Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Trump good for the U.S.?

Lee001
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 5:12:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 3:00:32 PM, all-in-one wrote:
Would Donald Trump be able to turn U.S. economy around with his business knowledge?

I personally believe Donald Trump has good intentions. He says allot of stuff like the other presidents but we will see if he actually achieves what he says he'll do.

His idea of not raising minimum wage would be good. Right now the minimum is at $7.25 per hour, he doesn't want to increase it. Raising minimum wage would only make the work places less competitive with foreign workers, making it harder to keep jobs here in America.

He also has the idea of having 2 different type of minimum wages. One for teenagers, and one for families. I personally believe this is a great idea. It would be able to meet the workers circumstances in which they are living in.

That's just one thing I hope he actually peruses. He's a great business man, and I truly believe he can restore America.
"Condoms are societal constructs created by the government to restrain 'Murican freedom!"-SolonKR

"But I jest and digress (sick rhymes, yo); every boob is equal in the eyes of the Lord."- SolonKR

"Oh Hey, Seeing Artichokes Makes Me Want to Have Sex."- SolonKR

"Yep, but anyone who touches my hair immediately ascends to the heavens..You're already an angel, so touching my hair can do nothing <3" -SolonKR

My hubby Hayd <3 <3
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 7:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 5:12:21 PM, Lee001 wrote:
His idea of not raising minimum wage would be good. Right now the minimum is at $7.25 per hour, he doesn't want to increase it. Raising minimum wage would only make the work places less competitive with foreign workers, making it harder to keep jobs here in America.

Trump's argument on this point was false. The vast majority of minimum wage jobs are in the service industry, and those are non-exportable.

This is from a Pew Research study [http://www.pewresearch.org...]:

"They"re employed in the industries and occupations you might expect: More than half (55%) work in the leisure and hospitality industry, about 14% in retail, 8% in education and health services, and the rest scattered among other industries. Broken down occupationally, the picture is similar: Nearly 47% are in food-preparation and serving-related occupations; 14.5% are in sales and related occupations, 7% in personal care and service occupations, and the rest are scattered."

It isn't possible to "export" a restaurant job unless the employer--or, in many cases, the franchisee--were to physically move his or her plant overseas, which is unbelievably costly, and thus unlikely. That aside, there are costs to a minimum-wage increase, though I'm wary that Mr. Trump isn't as readily informed on this issue (or on many others) than I would like.

He also has the idea of having 2 different type of minimum wages. One for teenagers, and one for families. I personally believe this is a great idea. It would be able to meet the workers circumstances in which they are living in.

I agree; this is a good idea. Most minimum-wage workers are not teenagers, but they still comprise a considerable portion of workers who make the minimum wage.

That's just one thing I hope he actually peruses. He's a great business man, and I truly believe he can restore America.

What qualifications does Mr. Trump have that would qualify him for public office? Being a businessman doesn't qualify someone to weigh in on substantive policy, or to engage in contentious negotiations with foreign leaders. I don't think he's informed, never mind intelligent, enough for public office.
all-in-one
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 5:12:21 PM, Lee001 wrote:
At 8/21/2015 3:00:32 PM, all-in-one wrote:
Would Donald Trump be able to turn U.S. economy around with his business knowledge?

I personally believe Donald Trump has good intentions. He says allot of stuff like the other presidents but we will see if he actually achieves what he says he'll do.

His idea of not raising minimum wage would be good. Right now the minimum is at $7.25 per hour, he doesn't want to increase it. Raising minimum wage would only make the work places less competitive with foreign workers, making it harder to keep jobs here in America.

He also has the idea of having 2 different type of minimum wages. One for teenagers, and one for families. I personally believe this is a great idea. It would be able to meet the workers circumstances in which they are living in.

That's just one thing I hope he actually peruses. He's a great business man, and I truly believe he can restore America. : :

Donald Trump and the rest of the presidential candidates don't know what it's like to have two or three part-time jobs to pay for the high cost of living in the major cities. It's okay for the rural areas where housing costs are low but in high rent areas, it's ridiculous.

I don't think the U.S. government should have anything to do with minimum wage. It should be set from city to city and county to county depending on the expenses each family needs to support themselves.

Hopefully, Mr. Trump will eliminate many Federal programs and let local governments have more power to rule over it's people like it was in the beginning of this country. This will better manage all the people in this country.
all-in-one
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:35:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 7:05:39 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 5:12:21 PM, Lee001 wrote:
His idea of not raising minimum wage would be good. Right now the minimum is at $7.25 per hour, he doesn't want to increase it. Raising minimum wage would only make the work places less competitive with foreign workers, making it harder to keep jobs here in America.

Trump's argument on this point was false. The vast majority of minimum wage jobs are in the service industry, and those are non-exportable.

This is from a Pew Research study [http://www.pewresearch.org...]:

"They"re employed in the industries and occupations you might expect: More than half (55%) work in the leisure and hospitality industry, about 14% in retail, 8% in education and health services, and the rest scattered among other industries. Broken down occupationally, the picture is similar: Nearly 47% are in food-preparation and serving-related occupations; 14.5% are in sales and related occupations, 7% in personal care and service occupations, and the rest are scattered."

It isn't possible to "export" a restaurant job unless the employer--or, in many cases, the franchisee--were to physically move his or her plant overseas, which is unbelievably costly, and thus unlikely. That aside, there are costs to a minimum-wage increase, though I'm wary that Mr. Trump isn't as readily informed on this issue (or on many others) than I would like.

He also has the idea of having 2 different type of minimum wages. One for teenagers, and one for families. I personally believe this is a great idea. It would be able to meet the workers circumstances in which they are living in.

I agree; this is a good idea. Most minimum-wage workers are not teenagers, but they still comprise a considerable portion of workers who make the minimum wage.

That's just one thing I hope he actually peruses. He's a great business man, and I truly believe he can restore America.

What qualifications does Mr. Trump have that would qualify him for public office? Being a businessman doesn't qualify someone to weigh in on substantive policy, or to engage in contentious negotiations with foreign leaders. I don't think he's informed, never mind intelligent, enough for public office. : :

What qualifications do you need to be the president of the U.S.?
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:40:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 3:00:32 PM, all-in-one wrote:
Would Donald Trump be able to turn U.S. economy around with his business knowledge?

Trump is good for the world.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
all-in-one
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:48:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 10:40:02 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 8/21/2015 3:00:32 PM, all-in-one wrote:
Would Donald Trump be able to turn U.S. economy around with his business knowledge?

