Donald Trump

stefanovich

Billy86 wrote: »

Note how in the first one he never says anything about families knowing anything or even being in close touch with the terrorist, he just wants them "taken out"... to dinner, presumably?

Good to know that's what you would have done with the Guildford Four and their family members, though.

Despite the fact he is on record supporting Libya and Iraq?

Congratulations on doing ISIS' PR work for them about the US constantly getting involved in their affairs, killing their people, stealing their lands and resources, etc.

Bombing it is risky enough from that perspective, but at least you're not creating the impression that you're stealing it.

Oh, you're relying on magic, got it. How do you propose to kill every member of ISIS, including the ones you don't even know exist?

If you want us to go back to the year 200BC, that's your issue.

Whatever dude, we'll never agree. So what actually is your point? Do you have one?

_Kaiser_

WarZ wrote: »

Yes as an Irish person who supports Trump is someone who is supporting a candidate that goes against our countries interests. Logically that doesn't make sense. Why would you support a candidate that will negatively impact your own country?

I can't really put it any clearer mate.

Unless the Irish person in question is a US citizen with the right to vote, then really it's not up to them - it's like Enda Kenny going to England to try and influence the Brexit vote. Not his place.

The issue we have at home is weak politicians who are spineless when it comes to defending THIS country's interests in Europe and elsewhere - FFS we've all seen the picture of Enda and Sarkozy right? That's what we have representing us.

I admit I haven't been following the US situation beyond the headlines and soundbites, but you can't expect people there to not vote for someone because it might not suit us.. I know the idea of borders and even sovereignty is a dirty thought in Europe these days, but we might all be better off if some lines were drawn.

Americans will vote for who best represents THEIR interests.. and why shouldn't they?

B_Wayne

stefanovich wrote: »

Because I want our strongest ally to be strong, not weak. You understand? I like the US and the people there.


He's not afraid to speak his mind that's for sure. I wouldn't call him a racist, just a realist. Anyway, Islam is not a race.



Listen, if the family is aware of the terrorist in their midst, if there is ammunition sitting around the place then they are complicit and fair game.



I don't think Trump was too happy about them meddling in the middle east either. If he needs to go after a terrorist threat there though then so be it. You'd rather leave the oil for ISIS to sell on the black market?

Terrorists are getting the proceeds not people. **** them.


Difficult to be happy when you are dead.

China did it 1000s of years ago.

Trump has not targeted solely muslims so you can't pull the 'Islam isn't a race' nonsense... He's gone after black people and mexicans as well. He's also engaged in some pretty dodgy business practises including this.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html

So yep, Trump has been a politician who has sold himself as a guy for white men... If you're a woman, he might bring up your period, call you pocahontas maybe. So a racist sexist is a fair description. Oh, he also spent his previous presidential effort claiming the president wasn't American and demanding his birth cert.... He's a classy gent.

stefanovich

B_Wayne wrote: »

Trump has not targeted solely muslims so you can't pull the 'Islam isn't a race' nonsense... He's gone after black people and mexicans as well. He's also engaged in some pretty dodgy business practises including this.

It's not nonsense. It is a religion. There are white muslims. Gone after blacks? Misrepresentation is what it is.

B_Wayne

stefanovich wrote: »

It's not nonsense. It is a religion. There are white muslims. Gone after blacks? Misrepresentation is what it is.

He's insulted numerous groups, not just Muslims(you were the person who brought up Muslims)....... But let's ignore that!

K-9

LorMal wrote: »

Why do you think 'Irish people don't realise this'. How come you are one of the elite few who have so much more wisdom and insight than the rest of us?

I am sure the vast majority of Irish people know our economy is heavily supported by US multinationals based here.

That isn't the point though, most US multinationals are attracted here because of our lax tax laws, if the US closes down loopholes it effects our GDP figures, debt percentages and extra Corporation tax revenue, jobs to a degree as well. Pfizer the perfect recent example of how the US can stop this.

If Trump really goes after these tax loopholes many US multinationals may leave. Many people seem to think our education system attracts them and we'll be fine, but even Google are harsh critics of our school system. Google can get over that because our tax laws and agreements make their bottom line bigger.

But Trump supporters don't really care about that, it's about the personality, not policy.

stefanovich

timmyntc wrote:

'exalts nation and often race above the individual' - that's just hardcore nationalism, not necessarily right-wing. 'forcible suppression of opposition' is what's attempting to be done to the Trump campaign, and indeed most conservative political movements across Europe. The problem is that this has the opposite effect and simply galvanizes supporters and grows support.

