Republican response for 2024 - A new political party

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
Interesting. Percents might be off, but your premise is spot on.

I do find it strange, that you think to win, the minority (GOP) needs to split the majority.

Why not adopt policies and enact legislation that attracts more followers?

I would think the latter benefits voters like all of us, more than your idea.

Dems may just counter by trying to continue to make Trump relevant and continue to split the GOP vote.
I think that the main problem I have with all of this is one simple thing.

I don't think, based on what I have witnessed the past 60 years of life, that the majority of people in America any longer care about the overall country and it's future. I honestly think that it's possible now to develop a coalition of voters who want policies that MIGHT benefit them in the short term but will over a short period of time destroy the country (extreme deficit spending, disincentivizing work, weakening our defenses, defunding the police, teaching our children lies about the world, telling everyone that if they don't agree with them that they're a racist, and many many other things).

You ask about adopting other policies. We as republicans just physically can't adopt many of the policies that the left wants, because these policies are bad for the country, counter to what this country stands for, and ultimately bad for the people. Also, you may gain some votes by adopting new policies, but you can lose your base by doing that too.

One of the things that "one person/one vote" does is that it marginalizes the smart, hard working, and the wise, who are in a distinct minority. The promise of the United States has always been that you could make something of yourself, regardless of who you are. Now, we've created voting blocks of underachieving people who get candidates put in office with the sole intent of undermining the achievers. They are basically using their numbers to destroy other people's American Dream.

The United States was founded on the basis of being a country where people get treated individually, rather than as a group or mob. My big issue is that the mob (and their enablers) are taking over.

All of that aside, what I proposed is nothing more than a political strategy to deal with the environment we are in. I really think that if we had a true socialist/communist party in the USA that they would stick together and not support a candidate that wouldn't stand for total government control of the means of production.

Right now, the Biden Administration is totally galvanizing the republicans and if you take away the socialist vote, the republicans will be in charge of everything again by 2024.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
And then the democrats could counter punch and start a wacky “Love trump and think famous people are drinking baby blood” party and then everything is back to where we started except the crazies are stuffed into their corners.

I think you’re onto something here Ragecrack. This would be a great way to get rid of Trump and his cult and the annoying hippy dippy yuppies all in one swoop.
The whole point is that the counter punch would be far more docile than the punch.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nelsonj22

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
Sounds good on paper (for you), but actually making that happen would be unbelievably more difficult than taking @Red_Hack 's suggestion of actually growing your party instead of trying to rat f*ck the other party.

What you're describing is the perfect storm that trump lucked out on in 16' with Stein. Pretty difficult to shoot the moon twice.
I don't know how hard it is. Bill Clinton got elected twice that way. It's arguable that Nixon got elected that way on 1968. Bush benefited from Nader. Seems to happen a lot.
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
I think that the main problem I have with all of this is one simple thing.

I don't think, based on what I have witnessed the past 60 years of life, that the majority of people in America any longer care about the overall country and it's future. I honestly think that it's possible now to develop a coalition of voters who want policies that MIGHT benefit them in the short term but will over a short period of time destroy the country (extreme deficit spending, disincentivizing work, weakening our defenses, defunding the police, teaching our children lies about the world, telling everyone that if they don't agree with them that they're a racist, and many many other things).

You ask about adopting other policies. We as republicans just physically can't adopt many of the policies that the left wants, because these policies are bad for the country, counter to what this country stands for, and ultimately bad for the people. Also, you may gain some votes by adopting new policies, but you can lose your base by doing that too.

One of the things that "one person/one vote" does is that it marginalizes the smart, hard working, and the wise, who are in a distinct minority. The promise of the United States has always been that you could make something of yourself, regardless of who you are. Now, we've created voting blocks of underachieving people who get candidates put in office with the sole intent of undermining the achievers. They are basically using their numbers to destroy other people's American Dream.

The United States was founded on the basis of being a country where people get treated individually, rather than as a group or mob. My big issue is that the mob (and their enablers) are taking over.

All of that aside, what I proposed is nothing more than a political strategy to deal with the environment we are in. I really think that if we had a true socialist/communist party in the USA that they would stick together and not support a candidate that wouldn't stand for total government control of the means of production.

