|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 03:29 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2015 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it. What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later. It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country. Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit. And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility. Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury? To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy.
What other institution? The State. They don't even ask either - don't pay, incarceration, death, or destitution. Propaganda isn't limited to religious institutions.
|
United States43529 Posts
On August 18 2015 07:36 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:29 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2015 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it. What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later. It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country. Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit. And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility. Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury? To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy. What other institution? The State. They don't even ask either - don't pay, incarceration, death, or destitution. Propaganda isn't limited to religious institutions.
The State isn't a cult, it's a social contract. We collectively form it, empower it and benefit from it. I'm sure you disagree but your starting assumptions are incomprehensible to me and I imagine mine are to you.
|
On August 18 2015 07:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 07:36 Wegandi wrote:On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:29 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2015 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it. What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later. It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country. Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit. And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility. Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury? To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy. What other institution? The State. They don't even ask either - don't pay, incarceration, death, or destitution. Propaganda isn't limited to religious institutions. The State isn't a cult, it's a social contract. We collectively form it, empower it and benefit from it. I'm sure you disagree but your starting assumptions are incomprehensible to me and I imagine mine are to you.
And congregants don't collectively form their church? Please. None of what you said addresses the tautology of a cult. Patriotism is about the highest form of cultism there is.
|
United States43529 Posts
On August 18 2015 07:50 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2015 07:36 Wegandi wrote:On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:29 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2015 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it. What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later. It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country. Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit. And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility. Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury? To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy. What other institution? The State. They don't even ask either - don't pay, incarceration, death, or destitution. Propaganda isn't limited to religious institutions. The State isn't a cult, it's a social contract. We collectively form it, empower it and benefit from it. I'm sure you disagree but your starting assumptions are incomprehensible to me and I imagine mine are to you. And congregants don't collectively form their church? Please. None of what you said addresses the tautology of a cult. Patriotism is about the highest form of cultism there is.
Congregants do form their church. That doesn't in any way respond to what I said. Also I'm very much not patriotic and patriotism is very different from recognizing the existence of a social contract. I'm not sure you understand any of what you just posted.
|
On August 18 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 07:50 Wegandi wrote:On August 18 2015 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2015 07:36 Wegandi wrote:On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:29 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2015 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it. What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later. It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country. Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit. And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility. Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury? To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy. What other institution? The State. They don't even ask either - don't pay, incarceration, death, or destitution. Propaganda isn't limited to religious institutions. The State isn't a cult, it's a social contract. We collectively form it, empower it and benefit from it. I'm sure you disagree but your starting assumptions are incomprehensible to me and I imagine mine are to you. And congregants don't collectively form their church? Please. None of what you said addresses the tautology of a cult. Patriotism is about the highest form of cultism there is. Congregants do form their church. That doesn't in any way respond to what I said. Also I'm very much not patriotic and patriotism is very different from recognizing the existence of a social contract. I'm not sure you understand any of what you just posted.
From the mental leaps he is making, I think this is the very root of a disingenuous argument.
|
On August 18 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 07:50 Wegandi wrote:On August 18 2015 07:46 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2015 07:36 Wegandi wrote:On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:29 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2015 03:25 ZasZ. wrote:On August 18 2015 03:07 zlefin wrote:
Stealth, please don't post things like that Jon Oliver clip in that fashion. A 20 minute video clip with no explanation/discussion/notes of its content is not helpful. Either don't post them, or say a little bit about what's in the video and your reaction to it. What's the difference between posting an embedded YouTube video with no additional commentary and posting a news article with no additional commentary? He does the latter all the time. If you don't have the time to watch why not just come back to it later. It's a good piece, by the way, and highlights the problems with flat-out exemption for religious institutions. Every man and woman he talks about in that video should be brought up on fraud and extortion charges but that can't happen in this batshit-insane country. Like how Sciencetology just filed lawsuit after lawsuit until the IRS gave them status as a religion? Yet no one thinks about it because no one sees them as anything other than a weird little thing Tom Cruise was into. Literally got what they wanted through legal attrition. The fact is that religion or tax free status isn’t bad, but it’s misused as much as the tax free status for non-profits. The difference is that non-profits have to stand on their own merits and can’t claim a war on religion every time someone points out their bullshit. And it has nothing to do with religion itself, but with people using religion to gain unearned credibility. Of course it has something to do with religion itself. What other institution could drum up a cult so successful that people will literally give thousands of dollars they don't have away so that TV personalities can live a life of luxury? To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. At that most basic level, religion is the perfect vehicle for con-artists like those Oliver discusses, because they hardly need to convince these people of anything, they just need to establish some form of perceived credibility that they speak for God. Once they are able to convince people that donations to them are donations to God, the rest is easy. What other institution? The State. They don't even ask either - don't pay, incarceration, death, or destitution. Propaganda isn't limited to religious institutions. The State isn't a cult, it's a social contract. We collectively form it, empower it and benefit from it. I'm sure you disagree but your starting assumptions are incomprehensible to me and I imagine mine are to you. And congregants don't collectively form their church? Please. None of what you said addresses the tautology of a cult. Patriotism is about the highest form of cultism there is. Congregants do form their church. That doesn't in any way respond to what I said. Also I'm very much not patriotic and patriotism is very different from recognizing the existence of a social contract. I'm not sure you understand any of what you just posted.
