Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

muscleupcrohn said:
Isn't it fallacious logic to dismiss something as false simply because the person who said it is wrong most, even 99%, of the time?
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's also ad hominem to attack someone as delusional and then refer to their bloodwork as posted on another thread that has no relation.
 
NoAddedHmones said:
Well thats rich, the only reason i posted in here is cause you seem to have some kind of superiority persona in this thread where you put down and degrade anyone who holds a different view to you. soo, in conclusion EAD.
Click to expand...
So it's cool to insult someone's estrogen levels. I got you, brah.
 
Misfit28 said:
So it's cool to insult someone's estrogen levels. I got you, brah.
Click to expand...

Hold the phone cuz, I would never insult your E level, they never annoyed me. I said you were emotional due to your estrogen levels. Get you Facts straight and quit with the fake news.

Anyways im bowing out. Keep up being a rude arse.
 
NoAddedHmones said:
Hold the phone cuz, I would never insult your E level, they never annoyed me. I said you were emotional due to your estrogen levels. Get you Facts straight and quit with the fake news.

Anyways im bowing out. Keep up being a rude prick.
Click to expand...


Same to you. Look in the mirror sometime.

Guess you just like to drop in to perturb the feces and leave. Kinda arselike IMO.
 
watched some of rex tillermans confirmation hearing today, I had never heard him talk before....I was really impressed, that guy is very intelligent!!!
 
Misfit28 said:
I need to go and look that up tomorrow. Today has been ridiculous
Click to expand...

he was much more impressive than jeff sessions, imo.....I would definitely want him on my side in negotiations, he's got it together.
 
ax1 said:
They just move on to foreign child labor slaves, probably in far worse working conditions. Take a step forward and two steps back. All hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Exactly so the anti child labor just relocated the child labor. If child labor did still exist within the US under stateless capitalism it's would benefit everyone including the child because of incentives.
 
thebigt said:
watched some of rex tillermans confirmation hearing today, I had never heard him talk before....I was really impressed, that guy is very intelligent!!!
Click to expand...

I was extremely impressed. I only hope that he can convince Trump to go with his views because there were quite a few inconsistencies.
 
CJNator said:
Government regulations don't create a incentive for corporations or big businesses to work for the publics interest so everything you just posted it's irrelevant. Incentive is a huge factor in the matter and can't be ignored. Also stating that I can't get around governments existing isn't an argument.
The fact that there are many businesses all around us despite government regulations is proof enough that self regulating helps. When these businesses are larger and are ran by crony capitalists, they'll focus more one profit rather then preserving resources or public interest.
Click to expand...

How exactly is that "proof" self-regulating works? I'm legitimately confused, as the fact so many companies are around is a testament to their product/ service, not how well they self regulate.

Companies will never be able to self regulate effectively, there is zero impartiality. This is evidenced in some of the articles I posted where companies that try audit themselves, can often dictate the outcome of the audit given they are the ones paying for it - or they may simply not disclose the results of an internal audit if the results are not in their favour. They need someone external to fund the audit so that they have zero control over the outcome, the problem here lies in who would fund an audit, if not the Govt.?

Moreover, companies have repeatedly screwed over clients/ customers/ the environment up until the point the Govt. intervenes and imposes restrictions. Overfishing and pollutantants in river water only become evident because the Govt and it's departments routinely conduct surveys on these bodies - how exactly will general public know the rivers are polluted (they can still look clean) on blocks of land they have no access to?

I feel like you guys have a misguided belief that all people are inherently good.
 
In addition to above, Good Guy Nike moved manufacturing off shore because they wanted to pay people as little as possible to maximise profit. Pity the Govt in the US was opposed to slave labour, amiright? Cafes in the US pay shocking wages to staff, yet nothing is being done. Where's the self regulation? Govt. set minimum wage here is nearly $16. In Aus, it's much higher (near $20 IIRC). Sure in the US you get tips, but that flucuates. Id much prefer a set income

Do you really think that a company cannot put up an ethical front, yet beneath the surface simply want to impress shareholders? People don't care about ethics when there is money to be made.

You need a balance between self regulation and some external enforcement. sure some of it is OTT, but that's not to say that it is all bad. It doesn't have to be all or nothing
 
Jiigzz said:
How exactly is that "proof" self-regulating works? I'm legitimately confused, as the fact so many companies are around is a testament to their product/ service, not how well they self regulate.

