Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 00:34

Bishop149 wrote:
Fri, 11. Jan 19, 15:31
If they live in society their views will influence it, simple as that.
They will participate in literally 100's of social interactions daily and will routinely be given opportunities to discriminate based on their racism, and even with the best possibly behaviour, they will.
But, won't people who don't hold those opinions also influence society?
Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 9. Jan 19, 20:52
Again, without legal force they could (would and do) just ignore it.
And, if enough people complain or just stop attending these conferences, citing bigoted audiences as the problem, and the only speakers who show up are circuit-speakers nobody wants to listen to while more notable speakers boycott the venue.... Well, perhaps people can affect change by modifying their behavior after all?
No, it means shes a politician and is behaving like one.
Is it a good system, no. . . . is it one of the only ways of setting long term goals in short term parliaments, yes . . . . . does it work? Kinda, not very well sadly . . . largely for the reasons you describe.
It means that she lit upon the appeal of a radical idea that exercises the newfound empowerment she and her bloc have received, mistaking her victory as a false general affirmation by the masses... She took the newfound and likely unexpected validation she received in her political victory and enthusiastically applied it to an idea that demonstrated her lack of forethought. It is the equivalent of someone surviving their first exhilarating roller-coaster ride without throwing up and then shouting "Let's get to Mars by flying there. Yeehaaaww!"

If this had been your idea and you spent one hour thinking on it and writing down something resembling an outline of a basic plan, do you think you would have uncovered some of the problems and pitfalls and/or noted some possible goals that needed to be met along the way? She didn't... So, either she didn't think about it or she's incompetent. I'll give her the benefit of doubt and say she just didn't think about her idea very much. (I hope.)
I'd suggest she does "know what shes talking about" in regard to both economics and climate science.
I know both from my own knowledge and (far more importantly) this because her ideas are supported by large numbers of experts within both fields (especially the latter).
I don't quite know what you mean by "natural law" but I think you might mean "How capitalist economics traditionally works", and the fact the economic theories she is talking about fly in the face of the way the system currently operates is the ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT!
There can be no debate that the USA represents a massively unequal society.
There can equally be no debate that this situation is the (to use your words) "natural" result of the economic system under which the US operates.
If you dislike the former you simply have no choice but to either reject or heavily modify the latter . . . . more on this later.
Two subjects we haven't discussed "economics" and "climate science." So, you concede the ones we have discussed, then? :)
You can dismiss this as "impossible" or "unnatural" if you like, that is your opinion and your prerogative, but this does NOT make it invalid.

"Impractical" as stated, resembling fitting a rock for a new pair of shoes. One would have to change the nature of the rock and then... it's not just a rock anymore, is it? Her plans, that I have addressed, first require things that do not exist.
Why not? The majority would be very happy with their oranges. . . . why wouldn't they vote for the person again?
What happens when almost half the population becomes disaffected, angry, unsettled.... When you anger a significant enough portion of the population, "civil unrest" becomes very likely.

What if there is a "Right" that states "The Right of the People to choose their fruit shall not be infringed"? For instance, one must realistically expect to have to pick from what is on the menu at a restaurant. If one doesn't like what is offered, one can go to another restaurant. But, if all restaurants were mandated by the government to be "Taco Bell," then what? I love Taco Bell, but... I would probably be a little upset.
Those protections only act at the very highest level, matters of basic human rights and the like. They too are also not inviolable (although admittedly far better protected than anything at a district level that we are discussing), you only have to look at how Trump, with his majority support in all branches of government, attempted to erode those rights in relation to women. He may yet succeed.
"Only act at the very highest level" - I don't know what that means.

