dust

Not really sure how this is supposed to work. An ISP will keep a record of connections (ICR) from each account held with it, but in many cases how will these agencies know exactly who visited each site? In a shared/family house with shared internet, or a public Wi-Fi spot, for example, how would they differentiate between users? (surely there will be a single ICR for each single account?) I also don't understand the point of it. If someone's looking up illegal porn or trying to buy guns or chatting with ISIS or anything else the government could be said to have a right to invade privacy to investigate, they're likely not doing it directly through their ISP? (Tor/VPN/etc?) And I would imagine it is those who know how to evade detection that a government should be most concerned with detecting?

You said "better to look at productivity, interest rates and debt (both public and private)", and I asked very clearly for evidence -- actual numbers -- not for an explanation of what these things are, not for a teacher, not for a condescending attitude and more claims about how knowledgeable you are, but for you to actually participate in a discussion using sources. One thing you and many others on this forum (and in the world at large) have in common: you have many strong opinions but are never willing to make any effort to back them up. The homework is yours. If you claim something, you should be willing and able to show evidence for it. I do it. And sometimes I look up the information you hint at, and find out that it doesn't say what you claimed it does, and realize my time has been wasted. So I'm not playing that game any more. Except this one last time.. In quick response to this and your previous claim that productivity has fallen etc, Yes, I'm aware that the target figure is 0.25-0.5%. This is the first time you've actually mentioned it, though -- this is the whole point. There's a lot more data you could be linking to, but you want to make me do all the work -- on my side of the fence and yours -- perhaps in the hope that I'll get bored and just give up or agree with you. You want me to see your point without actually knowing exactly what your point is. Anyway.. as a simple man who understands not economics.. It looks like productivity has been rising since the recession, and NFP has risen and remained relatively stable. And so you ask, then why has the rate not changed for so long? And you think the only answer is that nobody's actually finding well-paying jobs, or that illegals are taking all the jobs? I'll give you a hint this time: take a look at the years following the Great Depression.

適莽蒼者三湌而反腹猶果然； one who goes out in green pastures, full day's meals return, belly satisfied 適百里者宿舂糧； one who goes out a hundred li, overnight grind grain/provisions 適千里者三月聚糧。 one who goes out a thousand li, three months collect grain/provisions 之二蟲又何知！ what do these two little creatures know! 小知不及大知，小年不及大年。 little wisdom not reach great wisdom, short-lived not reach long-lived 奚以知其然也？ how to know this? 朝菌不知晦朔，蟪蛄不知春秋，此小年也。 morning/daylight fungus knows nothing of moon phases, the (seasonal) cicada knows nothing of spring and autumn (being born in summer and dying before winter); these are those of small years 楚之南有冥靈者，以五百歲為春五百歲為秋； south of Chu has Mingling tree, for which five hundred years makes a spring, five hundred years makes an autumn 上古有大椿者，以八千歲為春，八千歲為秋。 in ancient times had (the great tree) Dachun, for which 8 thousand years made spring, 8 thousand year made autumn 而彭祖乃今以久特聞，眾人匹之，不亦悲乎！ and Pengzu is now the most well-known for being old, isn't it sad that so many try to compare to him!

Evidence? I'm going to do that thing that everyone else does where unless I'm shown absolute proof, I'm not going to believe a word you say! Why do my own digging when someone else can do it for me? (And in most cases, 'Even if you do show me proof, I might not believe you!') (Makes life easier, is my guess. Don't have to question my beliefs unless someone else makes a genuine effort first.) I'll do a bit of my own work here, cos it's quite easy.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio Looking at the numbers from OECD nations, I'm seeing a general increase in percentage -- excepting USA and UK right after the Great Recession, though numbers are slowly climbing again, and either way we're doing better than many. Also see the graph.. No, you know what, I'm going to not do any of that. Like I said before, nobody else ever bothers actually looking up numbers when I ask, or taking note of the ones I link, so I'm going to start doing that too. Why not show some evidence?

