What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Official" Donald Trump for President: Great Wall of Mexico (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr Oadi said:
What is a reasonable gun control law?
Click to expand...
The inability for the general public to get armor piercing bullets...expanded background checks...restrictions on some assault weapons...I don't think the general public really has a need for military grade type weapons....

 
Blick said:
This won't matter a bit.  In fact, I think it would be more damning if the Trumps weren't taking advantage of oversea labor, tax laws, etc.
Click to expand...
No one said there's anything wrong with it...but when you criticize Apple for doing the same thing you are, it's called HYPOCRISY.

 
Ditka Butkus said:
The inability for the general public to get armor piercing bullets...expanded background checks...restrictions on some assault weapons...I don't think the general public really has a need for military grade type weapons....
Click to expand...
I'd argue the best reading of the second amendment actually supports the public being able to buy military grade weapons moreso than handguns.

 
Tom Servo said:
Ivanka Trump's Chinese-made scarves recalled for "burn risk"

You know, it's one thing when you want to bash American companies for making their products overseas. However, it would be a good idea to make sure your own house is in order before throwing stones.

The irony is so rich with this one...
Click to expand...
Yup. Trump types are usually the first to complain that they want to produce their crap here but can't due to government interference or unfriendly business environments - stuff like making sure your #### doesn't catch on fire. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What are the available odds currently for Trump winning the general election? Hadn't seen them previously, but saw something today that I think was in the neighborhood of 12%?

 
Maybe the eggheads know something after all (this was written last August)...

Below, I’ve listed past Republican candidates who (i) had less than 5 percent of the party’sendorsement points as of the date of the Iowa caucuses, meaning they had very little support from the party establishment, but (ii) won at least 20 percent of the vote in Iowa anyway. There are six of these candidates, ranging from rabble-rousers like Buchanan to religious-right candidates like Huckabee, to another self-funded billionaire in Forbes.

The problem is that they didn’t go very far from there, winning an average of just 14 percent of the popular vote across all the remaining primary and caucus states that year. Even a candidate who did a little better than that, retaining 25 or 30 percent of the vote, would soon be bypassed as the rest of the field consolidated down to one or two other establishment-backed alternatives. This is especially likely to be a problem for Trump. Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, he’s actually not all that popular among Republicans. His favorability ratings among Republicans have improved since before he declared himself a candidate2 but remain in the bottom half of the GOP field and well below the standard of candidates who have been nominated in the past.
Click to expand...

 
Rumor has it that Donald wants to rename the Finger Lakes, he finds it very offensive and wants to call it Beautiful Long Tender Yet Manly Hands Lakes.

 
Tom Servo said:
No one said there's anything wrong with it...but when you criticize Apple for doing the same thing you are, it's called HYPOCRISY.
Click to expand...
Not Hypocrisy. It's business. If our government is going to pass crappy trade deals that benefit the rich, then I'd expect the rich to take advantage of them. If you don't like it, vote for Trump or Sanders. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blick said:
Not Hypocrisy. It's business. If our government is going to pass crappy trade deals that benefit the rich, then I'd expect the rich to take advantage of them. If you don't like it, vote for Trump or Sanders. 
Click to expand...
Do you disparage the rich for taking advantage of them?  

 
Captain Cranks said:
How about those who "take advantage" of the welfare system.  Do you disparage them?
Click to expand...
I don't see the comparison unless you are saying businesses are "taking advantage" of trade deals.  

Do I wish capable people would find jobs? Absolutely. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blick said:
I don't see the comparison unless you are saying businesses are "taking advantage" of trade deals.  

Do I wish capable people would find jobs? Absolutely. 
Click to expand...
Your own words up above were that you'd expect the rich to take advantage of crappy trade deals.  And there's no hint that you feel it's the rich person's fault.  After all, they're just reacting to economic incentives established by stupid government policy.  

Flip the switch to the welfare recipient reacting properly to economic incentives and now the responsibilty is on the person to change their behavior.  There seems to be an apparent change in perspective for some reason. 

 
Captain Cranks said:
Your own words up above were that you'd expect the rich to take advantage of crappy trade deals.  And there's no hint that you feel it's the rich person's fault.  After all, they're just reacting to economic incentives established by stupid government policy.  