Trump is good for the world. : :

I live in a very democratic area of the U.S and I'm finding that most of my friends like Donald Trump.

I like his confidence and I think that is what most people see in him, despite his lack of political experience. It might be the best thing that has happened to the U.S. in a long time.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:53:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 10:35:01 PM, all-in-one wrote:
What qualifications do you need to be the president of the U.S.?

At the bare minimum, I think a candidate for president needs to demonstrate that he or she possesses at least a basic knowledge of world affairs and has the aptitude, as well as the willingness, to readily adapt to volatile world events.

Trump has demonstrated neither. He regularly demonstrates how fantastically uninformed and close-minded he is, and regularly fudges the facts. He makes claims (such as "Mexico is sending illegals to the United States") that are backed by absolutely nothing and refuses to explain himself. When he does that, he demonstrates the same level of incompetence demonstrated by Michelle Bachmann, when she asserted that a mother had told her the HPV vaccine induced "mental retardation" in her daughter. Trump was, likewise, passing on information he supposedly heard from a Border Security agent. He didn't give us a name or any documentation, so we haven't any way to verify this extraordinary remark which, had it actually been happening, would mandate action by the U.S. Government. If it actually were happening and we just didn't see it, that would be an egregious blunder by our intelligence community. But that doesn't explain how Mr. Trump knows more than we do. Key: he doesn't.

Next, he actually admits to knowing almost nothing about the world. He was asked in a recent interview with Chuck Todd which foreign-policy advisors he finds most convincing. He began by dodging the question, stating that he gets his foreign policy advice "on television." I'm not an expert on foreign policy, but I know for a fact that the punditry is an inadequate and wholly biased source for information on decisions to which he would be intimately tethered as President. His blunder in this department was on par with Sarah Palin's failure during her interview with Katie Couric, where she couldn't answer a question so rudimentary as "What newspapers do you read?"

Then, Mr. Trump readily complains about the specter of "political correctness." Irrespective of whether that's a good applause line amongst the GOP base, Trump fails to realize--or, better yet, his supporters fail to realize--that the tact that Mr. Trump lacks would doom him foreign-policy wise. The President of the United States regularly has to meet with foreign leaders on severely important and classified matters; beating his chest and threatening to sanction countries, like Mexico, for failing to pay for a border wall, all whilst falsely accusing them of physically "sending" undesirables to the U.S. to feed off the government dole, isn't the least bit conducive to an amicable resolution to world affairs. Other countries would laugh at us; either that, or Mr. Trump would either censor himself, thus undermining his own brand (in which case, he loses his trademark, and thus the only thing that sets him apart from every other right-wing blowhard), or he beats his chest as he's doing now, and ends up causing an international outrage -- or, worse yet, WWIII. I shutter to think of the carnage this man is capable of causing, or the signal we would be sending to the rest of the world if he were to elect him. Foreign leaders may not be as kind as John McCain or Megyn Kelly were in being subjected to Trump's callous disdain.

So, in short, he lacks four things: knowledge, tact, aptitude, and flexibility. All of these things are crucial to succeeding in the highest office in the country, and consequently it would be a disaster for Trump -- or for someone like him -- to take up the reigns. It would be the equivalent of throwing a child who doesn't know how to swim, but who talks a big game, into the deep end with water wings or a lifeboat in sight. It's a joke, and the 25 or so percent of Republicans supporting him should be ashamed.
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:07:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 10:53:30 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 10:35:01 PM, all-in-one wrote:
What qualifications do you need to be the president of the U.S.?

At the bare minimum, I think a candidate for president needs to demonstrate that he or she possesses at least a basic knowledge of world affairs and has the aptitude, as well as the willingness, to readily adapt to volatile world events.

Trump has demonstrated neither. He regularly demonstrates how fantastically uninformed and close-minded he is, and regularly fudges the facts.

My thoughts exactly.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
all-in-one
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:10:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 10:53:30 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 10:35:01 PM, all-in-one wrote:
What qualifications do you need to be the president of the U.S.?

At the bare minimum, I think a candidate for president needs to demonstrate that he or she possesses at least a basic knowledge of world affairs and has the aptitude, as well as the willingness, to readily adapt to volatile world events.

Trump has demonstrated neither. He regularly demonstrates how fantastically uninformed and close-minded he is, and regularly fudges the facts. He makes claims (such as "Mexico is sending illegals to the United States") that are backed by absolutely nothing and refuses to explain himself. When he does that, he demonstrates the same level of incompetence demonstrated by Michelle Bachmann, when she asserted that a mother had told her the HPV vaccine induced "mental retardation" in her daughter. Trump was, likewise, passing on information he supposedly heard from a Border Security agent. He didn't give us a name or any documentation, so we haven't any way to verify this extraordinary remark which, had it actually been happening, would mandate action by the U.S. Government. If it actually were happening and we just didn't see it, that would be an egregious blunder by our intelligence community. But that doesn't explain how Mr. Trump knows more than we do. Key: he doesn't.

Next, he actually admits to knowing almost nothing about the world. He was asked in a recent interview with Chuck Todd which foreign-policy advisors he finds most convincing. He began by dodging the question, stating that he gets his foreign policy advice "on television." I'm not an expert on foreign policy, but I know for a fact that the punditry is an inadequate and wholly biased source for information on decisions to which he would be intimately tethered as President. His blunder in this department was on par with Sarah Palin's failure during her interview with Katie Couric, where she couldn't answer a question so rudimentary as "What newspapers do you read?"

Then, Mr. Trump readily complains about the specter of "political correctness." Irrespective of whether that's a good applause line amongst the GOP base, Trump fails to realize--or, better yet, his supporters fail to realize--that the tact that Mr. Trump lacks would doom him foreign-policy wise. The President of the United States regularly has to meet with foreign leaders on severely important and classified matters; beating his chest and threatening to sanction countries, like Mexico, for failing to pay for a border wall, all whilst falsely accusing them of physically "sending" undesirables to the U.S. to feed off the government dole, isn't the least bit conducive to an amicable resolution to world affairs. Other countries would laugh at us; either that, or Mr. Trump would either censor himself, thus undermining his own brand (in which case, he loses his trademark, and thus the only thing that sets him apart from every other right-wing blowhard), or he beats his chest as he's doing now, and ends up causing an international outrage -- or, worse yet, WWIII. I shutter to think of the carnage this man is capable of causing, or the signal we would be sending to the rest of the world if he were to elect him. Foreign leaders may not be as kind as John McCain or Megyn Kelly were in being subjected to Trump's callous disdain.

