This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17351 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:

Whoa! Progressives can't scream for a $15 an hour minimum wage and then demand illegal cheap labor to keep wages down for low paying jobs. You want decent wages - ensure illegal labor isn't available.

I am not screaming for anything, I am just pointing out to you what the consequences of your wishes will be. Are you prepared to pay more for your products?

I believe putting more revenue in a person's pocket is a better solution to poverty than more welfare. In fact there have been studies that indicate welfare programs often extend the time someone is poor. Even the left leaning Brookings Institute admits this.

I think free and fair markets with minimal government interference are much more likely to result in someone being lifted out of poverty than is having an open border policy.

I ask again: Are you prepared to pay more for your food?

Avatar image for just_sayin
#17352 Posted by just_sayin (3295 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin said:
@outside_85 said:

Whoa! Progressives can't scream for a $15 an hour minimum wage and then demand illegal cheap labor to keep wages down for low paying jobs. You want decent wages - ensure illegal labor isn't available.

I am not screaming for anything, I am just pointing out to you what the consequences of your wishes will be. Are you prepared to pay more for your products?

I believe putting more revenue in a person's pocket is a better solution to poverty than more welfare. In fact there have been studies that indicate welfare programs often extend the time someone is poor. Even the left leaning Brookings Institute admits this.

I think free and fair markets with minimal government interference are much more likely to result in someone being lifted out of poverty than is having an open border policy.

I ask again: Are you prepared to pay more for your food?

Sure, if need be. And I'm prepared to pay less on welfare as free market principles are embraced. The real question is will progressives allow for free and fair markets.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17353 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

Sure, if need be. And I'm prepared to pay less on welfare as free market principles are embraced.

The real question is will progressives allow for free and fair markets.

You would have to, since getting rid of cheap labour will just raise prices. So you want to pay more for going to the doctor and I supposed you wouldn't mind them not fixing the holes in the road and maybe not spend as much on the armed forces as they do now?

Are you also prepared to tell the government and everyone else they can't use prison inmates in manufacturing? That the government isn't allowed to bail out banks, plane manufacturers or farmers? You do understand the 'fair and free' market you are asking for would probably ruin most of the US?

Avatar image for just_sayin
#17354 Posted by just_sayin (3295 posts) - - Show Bio

Sure, if need be. And I'm prepared to pay less on welfare as free market principles are embraced.

The real question is will progressives allow for free and fair markets.

You would have to, since getting rid of cheap labour will just raise prices. So you want to pay more for going to the doctor and I supposed you wouldn't mind them not fixing the holes in the road and maybe not spend as much on the armed forces as they do now?

Are you also prepared to tell the government and everyone else they can't use prison inmates in manufacturing? That the government isn't allowed to bail out banks, plane manufacturers or farmers? You do understand the 'fair and free' market you are asking for would probably ruin most of the US?

I believe strongly in fair markets. I don't think there should be minimum or maximum wages. I abhor crony socialism - where the government picks winners and losers or creates monopolies. I think one reason a doctor visit costs so much is because we do not have a true and open medical market in the US. Don't agree - go to a doctor and ask to see a list of his prices by procedure. He will not be able to give you one. His rates depend on agreements with 3rd parties. In fields where insurance is not used and people are quoted a price such as laser eye surgery we have seen prices drop dramatically.

For most roads, I think we would be better off turning over the responsibility to private companies and groups (hey, and the DOT is paying me a lot of money right now to build apps for them). And I want a strong military, but I will admit that the budget could probably be cut in many areas. My experience in working with the Federal government has taught me - most government departments can be reduced in size. I'd cut the Department of Education and give the money in block grants to the states. I'd reduce the Department of Energy to a fraction of its size (trust me, this one hurts me - they have the best federal cafeteria in DC). I wouldn't bail out banks, plane manufacturers or farmers. I'd turn over the responsibility of the TSA to the airports and airlines. I would establish a graduated plan and eliminate subsidies - yep, for farmers too. I'd attempt to do one time large cash payouts to American Indians and end that role in the DOI. I'd even give them the land they live on as long as the US didn't have to keep paying them any longer. I'd sell half of the empty 770,000 buildings the Federal government owns and I'd sale 10 - 20% of the Federally owned land in the Western United States. I'd work to end pensions in the government and switch to 401Ks because the pensions are not financially sustainable.

I am happy to let a prison inmate choose if they want to be have a job in manufacturing. I'd even give Hillary Clinton a job there.

You do understand that for most of the history of the US there was no need for a federal income tax, don't you? Fair and free markets work.

Avatar image for willpayton
#17355 Posted by willpayton (22062 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:

40 million people in the US are still living in poverty

Isn't it great that Trump is reducing poverty in the US?

Trump has done nothing at all that reduces poverty. I suppose you could point to the tax cuts, but in reality those are tiny for the poor and mostly go to the rich. And aside from that... what has he actually done? He's tried to destroy Obamacare, which is terrible for the poor. He's turned his back on the long-time Republican platform of free trade and he's causing a trade war that's killing jobs and raising prices... so again bad for the poor. He's tried to kill Net Neutrality which might very well lead to higher prices for internet access and less innovation, and he's making the debt skyrocket once again. Also bad for the poor.

So what has he done, other than tweet petty attacks on the media and the FBI, insult our allies, say how much he admires Putin, and make false claims about... well, about everything?

The truth is that the current economy is just a continuation of the Obama economy. That's just what the numbers show, and those charts and figures have been posted here many times. I know you want to ignore that and just claim that anything good that happens in the country is because of Trump, but that's just a fallacious argument... same as if I said that everything bad that happens in because of him. Neither statement would be true. If you want to claim that he's done something good, then you have to actually show how he did it, not just say that he gets credit because he's President.

Avatar image for boschepg
#17356 Posted by boschePG (6275 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: @just_sayin

please stop with the lie that the current economy is a continuation of the current economy. People would read it as if Trump didn't do anything then all the variables would have gone up under Hillary. That in itself is a fallacy. If you are saying that Trump took over a good economy than yes we can say that. Im just saying the statement itself is ambiguous.

I will wait to see it, but Trump did predict GDP growth would hit 5% next quarter. The shackles are off and this is more an organic growth. I don't agree with them, but I think the tariffs are a way to suppress the dollar for the rapid inflation adjustments the economy has been hitting. Obama never hit high of 3% with annual growth. We have talked about this numerous times, but I have to call it out every time I see it, cuz annual GDP growth sucked under Obama cuz he had regulations and thanks to the Federal Reserve, his numbers are highly suspect. I watch both CNBC and Fox Business like its my life. You cant do it with out stretching the truth.

