The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[FrantzHardySwag]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Going back to the incredibly stupid idea that we are going to force owners to give 20% of their company away to the employees.

 

Last night, I was responding sitting in an airport and on the plane I got to thinking about this.  Here's a nightmare scenario that this incredibly idiotic idea could cause.

 

Let's say my family owns a company that reaches the 100 million net worth.  Let's say there are 6 family members that are involved with the company and equally own the business.  That means, each owner, owns 16.7% or (16.6 million).    Now....the government forces the company to give away 20% to the employees.  Let's say we have 100 employees.  That means now that the employees own 20% and each family member now owns 13.36% (13.36 million).  Each employee owns $200,000 of the company.  

 

First of all, who is going to buy these stocks if/when an employee quits or retires?  What benefit is it to them?  There are lots of these types of companies that don't pay dividends.  It's not a publicly traded company so it's not a liquid asset.  That's a part that hasn't even been addressed anywhere that I can see.  

 

To make this of really any value to the employee, it would need to be able to be sold....probably opened up to anyone.

 

So....now....let's say there is a person who wants to buy our company and the family doesn't want to sell it.  NOW....he goes to the employees and says....hey....I'll give you $100,000 each for all of your stock.  They jump on it because they would have the cash.  

 

He now owns 20% of a $100 million company for $10,000,000 and has more control over the company than any other individual stock holder.

 

Now...let's say the bank comes and says..."We need you to guarantee the loans since you are the major stock holder.  He says NO.

 

The company loses funding from the bank and goes out of business 

 

Now...you may be asking...why would someone do that?  Let's say he's a competitor and we have a technology that he wants.  He can get control of the technology to use somewhere else.  Meanwhile, the family who risked everything to start the company and grow it, is financially ruined or, at best, have lost their company and lively hood.

 

Maybe you are saying...Ahhh...that's far fetched.  Well....stuff like this happens all the time in publicly traded companies and specifically why many privately held companies don't go public and are very careful as to who they let own stock.

 

The entire idea of forcing a business owner to give away 20% of his/her company to anyone is put out there by people who absolutely haven't thought through the actual idea and how bad it is.  All they see are these big mean business owners and say..."WE WANT WHAT YOU HAVE".

 

 

I’m a Bernie supporter and Im not on board with this idea. It sounds like too complicated to implement.  To answer your question on someone buying out each employee to own a chunk of the company - employee stocks would be controlled by a board voted on by employees. The employees wouldn’t own the stock, they would just have representation on votes, and if a dividend was paid out it would be distributed to them. So if you quit or retire you see no benefit, that 20% still belongs to the current employees as a collective so they have a seat at the table so to speak. Again not something I can see or necessarily want to happen, just trying to visualize it as well. And thanks for actually talking about the policies. These are the convos we should be having. 

[Notre Dame Joe]

 

10 hours ago, The Dude said:

 

Grew up in communist countries?  As in, they fled communist countries to come here?

Too bad it's Lent already.  Fox News-Castro would be a great drinking game.

 

8 hours ago, FrankWheeler said:

  

 

You can ask the employees when they get the stock if they would like to do those things?

 

 

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Going back to the incredibly stupid idea that we are going to force owners to give 20% of their company away to the employees.

 

Last night, I was responding sitting in an airport and on the plane I got to thinking about this.  Here's a nightmare scenario that this incredibly idiotic idea could cause.

 

Let's say my family owns a company that reaches the 100 million net worth.  Let's say there are 6 family members that are involved with the company and equally own the business.  That means, each owner, owns 16.7% or (16.6 million).    Now....the government forces the company to give away 20% to the employees.  Let's say we have 100 employees.  That means now that the employees own 20% and each family member now owns 13.36% (13.36 million).  Each employee owns $200,000 of the company.  

 

First of all, who is going to buy these stocks if/when an employee quits or retires?  What benefit is it to them?  There are lots of these types of companies that don't pay dividends.  It's not a publicly traded company so it's not a liquid asset.  That's a part that hasn't even been addressed anywhere that I can see.  

 

To make this of really any value to the employee, it would need to be able to be sold....probably opened up to anyone.

 

So....now....let's say there is a person who wants to buy our company and the family doesn't want to sell it.  NOW....he goes to the employees and says....hey....I'll give you $100,000 each for all of your stock.  They jump on it because they would have the cash.  

 

He now owns 20% of a $100 million company for $10,000,000 and has more control over the company than any other individual stock holder.

 

Now...let's say the bank comes and says..."We need you to guarantee the loans since you are the major stock holder.  He says NO.

 

The company loses funding from the bank and goes out of business 

 

Now...you may be asking...why would someone do that?  Let's say he's a competitor and we have a technology that he wants.  He can get control of the technology to use somewhere else.  Meanwhile, the family who risked everything to start the company and grow it, is financially ruined or, at best, have lost their company and lively hood.

 

Maybe you are saying...Ahhh...that's far fetched.  Well....stuff like this happens all the time in publicly traded companies and specifically why many privately held companies don't go public and are very careful as to who they let own stock.

 

The entire idea of forcing a business owner to give away 20% of his/her company to anyone is put out there by people who absolutely haven't thought through the actual idea and how bad it is.  All they see are these big mean business owners and say..."WE WANT WHAT YOU HAVE".

 

 

 

I'm impressed that you mapped it out.  But I don't know why you would bother spending time trying to logically analyze a political unicorn.  My mind raced to, What if the employees would rather have cash?  Can they sell their own stock? Wouldn't most workers prefer the cash?  Why punish the workers further if the company collapses?