So, in short, he lacks four things: knowledge, tact, aptitude, and flexibility. All of these things are crucial to succeeding in the highest office in the country, and consequently it would be a disaster for Trump -- or for someone like him -- to take up the reigns. It would be the equivalent of throwing a child who doesn't know how to swim, but who talks a big game, into the deep end with water wings or a lifeboat in sight. It's a joke, and the 25 or so percent of Republicans supporting him should be ashamed. : :

Politics should be about the people of the country that politicians are a part of. I think we have too many politicians who are more interested in the corporate leaders and those who own the corporations that are now involved in all the major countries of the world. I think Donald Trump sees this problem and wants to give more power to the people of the U.S to make the U.S. more respectable in the world.

I have lived abroad and have talked to many foreigners who don't have any respect for the U.S. anymore, particularly after the Iraq invasion. When Spain decided to not support the Iraq war, the U.S. government stopped a lot of trade with them and it devastated the Spanish economy.

The people who decided to go to war in Iraq have been involved in politics most of their lives so experience in politics does not give a president an advantage as a leader. A good leader should be able to negotiate with other leaders of the world without going to war.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:10:01 PM, all-in-one wrote:
Politics should be about the people of the country that politicians are a part of. I think we have too many politicians who are more interested in the corporate leaders and those who own the corporations that are now involved in all the major countries of the world.

On this point in particular, we couldn't be more in agreement. We hear quite a lot--namely from Tea Party people--that "Washington doesn't work." The problem, of course, is that these particular figures are precisely what makes government so untenable and disconnected--the very people who are in bed with the NRA and with corporate America.

I think Donald Trump sees this problem and wants to give more power to the people of the U.S to make the U.S. more respectable in the world.

Mr. Trump participated in that system. I will admit that I was impressed when he admitted as much--and said, outright, that the system is broken--but then he said in another interview that campaign finance is "not at the top of his list of priorities." Translation: he doesn't need financing to run his campaign, but that notwithstanding, he's able and willing to play ball with his buddies in the business community to raise his own brand after he exits office.

You could say that's a conspiracy theory, and maybe it is. But this is the guy who told us that he took advantage of bankruptcy laws "because he could." He did it because he, as a businessman, saw an opportunity to utilize a broken system which he and his friends helped to break. Quid-pro-quo's are legal in this country, I'm afraid. He would be stupid not to utilize that.

But let's put that aside, too, and say that you're right: let's say he's authentic, not bought out, and is "for the people," whatever that means. How does he intend to make the U.S. more respectable in the world? He can repeat that phrase as much as he wants, but he won't get there with his tactless, ignorant bloviating. Again, imagine that he were to say the same thing about Vladimir Putin that he said about, say, John McCain. Foreign leaders won't be as forgiving.

I have lived abroad and have talked to many foreigners who don't have any respect for the U.S. anymore, particularly after the Iraq invasion. When Spain decided to not support the Iraq war, the U.S. government stopped a lot of trade with them and it devastated the Spanish economy.

I agree with this, but the problem is, the same foreign policy advisor, John Bolton, who beat his chest and was instrumental in getting us into the Iraq War (which Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are currently hedging their bets on) is Trump's go-to guy. He actually just praised John Bolton, in spite of expressing his own opposition to the Iraq War, although a few years ago he said he was only interested in Iraq insofar as we get the oil. That's (1) a different position and (2) even worse, arguably, for our standing abroad, if Trump will actually advocate--and admit--that he's willing to start wars to procure oil.

The people who decided to go to war in Iraq have been involved in politics most of their lives so experience in politics does not give a president an advantage as a leader. A good leader should be able to negotiate with other leaders of the world without going to war.

I disagree on the first point. Politics is sticky business, and the problem is there are minutiae and idiosyncrasies that a so-called "problem solver" businessman--who regularly took advantage of the laws he helped to craft--cannot readily handle.

Here's a good example. Trump has been in a position all his life where he could (a) call the shots and (b) fire whomever didn't bow down to him. Imagine if he had to deal with the obstruction that President Obama now faces. He can't fire Nancy Pelosi. Will he take to his Twitter and call her a loser, as he has done with everyone else who has levied even the most minor criticism? A president needs to be above that, in the same way Obama was "above" Trump's ill-founded and racist birtherism charges.

I agree that a president needs to be able to negotiate with foreign leaders. I've seen no indication that Trump would be remotely qualified for that, and several indications that he would be disastrous--an embarrassment to the country, as Bernie Sanders well put it (note: not an endorsement of Bernie, though he has more presidential potential in his left pinkie than Trump has in his whole body)--on a world stage.

Love or hate Obama, but he is presidential in nature. You can tell by his maturity, his demeanor, the way he carries himself--and, above all, his intelligence. Those are all things that are critical important for our next leader, but which Trump lacks.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:

Mr. Trump participated in that system. I will admit that I was impressed when he admitted as much--and said, outright, that the system is broken--but then he said in another interview that campaign finance is "not at the top of his list of priorities." Translation: he doesn't need financing to run his campaign, but that notwithstanding, he's able and willing to play ball with his buddies in the business community to raise his own brand after he exits office.

Honest question here. Do you believe that campaign finance corruption creates too much government power or does too much government power cause the problem of campaign finance corruption?
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:

Mr. Trump participated in that system. I will admit that I was impressed when he admitted as much--and said, outright, that the system is broken--but then he said in another interview that campaign finance is "not at the top of his list of priorities." Translation: he doesn't need financing to run his campaign, but that notwithstanding, he's able and willing to play ball with his buddies in the business community to raise his own brand after he exits office.

Honest question here. Do you believe that campaign finance corruption creates too much government power or does too much government power cause the problem of campaign finance corruption?

I don't think corruption creates government power, but the "power" I'm talking about are fairly fundamental in nature. For instance, of course governments ought to have the right to tax and to spend. We can have reasonable discussions on the extent to which the government taxes and spends, who bears that burden, and how we distribute the results, but that debate gets tainted when politicians have an incentive to tip the scale in the favor of one demographic.