Right now, the Biden Administration is totally galvanizing the republicans and if you take away the socialist vote, the republicans will be in charge of everything again by 2024.
Valid response. I disagree with much of what you have posted. Your assumption that people who are not well off are not hard working is pure shit. Lots of hard workers have absolutely nothing and no opportunity to do anything about it. The bottom 50% of the population is basically indentured servants, with no ability to get out of a cycle created by massive corporations, who have zero regard for their well-being, and only look at profits.

But mostly as long as Toxic Trump is in the conversation, many Republicans will never vote for their party.

I think the same idea could be applied to the conservatives of America. Create a new ultra-right party-based either on White superiority or ultra-conservative Christian views, which would split off a significant percentage of Republicans, rendering the party obsolete.
 

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,471
65,970
113
Lafayette, Indiana
Interesting. Percents might be off, but your premise is spot on.

I do find it strange, that you think to win, the minority (GOP) needs to split the majority.

Why not adopt policies and enact legislation that attracts more followers?

I would think the latter benefits voters like all of us, more than your idea.

Dems may just counter by trying to continue to make Trump relevant and continue to split the GOP vote.

Easing up on the hate, lies and racism would be a fine start.
 

DRay827

Senior
Gold Member
Aug 28, 2016
2,199
4,557
113
Lincoln, NE
I don't know how hard it is. Bill Clinton got elected twice that way. It's arguable that Nixon got elected that way on 1968. Bush benefited from Nader. Seems to happen a lot.
Yea but none of those were purposefully orchestrated by one party to defeat the other party. Perot was a genuine candidate with a legit following, Perot didn't' run just so Clinton could beat Bush Sr. or Dole.

You can execute something like you're suggesting to win a house seat, like the FL GOP did in Miami last year, but it's very difficult to do nationally if it's not a real, organic candidate. See: Kanye 2020'
 

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Buffet is a corrupt mo fo and if you don’t think so, you are an idiot.
WB operates within the laws, and then actively points out that he should not be legally allowed to do what he does.

Every year he releases a comparison of his effective tax rate compared to his employees. Showing how corrupt the system is.

He may be no saint, but he thinks he has an unfair advantage over people with less than him. And he is not wrong.
 

IndyHusker

Administrator
Moderator
Aug 23, 2001
59,471
65,970
113
Lafayette, Indiana
I just shake my head at all these socialists comments flying around today. It’s funny how I haven’t seen anyone suggesting the Federal government should start building factories to manufacture cars and trucks or buy up farms to grow food. Strange when tax payers get back money we now want to refer to it as socialism instead of tax cuts. I suppose when an infrastructure bill comes forward which will provide money to local governments to pay private companies to pave roads and install water pipes or high speed fiber that will also be called socialism. Boy we sure do like our labels that attempt to deligitimize the ideas of others even if it benefits us just because we want to win elections more than we want to solve problems and make a better life and society. People really have no clue what socialism means.

At a minimum, 75% of Trump’s supporters have no clue as to the definition of socialism. Perhaps your post will help those on the Scrolls that struggle with it too.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
Valid response. I disagree with much of what you have posted. Your assumption that people who are not well off are not hard working is pure shit. Lots of hard workers have absolutely nothing and no opportunity to do anything about it. The bottom 50% of the population is basically indentured servants, with no ability to get out of a cycle created by massive corporations, who have zero regard for their well-being, and only look at profits.

But mostly as long as Toxic Trump is in the conversation, many Republicans will never vote for their party.

I think the same idea could be applied to the conservatives of America. Create a new ultra-right party-based either on White superiority or ultra-conservative Christian views, which would split off a significant percentage of Republicans, rendering the party obsolete.
"Your assumption that people who are not well off are not hard working is pure shit. Lots of hard workers have absolutely nothing and no opportunity to do anything about it. The bottom 50% of the population is basically indentured servants, with no ability to get out of a cycle created by massive corporations, who have zero regard for their well-being, and only look at profits".