Flip the switch to the welfare recipient reacting properly to economic incentives and now the responsibilty is on the person to change their behavior.  There seems to be an apparent change in perspective for some reason. 
Click to expand...
Sorry, the change in perspective you think is there isn't. I thought I was pretty clear. I don't particularly like either situation.  I'd like businesses to keep jobs here and capable welfare reciepients to get jobs.  Unfortunately, our government is allowing both to be taken advantage of through crappy trade agreements and welfare rules.

 
CO delegates being selected through this weekend.


 


Benjy Sarlin Verified account ‏@BenjySarlin


Trump CO director Patrick Davis explains why 2/3 of Trump delegate slate not on ballot. One didn't pay fee, other unsure but assume similar.
Click to expand...
Alexandra Jaffe ‏@ajjaffe 1h1 hour ago
Trump delegate organizer Alan Cobb downplaying CO expectations, tells me "if we get a delegate # higher than 0 it will be a success."
Click to expand...

 
Alexandra Jaffe ‏@ajjaffe 54m54 minutes ago
A pro-Trump delegate just spoke & was met with cries from crowd of "Dump Trump!" "Trump's a Democrat!"
Click to expand...



 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blick said:
Sorry, the change in perspective you think is there isn't. I thought I was pretty clear. I don't particularly like either situation.  I'd like businesses to keep jobs here and capable welfare reciepients to get jobs.  Unfortunately, our government is allowing both to be taken advantage of through crappy trade agreements and welfare rules.
Click to expand...
So you would agree that businesses should keep jobs here despite economic incentives not to just like welfare recipients should get jobs despite economic incentives not to.  Therefore, you believe Trump and his daughter should be manufacturing their merchandise here in the US regardless of trade policies.  

 
Blick said:
Not Hypocrisy. It's business. If our government is going to pass crappy trade deals that benefit the rich, then I'd expect the rich to take advantage of them. If you don't like it, vote for Trump or Sanders. 
Click to expand...
* head explodes *

 
Blick said:
Not Hypocrisy. It's business. If our government is going to pass crappy trade deals that benefit the rich, then I'd expect the rich to take advantage of them. If you don't like it, vote for Trump or Sanders. 
Click to expand...
No, it's hypocrisy. The problem isn't that Trump the businessman does the same, or that Trump the candidate is critical of the policies that incentivize companies to do the same. The problem is that Trump the candidate criticizes businesses that do the same (Ford being the most obvious example). Being critical of others for doing things that you do is pretty much the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Captain Cranks said:
So you would agree that businesses should keep jobs here despite economic incentives not to just like welfare recipients should get jobs despite economic incentives not to.  Therefore, you believe Trump and his daughter should be manufacturing their merchandise here in the US regardless of trade policies.  
Click to expand...


Blick said:
Do I wish they would keep job here?  Absolutely.  But I understand why they do it. 

If they are not breaking any laws, then no.
Click to expand...


Blick said:
I don't see the comparison unless you are saying businesses are "taking advantage" of trade deals.  

Do I wish capable people would find jobs? Absolutely. 
Click to expand...


Blick said:
Not Hypocrisy. It's business. If our government is going to pass crappy trade deals that benefit the rich, then I'd expect the rich to take advantage of them. If you don't like it, vote for Trump or Sanders. 
Click to expand...
I don't know how I can be clearer.

 
TobiasFunke said:
No, it's hypocrisy. The problem isn't that Trump the businessman does the same, or that Trump the candidate is critical of the policies that incentivize companies to do the same. The problem is that Trump the candidate criticizes businesses that do the same (Ford being the most obvious example). Being critical of others for doing things that you do is pretty much the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I would agree if Trump the president allows his companies (I guess they would be in a trust at that point?) to continue these practices.  Why should he put his companies at a disadvantage now, with the state of this presidential race? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blick said:
I don't know how I can be clearer.
Click to expand...
The problem isn't your clarity, it's your inability to grasp what is hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical for Trump to move production/jobs to other countries while criticizing trade policy. Some people might find hypocrisy in that, but I agree with you, I don't really think that's the case.  Fair grounds for criticism in the campaign, sure, but not hypocrisy.

