Donald Trump

Speedwell

Trump's whole campaign is borrowed wholesale from the same idea articulated by L. Ron. Hubbard: "If you want to make a [hell of a lot of money], start a religion". Or, in this case, a "movement".

BoatMad

Bazzo wrote: »

A pretty common line trotted out in support of him is "He doesn't really mean some of those things he says, he's just saying them to get elected you know."

Like, wtf? So you're willingly to selectively believe some of his statements, depending on your own views, and disregard others. That's putting aside the fact that you are admitting that he is bare face lying to everybody and it doesn't put you off him in the slightest. Absolutely baffling. Either you believe he is serious about all of his election promises, sentiments and statements, or you believe that he has little intention of folllowing through with any of them. You don't get to pick and choose the facts to suit yourself(despite what Donald would like to think).

We have seen that the electorate often votes for empty promises.

Trump will become a puppet of the US civil service. ( and other power groups) Because nothing he says is thought out and will have to be "replaced " by policies that can actually be implemented

Whether he believes it or not , doesn't matter. He believes in his own convictions , it's just they are all unimplementable

Just like Regans Star Wars programme

Coffee Fulled Runner

The thing I have noticed is that Trump is constantly being miss quoted or head line statements getting taken out of context in the main stream media from both the liberal and conservative sides. I wonder has it anything to do with the fact he has so far self founded his campaign and refuse to accept money from lobbyists unlike the others. It's like the constant smearing of him keeps back firing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beach_walker

Bazzo wrote: »

A pretty common line trotted out in support of him is "He doesn't really mean some of those things he says, he's just saying them to get elected you know."

Erm, what? Let's leave The Donald (lol) aside for a moment. I've never ever seen a politician who didn't lie (especially on the campaign trail), have you?

Consider the case of an atheist running for US president. It wouldn't happen, they'd say the nice things they need to and profess their belief. I've often seen it argued here that that's the case with Obama (no proof, but again some people just go with it). Would doing so invalidate your whole political campaign or would it actually be what politics is all about?!

Either you believe he is serious about all of his election promises, sentiments and statements, or you believe that he has little intention of folllowing through with any of them.

Again I don't buy this at all. It's not an either or scenario in any political race.

Did you apply these rationales to the recent general election, and if so can I ask who you voted for? Because I'm well curious.

BoatMad

Coffee Fulled Runner wrote: »

The thing I have noticed is that Trump is constantly being miss quoted or head line statements getting taken out of context in the main stream media from both the liberal and conservative sides. I wonder has it anything to do with the fact he has so far self founded his campaign and refuse to accept money from lobbyists unlike the others. It's like the constant smearing of him keeps back firing.

And Hillary not been smeared by the right wing conservative media ... Please

Trump is a master of appearing as the underdog fighting " city hall"

The nonsense of the poor supporting a billionaire business man is just amazing to watch

KomradeBishop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what he said is close enough that it makes no difference.

No it isn't close enough. There's a big difference between, for example, 1 and infinity. Or 1 year and forever.

To you though, both of those figures may as well be 'close enough'.

Speedwell

beach_walker wrote: »

Consider the case of an atheist running for US president. It wouldn't happen, they'd say the nice things they need to and profess their belief. I've often seen it argued here that that's the case with Obama (no proof, but again some people just go with it).

Just for the record, President Obama has said on a number of occasions that he is a Christian and that he attends Christian services. It would be nice if he was completely secular and had no religious conflicts of interest (those are not two identical things), but that isn't realistic to expect in America yet.

Bazzo

beach_walker wrote: »

Erm, what? Let's leave The Donald (lol) aside for a moment. I've never ever seen a politician who didn't lie (especially on the campaign trail), have you?

Consider the case of an atheist running for US president. It wouldn't happen, they'd say the nice things they need to and profess their belief. I've often seen it argued here that that's the case with Obama (no proof, but again some people just go with it). Would doing so invalidate your whole political campaign or would it actually be what politics is all about?!



Again I don't buy this at all. It's not an either or scenario in any political race.

Did you apply these rationales to the recent general election, and if so can I ask who you voted for? Because I'm well curious.

I don't currently live in Ireland and so couldn't vote in the general election. When I've voted in the past it's been for a candidate who I believe to be trustworthy and whose policies I broadly agree with(even if not necessarily every one). Of course I apply the rationale "is this candidate lying to my face just to get elected" to every vote I take part in, frankly you'd be a ****ing idiot not to.

Do you vote for candidates who you know are just lying to you to get elected? Why?

You're also comparing Obama(possibly, completely unproven by the way) being an atheist but feigning an interest in religion to Trump openly and bare faced lying about everything from his personal achievements, past, qualifications, life, experiences to other candidates policies and beliefs, to misquoting people, to changing the facts in order to suit whatever ridiculous picture he's trying to paint. Does that seem like a fair comparison to you? Ridiculous.

