• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Planit said:
Do they not think this interpretation will come back to bite them in the arse in the future? Oh never mind, they've been contradicting themselves (from the 90s) this entire time. Hypocrisy is rampant!
Click to expand...

No. It won't. It doesn't matter what Republicans do at this point, they will get away with it. They are an impossibly corrupt force that has the backing of every small town in rural America. It's fine that they don't have the large cities in their pocket, they can win with overwhelming support from uneducated lower class America by giving them constant unfulfilled promises. I mean I suppose that's a bleak look, but it is what it is.

Democrats generally work with civility and tact, but that's not what reality show addicted Americans want. They feed on political rhetoric, drama, and absurd story lines.
 
Last edited:
AG74683 said:
Democrats generally work with civility and tact, but that's not what reality show addicted Americans want. They feed political rhetoric, drama, and absurd story lines.
Click to expand...
If Democrats could figure out how to get back middle america they would dominate the Republicans.

I think if the Democrats had better answers for the following, they would win in landslides:

Social Programs helping people who aren't helping themselves.
-This is a talking point the R's focus on heavily, and works really really well in middle america. Those "freeloaders" are just getting government handouts. And the Democrats want to just give away my money to "them". Democrats need to frame the reasons for providing a social safety net better.

Higher Taxes
- Why do we want more taxes? Who really wants to pay more in taxes? Instead of focusing on taxes, they need to better explain the benefits that money being utilized by the government can do for society. Socialism isn't something most people support. But people like roads that don't suck. People like healthcare generally. They need to frame taxes better. Higher taxes on the rich is something that they will lose at over and over again. Warren is terrible at this.

Guns
- It seems the D's are doing a bit better at this, but this is a HUGE reason that most of the rural states won't support D's. The idea of outright banning guns is not palatable by most of middle america. The D's are doing better about using language that discusses background checks, etc. But when you say we are going to ban your guns, a lot of people in middle america turn off. NRA or not, these people won't support a party that doesn't understand their needs. Owning a gun is something a lot of people deem a necessity, whether right or wrong.

Abortion
- Why this issue is so huge, compared to the death penalty, or prison reform, beats me, but it is. The religious right has put a stake in the ground and made this THE ONLY position that matters when determining if they support candidates or not. Whether the D's can message this differently or not I don't know, but they need to do a better job trying to get people to understand that most D's don't support abortion outright, they just support a women's right to choose if that is something she feels she has to do. I don't know that I have ever talked to anyone who says that they like abortion. They just understand the reasons for it and why the terrible decision should be put in the hands of the person who is affected by the outcome, not the government.

Thoughts?
 
Hink said:
If Democrats could figure out how to get back middle america they would dominate the Republicans.

I think if the Democrats had better answers for the following, they would win in landslides:
Click to expand...

I'm not so convinced that it's an issue of having better answers. I think most voters, whether they realize it or not, are voting more on emotional reasons than rational ones. And having a good answer will do little to change the emotions behind how people feel.

I think one thing the Democratic party as a whole COULD do successfully is to provide better support to "pro-life" Democratic candidates. I get the idea that they don't want to go backwards on what they feel is women's rights as a party, but this is the policy that so many people hang their hat on when they vote, that I think supporting some of these candidates would do a lot to really force single-issue voters to come to grips with why they would otherwise support a GOP candidate.
 
The parties should start marketing themselves like your favorite sports team. It's how people seem to vote anyway. No one cares the Buffalo sucked this year, they're still Buffalo fans. Those are your hardcore left/right people. Of course whatever team wins the superbowl will have a ton of new fans. Those are your fair weather moderates just jumping on the band wagon. Maybe we can even start full contact politics. Mitch gets up for the vote. It's Adam for the block...
 
JNA said:
A mayor says he was barred from a Trump rally in his own town after asking the campaign to pay for the visit
www.businessinsider.com

A mayor says he was barred from a Trump rally in his own town after asking the campaign to pay for the visit

New Jersey Mayor Pete Byron asked the Trump campaign to help pay for the costs for the rally in his town. Now he says he isn't welcome to the party.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
Click to expand...
This is a major issue that many seem to ignore.... it costs money to have security for these rallys. Trump forces the communities to pay for that security and in many cases the cost to have it in a venue. Trump seems to think that he shouldn't have to pay for it because he is the President.

