|
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 September 20 2016 05:04 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:55 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:45 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:42 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. You do know that Trump is a private business owner and he says his children will be in charge of his company while he serves? If you think there will be less pay for play under Trump, you might be in for an amazing surprise. There is nothing wrong with letting your children taking care of your company while you are away. Its totally legal. Previous presidents have handed their businesses over to third parties for their terms and placed their investments in blind trusts to assure no corruption would take place. Trump will not be doing that. He is keeping the business in the control of his family who he will be talking with directly about police and other issues. If you believe there will be no pay for play with Trump, you are naïve. That is how that man operates. Not a fair comparison. Past presidents had investments, Donald Trump is the product... He can't really put his company into a blind trust, or just sell it without losing an insurmountable amount of value, and you know that.
Romney (who is worth surprisingly little considering he founded Bain Capital, though $250b [which is likely an underestimate IMO] is probably more money than all the posters in this thread will make combined) somehow managed to put his bucks into largely autonomous vehicles to avoid conflicts of interest when he became a politician.
|
On September 20 2016 05:10 RealityIsKing wrote:
But the same thing can happen with the Dems.
Not if they aren't in control of congress. The most likely scenario is still a Republican-controlled congress.
|
On September 20 2016 04:18 TheTenthDoc wrote:
He is the poster child for saying whatever he wants and having his supporters bend over backwards to interpret it as correct
On September 20 2016 04:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
So he wants to set new tone with Mexico and the quickest way to get Mexico's attention is to go an outrageous deal then to negotiate afterward.
You are definitely not thinking out of the box here.
On September 20 2016 04:32 biology]major wrote:
He approaches everything from the perspective of a business deal, come at it from the strongest position possible(even if it seems absolutely insane) and negotiate from there.
Right on cue.
|
On September 20 2016 05:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 05:10 RealityIsKing wrote:
But the same thing can happen with the Dems. Not if they aren't in control of congress. The most likely scenario is still a Republican-controlled congress.
So you are afraid that Republicans might have too much power?
|
On September 20 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 05:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 04:42 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. You do know that Trump is a private business owner and he says his children will be in charge of his company while he serves? If you think there will be less pay for play under Trump, you might be in for an amazing surprise. Are you under the impression that Trump is becoming President to get rich? I thought we put that conspiracy during the primaries. Either way, $4.5 billion in net worth, which some of isn't even in the US doesn't allow Trump to drain the budget with his privacy business even if that was the case. I think he is a fairly selfish person, and I think he's main motivation for what he's doing is he want to leave the world in a state similar to how he found it when he was younger, which some modifications like less racism, more modern tradition values, so allowing gay marriage, etc... But simply to fight the liberal left movement, for his kids and family (and for his own ideology too). I never get the impression that he's doing it for wealth gain - maybe for popularity sure, but that's okay with me. How can we convince Plansix to stop his Trumphobia?  I think we are being very reasonable here. Trump sucks. He is a terrible candidate. He is a two bit con-artist with a long history of defrauding people, which did not stop during this election. People who claim he is going to be this transformative force for good and change can believe what they want, but I’m going to call them naïve. Okay but that's still a better candidate than Hillary though. At least Trump is planning on doing more for Americans than her. No. He isn't. Straight up. Hilary and the democratic party plans to continue with things that make my life better. Trump wants to end them and cut taxes on people that make more in a year and I will in 15. There is no reason for me to vote for that man. Zero. Even without all the xenophobic bullshit, he offers me literally nothing. There is no reason for me to vote for him.
He's talking about lowing the highest marginal tax rate from 39.6% to 33%. Even though this is wishful thinking, it's fine, because when you include the state tax rates, and payroll taxes, they are up to 50% marginal, I think that's quite high. The real problem is that:
The average yearly income of the top 1% is 1.434mil a year, and hence their effective income tax rate SHOULD be around 35% according to current tax brackets, and remember, this is only the federal rate, in reality they pay 20.1%. Same thing with the 1-4%, they should be paying an effective rate of around 15.1% when they should be paying 24%.
The whole point is to simplify the system and remove the 1000 reasons you can get a deduction that half the people don't even know about, or the one's you can bullshit, etc.... And close the loopholes.