Show me one other candidate who tells lies and untruths as frequently as Trump with some evidence to back it up, they don't exist.

To turn your previous question around: do you happily vote for people who you know are lying to you about 50% + of their election promises and statements? How do you know which ones to believe and which ones are bull****?

osarusan

Bazzo wrote: »

Do you vote for candidates who you know are just lying to you to get elected? Why?

In something like a US presidential election you'd have to be fairly naive not to think that at least some of what the candidates say is just to appeal to a certain demographic.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

In western countries, there is still a hell of a lot of lingering high unemployment, and potential for boosting industrial capacity in domestic economies - potentially for replacing foreign goods, if we choose to.

Really? According to this, employment across the EU is below 10% for most countries and only notably above that figure in a few instances. Hardly "a hell of a lot".

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who the fúck said we should wholesale move all manufacturing back to the west?

Yes, I know that western corporations and people benefit from the poor working/living standards and lax regulation people in these other countries endure - standards that we in the west benefit from in our work/lives - so that they can provide us with cheap goods for a pittance.

None of this makes 'free trade' an end-goal in itself, neither does it mean things should remain like this because goods are cheaper and corporations get to profit enormously.

It's not 'all or nothing' like you always try to make these debates about. It's not a choice between Capitalism or Communism, Marxist or Capitalist, Free Markets or a Command Economy, Free Trade or Domestic Self-Sufficiency etc. - and where you judge every policy, by whether it fits into this type of black-and-white extreme interpretation of everything.


My original point on this, wasn't even discussing domestic manufacturing either - but large domestic work on infrastructure.

beach_walker

Bazzo wrote: »

Do you vote for candidates who you know are just lying to you to get elected? Why?

I've never, ever been faced with a candidate I didn't think was lying/being mis-truthful in some respect. It's usually a case of picking the least worse option. And more often than not in our parliamentary system you just know that candidates are endorsing views they don't agree with to tow the party line (or coalition as the case may be).

You're also comparing Obama(possibly, completely unproven by the way) being an atheist but feigning an interest in religion to Trump openly and bare faced lying about everything from his personal achievements, past, qualifications, life, experiences to other candidates policies and beliefs, to misquoting people, to changing the facts in order to suit whatever ridiculous picture he's trying to paint. Does that seem like a fair comparison to you? Ridiculous.

I'm not saying Obama's an atheist, I don't believe that at all, but it's something I've frequently seen being brought up by posters here (usually of the non-believing mindset). Which I thought was a good comparison but apparently it got lost along the way

Show me one other candidate who tells lies and untruths as frequently as Trump with some evidence to back it up, they don't exist.

To turn your previous question around: do you happily vote for people who you know are lying to you about 50% + of their election promises and statements? How do you know which ones to believe and which ones are bull****?

I'm not really arsed as the odds are the goalposts will move once more. You started with a position with which I thought was nonsense i.e. that Trump lies therefore how could anyone vote for him, you wither think he'll do everything he promises or nothing. Glad we've moved it onto degrees of lying. All politicians lie and make unrealistic/nonsensical promises which they know can't all be delivered on.

If you want, Hillary's frequently been found to make sh!t up, suppose you could start there?

Bazzo

osarusan wrote: »

In something like a US presidential election you'd have to be fairly naive not to think that at least some of what the candidates say is just to appeal to a certain demographic.

There's an enormous difference in moderating or pandering to appeal to a larger demographic and Trumps constant flip flopping on issues, making up his own facts to rile people up, promising completely unachievable outcomes, lying about his own experiences and qualifications, lying about what other candidated have done or said. I mean, over half of what comes out of his mouth is certified bull****, everybody on the planet lies or misleads, you'd be naive not to understand that too, it doesn't mean that everybody is equally untrustworthy.

Bazzo

beach_walker wrote: »

I've never, ever been faced with a candidate I didn't think was lying/being mis-truthful in some respect. It's usually a case of picking the least worse option. And more often than not in our parliamentary system you just know that candidates are endorsing views they don't agree with to tow the party line (or coalition as the case may be).



I'm not saying Obama's an atheist, I don't believe that at all, but it's something I've frequently seen being brought up by posters here (usually of the non-believing mindset). Which I thought was a good comparison but apparently it got lost along the way




I'm not really arsed as the odds are the goalposts will move once more. You started with a position with which I thought was nonsense i.e. that Trump lies therefore how could anyone vote for him, you wither think he'll do everything he promises or nothing. Glad we've moved it onto degrees of lying. All politicians lie and make unrealistic/nonsensical promises which they know can't all be delivered on.

If you want, Hillary's frequently been found to make sh!t up, suppose you could start there?

Translation: "I can't so I'll open up my after-hours argument winning dictionary and pick a line: 'moving the goal posts' perfect."

