PDA

View Full Version : Unfair Presidential Debate



Randy71
09-28-2016, 10:58 AM
The Clinton/Trump debate was unfair. Hillary was only interrupted 7-9 times. Trump was interrupted over 40 times. Because the bias media isn't willing to be fair, they should be replaced immediately!!

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 11:06 AM
Yes, the moderator interrupted Trump several times and gave Hillary a pass, but Trump handled it poorly.

When you go into a debate moderated by someone with a demonstrated liberal bias, one must anticipate extra scrutiny. If your ideas are developed by a set of core beliefs, it's easy to handle the security.

Chloe
09-28-2016, 11:14 AM
And they call college students snowflakes

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 11:17 AM
And they call college students snowflakes

No, they (whoever they is) call them naive and inexperienced.

Chloe
09-28-2016, 11:18 AM
Yes, the moderator interrupted Trump several times and gave Hillary a pass, but Trump handled it poorly.

When you go into a debate moderated by someone with a demonstrated liberal bias, one must anticipate extra scrutiny. If your ideas are developed by a set of core beliefs, it's easy to handle the security.

To piggy back on that a bit if you talk for two minutes about something like China when the question is about something unrelated its probable that you'll be interrupted. I guess it's also a tad bit of irony that Trunp supporters complain about being interrupted when Trump interrupted Clinton numerous times. Fair? Meh, life's unfair, right?

Chris
09-28-2016, 11:21 AM
The only interruption I was looking for was Jill Stein busting up on stage but she go arrested outside.

Chloe
09-28-2016, 11:23 AM
Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for Trump supporters that complain about fairness and how they are treated. They are the most thin skinned people that pretend they have the thickest and most beautiful skin.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 11:27 AM
Well, the moderator never once interrupted Mrs.Clinton to clarify any point she tried to make and she often said things which needed clarification. He just let it go. He also avoided asking her questions he knew would cause her some discomfort. He clearly favored her. Clearly.

But, that's the way it is and if you are running as a Republican you better be prepared to deal with it. If Donald Trump was guided by a set of values and core beliefs, he could have handled the extra scrutiny he received.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, they nominated a candidate who has no core beliefs other than "I'm great".

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 11:29 AM
Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for Trump supporters that complain about fairness and how they are treated. They are the most thin skinned people that pretend they have the thickest and most beautiful skin.


Being thin skinned isn't confined to only the Trump supporters. Liberals are quite thin skinned. They are insulted when someone disagrees with them. They get absolutely indignant when their ideas are scrutinized.

nathanbforrest45
09-28-2016, 11:32 AM
Do you think its fair when the moderator attempts to erroneously correct a point a candidate is making? Holt corrected Trump twice but was wrong each time. Do you think its the job of the moderator to interject himself into the debate or to just keep it flowing?

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 11:39 AM
Do you think its fair when the moderator attempts to erroneously correct a point a candidate is making? Holt corrected Trump twice but was wrong each time. Do you think its the job of the moderator to interject himself into the debate or to just keep it flowing?

And that's nothing unusual. Remember Candy Crowley? She'll never moderate another presidential debate.

You can complain about fairness all you want, but if you are running as a Republican or a conservative, you are going to be scrutinized more than the establishment Democrat or liberal. This is the way it's been for generations. You need to know this and be prepared for it.

Captain Obvious
09-28-2016, 11:41 AM
Unfair... lawl

Dismissed

Common
09-28-2016, 11:54 AM
To piggy back on that a bit if you talk for two minutes about something like China when the question is about something unrelated its probable that you'll be interrupted. I guess it's also a tad bit of irony that Trunp supporters complain about being interrupted when Trump interrupted Clinton numerous times. Fair? Meh, life's unfair, right?

The difference chloe which eludes all liberals, is that the moderator is SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL you expect the candidates to interrupt as leverage, the moderator is supposed to be impartial and he was blatantly obvioiusly NOT impartial.

Safety
09-28-2016, 12:09 PM
Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for Trump supporters that complain about fairness and how they are treated. They are the most thin skinned people that pretend they have the thickest and most beautiful skin.