Companies will never be able to self regulate effectively, there is zero impartiality. This is evidenced in some of the articles I posted where companies that try audit themselves, can often dictate the outcome of the audit given they are the ones paying for it - or they may simply not disclose the results of an internal audit if the results are not in their favour. They need someone external to fund the audit so that they have zero control over the outcome, the problem here lies in who would fund an audit, if not the Govt.?

Moreover, companies have repeatedly screwed over clients/ customers/ the environment up until the point the Govt. intervenes and imposes restrictions. Overfishing and pollutantants in river water only become evident because the Govt and it's departments routinely conduct surveys on these bodies - how exactly will general public know the rivers are polluted (they can still look clean) on blocks of land they have no access to?

I feel like you guys have a misguided belief that all people are inherently good.
Click to expand...

First, Im for small government and support regulation on a local level. The Federal Government is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate. Of course we bought this up before, the corporations take over the regulations here and write them on their own through lobby and usually the smaller people suffer the most and corporations steam ahead.

Anyways I kind of get what CJnator says....the people can regulate themselves though the market. We live in a new information driven world and consumers can make the choice on how to vote with their dollars. Privatized watchdog groups can look after the concerns of quality control, pollution and other matters. I would still like state laws passed in a limited manner to protect pollution, and then the people can take it to the state courts but nothing is perfect, and government is/gets corrupt and consistently fails to keep its promises. I think people have trouble understanding these things due to being adapted in a certain system promoted by the people who maintain the very power and tax to grow.

We have plenty of examples how government has failed to protect the consumer, here is big failure of the EPA protecting Americans from mass water pollution. Invalid Link Removed

Another huge example here in the US was the public water supply contamination with lead in Detroit where thousands go sick, and this was all regulated by government. Here in this link we can see how this is a problem in other places and we have had this problem here in NY too recently...Invalid Link Removed

Ron Paul breaks down alot of these concerns in that link if your actually interested, the flaws with government protections and how we can try to solve these issues in a different manner that would work.
 
ax1 said:
First, Im for small government and support regulation on a local level. The Federal Government is not authorized by the Constitution to regulate. Of course we bought this up before, the corporations take over the regulations here and write them on their own through lobby and usually the smaller people suffer the most and corporations steam ahead.

Anyways I kind of get what CJnator says....the people can regulate themselves though the market. We live in a new information driven world and consumers can make the choice on how to vote with their dollars. Privatized watchdog groups can look after the concerns of quality control, pollution and other matters. I would still like state laws passed in a limited manner to protect pollution, and then the people can take it to the state courts but nothing is perfect, and government is/gets corrupt and consistently fails to keep its promises. I think people have trouble understanding these things due to being adapted in a certain system promoted by the people who maintain the very power and tax to grow.

We have plenty of examples how government has failed to protect the consumer, here is big failure of the EPA protecting Americans from mass water pollution. Invalid Link Removed

Another huge example here in the US was the public water supply contamination with lead in Detroit where thousands go sick, and this was all regulated by government. Here in this link we can see how this is a problem in other places and we have had this problem here in NY too recently...Invalid Link Removed

Ron Paul breaks down alot of these concerns in that link if your actually interested, the flaws with government protections and how we can try to solve these issues in a different manner that would work.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the Gold King Mine was a freak accident - it wasn't something that happened over time as a result of negligence or not enforcing rules, they simply made a mistake and destroyed a plug holding the waste back. Sure it was a big mistake, and you can blame the EPA, but what i'm talking about is not a spill, but rather continual, purposeful destruction over prolonged periods.

In any case, regulations cannot necessarily prevent ALL issues from happening, not even self regulation can do that - what does matter is that regulations are imposed to ensure things like this do not happen again. If they happen repeatedly, then i'd say the regulatory bodies have some explaining to do.

I just can't see a company being fully accountable to themselves, that's all. If someone holds them accountable who is paid for by a third party, then that would work.
 
Jiigzz said:
In addition to above, Good Guy Nike moved manufacturing off shore because they wanted to pay people as little as possible to maximise profit. Pity the Govt in the US was opposed to slave labour, amiright? Cafes in the US pay shocking wages to staff, yet nothing is being done. Where's the self regulation? Govt. set minimum wage here is nearly $16. In Aus, it's much higher (near $20 IIRC). Sure in the US you get tips, but that flucuates. Id much prefer a set income

Do you really think that a company cannot put up an ethical front, yet beneath the surface simply want to impress shareholders? People don't care about ethics when there is money to be made.