I don't know on what numbers you're basing this 40 years of job loss, maybe it's true -- I'd appreciate some kind of attempt to actually back it up! -- but by any measure employment rate has increased in the last few years. How does that not directly affect people? And the response to this, the response to a decent recovery from the worst recession since 1945, is to let some lying businessman with a questionable mental state convince everyone that the country's doing worse than ever and that everyone's losing their jobs and that immigrants are flooding in with automatic weapons and that the only way forward is to elect him as leader so that he can "Make America Great Again", like it was... when? When was life better? Go find an elderly person who's not bitter and nostalgic, someone who was old enough in the 1930s or '40s to know the situation, someone who has actually been paying attention the whole time, and you will be told that people have never had it so good! I'm not claiming that all is chocolate-coated wonder, and I'm not saying that many people don't have a right to feel like their life is shit. Those who are long-term unemployed, or drowning in debt, or in any other dire situation, are obviously going to feel that way, and they have every right to feel angry or disappointed in the way their country has let them down (where it is indeed the fault of the country and not their own fault). But most of the numbers show that -- in terms of longevity, healthcare, crime, employment, personal choice, and a few other measurements -- Westerners including Americans are doing very well for ourselves. Electing Trumps and Farages isn't going to make things better. I don't dance the left-right shuffle. There are those who see that guns are dangerous and stupid, and those who believe they are a 'right'. A good American friend of mine who was vocally anti-Trump (and pro-Sanders), is fiercely pro-gun rights. Don't know why it has to be a left-right thing. I also don't know why it's relevant. Rather than simply conceding that crime isn't actually increasing, and that people's "feelings" that crime is increasing do not change the reality, you bend the discussion to try and get me to argue about gun laws? I don't care about American gun laws. If you all want to live in a hive of murder, be my guests -- just don't bring them over here. People in the UK don't need guns to settle disputes or protect ourselves and we're not electing a government on whom we fear we might have to use firearms to protect ourselves... On another note: I notice -- unless I've missed it -- that nobody is taking it upon himself to defend or explain any of the Trump quotes I listed. I suppose because it would be easier to defend a castle made of cheese.

I'll say, for example, what you have suggested I should shut up about already: that Trump is a reckless, nasty, ignorant man, a habitual liar, and that continued insistence otherwise is silly. (And I'll say many other things, I'm sure.) I've never insinuated that he cheated, and I haven't said that I don't accept the result. He was the one going on about cheating, saying Clinton had it rigged. That was, apparently, all bullshit... but it's all forgotten now! Cos Trump's great! (so say the Trump supporters) I've simply said that I don't understand how some people continue to be duped by his nonsense, not seeing that he's a pathological liar and thinking he might have any idea what he's doing. It is insane. Almost none of this last list is true. Employment is up, better healthcare coverage, improving energy tech, startups are huge, etc. As far as black ghettos... would it be better to go back to the crack '80s? The segregated '20s? The enslaved centuries before? How are Western black lives worse now?? Not perfect, not fluffy rainbows, but improving. I'm one of these low-paying job people. Just because I haven't got a fun or well-paying job doesn't mean I must pretend that life sucks. The fact that I have such a job and continue to live in relative comfort is astonishing. Life can be great for most people, with some perspective, some are just too ignorant to recognize. Send them back to 18th Century England and see how much everyone likes that. Life is better now. And increased crime? It continues to annoy me that you ignore everything I write and continue to make false claims about things I've given evidence for numerous times. Crime is decreasing, USA and UK. Here's one graph just for fun.

I will not shut up. I'll speak my mind, I'll continue to be bemused and sometimes even frightened at the things some people are willing to say and do. You can continue to use democracy as a reason for restricting free speech if you like, but I'll continue to use my free speech to point out silliness where I see it. And once more: people in the West are living better than ever before. Stop lying.

I said there's an insistence that Trump doesn't say stupid and scary things. spacester asked what the problem was with the things I posted, refusing to acknowledge any problem with any of them. That was an insistence, that was an attempt to contradict the notion that Trump says stupid things. And you know it.