LoL. Pretty good.

Chris
09-28-2016, 12:13 PM
Isn't fair what liberals cry about?

Chloe
09-28-2016, 12:16 PM
Being thin skinned isn't confined to only the Trump supporters. Liberals are quite thin skinned. They are insulted when someone disagrees with them. They get absolutely indignant when their ideas are scrutinized.

So could we just say that Trump supporters and Trump himself are a bad species of liberal? :)

Chloe
09-28-2016, 12:19 PM
The difference chloe which eludes all liberals, is that the moderator is SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL you expect the candidates to interrupt as leverage, the moderator is supposed to be impartial and he was blatantly obvioiusly NOT impartial.

sorry but it's just really hard to have sympathy towards a man that is just so ridiculous and disgusting.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 12:22 PM
So could we just say that Trump supporters and Trump himself are a bad species of liberal? :)


Trump is a big government liberal. His supporters have been duped.

Crepitus
09-28-2016, 12:26 PM
You guys do know Lester Holt is and has been a registered republican right?

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 12:26 PM
The difference chloe which eludes all liberals, is that the moderator is SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL you expect the candidates to interrupt as leverage, the moderator is supposed to be impartial and he was blatantly obvioiusly NOT impartial.

When was the last time you saw an impartial moderator in a presidential debate?


Why complain about something you know is going to happen, but failed to prepare for it?

AZ Jim
09-28-2016, 12:27 PM
Republican whines are so pitiful.

Chloe
09-28-2016, 12:28 PM
I also think it's funny that Trump talks and talks and talks about winning but yet when something doesn't go his way or if he finds the results unfair (which is common) he whines and stomps his feet and demands change so that he can win better. You would hope and think that he would want the mindset that he will work twice as hard, learn twice as much, and go out there twice as enthusiastic and EARN the next debate victory on his own merits and on his own beliefs and policies despite any obstacles in his way, but nope, he wants his win to be easier. It's funny since many of his supporters are probably the type of people that talk about working hard, pulling yourself back your boot straps, and so on, yet they support someone that chooses the shortcut.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 12:28 PM
You guys do know Lester Holt is and has been a registered republican right?

So what?

According to the Democrats here establishment Republicans are all in on Trump.

Besides, I doubt that your information is accurate.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 12:30 PM
Republican whines are so pitiful.

Grown ups are having a discussion. Get lost....

Crepitus
09-28-2016, 12:31 PM
So what?

According to the Democrats here establishment Republicans are all in on Trump.

Besides, I doubt that your information is accurate.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trump-clinton-debate-updates-a-lie-would-mean-he-knew-the-man-s-1474895246-htmlstory.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/25/5-things-to-know-about-presidential-debate-moderator-lester-holt/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/20/494791154/oops-trump-calls-nbc-news-anchor-and-fellow-gop-er-lester-holt-a-democrat

http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-09-26/is-lester-holt-a-republican-the-nbc-news-anchors-party-affiliation-isnt-a-mystery/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/trump-is-wrong-lester-holt-is-a-republican.html



How many more would you like?

AZ Jim
09-28-2016, 12:37 PM
Grown ups are having a discussion. Get lost....I was a grown up when you were still shitting your diaper.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 12:38 PM
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trump-clinton-debate-updates-a-lie-would-mean-he-knew-the-man-s-1474895246-htmlstory.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/25/5-things-to-know-about-presidential-debate-moderator-lester-holt/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/20/494791154/oops-trump-calls-nbc-news-anchor-and-fellow-gop-er-lester-holt-a-democrat

http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-09-26/is-lester-holt-a-republican-the-nbc-news-anchors-party-affiliation-isnt-a-mystery/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/trump-is-wrong-lester-holt-is-a-republican.html



How many more would you like?

Again, so what? You kind of skated over that.

Are you suggesting that a Republican can't be a big government liberal?

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 12:39 PM
I was a grown up when you were still $#@!ting your diaper.

then act like it.

