Hillary and Trump

[Jim D.]

At one time I lived between two towns. There was a two lane dirt road connecting the two towns. I think it was an unicorporated area because it seemed that no one took care of the environment surrounding this two lane road. Eventually someone paved it and it seemed safer to travel between each town. More and more people used this road to get back and forth between each town. Now I do not know who made the decision to pave the road, but I would suppose that someone had a future in connecting the two towns. Since each town seemed self sustaining, I would guess that the paved two lane road was invested in by a private party who had and invested interest in bring more people into their perspective towns. Maybe an invester from town A got with invester from town B and worked a deal where both would benefit from the two lane road being paved. Maybe the investers had plans to build homes, more businesses, gas stations, food franchises, better schools, and more infrastructure. Maybe these investers went to their local commercial banker and borrowed money to fund all of this on a renewal note. Maybe the investers said to themselves, why don't we build using other peoples money, thereby building a network of other investers from other unincorporated and corporated areas. Then they started to think about building an airport, and wharehouses. They set the tax rate and raised it according to their personal financial desires and dream to be in control of statewide, and interstate wide commerce...

 

Now here comes a governing body with elected officials that are already benefiting from this network...they made sure laws got passed and people got prosecuted and sentenced. They made sure taxes were collected. And they made sure that they benefited financially, and had the best medical insurance coverage, and retirement plan that they could create with their vote. They even had legal immunity and great vacations, and spent most of their time tearing down their opponent(s).

 

What would it take to change things where there would be an equal distribution of goods and services, a standard tax to support a new government, and an overseer to make sure that this new government continues to do their job according to the wishes of citiizens of this unincorporated and corportated population. Is it a Socialistic government. No, someone would emerge as the decision maker. How about Autocratic? No, same problem. How about a dictatorship? No! How about a Democratic government? Well, it might work if we fired all the people who make up our government, and started all over again by hiring a Philosopher King. It might work "we the people" produced its own goods and services, isolated ourselves from the influence of the outside world, had the strongest military in the world, fed its hungry, took care of its sick, housed its homeless, stayed out of regulating people's lives, and criminalized drug and alcohol abuse as it were in the 80's, enforced the Constitution without deviation from the letter of its word and intent, quit arguing precendents when it comes to jurisprudence, and bring back public execution.

[Marblehead]

I have a chuckle when you regurgitate perceived wisdom. One of the regular questions asked of free marketeers is 'who will build the roads' ?

 

The answer is that the most succesful infrastructure builders in your own country have been privately financed. Burnt Folsom is good on this.

 

 

 

We will have to agree to disagree on this.  If this were true then It would not be true that 85% of American wealth is owned by the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans.

 

The wealthy build things for their own benefit almost exclusively.

 

 

Edit to add:

 

The rest of you post has some good points.  I don't agree with all of them but that doesn't matter.

 

We are getting too far off topic anyhow.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Karl,

 

Do you think I would stoop so low as to just post to get a reaction?

I don't know about Karl but I do.

[Karl]

We will have to agree to disagree on this.  If this were true then It would not be true that 85% of American wealth is owned by the top 20% of the wealthiest Americans.

 

The wealthy build things for their own benefit almost exclusively.

 

 

Edit to add:

 

The rest of you post has some good points.  I don't agree with all of them but that doesn't matter.

 

We are getting too far off topic anyhow.

Actually it would by the 80/20 rule and this will always be true. The problem is that the current 20% are the wrong people, productivity has been falling and real wealth has been replaced by debt. Instead of everyone getting wealthier, they have been getting poorer, the difference has been replaced by a mixture of cheap, easy debt and an unsustainable welfare state.

 

People were building turnpikes, toll roads, steam ships, railways, generating plant, steel mills and aircraft long before the state got involved. The Carnegies, Vanderbilt, Rockerfellers were building things that made them wealthy, but in making themselves wealthy they inadvertently made everyone wealthy. Despite their immense wealth they were actually relatively poorer than those that worked in their factories and used their services. If you took those men and those like them off the planet, we would still be farming under feudal lords and starving. The great cities, transport systems, medical advances, communication, food production would not have happened. These deservedly wealthy were unwittingly our servants. Today we have the non deserving wealthy who own a share in a debtors prison.