I've verified the first few with videos, and the others are easy to believe. But a key point in his campaign is that Trump supporters don't appear to care whether or not what he says is true, so I'm not sure why you're bothered now. If you can (be bothered to) prove that he didn't say a thing, I'll edit it out. “When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water." Donald Trump threatening to go to war with Iran over rude hand gestures, Pensacola, Florida, (Sept. 9, 2016) A world leader can't go around threatening deadly military action because some guys "make gestures". It's reckless, to say the least. "Iraq and Iran were very similar militarily, and they’d fight, fight, fight, and then they’d rest. They’d fight, fight, fight, and then Saddam Hussein would do the gas, and somebody else would do something else, and they’d rest." Donald Trump demonstrating his knowledge of foreign policy at a town hall meeting in Virginia Beach, VA (Sept. 6, 2016) He doesn't appear to have any point, any idea what he's trying to say. A president should be able to string a coherent sentence together where it concerns recent history and military behaviour of hostile nations. "[Vladimir Putin] is not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down." Donald Trump apparently unaware that Russia had already annexed Crimea in a 2014 intrusion into Ukraine that left thousands dead (July 31, 2016) Russian action in Ukraine was an important and well-known incident, and he apparently had no idea about it. A potential president should have some idea of current acts of war, especially globally-famous ones. "I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand." 60 Minutes interview, July 17, 2016 (haha!) I found it amusing. He's absolutely not humble, and this is irony at its finest -- but I really doubt that he was being intentionally ironic. "We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated." Donald Trump on his performance with poorly educated voters who helped him win the Nevada Caucus, Feb. 23, 2016 Well...he said it. He wins the uneducated vote. Up to you to decide whether that's good or not. If I were running for office, I'd be aiming for the decent person vote -- any level of education, as long as the people are decent. "As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life. I'm totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn't fund it. I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3%. But I would defund it, because I'm pro-life. But millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood." 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary Feb 25, 2016 He admits that PP is beneficial for millions, but says he will defund it anyway because he's "pro-life". In an interview, Well this is a very contentious issue but for me, this alone is enough to make me want to kick him in the nuts. "Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—"Torture doesn’t work!"—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding." Sun City, SC, Feb 17 2016 (NB: no, it doesn't work) Torture doesn't work but he's in favour of it anyway. Seems pretty simple why I don't like this one. There. I've explained each one. I will not respond to anything less than an equally point-by-point response.

The post just above yours seems to be, for a start.

Can't believe the continued insistence that he hasn't said a lot of stupid and scary things. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/Donald-Trump/a/Donald-Trump-Quotes.htm “When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water." Donald Trump threatening to go to war with Iran over rude hand gestures, Pensacola, Florida, (Sept. 9, 2016) "Iraq and Iran were very similar militarily, and they’d fight, fight, fight, and then they’d rest. They’d fight, fight, fight, and then Saddam Hussein would do the gas, and somebody else would do something else, and they’d rest." Donald Trump demonstrating his knowledge of foreign policy at a town hall meeting in Virginia Beach, VA (Sept. 6, 2016) "[Vladimir Putin] is not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down." Donald Trump apparently unaware that Russia had already annexed Crimea in a 2014 intrusion into Ukraine that left thousands dead (July 31, 2016) "I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand." 60 Minutes interview, July 17, 2016 (haha!) "We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated." Donald Trump on his performance with poorly educated voters who helped him win the Nevada Caucus, Feb. 23, 2016 http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm "As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life. I'm totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn't fund it. I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3%. But I would defund it, because I'm pro-life. But millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood." 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary Feb 25, 2016 http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-torture-works-ok-folks/article/2001124?custom_click=rss "Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—"Torture doesn’t work!"—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding." Sun City, SC, Feb 17 2016 (NB: no, it doesn't work) ...and this is just a selection I've found with 3 quick searches. And.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSH6pf4miEc

Evidence from UK: http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/ "The research showed that it is possible to derive causal estimates for both migrant groups and found that the share of asylum seekers in the local population was related to a rise in property crime, while a rise in A8 migrants was associated with a fall in property crime. Neither group was associated with statistically significant changes in violent crime. Estimates suggest that a one percentage point increase in the asylum seeker share of the local population is associated with a 1.1% rise in property crime. Since asylum seekers accounted for only around 0.1% of the population, the macro effects were small. A one percentage point increase in the share of the population that was born in the A8 countries leads to 0.4% fall in property crime. Bell et al. (2013) suggest that the estimated effects for asylum seekers and A8 migrants may be the result of differences in the labour market opportunities of the two groups. The A8 migrants who arrived in the UK came almost entirely for work reasons and have higher employment rates than the UK-born. The motivation of asylum seekers was different, and they are not allowed to work in the UK upon arrival and also have reduced access to welfare benefits. Given the lengthy process involved in deciding asylum applications, this restriction is likely to have increased the relative returns to crime." Evidence from Switzerland: In Switzerland, 3/4 of the prison population is foreign-born. http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/three-out-of-four-swiss-prisoners-are-foreign/5293728 "Researchers at Bern University concluded that foreigners are seen as "flight risks" by authorities and are therefore more likely to be sent to prison than local criminals. ... Swiss prisoners on the other hand are increasingly serving their sentences in open prisons or are given alternative forms of punishment." So, that explains that. Evidence from France: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/17274/ "the share of immigrants in the population has no significant impact on crime rates once immigrants' economic circumstances are controlled for" The more I look at it, the more it seems that whilst there is a small but statistically significant correlation between asylum seekers or illegal immigrants -- those who are less likely to be working straight away -- and property crime, there is no evidence anywhere of a correlation between immigration of any kind and violent crime.