The 'social contract' is an ideological construct to justify the existence of the State, which has nothing at all to do with it being a cult. (And boy is contract a gigantic misnomer - please, show me where I signed and agreed to this BS, oh you can't, so you're going to proclaim that I inherently agree to it because I haven't ceded my property and left said imaginary State boundary)
To stop beating around the bush one of the accepted definitions of a cult:
- Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
Well, that sounds like every state in existence to me. Look at all the bozos going ape shit over flags and symbology, never mind all the heinous acts committed in its name without question for eons. Military/State far more dangerous cults today than the Church.
|
On August 18 2015 07:08 ZasZ. wrote:Plenty of con-artists have taken people without using religion, but have any of them done it on national television and made millions?
Oz, Cramer, Trump, Oprah, Beck... I mean, seriously, this isn't a hard game.
On August 18 2015 03:54 KwarK wrote:
Religion is a business. They are selling a product, be it answers, forgiveness, meaning or salvation. Trying to distinguish between the two will take you to the funny places that Scientology has led us.
I mean, not really. Religion is less a business than, say, government. We have a category for things that make money in donations to give out community services: charity. The problem with Scientology isn't that we don't tax them. It's that we don't compel them to make their finances public. Every charity should have to be completely open about its finances or else you get shit like Wounded Warriors.
On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says.
"Religion is an organization;" I'm gonna have a hard time picking that apart. But more seriously, lots of things and people ask you to believe whatever, and suggest there's a real stake in that. The idea that religion asks people to put away thought more than, say, medicine, is ridiculous. Most religious people spend serious time on a daily basis thinking about religion. The whole "believe no matter what" thing is a misunderstanding of how serious religion works, usually by people with little direct contact to it, or only its most bizarre and fundamentalist forms.
|
I think people are missing the point of that video. Which is people claiming that if you give money (planting a seed) you'll get it back (reaping). Which obviously isn't true.
Why is this tax exempt?
Edit: I saw this a lot with Mormons and tithing and testimony meetings. "Oh I tithed and god took care of my debt" but don't get me started on that.
|
On August 18 2015 08:09 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 07:08 ZasZ. wrote:Plenty of con-artists have taken people without using religion, but have any of them done it on national television and made millions? Oz, Cramer, Trump, Oprah, Beck... I mean, seriously, this isn't a hard game. Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 03:54 KwarK wrote:
Religion is a business. They are selling a product, be it answers, forgiveness, meaning or salvation. Trying to distinguish between the two will take you to the funny places that Scientology has led us. I mean, not really. Religion is less a business than, say, government. We have a category for things that make money in donations to give out community services: charity. The problem with Scientology isn't that we don't tax them. It's that we don't compel them to make their finances public. Every charity should have to be completely open about its finances or else you get shit like Wounded Warriors. Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. "Religion is an organization;" I'm gonna have a hard time picking that apart. But more seriously, lots of things and people ask you to believe whatever, and suggest there's a real stake in that. The idea that religion asks people to put away thought more than, say, medicine, is ridiculous. Most religious people spend serious time on a daily basis thinking about religion. The whole "believe no matter what" thing is a misunderstanding of how serious religion works, usually by people with little direct contact to it, or only its most bizarre and fundamentalist forms.