[Marblehead]

How can I respond to that Karl?

 

I can't directly argue with anything in that post.  We all are slaves to someone/something.

 

Flagler used his own money to put in the first railroad in Florida.  He saw the potential of Florida.

 

I would never support something like communism and I would even have a hard time supporting most aspects of socialism.  But I can't support fascism either.  America is a Fascist state.  Not like Nazi Germany but government dictated by Big Industry.

 

If Hillary is elected the current trend will continue and even amplified.

 

If Trump is elected all hell is going to break loose.  But maybe not.

[Jim D.]

O.K. redirecting us back on track. We have estabilished that Hillary and Trumpl are wealthy. What I want to know is how have they helped us along the way with their power and influence?

[Marblehead]

Well, at least we know that Trump has put a lot of people to work.  Can't say that about Hillary.

[Jim D.]

And if he can do that, he will do that for American. What I know about a Business Spread sheet is this. If your employee salaries are within 34% of your expenses, you have a solvent business.

 

It looks as though leading foreign holders of US Treasury securities with China being at the top are giving our balance sheet a problem.

 

Banks have learned along the way to invest their money/our money into diversified portfolios so that if an investment dies, it does not affect the rest of the portfolio. They just invest elsewhere.

 

It seems the U.S. is betting on futures and the integrity of Foreign investers to stay afloat.

[Karl]

How can I respond to that Karl?

 

I can't directly argue with anything in that post.  We all are slaves to someone/something.

 

Flagler used his own money to put in the first railroad in Florida.  He saw the potential of Florida.

 

I would never support something like communism and I would even have a hard time supporting most aspects of socialism.  But I can't support fascism either.  America is a Fascist state.  Not like Nazi Germany but government dictated by Big Industry.

 

If Hillary is elected the current trend will continue and even amplified.

 

If Trump is elected all hell is going to break loose.  But maybe not.

Communism and facism are two sides of the same coin. Communism has the means of production in the control of the state, in facism it is nominally in private hands but the state still controls it.

 

What we have in the USA is an inversion of both ideologies. This perhaps should have been obvious under a democratic system where there is more freedom. Here we have the means of control in the hands of the businessman (not necessarily the producer). In other words this is an Oligarchy, or what I refer to as Neo-Aristocracy. This is what the EU was striving for as a result of US economic domination. Instead of the Government controlling business, it was the businesses that were allowed to direct Government policy. In the US this happened as a result of accidental cronyism, but in the EU it was encouraged deliberately as a recognition that Governments don't really have a clue what the economy needs. Thus the elected Governments in both continents are actually the bureaucratic/political arm of big business.

 

I think Trump is the birth of a the first Neo Aristocrat to come out openly and say that his role will be as leader of this new Aristocracy. Clinton is still pretending that she holds the power to control these Oligarchs, she has used this pretense to make herself wealthy in the manner of a US Royal family. Underneath the visible Government lies the real Goverment and it can be seen if you notice the number of revolving door politicians that re-appear in both Democrat and Republican Governments.

 

In the EU there is not even a pretense at elections. Instead the leaders are chosen internally and only the representatives of each country are chosen-but have little to know power. Democracy, such as we are told we have, is dead. Perhaps with Brexit we may have begun a rebellion that will spread, even if we don't fully implement it, others might. We may even see the USA break up into states once again.

[dust]

Sam Harris talks on Trump and Clinton, among other things.

 

I'm trying not to post in Off Topic any more, but I figure a video can speak for me.

 

The interview is an hour two hours, but worth it. Harris is always worth listening to. Even though no two people will always agree on everything, I agree with him on a lot. I think he approaches things from the kind of balanced starting point and with the cool, measured compassion that I wish everyone would.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EarzbmO3oU?t=52m50s

 

(Have linked starting essentially at the beginning of the conversation about Trump/Clinton, but to get the full idea the interview should be listened to in its entirety.)

Edited August 1, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Jim D.]