Here's an example. I believe that the government taxes too much. Perhaps we're in agreement on this. I would reduce taxes, but I would do so in a way that doesn't disproportionately benefit some group. For instance, we heavily subsidize the fossil-fuel industry that is killing the environment. I want to reduce taxes in a broad-based way as opposed to giving subsidies, but the power to grant subsidies or to instituting a targeted tax break, such as the child-care, education, or earned income tax credits, is not in itself wrong.

I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption. We can have a reasoned debate on the extent of government power, but we're always going to side with--or politicians will always side with--increased power for certain groups insofar as they are allowed to rig the system.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!
all-in-one
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:53:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:10:01 PM, all-in-one wrote:
Politics should be about the people of the country that politicians are a part of. I think we have too many politicians who are more interested in the corporate leaders and those who own the corporations that are now involved in all the major countries of the world.

On this point in particular, we couldn't be more in agreement. We hear quite a lot--namely from Tea Party people--that "Washington doesn't work." The problem, of course, is that these particular figures are precisely what makes government so untenable and disconnected--the very people who are in bed with the NRA and with corporate America.

I think Donald Trump sees this problem and wants to give more power to the people of the U.S to make the U.S. more respectable in the world.

Mr. Trump participated in that system. I will admit that I was impressed when he admitted as much--and said, outright, that the system is broken--but then he said in another interview that campaign finance is "not at the top of his list of priorities." Translation: he doesn't need financing to run his campaign, but that notwithstanding, he's able and willing to play ball with his buddies in the business community to raise his own brand after he exits office.

You could say that's a conspiracy theory, and maybe it is. But this is the guy who told us that he took advantage of bankruptcy laws "because he could." He did it because he, as a businessman, saw an opportunity to utilize a broken system which he and his friends helped to break. Quid-pro-quo's are legal in this country, I'm afraid. He would be stupid not to utilize that.

I think Trump understands very well that the people of the U.S. are sick of this broken system and even though he participated in breaking it, he's willing to change it around. None of the other politicians want to change the system that affords them to become multi-millionaires like he is.

But let's put that aside, too, and say that you're right: let's say he's authentic, not bought out, and is "for the people," whatever that means. How does he intend to make the U.S. more respectable in the world? He can repeat that phrase as much as he wants, but he won't get there with his tactless, ignorant bloviating. Again, imagine that he were to say the same thing about Vladimir Putin that he said about, say, John McCain. Foreign leaders won't be as forgiving. : :

Trump says he has many qualified friends who can handle these issues, which any intelligent president does before taking office. No president can lead a country without great people around him. I think Trump can easily see the lack of great people around President Obama:

I have lived abroad and have talked to many foreigners who don't have any respect for the U.S. anymore, particularly after the Iraq invasion. When Spain decided to not support the Iraq war, the U.S. government stopped a lot of trade with them and it devastated the Spanish economy.

I agree with this, but the problem is, the same foreign policy advisor, John Bolton, who beat his chest and was instrumental in getting us into the Iraq War (which Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are currently hedging their bets on) is Trump's go-to guy. He actually just praised John Bolton, in spite of expressing his own opposition to the Iraq War, although a few years ago he said he was only interested in Iraq insofar as we get the oil. That's (1) a different position and (2) even worse, arguably, for our standing abroad, if Trump will actually advocate--and admit--that he's willing to start wars to procure oil.

The reason the U.S. come together as a country was because of the Europeans greed for land and minerals. Nothing has changed in the minds of men.

The people who decided to go to war in Iraq have been involved in politics most of their lives so experience in politics does not give a president an advantage as a leader. A good leader should be able to negotiate with other leaders of the world without going to war.

I disagree on the first point. Politics is sticky business, and the problem is there are minutiae and idiosyncrasies that a so-called "problem solver" businessman--who regularly took advantage of the laws he helped to craft--cannot readily handle.


A good leader will surround himself with capable friends who know how to handle those little problems you're talking about.

Here's a good example. Trump has been in a position all his life where he could (a) call the shots and (b) fire whomever didn't bow down to him. Imagine if he had to deal with the obstruction that President Obama now faces. He can't fire Nancy Pelosi. Will he take to his Twitter and call her a loser, as he has done with everyone else who has levied even the most minor criticism? A president needs to be above that, in the same way Obama was "above" Trump's ill-founded and racist birtherism charges.


Haven't you noticed the way Donald Trump talks? He is the most positive man I've seen running for president in a long time. I think he's capable of negotiating with people like Nancy Pelosi and getting some kind of agreement. This is what Trump is very good at. President Obama does not have that kind of character or confidence. He gets angry and calls for Executive orders, which I don't think Donald Trump will need to use.

I agree that a president needs to be able to negotiate with foreign leaders. I've seen no indication that Trump would be remotely qualified for that, and several indications that he would be disastrous--an embarrassment to the country, as Bernie Sanders well put it (note: not an endorsement of Bernie, though he has more presidential potential in his left pinkie than Trump has in his whole body)--on a world stage.

I think the leaders of this world respect confident leaders, even if they don't agree with each other. Look what happened when Ronald Reagan confidently told the USSR to tear down the wall separating Germany? I don't see President Obama with that kind of confidence.

Love or hate Obama, but he is presidential in nature. You can tell by his maturity, his demeanor, the way he carries himself--and, above all, his intelligence. Those are all things that are critical important for our next leader, but which Trump lacks. : :

It appears the people of the U.S. believe Donald Trump is intelligent enough to make decisions. They like his confidence and demeanor.

Is it possible that you're prejudiced against successful businessmen?

To tell you the truth. I could care less what liar is chosen to be our next president. Not one of them has accomplished what they promised before being elected. President Obama promised to help the middle class and poor. We now have a much greater spread between the rich and poor than every before. He sold out to the corporate heads that control the government.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:08:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!

Could you watch this video and tell me what you think?

https://www.youtube.com...
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:09:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:53:08 PM, all-in-one wrote:
I think Trump understands very well that the people of the U.S. are sick of this broken system and even though he participated in breaking it, he's willing to change it around. None of the other politicians want to change the system that affords them to become multi-millionaires like he is.

He isn't making it a priority, and I've seen no reason to trust him more than someone like Bernie Sanders, who makes campaign finance the focal point of his campaign.

Trump says he has many qualified friends who can handle these issues, which any intelligent president does before taking office. No president can lead a country without great people around him. I think Trump can easily see the lack of great people around President Obama:

I don't see any basis for this. It just sounds like a platitude, especially when the people Trump has cited are responsibly for the Iraq War you decried earlier, and who are actively advocating for war with Iran. In Bolton' case, he's been doing that for a while. I want a leader who doesn't use the people around him as a crutch, but who actually has some background in these important issues. Otherwise, if it only mattered who your friends are, Joe the Plumber could run for President.