I have been late in responding to a comment in the '2016 us election' thread before it was locked, and the Bum in question wasn't interested in continuing the discussion anyway, which is fair enough. But I'd be interested in responses to the information I posted, and this thread seems like a good place for it. Anyway.. the discussion regards immigration and crime. It was asserted that illegal immigration is a source of crime -- fair enough, it surely is, unless no immigrants ever commit crimes! and illegal immigration is itself a crime so by default they're all criminals -- but the implication seemed to be that illegal immigration is a major source of antisocial crime, and that people who don't live around immigrants are sheltered from all the criminal behaviour. It was suggested that those who live in areas of high illegal immigration have a different perspective on the issue -- which is surely true -- but it is unclear what this perspective is. So.. http://www.wsj.com/a...rime-1436916798 "numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder."" (emphasis is mine) and to quote directly from the report quoted in the WSJ: https://www.american...n-united-states "For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not “criminals” by any commonly accepted definition of the term. For this reason, harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime." And some info to suggest opinions from those who are more likely to live with illegal immigration: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-immigrant-population-state-and-county This map shows California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois as the states with the highest immigration levels (including illegals) http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president This map shows states as they voted for Trump (vocally anti-immigration) or Clinton (much more sympathetic). Note that of the 5 states with the highest proportion of immigrants, 3 voted for Clinton. This is by no means thorough, but as a starting point.. well, has anyone got contradictory information? Evidence that areas with high levels of (illegal) immigrants are actually blighted with crime? Evidence that rises in immigration contribute to more crime rather than less? Direct evidence, rather than hearsay, that those who live around immigrants are less happy or successful? Cheers.

I haven't been keeping up with Brexit sentiment on TDB for a while. My recollection is that you were very pro-Brexit. You're now saying it's all been a plot by MI5??

My main point was that it wasn't an executive order, so even if it did outrageously violate the constitution, Obama isn't to be blamed alone. Congress and the Senate approved it. And even if it were an executive order, the courts do review it and could strike it down. That hasn't happened. If there's a problem, it's not just with Obama -- but he seems to take all the heat for it from those complaining about it. The other point was that section in the bill passed was not different -- as far as I can tell -- from that of the AUMF, which was signed off on in 2001 -- so if a president is to be blamed for violations of constitution and human rights, Bush should be front of the line, no? One other thing: I'm not claiming that Obama is perfect, but there are people claiming that he signed off on indefinite detainment of anyone in the world including US citizens without reason. This is patently untrue: unless I have missed something (and I will accept contrary evidence!) basically, a detainee must be linked to terrorist activity (engaging in, aiding in, or supporting).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540 Firstly: Not an executive order. Secondly, some words from Obama himself on the subject: "Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens." Thirdly: section 1021 b covers: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (a) In General.–That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. I'd like someone to point out precisely where this veers wildly off course from the AUMF of 2001...?

I realize that this whole time, I have been raging against the ridiculous shit people do and say in Trump's name as much as the things he's said himself. I'm going to chill on Trump, give him the benefit of the doubt for a while. Yes, he's a massive douche, and he could well be dangerous, but... to be honest I'm not sure how much he's going to be able to get done, good or bad. And what's the worst that he can do? Go do some bombing in Iraq? Oh, yeah.. Afghanistan? Oh... Syria? Yemen? Vietnam? Well.. there is still Iran, China, NK, Russia..... Back to Trump's followers... http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533 Racist, homophobic, nasty? http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html I won't post the worst of it. Some very nasty racist language. And more.. edit: I'm not saying all Trump supporters are this bad. Just to be clear. But I don't think you could've made a video quite like these at a Clinton rally.