You need a balance between self regulation and some external enforcement. sure some of it is OTT, but that's not to say that it is all bad. It doesn't have to be all or nothing
Click to expand...
lol...it's funny how everyone is ok with nike using child labor-this was in the news some years ago...but left wing radicals are calling for a boycott of LL BEAN because one of the board members donated money [her personal money] to trumps campaign.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
I was extremely impressed. I only hope that he can convince Trump to go with his views because there were quite a few inconsistencies.
Click to expand...

glad to see I am not the only one who appreciates intelligence...I hear rumors that McCain and Rubio might oppose tillermans nomination!!!

there are also rumors floating around that McCain was the one who leaked the story about trump-I think McCain has overstayed his welcome in the senate, just my opinion.
 
thebigt said:
glad to see I am not the only one who appreciates intelligence...I hear rumors that McCain and Rubio might oppose tillermans nomination!!!

there are also rumors floating around that McCain was the one who leaked the story about trump-I think McCain has overstayed his welcome in the senate, just my opinion.
Click to expand...

McCain didn't leak it, he got it and gave it to the CIA
 
NoAddedHmones said:
Wow, I don't normally engage in political talk, but you sir are delusional. But lefties in Aus are the same, so can't judge you that much. I'll leave there here for you

View attachment 144066
View attachment 144067

Talk about being screwed over since 2008......
Click to expand...

Coming back to this post after looking around a bit.

I know it's from the "MSM", but here's something fact-checking these claims: Invalid Link Removed

Here's the actual study: Invalid Link Removed

I don't see many of these graphs in the actual study, which may mean that:

1. The author on Zero Hedge created them (adding the trend lines and such, along with the misspelling of "Participation" ;))

2. They are from the various references, which I'm honestly not going to take the time and effort to hunt down, LOL.

I'll work on this a bit when I have some free time at work, which lately means it might take a while. Having a nine year old and a mother on hospice at home sorta takes its toll on time.
 
Misfit28 said:
Coming back to this post after looking around a bit.

I know it's from the "MSM", but here's something fact-checking these claims: Invalid Link Removed

Here's the actual study: Invalid Link Removed

I don't see many of these graphs in the actual study, which may mean that:

1. The author on Zero Hedge created them (adding the trend lines and such, along with the misspelling of "Participation" ;))

2. They are from the various references, which I'm honestly not going to take the time and effort to hunt down, LOL.

I'll work on this a bit when I have some free time at work, which lately means it might take a while. Having a nine year old and a mother on hospice at home sorta takes its toll on time.
Click to expand...

I am very sorry to hear about your mother!!!

I know you are not a believer, but I will pray for her anyway!!!
 
Misfit28 said:
Thank you sir :)

I don't take offense to that, it simply means that you are sending positive thoughts, and I appreciate it.
Click to expand...

yes, indeed...very positive!!!

I have a lot of respect for taking your mother in and taking care of her...that is old school, good for you!!!
 
Jiigzz said:
How exactly is that "proof" self-regulating works? I'm legitimately confused, as the fact so many companies are around is a testament to their product/ service, not how well they self regulate.

Companies will never be able to self regulate effectively, there is zero impartiality. This is evidenced in some of the articles I posted where companies that try audit themselves, can often dictate the outcome of the audit given they are the ones paying for it - or they may simply not disclose the results of an internal audit if the results are not in their favour. They need someone external to fund the audit so that they have zero control over the outcome, the problem here lies in who would fund an audit, if not the Govt.?

Moreover, companies have repeatedly screwed over clients/ customers/ the environment up until the point the Govt. intervenes and imposes restrictions. Overfishing and pollutantants in river water only become evident because the Govt and it's departments routinely conduct surveys on these bodies - how exactly will general public know the rivers are polluted (they can still look clean) on blocks of land they have no access to?

I feel like you guys have a misguided belief that all people are inherently good.
Click to expand...


Jiigzz said:
In addition to above, Good Guy Nike moved manufacturing off shore because they wanted to pay people as little as possible to maximise profit. Pity the Govt in the US was opposed to slave labour, amiright? Cafes in the US pay shocking wages to staff, yet nothing is being done. Where's the self regulation? Govt. set minimum wage here is nearly $16. In Aus, it's much higher (near $20 IIRC). Sure in the US you get tips, but that flucuates. Id much prefer a set income

Do you really think that a company cannot put up an ethical front, yet beneath the surface simply want to impress shareholders? People don't care about ethics when there is money to be made.

You need a balance between self regulation and some external enforcement. sure some of it is OTT, but that's not to say that it is all bad. It doesn't have to be all or nothing
Click to expand...

I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying and I honestly don't remember where this was lost within our discussion but I mean people as in the consumers regulate business and companies, not the government nor would any other 3rd party. The general public find out the same way they did back in the day and now, muckrakers or journalists.

