|
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 07 2017 01:14 Nevuk wrote:
The thing is if someone proposed a highschool financial literacy class the credit industry would lobby super hard against it. Not that that's a reason not to do it, just an observation.
Would our country even operate if people don't spend money they don't have on things they don't need.
|
On July 07 2017 01:32 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:
When I hoped a president would talk about the Iraq war and how we lied to by our goverment, I should have prefaced that I didn't want him to do it at the G20 when asked about Russian hacks of our voter registries. That was my bad, I should have been clearer and I'll try harder in the future. God Damn it Plansix! You need to be clear on these things! We all know Trump is an active member of these forums
This thread is just a messed up monkey's paw for politics.
2015: I really wish the America people could see how terrible the Republican's ideas for healthcare are.
2017: Oh dear...
2015: NC Republicans really need to be outed to the public as the racist clown show they are.
2017: Ok, that appears to have made them stronger and bolder. They are now defunding regions with majority democrats openly. I have no response to effectively combat this.
|
United States42695 Posts
On July 07 2017 01:34 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:14 Nevuk wrote:
The thing is if someone proposed a highschool financial literacy class the credit industry would lobby super hard against it. Not that that's a reason not to do it, just an observation. Would our country even operate if people don't spend money they don't have on things they don't need.
If it was a sudden and drastic change overnight then obviously economic dislocation. Otherwise, sure. There is no shortage of things that money and labour could be spent on instead, even if that included simply working less and spending more time raising kids who don't end up in prison etc.
|
|
|
Please stop lying to coal miners.
|
On July 07 2017 01:34 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. What do you precisely expect from Trump outside of not running things like Clinton? What did he do until now which satisfies you and what did not? I think it would be a more interesting start for a discussion, let's forget Clinton even exists. We're lacking a bit of conservatives perspective in this thread.
I would really like to know these things as well, since as much as he and others have railed against Hillary, talking about how we dodged a bullet, I don't actually know what they support in general, let alone with Trump specifically. Just this weird defense of "Trump is a fool but let me tell you all about why Hillary would have destroyed the country". Danglars in particular seems happy just to incite argument, without really bringing his own viewpoint into things.
That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this.
|
You have to smile at old people. Their minds aren't the same any more.
|
I get that the democrats have not been the best friends to coal miners. It has been years of them trying to limit that aging industry. But it's criminal the way some Republicans just straight up lie to that group and keep telling them the industry will return to its glory days. Just criminal.
|
Remember our talk about student loans yesterday:
18 States Sue Betsy DeVos Over Student Loan Protections
Democratic attorneys general from 18 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the Education Department and its secretary, Betsy DeVos, challenging the department’s move last month to freeze new rules for erasing the federal loan debt of student borrowers who were cheated by colleges that acted fraudulently.
The rules, known as borrower defense, were finalized in October by the Obama administration after years of negotiation and review, and they had been scheduled to take effect on July 1. But after President Trump took office, Ms. DeVos paused the planned changes, citing a federal lawsuit filed in May by an association of for-profit colleges in California that is seeking to block the rules.
Ms. DeVos also criticized the rules, calling them “a muddled process that’s unfair to students and schools,” and she said she would establish a new rule-making committee to reconsider the matter from scratch.
In their lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, the states called the agency’s rationale for the delay — the California lawsuit — a “mere pretext” for repealing and replacing rules that had already been finalized. The states are seeking to have the rules restored.
“Since day one, Secretary DeVos has sided with for-profit school executives against students and families drowning in unaffordable student loans,” said Maura Healey, the Massachusetts attorney general, who led the multistate coalition. “Her decision to cancel vital protections for students and taxpayers is a betrayal of her office’s responsibility and a violation of federal law.”
A spokeswoman for the Education Department declined to comment directly after the lawsuit was filed, saying that the department’s lawyers were reviewing it.
Also on Thursday, two student borrowers sued the Education Department in the same federal court over the delayed rules.
The students both attended the New England Institute of Art in Brookline, Mass., a for-profit school that stopped enrolling new students in 2015. Its parent company, Education Management Corporation, agreed that year to pay $95 million to settle a government lawsuit charging the company with making illegal payments to recruiters.
The Obama administration’s push to streamline and expand the borrower defense process came after hundreds of for-profit colleges were accused of widespread fraud and collapsed, leaving their enrolled students with huge debts and no degrees. The failure of two mammoth chains, Corinthian Colleges and ITT Technical Institute, gave the issue added urgency.
An existing federal law allows borrowers to apply for loan forgiveness if they attended a school that misled them or broke state consumer protection laws. Once rarely used, the system was overwhelmed by applicants after the wave of for-profit failures. Corinthian’s collapse alone led to more than 15,000 loan discharges, with a balance of $247 million.