On a side note, who said Trump is cutting into poverty? First Ive heard of it. Poverty really cant be touched without local government intervention.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17357 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:

Sure, if need be. And I'm prepared to pay less on welfare as free market principles are embraced.

The real question is will progressives allow for free and fair markets.

You would have to, since getting rid of cheap labour will just raise prices. So you want to pay more for going to the doctor and I supposed you wouldn't mind them not fixing the holes in the road and maybe not spend as much on the armed forces as they do now?

Are you also prepared to tell the government and everyone else they can't use prison inmates in manufacturing? That the government isn't allowed to bail out banks, plane manufacturers or farmers? You do understand the 'fair and free' market you are asking for would probably ruin most of the US?

I believe strongly in fair markets.
I don't think there should be minimum or maximum wages.
I abhor crony socialism - where the government picks winners and losers or creates monopolies.
I think one reason a doctor visit costs so much is because we do not have a true and open medical market in the US. Don't agree - go to a doctor and ask to see a list of his prices by procedure. He will not be able to give you one. His rates depend on agreements with 3rd parties. In fields where insurance is not used and people are quoted a price such as laser eye surgery we have seen prices drop dramatically.

For most roads, I think we would be better off turning over the responsibility to private companies and groups (hey, and the DOT is paying me a lot of money right now to build apps for them). And I want a strong military, but I will admit that the budget could probably be cut in many areas.
My experience in working with the Federal government has taught me - most government departments can be reduced in size. I'd cut the Department of Education and give the money in block grants to the states. I'd reduce the Department of Energy to a fraction of its size (trust me, this one hurts me - they have the best federal cafeteria in DC).
I wouldn't bail out banks, plane manufacturers or farmers.
I'd turn over the responsibility of the TSA to the airports and airlines. I would establish a graduated plan and eliminate subsidies - yep, for farmers too.
I'd attempt to do one time large cash payouts to American Indians and end that role in the DOI. I'd even give them the land they live on as long as the US didn't have to keep paying them any longer.
I'd sell half of the empty 770,000 buildings the Federal government owns and I'd sale 10 - 20% of the Federally owned land in the Western United States.
I'd work to end pensions in the government and switch to 401Ks because the pensions are not financially sustainable.

I am happy to let a prison inmate choose if they want to be have a job in manufacturing. I'd even give Hillary Clinton a job there.

You do understand that for most of the history of the US there was no need for a federal income tax, don't you? Fair and free markets work.

Normally, for conservatives, that's only part truth because you tend to prefer to keep the 'unfair' bits that give you an edge over others.
Which is very conservative, max wagers aren't an issue, what is an issue is that when you can give someone a job and legally pay them so little that they still cannot afford to live. The only people who want it that way are the people who have to be paying other people to work for them. And that kind of attitude begs the question, are you after workers and colleagues, or serfs?
That is quite nasty... but consider that you have to go to China and Russia to find these, I would say your fears are overdone. Not to mention the US gov already does this on their own with say airplanes... since Boeing and Lockheed can go crying to the US gov if they think foreign plane makers are being mean to them.
Wrong, prices are so high in the US because there is not being taken enough steps from the government to drive down prices from pharmaceutical companies. If you blew open the door for them, all you'd get is a huge price leap as every company with a patent (which many drugs are covered by) would seek to increase their profits. You remember 'Pharma Bro'? Thats what you'd get a hundred times over because no 2 drugs are exactly alike. The real problem is that medicine and treatments are not competitive, a lot of drugs are only made by one company that own a patent, and going to the doctor isn't like shopping around for a mechanic, because it's personal and it should be, because you might be trusting this doctor with your life and limbs.

So you want more toll and private roads? Or are you suggesting private companies lease a road they have to maintain for a contractual period? Because here is some news for you... thats not cheaper, and it's not a guarantee it will be any better because the best offer is very likely also the most problematic. We see it time and again, like with that company who won the job of restoring power to Puerto Rico... only for everyone to discover they had never done anything as big and were only something like 10 people.
I agree that streamlining and downsizing various non-essential departments within the government should be done. I disagree however that the Department of Education is a place to do it, because looking at the big picture, that department is the only thing stopping (or able to stop) there being created huge differences in how well educated American's are. I mean, do you want to wake up and live in a land where your prospects of a job is determined not by what time you left school, but by which state you grew up in? "I am sorry Toby, but you are from Wisconsin and we've been talking to this guy from California. You've both got the same grades and level of education... but you've got twelve spelling mistakes in your application, including my name."
So you'd be fine with the idea of General Motors, Boeing or Goldman-Sachs going bankrupt and possibly acquired by other entities? Brave.
And... that I think the airports and airlines would balk against because you are asking them to take change of national security, which is going to be hugely expensive for them and lead to nothing but grief... plus do you really want 'budget airport security'?
Which I have to say isn't going to work, partly because you are suggesting they set up their own nations... which a lot of people would oppose strongly, the Native Americans would be unhappy because it would never match their own hopes or able to support their way of life. And ofc there is that small matter of pretending that stuff will just sort itself out if you throw money at it. It's a noble idea I give you that, but it needs a much better plan for it to work... otherwise you risk it turning into Iraq all over again with most of the money tagged for rebuilding ending up being stolen or misused.
Or you could demolish the buildings and lease out the plot of land it's standing on. Let me guess, the federally owned land in the western US... those are national parks aren't they? I'd say thats a stupid idea... here is a unique piece of nature that's taken millions of years to form into something that doesn't exists anywhere else in the world, lets rip it up and build an apartment block with a 7-11.Maybe thats an idea. But I think a better one would be to make the IRS actually work and perhaps more importantly, stop the insanity that allows corporations like Google, Apple or Amazon to basically avoid paying taxes. Maybe it's just me, but states and cities are just giving up too damn much these days to attract those kinds of companies, so much in fact I wonder why would even want them?

Thats the thing, inmates don't have a choice whenever they want to work or not, they either do or they end up in solitary or something. And because they barely get any pay for it, it means it's impossible for companies who don't have inmate labour to compete with them.

And for most of US history, you didn't have proper schools, you didn't have telephones, rails, most of your roads were dirt-tracks for horses and you could pretty much live out your entire life in a small town in Arizona and only leave it twice for the next town. Things have changed since 1850.

Avatar image for willpayton
#17358 Posted by willpayton (22062 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg said:

please stop with the lie that the current economy is a continuation of the current economy. People would read it as if Trump didn't do anything then all the variables would have gone up under Hillary. That in itself is a fallacy. If you are saying that Trump took over a good economy than yes we can say that. Im just saying the statement itself is ambiguous.