I think that is Trump's appeal. He is open about what he thinks and what he intends to do. I like that he bashes Hillary because she hides behind a facade. It is sick to live a lie. You have to become another person to keep from cracking up. But it comes out somhow and somewhere.

 

The question again is what has Trump done for us, and what has Hillary done for us?  Did you know that she started this whole thing called Managed Care?

[dust]

I think that is Trump's appeal. He is open about what he thinks and what he intends to do.

 

Assuming for a moment that he is being "open", does him being "open" automatically make his opinions worthy of respect?

[dust]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbV4HdYfrlo

[Brian]

I have come to realise that private ownership is the external evidence of ego-clinging. And while some level of personal possessions should be allowed - or could be allowed - only when the means of production is collectively owned through the state - will this world heal its wounds. the US should lead the way. Though I very much doubt they have the courage to do so.

Make me king of the world and I'll solve all the world's problems.

 

 

 

 

 

[dust]

Make me king of the world and I'll solve all the world's problems.

 

I know (hope!) you're being ironic, but there are people saying this for real, and people believing them.

 

In the video I just posted, Trump is shown at the RNC actually saying:

 

"Nobody knows the system better than me. Which is why I alone can fix it."

Edited August 1, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Jim D.]

 

Assuming for a moment that he is being "open", does him being "open" automatically make his opinions worthy of respect?

 

If a street worker tells you what her prices are and folows through with what has been negotiated that makes her trustworthy. You also know that she is working for someone, her pimp. And frankly, in the moment of negotiations and follow through the customer does not really care. You might attach this metaphor to Hillary.

 

Trump is not pimping himself out. He doesn't have to. And no one is pimping him out. He is his own boss. But what is interesting is one Doa member pointed out that Trump has put people to work.  I haven't seen one thing about Hillary that tells me she will do anything but continue living dishonestly.

[dust]

 I haven't seen one thing about Hillary that tells me she will do anything but continue living dishonestly.

 

I can kind of see why the idea of an independent businessman in the White House attracts people. He's not a politician, he hasn't been "pimped out", his mind might not be corrupted in the way a politician's is, he's not at the behest of certain people, etc.

 

But you cannot claim that he is not dishonest. He is a liar and a cheat. He lies all the time. Every interview or speech I see of him, he's spouting either dangerous or just wildly silly nonsense. And his professional history is one of much dishonesty.

 

Look, for example at Trump University. Look at his refusal to disclose tax returns. Look at how many lawsuits he's been involved in (plaintiff in 1,900 and defendant in 1,450). Look at the outright lies he regularly says:

 

"Crime is rising."     No, it's not

 

"The Obama administration was actively supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq, the terrorist group that became the Islamic State."     No, it wasn't.

 

It "is Hillary Clinton's agenda" to "release the violent criminals from jail. She wants them all released."    No, she doesn't.

 

"Look, we are at war with these people and they don't wear uniforms. … This is a war against people that are vicious, violent people, that we have no idea who they are, where they come from. We are allowing tens of thousands of them into our country now."      What the fuck does any of this mean?

 

"Frankly, (Hillary Clinton) doesn’t do very well with women."     Yes, she does.

 

The 2016 federal omnibus spending bill "funds illegal immigrants coming in and through your border, right through Phoenix."      No, the opposite.

 

"Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35. In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent."  Ludicrous.

 

President Barack Obama "wants to take in 250,000 (people) from Syria."     No.

 

"I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering" as the World Trade Center collapsed.    No.

 

"Hillary Clinton invented ISIS with her stupid policies. She is responsible for ISIS."    How?

 

"I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war (in Iraq), and yes, even before the war ever started."     No, he supported it.

 

etc etc. More can be found here. Compare with Clinton here.

[Aetherous]

I've noticed that many people have an irrational fear of Trump, and a rational apprehension of Hillary.

Why is it irrational? Because Trump hasn't actually done or said anything overtly wrong (unless his words are twisted), but he is presumed to be evil incarnate. Why fear? Because these people imagine the worst scenarios of him being in office...such as pressing the detonate the Earth button. Again, there is no evidence of him actually behaving in such a way in his positions of power.

