Donald Trump and English

[Blackened]

Save the "democrats just want to give people hand-outs" and "republicans want to create jobs" rhetoric for the appropriate thread.

You asked. Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions if you don't want to hear anything that doesn't fit your paradigm, someone might have a differing perspective and from the sound of it you wouldn't like that.

 

[kpt018]

So have you read the democratic platform she is running on.







http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Double speak for going after legal gun owners and the ability to bankrupt legal gun manufactures.

Pure paranoia.

 

[oldshadow]

I was going to ask you what part of what you quoted shows she's going to arbitrarily go after legal gun owners and gun manufacturers, but this isn't a Hillary Clinton thread. It's a Trump thread.

I know it's a kneejerk reaction for Trump supporters to go "but, but Hillary did this!" whenever they are asked about Trump

Read what I quoted with the Brady bill "assault" weapon ban, universal background checks and trying to drive gun manufactures out of businesses.

Read the republican platform, and compare to the democrats.

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

I don't agree with everything in it but I will take it over the democratic one.

That answers your question on why even if Trump sticks his foot in his mouth on a weekly bases give the choice of Hillary or him we vote for him.

 

[Horse Style]

So you're asking why the media is constantly dissecting everything that comes out of his mouth? Uhh, yea I don't have an answer for that.

These are the same people trying to ignite a race war, after all. I can only speculate as to their motives. Oh shoot, there's that silly rhetoric again. Let me know if you need me to explain what I meant about the media's recent race baiting. I know you'd be asking if Trump said it.

This is not what I asked at all, but try again.

 

[oldshadow]

Pure paranoia.

That's the platform and what they state their goal is, I didn't make it up and provided the link.

 

[kpt018]

I take it you're young. Before we started feelings the effects of NAFTA (signed by William J. Clinton), we had lots of manufacturing in this country, lots of jobs and a lot more national pride.

The corruption from the wikileaks should really make you worried, if not read into it.

I also don't like the mentality exhibited by the left of "give a man a fish" welfare nonsense, making people slaves to the system. I prefer the "teach a man to fish" freedom that is given by more jobs.

I like the "teach a man to fish analogy" but I'm afraid you are way oversimplifying it.

Let's also say that one man has a boat and a fishing net and catches so many fish that it depletes the ecosystem. Would he have an obligation to spend some of the wealth he acquired to keep the ecosystem sustainable? Wouldn't it be best for all, including this wealthy fisherman, if there was an agreement that he helps those who are unable to catch fish because he took so many?

People need to start realizing that many people that are unemployment or who benefit from the safety net are doing so as a result of natural effects of the system (recession, structural unemployment, etc..). We are all better off, including those who pay more taxes when we have a solid safety net. It's not about enabling lazy asses but people who are a casualty of the economy.

 

[Horse Style]

You asked. Perhaps you shouldn't ask questions if you don't want to hear anything that doesn't fit your paradigm, someone might have a differing perspective and from the sound of it you wouldn't like that.

I actually wanted to stick to the topic of Trump and his unique position in which he always need someone to say "wait, wait! THIS is what he meant" all the time

I've seen enough Trump supporters deflect to alarmist rhetoric about Hillary. It's not necessary for this thread

 

[oldshadow]

And what is the justification for that? You are a big fan of massive tax cuts for the wealthy (which will add trillions to the deficit)? His clear incompetence on foreign policy? His clear incompetence on the economy? Bigotry? What?

I get it, you're voting for the "lesser of two evils" but it is completely indefensible to say that Trump is the lesser of two evils. In what areas do you think Trump excels over Hillary?

Read both platforms I linked and that's why.

 

[kpt018]

That's the platform and what they state their goal is, I didn't make it up and provided the link.

Noted. I also noted that you have to interpret it a certain way to get yourself scared, as you admitted by saying "that's double speak".

Besides, if we elect Trump as president you may actually need to use those guns! (I'm half kidding).

 

[Blackened]

I like the "teach a man to fish analogy" but I'm afraid you are way oversimplifying it.

Let's also say that one man has a boat and a fishing net and catches so many fish that it depletes the ecosystem. Would he have an obligation to spend some of the wealth he acquired to keep the ecosystem sustainable? Wouldn't it be best for all, including this wealthy fisherman, if there was an agreement that he helps those who are unable to catch fish because he took so many?