How did Trump act to "erode those rights in relation to women?" Can you cite an example?
Agreed, the point is that your electoral law does not reflect that ideal . . . . at all.
If you require other law in order to try and correct this then this a) proves my point and b) is a rather indirect and imperfect way of doing so, not to mention incredibly venerable to corruption which is a point I think you made.
How does "electoral law" not reflect this? Please cite an example of electoral law. After all, if The People do not like their representative's actions, they can vote them out of office or even impeach them.
Indeed, I haven't fully worked out an alternative to centrism than steers well clear of tyranny, the two being (IMO) kinda opposite ends of the same scale.
"Compromise" isn't "Centrism," for one.

But, consider "anti-tyranny" to be a foundation of your personal ideal. So, how should it be protected against/fought? What's "the best way" to do that?

In other words, first identify what you truly value. Is it "anti-tyranny" or rather "personal freedom and independence?" After all, not all means to establish anti-tyranny would be desirable simply for the sake of it being "anti-tyranny." That may mean that anti-tyranny is just an attribute of some more deeper, basic, ideal.
Ok, you largely have the right of it here but are making basically the same mistake as the Center Leftists.
It is their view that the government do what you suggest, GUIDE the market via regulation and legislation, but almost never to the point where any actual CONTROL is exerted. Never to the point where the goals of capitalism are actually limited or challenged. That is the point of compromise in the Center between Left and Right and it is WAAAAAAY too far to the Right. For more details google "Neoliberal economics".
If you goal is to create a fair an equal society that benefits all then such control and limitation is REQUIRED, quite simply because a free market capitalist system "naturally" results in the EXACT opposite.
You can not "indirectly" guide a capitalist market. You can not create demand. I know that doesn't sound quite right, but it's a mainstay of capitalist policy that often gets misinterpreted. In short, you can't "indirectly" force people to buy something.

The sorts of regulations I was talking about that are government controls over the economy should be there to prevent abuse, encourage stability, and promote the overall practical health of system in general.

A government's means to "guide" economic behavior are generally connected to a system of taxes, where a government influences economic behaviors by meting out rewards and punishments through its tax system. If a government wishes to encourage certain economic behavior, then they reduce the taxes for that behavior or offer rebates and credits. If it wishes to reduce certain behaviors, it raises the taxes or places extra taxes on that behavior. This can also apply to other sorts of behaviors, like pollution by industry. Regulations and the subsequent fines and penalties for compliance failures are another way to influence behavior, but they're more punitive than "taxes."
I am not going to write out an entire economics 101 here to cover all the exceptions and subtleties I will just highlight the key point.
The goal of capitalism is in the name, to accumulate as much capital as possible. Most (near all) capital is based upon labour and there is only so much (not very) capital that you can achieve via your own labour....
With that "goal" for capitalism listed, you have demonstrated that you could not write out a valid "Economics 101." Your definition of capitalism appears to be decidedly Marxist in origin.

If your labor is not valuable, how much should someone pay you for it? And, if you have the ability to increase the value of your labor, who should be responsible for doing so?
One such stick is the concept of "soaking the rich". Feel free to suggest another mechanism by which the capital stolen from the masses might be returned to them?
If I was in the habit of responding to loaded and leading questions that would only be suitable to further direct a point of inquiry down a self-serving rabbit-hole of misdirection and confused issues, I would certainly respond with an answer... :) IOW - I do not accept the premise of your question.

Mightysword
Posts: 2367
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 06:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 00:49

JSDD wrote:
Fri, 11. Jan 19, 23:33
why are democrats against securing the american border ? either through a fence or a wall, doesnt matter ... they are talking about symbolic value of a possible wall while people are dying of drug overdoses, cartel wars and much more ... there are really NO negative impacts to the US at all ... (besides some animal populations could be separated from each other)
Because pretty much all of those are merely excuse and theatrical plays, put on stages for the audience. The real reason behind this decades old battle were never about any of those issue, even back to a time when political differences were not as vicious and as open as today. It only come down to one thing: the long term strategic value of the voter pool.