Why is the apprehension of Hillary rational? Because she has done so much wrong. She actually committed perjury with that email scandal, in addition to deleting many emails that may have been incriminating which were under subpoena at the time of deletion, in addition to lying to the family members of those who died at Benghazi, among other things... So here is a candidate who has proven herself incompetent, if not actually evil incarnate, by her very real actions. That's why any apprehension is entirely rational. Why apprehension and not fear? For some reason, these people can envision her leading the country. As if incompetence, disclosure of highly classified information to devious sources, lying to grieving family members, starting wars which create terrorist organization...is the norm for an American President.

People tend to go by their gut reactions, more so than reasoning...which is fine. But those gut reactions have been conditioned by many factors...they're not simply instinct or insight anymore.

[Jim D.]

If we go back thorugh the history of Presidential debates I would think that candidates for Presidency have said some pretty outrageous stuff about their opponents.

 

People will generally go for the underdog. I still would like a chance to interview the candidates and ask them to cite their complaints and statements about the other guy.

 

A Politicians Retort might comeback to your statements Dustybeiijing:

 

Rise in crime: Well look at the Internet just this past week. More killings and bombings. Seems to be increasing to me.

Obama:            I question his citizenship. And why did he not put his hand across this chest during the Pledge Allegiance

Hillary:             Our jails are already over populated. Violent criminals are serving shorter sentences.

Respondant:   We don't know who the enemy is, just like in Vietnam They are getting through our borders undected.

Respondant:   Unployment figures are deflated because those that have fallen off unemployment compensation aren't included

Hillary:             She did not do so well with Lewinski.

Trump:             The media did not adequately cover the area I saw all this happening in.

Hillary:             As Secretary of State, she was privileged to intelligence that should have alerted the U.S. of the beginning of     

                          ISIS. It was her job to quash the growth of ISIS. It was an over sight on her part...a mistake just like Benghazi.

Trump:             That was then, this is now regarding Irag

[dust]

Well fuck me sideways.
 
 

I've noticed that many people have an irrational fear of Trump, and a rational apprehension of Hillary.

Why is it irrational? Because Trump hasn't actually done or said anything overtly wrong (unless his words are twisted),

Are you fucking kidding? In the post just above, I outlined just a couple of the things he has done and said that were overtly wrong. Real quotes. Look at just some of the federal lawsuits he's been involved in.
 
 

but he is presumed to be evil incarnate. Why fear? Because these people imagine the worst scenarios of him being in office...such as pressing the detonate the Earth button. Again, there is no evidence of him actually behaving in such a way in his positions of power.

Why is the apprehension of Hillary rational? Because she has done so much wrong. She actually committed perjury with that email scandal, in addition to deleting many emails that may have been incriminating which were under subpoena at the time of deletion, in addition to lying to the family members of those who died at Benghazi, among other things... So here is a candidate who has proven herself incompetent, if not actually evil incarnate, by her very real actions. That's why any apprehension is entirely rational. Why apprehension and not fear? For some reason, these people can envision her leading the country. As if incompetence, disclosure of highly classified information to devious sources, lying to grieving family members, starting wars which create terrorist organization...is the norm for an American President.

People tend to go by their gut reactions, more so than reasoning...which is fine. But those gut reactions have been conditioned by many factors...they're not simply instinct or insight anymore.

 
"Evil incarnate" !! It is AMAZING to me that you can focus so closely on this particular HIllary issue whilst ignoring the multitude of things Donald has done which are at least as damaging to other people.
 
You, my friend, are the one going by a gut reaction!
 

 

A Politicians Retort might comeback to your statements Dustybeiijing:
 
Rise in crime: Well look at the Internet just this past week. More killings and bombings. Seems to be increasing to me.
Obama:            I question his citizenship. And why did he not put his hand across this chest during the Pledge Allegiance
Hillary:             Our jails are already over populated. Violent criminals are serving shorter sentences.
Respondant:   We don't know who the enemy is, just like in Vietnam They are getting through our borders undected.
Respondant:   Unployment figures are deflated because those that have fallen off unemployment compensation aren't included
Hillary:             She did not do so well with Lewinski.
Trump:             The media did not adequately cover the area I saw all this happening in.
Hillary:             As Secretary of State, she was privileged to intelligence that should have alerted the U.S. of the beginning of     
                          ISIS. It was her job to quash the growth of ISIS. It was an over sight on her part...a mistake just like Benghazi.
Trump:             That was then, this is now regarding Irag

 

Seems to be? So feelings have indeed replaced facts now, then?

