|
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. |
Can't wait for that sweet, sweet trickle down from Donald "Man of the People" Trump's tax cuts.
|
On November 05 2016 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:
Can't wait for that sweet, sweet trickle down from Donald "Man of the People" Trump's tax cuts.
Trump is going to stick it to the globalists by eliminating the estate tax, and cutting corporate taxes! Those globalist kingpings and their brown hordes will be sent back by Trump's reduced tax rates on capital gains!
|
On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 01:43 BallinWitStalin wrote:
[quote]
I never understood that perspective. Like, people really need to attempt to put themselves into other times. Right now, Americans live in the most objectively powerful and rich country/empire in the history of the world. They live with fantastic technology, live in a peaceful society that lacks war, low crime, lots of opportunity (although this could be better), etc. Corruption is definitely a legitimate issue, but this whole "ITS SO BAD FUCK IT LETS WATCH IT BURN" attitude is frankly bizarre; Americans have it really fucking good (for the most part) compared to most humans on the globe today and historically. There's lots of stuff you can improve on (what society is perfect?), but good lord living standards could get so much fucking worse.
Like, good god World war 1 and 2 were terrible times to be alive. The great depression, Vietnam, the Cuban missile crisis, the entire fucking cold war, literal segregation based on race -> these are all things people living today have experienced, and yet somehow young people nowadays think things are currently awful because of an e-mail scandal? There were literal genocidal purges of millions of people in developed countries, 25% unemployment, internment camps (in America!), and a high chance of a nuclear holocaust for like 50 years. How do these things even compare to what's going on today? And yet people act like it's the end of the world.... Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world." That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone." The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down. Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost? What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away. Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest. Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons?
At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades?
Or is this just a contrarian thing from you?
|
I'd actually be interested to look into the experts' thoughts on what a trade war would look like...if I'm not mistaken Trump's only method to bring jobs back is with trade tariffs, which will negate the low labor cost US companies have access to abroad? Have a feeling the near term impact of sudden and massive trade tariffs would not be good. It would have to be a disaster for Trump's first term anyway - it's a sudden and major restructuring of the world economy.
|
On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 05 2016 02:19 Madkipz wrote:
[quote]
Your argument is essentially "but they have ipods, there's no war, and they're the richest poor people in the world."
That's not how people measure themselves. They don't go "This is all my own fault, and what am I complaining about. I've got an Iphone."
The trends that have led to what is happening today aren't going away and the problems that have manifested into people voting as they are - aren't going away. Because it would require politicians to have changed their positions on several issues and maybe change their opinions. In a society when what the electorate wants doesn't concern the people in power the common response is to bump up the riot police and ignore the people, but in a society where people can vote? They have the means to burn it all down.
Everyone knows about wealth inequality, and there are people doing well and people doing poorly. The people going well can espouse the american dream and talk about how things like job creation are going well, but the rate of jobs going back to the places where they were lost?
What used to be the middle class is being split by the people in the cities that have a job, and the people that lost their job and will never be doing well enough in a society ever again, and the number of people on the latter side have grown on all sides of the political spectrum. If you don't solve the problem they aren't going away.
Brexit and Trump is a response to watching politicians getting away with incompetence, malpractice, and grabbing a bunch of the wealth for themselves for 30 years. They've removed low skill jobs and factory jobs for a large swathe of people and regions while ignoring the people who worked there, and these people have grown large enough to vote against your interest.
Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america? And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you?
I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth.
|
The "Spirit Cooking" thing is weird, but doesn't matter much to me. But if they spread that around to religious Hispanic and Black communities, that could dramatically impact turnout though.
"Devil magic" is a non starter, anywhere in the family, let alone someone who would be at the capital non-stop lobbying his brother and the president.
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the logic of it either, it's not the base operating condition for the folks who would be frightened/disturbed by it. In case I wasn't clear, I think this would be a dumb reason not to vote for her, but there are a lot of people who wouldn't think so, particularly the groups she needs most.
|
On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america?
And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth.
Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well).
I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
|
On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 02:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Wait, so you're saying that the American people watching a community organize rise to the rank of president be is making people upset that elites are running america?
And to show that disdain, they put their vote in Trump whose main claim to power is that he is one of the elites in America? Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment. Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back. And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth.
Because it makes more sense for them to vote for the person who grew up in a small town and had to work for a living before starting a family and that family slowly building an empire together through grit and determination as opposed to the rich boy who had a multibillion dollar gift from his father who spent most his career losing it.
|
I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues.
|
On November 05 2016 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues.