Republican was never really against the idea of pathway citizenship, because I don't think even the most disillusion politician think it's actual possible to find and deport all illegal migrants. In fact, if they're already here might as well put them on the pay roll for tax is not an uncommon idea, even among the right. What Republican had always wanted was a certain condition: secure the border, then we start the pathway citizen process. On the other hand, you will always see Democrat push hard for pathway citizenship, but always scoff at the idea of securing the border. So what does this contradictory exist, and by this I mean it goes as far back the 90', heck maybe even mid 80'?

Simple: pathway citizenship + Unsecured border = unchecked grown for Democrat voting base, Pathway citizenship + Secured border = Republican can contain the balance.

Sure, many of the average citizens can have a myriad of valid concern on this issue ranging from political, economy, racial, security ...etc... but those are merely the playground that were designed for us. But to entities who are the real force behind most politicians ... how to manage, grow or limit the voting demographic for the next 10 - 20 years is their game. :)

RegisterMe
Posts: 976
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: Trump

Post by RegisterMe » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 00:56

Interesting post Mightysword, thank you. Not that I like the message, but interesting nonetheless.
Gavrushka wrote:The problem with 'freedom of speech' is it makes wackos think they have something of value to say.

*WE WANT THE amtct BACK*
Rapier's search

User avatar
felter
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 19:13
xr

Re: Trump

Post by felter » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 00:58

There already is a fence for the most part, first started by the first Bush I think it was and as far as I remember there is still ongoing court cases, where land owners are fighting against the government that wants to put that fence on their land. Can't imagine what would happen if they are now told they are actually going to be putting up a wall and not a fence. Besides as I said earlier, doesn't matter what you put up, it will not work, so the question should actually be, why are republicans so desperate to waste money by putting up a wall. Only an idiot thinks a wall will work, ask the Chinese they will tell you it does not work.
I'm not saying he is a Russian asset, I'm saying he sat on his asset when he was supposed to be confronting Putin.
He will not be re-elected. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 2738
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 18:47
xr

Re: Trump

Post by Observe » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 01:33

It's a psychological wall even more than a physical one. Some people are disturbed by the prospect of undocumented illegal entries. Everyone knows that terrorists and others of real ill-intent, seeking to walk on our soil, will laugh at a wall. Nevertheless, there are those, who will sleep better, knowing that little brown people won't be sneaking around en masse, breading like flies and taking over the place. There is fear, that these vermin will somehow infect us, and our country will begin to resemble the ones they are fleeing.

Bigotry raises its head and casts its baleful eye toward the hazy Southern border.

User avatar
felter
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat, 9. Nov 02, 19:13
xr

Re: Trump

Post by felter » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:05

Is America really that bad, where it's populace are constantly living in fear, no wonder you lead in mass murders.
I'm not saying he is a Russian asset, I'm saying he sat on his asset when he was supposed to be confronting Putin.
He will not be re-elected. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 21:51
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by JSDD » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:13

not everyone who's for the idea of a border wall is actually against "those lil bown people" ... to many, its just a way to block illegal immigration and drug smuggling, dont get me wrong:

illegal immigration != brown people

now, because most people affected would be of course brown people (because its the mexican border), but thats not the goal. the main goal is to gain better control of who (illegals?) and what (drugs?) gets into the country. for everyone who has a legitimate reason to get into the US, the wall (may it be even 100 feet tall) wont be an obstacle ... and its not really expensive, and it actually has a function (driving people to the entry points), if you want it to be a "symbol" thats your choice, but saying "it doesnt solve the problem" is just ...
the orange one wrote:WRONG!
it solves a big part of the problem, not all. next step would be more intense car searches at entry points and so on ...

the way trump sold that idea was of course kind of populistic ... however, the rest of the modern world (except the EU) has borders and thats for a good reason!
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 2738
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 18:47
xr

Re: Trump

Post by Observe » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:41

JSDD wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:13
not everyone who's for the idea of a border wall is actually against "those lil bown people" ... to many, its just a way to block illegal immigration and drug smuggling, dont get me wrong: illegal immigration != brown people
No one is in favor of illegal immigration or drug smuggling. Clearly, a wall would have some affect on those issues. Maybe even a significant affect. First question is how big of a problem are those really? Does the problem warrant a multi-billion dollar wall? Would we better off, spending that money elsewhere or in different ways?