People need to start realizing that many people that are unemployment or who benefit from the safety net are doing so as a result of natural effects of the system (recession, structural unemployment, etc..). We are all better off, including those who pay more taxes when we have a solid safety net.

Man, to be honest in principle I agree with you. I really do. I find it sick that people sit on billions of dollars while people around the world are starving. The problem is, these corporations aren't people and if taxed out the wazoo, they simply move their operation to some other country where they can profit more and the jobs for the working class here in the States suffers.

 

[Horse Style]

Read what I quoted with the Brady bill "assault" weapon ban, universal background checks and trying to drive gun manufactures out of businesses.

Read the republican platform, and compare to the democrats.

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

I don't agree with everything in it but I will take it over the democratic one.

That answers your question on why even if Trump sticks his foot in his mouth on a weekly bases give the choice of Hillary or him we vote for him.

What I'm getting from Hillary's platform is limiting the type of guns available to the public and trying to limit the amount of dangerous people who can legally access guns.

Dunno where you're getting this "she wants to go after legal gun owners and bankrupt gun manufacturers" thing from.

I always see people complain about the militarization of police but throw a bitch fit if anyone suggests getting rid of assault rifles.

 

[Horse Style]

Well this thread has gone to hell. As with any conversation about Trump's blunders, his supporters immediately deflect to some alarmist, paranoid rhetoric about Hillary. The same alarmist rhetoric I heard in 2008 about Obama.

 

[Blackened]

I actually wanted to stick to the topic of Trump and his unique position in which he always need someone to say "wait, wait! THIS is what he meant" all the time

I've seen enough Trump supporters deflect to alarmist rhetoric about Hillary. It's not necessary for this thread

You clearly asked, haha. "What exactly is so terrifying about her winning?"

Maybe you shouldn't derail your own threads and you'd solve your problem.

 

[kpt018]

Read both platforms I linked and that's why.

It's 66 pages and you stated you don't agree with everything in there and you're vague on what you don't agree with in the Democratic platform. Can you do a summary of the handful of top issues?

To show good faith I'll summarize my views.

1. Climate change - Hillary supports continued progress and Trump thinks it's a hoax. There are light years apart and the consequences long term will be huge.

2. Taxes - Hillary supports a tiered system for capital gains and increasing the rates on top income brackets for ordinary income. She supports free college, better healthcare, child care, etc.. Trump wants to massive cut the top income taxes, modest cuts to middle class taxes (varies depending on what we consider middle class) and no change to the lowest earners. He wants to further increase the deficits that would explode from reducing revenue by deporting undocumented immigrants, build a wall and expand military spending. In summary, Trump's plan is a disaster while I agree with the things Hillary wants to accomplish here, albeit would probably do some things differently. Trump is also horrible on trade agreements (wants a trade war, currently flip flopped).

3. Foreign policy - Trump will surround himself with terrible advisers, has a poor temperament, and is extremely inflammatory. Hillary is literally the opposite and far more experienced (Trump has zero, to be fair).

4. SCJ nomination - Obvious here, but being I am a liberal I believe that Trump would nominate someone that reverses a lot of the social progress we have obtained.

Those are my top few and the rest is a far 5th and forward, but I think Hillary is far better on social issues, guns are a non issue for me.

 

[panamaican]

I also don't like the mentality exhibited by the left of "give a man a fish" welfare nonsense, making people slaves to the system. I prefer the "teach a man to fish" freedom that is given by more jobs.

Not singling you out here but I find that sentiment absurd.

"Teach a man to fish" by restricting the ability of corporations to select the workforce they want and forcing them to hire local. Break the hold of the state on people by demanding that the state protect their jobs from foreign competitors?

Surely, people see the contradiction in that position?

If we want to teach men to fish and break the hold of the state then restricting international labor competition is the exact opposite way to do it.

It's doubly insane because if I say you teach a man to fish by ramping up and improving the core competitiveness of the workforce by improving k-12 education and reducing the financial impact of college, people call that liberalism or welfare. But my way actually teaches people how to fish and then they have to go earn their jobs. The other way asks government to earn the jobs and doesn't demand that the workers actually improve.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I take it you're young. Before we started feelings the effects of NAFTA (signed by William J. Clinton), we had lots of manufacturing in this country, lots of jobs and a lot more national pride.