You are missing the point. We are not talking about the millions of well-adjusted religious Americans. We are talking about people who think if they give their life savings to a megachurch their problems will go away, when everyone but them knows it's bullshit. This is fraud in any other industry.
The analogies to famous entertainers and business people are laughable, You may not enjoy their brand or products, but they are not committing fraud...and if they are they at least don't have religious exemption to bail them out.
|
United States43529 Posts
On August 18 2015 09:17 JumboJohnson wrote:
I think people are missing the point of that video. Which is people claiming that if you give money (planting a seed) you'll get it back (reaping). Which obviously isn't true.
Why is this tax exempt?
Edit: I saw this a lot with Mormons and tithing and testimony meetings. "Oh I tithed and god took care of my debt" but don't get me started on that.
If "it obviously isn't true" is your issue with that particular part of religion then you're going to have to distinguish between that and the rest of religion.
|
On August 18 2015 08:09 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 07:08 ZasZ. wrote:Plenty of con-artists have taken people without using religion, but have any of them done it on national television and made millions? Oz, Cramer, Trump, Oprah, Beck... I mean, seriously, this isn't a hard game. Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. "Religion is an organization;" I'm gonna have a hard time picking that apart. But more seriously, lots of things and people ask you to believe whatever, and suggest there's a real stake in that. The idea that religion asks people to put away thought more than, say, medicine, is ridiculous. Most religious people spend serious time on a daily basis thinking about religion. The whole "believe no matter what" thing is a misunderstanding of how serious religion works, usually by people with little direct contact to it, or only its most bizarre and fundamentalist forms.
I don't know how Trump can possibly be in the category of a con-artist on TV. Does he have some show other than the Apprentice? His show promised that one of the contestants would get to work under him. He delivered. He didn't demand or take donations from viewers. If there's something I'm missing, let me know because he shouldn't be in this category at all.
As for Oprah, she again did not demand donations from viewers. She didn't promise to cure cancer by sending her a check. She showed insight into lives of ordinary and extraordinary people and had "experts" help them in the best ways known to mankind. Sometimes those "experts" weren't great experts and provided questionable advice. However, she didn't take money directly from her viewers. I think you'd be hard pressed to find Oprah herself promise miracle cures... although some of her "experts" may have. Instead, she put on a show that entertained people and reaped the rewards from advertisers. That is not being a con-artist.
Admittedly, I've watched little to none of Oz, Cramer, or Beck but have some familiarity through articles/clips. I find it hard to believe that any of them have told their viewers to not go to a doctor and instead donate money to them to cure cancer. Oz has definitely used hyperbole and his title as a doctor to push questionable products. He may be a bit shady, but his claims are nowhere near what was shown on LWT. Cramer's portfolio actually beat the S&P500 according to a WSJ article. He's far from perfect and killed people on Bear Stearns, but getting into the markets is a risk and nobody gets it right 100% of the time. Is there no warning on his show about that?
As for the part about religion putting away thought more than medicine. Yes, absolutely it does. Medicine is a scientific field that is constantly questioned, tested, and updated as needed. The major religions are based on dogmatic teachings of multi-thousand year old books that do not get updated when shown to be wrong.
"Most religious people spend serious time on a daily basis thinking about religion." From my experience, serious religious people do put serious thought into it... while operating in an echo chamber. As soon as someone who can ask pointed questions comes along, the defense turns to nonsense and when that is pointed out, the defense turns to blind faith. Perhaps I just haven't met or seen competent defenders of religion yet. They may be out there.
From my experience, most religious people can't put together a logical defense of their religion. Instead, they believe in religion based on faith. And because they believe based on faith rather than reason, they are easy to manipulate. In the case of these televangelists, they go from what's in the bible "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" and somehow these religious authorities tell people that it's great to be wealthy and you're doing Gods work by being wealthy. So just send them 1000s of dollars (even on credit) as "seed money" and that wealth will be returned to you many times over in life through the work of God.
I wonder how many people would make that investment if the guy asking for it didn't invoke the name of Jesus and God. It sure seems like they're demanding blind faith... and the successful ones get millions of dollars for it.
|
Mark Zuckerberg is being attacked by Trump because of his stance on open immigration
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/index.html?iid=surge-toplead-dom
Zuckerberg is one of the leading tech executives who has called for a more open immigration policy. Specifically, he wants to make more H-1B visas available to tech employers so they can hire foreign skilled workers.
