|
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 July 30 2016 01:14 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 01:08 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2016 01:02 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2016 01:02 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2016 00:56 WhiteDog wrote:On July 30 2016 00:54 Plansix wrote:I think its amusing that he is pushing to end free trade that benefits him so much. But then I remember that he would likely make his own organization immune to whatever changes he makes. Those criticis are absurd and pointless. How many people still produce ties, shirts, suits in the US ? At what cost / what quality ? How easy is it to find them ? The critique is that his promises are disingenuous and pandering, not that his actions are unreasonable. Why ? Because he claims something is broken and he will fix it once he is in power, but has not used the power he currently has to make the changes he says will benefit Americans. Public service is about sacrifice and he could sacrifice some profits to have those hats made in the US. But he doesn’t do that, saying that he needs to end the trade deals first. This does not make sense, why would Trump sacrifice his wealth ? And it would be a failed experience anyway : it's not about people it's about the system. In this system, even if you're rich, you can invest all you want in producing hats and all in the US, but you will never be competitive with Mexico or Bengladesh. He does not have the power to do anything, and his campaign is absolutly right to argue that "free trade", as it is today, is not fair, and that countries who gain this competition do it through fiscal and social dumping. The Bernie campaign understood that in a sense, which is why they opposed the TTIP.
Because it befits Americans and their lives. He is running for President, not winner of the meritocracy.
|
United States42008 Posts
You can complain about a system being broken while still exploiting that system to have parity with the other abusers. It's why all competitive cyclists dope. Somewhere there might be a principled person who refuses to run any kind of ad campaign for their political aspirations but we'll never hear of them.
As long as you're using the system to get yourself in a position to change the system the ends justify the means. Unilateral changes to a principled stance are only justified if the changes don't destroy the changer.
|
On July 30 2016 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You can complain about a system being broken while still exploiting that system to have parity with the other abusers. It's why all competitive cyclists dope. Somewhere there might be a principled person who refuses to run any kind of ad campaign for their political aspirations but we'll never hear of them.
As long as you're using the system to get yourself in a position to change the system the ends justify the means. Unilateral changes to a principled stance are only justified if the changes don't destroy the changer.
Agreed, but in the case of Trump, he frames companies doing this as incredibly immoral. He doesn't just frame it as some kinda "gotta play the game like that, so I'll change the game". He just says companies will lose a lot of money if they do it, making them not do it lol
|
On July 30 2016 01:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 01:29 KwarK wrote:
You can complain about a system being broken while still exploiting that system to have parity with the other abusers. It's why all competitive cyclists dope. Somewhere there might be a principled person who refuses to run any kind of ad campaign for their political aspirations but we'll never hear of them.
As long as you're using the system to get yourself in a position to change the system the ends justify the means. Unilateral changes to a principled stance are only justified if the changes don't destroy the changer. Agreed, but in the case of Trump, he frames companies doing this as incredibly immoral. He doesn't just frame it as some kinda "gotta play the game like that, so I'll change the game". He just says companies will lose a lot of money if they do it, making them not do it lol
In contrast, the DNC took a lot of cooperate money to run the convention, while also pointing out that the public, tax payer funded money to run convention was cut by congress.
|
"So Hillary is probably the worst candidate in history" boils down to i don't like her, she is untrustworthy.
On July 30 2016 00:18 LegalLord wrote:
If there's any one politician I'd compare Hillary to, it would be Merkel (or to be fair, second hand accounts of what Merkel is like; I neither speak German nor have I lived in Germany). Not supremely charismatic but with a solid base of support that gets her enough support to win. Very driven by popular opinion, but also subject to making ridiculously boneheaded decisions at times and making things worse for everyone.
It is theoretically possible for a president to be worse than that. But she's very much not my favored choice.
