide by those laws, you do not get to vote, because you have already rejected the system. That seems wholly consistent and even necessary. Just reduce it to the extreme: would it make any sense to put lawbreakers in charge of making laws? Of course not. You don't have to run the hypothetical back too far to get to a point where prisoners are a politically viable voting bloc. And if you think that is untenable, or a scenario worth averting, then the only answer is to prevent all criminals from voting (or, at least, criminals of a certain severity).

 

She is exactly that, an owner of Disney shares and the daughter of one of the founders. That "median income of $46k" is deceptive. If you read the article, there are a huge number of low end employees making $7.25 in Florida or $15 in California, and none of them are living high on the hog. Bonus money on the order of what she's talking about lets them get together the down payment on a house, or a new roof, or build their child an otherwise far less attainable college fund. If Iger only gets $20m instead of $35m, he's not going to miss any meals. Maybe he can't get another super yacht this year, but he'll make it. There was a time when American corporations did this sort of thing, before the whole "The only people we owe anything to is the stockholder" mindset took hold. It's corrosive, and it hurts not just the corporate employee loyalty and morale, but also things like long term planning and R and D. It's all about the next earning call now. Add in stock options and the entire incentive for upper management is to drive up the short term stock price.

 

That's a pet peeve. A branch manager who runs his little slice of the company poorly and loses money gets sacked, and he's lucky if he gets a couple of weeks severance and his accumulated vacation hours. A CEO runs the whole show into near bankruptcy and gets paid $20m to go away. Makes no sense. Hell, the company should sue to claw back some unearned pay.

 

I grew up in Delaware in the heyday of DuPont, where my Dad worked. It made a point of paying everyone well, of making sure management compensation was not wildly out of line and of focusing intently on employee health and welfare. But it was a special case, because being one of the original great American corporations meant the family (BuPonts are a really large family) were rich as Croesus by the Civil War, being an explosives company meant that safety was kind of an obsession, and that there was a general paternalistic attitude. Should be noted DuPonts were prominent in the Liberty League attempt to oust FDR by coup in 1934.