Trump said he wants to require employers to pay H-1B workers much more money, which he said would discourage companies from hiring them and boost job prospects for Americans. He also wants to have tech jobs offered to unemployed Americans before they can be filled by workers with H-1B visas.
"This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg's personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities," Trump wrote in his immigration plan. Rubio is also seeking the Republican nomination for president.
Got a battle of the billionaires goin on.
|
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked, that a candidate that has put his immigration platform at the front of his campaign is opposed to somebody espousing the diametrically opposed view.
|
On August 18 2015 10:33 whatisthisasheep wrote:Mark Zuckerberg is being attacked by Trump because of his stance on open immigration http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/index.html?iid=surge-toplead-domShow nested quote + Zuckerberg is one of the leading tech executives who has called for a more open immigration policy. Specifically, he wants to make more H-1B visas available to tech employers so they can hire foreign skilled workers.
Trump said he wants to require employers to pay H-1B workers much more money, which he said would discourage companies from hiring them and boost job prospects for Americans. He also wants to have tech jobs offered to unemployed Americans before they can be filled by workers with H-1B visas.
"This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg's personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities," Trump wrote in his immigration plan. Rubio is also seeking the Republican nomination for president. Got a battle of the billionaires goin on.
Except one of them has inherited his fortune while the other guy actually invented something. Seriously why does Trump always act like he's Rockefeller, Bill Gates and Elon Musk combined?
|
On August 18 2015 11:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 10:33 whatisthisasheep wrote:Mark Zuckerberg is being attacked by Trump because of his stance on open immigration http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/index.html?iid=surge-toplead-dom Zuckerberg is one of the leading tech executives who has called for a more open immigration policy. Specifically, he wants to make more H-1B visas available to tech employers so they can hire foreign skilled workers.
Trump said he wants to require employers to pay H-1B workers much more money, which he said would discourage companies from hiring them and boost job prospects for Americans. He also wants to have tech jobs offered to unemployed Americans before they can be filled by workers with H-1B visas.
"This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg's personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities," Trump wrote in his immigration plan. Rubio is also seeking the Republican nomination for president. Got a battle of the billionaires goin on. Except one of them has inherited his fortune while the other guy actually invented something. Seriously why does Trump always act like he's Rockefeller, Bill Gates and Elon Musk combined?
Because over inflated ego
|
I love this article in the Atlantic
Title: What do Donald Trump voters actually want?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/
Btw I have no intention of voting for Donald Trump. I am with Sanders thoroughly, and I'm in a Blue state anyway. But I do find Donald Trump very intriguing and desirable as a candidate for the presidency. There is a table of contents, but here is one:
A Liberal Who Wants America to Win
I have been a liberal practically all of my life (29 years). I am an atheist, and my first ever Presidential vote was cast for John Kerry. I more or less despised George Bush, and even though I leaned toward Hillary in 2008, I voted for Obama in 2012. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and many other liberal positions.
I do, however, believe that our country is in a terrible position and on a terrible track. Trump strikes many of my nerves, but one of the most accurate and dangerously true statements he has made is that "America doesn't win anymore." I agree. The world is rising while America falls. America and its leaders seem resigned to this fact. Rather than stiffening their spine and fighting to make America a prosperous nation for all, they simply talk, go through the motions, throw out a few "red meat" issues to keep their respective bases satisfied, and continue to concede American jobs and economic strength to the rest of the world.
To friends and family, I have long railed against the fact that America uses Presidential rejects and other back-bench political cronies as their chief negotiators. John Kerry (yes, the man I voted for) was out-negotiated time and time again by his Russian counterpart. And now, it appears that the same thing has happened once again with the Iran negotiators. This all ties back to the same fundamental thread: politicians have failed this country, leading to one loss after another.
I do not believe that I am a racist, sexist, homophobic, or any other negative label that has been affixed to Trump supports. Rather, I feel that political correctness has run amok in this country, and we now live in a society where every blogger and Twitter user is searching for the slightest offense so they can try to ruin another human (famous, or not). The average person is afraid of expressing any controversial opinion in a public forum for fear of being "exposed," made viral, and ruined, personally and/or professionally. It is heartening to see someone as confident and impervious to criticism as Trump standing up to this ever-present mob…and winning! People tend to support the underdog. Most media outlets have attacked Trump with so much vitriol that they have turned him into a sympathetic figure.