 

There's nothing here but classic rob Peter to pay Paul. Sanders' appeal seems to be that he's mostly consistent in his ideology.

 

[FrantzHardySwag]

13 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Too bad it's Lent already.  Fox News-Castro would be a great drinking game.

 

 

 

I'm impressed that you mapped it out.  But I don't know why you would bother spending time trying to logically analyze a political unicorn.  My mind raced to, What if the employees would rather have cash?  Can they sell their own stock? Wouldn't most workers prefer the cash?  Why punish the workers further if the company collapses?

 

There's nothing here but classic rob Peter to pay Paul. Sanders' appeal seems to be that he's mostly consistent in his ideology.

 

Yeah why try to understand polices of a politician when you can blindly throw crap. If you don’t want to take the time to learn about the candidates, just vote for the guy that loves the poorly educated. 

[BigRedBuster]

30 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Too bad it's Lent already.  Fox News-Castro would be a great drinking game.

 

 

 

I'm impressed that you mapped it out.  But I don't know why you would bother spending time trying to logically analyze a political unicorn.  My mind raced to, What if the employees would rather have cash?  Can they sell their own stock? Wouldn't most workers prefer the cash?  Why punish the workers further if the company collapses?

 

There's nothing here but classic rob Peter to pay Paul. Sanders' appeal seems to be that he's mostly consistent in his ideology.

 

Well.....but he isn’t a crime boss. 
 

im not tied to being required to vote for and support just one party. So, engaging people from areas where I don’t agree and actually discuss the topic can be enlightening. 
 

Party hacks should try it sometime. 
 

it’s refreshing when you don’t have to support a pathetic idea because of a letter beside the name. 

[The Dude]

38 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

Too bad it's Lent already.  Fox News-Castro would be a great drinking game.

 

 

...

 

I heard Arby's has the best fish sandwiches.

[ActualCornHusker]

My review of the last 2 democratic debates:

 

The only person left on the debate stage for the Democrats with any sense is Amy Klobuchar. 

 

Creepy Uncle Joe can't even tell where he is half the time. He reminds me of the grandpa from the Simpson's. 

 

Now that Bernie is the front runner, he's actually being asked legitimate questions, none of which he has good answers to. If he's the Dem nominee, Trump is a shoe-in for a 2nd term (not that the Dems have anybody else that would do better) 

 

And Elizabeth Warren is... the absolute worst... I'm not sure who's more unlikable - Elizabeth Warren or Hillary

[BigRedBuster]

Trump got elected because the Dems nominated the worst candidate they possibly could have.

Bernie might get elected because the Republicans are pissed that the Democrats hold the title of nominating the worst candidate possible....so.....they out do them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS....America=f#&%ed

[FrantzHardySwag]

https://www.newsweek.com/black-voters-prefer-bernie-sanders-over-all-other-democratic-candidates-new-poll-shows-1489209

 

 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Trump got elected because the Dems nominated the worst candidate they possibly could have.

Bernie might get elected because the Republicans are pissed that the Democrats hold the title of nominating the worst candidate possible....so.....they out do them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS....America=f#&%ed

 

I don't dislike Trump the way you do, but I pretty much agree. The problem is, I can't name a president in my lifetime that I'd say actually did a good job...

[Moiraine]

5 hours ago, Redux said:

From a completely outside perspective on who I think has the best chance head to head against Trump, Bloomberg.  I think he has the funds to battle the incumbent, plus he was nowhere to be seen really when the Dem primaries began, which let's be honest, works in his favor.

 

I feel like Bernie will lose by 5-10% head to head.  Bernie's plans all sound great when he says them out loud, he's had plenty of practice.  But when you think about it, they'll never work.  

 

 

It's very unlikely Trump would win the popular vote against any of them - they are all easier to stomach voting for than Clinton was. But what matters is Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida.

[FrantzHardySwag]

7 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Also interesting that he has the Latino/a vote as well.  I wonder if those two could win an election?

Watch Tio Bernie flip Texas, haha

[Notre Dame Joe]

8 hours ago, The Dude said:

 

I heard Arby's has the best fish sandwiches.

 

I went straight to Subway from mass down the block.  One guy with tribal markings came with me.  In line I said "Tuna.  Whaddaya think?  Tuna tonight.?"  

 

In a thick Indian accent he replied 'No I'm getting steak&cheese.' 

6 hours ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

 

And Elizabeth Warren is... the absolute worst... I'm not sure who's more unlikable - Elizabeth Warren or Hillary

 

sshh, that's my dream ticket.

[Moiraine]

3 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Watch Tio Bernie flip Texas, haha

 

 

He’s been down by < 5 points in Texas in multiple polls the past several months. 2% in at least 1 I’ve seen. 

[Ratt Mhule]

7 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

He’s been down by < 5 points in Texas in multiple polls the past several months. 2% in at least 1 I’ve seen. 

I think Texas will be tough. I think he could flip AZ because of his latino support. I also think he can flip WI, PA and MI. Maybe Ohio? I think Florida goes red but if you can flip those other 4 states and possibly OH he wins. 

[teachercd]

I never thought about this, but say it is Sanders Vs Trump...These are both two old dudes with lots of stress and both seem to have had health issues.  

 

Does anyone know what happens if one or both died while they are campaigning to be president?  Is there a protocol in place?  There must be, right?