1) I made no such assumption. You made that up based on your mindset.
2) Unless some calamity occurred in their lives, there are virtually no people in the USA who are both hard working and have nothing/no opportunity. Opportunity abounds in this country compared to all other countries. No party is just one voting block of one type of person, but the democrats rely on the segment of people who are not achievers, do not work hard or smart, and are not self reliant as the group that puts them over the top politically. This is why they are frothing at the mouth to bring in millions of poor people from Latin America, to increase their voter rolls. The democrats' denial of this is laughable.
3) 50% of the people in this country are not indentured servants (people working a certain contract term to gain passage and basic subsistence). Every citizen has the same rights as others and can move on to their best benefit at the time and place of their choosing. No one is forced to work for say, Walmart, for a certain period of time.
4) Corporations have 10 times the regard for their worker's well being than 30 years ago. Most people don't work for corporation but for small businesses.
5) I don't know any other reason you guys have for this "evil corporations" thing other than the idea that you're an underachiever and you're jealous of someone else who made it when you didn't.
6) Most important, the standard of living of that bottom 50% you talk about is the highest on earth and has been for a long time. This is because of the business system that you malign constantly.

"I think the same idea could be applied to the conservatives of America. Create a new ultra-right party-based either on White superiority or ultra-conservative Christian views, which would split off a significant percentage of Republicans, rendering the party obsolete".

I'm totally good with that trade-off, because a microscopic number of people in this country are ultra right wing and most of them would vote for a moderate if it meant keeping a liberal out of office.

Conservative Christians are composed of the best and most selfless and generous people on earth. They are also smart and they tend to vote in ways to keep liberal people out of office. I'm not concerned about them abandoning moderate conservative candidates.

Based on survey data, literally 10-15% of the country is socialist/communist, and has been that way for 100 years. This large segment of the population is willing and waiting to give up all of their freedom for the security and avoidance of responsibility that socialism/communism affords.
 

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,464
24,175
113
"Your assumption that people who are not well off are not hard working is pure shit. Lots of hard workers have absolutely nothing and no opportunity to do anything about it. The bottom 50% of the population is basically indentured servants, with no ability to get out of a cycle created by massive corporations, who have zero regard for their well-being, and only look at profits".

1) I made no such assumption. You made that up based on your mindset.
2) Unless some calamity occurred in their lives, there are virtually no people in the USA who are both hard working and have nothing/no opportunity. Opportunity abounds in this country compared to all other countries. .

O rly?
 

huskerj12

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 3, 2007
12,798
21,743
113
How could you expect the Republican party to secretly make a new Socialist party, complete with actual Socialist candidates and platforms who could introduce policies that would energize voters to break with the Democratic party, without ANYBODY catching a whiff that it was Republicans scheming behind it all, when the Republicans can't even build their OWN party? They (literally) didn't even put forth a party platform in 2020.

I think it's FAR far far more likely in the near future that the Republican party will continue to be solidified as a far-right Trump-led party with no clear direction other than nationalism and cultural grievance, and several sane moderates will break off to try to form a new group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 94husker

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,189
113
Maine
4) Corporations have 10 times the regard for their worker's well being than 30 years ago. Most people don't work for corporation but for small I don't know any other reason you guys have for this "evil corporations" thing other than the idea that you're an underachiever and you're jealous of someone else who made it when you didn't.
.

LOL. That’s why the wage ratio is what it is right? Some corporations are treating employees better. Plenty aren’t. Neoliberal, market-manipulated capitalism is a sham. And that’s exactly what we have at present. That’s why B Corps are picking up steam at a 60% YoY rate, because the neoliberal era ushered in during the late 70s completely distorted any semblance of a “free market”. The biggest economic myth in the US is that we operate in a “free market” economy. But that’s what the Rs and Ds alike both talk about because they’re both owned by corporate interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: philosophusker

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,464
24,175
113
"Your assumption that people who are not well off are not hard working is pure shit. Lots of hard workers have absolutely nothing and no opportunity to do anything about it. The bottom 50% of the population is basically indentured servants, with no ability to get out of a cycle created by massive corporations, who have zero regard for their well-being, and only look at profits".

