Kut's Trump Approval Thread #1 (Starts Out at 100%)

[Fargo]

jamil:

I'm saying that we are NOT headed toward free markets. And we are NOT headed toward liberty. I think you've looked too hard and too long at the "needy" end of the spectrum and may have forgotten that a hot tub filled with banks, big business and big media already run many things and ultimately will run the world economy. I'm against it, of course, but that is the direction we are heading. It doesn't take Kurzweil to see that future.

If if you guys are going to argue economic theory, will you PLEASE first define your terms? It is already causing problems a couple posts in. Marxism and socialism are not interchangeable and nor are capitalism and the free market. Hell, I really doubt that you are both using the same definition for any of those four terms.

 

[jamil]

If if you guys are going to argue economic theory, will you PLEASE first define your terms? It is already causing problems a couple posts in. Marxism and socialism are not interchangeable and nor are capitalism and the free market. Hell, I really doubt that you are both using the same definition for any of those four terms.

I never said anything about "free market" or "socialism" until I replied to Alpo when he seemed to infer some stuff I didn't imply.

The context was the war of ideas between what we have now versus what the new crop of Marxists want. And yes. They're Marxists. They don't try to say they're not. Most will proudly declare it.

 

[Fargo]

I never said anything about "free market" or "socialism" until I replied to Alpo when he seemed to infer some stuff I didn't imply.

The context was the war of ideas between what we have now versus what the new crop of Marxists want. And yes. They're Marxists. They don't try to say they're not. Most will proudly declare it.

You said capitalism and he immediately took it to mean robber baron or oligarchic capitalism as is somewhat popular today. You appeared to me to mean a free-market capitalism regulated to avoid robber baron monopolies and to mitigate unequal bargaining position.

Both are forms of capitalism, which is why I think specificity is really important in economic discussions. Without specificity, people almost always just talk past each other and miss all of the points that they agree on.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Marxism I abhor, socialism I can tolerate in certain amounts.

 

[jamil]

Basically I think Alpo saw "capitalism" and was triggered. Muh socialism!

 

[jamil]

Marxism I abhor, socialism I can tolerate in certain amounts.

I'm okay with public ownership of roads. I'm okay with public ownership of some public services. Police, fire, corrections. Though I'd also be okay if some of those things were privatized. I'm even okay with a limited public safety net for people who can't provide for themselves, though I prefer private charities. Not an exhaustive list, but you probably get the point of how much socialism I would tolerate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm okay with public ownership of roads. I'm okay with public ownership of some public services. Police, fire, corrections. Though I'd also be okay if some of those things were privatized. I'm even okay with a limited public safety net for people who can't provide for themselves, though I prefer private charities. Not an exhaustive list, but you probably get the point of how [STRIKE]much[/STRIKE] little socialism I would tolerate.

Is this a bit closer to what you really mean?

 

[jamil]

Is this a bit closer to what you really mean?

Depends how many Libertarians are in the room and how pure they are.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Depends how many Libertarians are in the room and how pure they are.

We could toss them in water and see if they float. After all, that was Ivory soap's standard for purity.

 

[Alpo]

If if you guys are going to argue economic theory, will you PLEASE first define your terms? It is already causing problems a couple posts in. Marxism and socialism are not interchangeable and nor are capitalism and the free market. Hell, I really doubt that you are both using the same definition for any of those four terms.

I'll stick with neo-feudalism. At least I have most of the scifi authors in history on my side. I'm not sure about Hari Seldon....

 

[Dddrees]

I don't claim a side. But if I post anything positive at all about Trump you reply to me as if I have taken a side. I view issues as individual parts separated from camps. So just because I may see several issues as positive's for Trump doesn't mean I'm on his side.

As far as what it appears to others in these threads, it appears you can't bring yourself to admit anything positive about Trump at all. That makes me suspect you've chosen a camp to be in. You have a side, and you tow the line for your side.

Oh. And, BTW, you still haven't told us who you voted for. It's okay. Of course you don't have to. But I'd like to see who is this perfect candidate you voted for, given your very high moral standards. It seems apparent that you judge the character of INGO posters by the person they voted for. At least you've done that with me. Seems fair I should get to judge you by yours.




That's what we're up against. We've given the illusion of electoral choice by our voting system.

When you have a first-past-the-post primary, and a two party electoral system, how exactly do you plan to stop putting up with it?

You just gonna stop voting? ~120 million people probably won't care that you didn't vote for one of the two losers. Something has to give. I think we don't have a chance to take government back unless we change the method of voting to something that gives people a real choice for our representatives and executives.