Yes, I really do feel that Donald Trump has the interests of America at heart. He has already made his money and lived a life of glamour and fame, and another few billion dollars won't have any real impact on his quality of life. Rather, I genuinely believe that Trump feels the need to fight for the country he loves. There once was a time when people could actually feel proud to be Americans, and Trump comes from a generation that experienced that feeling. Now, many are embarrassed to be associated with this country. Jobs are being outsourced with reckless abandon and this country is literally being hollowed out. Economic statistics do no justice to this reality, and the average American knows this to be true.
Trump supporters feel that a confident, strong-willed leader is needed to right the ship and to fight back against the perpetual decline this country has experienced for the last two-plus decades. And to be honest, I feel that Trump is our only hope in this next election. This is coming from someone who voted for Obama in the last election! Anyway, that's my story and the main reasons why I support Trump. I didn't plan out this response for days or try to make this all-inclusive, but this should give you a fair idea of why I, a liberal, support Donald Trump for president.
Other interesting ones include:
Trump Knows It’s All a Joke
Bush Was a Disaster and Obama Felt Like One
2) Obama: I supported Obama the first time, and reluctantly the second time. I think he saved America. BUT. Obama failed big time in overcoming the partisan divide. He put his cronies in charge. Worst of all, he appears weak. Like an intellectual. Intellectuals make simple things complicated, and FAIL in real life. Because while real life may be complicated, you create progress by making it simple. By getting things done. Stop thinking, start doing. Stop considering, make a decision.
Finally,
A Bernie Sanders Supporter Who’d Vote Trump Over Clinton
It is not that Trump supporters necessarily trust Trump to be their champion or that he can be relied upon to deliver better than other politicians. It is the confidence that he can't do worse (and just might do better). In the meantime, his supporters relish the contempt he shows toward the mainstream media and politicians (a contempt which is shared not just by Tea Party conservatives, but many educated liberals and independents). I am a Bernie Sanders supporter. But if I had to vote for any Republican, it would certainly be Trump. In a face off between Hillary Clinton and Trump, I again would vote Trump. While he might not deliver on his promises, he would certainly be a bull in the China shop of contemporary American politics, which has long needed destroying and rebuilding.
|
Trump over Clinton hmmmmm yes maybe.
|
On August 18 2015 11:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 10:33 whatisthisasheep wrote:Mark Zuckerberg is being attacked by Trump because of his stance on open immigration http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/index.html?iid=surge-toplead-dom Zuckerberg is one of the leading tech executives who has called for a more open immigration policy. Specifically, he wants to make more H-1B visas available to tech employers so they can hire foreign skilled workers.
Trump said he wants to require employers to pay H-1B workers much more money, which he said would discourage companies from hiring them and boost job prospects for Americans. He also wants to have tech jobs offered to unemployed Americans before they can be filled by workers with H-1B visas.
"This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg's personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities," Trump wrote in his immigration plan. Rubio is also seeking the Republican nomination for president. Got a battle of the billionaires goin on. Except one of them has inherited his fortune while the other guy actually invented something. Seriously why does Trump always act like he's Rockefeller, Bill Gates and Elon Musk combined?
I didnt know Zuckerberg invented Myspace. Mark is just a lazy Steve Jobs.
|
I find myself defending Trump to friends... I'm not gonna vote for him (I'll vote whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee) but it's weird.