The reason the U.S. come together as a country was because of the Europeans greed for land and minerals. Nothing has changed in the minds of men.

What does this have to do with what I wrote on John Bolton?

A good leader will surround himself with capable friends who know how to handle those little problems you're talking about.

These aren't little problems. They're very complex, and the President has the ultimate sway. Otherwise, again, your neighbor could be president. We need a differentiating characteristic to judge the ability for the president to act as a leader. All you're doing is repeating platitudes and talking points.

Haven't you noticed the way Donald Trump talks? He is the most positive man I've seen running for president in a long time.

Positive? Let's review:

-During his announcement, he called Mexican immigrants killers and rapists.
-He referred to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle, and insulted her on Twitter for asking him hard questions.
-He made a lie about the Mexican government exporting undesirable immigrants.
-He insulted John McCain.
-He got into a brawl with Roger Ailes of Fox News.
-He's attacked so many people and so women it's hard to keep track.
-He challenged whether the president was born in the United States.

I think he's capable of negotiating with people like Nancy Pelosi and getting some kind of agreement. This is what Trump is very good at. President Obama does not have that kind of character or confidence. He gets angry and calls for Executive orders, which I don't think Donald Trump will need to use.

Everything Trump proposed in his announcement speech was executive in nature. Obama has actually issued far fewer executive orders than George Bush, in spite of record obstructionism. I've seen no evidence Trump can negotiate with people who disagree with him for the aforementioned reasons, and the fact that a business background in no way meshes with being President. An "executive" type, like Trump, cannot suddenly pivot to a "small government" conservative. It's just not his style.


I think the leaders of this world respect confident leaders, even if they don't agree with each other. Look what happened when Ronald Reagan confidently told the USSR to tear down the wall separating Germany? I don't see President Obama with that kind of confidence.

You keep wanting to make this about President Obama, but in reality I don't even know where these critiques are emanating from. There's a big difference between being confident and being pompous. Trump is the latter.

Love or hate Obama, but he is presidential in nature. You can tell by his maturity, his demeanor, the way he carries himself--and, above all, his intelligence. Those are all things that are critical important for our next leader, but which Trump lacks. : :

It appears the people of the U.S. believe Donald Trump is intelligent enough to make decisions. They like his confidence and demeanor.

Is it possible that you're prejudiced against successful businessmen?

No, that isn't remotely true, and claiming prejudice when I'm criticizing Trump not for having been successful, but for remarks he's made and the lack of political acumen he's demonstrated thus far, is offensive and disingenuous.

To tell you the truth. I could care less what liar is chosen to be our next president. Not one of them has accomplished what they promised before being elected. President Obama promised to help the middle class and poor. We now have a much greater spread between the rich and poor than every before. He sold out to the corporate heads that control the government.

Obama did sell out. That's very true, but it's hard to deny that he has actively pushed for policies, like the ACA, which to a large degree ameliorate that gap. The ACA, as one example and one which Donald Trump decries, is extremely redistributionist. Also, Trump wants even larger tax hikes, which exacerbate that gap, and which would probably be paid for through painful spending cuts (again, exacerbating that gap).
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:18:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:08:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!

Could you watch this video and tell me what you think?

https://www.youtube.com...



I just watched it, and I don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think current ethics or campaign finance laws remotely address underlying corruption, so it isn't that they're a blunt tool in principle, but that they're merely watered down. The "expansion" of government he talks about his interesting, because although the public-debt-to-GDP ratio has rocketed to 74% from 38% at the start of the recession (much of which is endogenous, e.g., a byproduct of cyclical factors), real government spending has collapsed. Also, that "expansion" most likely involves Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which encompass about two thirds of the budget. I don't understand how those are culprits for political corruption or for political bribery, especially when the top donors want those programs cut, because rich people depend on them a lot less. I can only sympathize with his argument when it comes to the defense industry. He might have a point on the complex tax code, but I'm very skeptical of his proposal for other reasons.
all-in-one
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:20:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:09:10 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:53:08 PM, all-in-one wrote:
I think Trump understands very well that the people of the U.S. are sick of this broken system and even though he participated in breaking it, he's willing to change it around. None of the other politicians want to change the system that affords them to become multi-millionaires like he is.

He isn't making it a priority, and I've seen no reason to trust him more than someone like Bernie Sanders, who makes campaign finance the focal point of his campaign.

Trump says he has many qualified friends who can handle these issues, which any intelligent president does before taking office. No president can lead a country without great people around him. I think Trump can easily see the lack of great people around President Obama:

I don't see any basis for this. It just sounds like a platitude, especially when the people Trump has cited are responsibly for the Iraq War you decried earlier, and who are actively advocating for war with Iran. In Bolton' case, he's been doing that for a while. I want a leader who doesn't use the people around him as a crutch, but who actually has some background in these important issues. Otherwise, if it only mattered who your friends are, Joe the Plumber could run for President.

The reason the U.S. come together as a country was because of the Europeans greed for land and minerals. Nothing has changed in the minds of men.

What does this have to do with what I wrote on John Bolton?

A good leader will surround himself with capable friends who know how to handle those little problems you're talking about.

These aren't little problems. They're very complex, and the President has the ultimate sway. Otherwise, again, your neighbor could be president. We need a differentiating characteristic to judge the ability for the president to act as a leader. All you're doing is repeating platitudes and talking points.

Haven't you noticed the way Donald Trump talks? He is the most positive man I've seen running for president in a long time.

Positive? Let's review:

-During his announcement, he called Mexican immigrants killers and rapists.
-He referred to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle, and insulted her on Twitter for asking him hard questions.
-He made a lie about the Mexican government exporting undesirable immigrants.
-He insulted John McCain.
-He got into a brawl with Roger Ailes of Fox News.
-He's attacked so many people and so women it's hard to keep track.
-He challenged whether the president was born in the United States.

I think he's capable of negotiating with people like Nancy Pelosi and getting some kind of agreement. This is what Trump is very good at. President Obama does not have that kind of character or confidence. He gets angry and calls for Executive orders, which I don't think Donald Trump will need to use.

