Jump to content

2020 Election Thoughts


hogan873
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vulture said:

A phone company is also a private company. By this logic a phone company should also be allowed to deny service based on their users content.

If someone utilizes their phone for criminal activity,  they are under no obligation to continue to serve them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I dont have any idea about that because I have never equated 1a with "arrest." 

And I think you should reread the case. The public forum wasnt "Twitter", it was Trump's account. You're misinterpreting the argument. The lawsuit was against Trump.

Well if you followed the thread and saw the comment I was responding to it might make more sense. I never said it was a judgment against Twitter. For the third time my point was: 

1) first amendment free speech clause does more than prevent arrest for speech, in response to post which claimed that was its sole purpose

2) it ensures access to a public forum, as that case reiterates

3) the case indicates Twitter serves as a public forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Yes they do, if you want to "work" for them. 

In order to "work for them" you have to buy the products first, out of your own pocket. Then, you try and sell them for more than you paid for them, or at the company's suggested price. It's predatory. Their prey are people who think they can sell but can't. And companies like that are laughing all the way to the bank. 

It would be different if you sold the products first, made an order, and then they shipped it to the person. And the demo products would be given out of the company's pocket rather than the salesperson. 

The entire business model is predatory. They know that there are a limited amount of people that can sell their shit and actually make money. The company does not make money on those people. They make money on the people who buy their stuff and cannot sell it.

Let me guess, all of those loans that were given out by banks from 2002-07 weren't predatory either. 

Let's legalize loan sharking!  

No one is forced to "work" for them.  They give anyone a chance who wants the opportunity to start a business that opportunity. Starting a business costs money. You want a Burger King franchise?  It costs you millions and you have to buy the product from them. The difference with Amway and others is they don't charge as much and don't turn away anyone who wants the opportunity. 

If you want to sell a product as an independent business you have to buy the product. It doesn't matter if it's golf clubs,  steaks,  makeup,  cleaning supplies, or cars. When that restaurant goes out of business where they prey for their suppliers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vulture said:

Well if you followed the thread and saw the comment I was responding to it might make more sense. I never said it was a judgment against Twitter. For the third time my point was: 

1) first amendment free speech clause does more than prevent arrest for speech, in response to post which claimed that was its sole purpose

2) it ensures access to a public forum, as that case reiterates

3) the case indicates Twitter serves as a public forum

And what I am saying is you are misinterpreting 3.

https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/knight-institute-v-trump

The lawsuit maintains that the @realDonaldTrump account is a “public forum” under the First Amendment, from which the government may not exclude people based simply on their views.

It does not make any ruling as to whether Twitter is a public forum, just Trump's account as he is a public official. Its a very technical argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, WhiteSoxFan1993 said:

The manufacturer and distributor for your golf shop likely have hundreds, if not thousands of retailers that they make money from by selling the product, so they don't need to put any more pressure on the golf shop owner then he's putting on himself. If you're selling Amway the first couple people up the chain don't have a lot of people making them money so they're putting more pressure on you to sell. That is what some might interpret as predatory. I don't think of it as predatory and don't think it should be outlawed, but it's most definitely different than standard retail.

The manufacturer's salesperson who is responsible for sales to that store does put pressure on those stores to sell or lose the opportunity to continuing carrying that product line. He puts on that pressure because his boss,  the regional sales manager is pushing him for greater sales. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

That's why impeaching is imperative. Bar him from any federal office forever.

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile Lindsay Graham is insisting that the bad precedent to set would be holding Trump accountable for this:

 

 

Wow, so I didn't thing about this until just now, but after people stormed the Capitol in order to kill Mike Pence and the proceedings eventually resumed, one of the 100+ Republicans who kept fueling the fire by voting to reject the Pennsylvania electors was . . . GREG PENCE!

Edited by WhiteSoxFan1993
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Are people really defending mlm's in this thread??

You have every right to dislike MLM, capitalism, whatever. But he said MLM is a pyramid scheme which is false. 

That is really all I came to say. It went off tangent because it turns out he just doesn't like capitalism at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

You have every right to dislike MLM, capitalism, whatever. But he said MLM is a pyramid scheme which is false. 

That is really all I came to say. It went off tangent because it turns out he just doesn't like capitalism at all.

Nah, that's not necessarily true. I just draw the line at a different place than you do, and I think that the government's job is to set the rules of business so that it's fair to the majority. 

Ponzi schemes and Pyramid schemes are not the same thing. 

A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme. 