Sinn Fein.

stefanovich

LorMal wrote:

Really, Fascism is a very extreme ideology which places the state totally over any individual human rights, completely removes democracy outright, allows no opposition - arresting any dissenters and requires a totalitarian dictatorship backed by complete militarism. Now, please point me to where any of the candidates have placed these positions amongst their policies. Ridiculous nonsense.

Oswald Mosley would disagree with you there.

stefanovich

KomradeBishop wrote:

Do you really think past fascist governments got in power, by actually publicly stating all of their true intentions/policies, when heading for power? That's very naive. They are almost always built upon lies/propaganda.

The EU?

LorMal

K-9 wrote: »

That isn't the point though, most US multinationals are attracted here because of our lax tax laws, if the US closes down loopholes it effects our GDP figures, debt percentages and extra Corporation tax revenue, jobs to a degree as well. Pfizer the perfect recent example of how the US can stop this.

If Trump really goes after these tax loopholes many US multinationals may leave. Many people seem to think our education system attracts them and we'll be fine, but even Google are harsh critics of our school system. Google can get over that because our tax laws and agreements make their bottom line bigger.

But Trump supporters don't really care about that, it's about the personality, not policy.

That's exactly the point.

LorMal

stefanovich wrote: »

Oswald Mosley would disagree with you there.

What he got to do with the US elections?

K-9

LorMal wrote: »

That's exactly the point.

How's that the point? You think Irish Trump supporters want less US multinational business, less jobs, tax revenue, possible redundancies and companies leaving?

Or is it just irrelevant because it's Trump and he says things they like to hear?

K-9

LorMal wrote: »

What he got to do with the US elections?

Indeed, what some minor British historical figure that failed, has to do with fascism except as a curiosity, I don't know!

KomradeBishop

Irelands position as a corporate tax haven is unsustainable anyway - and the benefits we get from it are half propaganda really, as most of our gains attributed to that, are attributable to EU membership, not our position as a tax haven - we need to normalize our corporate taxes with other countries, and beef up our regulatory system so that being a tax haven isn't a priority (which does more damage to us as a country, than the gains it provides - i.e. the lax regulation is what helped drive the crisis, and we're all paying for that).

If you want to be a tax haven, and have a low regulation environment to suit that - then you become prey to corrupt financial industries, who then corrupt government and important institutions like the central bank (we had a Libertarian Cato contributor directing financial regulation ffs...) - and then you pay the price when the environment created, leads to your country being looted, as happened with the housing bubble (with there being so many losers - all of us - out of that, there were many winners too...).

If we want to keep multinationals and attract more, we'll need to actually do proper work on beefing up our infrastructure and providing a good quality of life at a decent cost of living (because you can be fúcking sure, that with the state of things today, Ireland being a tax haven is the only reason they're here...) - and we have many decades of work to begin if we want to create that environment, as we're nowhere near close.

DipDab93

Trump doesnt sugar coat what he thinks. I would much prefer to see him get the vote than Hilary

K-9

That's all well and good but that isn't how our Government does business, we offer the best tax laws and the lightest regulation around to attract as many Pfizer's as we can. That's the reality and our Governments past and present don't have much else in their locker, whether we like that or it's right or wrong.

Trump getting in would have to up there with Brexit as economic uncertainties.

LorMal

K-9 wrote: »

How's that the point? You think Irish Trump supporters want less US multinational business, less jobs, tax revenue, possible redundancies and companies leaving?

Or is it just irrelevant because it's Trump and he says things they like to hear?

I'm lost. What are you referring to? I honestly don't understand what point you are addressing?

The only point I made was that I think Irish people fully appreciate the danger of Trump coming into office (in relation to US MNCs based here)

dark crystal

DipDab93 wrote: »

Trump doesnt sugar coat what he thinks. I would much prefer to see him get the vote than Hilary

I don't get this argument at all. Sure Kim Jong Il didn't sugar coat what he thought either - did that make him a great leader?

Every asshole has an opinion, doesn't make them fit to lead a country.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

That's all well and good but that isn't how our Government does business, we offer the best tax laws and the lightest regulation around to attract as many Pfizer's as we can. That's the reality and our Governments past and present don't have much else in their locker, whether we like that or it's right or wrong.

Trump getting in would have to up there with Brexit as economic uncertainties.

You present it as if governments here don't have a choice - they do have a choice though, they can choose not to prostitute Ireland to international corporations and finance - and to have a proper regulatory environment, which stops our country from being looted, with the costs dumped on all the rest of us.

The country gets exploited, hand-in-hand with our regulatory-captured government - it's about time to end that way of running the country, it's not worth the largely misattributed 'gains' (which really come from EU membership, not being a tax haven), that are enormously outweighed by the costs.