Everything Trump proposed in his announcement speech was executive in nature. Obama has actually issued far fewer executive orders than George Bush, in spite of record obstructionism. I've seen no evidence Trump can negotiate with people who disagree with him for the aforementioned reasons, and the fact that a business background in no way meshes with being President. An "executive" type, like Trump, cannot suddenly pivot to a "small government" conservative. It's just not his style.


I think the leaders of this world respect confident leaders, even if they don't agree with each other. Look what happened when Ronald Reagan confidently told the USSR to tear down the wall separating Germany? I don't see President Obama with that kind of confidence.

You keep wanting to make this about President Obama, but in reality I don't even know where these critiques are emanating from. There's a big difference between being confident and being pompous. Trump is the latter.

Love or hate Obama, but he is presidential in nature. You can tell by his maturity, his demeanor, the way he carries himself--and, above all, his intelligence. Those are all things that are critical important for our next leader, but which Trump lacks. : :

It appears the people of the U.S. believe Donald Trump is intelligent enough to make decisions. They like his confidence and demeanor.

Is it possible that you're prejudiced against successful businessmen?

No, that isn't remotely true, and claiming prejudice when I'm criticizing Trump not for having been successful, but for remarks he's made and the lack of political acumen he's demonstrated thus far, is offensive and disingenuous.

To tell you the truth. I could care less what liar is chosen to be our next president. Not one of them has accomplished what they promised before being elected. President Obama promised to help the middle class and poor. We now have a much greater spread between the rich and poor than every before. He sold out to the corporate heads that control the government.

Obama did sell out. That's very true, but it's hard to deny that he has actively pushed for policies, like the ACA, which to a large degree ameliorate that gap. The ACA, as one example and one which Donald Trump decries, is extremely redistributionist. Also, Trump wants even larger tax hikes, which exacerbate that gap, and which would probably be paid for through painful spending cuts (again, exacerbating that gap). : :

Thank you for your insight on Donald Trump. I'm not going to vote for him or any other candidate because I don't believe any of them will be able to satisfy 300 million selfish people in this country. Donald Trump is sure making it an interesting campaign, though. It's making those politicians awfully nervous. Now they will have to speak straight to the voters instead of trying to be politically correct all the time.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:21:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:20:18 AM, all-in-one wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:09:10 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:53:08 PM, all-in-one wrote:
I think Trump understands very well that the people of the U.S. are sick of this broken system and even though he participated in breaking it, he's willing to change it around. None of the other politicians want to change the system that affords them to become multi-millionaires like he is.

He isn't making it a priority, and I've seen no reason to trust him more than someone like Bernie Sanders, who makes campaign finance the focal point of his campaign.

Trump says he has many qualified friends who can handle these issues, which any intelligent president does before taking office. No president can lead a country without great people around him. I think Trump can easily see the lack of great people around President Obama:

I don't see any basis for this. It just sounds like a platitude, especially when the people Trump has cited are responsibly for the Iraq War you decried earlier, and who are actively advocating for war with Iran. In Bolton' case, he's been doing that for a while. I want a leader who doesn't use the people around him as a crutch, but who actually has some background in these important issues. Otherwise, if it only mattered who your friends are, Joe the Plumber could run for President.

The reason the U.S. come together as a country was because of the Europeans greed for land and minerals. Nothing has changed in the minds of men.

What does this have to do with what I wrote on John Bolton?

A good leader will surround himself with capable friends who know how to handle those little problems you're talking about.

These aren't little problems. They're very complex, and the President has the ultimate sway. Otherwise, again, your neighbor could be president. We need a differentiating characteristic to judge the ability for the president to act as a leader. All you're doing is repeating platitudes and talking points.

Haven't you noticed the way Donald Trump talks? He is the most positive man I've seen running for president in a long time.

Positive? Let's review:

-During his announcement, he called Mexican immigrants killers and rapists.
-He referred to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle, and insulted her on Twitter for asking him hard questions.
-He made a lie about the Mexican government exporting undesirable immigrants.
-He insulted John McCain.
-He got into a brawl with Roger Ailes of Fox News.
-He's attacked so many people and so women it's hard to keep track.
-He challenged whether the president was born in the United States.

I think he's capable of negotiating with people like Nancy Pelosi and getting some kind of agreement. This is what Trump is very good at. President Obama does not have that kind of character or confidence. He gets angry and calls for Executive orders, which I don't think Donald Trump will need to use.

Everything Trump proposed in his announcement speech was executive in nature. Obama has actually issued far fewer executive orders than George Bush, in spite of record obstructionism. I've seen no evidence Trump can negotiate with people who disagree with him for the aforementioned reasons, and the fact that a business background in no way meshes with being President. An "executive" type, like Trump, cannot suddenly pivot to a "small government" conservative. It's just not his style.


I think the leaders of this world respect confident leaders, even if they don't agree with each other. Look what happened when Ronald Reagan confidently told the USSR to tear down the wall separating Germany? I don't see President Obama with that kind of confidence.

You keep wanting to make this about President Obama, but in reality I don't even know where these critiques are emanating from. There's a big difference between being confident and being pompous. Trump is the latter.

Love or hate Obama, but he is presidential in nature. You can tell by his maturity, his demeanor, the way he carries himself--and, above all, his intelligence. Those are all things that are critical important for our next leader, but which Trump lacks. : :

It appears the people of the U.S. believe Donald Trump is intelligent enough to make decisions. They like his confidence and demeanor.

Is it possible that you're prejudiced against successful businessmen?

No, that isn't remotely true, and claiming prejudice when I'm criticizing Trump not for having been successful, but for remarks he's made and the lack of political acumen he's demonstrated thus far, is offensive and disingenuous.

To tell you the truth. I could care less what liar is chosen to be our next president. Not one of them has accomplished what they promised before being elected. President Obama promised to help the middle class and poor. We now have a much greater spread between the rich and poor than every before. He sold out to the corporate heads that control the government.

Obama did sell out. That's very true, but it's hard to deny that he has actively pushed for policies, like the ACA, which to a large degree ameliorate that gap. The ACA, as one example and one which Donald Trump decries, is extremely redistributionist. Also, Trump wants even larger tax hikes, which exacerbate that gap, and which would probably be paid for through painful spending cuts (again, exacerbating that gap). : :

Thank you for your insight on Donald Trump. I'm not going to vote for him or any other candidate because I don't believe any of them will be able to satisfy 300 million selfish people in this country. Donald Trump is sure making it an interesting campaign, though. It's making those politicians awfully nervous. Now they will have to speak straight to the voters instead of trying to be politically correct all the time.