Common
09-28-2016, 01:00 PM
sorry but it's just really hard to have sympathy towards a man that is just so ridiculous and disgusting. Not a question of sympathy its a question of rules and following them. Many chloe find hillary far more disgusting and phony and lieing and her history is all in Politics. The democrats have nothing to crow about having the most criminal lieing candidate possibly in history.

Chris
09-28-2016, 01:05 PM
So I'm reading Lester Holt Asked Trump 15 Questions, Clinton 2 Questions (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/27/lester-holt-asked-trump-15-questions-clinton-2-questions/) which also points out he challenged Trump not Clinton, under pressure from the Clinton campaign.

But shouldn't that work to Trump's favor? He gets more talking time, more chances to go into detail. He should have taken advantage of it, but he squandered it.

nathanbforrest45
09-28-2016, 01:10 PM
You guys do know Lester Holt is and has been a registered republican right?

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Stupid is as stupid does.

He is a Token Republican so the sheep can trot out the fact that he is a "Republican"

del
09-28-2016, 01:11 PM
it couldn't be because clinton actually answered the questions she was asked, could it?

it couldn't be because trump had no clue what he was talking about and tried to evade answering, could it?

at least trump has the whiny bitch vote sewn up.

nathanbforrest45
09-28-2016, 01:11 PM
When was the last time you saw an impartial moderator in a presidential debate?


Why complain about something you know is going to happen, but failed to prepare for it?

As long as the media is controlled by liberals you will never see such an animal. When was the last time you saw a Liberal Democrat treated unfairly during a debate?

Chris
09-28-2016, 01:14 PM
it couldn't be because clinton actually answered the questions she was asked, could it?

it couldn't be because trump had no clue what he was talking about and tried to evade answering, could it?

at least trump has the whiny bitch vote sewn up.

True, she was better prepared to lie.

nathanbforrest45
09-28-2016, 01:15 PM
it couldn't be because clinton actually answered the questions she was asked, could it?

it couldn't be because trump had no clue what he was talking about and tried to evade answering, could it?

at least trump has the whiny $#@! vote sewn up.

Evaded answering? No, he is simply not a politician so he doesn't know how to say nothing while saying something.

I will admit he was not as articulate as Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton but his answers were more to my liking than her lies.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 01:20 PM
As long as the media is controlled by liberals you will never see such an animal. When was the last time you saw a Liberal Democrat treated unfairly during a debate?

I've seen liberal Democrats treated unfairly in a debate between Democratic candidates during the primary season.

I don't know how you avoid having a media person moderate a presidential debate. The chances of finding someone without a bias is nearly nil. The only thing you can hope for is to find someone who holds all candidates in equal contempt.

Captain Obvious
09-28-2016, 01:31 PM
This thread is douchebaggery

AZ Jim
09-28-2016, 01:42 PM
Lump said it himself. "I can stand in the middle of Broadway and shoot someone and I won't lose any votes!"

exploited
09-28-2016, 01:43 PM
I thought Holt was fairly good. Only one question of his stuck out as clearly biased. He also had to interrupt Trump more because Trump needed more moderation, as he was constantly running over time, interrupting Clinton, interrupting the moderator, and generally ranting incoherently.

suds00
09-28-2016, 02:45 PM
politics ain't beanbag

del
09-28-2016, 02:58 PM
True, she was better prepared to lie.

not really, but thanks for pitching in.

always good to have your special class blend of obtuseness and mendacity in a thread.




