An Examination Of Trump.

[GAHD]

So my last word on Trump's racism will be that he promoted racism with his birther remarks. Otherwise, we agree to disagree.

Which remarks? That's incredibly vague. If they exist, it should be very easy for you to back that up via google/waybackmacheine/etc, no?

 

You're not paying attention so let's start all over again. First, I asked that China as an example be excluded but you've decided to include China so I'll say a few things about it.

Really, I mentioned china where you quoted me? I just looked at that post, and I'm fairly certain I did not. Let me read it again in full....nope didn't. So not only are you putting words in my mouth by putting your own words in my quote tags, you are putting words in my mouth by claiming to respond to me making a point about china that I did not make? Why do you have to do that? I just used wordfind on that entire page, and the only person to mention china, was you(three times) asking to exclude it. I think you have some serious issues with understanding who said what, both with Trump and other individuals. What are you smoking?

 

Since YOU bring it up, again, it must be your only possible close to an example? "The People's Republic Of China" that is, which had to forcefully introduce capitalism into it's communist socialism because hong-kong was destroying them with it's capitalism? That one? That's your example?

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2019 by GAHD
a point on china since no reponce yet

[Moronium]

 The idea seems to be that if I tell you, in advance, that I''m going to take your money, then it's not theft.

 

I don't agree, but that's the way I read him.

 

If you know you're going to have to pay income tax on what you make, then you won't "expect" to keep every dime you make.  That seems to be the idea.

 

I'm going from memory here, but my recolllection is that the very idea of an income tax was considered unconstitutional by most legal scholars for well over 100 years.  In the early 1900's the Supreme Court ruled that is was constitutional.

 

Again, from memory, the "new" income tax at that time was 1%, and only imposed on those with extraordinarily high incomes.

 

Now some of these left-wing politicians are promoting the idea of a 90% income tax, to be distributed to, among others, those who "don't wish to work."

 

Ever hear the old saying "Give them an inch, and they'll take try to take a mile?"

 

Aint it the truth

 

The way these commies look at it, they are generously "giving"  YOU something if they let you keep a penny of your own money.  It's like you're stealing from them if you try to keep your own earnings, the way they see it.  It's understandable and quite virtuous on their part, actually.  They have empathy.

 

Trump has empathy, too.  He don't like no commies.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Moronium

[sanctus]

Moronium and Gahd, yeah it was sth along the lines of Moroniums understanding.
Case A: if one puts 50% extra and expects a 50% extra yield and does not get it it is theft
Case B: if one puts 50% extra, knowing that it it is just going to the society and he gets no substantial/proportional extra yield, it is not theft.

That is why I disagree with communism being theft.

Now Gahd:

 

A lot of downright silly people like to claim Capitalism needs socialism, but that's just not true. What can you claim as a socialist part of a capitalist society that doesn't get done better by privatization and competition? Post office meet UPS and Fedex (and every courier service before them, also telecom more recently), Police force meet private security, Military meet PMC, Roadworks meet toll booth, municipal water meet bottled water, public school meet private school. Literally everything socialist is done better with free market and competition. You bring up "happiness" but really what I think you're talking about is the bliss of ignorance, right before it causes total collapse.

Do I misread you here, or are you really saying that you know of no cases were privatization did not **** up something?

[OceanBreeze]

I’m not a political theorist so cannot present you with any brilliant arguments about the pros and cons of socialism versus a free market system.

 

I can tell you one anecdotal story about a trip I made to Moscow a few years back Why the trip was necessary is of no importance so I won’t get into that, only that it was arranged very suddenly so I had little notice to prepare. In my rush to pack, I was unable to locate a suitable pair of gloves (it was January) but I remember thing that won’t be a problem; I surely should be able to find a wide selection of excellent gloves in Moscow.

 

Ha! I visited everything from the most upscale shopping centers to small neighborhood shops and the best gloves I could find were a knitted pair with large gaping holes in them! I bought them because my business was with the Moscow Shipyard and required being out on the Moscow River and it was bitterly cold. I figured something is better than nothing.

 

It didn’t take long before my hands were almost frostbitten and I had to ask my hosts, the Russian Border Service (coast guard) if they could loan me a pair of gloves. They actually did find a fairly decent pair of military issue gloves and that saved my hands. But such things are not available for sale to the general public!

 

I was provided with a car and driver and I noticed that whenever we stopped for any length of time, he removed the windshield wipers. I thought that was a bit strange so I asked him about it. He seemed surprised that I would ask such a question and told me that it is to keep them from being stolen.