 

Crime:

https://www.aei.org/publication/at-a-time-when-violent-crime-in-the-us-is-the-lowest-in-a-generation-why-is-there-an-epidemic-of-police-violence/

The graph shows a steady decrease. 2014 was lower again (365 per 100,000). FACT is, it's lower. Your feelings don't come into it.

 

Obama: No need to question. It has been proven.

 

Hillary: That's not even close to the same as wanting them "all released"

 

#4: Please. Like Donald, you have neglected to explain what you're talking about. What are these enemies doing? Where are they? Prove it? Tens of thousands?

 

#5: The figure is not even close to what he said.

 

Hillary: That's not the point, at all. Another illogical deflection.

 

Trump: I don't know what you mean.

 

Hillary: Right, she might hold some responsibility, just as any politician of the last few decades might be said to have some kind of responsibility for current affairs. But she is not single-handedly responsible for anything. The growth of ISIS (1999-present) predates her position (2009-2013). Don't be so ridiculous.

 

Trump: The point is, he LIED. He claims to be the earliest to criticize the war, but he was not. It's an outright lie.

 

 

 

He is a LIAR. He is an opportunistic egomaniac. He is a con man. Fear of him in power is entirely rational.

Edited August 2, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

Fear of Hillary would be even more rational. As somebody said 'it's the choice between two evils'. What a choice to have to make.

 

The purpose of good is to eradicate evil, not to vote for it. Eradication requires the application of force (active) or the application of denial of consent (passive). Denial of consent is the denial and opposition of EVERYTHING the government does, no matter how beneficial or noble it appears to be, because unless you can fully reason, then you cannot know the reality. Active force requires good to take up physical insurrection, but devoid of reason you cannot know the good.

 

Pragmatism has destroyed critical thinking, it has denied ethics and morals and has left the population stranded on a wide, featureless beach dependent on a man with a bullhorn to tell them how to think, what to think and what to do.

 

Hillary is a crook. Trump got that right. It might be the only thing he said which is truth. She is a lying, thieving, power hungry scum bag.

[Aetherous]

Well fuck me sideways.

 

Are you fucking kidding? In the post just above, I outlined just a couple of the things he has done and said that were overtly wrong. Real quotes. Look at just some of the federal lawsuits he's been involved in.

 

...

 

"Evil incarnate" !! It is AMAZING to me that you can focus so closely on this particular HIllary issue whilst ignoring the multitude of things Donald has done which are at least as damaging to other people.

 

You, my friend, are the one going by a gut reaction!

 

Not that I place less value on what you write here, but I didn't read your post, having a tendency to be busy in my life...I read one on the first page of this thread and was responding more to that as well as personal conversations I've had about this away from the forum.

 

But anyway...perhaps some of the quotes in your post were based on inaccuracies, or were lies of Trump, but definitely not all of them. Some that you found very disagreeable, I didn't whatsoever.

 

And being involved in lawsuits when you're a celebrity businessman is not surprising.

 

In my view, Trump has not done "a multitude" of things that have been wrong...perhaps his demeanor is questionable, but that's about it...whereas Hillary has done a multitude of things that have been wrong! I listed many of them and didn't focus on one particular issue.

 

It's a big deal for a potential President to commit perjury. It's a big deal for them to delete subpoenaed emails that deal with their potential involvement in the deaths of Americans and an Ambassador. It's a big deal for them to expose confidential information to parties that shouldn't be exposed to it, as well as open it up to foreign hackers...actually a very big deal. It's a big deal to make up a blatant lie about why Americans died overseas, and tell that lie to their families, when you knew the truth. It's a big deal to have been involved in taking out a foreign government's leader, to have been part of the administration that's supplied money and weapons to rebels in that country, who later defected and became the major terrorist organization that's currently spreading through the globe...in other words, we either directly or indirectly helped to fund the IS to some extent.