He lied about the loan (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVYELvrN1vGGsAF62Au4JnqgYFzK2 4Yqe9kA92GbWdj4WKLcwYWdmbKDM0hGd6mjvJQzIgnPMPC05wr y/THFrlFnyR14xhEjCPBYdiQbOFdcbERz196V8YS6+DYhKa7JKdz LRxa9ZbbBzr57dTs3ZAW+DBfl4CnaPu0t6qygJtomLAJiKJr+N NH&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0) his father once gave him.
He lied about his company’s bankruptcies (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-first-presidential-debate/trump-claims-he-runs-his-businesses-cautiously-we-dont-really-know/).
He lied about his federal financial-disclosure forms (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVYELvrN1vGGos/g5ObftVUpqeo2JC/2wXAmaKK/xc2qkqHXx7e0GhtzT7X+iEIFld+m681FtU43VK2tBWrZs0qeLi 56XlEnrXZv8oJCcB55F3cIztrNnOpvjHVzru49GJvuKcI53/jfoKaCG7scikN8xTyp0chL9s=&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about his endorsements (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVYELvrN1vGGsAF62Au4JnqgYFzK2 4Yqe9kA92GbWdj4WKLcwYWdmbKDM0hGd6mjvJQzIgnPMPC05wr y/THFrlFWjSKrq1kxN1qywv8swdbGPCfvbQ+ygRiv4vaerntf98d woJyCRgp1Lh41neCK9OiKiaopGvk3u4=&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about “stop and frisk (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KUri8snyRou4e/l8HLWsQZmNyK58Y+9uhyhjIlM4hrH77WyuY9ohu47m71Ntm9+O znz+wB6MWbnArowBfrYkgX5GjDXxN+La2FtIEfrc5bvn3o26fV sRcZ90UG/+3iaAMdbCVswbSC20xxiLO0Kqo/CjC0fSAw/IH84yEh44Pg079OsDnso4HhT/1ExejC2y4yujc9CyajO/S5Fi70rr+eDKY2N3ZHGYkVZ4nqjJhm4EH+3z76pHOXVdsnukCc LGRo=&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).”
He lied about “birtherism (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVYELvrN1vGGos/g5ObftVUpqeo2JC/2wXAmaKK/xc2qkqHXx7e0GhtzT7X+iEIFlfFr59b+2eZWlK2tBWrZs0qok8 9182PZ7J6Nun1bEXGfYH80ZPWp9oM6+DYhKa7JKdGlEx+Qmyv+ ntGoU+nxjv4ZIudwYMCdqY=&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).”
He lied about New York (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pehkIEQ5/wRurO06a5tM7Us4h9qV6eSCaa2vwC9yMeBXoS6zJ2OnYgBXhXv tqIgCoihujIBq5bCQ==&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about Michigan and Ohio (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pghCD2wN tk3y93AO7DDHaixNzunn+Q5aPSwlmce9deP/t68ABnQ7EITjdiHphX6wFQ3H2fJ/X8FAd7tXYz7dQIQS0/WhkF9zsk+NJFHV6RxBeAiyYote1VmA==&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about Palm Beach, Fla. (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVYELvrN1vGGsAF62Au4JnqgYFzK2 4Yqe9kA92GbWdj4WKLcwYWdmbKDM0hGd6mjvJQzIgnPMPC05wr y/THFrlFWjSKrq1kxN3lHKkH2Ci/GYyf8dGTvpZII8xCcfuKuiKYwch+Dy3o/EB/EeZ0r3B2ukZk+4AzGV4=&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0)
He lied about Janet Yellen (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVlB14i4cAMFU+d0NSu9j6Z+nd0LF cudivZv8oJCcB55FfLB94kaWZqKwWO9rEr/kAFIJ6eZjNgG323djsN9+4+jjWPdv+zeWtBnR61OL8+kp3tc5C d26QeovnwYSHlafjwCftvoRTg+Q==&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0) and the Federal Reserve.
He lied about the trade deficit (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pghCD2wN tk3y93AO7DDHaixNzunn+Q5aPSwlmce9deP/t68ABnQ7EITpjG25PDT9lvlUYeriFFEsHcwxSI3PdLgRz/NmWfQmCcRlcqaJDmNgb1HstA7shqGdh14IRjHATO&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVYELvrN1vGGsAF62Au4JnqgYFzK2 4Yqe9kA92GbWdj4WKLcwYWdmbKDM0hGd6mjvJQzIgnPMPC05wr y/THFrlFWjSKrq1kxN20YHF0LUR+G6b3RgdIdvKBduXO2SexR9wn RS9pHVABpNoOgrDJ0Zri4kLXKRF5LNY=&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about her child-care plan (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KV3bmbCopMX2u/l8HLWsQZmRnsWVT1UuMK5aPF64IvwfC0+3sr1j7edAwq8m/HXMGZYw5d1s+aEQWs+fj/0BkUsC0iNM3DL61d7HJCn2Q2ioT9sOJYNf/Bh&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about China devaluing its currency (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=oyoyqMIVuKx/Xl1qo3i28aTMjcuMcePW144rMv3liqMgf5zQFy18e+vg2ISmuy SnEWFg8YB37PlWIQCXt3koYvT1+fJ7YMJbYzB6+E/KsIQQQ4O7DmxjQ76mdStoZW6O&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about Mexico having the world’s largest factories (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KXvuJ+BlRk60g9K1vxqhOc6+mCU1Q m160PVvrHT2ivHMG3iVbihqgJ/riTxEENODCajJgQJtvh6B7jhMGeixgfb&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about the United States’s nuclear arsenal (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pghCD2wN tk3y93AO7DDHaixNzunn+Q5aPSwlmce9deP/t68ABnQ7EITpjG25PDT9lvlUYeriFFEsHcwxSI3PdLgRz/NmWfQmCcRlcqaJDmNgb1HstA7shqGdh14IRjHATO&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about NATO’s budget (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVYELvrN1vGGsAF62Au4JnqgYFzK2 4Yqe9kA92GbWdj4WKLcwYWdmbKDM0hGd6mjvJQzIgnPMPC05wr y/THFrlFWjSKrq1kxN3W7b5WnHKTqiLim5YapLyXwcvsm+hqynUi YdTJP9M3wn1bflpgew5bl049n3MebE5vBeyCsdUwSzXqDkuC59 HM&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).
He lied about NATO’s terrorism policy (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=4z5Q7LhI+KVBjmEgFdYACPLKh239P3pghCD2wN tk3y93AO7DDHaixNzunn+Q5aPSwlmce9deP/t68ABnQ7EITjdiHphX6wFQ3H2fJ/X8FAd7tXYz7dQIQS0/WhkF9zsk+NJFHV6RxBeAiyYote1VmA==&user_id=d95126ca4f92c44ecb942ecae7e52168&email_type=20160927 Opinion Today&task_id=1474979014859490&regi_id=0).