1) I made no such assumption. You made that up based on your mindset.
2) Unless some calamity occurred in their lives, there are virtually no people in the USA who are both hard working and have nothing/no opportunity. Opportunity abounds in this country compared to all other countries. No party is just one voting block of one type of person, but the democrats rely on the segment of people who are not achievers, do not work hard or smart, and are not self reliant as the group that puts them over the top politically. This is why they are frothing at the mouth to bring in millions of poor people from Latin America, to increase their voter rolls. The democrats' denial of this is laughable.
3) 50% of the people in this country are not indentured servants (people working a certain contract term to gain passage and basic subsistence). Every citizen has the same rights as others and can move on to their best benefit at the time and place of their choosing. No one is forced to work for say, Walmart, for a certain period of time.
4) Corporations have 10 times the regard for their worker's well being than 30 years ago. Most people don't work for corporation but for small businesses.
5) I don't know any other reason you guys have for this "evil corporations" thing other than the idea that you're an underachiever and you're jealous of someone else who made it when you didn't.
6) Most important, the standard of living of that bottom 50% you talk about is the highest on earth and has been for a long time. This is because of the business system that you malign constantly.

"I think the same idea could be applied to the conservatives of America. Create a new ultra-right party-based either on White superiority or ultra-conservative Christian views, which would split off a significant percentage of Republicans, rendering the party obsolete".

I'm totally good with that trade-off, because a microscopic number of people in this country are ultra right wing and most of them would vote for a moderate if it meant keeping a liberal out of office.

Conservative Christians are composed of the best and most selfless and generous people on earth. They are also smart and they tend to vote in ways to keep liberal people out of office. I'm not concerned about them abandoning moderate conservative candidates.

Based on survey data, literally 10-15% of the country is socialist/communist, and has been that way for 100 years. This large segment of the population is willing and waiting to give up all of their freedom for the security and avoidance of responsibility that socialism/communism affords.

Classic Ragecrack move, pack so much stupid into one post it’s incredibly overwhelming to figure out how to respond
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
"Your assumption that people who are not well off are not hard working is pure shit. Lots of hard workers have absolutely nothing and no opportunity to do anything about it. The bottom 50% of the population is basically indentured servants, with no ability to get out of a cycle created by massive corporations, who have zero regard for their well-being, and only look at profits".

1) I made no such assumption. You made that up based on your mindset.
2) Unless some calamity occurred in their lives, there are virtually no people in the USA who are both hard working and have nothing/no opportunity. Opportunity abounds in this country compared to all other countries. No party is just one voting block of one type of person, but the democrats rely on the segment of people who are not achievers, do not work hard or smart, and are not self reliant as the group that puts them over the top politically. This is why they are frothing at the mouth to bring in millions of poor people from Latin America, to increase their voter rolls. The democrats' denial of this is laughable.
3) 50% of the people in this country are not indentured servants (people working a certain contract term to gain passage and basic subsistence). Every citizen has the same rights as others and can move on to their best benefit at the time and place of their choosing. No one is forced to work for say, Walmart, for a certain period of time.
4) Corporations have 10 times the regard for their worker's well being than 30 years ago. Most people don't work for corporation but for small businesses.
5) I don't know any other reason you guys have for this "evil corporations" thing other than the idea that you're an underachiever and you're jealous of someone else who made it when you didn't.
6) Most important, the standard of living of that bottom 50% you talk about is the highest on earth and has been for a long time. This is because of the business system that you malign constantly.

"I think the same idea could be applied to the conservatives of America. Create a new ultra-right party-based either on White superiority or ultra-conservative Christian views, which would split off a significant percentage of Republicans, rendering the party obsolete".

I'm totally good with that trade-off, because a microscopic number of people in this country are ultra right wing and most of them would vote for a moderate if it meant keeping a liberal out of office.

Conservative Christians are composed of the best and most selfless and generous people on earth. They are also smart and they tend to vote in ways to keep liberal people out of office. I'm not concerned about them abandoning moderate conservative candidates.

Based on survey data, literally 10-15% of the country is socialist/communist, and has been that way for 100 years. This large segment of the population is willing and waiting to give up all of their freedom for the security and avoidance of responsibility that socialism/communism affords.