Slave labor doesn't exist in the US anymore, that was the past. Slaves don't choose to work, they are forced. Just because you must use labor to provide for yourself doesn't mean you're a slave.

A minimum wage hurts inexperienced workers and mostly young black males within the US. So basically a high minimum wage gave Nike the idea to outsource for maximum profit.

You make this assumption that companies can't be ethical and want to profit too. Why is that?
 
I was about to just lay out a bunch of links show how less regulations are better but if you're on facebook, like Unbiased America and We are Capitalists. They only post facts, statistics, and sometimes opinions.

Invalid Link Removed
 
In the end, I think you need a balance. That's where I stand.
 
Jiigzz said:
In the end, I think you need a balance. That's where I stand.
Click to expand...

Balance is good but it has never and it will never work, people has different ideas of freedom and different ways of wanting to live, plus some people just want a strong authoritarian government. Government is an unstable entity, it always has been. I look at history and see government being the route of every issue especially when religion is included. No growing government is stable. We can all dream up how we would want our government to work but that's just dreaming, capitalism can be achieved if people come to the realization that individuals have the power to control their own life's. Invalid Link Removed
 
CJNator said:
Balance is good but it has never and it will never work, people has different ideas of freedom and different ways of wanting to live, plus some people just want a strong authoritarian government. Government is an unstable entity, it always has been. I look at history and see government being the route of every issue especially when religion is included. No growing government is stable. We can all dream up how we would want our government to work but that's just dreaming, capitalism can be achieved if people come to the realization that individuals have the power to control their own life's. Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Government by nature is corrupt...it always wants to grow endlessly. What starts as "balanced" becomes imbalanced, not a question of if, but when. We clearly see this in the history of our own country. But thats when a well informed heavily armed public go come handy, which of course by nature can get out of hand too, lol
 
ax1 said:
Government by nature is corrupt...it always wants to grow endlessly. What starts as "balanced" becomes imbalanced, not a question of if, but when. We clearly see this in the history of our own country. But thats when a well informed heavily armed public go come handy, which of course by nature can get out of hand too, lol
Click to expand...

Especially when the public is driven by pure ideology lol most if not all mainstream ideologies(excluding pacifism) are based on coercion.
 
ax1 said:
Government by nature is corrupt...it always wants to grow endlessly. What starts as "balanced" becomes imbalanced, not a question of if, but when. We clearly see this in the history of our own country. But thats when a well informed heavily armed public go come handy, which of course by nature can get out of hand too, lol
Click to expand...
Change government to corporation and that paragraph makes sense just the same
 
Jiigzz said:
Change government to corporation and that paragraph makes sense just the same
Click to expand...
You mean that you assume it would be the same. I mean I know you're only perception on this matter is through the modern area but if you actually read into it it wouldn't be he same. It not something the average person can understand without reading into it. Also you have to understand within a society like that only like minded individuals will in said society, that's how it would work. Anyone that isn't for said life wouldn't make it, any anti capitalistic movements would be dealt with however the private laws say it would be dealt with. It's more complicated then you'd think.

muscleupcrohn said:
Change government/corporation to "people with power" and it covers both, and pretty much all of history.
Click to expand...

By "power to the people" what do you mean? Have the people control the means of production like anarcho communsim/socialism?
 
CJNator said:
You mean that you assume it would be the same. I mean I know you're only perception on this matter is through the modern area but if you actually read into it it wouldn't be he same. It not something the average person can understand without reading into it. Also you have to understand within a society like that only like minded individuals will in said society, that's how it would work. Anyone that isn't for said life wouldn't make it, any anti capitalistic movements would be dealt with however the private laws say it would be dealt with. It's more complicated then you'd think.



By "power to the people" what do you mean? Have the people control the means of production like anarcho communsim/socialism?
Click to expand...
What I mean is that the vast majority of the time you give someone a significant amount of power, especially over other people, they end up abusing it and seeking out even more power. It may be as the saying goes, "power corrupts," or it may be that power attracts corrupt people, or a combination of the two. I'm not for socialism or communism at all. I identify primarily as a libertarian, and believe in the benefits of a capitalistic economy, but not complete anarchy. Some minimal level of laws are necessary to preserve the individual rights of the people.
 
after Obama was elected I had a fear of what would happen if he were assassinated, there would be rioting and open hostility about the land-fortunately it looks like this will not happen.

in the case of trump, I can't get over the feeling that many on the left would openly cheer and march in the streets in celebration if trump were to be assassinated...many on the left have become so truly hateful that it should be shameful to those that are decent folks on the left...where is the voice of reason?
 