LorMal

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You present it as if governments here don't have a choice - they do have a choice though, they can choose not to prostitute Ireland to international corporations and finance - and to have a proper regulatory environment, which stops our country from being looted, with the costs dumped on all the rest of us.

The country gets exploited, hand-in-hand with our regulatory-captured government - it's about time to end that way of running the country, it's not worth the largely misattributed 'gains' (which really come from EU membership, not being a tax haven), that are enormously outweighed by the costs.

I think you are right - but a bit too extreme. The low corporation tax/light regulation regime was incredibly important and relatively successful. Remember back in the 80's we didn't have a pot to piss in and very little indigenous industry. We sod our souls to get jobs and it (sort of) worked.

The problem is that we are far too reliant on that strategy now. If it is so clever, why haven't all the other countries in the EU adopted it?

We need to wean our economy off this tit - not in one headlong rush - but steadily.

Trump could pull the plug anyway (I actually feared that Obama would but he seemed to lose interest once he got into power).

K-9

If it was a thread about tax havens and reform I'd be agreeing with you Kb, indeed IIRC we may well have recently on just such a thread.

But this one is about Trump and unless there are some seismic changes in Irish Government policy in the next 4 or 5 years, Trump is a threat to job creation and job losses here, plus significant GDP increases due to creative accounting which helps with budgetary targets including increased Government spending and tax cuts.

As for our Governments coming up with stuff other than corporate friendly tax laws and lax regulation, well we didn't do it when times were good or in the recession so...

K-9

Obama had to fight for every law he got passed including the one that stopped Pfizer, that's why more wasn't done.

Trump won't because the chances are the 2 houses will be Republican controlled.

Berserker

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You think Obama underestimated the bureaucracy, but think Trump would be better on that front?

Obama did underestimate the level of bureaucracy. You could see it quite clearly in the BBC documentary 'Inside Obama's White House'. I think that Trumps' background in business would mean that he would better equipped to deal with this. It's still going to be a shock to him but I think he'll adapt to it better and quicker.

Superhorse

DipDab93 wrote: »

Trump doesnt sugar coat what he thinks. I would much prefer to see him get the vote than Hilary

He'd be far less dangerous than Clinton also. I do find it funny that people presume Trump will be the "madman with his finger on the big red button" but think Clinton will a safer choice.

volchitsa

Berserker wrote: »

Obama did underestimate the level of bureaucracy. You could see it quite clearly in the BBC documentary 'Inside Obama's White House'. I think that Trumps' background in business would mean that he would better equipped to deal with this. It's still going to be a shock to him but I think he'll adapt to it better and quicker.

I don't know, I'd have thought that people with experience working with social services and the like (Obama was a lawyer/community activist originally) would have more experience of negotiating civil service bureaucracy than a bigwig property developer who has little people to deal with the tiresome details like a town hall that won't give planning permission.

Just a thought, I don't know if it's a major issue but since posters are saying it has been...

KomradeBishop

LorMal wrote: »

I think you are right - but a bit too extreme. The low corporation tax/light regulation regime was incredibly important and relatively successful. Remember back in the 80's we didn't have a pot to piss in and very little indigenous industry. We sod our souls to get jobs and it (sort of) worked.

The problem is that we are far too reliant on that strategy now. If it is so clever, why haven't all the other countries in the EU adopted it?

We need to wean our economy off this tit - not in one headlong rush - but steadily.

Trump could pull the plug anyway (I actually feared that Obama would but he seemed to lose interest once he got into power).

Yes but this is the misattribution I was talking about: What else happened in that time? Answer: Closer and closer integration with the EU.

It's the EU which provided us with so much economic success - we have been a tax haven since the 1960's, but it is the EU which provided us with our success, not our tax haven status.

The idea that our low Corporate Tax rate, and our operation as a low-regulation tax haven, provides our success, is one of the greatest lies our political and business class spin to us - it's not true, it's actually harmed our country enormously, and helps corrupt our politics.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

If it was a thread about tax havens and reform I'd be agreeing with you Kb, indeed IIRC we may well have recently on just such a thread.

But this one is about Trump and unless there are some seismic changes in Irish Government policy in the next 4 or 5 years, Trump is a threat to job creation and job losses here, plus significant GDP increases due to creative accounting which helps with budgetary targets including increased Government spending and tax cuts.

As for our Governments coming up with stuff other than corporate friendly tax laws and lax regulation, well we didn't do it when times were good or in the recession so...

Another Great Lie that gets spun a lot, is that companies and the wealthy are very flighty - that's not true though - corporations which have invested a lot of capital in Ireland, are going to hang around even if they lose their tax dodging abilities - and it's up to Ireland, to foster the right business environment (built upon real production, not financial trickery - and based on having a decent quality/cost of living), to keep them and attract more.