MLM is a pyramid scheme. It got the name because at presentations for recruitment to MLM they used to have a giant pyramid to show the structure of the company. 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multi-level-marketing.asp

Quote

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been investigating multilevel marketing companies for several decades and has found many with practices that are difficult to determine as legitimate. According to the World Federation of Direct Selling Associates, there were at least 116 million independent representatives among its members worldwide as of 2017. Relatively few earn meaningful incomes from their efforts. To some observers, this reflects the characteristics of a pyramid scheme.

This is the argument I am trying to make about why it's predatory at best, and fraud at worst. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my former employees and White Sox fan has built a career in MLM. I argue with him that's it's not really like owning your own company and that 95% of the people he recruits will lose money. 

He replies that they will get discounted travel and an opportunity. 

I reply if we were back in our previous roles how many of the hundreds he directly recruited or the thousands that they recruited would he have hired and paid a salary to.  The answer is not many. 

Every organization looks like a pyramid. There are more salespeople than CEOs. More VPs than middle managers. 

The reason they are legal is they aren't predatory. If you want the opportunity you can buy in. Businesses fail all the time. That doesn't mean they were victims of predatory business models. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Nah, that's not necessarily true. I just draw the line at a different place than you do, and I think that the government's job is to set the rules of business so that it's fair to the majority. 

Ponzi schemes and Pyramid schemes are not the same thing. 

A ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme. 

MLM is a pyramid scheme. It got the name because at presentations for recruitment to MLM they used to have a giant pyramid to show the structure of the company. 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/multi-level-marketing.asp

This is the argument I am trying to make about why it's predatory at best, and fraud at worst. 

I dont think MLM is a great way to make a living for most people unless you are an excellent salesperson. 8 don't think uber is a great full time job or many other things, but its not my place to judge how people want to live their lives.

That being said many people have mad3 additional income selling Tupperware, Avon etc to their friends.

Notice even the article you cite disagrees. It  says "characteristics" not that it is. Pyramid schemes are illegal, in my day job, ive helped many people avoid losing money to things like gifting circles and other similar schemes. MLM is different. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I dont think MLM is a great way to make a living for most people unless you are an excellent salesperson. 8 don't think uber is a great full time job or many other things, but its not my place to judge how people want to live their lives.

That being said many people have mad3 additional income selling Tupperware, Avon etc to their friends.

Notice even the article you cite disagrees. It  says "characteristics" not that it is. Pyramid schemes are illegal, in my day job, ive helped many people avoid losing money to things like gifting circles and other similar schemes. MLM is different. 

If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck...........At best, if you wanted to defend the hell out of it, you could say it walks a fine line between fraud and legitimacy. That, I could concede. But completely legit? No way in hell. 

20 minutes ago, Texsox said:

One of my former employees and White Sox fan has built a career in MLM. I argue with him that's it's not really like owning your own company and that 95% of the people he recruits will lose money. 

He replies that they will get discounted travel and an opportunity. 

I reply if we were back in our previous roles how many of the hundreds he directly recruited or the thousands that they recruited would he have hired and paid a salary to.  The answer is not many. 

Every organization looks like a pyramid. There are more salespeople than CEOs. More VPs than middle managers. 

The reason they are legal is they aren't predatory. If you want the opportunity you can buy in. Businesses fail all the time. That doesn't mean they were victims of predatory business models. 

The bolded and: 

"relatively few earn meaningful income from their efforts" 

Sounds predatory to me. 

You want to know why a McDonalds or Subway franchise costs so much? 
Because they work and people make tons of money buying into them. 

I just do not believe it is a legit business model nor do I believe they should be legal. 

Let's just end this. Agree to disagree.

 

I can tell you right now that Uber sucks as a business too. I do it. I do it because it's the only way I can get pocket money and I like the flexibility. \

I would tell you right now that it is not a full time job, and should only be used to supplement income.  

Edited by Jack Parkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

MLM walks a fine line between pyramid scheme and legit business, I don't argue that. I think they should be outlawed. 

The bolded is why it's predatory. 

"relatively few earn meaningful income from their efforts" 

Sounds predatory to me. 

Let's just end this. Agree to disagree. 

You want to know why a McDonalds or Subway franchise costs so much? 
Because they work and people make tons of money buying into them. 

I hate to break it you, but franchises are the same scheme, just with higher barriers of entry and geographical restrictions. It's the same dream just with bigger dollars. Most people who lose on MLM are likely out less than $1k. If you lose on a franchise you could be out 20-50k.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I hate to break it you, but franchises are the same scheme, just with higher barriers of entry and geographical restrictions. It's the same dream just with bigger dollars. Most people who lose on MLM are likely out less than $1k. If you lose on a franchise you could be out 20-50k.

You're joking, right? 

They're not even close to comparable. The success rate of a restaurant franchise is significantly higher than the success rate of a MLM person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...