However, it's very clearly hypocritical for Trump to move production/jobs to other countries while criticizing Ford for doing the exact same thing. That's literally the definition of the word- claiming something is wrong or improper while doing it yourself.

Does that help? 

 
TobiasFunke said:
The problem isn't your clarity, it's your inability to grasp what is hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical for Trump to move production/jobs to other countries while criticizing trade policy. Some people might find hypocrisy in that, but I agree with you, I don't really think that's the case.  Fair grounds for criticism in the campaign, sure, but not hypocrisy.

However, it's very clearly hypocritical for Trump to move production/jobs to other countries while criticizing Ford for doing the exact same thing. That's literally the definition of the word- claiming something is wrong or improper while doing it yourself.

Does that help? 
Click to expand...
I understand your point.  I just don't agree.

Trump is calling out Ford, Carrier, and probably others as recent examples how bad trade deals are leading to loss of US companies and jobs.  He says that it wouldn't happen on his watch.  Until he is the POTUS, there is nothing to be done.  Again, why would he put his companies at a disadvantage?  For the moral high ground?  Good luck with that.

If you agree that trade deals are hurting US jobs, then you have two candidates that will take up the cause, Trump and Sanders. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
No, it's hypocrisy. The problem isn't that Trump the businessman does the same, or that Trump the candidate is critical of the policies that incentivize companies to do the same. The problem is that Trump the candidate criticizes businesses that do the same (Ford being the most obvious example). Being critical of others for doing things that you do is pretty much the dictionary definition of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Would this be the same as Bernie wanting higher taxes but not voluntarily paying them?  There are a lot of things that need to be changed, but nobody is foolish enough to voluntarily do them alone when nobody else is and to put themselves at a disadvantage.

 
Blick said:
I understand your point.  I just don't agree.

Trump is calling out Ford, Carrier, and probably others as recent examples how bad trade deals are leading to loss of US companies and jobs.  He says that it wouldn't happen on his watch.  Until he is the POTUS, there is nothing to be done.  Again, why would he put his companies at a disadvantage?  For the moral high ground?  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Because he's not calling them out as distant examples. He's condemning the companies themselves in addition to condemning the bad trade deals.  He literally said he's gonna stop eating Oreos. Why? Because Nabisco did something that Trump also does. Nobody's asking Trump to put his companies at a disadvantage ... but if he's not willing to do it he can't condemn others for making the exact same decision he has made.

This is the clearest example of hypocrisy I can remember in politics. It doesn't matter one bit whether you agree or not. The meaning of a word doesn't change based on your opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shula-holic said:
Would this be the same as Bernie wanting higher taxes but not voluntarily paying them?  There are a lot of things that need to be changed, but nobody is foolish enough to voluntarily do them alone when nobody else is and to put themselves at a disadvantage.
Click to expand...
No, but it would be the same as Bernie not voluntarily paying higher taxes and then condemning Hillary because she isn't voluntarily paying higher taxes.

 
Captain Cranks said:
It looks like you're missing that last sentence on the second case.  I just want to make sure you don't begrudge either since it's the same economic principles at work.  
Click to expand...
I don't understand why capable people want to stay on welfare if jobs were available for them to better themselves and their families.

Edited to add:  I am a big proponent for social safety nets (welfare, unemployment, etc., etc.).  However, they are a major drain on society.  I think we need to be ultra sensitive to abuse, fraud, and inefficiencies in those systems.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blick said:
I don't understand why capable people want to stay on welfare if jobs were available for them to better themselves and their families.
Click to expand...
There's a break even point where you're either motivated or it's not worth it. Like a sales guy analyzing the comp plan, but I doubt as much thought goes in. 

 
JuniorNB said:
It's hilarious that people think that Donald F*ing Trump isn't going to coddle the rich.  Money takes care of money.  Remember that people.
Click to expand...
At least he's opening lying about it then.  Hilary, Cruz, and Kasich ensure business as usual.