 

The people I met and worked with seemed to be happy enough but probably because they were usually intoxicated from drinking vodka.

 

So, if you ask me if a socialist system works, I would have to say NO, emphatically!

 

To relate this to the topic, which was Trump, he is dead-set against the USA becoming a socialist country and has been doing a good job renegotiating trade deals with other countries and with job creation in our own country. There is a lot not to like about him personally, maybe he does have some personality disorder, but I approve of his performance as President.

 

And, suggestions that he should be assassinated are way out of line.

Edited February 12, 2019 by OceanBreeze

[montgomery]

Which remarks? That's incredibly vague. If they exist, it should be very easy for you to back that up via google/waybackmacheine/etc, no?

 

Really, I mentioned china where you quoted me? I just looked at that post, and I'm fairly certain I did not. Let me read it again in full....nope didn't. So not only are you putting words in my mouth by putting your own words in my quote tags, you are putting words in my mouth by claiming to respond to me making a point about china that I did not make? Why do you have to do that? I just used wordfind on that entire page, and the only person to mention china, was you(three times) asking to exclude it. I think you have some serious issues with understanding who said what, both with Trump and other individuals. What are you smoking?

 

Since YOU bring it up, again, it must be your only possible close to an example? "The People's Republic Of China" that is, which had to forcefully introduce capitalism into it's communist socialism because hong-kong was destroying them with it's capitalism? That one? That's your example?

 

 

China's communism has lifted hundreds of millions up out of poverty. I hope that answers all of your questions.

Edited February 12, 2019 by GAHD
how hard is it to start typing without clicking inside the quote box? I'm getting sick of your words under my nametag.

[montgomery]

I'm going from memory here, but my recolllection is that the very idea of an income tax was considered unconstitutional by most legal scholars for well over 100 years.  In the early 1900's the Supreme Court ruled that is was constitutional.

 

Again, from memory, the "new" income tax at that time was 1%, and only imposed on those with extraordinarily high incomes.

 

Now some of these left-wing politicians are promoting the idea of a 90% income tax, to be distributed to, among others, those who "don't wish to work."

 

Ever hear the old saying "Give them an inch, and they'll take try to take a mile?"

 

Aint it the truth

 

The way these commies look at it, they are generously "giving"  YOU something if they let you keep a penny of your own money.  It's like you're stealing from them if you try to keep your own earnings, the way they see it.  It's understandable and quite virtuous on their part, actually.  They have empathy.

 

Trump has empathy, too.  He don't like no commies.

 

 

Libertarians are still completely convinced that income tax is unconstitutional, even though they are aware os some silly Scotus decision that it's not. They quote some amendment, whichever, that they think makes it illegal.

 

That which you speak of is definitely more in tune with America's brand of capitalism than any other capitalist country's. But America does practice some socialist policies and always will. I wouldn't doubt that Trump will slying try to get rid of what's left. The American people have been tuned up to accept it! Except, the tune up is starting to be questioned, as we've already discussed.

Edited February 12, 2019 by GAHD
how hard is it to start typing without clicking inside the quote box?

[montgomery]

I’m not a political theorist so cannot present you with any brilliant arguments about the pros and cons of socialism versus a free market system.

 

I can tell you one anecdotal story about a trip I made to Moscow a few years back Why the trip was necessary is of no importance so I won’t get into that, only that it was arranged very suddenly so I had little notice to prepare. In my rush to pack, I was unable to locate a suitable pair of gloves (it was January) but I remember thing that won’t be a problem; I surely should be able to find a wide selection of excellent gloves in Moscow.

 

Ha! I visited everything from the most upscale shopping centers to small neighborhood shops and the best gloves I could find were a knitted pair with large gaping holes in them! I bought them because my business was with the Moscow Shipyard and required being out on the Moscow River and it was bitterly cold. I figured something is better than nothing.

 

It didn’t take long before my hands were almost frostbitten and I had to ask my hosts, the Russian Border Service (coast guard) if they could loan me a pair of gloves. They actually did find a fairly decent pair of military issue gloves and that saved my hands. But such things are not available for sale to the general public!

 

I was provided with a car and driver and I noticed that whenever we stopped for any length of time, he removed the windshield wipers. I thought that was a bit strange so I asked him about it. He seemed surprised that I would ask such a question and told me that it is to keep them from being stolen.