Spot on, bro. Only points I’d debate you on are a) compassion in the Religious community I don’t think varies that much, am sure there plenty of compassionate socialists. If everyone makes the same wage and there’s zero incentive to work hard, we’re all gonna need some compassion and b) GOP ain’t winning shit in 2024, lol. Their goose is cooked. We’ll have another ‘pandemic’ in 2024 to ensure Dems Armies can go house to house and nursing homes to collect all of the mailed in ballots.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nelsonj22

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,189
113
Maine
Classic Ragecrack move, pack so much stupid into one post it’s incredibly overwhelming to figure out how to respond

If only it was all how he believes it is... lol. "Everyone has equal opportunity because we say they do... actual realities be damned! It's their fault for not having opportunity!". Classic.

Reminds me of the MLK quote: “It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.”
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,189
113
Maine
No party is just one voting block of one type of person, but the democrats rely on the segment of people who are not achievers, do not work hard or smart, and are not self reliant as the group that puts them over the top politically.

Curious what metric(s) you are using to make this assertion. Unemployment rate is comparable between registered Rs and Ds.

What a ridiculous assertion to make.
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
Curious what metric(s) you are using to make this assertion. Unemployment rate is comparable between registered Rs and Ds.

What a ridiculous assertion to make.
Leftists are the champions of forcibly taking wealth, and turning it into free shit for others. The conservative end of the spectrum champions lower taxes and definitely reforming welfare programs in a way that less people would be on the take from gov't. What side do YOU think underachievers would naturally wanna vote for? I mean this isn't a blanket statement there are plenty of worthless POS republicans (start w/ Ben Sasse), but you hardcore leftists know EXACTLY why you vote how you vote. Free shit, income redistribution. Its ALWAYS about the money.
 

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,464
24,175
113
Leftists are the champions of forcibly taking wealth, and turning it into free shit for others. The conservative end of the spectrum champions lower taxes and definitely reforming welfare programs in a way that less people would be on the take from gov't. What side do YOU think underachievers would naturally wanna vote for? I mean this isn't a blanket statement there are plenty of worthless POS republicans (start w/ Ben Sasse), but you hardcore leftists know EXACTLY why you vote how you vote. Free shit, income redistribution. Its ALWAYS about the money.

Do you have any actual data to support one side being more “underachieving” though?
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
Do you have any actual data to support one side being more “underachieving” though?

I pointing out that ppl who depend on free shit would be more likely to vote Dem. And don't hear that wrong, that's not a blanket statement. There are PLENTY of ppl who need assistance (disabled, for sure), but there are TENS OF MILLIONS who make a better living on welfare than if they'd try and go out and get a job, and its a huge problem. Our government safety net is way the F too big because it forsters laziness and complacency for millions of ppl who'd otherwise be capable. Makes them into Noncontributors. Now why would they want to vote away their free money? Just trying to use logic.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
Curious what metric(s) you are using to make this assertion. Unemployment rate is comparable between registered Rs and Ds.

What a ridiculous assertion to make.
There is no way to measure what the unemployment rate is by party affiliation. The democrats cater to the takers and people who want to give other people's money away for votes, and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise. It's been that way forever.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: stevehammer

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
Spot on, bro. Only points I’d debate you on are a) compassion in the Religious community I don’t think varies that much, am sure there plenty of compassionate socialists. If everyone makes the same wage and there’s zero incentive to work hard, we’re all gonna need some compassion and b) GOP ain’t winning shit in 2024, lol. Their goose is cooked. We’ll have another ‘pandemic’ in 2024 to ensure Dems Armies can go house to house and nursing homes to collect all of the mailed in ballots.
Christians are compassionate with their own money.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
Classic Ragecrack move, pack so much stupid into one post it’s incredibly overwhelming to figure out how to respond
That was a really useful response. Full of facts and counter opinions to make your case. Good Job!
 

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,464
24,175
113
I pointing out that ppl who depend on free shit would be more likely to vote Dem. And don't hear that wrong, that's not a blanket statement. There are PLENTY of ppl who need assistance (disabled, for sure), but there are TENS OF MILLIONS who make a better living on welfare than if they'd try and go out and get a job, and its a huge problem. Our government safety net is way the F too big because it forsters laziness and complacency for millions of ppl who'd otherwise be capable. Makes them into Noncontributors. Now why would they want to vote away their free money? Just trying to use logic.