It certainly fits within the "I am President, I can do what I want" mentality, that has gotten him impeached. :shrug:
 
A normally conservative neighbor told me yesterday that if Bloomberg gets the democratic nomination, he is going to vote for him, but if it is Biden or one of the others, he will vote for Trump. It got me wondering how Bloomberg would do as a present and if enough moderate conservatives would jump ship to vote for a democrat. CNBC seems to think he is the mostly likely one who could beat Trump...

The poles are all over the place right now and I think if it is anything like the 2016 election, the poles are going to be irrelevant once November comes around.

So I ask you, of the Democratic candidates, which one do you think has the best chance of unifying the country and being able to beat Trump this fall.
 
michaelskis said:
A normally conservative neighbor told me yesterday that if Bloomberg gets the democratic nomination, he is going to vote for him, but if it is Biden or one of the others, he will vote for Trump. It got me wondering how Bloomberg would do as a present and if enough moderate conservatives would jump ship to vote for a democrat. CNBC seems to think he is the mostly likely one who could beat Trump...

The poles are all over the place right now and I think if it is anything like the 2016 election, the poles are going to be irrelevant once November comes around.

So I ask you, of the Democratic candidates, which one do you think has the best chance of unifying the country and being able to beat Trump this fall.
Click to expand...
Beat Trump is certainly not the same as unifying the country. I think Trump is likely going to have a tough time with anyone, based on his own creation, but he will most certainly have the hardest time with the moderates - Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar. I think Biden or Bloomberg probably have the best chance at this point. Buttigieg is going to be someones VP.

I think he wins like he did against Clinton with Sanders and crushes Warren. Who else is running?

Bloomberg should have gotten in earlier. He is now just going to split votes with Biden on Super Tuesday and make it much more likely that Sanders gets the nod.

I think it will be interesting to see the Democratic party deal with the fact that Sanders is their standard-barer. I would imagine there are a lot of really progressive people who would love to see that, but I would also guess there are more in middle america who don't particularly believe that he standards for anything in their reality. Maybe Sanders picks Buttigieg or Klobuchar as his VP and tries to unite the D's, but that will just make the super progressives mad.

Tuesday of next week is Iowa. IT IS HAPPENING!
 
Hink said:
Beat Trump is certainly not the same as unifying the country. I think Trump is likely going to have a tough time with anyone, based on his own creation, but he will most certainly have the hardest time with the moderates - Biden, Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Klobuchar. I think Biden or Bloomberg probably have the best chance at this point. Buttigieg is going to be someones VP.
Click to expand...
If Trump get's re-elected, there is zero chance of unification for the next 4 years. But I think that several of the Democrats that are running will not be able to unify the country if they get elected. For example, if Sanders or Biden win the WH, we will be almost as divided as it we are now.


Based on my understanding of the candidates, I have concluded that I will not be voting for an R or a D this fall for the WH.
 
michaelskis said:
So I ask you, of the Democratic candidates, which one do you think has the best chance of unifying the country and being able to beat Trump this fall.
Click to expand...

None. Zero. Zip. None of them have the support necessary from the entire democratic base to get enough people to the polls. Democrats, especially younger ones in my generation (or younger) have a problem of apathy. They'll go to the polls if it's someone interesting, someone they can get hyped behind (Obama), but if it's a flat boring person they'll be content to sit at home and make up reasons why they didn't get to vote. Sanders it the closest they have to that, but he is missing the other side (older more moderate Dems).

Hink said:
I disapprove of that. A D or an R will win. Vote for whichever is less bad. Make your vote actually matter.
Click to expand...

I agree with your statement. I did this in the '16 election and regret it now. Clinton was definitely the better of two bad options and I should have voted.
 
I'm kind of jaded with the whole electoral college thing. Does my vote really matter when my electorate can vote for whoever they want? Worse, I don't get to vote for my electorate. Maybe I'm not fully informed on the subject, but I think my vote counts for crap on the presidential side. I'll still vote, but I don't think it's worth much.

With that, it all goes back to those swing states. All them dems will be voting for a dem, whoever that is. All the Rs will not be voting for Trump, they're voting against the dems. Which is why Sanders, Biden, and Warren might lose to the big orange thing.