 

The people I met and worked with seemed to be happy enough but probably because they were usually intoxicated from drinking vodka.

 

So, if you ask me if a socialist system works, I would have to say NO, emphatically!

 

 

Good story about the gloves, but wait, you've wandered far off topic. I've made it very clear that I'm not suggesting communism for either my country or yours. But I'm sorry to have to say: This is the very common reaction of Americans to what I've said! Nowhere in what I've said has caused that misunderstanding. Trust me, or go back over all my posts and see for yourself. And so, I'll have to repeat what I've said on the topic.

 

There is no pure socialist or communist system operating in any country in the world today. All communist systems include some capitalism, and vice versa. All capitalist systems, including the US and Canada include some socialism. But the degree to which they include it varies quite widely. 

 

Generally, we can say that the countries that include more socialism or socialist policies are the countries that are listed as the happiest countries in the world today. And the capitalist countries that include the least are far down the list. This is nothing to do in the least with me proposing communism.

 

Norway's capitalist system of government is likely the country that includes more socialist policy than any of the others. We can explored that assertion of mine further if you like. Canada makes it into the top ten, the US doesn't. I'm talking about SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE CAPITALISM.

 

You're an intelligent person; I've read several of your posts on different topics. Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I've said or are you quite serious about suggesting that I'm promoting communism?

 

 

 

To relate this to the topic, which was Trump, he is dead-set against the USA becoming a socialist country and has been doing a good job renegotiating trade deals with other countries and with job creation in our own country. There is a lot not to like about him personally, maybe he does have some personality disorder, but I approve of his performance as President.

 

And, suggestions that he should be assassinated are way out of line.

 

And now, for you to read and understand what I've said above, you have to see how Trump has used the same dishonest exaggerations as are what is expected from Americans, as I've laid out concerning your reply. Nobody is trying to turn the US into a socialist or communist country. That's Trump's deliberate obfuscations of reality. Some factions within the US are trying to make America into a more 'socially responsible capitalist country.

 

And now I'll provide two examples for discussion. Reform of America's health care system to a universal system that takes care of all the people at probably half the cost to everyone! 

 

and

 

Reform of the US prison system to be more like Norway's hugely successful system.

 

And now I invite you and the others to take part in a discussion on the details!

 

 

So, if you ask me if a socialist system works, I would have to say NO, emphatically!

 

No such pure socialist system exists in the world and so I would have to say that I agree! 

[montgomery]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/duncanmadden/2018/03/27/ranked-the-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world-in-2018/#5dc09f3073e9

 

I noticed that Finland took over first place from Norway. Finland jumped from 5th. to 1st. 

 

Happiness may not be everything but it's not to be scoffed at. And especially not by Americans who are apparently very unhappy and were perhaps on the brink of revolution, until Trump convinced them that everything was just peachy great! I wonder how long they will believe? 

[GAHD]

Moronium and Gahd, yeah it was sth along the lines of Moroniums understanding.

Case A: if one puts 50% extra and expects a 50% extra yield and does not get it it is theft

Case B: if one puts 50% extra, knowing that it it is just going to the society and he gets no substantial/proportional extra yield, it is not theft.

 

That is why I disagree with communism being theft.

 

Now Gahd:

 

 

 

Do I misread you here, or are you really saying that you know of no cases were privatization did not **** up something?

I see, so your belief is that it's fine to retard rewards of ambition as long as it's clearly stated that ambition is not allowed to be rewarded? I disagree with that on a logical and moral basis, but that's fine.

 

I'm saying that a lack of "competition", to my knowledge, invariably leads to poor performance. If a private business fails at it's task it goes out of business(with socialist exceptions like bailouts), if a government business fails at it's task it gets more funding (because obviously the problem isn't with use of resources it's with volume of resources). As far as I know state business without private alternatives invariably bloats and fails and has massive cost overrun. Dept ed vs private ed, post office vs couriers, water vs water(eg the potable water issues with several communities in Canada and the USA that have taken years without a viable gov solution i'm sure with other states I'm unaware of), motor vehicle insurance, any government project the refuses private bids, etc...

 

So yes, I am really saying "that I know of no cases were allowing privatization did not **** up something worse than denying privatization already has." I'd like to hear a few examples if you disagree?

