Make your best Trump argument here

[AtTheMurph]

Meeting in Sea Island GA to figure out how to stop Trump.

• Apple CEO Tim Cook,
• Google co-founder Larry Page,
• Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker,
• Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk
• Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),
• political guru Karl Rove,
• House Speaker Paul Ryan,
• GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.),
• Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (Mich.),
• Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas)
• Kevin McCarthy (Calif.),
• Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.),
• Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.),
• Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
• Diane Black (Tenn.)

That's an awfully odd assortment of NeoCons, Democrats, Socialists and Communists. Which should also tell you exactly everything you need to know about who is trying to screw us.

 

[JettaKnight]

That's an awfully odd assortment of NeoCons, Democrats, Socialists and Communists. Which should also tell you exactly everything you need to know about who is trying to screw us.

Is not that the definition of paranoia? People work together to stop a common enemy seen as a threat to the American way of life and take it personally...

 

[Tombs]

Dave, I completely agree on the first part. Health care costs can't possibly get any more affordable without free market consequences. As it pertains to Trump, however, I can't agree. I think Trump's plans sound simplistic because they are designed to hit the conservative talking points. That's it. We've heard conservative politicians carp about state lines and meaningless "free market" teasers. Sounds like Trump is hitting the same points for the same reasons that the GOPe does: to make people think he's conservative. It's just part of the con.

The health savings accounts are a clever solution though, granted it's directly ripped off from Carson.

With one minor caveat, it won't matter for probably another generation.

 

[Hohn]

I suppose health savings accounts are perhaps on improvement. But the idea that you have to follow a government-mandated procedure in order to avoid having your stuff taken without your permission is something to which I philosophically object. Is an IRA better than nothing? Yes. But that idea that the government has kindly provided a way that, if I do a bunch of things and avoid a bunch of others, I am allowed to keep my own money-- I hate that.

Everybody is so quick to propose a special "account" for this and that--medical stuff, education, etc. But why? Why do I have to view this dispensation as anything other than the overseer sparing me a few day's whipping only to whip me again later?

I don't see anything such as "Hohn's new CZ" savings account. Or a "vintage Porsche savings account."

How do we take advantage of these "savings accounts" without stipulating that the goverment has more right to our money than we do, and we are force to comply with its arbitrary demands if we wish to keep more of our own stuff?

 

[Tombs]

I suppose health savings accounts are perhaps on improvement. But the idea that you have to follow a government-mandated procedure in order to avoid having your stuff taken without your permission is something to which I philosophically object. Is an IRA better than nothing? Yes. But that idea that the government has kindly provided a way that, if I do a bunch of things and avoid a bunch of others, I am allowed to keep my own money-- I hate that.

Everybody is so quick to propose a special "account" for this and that--medical stuff, education, etc. But why? Why do I have to view this dispensation as anything other than the overseer sparing me a few day's whipping only to whip me again later?

I don't see anything such as "Hohn's new CZ" savings account. Or a "vintage Porsche savings account."

How do we take advantage of these "savings accounts" without stipulating that the goverment has more right to our money than we do, and we are force to comply with its arbitrary demands if we wish to keep more of our own stuff?

Where did he say you were forced?

Operative word I see here is "allow"

1. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I suppose health savings accounts are perhaps on improvement. But the idea that you have to follow a government-mandated procedure in order to avoid having your stuff taken without your permission is something to which I philosophically object. Is an IRA better than nothing? Yes. But that idea that the government has kindly provided a way that, if I do a bunch of things and avoid a bunch of others, I am allowed to keep my own money-- I hate that.

Everybody is so quick to propose a special "account" for this and that--medical stuff, education, etc. But why? Why do I have to view this dispensation as anything other than the overseer sparing me a few day's whipping only to whip me again later?

I don't see anything such as "Hohn's new CZ" savings account. Or a "vintage Porsche savings account."

How do we take advantage of these "savings accounts" without stipulating that the goverment has more right to our money than we do, and we are force to comply with its arbitrary demands if we wish to keep more of our own stuff?

