Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: Jolly on 16/03/2016 18:47:20
-
Im interested to see what results will come out here, people have such variying oppinions when it comes to trump.
As a futher discussion point, some one suggested to me eariler today that maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger might be Trumps running mate as V.P. Thoughts?
and other ideas for running mate welcome.
-
Everyone can vote, guests and members.
-
... some one suggested to me eariler today that maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger might be Trumps running mate as V.P. Thoughts?
Have to born in America to be president, so I don't think Arnie can be V.P. , as V.P. becomes president if president dies in-office.
-
... some one suggested to me eariler today that maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger might be Trumps running mate as V.P. Thoughts?
Have to born in America to be president, so I don't think Arnie can be V.P. , as V.P. becomes president if president dies in-office.
Oh yeah oh no that guy I was speaking with is gonna be gutted.
-
Trump owes a lot of people a lot of money. He will do whatever the bankers want, and declare war when it suits the oil or arms industry, just like his idiot predecessors. And like Hitler, Thatcher, Idi Amin.....he will be enormously popular and re-elected because a demagogue can rely on the block vote of morons whilst intelligent men bicker about policies and ideals. That's democracy.
Best running mate for a Mickey Mouse president would surely be Donald Duck, and judging by past performances, the Republican Party would be perfectly happy with a squawking cartoon, as long as it's popular. Intelligibility is not a requirement.
-
Trump owes a lot of people a lot of money. He will do whatever the bankers want, and declare war when it suits the oil or arms industry, just like his idiot predecessors. And like Hitler, Thatcher, Idi Amin.....he will be enormously popular and re-elected because a demagogue can rely on the block vote of morons whilst intelligent men bicker about policies and ideals. That's democracy.
Best running mate for a Mickey Mouse president would surely be Donald Duck, and judging by past performances, the Republican Party would be perfectly happy with a squawking cartoon, as long as it's popular. Intelligibility is not a requirement.
other 8?
President in the pocket, interesting.
-
President in the pocket, interesting.
No, normal. Who profited from the invasion of Iraq? The vice-president's company! Who counted the votes that got GWBush elected? His brother. Who deregulated the banks? The president. Who bailed out the banks? The president. "Of the people, by the people"? You must be joking.
Demos - the people. Krassos - the worst. Democracy - government by the worst people. Just watch Trump prove my point - unless Hillary gets her snout in the trough first. The American people will be given a choice between a playground bully and a corrupt swindler: whatever the outcome, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, there will be more murders and more incarcerations that in any civilised country, and your right to do anything about it will be ever more curtailed.
-
President in the pocket, interesting.
No, normal. Who profited from the invasion of Iraq?
Haliburton mainly. but by extencion many other corporate interests
The vice-president's company! Who counted the votes that got GWBush elected? His brother. Who deregulated the banks? The president.
Regan and Clinton
Who bailed out the banks?
Bush and Obama
The president. "Of the people, by the people"? You must be joking.
Presidents work for the business world and have for a while
Demos - the people. Krassos - the worst. Democracy - government by the worst people.
"people" and κράτος (krátos) "power" or "rule". Kratos not Krassos why you feel the need to play word games I have to wonder
Just watch Trump prove my point -
Not sure I see a point so far.
unless Hillary gets her snout in the trough first. The American people will be given a choice between a playground bully and a corrupt swindler: whatever the outcome, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, there will be more murders and more incarcerations that in any civilised country, and your right to do anything about it will be ever more curtailed.
Your right to do anything about the situation has been curtailed for a while, part of the reason why democracy is not "people power" but "corporate power" and has been redefined as such. The system we live seeks to do everything it can to limit, supress and control the power of the people. Politicians only claim they fight for democracy because the very meaning of democracy they use is different to what the general public understand it to mean. Not double speak, it's not lies, it's saying things people believe to mean something else and want, while actually meaning something completly different, the ignorant masses just have not got the educaton to understand, they have not read the technical dicionary. But then if the masses did read the technical dictionary and understood the true meaning of terms, they probably wouldnt vote for what they currently do- hence there is certianly a deception at play, but politicians didn't write the technical dictionary.