The only comment I've made on Hillary Clinton is that she has many very large flaws, by the way, but this is a thread about Donald Trump, not about other politicans.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with this to an extent, mainly regarding cheap clothes and plastic junk. But in many cases the savings are not passed onto the consumer at all - they merely create a wider profit margin for the shareholders. This situation is lose-lose for everyone but the people making the profits. Look at the cost of an iPhone, the price point is completely arbitrary.

And regarding your point about the laptop - twenty years ago you could buy a computer for under a grand. I don't see it as any major leap that can be attributed to Chinese manufacturing that you can get a terrible laptop for €300 today. VCR's weren't still costing €1000 in the 90s.

BoatMad

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

I agree with this to an extent, mainly regarding cheap clothes and plastic junk. But in many cases the savings are not passed onto the consumer at all - they merely create a wider profit margin for the shareholders. This situation is lose-lose for everyone but the people making the profits. Look at the cost of an iPhone, the price point is completely arbitrary.

And regarding your point about the laptop - twenty years ago you could buy a computer for under a grand. I don't see it as any major leap that can be attributed to Chinese manufacturing that you can get a terrible laptop for €300 today. VCR's weren't still costing €1000 in the 90s.

Taking your iPhone point. The price is not arbitrarily , it's pitched at the upper end of the smartphone market.

That market price range is completely dominated by lower and middle priced products that depend on low cost but high tech manufacturing like China

The US can no more " take home " these industries or erect tariff barriers without destroying its own economic base and putting goods out of the price range of ordinary Americans.

Trump policed are sound bites that look and sound appealing to an electorate that doesn't actually want to understand the issues.

They like most of trumps ideas , basically un-implementable

The danger is what he replaces all that nonsense with if he were to be elected and what influences would he be open to , when he needs to fill that policy vacuum

PopePalpatine

Speedwell wrote: »

Trump's whole campaign is borrowed wholesale from the same idea articulated by L. Ron. Hubbard: "If you want to make a [hell of a lot of money], start a religion". Or, in this case, a "movement".

I think I've said it before about Trump - he's merely the "final form" of the Tea Party movement. As loathe as I am to do this, I have to give him credit for spotting a "gap in the market" for anti-Washington Establishment sentiment which the Tea Party wanted to portray itself as.

Coffee Fulled Runner

BoatMad wrote: »

And Hillary not been smeared by the right wing conservative media ... Please

Trump is a master of appearing as the underdog fighting " city hall"

The nonsense of the poor supporting a billionaire business man is just amazing to watch

The thread isn't about Clinton. I was just making the point that he gets it from both sides which doesn't happen very often in US politics. The rest of what you said is true.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

Taking your iPhone point. The price is not arbitrarily , it's pitched at the upper end of the smartphone market.

That market price range is completely dominated by lower and middle priced products that depend on low cost but high tech manufacturing like China

Perhaps, but what about my other point about VCRs? Technology has always come down in cost, the price wasn't static before it was all made in China.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A_Sober_Paddy

Both candidates are very dislikable people for differing reasons, but think hillary is the lesser of the evil

KomradeBishop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See on the one hand, we have people saying that automation is going to replace most jobs - yet on the other hand, they say that bringing manufacturing to the US will magically double all costs due to wage costs...

Nothing to cite for showing these wild swinging assumptions in demand for labour and then the cost of labour - just assertions, which always change to suit the argument at hand.

vg88

Hilary is looking for war if she gets voted in, how can Trump be worse?

Speedwell

moloner4 wrote: »

Hilary is looking for war if she gets voted in, how can Trump be worse?

Two words, domestic policy.

BoatMad

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think I've said it before about Trump - he's merely the "final form" of the Tea Party movement. As loathe as I am to do this, I have to give him credit for spotting a "gap in the market" for anti-Washington Establishment sentiment which the Tea Party wanted to portray itself as.

Actually , id say it he the very opposite of the Tea Party and its why right wing tea party blogs are supporters hate Trump ( have a read of Redstate.com)

potentially Trump is in fact a democrat in disguise with populist policies

yes he's anti establishment, but thats not to say he aligns with the Tea Party and Pual ryan etc

in fact its bizarre watching the demise of the Republican party , imagine a party running a candidate they absolutely didnt want in the first place

BoatMad

moloner4 wrote: »

Hilary is looking for war if she gets voted in, how can Trump be worse?

the US isn't going too get involved in any major campaigns in the next 10 years , its " successes " are enough to inform it of that

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

vg88

Speedwell wrote: »

Two words, domestic policy.

Someone needs to sort out the deficit, I can see trump doing that over hiliary

BoatMad

moloner4 wrote: »

Someone needs to sort out the deficit, I can see trump doing that over hiliary

its a fiat currency , you can have plenty of deficit , Trump cannot and willnot force any haircut of the deficit