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/opinion/campaign-stops/the-lies-trump-told.html?_r=0

seems about the only thing donnie was prepared for was to lie.

hillary's no slouch, but trump isn't either

del
09-28-2016, 02:59 PM
Evaded answering? No, he is simply not a politician so he doesn't know how to say nothing while saying something.

I will admit he was not as articulate as Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton but his answers were more to my liking than her lies.


when he wasn't evading, he was lying.

i'm glad you like the flavor of his lies, though.

maineman
09-28-2016, 03:18 PM
I loved it how Trump had to be asked twice to clarify his promise to bring the jobs back and even after getting a second chance, could not say ONE FUCKING THING about how he'd bring jobs back, only that he would not let them go in the first place.

what an unqualified moron.

decedent
09-28-2016, 03:19 PM
Evaded answering? No, he is simply not a politician so he doesn't know how to say nothing while saying something.


Trump uses word salad to conceal his ignorance. He can babble for a very long time while saying nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iboSjzsZ5AA

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 03:23 PM
The Clinton/Trump debate was unfair. Hillary was only interrupted 7-9 times. Trump was interrupted over 40 times. Because the bias media isn't willing to be fair, they should be replaced immediately!!

You really should get checked out for a case of anal cephalia.

Docthehun
09-28-2016, 03:24 PM
You guys do know Lester Holt is and has been a registered republican right?

Not exactly, we're registered RINO's.

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 03:24 PM
Being thin skinned isn't confined to only the Trump supporters. Liberals are quite thin skinned. They are insulted when someone disagrees with them. They get absolutely indignant when their ideas are scrutinized.

Neither side has a corner on this market.