I've posted the charts before showing that the current trends in the economy are for the most part just a continuation from the Obama years. That's just a fact, and it's how economies work since they usually coast on auto-pilot and Presidents dont do that much to affect them... usually. Presidents cant positively affect the economy that much, but they can very easily negatively affect it. In other words, breaking a thing is much easier than creating it in the first place.

The reason I think so far the economy has shrugged off much of the negative actions from Trump is because the markets believe that he wont actually go all the way with what he's threatening, or that other factors will temper him. However, eventually all this trade war stuff and the rising debt and the hostility with our trading partners will start to have an effect. And at that point, you cant just tweet some b.s. and make the economy turn around.

@boschepg said:

I will wait to see it, but Trump did predict GDP growth would hit 5% next quarter.

I have no idea what he said about the GDP, but even if he did... so what? Trump says a lot of things. He also said that he was going to give health insurance to everyone in the U.S. after getting rid of Obamacare, and eliminate the entire national debt.

@boschepg said:

The shackles are off and this is more an organic growth.

Are you talking about the tax cuts? If so, they wont help the economy much. Corporations were already sitting on record amounts of cash, so making even more profits wont make them hire anyone else. Supply side economics just doesnt work because markets are not driven by supply, they're driven by demand.

@boschepg said:

I don't agree with them, but I think the tariffs are a way to suppress the dollar for the rapid inflation adjustments the economy has been hitting. Obama never hit high of 3% with annual growth. We have talked about this numerous times, but I have to call it out every time I see it, cuz annual GDP growth sucked under Obama cuz he had regulations and thanks to the Federal Reserve, his numbers are highly suspect. I watch both CNBC and Fox Business like its my life. You cant do it with out stretching the truth.

The GDP growth is still basically the same as under Obama. One good quarter doesnt mean the entire year will be like that. They even say as much in the Fortune article you linked to.

@boschepg said:

On a side note, who said Trump is cutting into poverty? First Ive heard of it. Poverty really cant be touched without local government intervention.

Well that was just_sayin's claim.

Avatar image for willpayton
#17359 Posted by willpayton (22062 posts) - - Show Bio

You do understand that for most of the history of the US there was no need for a federal income tax, don't you? Fair and free markets work.

And we also had slavery, and child labor, monopolies, and rampant environmental destruction, abuse of workers, corruption, etc, etc. The U.S. was also a much different country early on, being mostly agricultural and not the global superpower it is today. How do you think America became a superpower, sent men to the Moon, and invented the internet? Hint: it has to do with government spending.

This idea that we had some free market paradise or that things were so much better in the past is total b.s.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#17360 Posted by just_sayin (3295 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg said:

@willpayton: @just_sayin

please stop with the lie that the current economy is a continuation of the current economy. People would read it as if Trump didn't do anything then all the variables would have gone up under Hillary. That in itself is a fallacy. If you are saying that Trump took over a good economy than yes we can say that. Im just saying the statement itself is ambiguous.

I will wait to see it, but Trump did predict GDP growth would hit 5% next quarter. The shackles are off and this is more an organic growth. I don't agree with them, but I think the tariffs are a way to suppress the dollar for the rapid inflation adjustments the economy has been hitting. Obama never hit high of 3% with annual growth. We have talked about this numerous times, but I have to call it out every time I see it, cuz annual GDP growth sucked under Obama cuz he had regulations and thanks to the Federal Reserve, his numbers are highly suspect. I watch both CNBC and Fox Business like its my life. You cant do it with out stretching the truth.

On a side note, who said Trump is cutting into poverty? First Ive heard of it. Poverty really cant be touched without local government intervention.

Hey @boschepg the Trump/GOP recovery has increased the wages of 90% of wage earners. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation:

“We find that the average household and the average married couple with two kids in every congressional district in every state benefit from the tax cut, both in 2018 and over the next 10 years. Nationally, average households will save $1,400, and married couples with two children will save $2,918 in 2018,” said the backgrounder.

It also said that factoring in other tax cut impacts, “the typical American household will benefit from more than $26,000 in increased take-home pay between 2018 and 2027. The average family of four can expect over $44,000 of increased take-home pay.”

The Trump/GOP recovery is putting a lot of money back in the wage earner's pocket. This creates jobs - which reduces poverty. Did you see that black and Hispanic unemployment rate are at record lows? 500 companies gave bonuses out this past year! Many of these companies that awarded $1000 bonuses have lower paying workers such as Lowes, Home Depot, and Walmart. Several of these same companies raised their base pay due to the corporate tax cut. This too helps lift people out of poverty.

Now I agree that if you are in a blue state like California, which has the highest poverty rate in the US at 20.6%, then it will take a lot more help for you to overcome your blue state's oppressive policies. Did you know that California has the highest state tax in the country? That's a punitive tax that disproportionately hurts the poor. Its high energy and gax taxes on top of its policies that make housing unaffordable also disproportionately hurt the poor. So yes, we need to elect more Republicans in blue states to truly free the oppressed, but Trump is off to a great start.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17361 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

Good thing that family of four saves almost 3.000$ a year on taxes, they can now spend them all on covering for the increased prices due to the trade wars Trump has started.

Avatar image for dernman
#17362 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85: What would you have done with trade and tariffs problem? US was getting screwed and talking wasn't going to convince them to make it equal. Why would they when they're making bank? Just keep getting screwed? I'm not saying Trump handled it well but it seemed like nobody else was really doing anything about it.

It's just one of many issues where two sides argue and play lip service arguing something is a problem and something must be done but nobody does anything about it. Problems like these were just gets worse and worse each year and are like a noose around the country.

I won't argue that Trump made things better. I don't have that type of confidence in him. Will it be bad short term and good long term? The opposite? I don't know. Time will tell but at least we have a chance for change. Hopefully when the next guy gets elected he will take the opportunity he's been given and make it better than it was before. I'd hate to waste this chance.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17363 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman: How about striking better deals? Or at least differentiate on the big picture where the actual problem is? Like lets take Canada as an example, you have a trade surplus there, but Trump's made it out to be a deficit by narrowing it down to a few fields like steel. Or lashing out against EU car-makers because they export alot to the US and not the other way around... (ignoring that Europeans dont really like most American cars).

And perhaps it wouldn't be that way if the US government, year after year, didn't allow the spending ceiling to rise and rise regardless of if you can get the money or not. The impression is that the US is like a low-wage worker who has to live pay-check by pay-check.