Taxpayers get stuck with those losses. The rules that Ms. DeVos froze would have shifted some of that risk back to the industry by requiring schools at risk of closing to put up financial collateral. They would also ban mandatory arbitration agreements, which have prevented many aggrieved students from suing schools that they believe have defrauded them.
The two student borrowers who sued the Education Department, Meaghan Bauer and Stephano Del Rose, focused in their lawsuit on that arbitration clause. They plan to sue the New England Institute of Art, which they said misled them about its graduates’ job prospects and earnings, but they expect that lawsuit to be thwarted by the contract they signed with the school, which included a clause requiring that disputes be addressed through arbitration.
The new rules would have blocked many schools from enforcing those clauses. Ms. Bauer and Mr. Del Rose said they were waiting for those rules to take effect before filing their lawsuit.
Both borrowers submitted applications to have their federal loans discharged under the existing borrower defense system. Those applications have been pending for nearly two years, they said.
Source:
Remember, the protections are unfair to students, not the bullshit loans and the for profit schools.
|
On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. Show nested quote +On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:On July 06 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:
I don't see the issue with classical liberalism at all. A functioning free market economy that provides a strong foundation for people from all backgrounds to compete on an even basis through the provision of healthcare, education, housing and so forth for all without discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual preference etc. Seems pretty much ideal to me.
The problem is that in America you can't join the political right without pledging allegiance to the anti-science anti-gay agenda and even the free market economics is little more than crony capitalism. Meanwhile the centre left comes under fire for not being extreme enough, as if that's some kind of failing. This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete? Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock? Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with? Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory? And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions. It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality.
Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won.
|
On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:
[quote]
This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete?
Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock?
Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with?
Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory?
And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions.
It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won.
Do you know care about collateral damage? Honest question.
|
On July 07 2017 01:49 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:34 nojok wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. What do you precisely expect from Trump outside of not running things like Clinton? What did he do until now which satisfies you and what did not? I think it would be a more interesting start for a discussion, let's forget Clinton even exists. We're lacking a bit of conservatives perspective in this thread. I would really like to know these things as well, since as much as he and others have railed against Hillary, talking about how we dodged a bullet, I don't actually know what they support in general, let alone with Trump specifically. Just this weird defense of "Trump is a fool but let me tell you all about why Hillary would have destroyed the country". Danglars in particular seems happy just to incite argument, without really bringing his own viewpoint into things. That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this.
It is an amazing logic. I am going to open my horseshit sandwich business soon. I am pretty sure that as soon as the supply is there, the demand will follow.
|
On July 07 2017 01:34 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. What do you precisely expect from Trump outside of not running things like Clinton? What did he do until now which satisfies you and what did not? I think it would be a more interesting start for a discussion, let's forget Clinton even exists. We're lacking a bit of conservatives perspective in this thread.
The three that Dangermouse found after refreshing the post he initially responded to. For Trump's presidency to be successful for the reasons I voted for him, he would have to add to Gorsuch a border wall (for the shitposters, not stretching every inch through umpassable terrain and sometimes fencing that works in San Diego today) and a full repeal of Obamacare. Trump will share the blame with congressional Republicans on the latter two if left unpassed. You can already show polling that voters are blaming congressional results more than Trump.
Conservatives within the GOP that voted for Trump and still support some of what he does are lacking here, but I don't always have the time to formulate and source-search the proof to advance the conservative argument. This is particularly hard in times when six or more people respond in different veins.
|
On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 03:26 Buckyman wrote:
[quote]
This is the same political left that subsidizes wind and solar power so heavily that other forms of renewable energy can't compete?
Or that threatened a boycott of an entire corporation because one executive says something off the clock?
Or, in the case of California, boycotts specific states whose social legislative agendas it disagrees with?
Or that in many states across many professions makes union membership effectively mandatory?
And that's before taking into account the "liberal religion" argument, which argues that American liberals have founded an atheist religion with all the accoutrements thereof and are trying to establish themselves as the official government religion by selectively using the establishment clause against other religions.
It seems like the Democratic party uses Enlightenment ideals only by coincidence. What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible? Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won.
What did he do which helped America's interests?
|
On July 07 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible?
Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won. Do you know care about collateral damage? Honest question.