Unifying is a whole different problem to me. It's not so much the president, it's congress. So lefty things get passed by the house, but never through the senate and vice versus - sort of. I understand and like the idea that our system is designed to stop stupid bills from happening, but now it's stopping good bills from happening. So many bills are passed by the house and never taken up in the senate. If it's dumb, I get it, but good bills are being held up because we can't let a D idea get through and if we have a D president good bills get held up because we can't let a D sign that. It's not so much about the unity, it's more about some good old fashioned union busting. Both parties should be weak enough that they can't get anything blocked or approved without help of the other.
 
michaelskis said:
I will vote, but I refuse to support the lesser of the two evils... and at this point... they both are just that.
Click to expand...
By voting for Ronald McDonald, you are accepting that you have no say in our future President.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is how you make sure that worse of two evils isn't elected.

I had a friend who voted for Barney Fife for President as a write in. He thought he was so funny. He hated both Clinton and Trump. He doesn't feel that way any longer, because he is directly affected by Trump's tariff war. He was never political, but will be out to vote this time.

My point is that your vote should matter. Barney Fife isn't going to win. It will be either Trump or whomever the D candidate is. Vote for Trump is you like him better, but vote for one of the two parties. That is our system of government and it only works when people are actually part of the system.
 
(Looking at the electoral map, I don't think this scenario is really likely, but) I wonder if the D candidate wins the electoral college vote in November but Trump wins the popular vote if that would finally be a catalyst to get a serious effort underway to abolish the electoral college or get more states on board with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?
 
WSU MUP Student said:
(Looking at the electoral map, I don't think this scenario is really likely, but) I wonder if the D candidate wins the electoral college vote in November but Trump wins the popular vote if that would finally be a catalyst to get a serious effort underway to abolish the electoral college or get more states on board with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?
Click to expand...
I don't understand how anyone with an ounce of intellect thinks that the Electoral College has any value any longer. Or that understands why the Electoral College was created in the first place.
 
Be that as it may be, there is exactly zero percent chance of amending the Constitution on this issue in the foreseeable future. But there is a way to get around it and that's if enough states form a coalition that says they would assign the electoral votes from their state (no matter how their state voted) and vote for whoever gathered the most popular votes in the national election.
 
Yup, I've already decided all house and senate people don't get my vote. I've actually got to check the vote on our barely democrat senator. she's usually good because she was elected unlike our other senator, and she's pretty independent. Also, she doesn't set up reporters so she can call them a liberal hack in the hallway and have her staff record the whole thing and start selling t-shirts in like 15 minutes with her quote. Then she goes and writes the paper an apology letter about how she was a fighter pilot and in the military it was all straight talk and by the way she was in the military. I so hope the astronaut wins the next senate election. Astronauts are so much cooler.
 
Hink said:
I don't understand how anyone with an ounce of intellect thinks that the Electoral College has any value any longer. Or that understands why the Electoral College was created in the first place.
Click to expand...

You mean other than those who realize that a couple of major cities could pick the present when the rest of the county says otherwise?

I agree that there needs to be a revamping of the electoral college, but I think it starts with elimination of gerrymandering and establishing real congressional districts, and each district is a vote and the winner of the majority of the state gets the two senate votes.
 
'We aren't in Kansas anymore':
Trump is mercilessly mocked after tweeting congratulations to Chiefs and the great state of KANSAS for Super Bowl win with people joking 'a sharpie won't fix this'
www.dailymail.co.uk

Trump is mocked after tweeting congratulations Kansas for Super Bowl

President Donald Trump fumbled a congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs after they won Super Bowl LIV by forgetting the championship team actually hails from Missouri.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
michaelskis said:
You mean other than those who realize that a couple of major cities could pick the present when the rest of the county says otherwise?

I agree that there needs to be a revamping of the electoral college, but I think it starts with elimination of gerrymandering and establishing real congressional districts, and each district is a vote and the winner of the majority of the state gets the two senate votes.
Click to expand...
Yes, popular vote. It wouldn't be any city, it would be the most people. Like every other political position. You get the most people to vote for you, or your positions, and you win.