I am going to step out on a limb and say that if we were taxed constitutionally (i.e., taxed only at levels sufficient to support functions of government authorized in the Constitution, which I would argue that any taxation beyond that is unconstitutional as it is take to support unconstitutional activities) and did not have government kibitzing in the free market, the problem would solve itself through the magic of Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' in addition to keeping the .gov's grubby paws off our money in the first place with no hoops to jump through in order to keep it/mitigate the theft of it.

 

[miguel]

It's clear you have either never served, or that you slept through the briefing on lawful orders.

Following Trump's order on bombing unarmed women and children can get you sent to prison for a very long time. Or worse.

Correct, never served.

I am sure the ex-CIA director never did anything unlawful. Or anyone in the CIA. They just sit around and listen to Lee Greenwood all day, fighting bad guys.

 

[AtTheMurph]

Is not that the definition of paranoia? People work together to stop a common enemy seen as a threat to the American way of life and take it personally...

Common enemy to the American way of life? That would seem to be the people assembled in Sea Island rather than an outsider to the entrenched political system. Funny that these same people didn't hold a similar confab to figure out how to stop a radical community organizer from assuming the office of the President.

The Soviets had a name for people like you. It's starts with useful and it ended with dead.

 

[BugI02]

"Even paranoids have real enemies" - Golda Meir

 

[17 squirrel]

It's clear you have either never served, or that you slept through the briefing on lawful orders.

Following Trump's order on bombing unarmed women and children can get you sent to prison for a very long time. Or worse.

I served, and before that I had history class a few times.
If you think we have never bombed women and children let's go back to WW2,
Little Boy and Fat Man... That's just for starters..

 

[Kutnupe14]

I served, and before that I had history class a few times.
If you think we have never bombed women and children let's go back to WW2,
Little Man and Fat Boy... That's just for starters..

I believe the civilian protections, from bombings (under the Geneva Convention), were enacted after the war.

 

[BugI02]

I served, and before that I had history class a few times.
If you think we have never bombed women and children let's go back to WW2,
Little Man and Fat Boy... That's just for starters..

Fatman and Little Boy. And more people (including wimmins and childrins) were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

 

[miguel]

Fatman and Little Boy. And more people (including wimmins and childrins) were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

Dresden!

Wounded Knee!

Jesus, I am starting to sound like a ****ing hippie!

 

[17 squirrel]

I believe the civilian protections, from bombings (under the Geneva Convention), were enacted after the war.

Civilian Protections and the Geneva Convention were not part of the conversation.. But since you brought it to the forefront,
We as a society always have been and always will be killing folks, it matters where not or who, we like it, and we can be very good at it..

Korean War

The median total estimated Korean civilian deaths in the Korean War is 2,730,000. The total estimated North Korean military deaths is 215,000 and the estimated Chinese military deaths is over 400,000. In addition to this the Republic of Korea military deaths is around 138,000 dead and the military deaths for the United Nations side is around 40,000. The estimated Korean war military dead is around 793,000 deaths. The civilian-combatant death ratio in the war is approximately 2:1 or 67%. One source estimates that 20% of the total population of North Korea perished in the war.

Vietnam War

The Vietnamese government has estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam War at two million, and the number of NVA and Viet Cong killed at 1.1 million — estimates which approximate those of a number of other sources.[17] This would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately 2:1, or 67%. These figures do not include civilians killed in Cambodia and Laos. However, the lowest estimate of 411,000[18] civilians killed during the war (including civilians killed in Cambodia and Laos) would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately 1:3, or 37%. Using the lowest estimate of Vietnamese military deaths, 400,000, the ratio is about 1:1.

Afghanistan War Edit

See also: Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present)
According to the Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs, as of January 2015 roughly 92,000 people had been killed in the Afghanistan war, of which over 26,000 were civilians, for a civilian to combatant ratio of .4:1.[25]

Iraq War

See also: Casualties of the Iraq War
According to a 2010 assessment by John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, a United Kingdom-based organization, American and Coalition forces had killed at least 28,736 combatants as well as 13,807 civilians in the Iraq War, indicating a civilian to combatant casualty ratio inflicted by coalition forces of 1:2.[26] However, overall, figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants, resulting in a civilian casualty rate of 77%.