thebigt said:
after Obama was elected I had a fear of what would happen if he were assassinated, there would be rioting and open hostility about the land-fortunately it looks like this will not happen.

in the case of trump, I can't get over the feeling that many on the left would openly cheer and march in the streets in celebration if trump were to be assassinated...many on the left have become so truly hateful that it should be shameful to those that are decent folks on the left...where is the voice of reason?
Click to expand...
Would hardcore liberals celebrate if Pence became President though? Some people view him as Trumps "insurance policy."
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Would hardcore liberals celebrate if Pence became President though? Some people view him as Trumps "insurance policy."
Click to expand...

you say that as a rational thought...the hatred of trump by many on the left has left them irrational, imo....I really fear for trump!!!
 
thebigt said:
you say that as a rational thought...the hatred of trump by many on the left has left them irrational, imo....I really fear for trump!!!
Click to expand...

Where is Jimmy Carter saying that he has never seen a president treated with so much disrespect and that everybody is a racist again?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
What I mean is that the vast majority of the time you give someone a significant amount of power, especially over other people, they end up abusing it and seeking out even more power. It may be as the saying goes, "power corrupts," or it may be that power attracts corrupt people, or a combination of the two. I'm not for socialism or communism at all. I identify primarily as a libertarian, and believe in the benefits of a capitalistic economy, but not complete anarchy. Some minimal level of laws are necessary to preserve the individual rights of the people.
Click to expand...

Well what makes you think in a stateless capitalist society that only cooperations and businesses would have the power and how much of a libertarian are you?
 
CJNator said:
Well what makes you think in a stateless capitalist society that only cooperations and businesses would have the power and how much of a libertarian are you?
Click to expand...
All I'm saying is that you need some basic laws to protect individuals. No murder, rape, stealing, or slavery. No kidnapping workers for factories or killing opposition. Throughout history, every time a group escaped or rebelled from one state or governing authority, they soon formed another. Perhaps this is the nature of people, to form groups and societies. I'm not an anarchist, but I feel government should be limited to only protecting individual rights, both from other individuals and the government itself, and not to regulating morality or dominating people's lives.
 
CJNator said:
Well what makes you think in a stateless capitalist society that only cooperations and businesses would have the power and how much of a libertarian are you?
Click to expand...

The message Ive been getting from you is that in a stateless society, its not the corporations and businesses that would have power, but the people as a whole will be in greatest strength. Corporations and business would be the peoples biaatchesss.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
All I'm saying is that you need some basic laws to protect individuals. No murder, rape, stealing, or slavery. No kidnapping workers for factories or killing opposition. Throughout history, every time a group escaped or rebelled from one state or governing authority, they soon formed another. Perhaps this is the nature of people, to form groups and societies. I'm not an anarchist, but I feel government should be limited to only protecting individual rights, both from other individuals and the government itself, and not to regulating morality or dominating people's lives.
Click to expand...

Im a bit more on this page myself though, small limited government.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
All I'm saying is that you need some basic laws to protect individuals. No murder, rape, stealing, or slavery. No kidnapping workers for factories or killing opposition. Throughout history, every time a group escaped or rebelled from one state or governing authority, they soon formed another. Perhaps this is the nature of people, to form groups and societies. I'm not an anarchist, but I feel government should be limited to only protecting individual rights, both from other individuals and the government itself, and not to regulating morality or dominating people's lives.
Click to expand...

Well there's the social contracting which would include the None Aggression Principle. That's what the private laws would be based on. It's not a basic ideology, it's truly unique and complex compared to many ideologies, a lot of infighting due to having different ideas and perspectives, it's the most none collective ideology.
 
thebigt said:
after Obama was elected I had a fear of what would happen if he were assassinated, there would be rioting and open hostility about the land-fortunately it looks like this will not happen.

in the case of trump, I can't get over the feeling that many on the left would openly cheer and march in the streets in celebration if trump were to be assassinated...many on the left have become so truly hateful that it should be shameful to those that are decent folks on the left...where is the voice of reason?
Click to expand...

You mean like Baltimore and Ferguson where they rioted over false statements that the officials proclaimed?
 
youngandfree said:
You mean like Baltimore and Ferguson where they rioted over false statements that the officials proclaimed?
Click to expand...

this goes beyond that...I was just in kindergarten when kennedy was shot, but even at that age I remember how sad and mournful the people were-all the people, supporters and distractors!!! I just get the feeling that many leftists would rejoice and openly celebrate if trump were to be assassinated, this makes me very sad that I feel this way!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top