I am not sure who can justify anything other than a popular vote at this point. Because people in Iowa don't have the same ability to meet the candidates that those in New York City do? It isn't exactly 1896 any longer. There is no justifiable reason, except that people are afraid that their ideas won't win enough people's votes. Which is pretty clearly why the Republican's refuse to consider changes.

I understand it though, I mean if your ideas can't win, why not suppress voters voices? Gerrymandering has very clearly been a problem, but if the President had to speak for 51% of the people, it would help make both parties more moderate. It would also keep us from having to care about individual states as much. Why do I care about Alabama or Iowa or Oregon? You should care about ideas, and hope that those states have people in them that support you. Otherwise you lose. Which is the point. It is about the candidate, not the states.
 
Hink said:
Yes, popular vote. It wouldn't be any city, it would be the most people. Like every other political position. You get the most people to vote for you, or your positions, and you win.

I am not sure who can justify anything other than a popular vote at this point. Because people in Iowa don't have the same ability to meet the candidates that those in New York City do? It isn't exactly 1896 any longer. There is no justifiable reason, except that people are afraid that their ideas won't win enough people's votes. Which is pretty clearly why the Republican's refuse to consider changes.

I understand it though, I mean if your ideas can't win, why not suppress voters voices? Gerrymandering has very clearly been a problem, but if the President had to speak for 51% of the people, it would help make both parties more moderate. It would also keep us from having to care about individual states as much. Why do I care about Alabama or Iowa or Oregon? You should care about ideas, and hope that those states have people in them that support you. Otherwise you lose. Which is the point. It is about the candidate, not the states.
Click to expand...

Well, given that 62.7 percent of the US population lives within 3.5 percent of the land area, politicians are going to focus all their efforts on getting the 'biggest bang for the buck when it comes to campaigning. We have bits of that now. Look how important sates like TX, FL, NY, and CA are to winning the election... they have the highest number of electoral college votes, so politicians spend a lot more of their resources in those areas and completely ignore places like Wyoming and North Dakota. Going with strict popular vote will only make this worse. You will have campain stops in New York City, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Han Hose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, Columbus, and San Francisco as that is going to be more than 30 million... Sure, a farmer in Iowa's idea's are not going to be as popular in in SOHO, but does that mean that they should not matter? Does that mean that a small milk farmer in Wisconsin should not be as reliant as a corporate banker in Chicago? You say it will result in caring less about states and more about ideas... and while you are correct to a point, the pendulum of politics would go much further than that. If you can make 2000 people happy with a 1/4 acre park in a major urban area, why would you care about making sure that 200 have clean drinking water rural Utah.

As for the gerrymandering comment, you must not have read the second sentence of my statement... we need to fix it to have proper that are representative of a realistic area.

Perhaps we could also completely do away with political parties and let candidates represent themselves based on their own ideas instead of that of a binary fraction.
 
michaelskis said:
Well, given that 62.7 percent of the US population lives within 3.5 percent of the land area, politicians are going to focus all their efforts on getting the 'biggest bang for the buck when it comes to campaigning. We have bits of that now. Look how important sates like TX, FL, NY, and CA are to winning the election... they have the highest number of electoral college votes, so politicians spend a lot more of their resources in those areas and completely ignore places like Wyoming and North Dakota. Going with strict popular vote will only make this worse. You will have campain stops in New York City, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Han Hose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, Columbus, and San Francisco as that is going to be more than 30 million... Sure, a farmer in Iowa's idea's are not going to be as popular in in SOHO, but does that mean that they should not matter? Does that mean that a small milk farmer in Wisconsin should not be as reliant as a corporate banker in Chicago? You say it will result in caring less about states and more about ideas... and while you are correct to a point, the pendulum of politics would go much further than that. If you can make 2000 people happy with a 1/4 acre park in a major urban area, why would you care about making sure that 200 have clean drinking water rural Utah.

As for the gerrymandering comment, you must not have read the second sentence of my statement... we need to fix it to have proper that are representative of a realistic area.

Perhaps we could also completely do away with political parties and let candidates represent themselves based on their own ideas instead of that of a binary fraction.
Click to expand...
Have you seen how many politicians spend time in California now? What about NYC? I don't see many at all.