To be objective doesn't mean I have to agree with Trump more often. Ok, so I've been one sided, h**** there's a lot of things I find objectionable and concerning about those things he's done.

Heck even his executive orders or legislation which seem to have removed the constraints on banking or big business concerns me. Yeh, maybe the stock market is booming as a result, well the stock market always seems to go into a bubble before the bubble bursts. Heck even the head of the Fed missed the signs that were taking place before the housing bubble occurred. So even though lack of regulations may allow for growth, those same lack of regulations allowed the banks to do the most inappropriate and greedy things that caused such disastrous results.

Not having the knowledge I would need to know exactly what he has allowed them to do at this point it still concerns me considering we're talking about a guy that's so free wheeling when it comes to high finance. After all we don't have to go to far back to see what big banks are willing to do. Look at Wells Fargo and their recent crap. All those fake accounts although extremely obvious and easy to catch are an example of how out of hand they can get when it comes to greed.

Yes I find him extremely objectionable, but that's because I find a lot of things that he actually does objectionable or wrong headed.

 

[Dddrees]

Duh! Of course she's an illegal alien... but that's the small beans... you are totally overlooking the fact that she is a RUSSIAN SPY! Have you ever seen any bona fide proof that she's not? There you go!

i see this no different than the Birther crap except that I find it more believeable and more possible. The only difference is one was running for office and one is married to a man that's too hypocritical to admit that even his wife was an illegal alien when his campaign almost initially centered on the evil all criminal illegal aliens. Is she? I think there's a good chance she may have been.

With regards to Trump products being made oversees, if I remember correctly there are quite a few more I haven't named yet where maybe I need to dig them up. This guy's a hypocrite on a large scale and frankly it shouldn't be too hard to prove that. Not unlike this guy is a known habitual liar, the facts show this.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So did Trump just (yesterday) rank himself, number 2 all-time, behind Lincoln? Geez
Throwing Sessions under the bus (again) and saying that he jumped on-board because of the rally in Alabama. Geez

 

[Dddrees]

So did Trump just (yesterday) rank himself, number 2 all-time, behind Lincoln? Geez
Throwing Sessions under the bus (again) and saying that he jumped on-board because of the rally in Alabama. Geez

Well #2 only because he's (Trump) humble. Besides with a 30 something approval rating you really should be humble. LOL


He's just dragging Session slowly thru the mud so eventually he can get rid of him without having to dip into the 20's. Anyway I'd be glad to see Sessions go. Sessions probably is the worst possible AG thinkable at this point. If Trump thinks his removal will allow him to get rid of Mueller without seriously damaging himself then I say go for it. H*** it's very possible removing Sessions may hurt him as well. There's seems to be a good bit of support for Sessions both from his party and his supporters.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well #2 only because he's (Trump) humble. Besides with a 30 something approval rating you really should be humble. LOL


He's just dragging Session slowly thru the mud so eventually he can get rid of him without having to dip into the 20's. Anyway I'd be glad to see Sessions go. Sessions probably is the worst possible AG thinkable at this point. If Trump thinks his removal will allow him to get rid of Mueller without seriously damaging himself then I say go for it.

He'd be an idiot to get rid of Sessions. There's no way he could find anyone as conservative as Sessions for the role (one that would be approved). Sessions has done a fairly good job with his conservative agenda, but "Russia" rather than policy seems to be more of a concern to Trump. Self > Nation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh yeah, Boy Scout address.... Geez

 

[Dddrees]

He'd be an idiot to get rid of Sessions. There's no way he could find anyone as conservative as Sessions for the role (one that would be approved). Sessions has done a fairly good job with his conservative agenda, but "Russia" rather than policy seems to be more of a concern to Trump. Self > Nation.

Well he often does say "Let's make Trump Great Again". If you ever thought this had anything to do with America you just haven't been watching Trump.

 

[KLB]

Well he often does say "Let's make Trump Great Again". If you ever thought this had anything to do with America you just haven't been watching Trump.

He would never say that. That would assume he felt that he wasn't great at some point, which we all know is not true.

 

[Dddrees]

He would never say that. That would assume he felt that he wasn't great at some point, which we all know is not true.

LOL

 

[jamil]

So did Trump just (yesterday) rank himself, number 2 all-time, behind Lincoln? Geez
Throwing Sessions under the bus (again) and saying that he jumped on-board because of the rally in Alabama. Geez

Sometimes I think there is no bottom to Trump's character. It's like he always has to outdo himself.