Your analogy would probably be fitting if Angela Merkel would be always fake happy. Angela merkel has no emotions, Hillary Clinton pretends to have emotions. And i understand that this makes people crazy. But you have to stop judging your presidental candidates by likeability only. Angela Merkel does get shit done. I mean, you voted Bush over Al Gore because the guy was arrogant in the debate. Yes, he was, because Bush was stupid and unfit to be a president. Look what that made you do to the world...
|
On July 30 2016 01:49 Broetchenholer wrote:"So Hillary is probably the worst candidate in history" boils down to i don't like her, she is untrustworthy. Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 00:18 LegalLord wrote:
If there's any one politician I'd compare Hillary to, it would be Merkel (or to be fair, second hand accounts of what Merkel is like; I neither speak German nor have I lived in Germany). Not supremely charismatic but with a solid base of support that gets her enough support to win. Very driven by popular opinion, but also subject to making ridiculously boneheaded decisions at times and making things worse for everyone.
It is theoretically possible for a president to be worse than that. But she's very much not my favored choice. Your analogy would probably be fitting if Angela Merkel would be always fake happy. Angela merkel has no emotions, Hillary Clinton pretends to have emotions. And i understand that this makes people crazy. But you have to stop judging your presidental candidates by likeability only. Angela Merkel does get shit done. I mean, you voted Bush over Al Gore because the guy was arrogant in the debate. Yes, he was, because Bush was stupid and unfit to be a president. Look what that made you do to the world...
In a perfect world, the presidential candidates would submit a short essay, with no photo and no ability to speak to anyone. The role of charisma and charm in politics is really, really sad.
|
Technically bush lost the popular vote and was only put in president due to the supreme court
|
|
|
Public service is about sacrifice.
Which is why Barack Obama's family has lived a billionaire lifestyle for eight years. And why the Clintons became multi-multi-millionaires after "serving". And why Bernie Sanders could be in the top 1% while never having a real job. And why the richest districts in the country are where politicians live. And why the single best thing that could ever happen to anyone, from a monetary standpoint, is to get elected to national office.
That was one thing about Michelle's speech that had me rolling on the floor laughing, she's sitting up there acting like living in the White House was so horrible and exhausting. Yeah, all those parties with Jay-Z and vacations with Oprah and all that private school for your kids, and Barack shutting down city-blocks so you can have a Valentine's day dinner, and all that security for you and your family, and all that health-care anyone in their family ever needs or will need ever again.
This woman has literally never had to do anything for herself. Her based father worked his ass off to provide for her when she was a child, and then her husband's connections got her everything else. She's literally lived like a queen, off everyone else's dime, and then she has the gall to lecture us about "waking up in a House built by slaves". As if she isn't more than happy to take advantage of those slaves' work. As if she has some special claim to those slaves because they share her skin color, when in actuality she is farther away from them in terms of lifestyle than any other American.
It's no wonder Rush calls her Mooch-elle.
|
On July 30 2016 02:09 Cowboy24 wrote:
Public service is about sacrifice.
Which is why Barack Obama's family has lived a billionaire lifestyle for eight years. And why the Clintons became multi-multi-millionaires after "serving". And why Bernie Sanders could be in the top 1% while never having a real job. And why the richest districts in the country are where politicians live. And why the single best thing that could ever happen to anyone, from a monetary standpoint, is to get elected to national office.
That was one thing about Michelle's speech that had me rolling on the floor laughing, she's sitting up there acting like living in the White House was so horrible and exhausting. Yeah, all those parties with Jay-Z and vacations with Oprah and all that private school for your kids, and Barack shutting down city-blocks so you can have a Valentine's day dinner, and all that security for you and your family, and all that health-care anyone in their family ever needs or will need ever again.
This woman has literally never had to do anything for herself. Her based father worked his ass off to provide for her when she was a child, and then her husband's connections got her everything else. She's literally lived like a queen, off everyone else's dime, and then she has the gall to lecture us about "waking up in a House built by slaves". As if she isn't more than happy to take advantage of those slaves' work. As if she has some special claim to those slaves because they share her skin color, when in actuality she is farther away from them in terms of lifestyle than any other American.
It's no wonder Rush calls her Mooch-elle.