Chris
09-28-2016, 03:26 PM
I loved it how Trump had to be asked twice to clarify his promise to bring the jobs back and even after getting a second chance, could not say ONE FUCKING THING about how he'd bring jobs back, only that he would not let them go in the first place.

what an unqualified moron.

Actually he did answer.

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 03:27 PM
I also think it's funny that Trump talks and talks and talks about winning but yet when something doesn't go his way or if he finds the results unfair (which is common) he whines and stomps his feet and demands change so that he can win better. You would hope and think that he would want the mindset that he will work twice as hard, learn twice as much, and go out there twice as enthusiastic and EARN the next debate victory on his own merits and on his own beliefs and policies despite any obstacles in his way, but nope, he wants his win to be easier. It's funny since many of his supporters are probably the type of people that talk about working hard, pulling yourself
back your boot straps, and so on, yet they support someone that chooses the shortcut.

I'm takin my ball and goin home! There, take that!

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:29 PM
Sorry, I don't have much sympathy for Trump supporters that complain about fairness and how they are treated. They are the most thin skinned people that pretend they have the thickest and most beautiful skin.

Apparently you haven't been awake the last eight years.

Chris
09-28-2016, 03:29 PM
not really, but thanks for pitching in.

always good to have your special class blend of obtuseness and mendacity in a thread.




http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/opinion/campaign-stops/the-lies-trump-told.html?_r=0

seems about the only thing donnie was prepared for was to lie.

hillary's no slouch, but trump isn't either


So I see your a Clinton man now. No wonder you missed all her well-practiced lies.

Hillary’s Debate Lies (http://www.city-journal.org/html/hillarys-debate-lies-14759.html)


Hillary Clinton repeated her incessant lie last night that the criminal justice system is infected with “systemic racism.” Race “determines” how people are “treated in the criminal justice system,” she said. Blacks are “more likely [than whites] to be arrested, charged, convicted and incarcerated” for “doing the same thing.” Such a dangerous falsehood, should Clinton act on it as president, would result not just in misguided policies but in the continued delegitimation of the criminal justice system. That delegitimation, with its attendant hostility and aggression toward police officers, has already produced the largest one-year surge in homicides in urban areas in nearly a half-century.

Criminologists have tried for decades to prove that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to criminal-justice racism. They have always come up short. They have been forced to the same conclusion as Michael Tonry in his book, Malign Neglect: “Racial differences in patterns of offending, not racial bias by police and other officials, are the principal reason that such greater proportions of blacks than whites are arrested, prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned,” Tonry wrote. In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They found overwhelming evidence establishing that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms.

To say, as Clinton did last night, that blacks are more likely to be incarcerated for doing the same thing as whites ignores the relevance of a defendant’s criminal history in determining his sentence, among other crucial sentencing factors. Just last week, an analysis of Delaware’s prison population presented to the Delaware Access to Justice Commission’s Committee on Fairness in the Criminal Justice System revealed that when juvenile and adult criminal records are taken into account, along with arrest charges and age, racial disparities in sentencing decisions are negligible to nonexistent.

Clinton also...

Read more if you can bear it.

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 03:29 PM
it couldn't be because clinton actually answered the questions she was asked, could it?

it couldn't be because trump had no clue what he was talking about and tried to evade answering, could it?

at least trump has the whiny $#@! vote sewn up.

Now there's an idea. Perhaps you should just answer the question asked and if not I'll ask it again.

Chris
09-28-2016, 03:30 PM
Not exactly, we're registered RINO's.

A registered RINO!?!? :)

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:30 PM
You guys do know Lester Holt is and has been a registered republican right?

:rofl:

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 03:31 PM
I thought Holt was fairly good. Only one question of his stuck out as clearly biased. He also had to interrupt Trump more because Trump needed more moderation, as he was constantly running over time, interrupting Clinton, interrupting the moderator, and generally ranting incoherently.

Yea, its kind of like the babysitter has to be a little more attentive to the toddler than the preteen.

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:32 PM
Republican whines are so pitiful.