I doubt many Clinton supporters have campaign finance in their top 5 issues.
|
On November 05 2016 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues.
"Hillary, what's your plan for Campaign Finance?"
"Dodd Frank"
"Bernie, thoughts on Dodd Frank?"
"Fuck Dodd Frank"
"What will you use instead"
"Dodd Frank"
That was literally the primary.
|
On November 05 2016 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues.
Based on this thread, I think you underestimate how much people care about that sort of thing. People just don't care... They don't see the connections or maybe they think people who do see major troubles with that are just delusional about it all. I don't know. Maybe they do see the problem but just think things can't be done better. Maybe it's all of the above.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
russia isnt the enemy of the u.s.
but a few problems
that relationship is poisoned by conspiratorial view of western motives. similarly with china. they see a lot of threats and aggession where malice is absent. obviously problematic esp if u.s. isnt clear about intentions in making various moves militarily.
they do embrace real (as opposed to nominal) nationalism, the 'what is good for russia' question is not the same as 'what is good for the russian people. this is highly threatening to neighbors.
most severe problem is putin's entrenchment of the russian security state, composed of merge between business and secret police.
under this condition, the second and third order effects of putin mean more putins in the future. closing russian economy and media encourages mutual misunderstanding and suspicion. relying on secret police and internal control stunts democratic system and alternative. if the putin regime falls, there will not be experienced and quality democratic leaders to replace the system. economically, continued reliance on state direction and natural resources is reinforced by the structure of the state. this chokes off private investment and growth of SMEs.
the only way to resolve this is to dispute the conspiracy view of west and focus problem on good governance.
putin is not entirely wrong to blame the west for problems in russia, but he is wrong to blame west for his reasons.
the west enabled and ignored mass looting of the russian economy. particularly western financial and legal professionals, including political lobbyists, are all too happy to let developing world extractive elites park their ill gotten gains. trade and development for russia did not give people the kind of future they expected, contrary to prophets of the market's promises. failure of russian political alternatives to putin, and how that struggle was portrayed (with the friends of the west seen as exploiting the people) is direct precursor not only to putin but putin's political agenda.
|
On November 05 2016 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:22 Madkipz wrote:
[quote]
Yes. Are you dense? Hillary is a 30 year career politician. She's the poster gal of the political elite and a candidate that's going to become POTUS because its "her turn", and she's getting support from the POLITICAL establishment.
Trump on the other hand is a political outsider, and even his own party is fracturing at the seems because they can't stand him. He actually visited the american rust belt. His biggest supporters are low skilled previously factory workers, and he talks about all the labor that's been outsourced by trade agreements and how the ordinary american has been out-competed by immigrant labour, and he is campaigning that he will attempt to get these people their jobs back.
And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite? You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes. But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well). I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
They're voting against the elite by voting for someone who's rich, this was your point, yes? You're still failing to dissociate someone's identity from their candidacy but the blue collar workers know better.
There's also revolutionary undertones here about capitalism and exploitation.
On November 05 2016 04:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:
I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Because it makes more sense for them to vote for the person who grew up in a small town and had to work for a living before starting a family and that family slowly building an empire together through grit and determination as opposed to the rich boy who had a multibillion dollar gift from his father who spent most his career losing it.
I suspect that this election isn't causing stress for people so much as acting as an outlet for stress because they need a conflict to vent on. I don't think Fred Trump ever had multibillions.
|
On November 05 2016 04:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite?
You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes.
But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well). I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional. They're voting against the elite by voting for someone who's rich, this was your point, yes? You're still failing to dissociate someone's identity from their candidacy but the blue collar workers know better. There's also revolutionary undertones here about capitalism and exploitation.
Both of which are represented by Trump. The billionaire capitalist who make money exploiting people.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 05 2016 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues.
what do you mean.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/
just because she is not for some dumb particular alternatives doesnt mean she accepts the current situation
|
On November 05 2016 04:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:On November 05 2016 03:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
And Trump is the poster boy for the financial elite?
You know, the one that hires the immigrant labourers, outsources his products, doesn't pay his workers and hasn't paid a dime in taxes.
But clearly he's the one that will represent the poor factory worker. Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time. He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard. So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well). I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional. They're voting against the elite by voting for someone who's rich, this was your point, yes? You're still failing to dissociate someone's identity from their candidacy but the blue collar workers know better. There's also revolutionary undertones here about capitalism and exploitation.