Not to mention that Payroll taxes are the most regressive tax in the world.
edit: For reference, in Canada our highest tax rate last year was ($136,000) is only 29%, this year it changed to 33% for over $200,000, and in my province at $300,000, we have the highest provincial tax rate of 15%, which only two years ago was 10%.
On top of that we have a small contribution for CPP and EI, which you only pay up to like $50,000 of income, so your tax rate is around 48-50% if you are really rich, but only 2 years ago, it was around 40% (10%+29%+EI+CPP)... In Canada. And then we got the most socialist provincial government in Canada, and a very liberal federal government, so here we are.
So yeah, your tax brackets are more than fine, just get rid of all your bullshit deductions.
|
On September 20 2016 04:53 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:46 ZasZ. wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. I don't see a functional difference between a business as usual politician, like Hillary, who is at least partially beholden to special interests, and Donald Trump, who is beholden only to his giant ego. I have to wonder what people have been smoking if they think Donald Trump is some sort of patriot or American hero. He is a powerful man who wants to become the most powerful man, nothing more and nothing less. Well right now, Trump is doing the right thing for Americans and if he can follow it, then great. And let's be honest, congress have the power to stop wars so let's face it, any president's power is severely limited in that regard and Trump knows this. Trump isn't really doing the right thing for america or americans, and there's ample evidence of harm. Spreading massive amounts of lies isn't really a positive thing; nor is encouraging the breaking of one's word. Saying there is ample of evidence without stating a single one. Can we not fear monger?
I didn't think it was necessary, by now everyone is familiar with the cases, and has either accepted them, or deny that they qualify as an instance of such. though maybe as I haven't seen you around as much, you haven't already been through the whole song n dance routine 20 times over these issues. which one(s) do you want an example of?
and i'm not fear mongering; nowhere near fearmongering, though Trump does do a fair bit of fear mongering (do you dispute that?)
|
On September 20 2016 05:17 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:46 ZasZ. wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. I don't see a functional difference between a business as usual politician, like Hillary, who is at least partially beholden to special interests, and Donald Trump, who is beholden only to his giant ego. I have to wonder what people have been smoking if they think Donald Trump is some sort of patriot or American hero. He is a powerful man who wants to become the most powerful man, nothing more and nothing less. Well right now, Trump is doing the right thing for Americans and if he can follow it, then great. And let's be honest, congress have the power to stop wars so let's face it, any president's power is severely limited in that regard and Trump knows this. Trump isn't really doing the right thing for america or americans, and there's ample evidence of harm. Spreading massive amounts of lies isn't really a positive thing; nor is encouraging the breaking of one's word. Saying there is ample of evidence without stating a single one. Can we not fear monger? I didn't think it was necessary, by now everyone is familiar with the cases, and has either accepted them, or deny that they qualify as an instance of such. though maybe as I haven't seen you around as much, you haven't already been through the whole song n dance routine 20 times over these issues. which one(s) do you want an example of? and i'm not fear mongering; nowhere near fearmongering, though Trump does do a fair bit of fear mongering (do you dispute that?)
I think the beauty of what Trump does is that he know how to use the language really well.
Everything he says can be interpreted in one way or another.
|
North Carolina's governor has dropped a lawsuit asking a federal court to preserve the state's HB2 law limiting civil rights protections for LGBT people and regulating who uses which public bathrooms.
In court documents Friday, Gov. Pat McCrory cited "substantial costs to the State" as one reason for dropping his lawsuit against the federal government, writing that it did not serve the "interests of judicial economy and efficiency."
Businesses, performing artists and event organizers have boycotted the state since House Bill 2 was passed. In July, the NBA announced it was pulling its February All-Star Game out of Charlotte, saying in a statement, "We do not believe we can successfully host our All-Star festivities in Charlotte in the climate created by the current law."
This month, the NCAA and the Atlantic Coast Conference both moved championship sporting events out of the state.
McCrory sued the federal government in May, after U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said HB2 violated both the Civil Rights Act and Title IX and threatened to withhold federal funding to the state. The Department of Justice countersued, seeking to ban enforcement on the grounds that the law is, as Lynch said at the time, "impermissibly discriminatory."
"This action is about a great deal more than just bathrooms. This is about the dignity and respect we accord our fellow citizens and the laws that we, as a people and as a country, have enacted to protect them — indeed, to protect all of us," Lynch said at a news conference.
