cbfalcon

Add MJ to the list of people with a bigger name than Kraft with ties to the area. Tiger, MJ, Trump......all seem realistic.

The reports are that Kraft isn't the biggest name involved. That list has got to be pretty small, so may as well speculate. Tiger? Trump? Who else that fits the profile would be a bigger name that also has some sort of ties to the area?

Oh, it's not an issue I am emotional about by any means. But in the context of the MAGA spirit, or at least the spirit I believe MAGA is trying to invoke, it's a relevant discussion.

The problem for me (and I assume a lot of people agree).........I 100% support any individual being able to negotiate for as much pay as they can....and I also believe that CEO's making 300x the average employee is a giant problem and we would be better off if we did something about it.

Just spitballing....but if the CEO wants to earn more, then the company needs to be successful enough for the employees to earn more. No? There is no cap. Make the company more valuable and let everyone benefit. But maybe if we didn't want to tie the CEO salary to the salary of others, we could create a scale based on number of employees and percentage of profits, and that was a CEO's cap in pay? In theory, earn more profits and make more money...but that may just be a round about way of getting us back to CEOs earning 300x as much as the average employee. Unsure.

This reads like a nice common sense idea worth at least discussing. Most would say so in a vacuum......but it's also a far left AOC type of idea I think. It is anti free market, it caps wealth in theory, redistributes that wealth to the people, etc.

I haven't really thought it out in such a way as to endorse any specific ideas...... But on a general level, if we believe a problem to be that businesses have more responsibility to shareholders than they do to customers or labor, then resolving that would seemingly involve shifting the power from said shareholders back to the customer and to the labor. One way or another, it reads to me like a far left idea......call it a version of a wealth tax, or whatever. Again, I haven't thought it through. Its a discussion. I'm open to ideas.

1. "Eradicate socialist agenda" is vague and just sounds like you want to kick the other sides ass instead of wanting any real improvements. 2. Honest question. Does that include removing white culture ideology? 3. This is the reason I am responding. I agree totally. But I read this a lot and I feel like both sides do it constantly, not just the left.......But there is a trick in it. The right essentially seems to argue that the left is blaming others for their place in life, and the result is the cause for those on the right not having the place in life they deserve....or something to that effect. 4. Agree 5. I agree, but this is the same as #3 in my mind.

They all signed NDAs, so all we will here are rumors and reports of someone saying Kaep got this or that from the NFL. We've heard $80m, and those on the opposite side of Kaep have said no way, then if we hear $5m, those on Kaep's side will then say no way. My thinking is......He has the Nike deal. Most agree it is worth millions per year. My thinking is he was more valuable to Nike before settling, as the whole marketing campaign is kind of based on standing up and fighting for what you believe in, not giving in, etc. In theory, settling with the NFL hurts that image. So if his lawyers have any business sense, they'd refuse to settle unless it's a high number. $50m + feels right, but I'm just speculating and balancing it with the Nike income.

Now this is a solid thought provoking post that makes some sense to me. It gets to the heart of what I think the MAGA spirit wants to get at, as opposed to "stop apologizing for stuff"......but in an ironic twist, the only way to fix this (that I see) is to start listening to some of these far left ideas.

All of these things sound good, but they are mostly just slogans. - Generally speaking, unemployment has been going down for a decade. - Apologizing for who we are as a country is a spin topic. We can take turns debating whether we have to be defiant, talk shiit, can act gracious and admit faults with the knowledge that we carry the biggest stick, etc. It's all just posturing - Insisting NATO nations pay their fair share is valid, but I don't see how making others pay more money would lead to a feeling that America has been made great again. - Our military needed strengthening? So it was weak? There was someone that was a threat to kick our ass? In fact, if it was us against every other country in the world combined, wouldn't it be a toss up? Doing more for vets is valid, but it's not as though previous administrations were speaking out against it. - We have always put our citizens first. Not being as tough on others as many would like doesn't negate that. Basically, the MAGA movement often feels lacking in substance, and instead like a call for us to flex on everyone else in an effort to feel like badasses. That's not to say some of Trump's policies don't have substance, but those things don't as often lead to chants at rallies, etc.

Huh?

You sure they aren’t just calling the shoe that because George was wearing it at that US National Team practice in 14?

Her mom was a scientist. Her father is a professor at Stanford. She graduated from Howard. She then became a DA, then a state Attorney General......But people like Sderk can so easily dismiss her by saying "Nah. That chick is just dumb." I get a kick out of the world we live in today.