It appears quiet clear that trump hasnt really read the technical dictionary either. Hence why the man is a political outsider, He claims he wants to end TTP and NAFTA, while also reducing corporate taxes. So he is putting the interests of America as a nation before the interests of Americas Corporate Oligarchy. Trump has a different view on America to those that actually run the place. If he wins, there will be a conflict between them, but it is possible he'll agree with their agenda, but that's not clear. The oligarchy clearly want to run the world, and Trump is really just interested in American power. TPP TIPP and all the other "trade" agreements are what the corporate oligarchy seek to garentee their dominence. If Trump stops it as he is saying he wants to, then he is messing up the agenda. The oligarchies interests do diverge from the interests of America as a country on occasion if not always.
So Trump would not be a normal in the pocket politican.
-
It's hard to decide from Lame Duck on down. This is a long, but I think interesting, article from the Canadian perspective, with a focus on economics. http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/01/31/donald-trumps-beliefs-and-policies-the-potential-consequences-for-canada/#.VuzfCo35Nes
I agree with the author that Trump's proposal to roll back globalization and raise tariffs will be a disaster. The issue with the wall in Mexico is case in point. He will supposedly force Mexico to pay for it by raising tariffs and screwing NAFTA. Tariffs are just passed on to the consumer, and 40% of the contents of Mexican imports is made by US workers which includes things like aerospace, autos, electronics, machinery and precision instruments. But he's willing to throw a monkey wrench into a large interdependent network of supply chains that combine materials and labor from the US, Canada, and Mexico to solve an immigration problem, one that according to multiple sources is actually improving - the number of illegal Mexican immigrants is declining.
And while his supporters cheer the idea of bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US, they blindly assume it will be with the relatively high wages of the past, sans unions.
I'm also concerned that Trump plans to use the military essentially like mafia goons, which is also mentioned in the article above. The other day he suggested using military intimidation to force Mexico to pay for wall. How exactly? "Gee, Enrique, it would be such a shame if something were to accidentally happen to your country. We'll be back on Tuesday to collect the wall payment."
After any of the presidential debates, when you read the fact checkers the next day from multiple sources, it's clear that all politicians are guilty of exaggeration, outright lies, or just getting things wrong (Cruz on single payer health care makes me crazy). But Trump is especially brazen and scary in this respect His willingness to claim he never said things that he is on video saying verbatim (not 15 years ago, but the month or week before) is really quite stunning. Or claiming that protestors were thugs who attacked his supporters, who were only defending themselves, when nearly every piece of evidence is to the contrary. Not to mention banning reporters who have criticized him, or having them roughed up, and announcing he plans to change the libel laws and sue journalists who write negative or unfair things.
It's not going to be pretty, if he does win the election. The only wild card is the amount restraint on his actions, and whether he will have any cooperation from congress, either from democrats or republicans.
On the other hand, sometimes I think it's all bull sh1t, not much of anything will happen, and he's just infatuated with the idea of being president.
-
thanks for this post..i like it dear.
-
So Trump would not be a normal in the pocket politican
In which case he will either find every initiative blocked by Congress, or have an unfortunate accident. His error is in believing that he can buy or bully everyone, all the time. That is the prerogative of Halliburton, not the President.
-
It's hard to decide from Lame Duck on down. This is a long, but I think interesting, article from the Canadian perspective, with a focus on economics. http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/01/31/donald-trumps-beliefs-and-policies-the-potential-consequences-for-canada/#.VuzfCo35Nes
I agree with the author that Trump's proposal to roll back globalization and raise tariffs will be a disaster.
Well does not have to be. Globalization is really like most other things in todays world a lie, the first world refuses to allow secound and thrid world companies and products to trade inside their ecconomic spaces yet using the world bank demands that medium and thrid world nations open up for first world trade in exchange for loans. Globalization has never really been about free and fair trade it has sadly almost always been about first world global market domination; And the rise of unrestricted international conglomerate companies as a result.
The issue with the wall in Mexico is case in point. He will supposedly force Mexico to pay for it by raising tariffs and screwing NAFTA. Tariffs are just passed on to the consumer, and 40% of the contents of Mexican imports is made by US workers which includes things like aerospace, autos, electronics, machinery and precision instruments. But he's willing to throw a monkey wrench into a large interdependent network of supply chains that combine materials and labor from the US, Canada, and Mexico to solve an immigration problem, one that according to multiple sources is actually improving - the number of illegal Mexican immigrants is declining.
And while his supporters cheer the idea of bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US, they blindly assume it will be with the relatively high wages of the past, sans unions.
Well actually you will get as the artical suggests wage inflation- companies do not like it, but it does put more wages into the hands of the workers and on occasion increase barganing power.