North Carolina is also fighting another lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality. That suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, was filed in March on behalf of Joaquin Carcaño, a 27-year-old transgender man who works at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is banned from using public men's restrooms under the law.
Some local support for the law is waning, as well. After months of bad business news and widespread condemnation by other state governments, at least two state legislators who helped pass the law now want it repealed.
Source
|
On September 20 2016 05:19 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 05:17 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:46 ZasZ. wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. I don't see a functional difference between a business as usual politician, like Hillary, who is at least partially beholden to special interests, and Donald Trump, who is beholden only to his giant ego. I have to wonder what people have been smoking if they think Donald Trump is some sort of patriot or American hero. He is a powerful man who wants to become the most powerful man, nothing more and nothing less. Well right now, Trump is doing the right thing for Americans and if he can follow it, then great. And let's be honest, congress have the power to stop wars so let's face it, any president's power is severely limited in that regard and Trump knows this. Trump isn't really doing the right thing for america or americans, and there's ample evidence of harm. Spreading massive amounts of lies isn't really a positive thing; nor is encouraging the breaking of one's word. Saying there is ample of evidence without stating a single one. Can we not fear monger? I didn't think it was necessary, by now everyone is familiar with the cases, and has either accepted them, or deny that they qualify as an instance of such. though maybe as I haven't seen you around as much, you haven't already been through the whole song n dance routine 20 times over these issues. which one(s) do you want an example of? and i'm not fear mongering; nowhere near fearmongering, though Trump does do a fair bit of fear mongering (do you dispute that?) I think the beauty of what Trump does is that he know how to use the language really well. Everything he says can be interpreted in one way or another.
vagueness has its uses; as does precision. But it leads to a problem where people disagree on what someone meant, especially if the original does not clarify. It's also not THAT impressive, as plenty of people can say vague stuff, and rely on known splits in how it will be perceived to say different things by using the same words.
Vagueness used to unite people can have some value, but the size of the group he's uniting is much too small for it to properly have that value.
Since you chose to reply without actually stating what you wanted examples of, I'll assume you don't need examples.
PS I also don't see evidence of him doing the right thing for america(ns)
|
On September 20 2016 05:06 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 05:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 04:42 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. You do know that Trump is a private business owner and he says his children will be in charge of his company while he serves? If you think there will be less pay for play under Trump, you might be in for an amazing surprise. Are you under the impression that Trump is becoming President to get rich? I thought we put that conspiracy during the primaries. Either way, $4.5 billion in net worth, which some of isn't even in the US doesn't allow Trump to drain the budget with his privacy business even if that was the case. I think he is a fairly selfish person, and I think he's main motivation for what he's doing is he want to leave the world in a state similar to how he found it when he was younger, which some modifications like less racism, more modern tradition values, so allowing gay marriage, etc... But simply to fight the liberal left movement, for his kids and family (and for his own ideology too). I never get the impression that he's doing it for wealth gain - maybe for popularity sure, but that's okay with me. How can we convince Plansix to stop his Trumphobia? I think we are being very reasonable here. Trump sucks. He is a terrible candidate. He is a two bit con-artist with a long history of defrauding people, which did not stop during this election. People who claim he is going to be this transformative force for good and change can believe what they want, but I’m going to call them naïve. Okay but that's still a better candidate than Hillary though. At least Trump is planning on doing more for Americans than her. No. He isn't. Straight up. Hilary and the democratic party plans to continue with things that make my life better. Trump wants to end them and cut taxes on people that make more in a year and I will in 15. There is no reason for me to vote for that man. Zero. Even without all the xenophobic bullshit, he offers me literally nothing. There is no reason for me to vote for him. So basically you are mad that he is going to tax people that makes more money than a certain amount? And you are apparently really rich and don't like that? Okay you can live in your "high class" life but the rest of us though, its a different story.
?????? He is going to cut taxes for the rich. ?????????
|
Cough cough, if you're going to talk about taxes and the economy, at least please use numbers.
I've been the only one here regularly using numbers, everyone else just tries to be eloquent with their words.
|
On September 20 2016 05:19 RealityIsKing wrote:
Everything he says can be interpreted in one way or another.