Chill... The truth, I think, is somewhere in between what you and Michael have said. Most Chinese reading the text front to back will not understand everything. Most cannot read any given chapter and understand fully without at least some time to study it, just like most English people will need some time to get to grips with Chaucer or Shakespeare in order to fully grasp the old language and wordplay etc. Point being, most do not understand the DDJ on first read any better than a Westerner reading a decent translation of it, or Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English. So yes, millions of Chinese surely read the DDJ, just like many English speakers read Shakespeare, but this isn't to say that they all have an easy time of it, or that anyone but those who study it in some depth (specialists) genuinely grasp all layers of meaning within it. I put "理解道德经" into Google. Among the results descriptions: "老子注释、老子研究和老子翻译，可谓汗牛充栋，但真正理解老子的学者，却少而又少" "《道德经》言简意赅，难以理解" "如果这个开宗明义的第一句话没有弄清楚，那么《道德经》的五千言都没有法子好好地读下去，更不要说如何去正确理解和实行了" And just because someone knows a quote from a text does not mean that they have read or understood the whole text. Plenty of people can quote the Bible without the first flaming clue what most of it is about.

I know, see my post just above (I'm guessing I posted it while you were writing) Just found it amusing that (1) the same discussion happens even in China (2) the reply I shared ignores that fact that the average Easterner understands Laozi about as much as the average Westerner (3) we actually have some very good discussions about Laozi on this site, which is nice

I know, just found it amusing. Most Bums are Westerners, I'm guessing, and many of us have more than a passing understanding of Laozi.

Some may be, though something like "If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading" seems to me to have a modern/American vibe to it. As does the OP -- maybe Taoist Texts could tell us but I don't know that Wenzi spoke of "loving deeply" either. Interestingly this discussion has happened at least once in China, too, with someone asking about this very same quote: https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/126592036.html One of the replies says, 西方没几个人读懂老子的，一些文学家写几句话来展示他自己懂得东方哲学，仅此而已，没有深入了解他们写什么的必要。 "Few Westerners understand Laozi, a few writers write a bit about it to show they understand Eastern philosophy, but no more than that, they have no need to fully understand what they're writing about."

It bugs me! Just Google image "lao tzu quote" and most of the first few that pop up are fake. "If you are depressed, you are living in the past...etc" "Watch your thoughts, they become words; etc; watch your character, it becomes your destiny." "If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading." "A man with outward courage dares to die; a man with inward courage dares to live." And the one from the OP. Grr.

Thanks. Really, I don't have a firm plan for how that would work... .. I'll suggest some ideas but it's probably all nonsense.. The means of production must be in the hands of the individual. Competition must be encouraged in order for an economy and society to flourish; the market must be free. But too much emphasis on "success" and "making money" and such notions can become harmful. When someone decides that capitalism is the best way forward, this is often accompanied by a fervent belief that competition is the only goal, that production is the only motive; and when the only motive is to produce and gather riches, harm is inevitable. When an individual is out only to make money, he might behave harmfully to others in the process; and when a company becomes large (and when companies incorporate) personal/individual responsibility disappears, and nasty things get done (to people and countries and the environment etc), and on a national and global scale individual liberties actually start to disappear. But if we insist that the market must be free, that government is limited and cannot tell individuals/companies how to run their business (or, as in much of the world now, when corporations tell governments what to do!), we have to find a way to prevent this loss of responsibility. We have to have some element of socialist behaviour, rather than a socialist structure. An emphasis must be placed on individual and social responsibility; on sharing the wealth and the responsibility. Education must include coverage of the benefits of capitalism & competition, but also the benefits of social responsibility for all individuals. Companies can, for example, integrate social responsibility plans into their business models -- studies show that this has a neutral impact on financial performance. It's kind of the way things work, or are supposed to work, in many countries now. But it could be done better....

Well, I'm sorry. I suppose there is a small double-standard. At the same time, whatever Jay is rapping about, it is entertainment, and people know that. He is not a politician -- if he were caught on tape talking about grabbing women by the pussy, it would be as bad as Trump saying those things, but he still wouldn't be running for president. A man who is running for that office is under higher scrutiny and, should he be president, will be in a position which demands a better character than that. Also, not precisely relevant, but... I simply don't understand why people pay attention to celebrity endorsements in the first place. Loads of politicians do it, and this is a problem in itself -- when some people are apparently so disengaged or lazy or stupid that they'll just base their vote on what some famous singer or actor endorses! Self funded for the campaign, but when someone sits in the White House things get a lot more complicated, no? It's not just about how much money, or even how much influence one has among the populace, but about how much one can swing with the other politicians. I don't like that any more than you, but it's the way of things. I highly doubt that a non-politician in the office will be any more effective than a politician. I don't know that anyone can speak on his expertise. Much of what he claims about himself and his businesses is simply not true. He holds a lot back. Yes, he has done well for himself financially, but I also wouldn't think that a CEO of Wall Mart or Apple or any major business in the world would necessarily be a successful leader of a country based on their financial success.