I'm also concerned that Trump plans to use the military essentially like mafia goons, which is also mentioned in the article above. The other day he suggested using military intimidation to force Mexico to pay for wall. How exactly? "Gee, Enrique, it would be such a shame if something were to accidentally happen to your country. We'll be back on Tuesday to collect the wall payment."
Ha, look at the American- NSS National security stratagy of 1999-2000, it clearly stated that America seeks to build and use it's global superior military presence to impose itself on the world. Nothing new here, "Might is right" is a main stay American philosophy.
Bush sanctioned torture, Obama has sanctioned drone assiniation(out right murder with no trial). Yet no one says anything, good call for a nobel peace prize winner. And trump says He will target the families of ISIS/ISIL members. Ignoring ofcourse that the CIA has played a massive role in creating isis in the first place. America wanted to invade Afganistan then Iraq then Syria, then Ethiopia a few others finally ending with Iran. The nightmare the invasion of Iraq turned into, put Syria on a back burner and pushed the CIA into more covert means of operation.
But "get Syria" was on the Agenda way back in 2002. Trump isnt aware of what the secret American agenda is and how it is working, he'll find out if he wins and then we'll see what he decides to do, well. But looking at some of the horrifying things he is saying- gloves are off, might be an understatement and that will be more of a nightmare then anything.
After any of the presidential debates, when you read the fact checkers the next day from multiple sources, it's clear that all politicians are guilty of exaggeration, outright lies, or just getting things wrong (Cruz on single payer health care makes me crazy). But Trump is especially brazen and scary in this respect His willingness to claim he never said things that he is on video saying verbatim (not 15 years ago, but the month or week before) is really quite stunning. Or claiming that protestors were thugs who attacked his supporters, who were only defending themselves, when nearly every piece of evidence is to the contrary.
You'll have to provide some evidence of that.
Not to mention banning reporters who have criticized him, or having them roughed up, and announcing he plans to change the libel laws and sue journalists who write negative or unfair things.
It's not going to be pretty, if he does win the election. The only wild card is the amount restraint on his actions, and whether he will have any cooperation from congress, either from democrats or republicans.
On the other hand, sometimes I think it's all bull sh1t, not much of anything will happen, and he's just infatuated with the idea of being president.
Hard to say what will happen. That was the point of this thread to get an idea of what Trump will be like, sadly much of what he says on the campaign probably isnt going to happen if he gets in, all politicans say things to get votes.
But anyone against TPP and TIPP gets my vote. WikiLeaks - The US strategy to create a new global legal and economic system: TPP, TTIP, TISA. youtube.com/watch?v=Rw7P0RGZQxQ
-
I must admit I don't understand ttp or other trade deals ad well as I should. Economics is not really my area. But how do we incorporate third world countries into the global economy without exploitation of workers in those countries or without forcing first world workers to accept equally low wages while living in a country with first world standard of living costs for food, shelter, transportation and education. No one on either side of the political argument has ever explained this well.
-
NAFTA seemed like an attempt to mitigate these problems, while bringing countries like Mexico into the fold in a slow but reasonable way, while allowing at the same time, the US to remain compete with Asia. Am I just wrong about this?
-
He should become mayor of Trumpton.
-
Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grub.
-
I must admit I don't understand ttp or other trade deals ad well as I should....
NAFTA seemed like an attempt to mitigate these problems, while bringing countries like Mexico into the fold in a slow but reasonable way, while allowing at the same time, the US to remain compete with Asia. Am I just wrong about this?
yeah, in truth they are not really trade deals, they generally do not deal with trade actually they are generally about certain corporations getting more protections and rights. They are acts of protectionism, and which seek to take away worker rights and garentee no democratic interference with corporate activity.
Economics is not really my area. But how do we incorporate third world countries into the global economy without exploitation of workers in those countries or without forcing first world workers to accept equally low wages while living in a country with first world standard of living costs for food, shelter, transportation and education. No one on either side of the political argument has ever explained this well.
Because no one in that arguement is really interested in that, the first world is not and has never been interested in helping 3rd world nations. We in the first world have such a high standard of living from the explotation of 3rd world nations- and implicity thats the status quo many agree with, and its a horror of a conversation when some make it explicite as I have expericenced.
The only answer is to find a balence, but the top 10% and those that serve them are really not interested in loosing what they have or even sharing it a little.
-
The Assassination of Donald Trump
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=PIfSwt489e4