Yeah and you can dream up his policies on your own.
|
On September 20 2016 05:23 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 05:19 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 05:17 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:46 ZasZ. wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. I don't see a functional difference between a business as usual politician, like Hillary, who is at least partially beholden to special interests, and Donald Trump, who is beholden only to his giant ego. I have to wonder what people have been smoking if they think Donald Trump is some sort of patriot or American hero. He is a powerful man who wants to become the most powerful man, nothing more and nothing less. Well right now, Trump is doing the right thing for Americans and if he can follow it, then great. And let's be honest, congress have the power to stop wars so let's face it, any president's power is severely limited in that regard and Trump knows this. Trump isn't really doing the right thing for america or americans, and there's ample evidence of harm. Spreading massive amounts of lies isn't really a positive thing; nor is encouraging the breaking of one's word. Saying there is ample of evidence without stating a single one. Can we not fear monger? I didn't think it was necessary, by now everyone is familiar with the cases, and has either accepted them, or deny that they qualify as an instance of such. though maybe as I haven't seen you around as much, you haven't already been through the whole song n dance routine 20 times over these issues. which one(s) do you want an example of? and i'm not fear mongering; nowhere near fearmongering, though Trump does do a fair bit of fear mongering (do you dispute that?) I think the beauty of what Trump does is that he know how to use the language really well. Everything he says can be interpreted in one way or another. vagueness has its uses; as does precision. But it leads to a problem where people disagree on what someone meant, especially if the original does not clarify. It's also not THAT impressive, as plenty of people can say vague stuff, and rely on known splits in how it will be perceived to say different things by using the same words. Vagueness used to unite people can have some value, but the size of the group he's uniting is much too small for it to properly have that value. Since you chose to reply without actually stating what you wanted examples of, I'll assume you don't need examples.
You can state them at your own pleasure.
What I'm saying is that Trump is not stupid at all as some people here like to claim.
He is very sly in what he says and I think that under him, America would be smarter nation.
|
On September 20 2016 05:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 05:06 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 05:04 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 05:00 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:58 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 04:42 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. You do know that Trump is a private business owner and he says his children will be in charge of his company while he serves? If you think there will be less pay for play under Trump, you might be in for an amazing surprise. Are you under the impression that Trump is becoming President to get rich? I thought we put that conspiracy during the primaries. Either way, $4.5 billion in net worth, which some of isn't even in the US doesn't allow Trump to drain the budget with his privacy business even if that was the case. I think he is a fairly selfish person, and I think he's main motivation for what he's doing is he want to leave the world in a state similar to how he found it when he was younger, which some modifications like less racism, more modern tradition values, so allowing gay marriage, etc... But simply to fight the liberal left movement, for his kids and family (and for his own ideology too). I never get the impression that he's doing it for wealth gain - maybe for popularity sure, but that's okay with me. How can we convince Plansix to stop his Trumphobia? I think we are being very reasonable here. Trump sucks. He is a terrible candidate. He is a two bit con-artist with a long history of defrauding people, which did not stop during this election. People who claim he is going to be this transformative force for good and change can believe what they want, but I’m going to call them naïve. Okay but that's still a better candidate than Hillary though. At least Trump is planning on doing more for Americans than her. No. He isn't. Straight up. Hilary and the democratic party plans to continue with things that make my life better. Trump wants to end them and cut taxes on people that make more in a year and I will in 15. There is no reason for me to vote for that man. Zero. Even without all the xenophobic bullshit, he offers me literally nothing. There is no reason for me to vote for him. So basically you are mad that he is going to tax people that makes more money than a certain amount? And you are apparently really rich and don't like that? Okay you can live in your "high class" life but the rest of us though, its a different story. ?????? He is going to cut taxes for the rich. ?????????
Clearly there is some misunderstanding, state your points more clearly.
|
On September 20 2016 04:52 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:49 RealityIsKing wrote:
And let's be honest, congress have the power to stop wars so let's face it, any president's power is severely limited in that regard and Trump knows this.
The worst case scenario isn't Trump doing the things he says, the worst case scenario is him letting a Republican congress pass whatever they want. I'm working off the assumption that both Hillary and Trump are full of shit and won't do any of what they say. From that perspective, I'll take 4 more years of obstructionism over 4 years of the President giving a Republican congress a free pass. Granted, it's arguable that Hillary would still be worse than 4 more years of obstructionism, but still.