On that last point, we couldn't agree more, though I think you should still vote for someone. Unfortunately, we have a horrid system where you have to vote for the "lesser of two evils," though I don't think every candidate is the same, and we should be able to discern the differences, however narrow, between the candidates.
all-in-one
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:26:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:21:46 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:20:18 AM, all-in-one wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:09:10 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:53:08 PM, all-in-one wrote:
I think Trump understands very well that the people of the U.S. are sick of this broken system and even though he participated in breaking it, he's willing to change it around. None of the other politicians want to change the system that affords them to become multi-millionaires like he is.

He isn't making it a priority, and I've seen no reason to trust him more than someone like Bernie Sanders, who makes campaign finance the focal point of his campaign.

Trump says he has many qualified friends who can handle these issues, which any intelligent president does before taking office. No president can lead a country without great people around him. I think Trump can easily see the lack of great people around President Obama:

I don't see any basis for this. It just sounds like a platitude, especially when the people Trump has cited are responsibly for the Iraq War you decried earlier, and who are actively advocating for war with Iran. In Bolton' case, he's been doing that for a while. I want a leader who doesn't use the people around him as a crutch, but who actually has some background in these important issues. Otherwise, if it only mattered who your friends are, Joe the Plumber could run for President.

The reason the U.S. come together as a country was because of the Europeans greed for land and minerals. Nothing has changed in the minds of men.

What does this have to do with what I wrote on John Bolton?

A good leader will surround himself with capable friends who know how to handle those little problems you're talking about.

These aren't little problems. They're very complex, and the President has the ultimate sway. Otherwise, again, your neighbor could be president. We need a differentiating characteristic to judge the ability for the president to act as a leader. All you're doing is repeating platitudes and talking points.

Haven't you noticed the way Donald Trump talks? He is the most positive man I've seen running for president in a long time.

Positive? Let's review:

-During his announcement, he called Mexican immigrants killers and rapists.
-He referred to Megyn Kelly's menstrual cycle, and insulted her on Twitter for asking him hard questions.
-He made a lie about the Mexican government exporting undesirable immigrants.
-He insulted John McCain.
-He got into a brawl with Roger Ailes of Fox News.
-He's attacked so many people and so women it's hard to keep track.
-He challenged whether the president was born in the United States.

I think he's capable of negotiating with people like Nancy Pelosi and getting some kind of agreement. This is what Trump is very good at. President Obama does not have that kind of character or confidence. He gets angry and calls for Executive orders, which I don't think Donald Trump will need to use.

Everything Trump proposed in his announcement speech was executive in nature. Obama has actually issued far fewer executive orders than George Bush, in spite of record obstructionism. I've seen no evidence Trump can negotiate with people who disagree with him for the aforementioned reasons, and the fact that a business background in no way meshes with being President. An "executive" type, like Trump, cannot suddenly pivot to a "small government" conservative. It's just not his style.


I think the leaders of this world respect confident leaders, even if they don't agree with each other. Look what happened when Ronald Reagan confidently told the USSR to tear down the wall separating Germany? I don't see President Obama with that kind of confidence.

You keep wanting to make this about President Obama, but in reality I don't even know where these critiques are emanating from. There's a big difference between being confident and being pompous. Trump is the latter.

Love or hate Obama, but he is presidential in nature. You can tell by his maturity, his demeanor, the way he carries himself--and, above all, his intelligence. Those are all things that are critical important for our next leader, but which Trump lacks. : :

It appears the people of the U.S. believe Donald Trump is intelligent enough to make decisions. They like his confidence and demeanor.

Is it possible that you're prejudiced against successful businessmen?

No, that isn't remotely true, and claiming prejudice when I'm criticizing Trump not for having been successful, but for remarks he's made and the lack of political acumen he's demonstrated thus far, is offensive and disingenuous.

To tell you the truth. I could care less what liar is chosen to be our next president. Not one of them has accomplished what they promised before being elected. President Obama promised to help the middle class and poor. We now have a much greater spread between the rich and poor than every before. He sold out to the corporate heads that control the government.

Obama did sell out. That's very true, but it's hard to deny that he has actively pushed for policies, like the ACA, which to a large degree ameliorate that gap. The ACA, as one example and one which Donald Trump decries, is extremely redistributionist. Also, Trump wants even larger tax hikes, which exacerbate that gap, and which would probably be paid for through painful spending cuts (again, exacerbating that gap). : :

Thank you for your insight on Donald Trump. I'm not going to vote for him or any other candidate because I don't believe any of them will be able to satisfy 300 million selfish people in this country. Donald Trump is sure making it an interesting campaign, though. It's making those politicians awfully nervous. Now they will have to speak straight to the voters instead of trying to be politically correct all the time.

On that last point, we couldn't agree more, though I think you should still vote for someone. Unfortunately, we have a horrid system where you have to vote for the "lesser of two evils," though I don't think every candidate is the same, and we should be able to discern the differences, however narrow, between the candidates. : :

From my point of view, no man will change this world. They're all going down.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:27:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:18:08 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:08:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!

Could you watch this video and tell me what you think?

https://www.youtube.com...



I just watched it, and I don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think current ethics or campaign finance laws remotely address underlying corruption, so it isn't that they're a blunt tool in principle, but that they're merely watered down.

Ah I see, so campaign finance reform simply needs to be as big as the government, and then people will simply be unable to purchase politicians. A lofty sentiment.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:47:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 1:27:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:18:08 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:08:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!

Could you watch this video and tell me what you think?

https://www.youtube.com...



I just watched it, and I don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think current ethics or campaign finance laws remotely address underlying corruption, so it isn't that they're a blunt tool in principle, but that they're merely watered down.

Ah I see, so campaign finance reform simply needs to be as big as the government, and then people will simply be unable to purchase politicians. A lofty sentiment.

I don't think that's necessarily what I'm suggesting. It needs to impactful enough that it actually diminishes the capacity and incentive to bribe politicians.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 2:06:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 1:47:51 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:27:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:18:08 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:08:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!

Could you watch this video and tell me what you think?

https://www.youtube.com...



I just watched it, and I don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think current ethics or campaign finance laws remotely address underlying corruption, so it isn't that they're a blunt tool in principle, but that they're merely watered down.

Ah I see, so campaign finance reform simply needs to be as big as the government, and then people will simply be unable to purchase politicians. A lofty sentiment.