Change, certainly... the problem is if it will be good change because Trump has decided that besides the tariffs, along with them he also needed to slander and insult the various targets of his tariffs, and if anyone tries to correct them, he doubles down and insults them all over again promising even more tariffs. Point is that he is not laying the grounds for an easy fix for the next president who likely has to apologize to everyone before talks can begin.

Avatar image for dernman
#17364 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85: How about striking better deals? Or at least differentiate on the big picture where the actual problem is? Like lets take Canada as an example, you have a trade surplus there, but Trump's made it out to be a deficit by narrowing it down to a few fields like steel. Or lashing out against EU car-makers because they export alot to the US and not the other way around... (ignoring that Europeans dont really like most American cars).

You say that but how? The ones who were benefiting off of it like China liked it the way and were not giving it up without a fight. Each yea politicians played lip service but NOTHING changed because they new that. The problem remained and we kept losing more and more while they benefited more and more. You don't like the way he did it ok (not saying I like his unpresidential behavior either) but at least he's doing something to change the game..

And perhaps it wouldn't be that way if the US government, year after year, didn't allow the spending ceiling to rise and rise regardless of if you can get the money or not. The impression is that the US is like a low-wage worker who has to live pay-check by pay-check.

  1. Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't fix or change anything.
  2. Another problem everyone complains about and does nothing

Change, certainly... the problem is if it will be good change because Trump has decided that besides the tariffs, along with them he also needed to slander and insult the various targets of his tariffs, and if anyone tries to correct them, he doubles down and insults them all over again promising even more tariffs. Point is that he is not laying the grounds for an easy fix for the next president who likely has to apologize to everyone before talks can begin.

Yes that the issue IF. Something we wont know until time passes because don't fool yourself even if we were going to have good change in the future there were going to be rough short term. Shit wasn't going to change without a fight because to fix the problem to be more beneficial to the U.S. it means less beneficial to them who've been making bank on the how things were. Like I said you may not like the way he's doing it but at least he's doing something which I didn't see anyone else actually doing.

You want to play the woulda shoulda game? We wouldn't be in this position if someone woulda shoulda coulda done something before he got into office. Maybe then he wouldn't be in the office if they had done something.

It was never going to be easy. The hardest part was taking the first step. You worry that they MAY have to spend their time apologizing yet fail realize they probably be doing the same kind of nothing everyone else was doing if he didn't. It's up to the new guy if he can turn this opportunity into a positive or not.

At least now even if they do apologize they can say in the same breath now lets work this deal that everyone benefits because we're not going back to the way things were. If you don't have a backbone, to challenge them, to willing to do a stare down you're not going to get anything.

-----------------------

All you're giving me is the same lip service we've heard for years long before trump came into office. Just noise and nothing more.

I'm not saying I like Trumps performance, nor do I look forward to any hard times but if you're imagining that any fix wasn't going to be a down and dirty fight with hard times then your fooling yourself. It was for reasons like that nobody wanted to actually do something about it.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17365 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

You say that but how? The ones who were benefiting off of it like China liked it the way and were not giving it up without a fight. Each yea politicians played lip service but NOTHING changed because they new that. The problem remained and we kept losing more and more while they benefited more and more. You don't like the way he did it ok (not saying I like his unpresidential behavior either) but at least he's doing something to change the game..

He is picking a fight with the very people he needs to address the actual problem, and worse, he is crafting an image of them being part of that same problem. What he needs is negotiations to happen, and he needs allies to back him up, but the ones that would have come and helped him all got kicked as well.

  1. Woulda shoulda coulda doesn't fix or change anything.
  2. Another problem everyone complains about and does nothing

No, and America has for decades not wanted to fix its problems. And Trump isn't going to fix this one, because even if he gets better trade deals, which I doubt he will, Congress needs to have the balls to not keep raising the spending ceiling every 6 months or so... but you know Paul Ryan is still here :S

Yes that the issue IF. Something we wont know until time passes because don't fool yourself even if we were going to have good change in the future there were going to be rough short term. Shit wasn't going to change without a fight because to fix the problem to be more beneficial to the U.S. it means less beneficial to them who've been making bank on the how things were. Like I said you may not like the way he's doing it but at least he's doing something which I didn't see anyone else actually doing.

He is rocking the boat, but if he keeps on rocking it, he is going to flip it over. However you wont know he has before a world leader stands up on a podium and point blank refuses to even talk to the US before this is scaled down a notch.

You want to play the woulda shoulda game? We wouldn't be in this position if someone woulda shoulda coulda done something before he got into office. Maybe then he wouldn't be in the office if they had done something.

Trade wasn't what got Trump into office, you know that, you also know how little his base actually cares about anything outside of the US borders, or their own states in some cases. Secondly the US was not in a terrible place beforehand, not with Europe, not with Canada or Mexico. The problem is and has always been China, but Trump decided the best fight he could pick was with everyone else along with China.

It was never going to be easy. The hardest part was taking the first step.

Over the edge and into a ditch while everyone looked on. It's very much Trump on the international stage again, America First simply means America Alone because no one is amused by his antics.

Avatar image for dernman
#17366 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

He is picking a fight with the very people he needs to address the actual problem, and worse, he is crafting an image of them being part of that same problem. What he needs is negotiations to happen, and he needs allies to back him up, but the ones that would have come and helped him all got kicked as well.

It was always going to be a fight. Who says they're not? It's a complicated multi faceted issue. Not all lines are clearly 100% drawn. I bet you many of them would have been just fine keeping t the status quo.

No, and America has for decades not wanted to fix its problems.

Yes and no shit that's what i've been saying which is a problem in itself.

And Trump isn't going to fix this one, because even if he gets better trade deals, which I doubt he will, Congress needs to have the balls to not keep raising the spending ceiling every 6 months or so... but you know Paul Ryan is still here :S

I never claimed he would. Are you even reading what I'm saying are you just arguing anything that isn't totally trashing Trump?

He is rocking the boat,

Exactly which could lead to change. Good or bad is up to more than just him.

It's funny how on one hand you give him all the power to ruin things but even if for arguments sake had a good idea no power to do the opposite.

but if he keeps on rocking it, he is going to flip it over. However you wont know he has before a world leader stands up on a podium and point blank refuses to even talk to the US before this is scaled down a notch.