If anything I'd take Hillary just because I trust her SC nominations a whole hell of a lot more. Trump hasn't exactly inspired confidence with those he picks. That and giving that shitshow of a GOP congress free reign to accomplish all the horrible stuff they want to do would be madness.
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 20 2016 04:23 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:09 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:
The reasons I dislike him are unchanged. He is still uninformed, deeply stupid and a man-baby that is unfit for office. Even if I ignore all the populist non-sense, he is still a garbage candidate due to his lack of knowledge and complete distain for people with knowledge. I don't think he is uninformed though. Yes, he is tough on immigration but that's due to all those reported incidence from Europe and of course 911. Yes, he is right that illegal immigrants needs to turn up and sign up for legal residency and whoever that isn't qualified needs to be kicked out. That's actually really anti corporate and would grant the one that deserves it minimum wage and other social benefit. He is doing a lot of goods for the people. The only people that hates on him are masochist, they know that there are some undeserved illegals here and of course they do exist. Yeah, I disagree on every level. He shows a basic lack of understanding on most international issues. His plan to make Mexico pay for the wall was comical at best, tragically uninformed at worst. His talk about dealing with ISIS can be described as that of a middle school play ground bully or child attempting to sound tough. His distain for the press, political process and judicial system have been evident throughout this election. He is the very definition of the person I never want to see elected, a self aggrandizing blow hard who hates people who better informed than him. And he surrounds himself with yes-men and people who are willing to ride his coat tails for their own personal gain. I got through George W Bush. I’m not doing it again, especially with someone even dumber than Bush. And somehow worse at public speaking. He is not ACTUALLY thinking that Mexico will pay for the wall? Are you THIS naive for real? I don't believe that you are. Its an intimidating tactics, his point is that Mexico is getting the better deal out of the US-Mexico relationship. So he wants to set new tone with Mexico and the quickest way to get Mexico's attention is to go an outrageous deal then to negotiate afterward. You are definitely not thinking out of the box here.
It's pretty amusing to me that Trump supporters have to try so hard to change what Trump literally said in plain and unambiguous terms to be something more palatable. Especially when they ask him and he goes "nope, I literally meant what I said".
Trump really is saying that he will get Mexico to write him a check for the wall. That's the plan. You might think "surely that cannot be the plan, that'd be really stupid" but it is the plan. That's where we are right now.
|
On September 20 2016 05:28 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 05:23 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 05:19 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 05:17 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:53 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:52 zlefin wrote:On September 20 2016 04:49 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:46 ZasZ. wrote:On September 20 2016 04:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:35 TheYango wrote:
Generally politicians fuck things up more than they say they will, not less. I don't know where this blind optimism that Trump will be better than his rhetoric portrays comes from. What about Hillary though? She have more chance of not following up than Trump. At least with Trump on the helm, he doesn't have as much favors to pay for since they are funded differently. I don't see a functional difference between a business as usual politician, like Hillary, who is at least partially beholden to special interests, and Donald Trump, who is beholden only to his giant ego. I have to wonder what people have been smoking if they think Donald Trump is some sort of patriot or American hero. He is a powerful man who wants to become the most powerful man, nothing more and nothing less. Well right now, Trump is doing the right thing for Americans and if he can follow it, then great. And let's be honest, congress have the power to stop wars so let's face it, any president's power is severely limited in that regard and Trump knows this. Trump isn't really doing the right thing for america or americans, and there's ample evidence of harm. Spreading massive amounts of lies isn't really a positive thing; nor is encouraging the breaking of one's word. Saying there is ample of evidence without stating a single one. Can we not fear monger? I didn't think it was necessary, by now everyone is familiar with the cases, and has either accepted them, or deny that they qualify as an instance of such. though maybe as I haven't seen you around as much, you haven't already been through the whole song n dance routine 20 times over these issues. which one(s) do you want an example of? and i'm not fear mongering; nowhere near fearmongering, though Trump does do a fair bit of fear mongering (do you dispute that?) I think the beauty of what Trump does is that he know how to use the language really well. Everything he says can be interpreted in one way or another. vagueness has its uses; as does precision. But it leads to a problem where people disagree on what someone meant, especially if the original does not clarify. It's also not THAT impressive, as plenty of people can say vague stuff, and rely on known splits in how it will be perceived to say different things by using the same words. Vagueness used to unite people can have some value, but the size of the group he's uniting is much too small for it to properly have that value. Since you chose to reply without actually stating what you wanted examples of, I'll assume you don't need examples. You can state them at your own pleasure. What I'm saying is that Trump is not stupid at all as some people here like to claim. He is very sly in what he says and I think that under him, America would be smarter nation.