I don't think that's necessarily what I'm suggesting. It needs to impactful enough that it actually diminishes the capacity and incentive to bribe politicians.

Well... diminishing the capacity would be finance reform. Diminishing the incentive would be a less powerful government. After all, nobody is foolish enough to bribe someone who can't do anything for them.
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 2:21:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 2:06:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:47:51 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:27:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:18:08 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:08:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!

Could you watch this video and tell me what you think?

https://www.youtube.com...



I just watched it, and I don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think current ethics or campaign finance laws remotely address underlying corruption, so it isn't that they're a blunt tool in principle, but that they're merely watered down.

Ah I see, so campaign finance reform simply needs to be as big as the government, and then people will simply be unable to purchase politicians. A lofty sentiment.

I don't think that's necessarily what I'm suggesting. It needs to impactful enough that it actually diminishes the capacity and incentive to bribe politicians.

Well... diminishing the capacity would be finance reform. Diminishing the incentive would be a less powerful government. After all, nobody is foolish enough to bribe someone who can't do anything for them.

But how exactly would you diminish the power of the government? In what areas in particular? In many cases, corporations are lobbied for tax breaks, so you're effectively giving them what they want--and conceding--by saying, "Well, let's just shrink government." At the same time, I don't want to oppose a policy merely because it might benefit a corporation--a policy like, for instance, lifting the 1970s ban on oil exports, which oil moguls have been lobbying for recently.

My whole point is, I don't want to capitulate merely because of the threat of institutional corruption. I want to handle the corruption beforehand--corruption that inhibits sensible policy debate--and then decide whose principles are superior, and maybe you're right. But if shrinking government is the solution to legalized bribery, obviously it isn't going to happen, so even the more realistic solution is bottom-up financing campaigns by public dollars (which many states, which are somewhat less entrenched than national leaders, now support).
Sarra
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 2:41:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 7:05:39 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:

It isn't possible to "export" a restaurant job unless the employer--or, in many cases, the franchisee--were to physically move his or her plant overseas, which is unbelievably costly, and thus unlikely.
That aside, there are costs to a minimum-wage increase, though I'm wary that Mr. Trump isn't as readily informed on this issue (or on many others) than I would like.

What costs are underlying to a minimum-wage increase?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 2:58:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 2:21:16 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 2:06:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:47:51 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:27:05 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:18:08 AM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:08:02 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:53 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:42:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:38:19 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:28:28 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:23:06 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:


I guess my answer to you is this: the debate over government power is ancillary to the discussion of corruption.

Thanks for your time to satisfy my curiosity!

No problem!

Could you watch this video and tell me what you think?

https://www.youtube.com...



I just watched it, and I don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think current ethics or campaign finance laws remotely address underlying corruption, so it isn't that they're a blunt tool in principle, but that they're merely watered down.

Ah I see, so campaign finance reform simply needs to be as big as the government, and then people will simply be unable to purchase politicians. A lofty sentiment.

I don't think that's necessarily what I'm suggesting. It needs to impactful enough that it actually diminishes the capacity and incentive to bribe politicians.

Well... diminishing the capacity would be finance reform. Diminishing the incentive would be a less powerful government. After all, nobody is foolish enough to bribe someone who can't do anything for them.

But how exactly would you diminish the power of the government? In what areas in particular? In many cases, corporations are lobbied for tax breaks, so you're effectively giving them what they want--and conceding--by saying, "Well, let's just shrink government." At the same time, I don't want to oppose a policy merely because it might benefit a corporation--a policy like, for instance, lifting the 1970s ban on oil exports, which oil moguls have been lobbying for recently.

My whole point is, I don't want to capitulate merely because of the threat of institutional corruption. I want to handle the corruption beforehand--corruption that inhibits sensible policy debate--and then decide whose principles are superior, and maybe you're right. But if shrinking government is the solution to legalized bribery, obviously it isn't going to happen, so even the more realistic solution is bottom-up financing campaigns by public dollars (which many states, which are somewhat less entrenched than national leaders, now support).

Or you could like.... elect people that cant be bought like Trump...
InsertAliasHere
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 3:00:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 2:41:26 AM, Sarra wrote:
At 8/21/2015 7:05:39 PM, InsertAliasHere wrote:

It isn't possible to "export" a restaurant job unless the employer--or, in many cases, the franchisee--were to physically move his or her plant overseas, which is unbelievably costly, and thus unlikely.
That aside, there are costs to a minimum-wage increase, though I'm wary that Mr. Trump isn't as readily informed on this issue (or on many others) than I would like.

What costs are underlying to a minimum-wage increase?

First, there's a lot of literature (I could find some if you're interested, though at the moment I'll just cite the numbers off-hand) suggesting that it introduces a trade-off between income increases for some and job losses for others. A recent CBO report evaluating the latest Congressional proposal to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 over three years found that it would reduce employment by the third year by about 500,000 jobs. At the same time, 16 to 24 million people would get a raise. You can make the case that the trade-off is worth it, though the costs will rise with the nominal value of the minimum wage and the speed of implementation.

Second, it might price people out of the job market. If I'm an unskilled laborer, for instance, and the minimum wage is raised to $15, businesses don't have much of an incentive to employ me if I won't actually bring in $15 because my skills don't merit it (in microeconomics, we'd say that the "marginal cost" of employment me exceeds its "marginal benefit"). My "equilibrium wage" is lower than what they're requiring to pay me, so they'll likely employ someone else or replace me with machinery.

Third, because some people will be priced out of the job market, the "normal level" of unemployment might rise. This is because the LRAS curve--or the economy's productive capacity--shifted to the left. This curve is based on the quantity of capital, labor, and natural resources. In this case, the minimum wage might reduce the quantity of available labor if some people become unemployable; insofar as it induces unemployment in short run, it might restrain capital investment (and this could persist to the long run as well); and it might reduce overall productivity, particularly by virtue of investment falling. This is a very extreme outcome, and would probably only result if the spike in the minimum wage was exceptionally large and implemented over a very short duration.

Fourth, it will lead to price increases in the industries, like fast-food restaurants, that employ minimum wage. There's some recent research finding that, because lower-income workers are likely to eat at these restaurants or to shop at places that employ minimum-wage workers, that this is actually more regressive than a state sales tax. Price increases would obviously reduce real (inflation-adjusted) incomes, which might dampen a lot of the increase in the minimum for those whose incomes rise, or severely hammer people who lost their jobs and subsequently can't find a job.