You have to look at each foreign policy facet comprehensively and weigh the pros and cons. I think Obama hurt America's image abroad even despite the foreign media and polls reaction to his impressive oration and tone. You give away free stuff and deflect criticism (if believed) and nations might love yet not respect you or your interests. So when you say collateral damage, apart from the usual heartless conservative playbook line, I'd have to know more of what you meant to respond.
|
On July 07 2017 01:49 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 01:34 nojok wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. What do you precisely expect from Trump outside of not running things like Clinton? What did he do until now which satisfies you and what did not? I think it would be a more interesting start for a discussion, let's forget Clinton even exists. We're lacking a bit of conservatives perspective in this thread. I would really like to know these things as well, since as much as he and others have railed against Hillary, talking about how we dodged a bullet, I don't actually know what they support in general, let alone with Trump specifically. Just this weird defense of "Trump is a fool but let me tell you all about why Hillary would have destroyed the country". Danglars in particular seems happy just to incite argument, without really bringing his own viewpoint into things. That's... not how economics works. I don't know much, but I know this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say's_law. Someone will buy the coal, it's just a matter of how much they will pay for it and when.
|
On July 07 2017 02:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won. Do you know care about collateral damage? Honest question. You have to look at each foreign policy facet comprehensively and weigh the pros and cons. I think Obama hurt America's image abroad even despite the foreign media and polls reaction to his impressive oration and tone. You give away free stuff and deflect criticism (if believed) and nations might love yet not respect you or your interests. So when you say collateral damage, apart from the usual heartless conservative playbook line, I'd have to know more of what you meant to respond.
Let's start with possible mistreatment of American citizens abroad. Or countries closing military bases. Or trade agreements being restructured that harms American goods more. Or any other possibility that may come to fruition. It's a guessing game really but I would like your opinion on it.
Edit: As for Obama, go back to fiefdom. If I'm the king and I give you free food or more land to farm on, would you hate me?
|
I don’t agree with that assessment of Obama and I think the Republican controlled congress did more to hurt the US image abroad. But Trump’s term is in the very early stages of that part of the presidency, so it is hard to tell. But the opening act seems to say we are going to look like shit heels to the rest of the world by 2020. I said this through all of 2016: It is impossible to bully other nations unless bombing them is an option. Tough talk does not work long term because we have little power over other nations, even in trade.
|
On July 07 2017 02:17 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:18 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
What sorts of ideals permit the nomination and election of Donald Trump, a man whose word is not credible?
Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won. What did he do which helped America's interests?
America is not interested in signing big PR boondoggles like the Paris accords that bring the left fancy talking points about not meeting targets. Taking us out served America. And we spent a dozen or two dozen pages on why and why not in this very thread. He's however imperfectly and bull-heatedly signaled that Europe must pay more into NATO because it's not going to be a one-way street of protection and cost. For the rest see "future years of his presidency will see if" and "three cited." Even the shakeup to the political class exposing what a bubble our nation's capital lives is is very useful. Classified leak campaigns, administrative agency misbehavior, and the whole nine yards helps America onto the road back towards a representative republic and not governance by an unelected career bureaucrats (again, Trump is not effective in personally dismantling it, but the backlash against his election exposes it nonetheless. More accidental if you will, but a clown show is effective if 75% pretended they weren't clowns).
|
On July 07 2017 02:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2017 02:09 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 07 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:25 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 07 2017 01:10 Danglars wrote:On July 07 2017 01:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 22:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 19:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 06 2017 08:59 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 07:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You would vote for a man who insults the media who disagrees with him, lies to the media, denigrates the justice system, drop the biggest non-nuclear bomb randomly without regard to how civilian casualties will make America less safe, fights against bureaucracy that make the president accountable, whilst enriching his own singular monetary interest?
Somehow that should run countrary to your own professed interest would it not? I will vote for that man twice if it means denying an unequivocally worse president the white house. What part of "actively merits a return to the other choice in the election" do you not understand? That's the thing though. Your argument literal makes no sense. By your own criteria, Donald Trump is the worse candidate. He does the very opposite of what you want a president to do. He takes your criteria and makes it worse, whilst by your own reckoning Hillary Clinton would keep the current status which you view as deplorable. I don't really see how a negative change by Donald Trump is better than no change by Hillary Clinton to your criteria. Note that I am taking your assumptions at face value. The only way your argument makes any sense at all is if you are totally unaware what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Not even close, dangermouse. You really need to read the post you didn't quote and remind yourself of the positive changes I mentioned, add to it another originalist on the court, and try again. The current direction is catastrophic, the current status is simply one mark on a descent to societal collapse and poverty. The better guy won in 2016, full stop. The country dodged a bullet and Trump simply isn't competent enough to beat Hillary in her foreign state corruption, idiotic internationalism/globalism, politics of class and race war, regulation, and a host of others. You slow or stop the descent and that's a