 

China's communism has lifted hundreds of millions up out of poverty. I hope that answers all of your questions.

testing. Yup I have to go OUT OF MY WAY to insert my text into your quote tag. I can only assume you are doing these actions on purpose, please stop doing it. It is deceitful and apparently malicious. If it is too difficult for you to break up and reply line-by-line to a post, then do not do that; just start typing and everything will work out fine. Prime example of incidental libel.

 

That does not answer my questions. It particularly avoids these ones, allow me to reiterate:

• Why are you putting words in my mouth by claiming to respond to me talking about china?
• Which birther remarks are direct evidence of Trump promoting racism?

Edited February 12, 2019 by GAHD
postmerge

[GAHD]

China's communism has lifted hundreds of millions up out of poverty. I hope that answers all of your questions.

testing. Yup I have to go OUT OF MY WAY to insert my text into your quote tag. I can only assume you are doing these actions on purpose, please stop doing it. It is deceitful and apparently malicious. If it is too difficult for you to break up and reply line-by-line to a post, then do not do that; just start typing and everything will work out fine. Prime example of incidental libel.

 

That does not answer my questions. It particularly avoids these ones, allow me to reiterate:

1. Why are you putting words in my mouth by claiming to respond to me talking about china?
2. Which birther remarks are direct evidence of Trump promoting racism?

[sanctus]

COmunism thing: it is just my point to say it is not theft. I am not advocating comunism.
And Moronium: China might well have lifted millions out of poverty, but how many millions did Mao kill in the process (hint numbers estimated at >40millon)

 

Gahd here you go:


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/14/fall-in-uk-rail-passenger-numbers-casts-doubt-on-viability-of-franchises

 

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/water-privatization-facts-and-figures

 

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/209/43398.html

 

https://www.health24.com/Lifestyle/Environmental-health/Faqs/Water-privatization-20130312

 

And this is the best link of all (and even relates to Trump):

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/21/privatizing-public-services-trump-democracy
The problem with privatiozation is that money and profitability comes before people. Worst when it relates to things relating to basic needs: eg. : water, healthcare etc.

A good list of the problems:
https://weownit.org.uk/privatisation

 

 

And Flint crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis

is a good example. If government at fault actions can easily be taken and people held accountable

[GAHD]

And Flint crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis

is a good example. If government at fault actions can easily be taken and people held accountable

I could be wrong here but...Wasn't the Flint thing directly caused by the government control, and the only solution to the contamination was the private(bottled) water companies? That's why the kids in flint filed a class-action lawsuit against the EPA, right? Are you saying it was good that the government responded to a deficit by switching from one water infrastructure to one they built with roman-style leaded pipes? I'm saying it's good to have a(or multiple) secondary private system(s) in place because it keeps the government system in check and provides redundancy. I look at water as a slightly more important version of telecom; it's all a series of tubes and there is a big truck as another option. I'm not saying sell the existing infrastructure off to private companies, but that introducing competition is a good thing.

 

Aside from that:

-Train companies SHOULD go out of business if they can't provide service at a market cost. A government rail system would probably increase taxes rater than find a better way to do it. There is no such thing as "too big to fail." This also may be a side effect another thing too for the same reason Shark attacks and ice cream consumption statistics are in lock-step; a third factor. I don't see how this can be an argument AGAINST privatization. It looks to me like people are just using another option, the so-called "vote with your feet." That means the system is working.

 

-private companies, unlike the government, give you the option to say "I'm not buying that" and switch providers. AFAICT most of your links are showing incidental monopoly without that competition, which is part of the problem.

 

[montgomery]

I could be wrong here but...Wasn't the Flint thing directly caused by the government control, and the only solution to the contamination was the private(bottled) water companies? That's why the kids in flint filed a class-action lawsuit against the EPA, right? Are you saying it was good that the government responded to a deficit by switching from one water infrastructure to one they built with roman-style leaded pipes? I'm saying it's good to have a(or multiple) secondary private system(s) in place because it keeps the government system in check and provides redundancy. I look at water as a slightly more important version of telecom; it's all a series of tubes and there is a big truck as another option. I'm not saying sell the existing infrastructure off to private companies, but that introducing competition is a good thing.

 

Aside from that:

-Train companies SHOULD go out of business if they can't provide service at a market cost. A government rail system would probably increase taxes rater than find a better way to do it. There is no such thing as "too big to fail." This also may be a side effect another thing too for the same reason Shark attacks and ice cream consumption statistics are in lock-step; a third factor. I don't see how this can be an argument AGAINST privatization. It looks to me like people are just using another option, the so-called "vote with your feet." That means the system is working.