 

[17 squirrel]

Fatman and Little Boy. And more people (including wimmins and childrins) were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

We like killin..

 

[Kutnupe14]

Civilian Protections and the Geneva Convention were not part of the conversation.. But since you brought it to the forefront,
We as a society always have been and always will be killing folks, it matters where not or who, we like it, and we can be very good at it..

Korean War

The median total estimated Korean civilian deaths in the Korean War is 2,730,000. The total estimated North Korean military deaths is 215,000 and the estimated Chinese military deaths is over 400,000. In addition to this the Republic of Korea military deaths is around 138,000 dead and the military deaths for the United Nations side is around 40,000. The estimated Korean war military dead is around 793,000 deaths. The civilian-combatant death ratio in the war is approximately 2:1 or 67%. One source estimates that 20% of the total population of North Korea perished in the war.

Vietnam War

The Vietnamese government has estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam War at two million, and the number of NVA and Viet Cong killed at 1.1 million — estimates which approximate those of a number of other sources.[17] This would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately 2:1, or 67%. These figures do not include civilians killed in Cambodia and Laos. However, the lowest estimate of 411,000[18] civilians killed during the war (including civilians killed in Cambodia and Laos) would give a civilian-combatant fatality ratio of approximately 1:3, or 37%. Using the lowest estimate of Vietnamese military deaths, 400,000, the ratio is about 1:1.

Afghanistan War Edit

See also: Civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan (2001–present)
According to the Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs, as of January 2015 roughly 92,000 people had been killed in the Afghanistan war, of which over 26,000 were civilians, for a civilian to combatant ratio of .4:1.[25]

Iraq War

See also: Casualties of the Iraq War
According to a 2010 assessment by John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, a United Kingdom-based organization, American and Coalition forces had killed at least 28,736 combatants as well as 13,807 civilians in the Iraq War, indicating a civilian to combatant casualty ratio inflicted by coalition forces of 1:2.[26] However, overall, figures by the Iraq Body Count from 20 March 2003 to 14 March 2013 indicate that of 174,000 casualties only 39,900 were combatants, resulting in a civilian casualty rate of 77%.

There's a difference between civilian casualties due to targeting legitimate targets, versus intentionally bombing civilians. Make you case that in those conflicts civilians were the primary targets.

 

[17 squirrel]

There's a difference between civilian casualties due to targeting legitimate targets, versus intentionally bombing civilians. Make you case that in those conflicts civilians were the primary targets.

I'm not going to make a case for a constantly changing question with you..

 

[BugI02]

Dresden!

Wounded Knee!

Jesus, I am starting to sound like a ****ing hippie!

Somebody once said that war was hell

 

[BugI02]

There's a difference between civilian casualties due to targeting legitimate targets, versus intentionally bombing civilians. Make you case that in those conflicts civilians were the primary targets.

Quit playing, Kut. You've demonstrated you know more history than that. You should know that the target of the Tokyo and Dresden raids was the people, to break the enemies will. A first wave dropped a combination of fragmentation bombs (to make kindling) and incendiaries over a wide area of those cities. Later waves dropped only fragmentation bombs to kill first responders and make sure the burn was out of control. The goal was total destruction over as wide an area as possible. Same was true in the Blitz and V1 and V2 attacks as well as 'bomber' Harris' nightime non-precision raids on german targets

 

[Kutnupe14]

Quit playing, Kut. You've demonstrated you know more history than that. You should know that the target of the Tokyo and Dresden raids was the people, to break the enemies will. A first wave dropped a combination of fragmentation bombs (to make kindling) and incendiaries over a wide area of those cities. Later waves dropped only fragmentation bombs to kill first responders and make sure the burn was out of control. The goal was total destruction over as wide an area as possible. Same was true in the Blitz and V1 and V2 attacks as well as 'bomber' Harris' nightime non-precision raids on german targets

People were most certainly targets, but there was no prohibition on attacking population centers via air or sea at the outbreak of WW2. So such attacks would not have been, unlike now, an unlawful order.