I like your comment ; you are right it's class struggle that matter today !
|
You have it the wrong way round. In the USA, rich people become politicians, not politicians rich people. There is nothing wrong with paying your politicians decently, or else your good people will only be in business and your country is run by ideologists only.
You also paint that picture pretty partisan. And why would she be happy to take advantager of their labor? Because she lives in a house that comes with the job? And why is slavery suddenly irrelevant, just because someone is well off? She has sacrificed a part of her live and her family so that you could have a decent president, what more should she sacrifice?
|
On July 30 2016 02:09 Cowboy24 wrote:
Public service is about sacrifice.
Which is why Barack Obama's family has lived a billionaire lifestyle for eight years. And why the Clintons became multi-multi-millionaires after "serving". And why Bernie Sanders could be in the top 1% while never having a real job. And why the richest districts in the country are where politicians live. And why the single best thing that could ever happen to anyone, from a monetary standpoint, is to get elected to national office.
That was one thing about Michelle's speech that had me rolling on the floor laughing, she's sitting up there acting like living in the White House was so horrible and exhausting. Yeah, all those parties with Jay-Z and vacations with Oprah and all that private school for your kids, and Barack shutting down city-blocks so you can have a Valentine's day dinner, and all that security for you and your family, and all that health-care anyone in their family ever needs or will need ever again.
This woman has literally never had to do anything for herself. Her based father worked his ass off to provide for her when she was a child, and then her husband's connections got her everything else. She's literally lived like a queen, off everyone else's dime, and then she has the gall to lecture us about "waking up in a House built by slaves". As if she isn't more than happy to take advantage of those slaves' work. As if she has some special claim to those slaves because they share her skin color, when in actuality she is farther away from them in terms of lifestyle than any other American.
It's no wonder Rush calls her Mooch-elle.
There are so many things that I would like to say, but I cant really wrap my head around where to start.
Firstly, you have quite a bit of audacity to presume that you know anything about this woman other than what has been reported in the media. You have no idea if she wanted/didn't want obama to be president, you have no idea what aspirations of her own she might have had, that she couldn't fulfill because of her role as 1st lady. You also have no idea what she has had to do for herself that her father or husband or mother or whoever, could not/would not do for her.
Secondly she doesn't have some special claim to those slave because they share skin color, she has special claim because she along with millions of others share ancestry with those slaves (Her grandfather's grandmother was a slave who had a child with her master's son - who knows whether it was consensual). 5 generations from slavery to white house, and you're telling me hard work and sacrifice had nothing to do with it on her part. Sure I believe that a black woman in 1982 made it to Princeton University and through Harvard Law based solely on the work of her father Fraser C. Robinson III who was a pump worker at a water plant in Chicago.
|
Rush calling anyone a mooch is pretty hilarious since his main job is to mock people trying to serve other while also raking in millions. And getting addicted to pain pills in his spare time.
|
That post by cowboy is a prime example of why americans get ridiculed around the world: tons of useless, unfounded, scared bullshit.
|
On July 30 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
That post by cowboy is a prime example of why americans get ridiculed around the world: tons of useless, unfounded, scared bullshit.
But she should be thankful that she gets to live in the White House and not be conflicted about its history. And she should never express that conflict out loud and remind people about our history. Pearls will be clutched in horror at the concept that a huge part of our history revolves around slavery and kidnapping people from their homes.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On July 30 2016 02:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
That post by cowboy is a prime example of why americans get ridiculed around the world: tons of useless, unfounded, scared bullshit. But she should be thankful that she gets to live in the White House and not be conflicted about its history. And she should never express that conflict out loud and remind people about our history. Pearls will be clutched in horror at the concept that a huge part of our history revolves around slavery and kidnapping people from their homes.
I really, really do not understand the whole hoopla about her talking about slaves built the White House. I only learned a couple months ago (or perhaps I knew and had forgotten) that she was directly descended from slaves (and a slave/slave master union at that.) I thought it was a neat 'how far we come' in five generations then and I still think it now.