They spend time in Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Why you ask? Because they are the only states that matter. California doesn't. Texas doesn't. North Dakota certainly doesn't. Again, no state should matter. This isn't about states, it is about leading the entire country. Yes, politicians would probably spend more time in California and New York because there are more people there. When was the last time you met a politician? Does that matter to you, when you vote? I know I only vote for Presidential Candidates that I have met....

We live in a world where if you care about meeting a Presidential candidate you can donate to them and get all the access you want. If you can't afford to do that, then you don't matter anyway.

My point is that our current electoral college system has kept our country behind other 1st world countries because our leader has to appeal to crazy whims of a political parties worst sides. If we forced our president to have to represent 50.1% of the population of the country, we wouldn't have to argue about whether the ideas represent our country or not.

Trump continually says that he won and therefore he represents the country. Which is true today, but the votes don't show that. If Trump (or any politician honestly) has ideas that don't represent half our country, they shouldn't be elected. If you can't win the popular vote, you shouldn't be leading our country. The electoral college is an old idea that keep old ideas around too long.

I think Texas, Florida, New York, and California should be more important, because they have more people. Sorry North Dakota, but your population doesn't really matter. If you vote in ND for an R or a D, your vote WILL matter in a popular vote. It goes to the D or the R side and is counted. You may not meet the Presidential Candidate, but you can watch him/her on TV, and on YouTube, and follow them on social media, or travel to a campaign rally, or do a million other things to get informed. If you are a D in North Dakota, or an R in New York, your vote doesn't matter today. It should.

Ideas and candidates should matter. What state you live in shouldn't.
 
New York, Cali, and the rest have more weight with more electoral votes, but the bigger problem is gerrymandering. Texas is so cut up that is remains a red state despite have large cities that are more liberal. It should at least be a purple battleground state, but it's not. Same goes with Arizona and a few other states.
 
michaelskis said:
You mean other than those who realize that a couple of major cities could pick the present when the rest of the county says otherwise?

I agree that there needs to be a revamping of the electoral college, but I think it starts with elimination of gerrymandering and establishing real congressional districts, and each district is a vote and the winner of the majority of the state gets the two senate votes.
Click to expand...

80% of Americans live in urbanized areas. Right now, the Electoral College is disenfranchising them by causing a rural vote to count for significantly more. It is like a very large version of "one person one vote" legal issues from the Warren Court era. You can see this when you calculate electoral vote ratios per person.

Wyoming: 3 electoral votes, population estimate is 578,759 = 192,920 persons per electoral vote

Texas: 38 electoral votes, population estimate is 28,995,881 = 763,050 persons per electoral vote

Nobody can convince me of the electoral college's continuing relevance--it is nothing but a better-dressed form of voter suppression at this point. A vote in Wyoming counts 3.96 times more than my vote. Defend that. I dare you. It has nothing to do with gerrymandering or congressional districts.

It would not be a couple of major cities making the selection. I found a 2012 reference in which it would take the top 39 metropolitan areas (not individual cities, but entire metro areas) to be half of the population. And they have reasonably good geographic distribution.

If the GOP doesn't like it, then perhaps they need to come up with a legitimate urban program. Once upon a time they weren't too bad at this. It shouldn't be that hard given that metro suburbs tended toward GOP, although Trump may have completely lost those for the GOP going forward at least from my observations in Texas of what once were reliable red suburbs.
 
I'm not arguing the crap that is the electoral college. I'm just saying if we fixed gerrymandering we might get some red states to turn at least purple. Even rural states like Kansas are gerrymandered to make sure Wichita and other more liberal areas are washed out by the rural areas. I'm not saying it would fix everything and it might not even change that much, but Kansas does occasionally elect a democrat governor.
 
The Electoral College forces us into having a two party system.

Many other western democracies have numerous smaller parties which have to form a coalition in order to actually govern. Imagine that.

The FiveThirtyEight has done some interesting work on districting and mapped anticipated outcomes using 7 different districting methodologies. It's pretty interesting.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

The Atlas Of Redistricting

See how seven different ways of drawing congressional districts across the country — from pretty fair to seriously gerrymandered — could change the partisan and racial makeup of the U.S. House.
projects.fivethirtyeight.com projects.fivethirtyeight.com
 
FIW_Landing_Page_Illustration_1100px_RBG.jpg
 
OK, here is my caucus report. I went in supporting Yang, but he was not viable (less than 15% support). Surprised by that. So I went to the Bernie camp. Pete was strong too and Warren did OK. My impression so far is the big winner will be Pete and Biden, the big loser.
 