 

I'm not mentioning the Clinton Foundation scandal, the questionable benefactors of Clinton's campaign, the racist emails and attempt to destroy Bernie's campaign, the secret service details' descriptions of her behavior toward them, the fact that people who have crossed her tend to die mysterious deaths, etc...

[LAOLONG]

It looks like trump

https://www.google.co.il/imgres?imgurl=http://www.swiss-fam.ch/media/IRC-Adler.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.swiss-fam.ch/SFA60.aspx&h=170&w=298&tbnid=kNkWE7vYInYeZM&tbnh=136&tbnw=238&usg=__75vO-sAauzMs0JluGI57eZnQNwM=&docid=JUS7dR5oGG6ZNM

[Jim D.]

Dustybeijing, I did not mean for my response to your statement research or otherwise to be based in fact. The average American working two or three jobs does not have the time or interest in doing the research that you have done, as well as Aetherous. Your emotional reaction is typical of most people, and I mean most people. Now a politician or an aggravator knows this...and they know that it will work with average and below average people, especially if they do not believe knowledge is power. Check your last comment Dustybeijing. You see how you got worked up over a fake Polititician's reponse to what you believe in. Get a group worked up and you win the election...you win the court case. You don't have to have fact, you just have to know how to manipulate emotions.

[joeblast]

The only answer to America's economic problems and inequalities is a centrally planned economy and to nationalise the banks and the crowning heights of the economy like Apple and other big corporations.

The only answer to America's, and the world's, economic problems - is to terminate, with prejudice, every last central bank on the planet.

 

Businesses simply run better when the "owner" isnt skimming all of the business profits and putting them in his back pocket.

 

Economies simply run better when there's no centralized authority that can decide to print however much currency it wants, gamble with the people's funds and buy the stock market to keep it floating when their bets go south.  And not only that, but prop up friends like goldman or citi, and pull the plug just at the right time for others like Lehman.

 

Currencies simply work better when they are not devalued to the point where the price discovery mechanism seemingly does not exist any longer.

 

Governments simply run better when there's no way for the employees of the government to "legally" steal money, whether its Judy Chu day trading all day on insider information and making herself a millionaire, like most of the rest of congress does, or get to the big time and you have someone like clinton who has gotten to the point of selling state secrets for donations to her personal slush fund "charity" "foundation" (or we can just call a spade a spade and say its both a theft as well as a tax evasion scheme, like most billionaire's "foundations.")

 

 

Anyone that thinks clinton would not start ww3 needs to go reeducate themselves on the clintons and their deep state connections that began with helping the cia run guns and drugs out of mena, arkansas.  Do people wonder why the clintons appear to be made of teflon?  Yes, nothing sticks when you have the deep state behind you, I mean, its not like the cia has documented itself infiltrating news outlets, right?  Oh wait *facepalm* they have.

 

 

I dont trust trump.  But I trust him multiple exponents more than I would ever, ever trust a clinton.   

 

We're about at that dried up bloated welfare state that netanyahu said was the point at which israel would leave the usa to blow away in the wind, so alas, let's see if trump wants to wipe the sweat from the brow of one with his hands around your throat...

 

 

 

 

 

 

and if anyone had any questions at this point about clinton's emails and the idiocy of the fbi and  nsa - the creator of the NSA database, William Binney - declared that given the FBI's accessing it for other things, proves unequivocally that the NSA has  all of the incriminating evidence on cankles, all of it.

 

 

 to even act like they dont is just silly.  but then again, the NSA's mission is treasonous and unconstitutional, just like the clintons, so its one hand washing the other.....is anyone actually surprised by this?

 

 

 

Yes, now let's get back to demonizing the businessman that isnt  part of the deep state strip mining operation.... *facepalm*....that's a bit like saying well....I dont trust this Lando guy here, and although I dont know too much about the tall guy in the big black suit, maybe we should give Vader a shot, that suit looks kinda hip, after all....

 

 

its got to tell heartfelt progressives something when the Kochs want to support your candidate