Nevertheless, if there is consensus for a wall, then a wall it shall be. We already have the consensus by virtue of Trump being elected. If it serves as a temporary band-aid to protect us from ourselves, then a wall is probably not the end of the world.

User avatar
JSDD
Posts: 922
Joined: Fri, 21. Mar 14, 21:51
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by JSDD » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 03:22

Observe wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:41
Clearly, a wall would have some affect on those issues. Maybe even a significant affect. First question is how big of a problem are those really? Does the problem warrant a multi-billion dollar wall?
... good question! sounds like that a whole lot of money ... at first glance. because most people hear "multi-billion xyz" and the brain shuts down, decision made: its "too much". but some time ago, i watched some cynical cafferty videos on youtube and hearde him saying that the US was wasting that much money on a WEEKLY basis in iraq for nothing other than bloodshed. imagine that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXPD7HuDBk4

the follow-up question, how many weeks did the US wage war against the devil in iraq again ?? :roll:

about 5 billion, thats about 15 $ per capita ... this number sounds much, too. but now think of the $ value of cocaine and what not, thats missing on the streets (because of a fence/wall) and (hopefully) gets invested in the real economy ...
To err is human. To really foul things up you need a computer.
Irren ist menschlich. Aber wenn man richtig Fehler machen will, braucht man einen Computer.


Mission Director Beispiele

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 03:52

Observe wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:41
JSDD wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:13
not everyone who's for the idea of a border wall is actually against "those lil bown people" ... to many, its just a way to block illegal immigration and drug smuggling, dont get me wrong: illegal immigration != brown people
No one is in favor of illegal immigration or drug smuggling. Clearly, a wall would have some affect on those issues. Maybe even a significant affect. First question is how big of a problem are those really? Does the problem warrant a multi-billion dollar wall? Would we better off, spending that money elsewhere or in different ways?

Nevertheless, if there is consensus for a wall, then a wall it shall be. We already have the consensus by virtue of Trump being elected. If it serves as a temporary band-aid to protect us from ourselves, then a wall is probably not the end of the world.
Calling a wall racist is an avenue of attack when you can't provide a persuasive explanation and want to provoke negativity. Walls do not discriminate. I doubt very much that those in favor of a wall are concerned about the race of those affected by it. It is ridiculous to call a wall racist when we gladly accept tons of legal immigrants from the same places we want to wall off.

As far as paying for the wall we have spent a hell of a lot more on it in the past. I can't take the democrats seriously when some of them signed off on spending 40+ billion a decade ago to build border fences and now they won't do it. They call it immoral now. They say it won't work when the border sectors that had that fencing built back then had drastically less arrests and drug seizures after. I'm not a person that gets caught up in the emotion of the moment. I just see we have spent more in the past and it worked.
fiksal wrote:
Sat, 5. Jan 19, 17:08



Speaking of cars, Mustang doesn't deserve the label of a wasteful car. Compare it to same class cars, like a big BMW, Mercedes, and their numbers will be similar, for efficiency, pollution, safety. There's is even a more efficient trim too.
I was curious about what my mustang was running so I did the math when I filled the tank this morning. I got 232 miles out of 11.19 gallons. I got 20.7 miles per gallon. Not too bad for a falling apart 20 year old machine running on sheer hatred.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 04:28

This just in: NYT: F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia

This was days before Mueller and after Comey's firing. Up to that point, the FBI had its suspicions, especially in regards to Trump campaign activity. But, it was unsure how to proceed given the delicate situation. I guess the Comey firing was the last straw. Or, the last bit of evidence needed? :)

Uh, just to make sure Trump understands all the word-stuff, if he should happen to visit, I'll rephrase it. (respeaky) <AHEM>