TOFB said:
OK, here is my caucus report. I went in supporting Yang, but he was not viable (less than 15% support). Surprised by that. So I went to the Bernie camp. Pete was strong too and Warren did OK. My impression so far is the big winner will be Pete and Biden, the big loser.
Click to expand...
Will we get results this morning, or is it going to be tonight? If it isn't before dinner, I think Trump will take all the air out of the room tonight with his SOTU.
 
Hink said:
Will we get results this morning, or is it going to be tonight? If it isn't before dinner, I think Trump will take all the air out of the room tonight with his SOTU.
Click to expand...

It sounds like we might be lucky to get the results by the time New Hampshire rolls around. :r:
 
mendelman said:
This may be our fate for the foreseeable future of our politics.

I need to find a beach to disappear to in northern Michigan.
Click to expand...
Can it be near McMillan, Michigan? We are going there this summer.... and would love to see you. :up:
 
Hink said:
Can it be near McMillan, Michigan? We are going there this summer.... and would love to see you. :up:
Click to expand...
That'd be cool, but you're going to be in the UP, which is not 'northern Michigan'. It's 'the UP', which you may not understand what I mean.

Ask Maister, WSU and mskis...they know the difference.

OH natives....amiright?! ;)
 
Last edited:
mendelman said:
That'd be cool, but you're going to be in the UP, which is not 'northern Michigan'. It's 'the UP', if you get what I mean?

Ask Maister, WSU and mskis...they know the difference. ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, 'northern Michigan' is that region that lies roughly between highway 10 and Mackinaw City. Once you cross the Bridge you're no longer in northern MI, but rather, in the UP
 
Council meeting tonight. I hope it goes long so I won't have the opportunity to watch SOTU address...or I might buy earplugs and tabasco (thx JNA)
 
Planit said:
Council meeting tonight. I hope it goes long so I won't have the opportunity to watch SOTU address...or I might buy earplugs and tabasco (thx JNA)
Click to expand...
I feel like I have to watch it, at least for the sake of talking about this time in our history to my grandchildren.

Back in the fractious 2020 election year, we rational people that could actually think watched it unfold in real time with the knowledge that history doesn't repeat, but it sure does rhyme....
 
Last edited:
Planit said:
Council meeting tonight. I hope it goes long so I won't have the opportunity to watch SOTU address...or I might buy earplugs and tabasco (thx JNA)
Click to expand...

There's a good chance my dad will still be in town tonight, and I KNOW he will want to watch the SOTU. He's also a raging Republican so it should be interesting.
 
AG74683 said:
There's a good chance my dad will still be in town tonight, and I KNOW he will want to watch the SOTU. He's also a raging Republican so it should be interesting.
Click to expand...
:oops:

That may be...interesting. [/making assumptions about your dad]
 
mendelman said:
:oops:

That may be...interesting. [/making assumptions about your dad]
Click to expand...

My favorite thing to do is come up with the most outrageous things I can say and see how far I can push their limits. They do not approve of my idea to create many trebuchets to launch illegal immigrants across the border. It's fun because the boundaries of anyone who is still a Trump supporter are pretty out there.
 
AG74683 said:
There's a good chance my dad will still be in town tonight, and I KNOW he will want to watch the SOTU. He's also a raging Republican so it should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Take him to B-Dubs instead. /JK

I phrased a question to a right leaning person I know. I asked if there was a business that was run by an overbearing belligerent CEO, who had gone through 3 finance directors, 4 security directors, a few board members and had a couple of pervious business partners indicted and sent to jail in the last 3 years - how long would it be before the shareholders stared screaming for his removal? (my friend changed the subject)

Make sure you ask about witnesses.
 
Planit said:
I phrased a question to a right leaning person I know. I asked if there was a business that was run by an overbearing belligerent CEO, who had gone through 3 finance directors, 4 security directors, a few board members and had a couple of p[re]vious business partners indicted and sent to jail in the last 3 years - how long would it be before the shareholders stared screaming for his removal? (my friend changed the subject)
Click to expand...
Oh....




































...snap.
 
Back
Top