Trump isn't stupid. He's probably of above average intelligence (IQ-wise). However, he's terribly uninformed and frequently makes stuff up to fill in the blanks.
|
United States43505 Posts
On September 20 2016 04:35 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:32 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 20 2016 04:23 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:09 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:
The reasons I dislike him are unchanged. He is still uninformed, deeply stupid and a man-baby that is unfit for office. Even if I ignore all the populist non-sense, he is still a garbage candidate due to his lack of knowledge and complete distain for people with knowledge. I don't think he is uninformed though. Yes, he is tough on immigration but that's due to all those reported incidence from Europe and of course 911. Yes, he is right that illegal immigrants needs to turn up and sign up for legal residency and whoever that isn't qualified needs to be kicked out. That's actually really anti corporate and would grant the one that deserves it minimum wage and other social benefit. He is doing a lot of goods for the people. The only people that hates on him are masochist, they know that there are some undeserved illegals here and of course they do exist. Yeah, I disagree on every level. He shows a basic lack of understanding on most international issues. His plan to make Mexico pay for the wall was comical at best, tragically uninformed at worst. His talk about dealing with ISIS can be described as that of a middle school play ground bully or child attempting to sound tough. His distain for the press, political process and judicial system have been evident throughout this election. He is the very definition of the person I never want to see elected, a self aggrandizing blow hard who hates people who better informed than him. And he surrounds himself with yes-men and people who are willing to ride his coat tails for their own personal gain. I got through George W Bush. I’m not doing it again, especially with someone even dumber than Bush. And somehow worse at public speaking. He is not ACTUALLY thinking that Mexico will pay for the wall? Are you THIS naive for real? I don't believe that you are. Its an intimidating tactics, his point is that Mexico is getting the better deal out of the US-Mexico relationship. So he wants to set new tone with Mexico and the quickest way to get Mexico's attention is to go an outrageous deal then to negotiate afterward. You are definitely not thinking out of the box here. While I don't agree with you, since Mexico is going to pay for the wall, but simply through Tariffs or some other trade means, not a hey, give us $1 billion dollars a year for the next while so we can build a wall... Plansix does take most things at absurdly face value, and hence it can be difficult to discuss anything politics with him. On September 20 2016 04:26 TheYango wrote:On September 20 2016 04:23 RealityIsKing wrote:
He is not ACTUALLY thinking that Mexico will pay for the wall? Are you THIS naive for real? I don't believe that you are.
Its an intimidating tactics, his point is that Mexico is getting the better deal out of the US-Mexico relationship.
So he wants to set new tone with Mexico and the quickest way to get Mexico's attention is to go an outrageous deal then to negotiate afterward.
You are definitely not thinking out of the box here. The problem isn't whether or not Mexico will pay for the wall. The problem is that suggesting that a new wall will actually significantly impact illegal immigration in a productive way deeply misunderstands how illegal immigrants end up becoming illegal immigrants, and what effects putting up a wall would actually have. The wall is synonymous with increased border security. Anyone who imagines any kind of wall being erected and everything else staying the same is wrong. Trump and his advisors aren't/won't be stupid enough to spend billions of dollars for no reason whatsoever. So that part of his plan he is selling is flawed, but we should trust that the rest of it is fine because reasons. Also, this is the guy who lied to people attending his university, claiming the classes would help them make more money or provide education. But we should believe this guy, with a decades long history of defrauding to people to make a quick buck. Well way better than Hillary with so many more dirt on her. And she ACTUALLY costed people's lives in the Middle East.