"Offishul Freedom Gubbermint Poh-Lees start sneaky-look-thing to see if Trump was COLLUDING with AK-47 Vodka Gubbermint"

Lolz

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 2738
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 18:47
xr

Re: Trump

Post by Observe » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 04:36

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 03:52
Calling a wall racist is an avenue of attack when you can't provide a persuasive explanation and want to provoke negativity. Walls do not discriminate.
I am the last person to attempt "persuasive explanation". Emotions and cultural conditioning cannot be easily persuaded away. I expect you admit that there are racists in favor of the wall. There are also non-racists reasons for a wall and those have been acknowledged - such as they are.
Masterbagger wrote:It is ridiculous to call a wall racist when we gladly accept tons of legal immigrants from the same places we want to wall off.
Walls aren't racist, people are. Isn't that your argument against gun control? Besides, otherwise, I miss your point. So what if we have legal immigration at the same time as we have racist people? Does that fact somehow prove that racism doesn't exist?

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: Trump

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 04:42

Morkonan wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 04:28

"Offishul Freedom Gubbermint Poh-Lees start sneaky-look-thing to see if Trump was COLLUDING with AK-47 Vodka Gubbermint"

Lolz
Take that back right now. My AK47 is a legal immigrant. You hurt her feelings. She is as American as either of us.
Observe wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 04:36
Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 12. Jan 19, 03:52
Calling a wall racist is an avenue of attack when you can't provide a persuasive explanation and want to provoke negativity. Walls do not discriminate.
I am the last person to attempt "persuasive explanation". Emotions and cultural conditioning cannot be easily persuaded away. I expect you admit that there are racists in favor of the wall. There are also non-racists reasons for a wall and those have been acknowledged - such as they are.
Masterbagger wrote:It is ridiculous to call a wall racist when we gladly accept tons of legal immigrants from the same places we want to wall off.
Walls aren't racist, people are. Isn't that your argument against gun control? Besides, otherwise, I miss your point. So what if we have legal immigration at the same time as we have racist people? Does that fact somehow prove that racism doesn't exist?
I don't deny racism exists. I don't give a damn about racist people, who they support, or why. I don't think there are that many of them. I think too many things are called racist when they aren't by people who have a stake in seeing racism kept alive so they can profit from it. I think if there was truly an interest in seeing racism go away it would stop being used as a weapon.

I don't have time to argue with you over gun control again when I have a distraught AKM here that saw Morkonan's comment a minute ago. I have to go be comforting and supportive because I am a responsible gun owner. I care for the physical and mental well being of my armaments. This is one of things I have to deal with when I have a diverse and inclusive family of arms.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4223
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 06:12

The saga of Donald and his Wall Of Stupidity..

Hmmm, we have long suspected that Trump is a congenital idiot..
charismatic, but deeply ignorant of anything going on around him..
indeed - he quite obviously and happily portrays himself as such..
- apparently this is not a bar for entry into politics.. :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJs_zJIZZ-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wWJ47VMsWM
- but it now it seems he's also a thoughtless, irresponsible, amoral swine..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOijEAdV5_M
- and therefore, so is Mitch McConnell along with his empty-headed Replicant horde..
- there's a split in the party - 50/50 Replicant/Republican

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJhx6IGVS0Y
- as for Pence and the utterly fake, and totally misguided so-called "Christian right-wing"
- "corporate sponsorship", political perversion or MONSTROUS hypocrisy - you choose.??
- perhaps they should seek the true meaning of "insight", and "enlightenment"..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmUCQA2wCQI
la-de-da, hoity-toity.. etc. etc..
- words fail me.. :gruebel: :rant: :gruebel: :doh:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 4223
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Sat, 12. Jan 19, 08:41

- the mystery of Jeff Session's self-recusal from the Russia investigation becomes a little clearer..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sDcyg6l2TM
- the FBI would have had to inform the DOJ of their intentions..
- small wonder that Drumpf was annoyed.. :o :o

- and where is Wilbur Ross..??
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”