Part of what Trump says, regarding US government debt, indicates that he may be willing to significantly expand US government spending - and this can actually help Ireland (and much of the rest of the world), through increased trade with the US - which can far outweigh any 'negatives' from tax dodging clampdowns in the US.

K-9

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes but this is the misattribution I was talking about: What else happened in that time? Answer: Closer and closer integration with the EU.

It's the EU which provided us with so much economic success - we have been a tax haven since the 1960's, but it is the EU which provided us with our success, not our tax haven status.

The idea that our low Corporate Tax rate, and our operation as a low-regulation tax haven, provides our success, is one of the greatest lies our political and business class spin to us - it's not true, it's actually harmed our country enormously, and helps corrupt our politics.

Ah yeah, us being a tax haven with lax regulations that is also English speaking, and a member of the Euro, those are cherries on top. Companies are making more profits as a percentage of revenues than ever before while wages stagnate or fall, so Ireland is a dream for the likes of google. Huge profits, but use a bit of accounting hocus pocus and look, all gone!

As for the 60's, different world Kb, bit of a lazy comparison. Our secondary level education system wasn't great for a start, never mind third level. Our education system isn't as fantastic as many think and the likes of Google and pharmaceutical companies based here are very critical of it, but the bottom line trumps (hey) any deficiencies in that department, always will. Though paradoxically, Google are more interested in the aforementioned hocus pocus to get the bottom line down, we're through the looking Glass here!

But anyway, location was crucial in the 60's, now it's nearly irrelevant, suits Ireland.

The world is more mobile so those qualified graduates that Google complain the Irish education system isn't producing enough of, we'll get them from abroad, EU and non EU.

They'll have no problem coming here as flights are so cheap, again not like the 60's.

And probably the biggest change, Ireland isn't an economic and cultural backwater, so people actually want to migrate here, again not like the 60's.

I'm actually amazed Kb that you are underestimating corporate greed to such an extent.

But we're going way, way off topic and it's a nice day and I can think of better things to be doing so I'll leave it there for now.

KomradeBishop

The point is, we were a tax haven in the 60's, as we are now - the supposed 'benefits' people attribute to our tax haven status today, did not exist back then - the benefits instead, are attributable to our closer integration with the EU, not to our tax haven status.

In other words, we've been a tax haven a very long time, without that being of any benefit to us - it didn't magically become 'beneficial' to be a tax haven, our success is attributable to us gaining benefits due to EU membership, not due to our tax haven status - special interests perpetuate the myth that our success is due to our tax haven status (misattributing success that is actually due to the EU, in the process), in order to try and keep the gravy train going for themselves.

I don't see how you think I'm underestimating corporate greed - what I'm pointing out emphasises the full extent of it in a way you never see discussed in Ireland - what I'm solely doing, is panning the idea that our tax haven status or low-corporate-tax status, is in any way beneficial to our country; that's the focus of my last number of posts.

K-9

So as I said, we are in agreement on being a tax haven damaging us.


"Our success is due to EU membership, not tax haven status" - That's a huge statement to make.

The Celtic Tiger kicked off after the establishment of the IFSC, companies were attracted due to tax breaks and lax regulation.

Multinationals started coming here in droves when we brought in the 12.5% tax rate.

We didn't have the tax rules that the likes of Google and Apple use in the 60's, 70's and 80's. We started aggressively going after them in the late 90's and 2000's. We were nowhere near that level in the 60's or a far better example, the 70's and 80's when we actually joined the EU. So what changed from the mid 90's on?

Our tax rate and far more importantly our tax breaks did. Coincidentally! (Yeah right) the IFSC was a big success and we wanted a bit more of that so we started giving financial companies the lax regulations they wanted to come here.

You really think our tax haven status and lax regulation has nothing to do with our success attracting foreign investment? That this is coincidence?

I don't think being a tax haven is that beneficial to us in the long term, you are panning it like I do often on this site, so we are in agreement there.

But you are going to a whole new level and completely dismissing the massive financial advantages to the likes of Microsoft, Google, and Apple from basing themselves here.

So, yes, as you say our tax haven status isn't in anyway beneficial to us a country. Complete agreement.

It is beneficial to Microsoft, Apple et al who save billions upon billions every year from Irish tax breaks. They don't care if those magic tax laws benefit us as a country, they care about paying as little tax as legally possible.

One last thing, can you list all these advantages Ireland has over France and Germany that makes Ireland so much more attractive for foreign investment. Both are in the EU, Germany has Frankfurt, France has its own tax breaks, so why do we attract such a huge chunk of multinational investment?

And also, why did Pfizer pull out of the takeover talks? Sure we're in the EU with all these benefits so why did they pull the plug?