Yes, Trump is much more of an exploitative capitalist than Clinton, which is why so many on the left instantly jump to his identity as a white man clearly being the reason people blue-collar workers prefer him to Clinton (woman) or Obama (black).
It's more nuanced than that-they mostly prefer him because he can barely string together complete sentences and they thus are free to draw whatever conclusions they want from his speeches, and he's thus been quite successful in convincing them he is a totally different person than he actually is (to the extent many of his supporters probably think he's a "working man" or "self-made" somehow)-but playing the identity card in an honest world wouldn't help him much.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh right. she has billionaire backers therefore corrupt. but billionaires not bad. she is just bad.
|
On November 05 2016 04:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:50 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:34 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:14 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 04:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 04:03 oBlade wrote:On November 05 2016 03:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 05 2016 03:51 Madkipz wrote:
[quote]
Your mistake is judging him for what was just common practice and good business moves at the time.
He wasn't a politician back then. You can't judge him on that basis because he wasn't running for office or taking public money. When you're taking public money the people become complicit in your actions and you're held to a higher standard.
So basically ignore everything Trump actually is because this is his first time as a politician, and he automatically becomes the perfect candidate who matches your political visions. Whether you think he's a "poster boy" for the financial elite doesn't sound important when they all endorse or support Clinton. Yeah, I suppose if you don't like the financial elite supporting Clinton, it's much easier just to go straight to the financial elite. Do you mean the hundred-millionaire Clintons? At some point are you planning to loop around to why blue collar workers should vote for the rich business owner who has been exploiting them for decades? Or is this just a contrarian thing from you? I was trying to lead you to realize how nonsensical it is to suggest they need to vote for the hundred-millionaire over the billionaire because being so relatively impoverished she must care more. What you have got to do is start thinking in terms of their actual plans and what they might achieve. That includes asking why corporate interests support Clinton this much. That's where to make the case either way. Not their net worth. Cool, except I wasn't arguing that blue collar workers should vote for Clinton because she's less corporate (though, in general, I would say democrat policies help the lower class much more than republican ones do, and that largely applies to Clinton's policy plans as well). I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional. They're voting against the elite by voting for someone who's rich, this was your point, yes? You're still failing to dissociate someone's identity from their candidacy but the blue collar workers know better. There's also revolutionary undertones here about capitalism and exploitation. Both of which are represented by Trump. The billionaire capitalist who make money exploiting people.
You mean living the American Dream?
No but seriously, making billions exploiting people is something people aspire to in America. They tend to disagree with the phrasing "exploiting people" and generally prefer some variation of "giving desperate people an opportunity" though.
On November 05 2016 04:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2016 04:41 GreenHorizons wrote:I'm saying that those lower class workers are voting against something...by voting for it. And that's delusional.
Literally what Clinton supporters are doing when it comes to campaign finance, among other issues. what do you mean. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/just because she is not for some dumb particular alternatives doesnt mean she accepts the current situation
She's using every thing democrats have ever said was wrong with campaign finance, so people are supporting the personification of what they say they are against regarding that issue.
|
On November 04 2016 23:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2016 23:25 Uldridge wrote:
Will this have been the most drama filled election in US history?
It's just astounding howmuch shit keeps hitting the fan every moment.. Truly incredible It is in the running for volume of drama. However, the third US election ended with the vice president killing his political rival, war compatriot and long time friend in a duel for not endorsing him. But this was back when the runner up in the general election was vice president. I still think that wins for quality of drama.
I mean, I love Hamilton too, but that's not actually how it went down. The duel had to do with the NY gubernatorial race, not the Presidential race, and was based on supposed defamation, not a mere endorsement.
On November 04 2016 23:52 Reivax wrote:
Question for the Americans, how disrespectful may entertainers/comedians be of the office of President of the United States? Is there any limit or is it all protected under the First Amendment?
The US has very broad free speech protections compared to most European nations. Anything's fair game. Libel/defamation is practically impossible to win in court (which is good, I think, though Trump obviously disagrees.) The Office of the President carries no special protection from criticism.
On November 04 2016 17:29 fluidrone wrote:
(the fact that no one discusses substance anymore anywhere at any time and that "what the candidates/parties propose to do" is what the important thing is (vital), as opposed to anything else which is irrelevant).
I actually think character is kinda important for the presidency. Congress votes on issues. The President's job is to be the face of the nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