 
Blick said:
I don't understand why capable people want to stay on welfare if jobs were available for them to better themselves and their families.
Click to expand...
A lot of people aren't brought up in the same environment with the same perspectives as you and me.  While I'm with you in that I'm motivated to work hard so that I can provide a better life for myself and my family, I also recognize that I grew up in a much better environment with much better opportunities than the "worthless and lazy" (RBM's quote, no yours).  I imagine if I grew up in an environment where I was one of six kids who lived in an inner city row home with no father figure and half my friends were selling drugs, there would be a much higher likelihood that I'd opt for the 'collect welfare' route.   

Now I'm not trying to excuse the behavior, but that kind of upbringing and negative environment certainly makes it understandable why a lot of people go down this path.  So I disapprove off the behavior, but understand why it occurs; that's the same place you're at with businesses that manufacture their products overseas.  

 
Captain Cranks said:
A lot of people aren't brought up in the same environment with the same perspectives as you and me.  While I'm with you in that I'm motivated to work hard so that I can provide a better life for myself and my family, I also recognize that I grew up in a much better environment with much better opportunities than the "worthless and lazy" (RBM's quote, no yours).  I imagine if I grew up in an environment where I was one of six kids who lived in an inner city row home with no father figure and half my friends were selling drugs, there would be a much higher likelihood that I'd opt for the 'collect welfare' route.   

Now I'm not trying to excuse the behavior, but that kind of upbringing and negative environment certainly makes it understandable why a lot of people go down this path.  So I disapprove off the behavior, but understand why it occurs; that's the same place you're at with businesses that manufacture their products overseas.  
Click to expand...
No disagreement here.  Just like renegotiating trade agreements to provide "incentives" for US companies to stay here, we probably also need to tweak the welfare program to incentivize people to joint the labor force.  I don't think one is mutually exclusive of the other.  More good paying jobs will help solve a lot of problems. 

 
Blick said:
I understand your point.  I just don't agree.

Trump is calling out Ford, Carrier, and probably others as recent examples how bad trade deals are leading to loss of US companies and jobs.  He says that it wouldn't happen on his watch.  Until he is the POTUS, there is nothing to be done.  Again, why would he put his companies at a disadvantage?  For the moral high ground?  Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
Then why should Ford put their company at a disadvantage?

 
dparker713 said:
I'd argue the best reading of the second amendment actually supports the public being able to buy military grade weapons moreso than handguns.
Click to expand...
A well regulated militia? Sounds like a states National Guard....Not my psychotic neighbor...

 
Rubiobot said:
Then why should Ford put their company at a disadvantage?
Click to expand...
They shouldn't.  Its unfortunate timing for them though.  They happened to announce moving their plant to Mexico and taking 280 with them in the middle of an election cycle where the leading Republican candidate's platform is based on eliminating such moves.  It looks like Ford has two options, ignore Trump and move (which they will), or fear some type of boycott that affect sales to the point that moving isn't in their best interest and stay.

 
Blick said:
No disagreement here.  Just like renegotiating trade agreements to provide "incentives" for US companies to stay here, we probably also need to tweak the welfare program to incentivize people to joint the labor force.  I don't think one is mutually exclusive of the other.  More good paying jobs will help solve a lot of problems. 
Click to expand...
Isn't that what the welfare reform bill did back in the mid-90s?

Pretty sure welfare recipients have to actively look for work, and there is a cap on how long they can actually receive cash benefits (no more than 5 years, less in some states). Also, individuals don't get any more money for children born after they've been on assistance for 10 months. Some states only provide cash assistance for 2 children and no more (I think California is like this).  

This isn't directed towards you, Blick. But it has always bothered me how a lot of people assume the poor is living some kind of lavish life on the government's dime. It simply isn't true, just more propaganda to vilify the poor. 

 
Blick said:
At least he's opening lying about it then.  Hilary, Cruz, and Kasich ensure business as usual.
Click to expand...
And he's wealthier than them three put together. He's going to do everything in his power to ensure that he pays as little tax as possible, and that he keeps every penny he has and makes as much as he can. Whether it's with American workers or not. Business as usual.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
For those starting a Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program with family or friends
Replies
11
Views
506
Hoh
H
B Maverick
Router Suggestions
Replies
4
Views
173
gianmarco
gianmarco
Todem
Official Rush “Fifty Something Tour” Thread
2
Replies
93
Views
2K
Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top