 

 

 

 

 

You're refusing to face the fact that America's form of greedy capitalism is failing. And you don't want to accept that their government has been able to give a 'leg up' to big business and corporations which has resulted in huge income inequality. The worst example is the US health care system which is being continually propped up by rightist government which has been lobbied to ensure that profits are more important than serving the people's needs.

 

I've made my case on the US health care issue so we can move on to something else if you wish to. Or you can continue to belabour it, whatever you choose.

 

Socially responsible capitalism which includes some programs which government can do better is the issue.

 

 

-private companies, unlike the government, give you the option to say "I'm not buying that" and switch providers. AFAICT most of your links are showing incidental monopoly without that competition, which is part of the problem.

 

In order to create some possibility of agreement, can we fully explore that assertion you are making? It's wrong and I can tell you why it's wrong, but I need you to explore the truth with an open mind. If you don't wish to explore the facts then I won't even bother to start.

[montgomery]

Gahd, I brought China into the conversation because you wanted to talk about communism and that's probably the biggest and best example of communism's success. There are others such as Cuba but the issue doesn't center on the topic of communism. It's all about degrees of capitalism and how no capitalist system can exclude socialism. And of course vice versa.

 

For someone to think it's not so would be to fall right into accepting Trump's lies. Nobody has tried to turn America into a communist or socialist country. Therein is his lie. Some arr trying to make America a more socially responsible capitalist country. The details of such is what you refuse to accept.

[sanctus]

Gahd, exactly because not private kids could file such a complaint and vote for new people etc.

[GAHD]

Gahd, exactly because not private kids could file such a complaint and vote for new people etc.

...I'm pretty sure it easier to sue a company than to sue a government though? What make you think you can't sue a private company for poisoning?

 

Gahd, I brought China into the conversation because you wanted to talk about communism and that's probably the biggest and best example of communism's success. There are others such as Cuba but the issue doesn't center on the topic of communism. It's all about degrees of capitalism and how no capitalist system can exclude socialism. And of course vice versa.

 

For someone to think it's not so would be to fall right into accepting Trump's lies. Nobody has tried to turn America into a communist or socialist country. Therein is his lie. Some arr trying to make America a more socially responsible capitalist country. The details of such is what you refuse to accept.

nono, you are missing something here. Nice try to side-step but this is actually important.

 

 

You're not paying attention so let's start all over again. First, I asked that China as an example be excluded but you've decided to include China so I'll say a few things about it.

• Why are you putting words in my mouth by claiming to respond to me talking about china?

   

  You claimed that I brought up china specifically, that is a LIE and LIBEL. Why did you LIE about what I said? It's very important because you make many claims about Trump saying things, and have provided key evidence that you LIE and cannot be trusted. This directly leads to #2.

   

• Which birther remarks are direct evidence of Trump promoting racism?

Edited February 14, 2019 by GAHD
second quote fixed

[montgomery]

...I'm pretty sure it easier to sue a company than to sue a government though? What make you think you can't sue a private company for poisoning?

 

nono, you are missing something here. Nice try to side-step but this is actually important.

 

 

• Why are you putting words in my mouth by claiming to respond to me talking about china?

   

  You claimed that I brought up china specifically, that is a LIE and LIBEL. Why did you LIE about what I said? It's very important because you make many claims about Trump saying things, and have provided key evidence that you LIE and cannot be trusted. This directly leads to #2.

   

• Which birther remarks are direct evidence of Trump promoting racism?

 

1. It may be a lie but you brought up communism and so you wanted to discuss it. But libel is a little over the top isn't it? 

2. Trump's birther remarks were all racist. Did you think they were meant for some other purpose? His base loves the racism issue and he used it to play to those lowlife schmucks. We're Canadians so can we just rise above the US lowlife nonsense?

 

I note that your post #147 is going on about private enterprise vs. government run services so I'll just briefly pursue that off-conversation here. Are you actually suggesting that Canada would be better off with the US style of health care? I can't quite believe any Canadian would think that!  And yes, I know there's big money to be made off the backs of the Canadian people, and that's the reason Alberta has some rightist politicians trying to wreck our health care system.

 

If you would prefer to leave health care and dwell on any other programs and services that government always does better, then we can to that. But I would reather ride the health care issue to the end with you. I really don't know what you might be promoting? Do you think the US system can compare favourably with hugely successful univeral, government run health care in the rest of the world's modern countries?