You don't know that. Only time can tell. At least we have an opportunity where as before we didn't because nobody was doing anything about it. It takes action that nobody was taking. Don't forget any action like that would also harm themselves. So giving the impression that they can have a backbone and take a stand but the US can't. Reverse what you said. You ever think this is America saying I refuse until you scale down a notch. No you're just giving the same do nothing argument that gave people the excuse to do nothing when someone wanted to do something. You might not like how Trump is taking his stand (again I don't either) but make no mistake a stand was going to need to take a stand and say "that's it. This won't continue any longer." It was going to lead to a fight and thats the only way anything was going to ever change.

Secondly the US was not in a terrible place beforehand, not with Europe, not with Canada or Mexico. The problem is and has always been China, but Trump decided the best fight he could pick was with everyone else along with China.

Wrong. The US wasn't in a good place. You can bury your head in the sand all you want the the US has many problems that as been putting it in a decline and bad trade deals is one of them. For fracks sake you'd really twist anything just to make Trump and those who follow him into devils.

Over the edge and into a ditch while everyone looked on. It's very much Trump on the international stage again, America First simply means America Alone because no one is amused by his antics.

US was already spiraling.. At least we have an opportunity now. We can fail or can pull through to something better but make no mistake we already on a steady course to worse each year because nobody would do anything. Sometimes we can make something good out of something bad that happens but not if your not willing to do something.

----------------------------

I moved this from the middle to the end because I wanted to make things clear how I view any further talk on the subject with you now and didn't want you to get the wrong idea.

Trade wasn't what got Trump into office, you know that, you also know how little his base actually cares about anything outside of the US borders, or their own states in some cases.

oh here we go. Let me guess blah blah blah racist white men. blah blah blah keep the pocs down blah blah keep woman down.

There were many reasons he got into office. The one just one of them. Not to mention things like -ist accusations as the only reason one would follow him was another

At least now I know I can stop taking anything you say seriously. I'm done.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17367 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

It was always going to be a fight. Who says they're not? It's a complicated multi faceted issue. Not all lines are clearly 100% drawn. I bet you many of them would have been just fine keeping t the status quo.

Well, simply put... why would they help him? The rest of the world knows Trump is a narcissistic idiot, and going along with him only fuels his ego. You know there is a specific reasons why the EU has targeted the products they did and not stuff like Silicon Valley.
And yes, ofc others would like to see it continue if they dont consider it to be broken. US trading with Canada was not broken beforehand, but it might be now.

Yes and not shit that's what i've been saying which is a problem in itself.

No, because you are talking about something else. Fixing one small hole in your boat is not going to stop it sinking if you dont fix the big one.

I never claimed he would. Are you even reading what I'm saying are you just arguing anything that isn't totally trashing Trump?

I am afraid you dont understand the issue here... you dont solve one problem by making a bigger one.

Exactly which could lead to change. Good or bad is up to more than just him.

It's funny how on one hand you give him all the power to ruin things but even if for arguments sake had a good idea no power to do the opposite.

But it wasn't a good idea, because he ultimately wants to boat to go somewhere else than it is now, and he's threatening to sink it taking himself and everyone with it as it goes down.

You don't know that. Only time can tell. At least we have an opportunity where as before we didn't because nobody was doing anything about it. It takes action that nobody was taking. Don't forget any action like that would also harm themselves. So giving the impression that they can have a backbone and take a stand but the US can't. Reverse what you said. You ever think this is America saying I refuse until you scale down a notch. No you're just giving the same do nothing argument that gave people the excuse to do nothing when someone wanted to do something. You might not like how Trump is taking his stand (again I don't either) but make no mistake a stand was going to need to take a stand and say "that's it. This won't continue any longer." It was going to lead to a fight and thats the only way anything was going to ever change.

You had an opportunity all along to mend things with your allies, and all you'd need to do was pick up the phone and make a call. But instead we have this schoolyard pissing contest and everyone is just ending up with soggy pants.
Thing is the US does not need to 'take a stand' the US is the biggest single economy in the world and if you wanted to, you could trundle any single country into the ground. But in the past you've been generous enough to be fair and realize you are a big boy and you get more out of being reasonable and not a pants wetting bully. And like Captain America, you have to stand up to bullies, or else they wont stop, doesn't matter if they are called Xi, Putin or Trump, they are all the same.

Now I know I can stop taking anything you say seriously. There were many reasons he got into office. The one just one of them.

No, because trade was not a big part of his talking points on the campaign trail, bashing Hillary, building a wall to Mexico, a spoonfull of racism and the undefined idea of 'making America great again' was what got him there... with the helping hand of the system. Secondly, lets just be brutally honest here and examine the kind of people who turn up at Trump rallies... it's not bankers, people who work in exports or the citizens of the world, is it?

Wrong. The US wasn't in a good place. You can bury your head in the sand all you want the the US has many problems that as been putting it in a decline and bad trade deals is one of them. For fracks sake you'd really twist anything just to make Trump and those who follow him into devils.

Because they are idiots and going to run America into the ground, wake up and smell the coffee dude. Trump is single-handedly destroying the leading status America has maintained in the world since the end of the second world war, everyone has been pretty happy up to this point, except now we have a generation of American politicians who can't do a budget and it has to become everyone else's problem?

Here is a quick fix that would free up tons of your money: Cut the military budget down by 25%, you already spend twice as much as China does and halving your lead in military spending means you still remain far ahead. But hey that's never going to happen is it?

US was already spiraling.. At least we have an opportunity now. We can fail or can pull through to something better but make no mistake we already on a steady course to worse each year because nobody would do anything. Sometimes we can make something good out of something bad that happens but not if your not willing to do something.

And you could have been sensible when trying to stop it, but no, you had to go and unleash a pie throwing clown in the Louvre.

Avatar image for dernman
#17368 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85: Stop just stop. You have no credibility after that comment.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17369 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

@outside_85: Stop just stop. You have no credibility after that comment.

As if you had any to begin with.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#17370 Edited by just_sayin (3295 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:

Normally, for conservatives, that's only part truth because you tend to prefer to keep the 'unfair' bits that give you an edge over others.

Which is very conservative, max wagers aren't an issue, what is an issue is that when you can give someone a job and legally pay them so little that they still cannot afford to live. The only people who want it that way are the people who have to be paying other people to work for them. And that kind of attitude begs the question, are you after workers and colleagues, or serfs?

Wait, aren't you the guy wanting cheap illegal labor? Where I live, I can see a lot of people who would work for FREE in some of the organizations on K street, if given the chance. They would do so because the experience would then mean they could make a significantly better wage. Minimum wage laws hurt the least skilled workers. These laws price them out of the market. If your skills are not worth whatever the minimum wage is to your employer, then you are unemployable. Most people transition out of minimum wage jobs into higher paying jobs. The job affords them the opportunity to gain experience and skills for higher paying jobs. If a teenager applies for $15 minimum wage job, but her skills are only worth $10 an hour to the owner, what will happen to her? She will be fired and will not be able to find a job. Low paying jobs are needed as rungs on a ladder for the least skilled to get an opportunity to move up in the world.