So no data, just perception?
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,919
12,503
113
LOL. That’s why the wage ratio is what it is right? Some corporations are treating employees better. Plenty aren’t. Neoliberal, market-manipulated capitalism is a sham. And that’s exactly what we have at present. That’s why B Corps are picking up steam at a 60% YoY rate, because the neoliberal era ushered in during the late 70s completely distorted any semblance of a “free market”. The biggest economic myth in the US is that we operate in a “free market” economy. But that’s what the Rs and Ds alike both talk about because they’re both owned by corporate interests.
You guys love bashing corporations because they don't respond. A corporation is just a legal entity that limits the liability of the owners to what they have invested. How that makes them inherently evil is beyond me.

Getting away from the term "corporations" big COMPANIES literally create the economies of scale that allow our standard of living and provide jobs for millions of people so they can support their families. Without big companies, only about 10% of the population could afford a car, and everyone's houses would be 1/3 the size because building materials and equipment would be so expensive. If there were no big Pharmaceutical companies, for example, there wouldn't be the capital for research and development of drugs and vaccines. Big companies parley the talents of many into things that couldn't be done with all small companies.

Everybody's life would be worse without big companies and it's a balancing act to make sure that they don't become monopolistic. But this idea that the risk takers, who lose their ass often, shouldn't be a lot richer than the non-risk takers is pathetic. The non-risk takers get paid for their work, the risk takers get paid for their work and for taking the risk.
 

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,464
24,175
113
You guys love bashing corporations because they don't respond. A corporation is just a legal entity that limits the liability of the owners to what they have invested. How that makes them inherently evil is beyond me.

Getting away from the term "corporations" big COMPANIES literally create the economies of scale that allow our standard of living and provide jobs for millions of people so they can support their families. Without big companies, only about 10% of the population could afford a car, and everyone's houses would be 1/3 the size because building materials and equipment would be so expensive. If there were no big Pharmaceutical companies, for example, there wouldn't be the capital for research and development of drugs and vaccines. Big companies parley the talents of many into things that couldn't be done with all small companies.

Everybody's life would be worse without big companies and it's a balancing act to make sure that they don't become monopolistic. But this idea that the risk takers, who lose their ass often, shouldn't be a lot richer than the non-risk takers is pathetic. The non-risk takers get paid for their work, the risk takers get paid for their work and for taking the risk.

Lol you’re getting technical about the definition of corporation in a thread you started about creating a party to appease the American’s wanting “Socialism”.
 

mcgradyNU

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jun 30, 2004
5,801
9,189
113
Maine
You guys love bashing corporations because they don't respond. A corporation is just a legal entity that limits the liability of the owners to what they have invested. How that makes them inherently evil is beyond me.

Getting away from the term "corporations" big COMPANIES literally create the economies of scale that allow our standard of living and provide jobs for millions of people so they can support their families. Without big companies, only about 10% of the population could afford a car, and everyone's houses would be 1/3 the size because building materials and equipment would be so expensive. If there were no big Pharmaceutical companies, for example, there wouldn't be the capital for research and development of drugs and vaccines. Big companies parley the talents of many into things that couldn't be done with all small companies.

Everybody's life would be worse without big companies and it's a balancing act to make sure that they don't become monopolistic. But this idea that the risk takers, who lose their ass often, shouldn't be a lot richer than the non-risk takers is pathetic. The non-risk takers get paid for their work, the risk takers get paid for their work and for taking the risk.

You don’t have to patronize me with any of this a small business owner who has worked for plenty of large corporations. We operate a factory and a Certifoed B Corp brand. Our executive to lowest paid FTE employee is 3.5/1.

The fact remains that income inequality is at its highest levels since just before the ‘29 crash. Period. Full stop. Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the rest. We have privatized profits and socialized losses while the extreme rich continue to shelter monies that should be taxed. We have pharmaceutical companies that use publicly-funded research as their foundation for patents and then charge out the nose for drugs. We have industries that lobby to maintain a status quo that works against the public good.

Just like the idea that government beyond a certain size is no longer efficient or good for the public, so it is true with corporations.