positive thing even if enacted by a bumbling fool. It's better for a little chaos up top than a slick operation to centralize even more power in Washington. It wouldn't take much reading on the history of conservatism to cure your "literal no sense" misunderstanding (deliberate perhaps) of the other side. What post I didn't mention? There's a few hundred posts on this thread a day. I'm not going to go trawling through a thousand posts looking for a post you haven't described. But at least you answered the question. You are simply unaware of what Donald Trump has been up to as president. Also it's a bit scary that you only seem able to talk in nonsensical soundbites. The post you responded too initially. I gave my reasons. You respond now that "he takes my criteria and makes it worse" without even touching on the reasons I consider him better. Try harder. He's bad in isolation, somewhere between moderately good and fantastic considering a fictional President Hillary Clinton. This nation dodged a bullet. Now let me suggest a return yourself to less than sound bites. When I say he's comparatively good, don't blindly rush off giving his bad reasons in isolation. He didn't run and win against Jesus incarnate. If you can extend your attention span for one second, you might realize that conservative values call everything Clinton proposed and was likely to do destructive to this country. The Flight 93 article is a good touchstone because it brings context that's totally lacking from your comprehension. Don't miss the forest for the trees, even if Trump's flashy outbursts are all sparkly to your eyes. This post Danglars? If there is another post, then it is up to you to post it, as I have no idea to what you are refering to. On July 06 2017 07:30 Danglars wrote:On July 06 2017 06:02 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:55 KwarK wrote:On July 06 2017 04:47 LegalLord wrote:On July 06 2017 04:27 Doodsmack wrote:On July 06 2017 04:20 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Keeping Hillary Clinton out could qualify as an ideal in my book. FWIW in 2020 I would vote Trump if it's Trump vs Clinton again. Keep in mind we're also talking about the nomination. This is an affirmative choice of Donald Trump. And I question why your vote would have changed, especially after seeing Trump in action after a couple months. Trump was the best Republican candidate so it's no surprise he won when the establishment backed a Bush then had no follow up when he got utterly brutalized. Vote changes because Trump may be bad but it's time for the Clinton Democrats to come to terms with the reality that their bullshit pursuit of putting an unelectable failure into office is a bigger threat to this country than Trump. Somehow they still haven't learned. The reality is that between Bernie and Clinton (who were the only options due to a week crop of candidates) Clinton better fit my ideology. Hopefully a better candidate comes along but I still think Clinton would have adequately represented my interests and generally been a good president. We get that you don't like her, you've said that plenty of times. But Clinton was the best option from a very limited pool and while I hope I get a better pool in future, if I don't get more options I'd still back her. You act like there are no centrists to whom she appealed and that the Democrats failed by not committing to a hard left populist alternative to Trump's populism. Maybe they failed you, they didn't fail me. I could see why people would choose Clinton over Sanders. They might have been wrong but seeing how the campaign went that is acceptable. What isn't is the whole "I don't like Hillary but I will shill for her till my last breath" phenomenon. No, she was a goddamn vile choice for president and she made it worse by showing she had no intention of changing or reaching outside her core base. If she refuses to step aside now she is merely enabling the Republicans and Trump to do their shit by promising to be marginally less bad. And I don't subscribe to your "Trump is fascism and worse than Hillary murdering people in the streets" as per your hyperbole from like eight months back. Four more years of buffoon would be infinitely preferable to another decade of the Clintonites hijacking the left and hampering progress. On July 06 2017 06:09 zlefin wrote:
legal, your claims of hillary's vileness as potential president are unfounded as usual; as is your broad claim of people shilling when in many cases they're doing far less than that yet you still call it shilling. no new ground to tread though; just old arguments you keep making over and over. Frankly, the endless repeat of calling Trump absolute trash and wondering why he's president and does what he does actively merits a return to the other choice in the election. He was the better general election candidate and I'd vote for him in 2020 if Dems return Hillary to their ticket for another try. If we had widespread acceptance of why he was elected, and particularly how some present actions are exactly what he was sent to office to do (say, media machine antagonism however ill-organized, America first rhetoric on foreign policy, fights against an unaccountable bureaucratic/administrative state with its own insulary interests), it wouldn't even need mentioning. That's the essential element missed by #Resist and Trump-as-fascist dialogue By your own critera, then yes, his present actions are contrary to your interests. You haven't described what he has been doing as President, only what his campaign broadly promised what he will do. The election is long gone and as can be seen his action create an evermore media biases, makes America less safe, and is intent on removing presidensial checks and balances in order to further enrich himself. That you can say these are positive simply means that you appear to be living in an alternate reality. Yes, that post. He's substantially delivered on the three cited. Future years of his presidency will see if he can change international coordination to further America's interests as well as other things. That you still deny Trump is partially doing what he was sent there to do is indicative of rejecting why he won. Do you know care about collateral damage? Honest question. You have to look at each foreign policy facet comprehensively and weigh the pros and cons. I think Obama hurt America's image abroad even despite the foreign media and polls reaction to his impressive oration and tone. You give away free stuff and deflect criticism (if believed) and nations might love yet not respect you or your interests. So when you say collateral damage, apart from the usual heartless conservative playbook line, I'd have to know more of what you meant to respond.
Obama was loved by not respected abroad?
As opposed to Trump? Who has turned the US into a literal laughing stock in the world?
NK sure looks to be 'respecting' Trump. They completely stopped missile tests after he threatened them... oh wait...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