The corruption from the wikileaks should really make you worried, if not read into it.

I also don't like the mentality exhibited by the left of "give a man a fish" welfare nonsense, making people slaves to the system. I prefer the "teach a man to fish" freedom that is given by more jobs.

NAFTA had little to no effect on manufacturing in America or on jobs (national pride isn't something you can measure, but that's a risible claim).

Here's manufacturing output since 1980. You can also look up the Industrial Production Output Index or longer timeframes for yourself.

With regard to the safety net, note that the vast majority of people in poverty in America (especially pre-transfer, but the statement applies to post, too) are people who we don't expect to work--children, the elderly, and the disabled. Plus, you have short-term unemployed (people who were laid off recently and will find work again soon, for example), and college students, as well as unpaid caretakers for the elderly and disabled, etc.

You might also note that Clinton's anti-poverty programs are directed at reducing unemployment (through infrastructure, for example), changing financial incentives, and reducing childcare costs (which provides parents more incentive to go to work and makes it easier for them to do so if they want to). Her college plan would also reduce poverty among college students, and certainly counts as "teaching a man to fish."

*I* would prefer to see more focus on cash transfers, but that's not actually what she's proposing. Trump also has talked about increasing infrastructure spending (good! though I don't actually have any confidence he'd do it), and nothing else, really.

 

[kpt018]

Man, to be honest in principle I agree with you. I really do. I find it sick that people sit on billions of dollars while people around the world are starving. The problem is, these corporations aren't people and if taxed out the wazoo, they simply move their operation to some other country where they can profit more and the jobs for the working class here in the States suffers.

I'd prefer higher taxes on capital gains (although it hurts me personally) and ordinary income instead of taxing corporations at higher rates. And if we changed the law to close these bullshit loopholes that allow people to hide cash offshore and started throwing them in jail that would end.

 

[Blackened]

NAFTA had little to no effect on manufacturing in America or on jobs (national pride isn't something you can measure, but that's a risible claim).

Here's manufacturing output since 1980. You can also look up the Industrial Production Output Index or longer timeframes for yourself.

With regard to the safety net, note that the vast majority of people in poverty in America (especially pre-transfer, but the statement applies to post, too) are people who we don't expect to work--children, the elderly, and the disabled. Plus, you have short-term unemployed (people who were laid off recently and will find work again soon, for example), and college students, as well as unpaid caretakers for the elderly and disabled, etc.

You might also note that Clinton's anti-poverty programs are directed at reducing unemployment (through infrastructure, for example), changing financial incentives, and reducing childcare costs (which provides parents more incentive to go to work and makes it easier for them to do so if they want to). Her college plan would also reduce poverty among college students, and certainly counts as "teaching a man to fish."

*I* would prefer to see more focus on cash transfers, but that's not actually what she's proposing. Trump also has talked about increasing infrastructure spending (good! though I don't actually have any confidence he'd do it), and nothing else, really.

Interesting. I mentioned NAFTA because I remember when I was a kid both my parents jobs were outsourced to Mexico. My dad was a woodworker and my mom made clothing.

In any event, it lead to both my parents going back to school. But I distinctly remember all the plants in my hometown shutting down and nothing there has popped up to replace them.

 

[oldshadow]

Noted. I also noted that you have to interpret it a certain way to get yourself scared, as you admitted by saying "that's double speak".

Besides, if we elect Trump as president you may actually need to use those guns! (I'm half kidding).

The double speak I'm talking about is believing even if somehow they manage to get what anti 2nd they want in the platform that they would stop there and we all know that's a lie by past statements.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Interesting. I mentioned NAFTA because I remember when I was a kid both my parents jobs were outsourced to Mexico. My dad was a woodworker and my mom made clothing.

In any event, it lead to both my parents going back to school. But I distinctly remember all the plants in my hometown shutting down and nothing there has popped up to replace them.

Manufacturing *employment* has fallen over the years (can't really tie it to NAFTA, though). We make more stuff, but it takes fewer people to make it. The issue is technology improvement, but that has a lot of good results to balance against the forced job transitions (note that it's not that we have fewer jobs total, just that there are fewer in that sector). That's another thing that calls for some intervention--not to slow the pace of technological improvement but to help retrain people and float them during the transition. Again, teaching people to fish.