|
On August 18 2015 10:22 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2015 08:09 Yoav wrote:On August 18 2015 07:08 ZasZ. wrote:Plenty of con-artists have taken people without using religion, but have any of them done it on national television and made millions? Oz, Cramer, Trump, Oprah, Beck... I mean, seriously, this isn't a hard game. On August 18 2015 06:23 ZasZ. wrote:
To be clear, I am saying that despite all the good religion can do in this world, and it does a lot of good, it is still fundamentally an organization that asks its followers to believe no matter what other people, or the world around you, says. "Religion is an organization;" I'm gonna have a hard time picking that apart. But more seriously, lots of things and people ask you to believe whatever, and suggest there's a real stake in that. The idea that religion asks people to put away thought more than, say, medicine, is ridiculous. Most religious people spend serious time on a daily basis thinking about religion. The whole "believe no matter what" thing is a misunderstanding of how serious religion works, usually by people with little direct contact to it, or only its most bizarre and fundamentalist forms. I don't know how Trump can possibly be in the category of a con-artist on TV. Does he have some show other than the Apprentice? His show promised that one of the contestants would get to work under him. He delivered. He didn't demand or take donations from viewers. If there's something I'm missing, let me know because he shouldn't be in this category at all. As for Oprah, she again did not demand donations from viewers. She didn't promise to cure cancer by sending her a check. She showed insight into lives of ordinary and extraordinary people and had "experts" help them in the best ways known to mankind. Sometimes those "experts" weren't great experts and provided questionable advice. However, she didn't take money directly from her viewers. I think you'd be hard pressed to find Oprah herself promise miracle cures... although some of her "experts" may have. Instead, she put on a show that entertained people and reaped the rewards from advertisers. That is not being a con-artist. Admittedly, I've watched little to none of Oz, Cramer, or Beck but have some familiarity through articles/clips. I find it hard to believe that any of them have told their viewers to not go to a doctor and instead donate money to them to cure cancer. Oz has definitely used hyperbole and his title as a doctor to push questionable products. He may be a bit shady, but his claims are nowhere near what was shown on LWT. Cramer's portfolio actually beat the S&P500 according to a WSJ article. He's far from perfect and killed people on Bear Stearns, but getting into the markets is a risk and nobody gets it right 100% of the time. Is there no warning on his show about that? As for the part about religion putting away thought more than medicine. Yes, absolutely it does. Medicine is a scientific field that is constantly questioned, tested, and updated as needed. The major religions are based on dogmatic teachings of multi-thousand year old books that do not get updated when shown to be wrong. "Most religious people spend serious time on a daily basis thinking about religion." From my experience, serious religious people do put serious thought into it... while operating in an echo chamber. As soon as someone who can ask pointed questions comes along, the defense turns to nonsense and when that is pointed out, the defense turns to blind faith. Perhaps I just haven't met or seen competent defenders of religion yet. They may be out there. From my experience, most religious people can't put together a logical defense of their religion. Instead, they believe in religion based on faith. And because they believe based on faith rather than reason, they are easy to manipulate. In the case of these televangelists, they go from what's in the bible "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" and somehow these religious authorities tell people that it's great to be wealthy and you're doing Gods work by being wealthy. So just send them 1000s of dollars (even on credit) as "seed money" and that wealth will be returned to you many times over in life through the work of God. I wonder how many people would make that investment if the guy asking for it didn't invoke the name of Jesus and God. It sure seems like they're demanding blind faith... and the successful ones get millions of dollars for it.
Well, the profit models can differ. My examples are people who are largely fraudulent in their self-presentation (Trump as self-made billionare, Cramer as financial expert, Oz as medical wizard) and who gave uninformed advice. Admittedly, Trump's platform was mixed between books and TV.
Beck was a corporate shill pretending to be a dispassionate observer (not unlike Oz). His whole message was geared to direct people to Goldline and a few companies that sell to the "survivalist" community.
Oprah is an intriguing example because she served as a conduit for lots of fraudelent people. She also seems to have given a lot of other people some kind of peace of mind, which actually makes the televangelist thing a closer parallel. And she always had a quasi-religious overtone.
If your concern is the precise profit model, maybe try the As Seen On TV companies. (Or anything in the supplement industry, though there's less of that on TV.) The usual idea is to sell shitty, shoddy projects to clueless people in large numbers. AsSeenOnTV is to normal commercial activity what televangelists are to normal religion.
As for my thing about "thought" I mean on the part of the user. The average person popping pills hasn't read a damn' bit of scientific literature. The average seriously religious person has at least a little familiarity with the millenia of thought that go into religious doctrine and practice (which is hardly frozen in time since the writing of sacred texts).
And yeah. Most religious people don't understand their religions well enough to defend it in argument. Fewer still of atheists have any understanding of the relevant issues. Most people in life are uneducated and generally not super bright (not that there's any relationship between the two... there really isn't).
But I'm just not so sure that religious people are more vulnerable to scams when I go see the massive fake medicine section of my local grocery store and see well-educated secular people paying for it by the fistfull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