Your comment assumes that people will work for any wage offered to them, but the Chicago bakery example I showed you suggests otherwise. The owner must offer a fair wage or he will lose his employees to someone who will.

That is quite nasty... but consider that you have to go to China and Russia to find these, I would say your fears are overdone. Not to mention the US gov already does this on their own with say airplanes... since Boeing and Lockheed can go crying to the US gov if they think foreign plane makers are being mean to them.

Wrong, prices are so high in the US because there is not being taken enough steps from the government to drive down prices from pharmaceutical companies. If you blew open the door for them, all you'd get is a huge price leap as every company with a patent (which many drugs are covered by) would seek to increase their profits. You remember 'Pharma Bro'? Thats what you'd get a hundred times over because no 2 drugs are exactly alike. The real problem is that medicine and treatments are not competitive, a lot of drugs are only made by one company that own a patent, and going to the doctor isn't like shopping around for a mechanic, because it's personal and it should be, because you might be trusting this doctor with your life and limbs.

You think government is the solution???!!! Dude, are you brain damaged? I hope not, cause in Canada it will take you at least 11 months to see a neurologist. That's what happens when governments run healthcare - long, long, long lines and healthcare that cuts corners and is not innovative.

In the UK, the NHS will not allow certain surgeries for smokers or the obese so they can reduce their costs. Further, the UK discriminates against the aged and does not allow cancer screenings after the age of 65 and prioritizes the young for things like hip and knee replacements. Do these discriminatory practices improve the quality of health care for those denied? I don't think so. Does waiting for hours in an ambulance until there is room for you to be admitted to an emergency room, improve or lessen the likelihood of a positive health outcome, because having to wait for hours to be admitted to the emergency room happens frequently in the UK. Sure the US could lower its medicine bills through government negotiation. But the US government wants the drug companies to be able to pay lots more in taxes, so the government has opposing agendas - helping the sick and getting money from taxes. Remember that the US has a lot more drug companies here than other countries. So guess who wins out? If you said, higher taxes, then give yourself a cookie. If there were a true capitalist system, drug companies would have to respond to the demands of the consumer more. Governments will always put their needs before individuals. Socialism 101: The needs of the bureaucrat come first. The needs of everyone else will only be addressed when they can help meet the needs of the bureaucrat.

So you want more toll and private roads? Or are you suggesting private companies lease a road they have to maintain for a contractual period? Because here is some news for you... thats not cheaper, and it's not a guarantee it will be any better because the best offer is very likely also the most problematic. We see it time and again, like with that company who won the job of restoring power to Puerto Rico... only for everyone to discover they had never done anything as big and were only something like 10 people.

You must not be familiar with the waste in government. Here's John Stossel explaining why private roads would be better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a2EhgADVFY&t=70s

I agree that streamlining and downsizing various non-essential departments within the government should be done. I disagree however that the Department of Education is a place to do it, because looking at the big picture, that department is the only thing stopping (or able to stop) there being created huge differences in how well educated American's are. I mean, do you want to wake up and live in a land where your prospects of a job is determined not by what time you left school, but by which state you grew up in? "I am sorry Toby, but you are from Wisconsin and we've been talking to this guy from California. You've both got the same grades and level of education... but you've got twelve spelling mistakes in your application, including my name."

The DOT started in late 1979. So for most of US history we have done without this Department, and if we are being honest, the educational outcomes of US students were better before the DOT started. Most educational decisions in the US are made at the local level as should be if you believe in the constitution. Local governments are better able to design programs to meet the needs of the kids that attend their schools. What works in an inner city in New York will not necessarily work in the mega rich suburbs of Northern Virginia or Maryland.

So you'd be fine with the idea of General Motors, Boeing or Goldman-Sachs going bankrupt and possibly acquired by other entities? Brave.

Yes. I would. That would mean, that government must have a minimum role in dictating how they do their business. Part of the financial crisis was due to government demanding people be given home loans who should not have been given them. I believe the government should not be in the business of picking winners or losers. I have no problem with allowing chapter 7 or 11 - provided that the taxpayer is the first to be repaid.

And... that I think the airports and airlines would balk against because you are asking them to take change of national security, which is going to be hugely expensive for them and lead to nothing but grief... plus do you really want 'budget airport security'?

Airports should pay for it. And if they did, it would cost less and take less time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvwYVJxW1Oo

Which I have to say isn't going to work, partly because you are suggesting they set up their own nations... which a lot of people would oppose strongly, the Native Americans would be unhappy because it would never match their own hopes or able to support their way of life. And ofc there is that small matter of pretending that stuff will just sort itself out if you throw money at it. It's a noble idea I give you that, but it needs a much better plan for it to work... otherwise you risk it turning into Iraq all over again with most of the money tagged for rebuilding ending up being stolen or misused.

The American Indians disproportionately live in poverty exactly because of the government and because the do not own their own land. Giving them a decent cash amount and the land would put them on the way to prosperity and allow us to shut down that part of the DOI.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-government-keeps-native-americans-in-poverty/#31feabfc2c27

Or you could demolish the buildings and lease out the plot of land it's standing on. Let me guess, the federally owned land in the western US... those are national parks aren't they? I'd say thats a stupid idea... here is a unique piece of nature that's taken millions of years to form into something that doesn't exists anywhere else in the world, lets rip it up and build an apartment block with a 7-11.Maybe thats an idea. But I think a better one would be to make the IRS actually work and perhaps more importantly, stop the insanity that allows corporations like Google, Apple or Amazon to basically avoid paying taxes. Maybe it's just me, but states and cities are just giving up too damn much these days to attract those kinds of companies, so much in fact I wonder why would even want them?

I don't think you realize just how much land the US government owns. The US federal government owns a grand total of 640 million acres of land. The sum of all that acreage adds up to about 28% of the nation's total surface, 2.27 billion acres. Developed Land- Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S., yet this small land base is home to 75 percent of the population.

Thats the thing, inmates don't have a choice whenever they want to work or not, they either do or they end up in solitary or something. And because they barely get any pay for it, it means it's impossible for companies who don't have inmate labour to compete with them.

The constitution specifically allows for this. Further, the industries are scattered to have minimum impact on the greater market. Do you know how hard it is to get a job as an ex-con? Those extra skills can be game changers.