You understand that 13 hours wasn't actually a documentary, right? That you can't just shout "Ben Ghazi!" and have everyone shout back "yes, Ben Ghazi" and skip the actual argument.
|
On September 20 2016 05:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:23 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:09 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:
The reasons I dislike him are unchanged. He is still uninformed, deeply stupid and a man-baby that is unfit for office. Even if I ignore all the populist non-sense, he is still a garbage candidate due to his lack of knowledge and complete distain for people with knowledge. I don't think he is uninformed though. Yes, he is tough on immigration but that's due to all those reported incidence from Europe and of course 911. Yes, he is right that illegal immigrants needs to turn up and sign up for legal residency and whoever that isn't qualified needs to be kicked out. That's actually really anti corporate and would grant the one that deserves it minimum wage and other social benefit. He is doing a lot of goods for the people. The only people that hates on him are masochist, they know that there are some undeserved illegals here and of course they do exist. Yeah, I disagree on every level. He shows a basic lack of understanding on most international issues. His plan to make Mexico pay for the wall was comical at best, tragically uninformed at worst. His talk about dealing with ISIS can be described as that of a middle school play ground bully or child attempting to sound tough. His distain for the press, political process and judicial system have been evident throughout this election. He is the very definition of the person I never want to see elected, a self aggrandizing blow hard who hates people who better informed than him. And he surrounds himself with yes-men and people who are willing to ride his coat tails for their own personal gain. I got through George W Bush. I’m not doing it again, especially with someone even dumber than Bush. And somehow worse at public speaking. He is not ACTUALLY thinking that Mexico will pay for the wall? Are you THIS naive for real? I don't believe that you are. Its an intimidating tactics, his point is that Mexico is getting the better deal out of the US-Mexico relationship. So he wants to set new tone with Mexico and the quickest way to get Mexico's attention is to go an outrageous deal then to negotiate afterward. You are definitely not thinking out of the box here. It's pretty amusing to me that Trump supporters have to try so hard to change what Trump literally said in plain and unambiguous terms to be something more palatable. Especially when they ask him and he goes "nope, I literally meant what I said". Trump really is saying that he will get Mexico to write him a check for the wall. That's the plan. You might think "surely that cannot be the plan, that'd be really stupid" but it is the plan. That's where we are right now.
He detailed his master plan to force them to pay for it on his site. I can be summed up with "You can make Mexico pay for the Wall in 4 days with this one simple trick!" It was one of the most politically naive things I have read in a while.
|
On September 20 2016 05:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 04:23 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:On September 20 2016 04:09 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 20 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:
The reasons I dislike him are unchanged. He is still uninformed, deeply stupid and a man-baby that is unfit for office. Even if I ignore all the populist non-sense, he is still a garbage candidate due to his lack of knowledge and complete distain for people with knowledge. I don't think he is uninformed though. Yes, he is tough on immigration but that's due to all those reported incidence from Europe and of course 911. Yes, he is right that illegal immigrants needs to turn up and sign up for legal residency and whoever that isn't qualified needs to be kicked out. That's actually really anti corporate and would grant the one that deserves it minimum wage and other social benefit. He is doing a lot of goods for the people. The only people that hates on him are masochist, they know that there are some undeserved illegals here and of course they do exist. Yeah, I disagree on every level. He shows a basic lack of understanding on most international issues. His plan to make Mexico pay for the wall was comical at best, tragically uninformed at worst. His talk about dealing with ISIS can be described as that of a middle school play ground bully or child attempting to sound tough. His distain for the press, political process and judicial system have been evident throughout this election. He is the very definition of the person I never want to see elected, a self aggrandizing blow hard who hates people who better informed than him. And he surrounds himself with yes-men and people who are willing to ride his coat tails for their own personal gain. I got through George W Bush. I’m not doing it again, especially with someone even dumber than Bush. And somehow worse at public speaking. He is not ACTUALLY thinking that Mexico will pay for the wall? Are you THIS naive for real? I don't believe that you are. Its an intimidating tactics, his point is that Mexico is getting the better deal out of the US-Mexico relationship. So he wants to set new tone with Mexico and the quickest way to get Mexico's attention is to go an outrageous deal then to negotiate afterward. You are definitely not thinking out of the box here. It's pretty amusing to me that Trump supporters have to try so hard to change what Trump literally said in plain and unambiguous terms to be something more palatable. Especially when they ask him and he goes "nope, I literally meant what I said". Trump really is saying that he will get Mexico to write him a check for the wall. That's the plan. You might think "surely that cannot be the plan, that'd be really stupid" but it is the plan. That's where we are right now.
There is a strangely high amount of people whose view of Trump is based on the 4d chess meme
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