This is the point/ counter-point highlight real CBC put together from the acceptance speeches of Trump and Clinton. Now the gravitation to certain quotes begins I guess.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-vs-clinton-highlights-from-their-acceptance-speeches-1.3700832
|
On July 30 2016 01:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 01:49 Broetchenholer wrote:"So Hillary is probably the worst candidate in history" boils down to i don't like her, she is untrustworthy. On July 30 2016 00:18 LegalLord wrote:
If there's any one politician I'd compare Hillary to, it would be Merkel (or to be fair, second hand accounts of what Merkel is like; I neither speak German nor have I lived in Germany). Not supremely charismatic but with a solid base of support that gets her enough support to win. Very driven by popular opinion, but also subject to making ridiculously boneheaded decisions at times and making things worse for everyone.
It is theoretically possible for a president to be worse than that. But she's very much not my favored choice. Your analogy would probably be fitting if Angela Merkel would be always fake happy. Angela merkel has no emotions, Hillary Clinton pretends to have emotions. And i understand that this makes people crazy. But you have to stop judging your presidental candidates by likeability only. Angela Merkel does get shit done. I mean, you voted Bush over Al Gore because the guy was arrogant in the debate. Yes, he was, because Bush was stupid and unfit to be a president. Look what that made you do to the world... In a perfect world, the presidential candidates would submit a short essay, with no photo and no ability to speak to anyone. The role of charisma and charm in politics is really, really sad.
Leaders are more than just policy. They have to create inspiration in the hearts of their followers, motivate them to bend to their will, and look up to them. We are people, not rational robots, and that is a good thing.
|
I got a problem with people saying Nixon was worst president material. His trip to China and shaking mao's hand was a watershed moment in Chinese us relations and the cold war at the same time. The cold war could have easily turned against the us with a soviet-sino axis dominating everything in Asia.
Worst presidents have to be the ones we don't remember. At least trump isn't calling for vigilante justice in chicago and winning by a mile.
|
On July 30 2016 03:21 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 02:50 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
That post by cowboy is a prime example of why americans get ridiculed around the world: tons of useless, unfounded, scared bullshit. But she should be thankful that she gets to live in the White House and not be conflicted about its history. And she should never express that conflict out loud and remind people about our history. Pearls will be clutched in horror at the concept that a huge part of our history revolves around slavery and kidnapping people from their homes. I really, really do not understand the whole hoopla about her talking about slaves built the White House. I only learned a couple months ago (or perhaps I knew and had forgotten) that she was directly descended from slaves (and a slave/slave master union at that.) I thought it was a neat 'how far we come' in five generations then and I still think it now.
The hoopla is because a lot of people in this country would like to sweep under the rug the uglier parts of US History (slavery, exploitation of Native Americans, etc.), and don't appreciate it when such things are brought to the forefront. Nobody enjoys having a guilty conscience.
Hence why you have Bill O'Reilly saying the slaves who built the White House were "well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government". That statement helps assuage any feelings of guilt. Nevermind that it isn't true.
|
On July 30 2016 03:34 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2016 03:21 Falling wrote:On July 30 2016 02:50 Plansix wrote:On July 30 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
That post by cowboy is a prime example of why americans get ridiculed around the world: tons of useless, unfounded, scared bullshit. But she should be thankful that she gets to live in the White House and not be conflicted about its history. And she should never express that conflict out loud and remind people about our history. Pearls will be clutched in horror at the concept that a huge part of our history revolves around slavery and kidnapping people from their homes. I really, really do not understand the whole hoopla about her talking about slaves built the White House. I only learned a couple months ago (or perhaps I knew and had forgotten) that she was directly descended from slaves (and a slave/slave master union at that.) I thought it was a neat 'how far we come' in five generations then and I still think it now. The hoopla is because a lot of people in this country would like to sweep under the rug the uglier parts of US History (slavery, exploitation of Native Americans, etc.), and don't appreciate it when such things are brought to the forefront. Nobody enjoys having a guilty conscience. Hence why you have Bill O'Reilly saying the slaves who built the White House were "well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government". That statement helps assuage any feelings of guilt. Nevermind that it isn't true.
Why would I feel guilty over something I didn't do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