And for most of US history, you didn't have proper schools, you didn't have telephones, rails, most of your roads were dirt-tracks for horses and you could pretty much live out your entire life in a small town in Arizona and only leave it twice for the next town. Things have changed since 1850.

Avatar image for dernman
#17371 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

@outside_85: Stop just stop. You have no credibility after that comment.

As if you had any to begin with.

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17372 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Avatar image for dernman
#17373 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Actually it's people like you who got him elected. If you didn't make every excuse for under the sun for why hillary isn't so bad. If you weren't bull shitting, twisting and outright lying at times or making shit up for every little thing so much and just stuck to the legit things he wouldn't have been elected. It was Hillary's election to lose. There was noway he was going to win but you people sure made it happen didn't you. Well buck up because your chickens have come home to roost and you only have yourself to blame.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17374 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Actually it's people like you who got him elected. If you didn't make every excuse for under the sun for why hillary isn't so bad. If you weren't bull shitting, twisting and outright lying at times or making shit up for every little thing so much and just stuck to the legit things he wouldn't have been elected. It was Hillary's election to lose. There was noway he was going to win but you people sure made it happen didn't you. Well buck up because your chickens have come home to roost and you only have yourself to blame.

And thus the stupid MAGA cap appeared on your head.

Avatar image for dragonborn_ct
#17375 Posted by Dragonborn_CT (26376 posts) - - Show Bio

Sounds like we gonna have to call the moderators to curb the unruly members of this thread.

Avatar image for dernman
#17376 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Actually it's people like you who got him elected. If you didn't make every excuse for under the sun for why hillary isn't so bad. If you weren't bull shitting, twisting and outright lying at times or making shit up for every little thing so much and just stuck to the legit things he wouldn't have been elected. It was Hillary's election to lose. There was noway he was going to win but you people sure made it happen didn't you. Well buck up because your chickens have come home to roost and you only have yourself to blame.

And thus the stupid MAGA cap appeared on your head.

smh

Again you prove yourself to be acting like a poster boy of the none reasonable section of the anti trump crowd. I've said the guy is a fool and isn't president material. I've downright said there is legit reason to hate and not want this person to be president. Enough not to get the guy elected. Hell I even said I didn't like the way he handled it. Yet you ignore ALL of that to demonize anyone who doesn't lose their shit and any reason they might have at the mere thought of him as whatever new stupid label you come up with the day.

You've done a good job self destructing. I don't think I could have done a good a job destroying your credibility as you've done yourself in such a short span of time..

Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#17377 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22566 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Actually it's people like you who got him elected. If you didn't make every excuse for under the sun for why hillary isn't so bad. If you weren't bull shitting, twisting and outright lying at times or making shit up for every little thing so much and just stuck to the legit things he wouldn't have been elected. It was Hillary's election to lose. There was noway he was going to win but you people sure made it happen didn't you. Well buck up because your chickens have come home to roost and you only have yourself to blame.

I think you're both right

Avatar image for dernman
#17378 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@dragonborn_ct said:

Sounds like we gonna have to call the moderators to curb the unruly members of this thread.

Who me?

Couldn't be.

Then who?

@just_sayin stole the cookie from the cookie jar.

Avatar image for dernman
#17379 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for dragonborn_ct
#17380 Posted by Dragonborn_CT (26376 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman: Obviously it isn't you. Its the one guy I won't name that is emulating this guy....

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for buttersdaman000
#17381 Posted by buttersdaman000 (22566 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

@buttersdaman000: What do you think my position is in the argument is?

That overly sensitive/overly anti-Trump people and narratives pushed some people towards voting for trump when they likely wouldn't have otherwise.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17382 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Actually it's people like you who got him elected. If you didn't make every excuse for under the sun for why hillary isn't so bad. If you weren't bull shitting, twisting and outright lying at times or making shit up for every little thing so much and just stuck to the legit things he wouldn't have been elected. It was Hillary's election to lose. There was noway he was going to win but you people sure made it happen didn't you. Well buck up because your chickens have come home to roost and you only have yourself to blame.

And thus the stupid MAGA cap appeared on your head.

smh

Again you prove yourself to be acting like a poster boy of the none reasonable section of the anti trump crowd. I've said the guy is a fool and isn't president material. I've downright said there is legit reason to hate and not want this person to be president. Enough not to get the guy elected. Hell I even said I didn't like the way he handled it. Yet you ignore ALL of that to demonize anyone who doesn't lose their shit and any reason they might have at the mere thought of him as whatever new stupid label you come up with the day.

You've done a good job self destructing. I don't think I could have done a good a job destroying your credibility as you've done yourself in such a short span of time..

True fact, I dont care if you think I am a posterboy for anti-trumpism, what I do care about is that you thought 'hold on, he might have some good bits, he can't be worse than Hillary'. Yet he was and you were stupid enough not to believe your own eyes.

Avatar image for dernman
#17383 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Actually it's people like you who got him elected. If you didn't make every excuse for under the sun for why hillary isn't so bad. If you weren't bull shitting, twisting and outright lying at times or making shit up for every little thing so much and just stuck to the legit things he wouldn't have been elected. It was Hillary's election to lose. There was noway he was going to win but you people sure made it happen didn't you. Well buck up because your chickens have come home to roost and you only have yourself to blame.

And thus the stupid MAGA cap appeared on your head.

smh

Again you prove yourself to be acting like a poster boy of the none reasonable section of the anti trump crowd. I've said the guy is a fool and isn't president material. I've downright said there is legit reason to hate and not want this person to be president. Enough not to get the guy elected. Hell I even said I didn't like the way he handled it. Yet you ignore ALL of that to demonize anyone who doesn't lose their shit and any reason they might have at the mere thought of him as whatever new stupid label you come up with the day.

You've done a good job self destructing. I don't think I could have done a good a job destroying your credibility as you've done yourself in such a short span of time..

True fact, I dont care if you think I am a posterboy for anti-trumpism, what I do care about is that you thought 'hold on, he might have some good bits, he can't be worse than Hillary'. Yet he was and you were stupid enough not to believe your own eyes.

It doesn't matter what I think. Your own words condemn you.

Your insistence on playing that stupid game of blah blah oh he's worse than her all or she's worse than him blah blah is pathetic. Your insistence to defend that shit show Hillary is pathetic and shows your true color. The difference here is she was better at hiding it and played the PR game way better than him. Despite all the shit her camp did people are still defending her. Even the more reasonable trump haters said she sucked.

I've said I don't like the guy. I've said he isn't a good president but because I don't go far enough in blind hatred you have the audacity to call anyone else stupid!!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with you dude? See a therapist. I'm not even joking to take a dig at you here. You're coming off as those unhinged people you hear about in the news that think it's ok to attack people.

Next you'll tell me Antifa are not a bad group.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17384 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

Says the person so blinded by hate they can't see strait. Stop acting like a stereotypical anti trump poster boy that Trump supporters use to make him look more legit than he is.

How about you stop being an enabler, it's people like you who got him elected.

Actually it's people like you who got him elected. If you didn't make every excuse for under the sun for why hillary isn't so bad. If you weren't bull shitting, twisting and outright lying at times or making shit up for every little thing so much and just stuck to the legit things he wouldn't have been elected. It was Hillary's election to lose. There was noway he was going to win but you people sure made it happen didn't you. Well buck up because your chickens have come home to roost and you only have yourself to blame.

And thus the stupid MAGA cap appeared on your head.

smh

Again you prove yourself to be acting like a poster boy of the none reasonable section of the anti trump crowd. I've said the guy is a fool and isn't president material. I've downright said there is legit reason to hate and not want this person to be president. Enough not to get the guy elected. Hell I even said I didn't like the way he handled it. Yet you ignore ALL of that to demonize anyone who doesn't lose their shit and any reason they might have at the mere thought of him as whatever new stupid label you come up with the day.

You've done a good job self destructing. I don't think I could have done a good a job destroying your credibility as you've done yourself in such a short span of time..

True fact, I dont care if you think I am a posterboy for anti-trumpism, what I do care about is that you thought 'hold on, he might have some good bits, he can't be worse than Hillary'. Yet he was and you were stupid enough not to believe your own eyes.

It doesn't matter what I think. Your own words condemn you.

Your insistence on playing that stupid game of blah blah oh he's worse than her all or she's worse than him blah blah is pathetic. Your insistence to defend that shit show Hillary is pathetic and shows your true color. The difference here is she was better at hiding it and played the PR game way better than him. Despite all the shit her camp did people are still defending her. Even the more reasonable trump haters said she sucked.

I've said I don't like the guy. I've said he isn't a good president but because I don't go far enough in blind hatred you have the audacity to call anyone else stupid!!!!!!! What the hell is wrong with you dude? See a therapist. I'm not even joking to take a dig at you here. You're coming off as those unhinged people you hear about in the news that think it's ok to attack people.

Next you'll tell me Antifa are not a bad group.

Are you Richard Spencer?

Avatar image for dernman
#17385 Posted by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio
@dernman said:

@buttersdaman000: What do you think my position is in the argument is?

That overly sensitive/overly anti-Trump people and narratives pushed some people towards voting for trump when they likely wouldn't have otherwise.

ok so you were only referencing that small portion of the argument. Just checking.

Just for the record. I'm not a Trump supporter. I feel I have to repeat that a million times because I get accused that any time I'm not attacking every little thing, or dare question a terrible argument..

Avatar image for dernman
#17386 Posted by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for dernman
#17387 Posted by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

I had to ask because you never know where people are coming from these days. These are some truly crazy times. .

@dernman: Obviously it isn't you. Its the one guy I won't name that is emulating this guy....

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for outside_85
#17388 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

I had to ask because you never know where people are coming from these days. These are some truly crazy times. .

@dragonborn_ct said:

@dernman: Obviously it isn't you. Its the one guy I won't name that is emulating this guy....

No Caption Provided

They are

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dernman
#17389 Posted by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:

I had to ask because you never know where people are coming from these days. These are some truly crazy times. .

@dragonborn_ct said:

@dernman: Obviously it isn't you. Its the one guy I won't name that is emulating this guy....

They are

lol

If you can only see yourself right now. You're making the other side look good.

Avatar image for king_saturn
#17390 Posted by King Saturn (222853 posts) - - Show Bio

Heh, I remember when the Religion Thread had all the Hostility in it. I guess it all came over to the Donald Trump thread.

Avatar image for doofasa
#17391 Posted by Doofasa (1710 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman: One thing I'd like to point out, the responsibility for Trump being elected lies on the shoulders of those who voted for him, nothing more nothing less.

You can argue until the cows come home that there were extenuating circumstances, or reasons why people turned to Trump (which there were), however responsibility is based on the actions you take, not the reasons for taking them.

Avatar image for dernman
#17392 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@king_saturn said:

Heh, I remember when the Religion Thread had all the Hostility in it. I guess it all came over to the Donald Trump thread.

I know right? Was that an implied threat I got?

Avatar image for dernman
#17393 Posted by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@doofasa said:

@dernman: One thing I'd like to point out, the responsibility for Trump being elected lies on the shoulders of those who voted for him, nothing more nothing less.

You can argue until the cows come home that there were extenuating circumstances, or reasons why people turned to Trump (which there were), however responsibility is based on the actions you take, not the reasons for taking them.

You're argument fails when your only other choice is a guaranteed shit show like Hillary. At the time for many Trump was still a just a gamble against a sure thing of Hilary and he was saying things dealt with legit things . Did the gamble pay off? I'd say for many no. Not to mention this was coming off at the time Bernie got screwed by Hilary supporters. Not to mention all the calls of being some kind of -ist anytime you didn't agree with Hilary or thought and issue Trump brought up only because he was pandering was legit. So there is some understanding. It's not only on their shoulders. Many were driven but were down right pushed there that wouldn't have been otherwise been.

---------------------

Also lets not forget that Trump lost the popular vote. For all those people that were giving Trump anything positive they didn't actually vote for him. It was the electoral college and I suspect that they voted that way because of what happened to Bernie because of Hilary supporters.

Avatar image for outside_85
#17394 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

I had to ask because you never know where people are coming from these days. These are some truly crazy times. .

@dragonborn_ct said:

@dernman: Obviously it isn't you. Its the one guy I won't name that is emulating this guy....

They are

lol

If you can only see yourself right now. You're making the other side look good.

You will never look good though.

Avatar image for dernman
#17395 Edited by Dernman (25843 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:
@outside_85 said:
@dernman said:

I had to ask because you never know where people are coming from these days. These are some truly crazy times. .

@dragonborn_ct said:

@dernman: Obviously it isn't you. Its the one guy I won't name that is emulating this guy....

They are

lol

If you can only see yourself right now. You're making the other side look good.

You will never look good though.

That might actually mean something if it was coming from someone other than you.

Is this all you have after self destructing? Direct personal insults and veiled threats?

Avatar image for renchamp
#17396 Posted by Renchamp (7671 posts) - - Show Bio

This thread is in time out for now. Go do something else.

Moderator