Liberal whining is deplorable. :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:32 PM
I also think it's funny that Trump talks and talks and talks about winning but yet when something doesn't go his way or if he finds the results unfair (which is common) he whines and stomps his feet and demands change so that he can win better. You would hope and think that he would want the mindset that he will work twice as hard, learn twice as much, and go out there twice as enthusiastic and EARN the next debate victory on his own merits and on his own beliefs and policies despite any obstacles in his way, but nope, he wants his win to be easier. It's funny since many of his supporters are probably the type of people that talk about working hard, pulling yourself back your boot straps, and so on, yet they support someone that chooses the shortcut.

Repeat after me; Mr. President when you address Trump. :laugh:

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 03:33 PM
Trump uses word salad to conceal his ignorance. He can babble for a very long time while saying nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iboSjzsZ5AA

It is quite amazing. So many words yet nothing said.

AZ Jim
09-28-2016, 03:34 PM
Repeat after me; Mr. President when you address Trump. :laugh:Madam President.

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:35 PM
it couldn't be because clinton actually answered the questions she was asked, could it?

Yeah; that has to be it. :rofl:

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:36 PM
This thread is douchebaggery

Irony considering the threads you start. Buy a mirror dude!

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:36 PM
I thought Holt was fairly good. Only one question of his stuck out as clearly biased. He also had to interrupt Trump more because Trump needed more moderation, as he was constantly running over time, interrupting Clinton, interrupting the moderator, and generally ranting incoherently.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:37 PM
politics ain't beanbag

The topic isn't politics; but rather, media bias. It is obvious to anyone with their eyes and ears open.

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 03:39 PM
I loved it how Trump had to be asked twice to clarify his promise to bring the jobs back and even after getting a second chance, could not say ONE $#@!ING THING about how he'd bring jobs back, only that he would not let them go in the first place.

what an unqualified moron.

Nothing more moronic than the candidate you support declaring FREE college for everyone and moronically thinking taxing the rich will create more jobs.

nathanbforrest45
09-28-2016, 03:43 PM
This thread is douchebaggery


Thank you for your thoughtful and coherent political statement.

del
09-28-2016, 03:48 PM
So I see your a Clinton man now. No wonder you missed all her well-practiced lies.

Hillary’s Debate Lies (http://www.city-journal.org/html/hillarys-debate-lies-14759.html)



Read more if you can bear it.

no, i'm not a *clinton man*, zippy.

unlike you, i'm not wiling to give trump a pass because he's not clinton.

Chris
09-28-2016, 03:51 PM
no, i'm not a *clinton man*, zippy.

unlike you, i'm not wiling to give trump a pass because he's not clinton.

Sorry, wrong again, I'm not a Trump supporter.

Captain Obvious
09-28-2016, 03:51 PM
Thank you for your thoughtful and coherent political statement.

I should charge for it..

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 03:52 PM
Neither side has a corner on this market.

that's what I just said....

nathanbforrest45
09-28-2016, 03:53 PM
I should charge for it..

I'm sure you will get exactly what its worth. Neither more nor less.

Docthehun
09-28-2016, 03:57 PM
Nothing more moronic than the candidate you support declaring FREE college for everyone and moronically thinking taxing the rich will create more jobs.

Suppose we take two trillion from the rich and put it in the Defense budget to build boats, planes and equipment. Any jobs created?

Chris
09-28-2016, 04:03 PM
Suppose we take two trillion from the rich and put it in the Defense budget to build boats, planes and equipment. Any jobs created?

Certainly not wealth-producing jobs. Unless you believe in the myth of Keynesian multipliers.

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 04:04 PM
that's what I just said....

I realize that. I was just reiterating and agreeing. Go have a drink or a spliff or whatever. Chill out a little.

ripmeister
09-28-2016, 04:06 PM
Suppose we take two trillion from the rich and put it in the Defense budget to build boats, planes and equipment. Any jobs created?

Ouch. Well played sir!

del
09-28-2016, 04:07 PM
Sorry, wrong again, I'm not a Trump supporter.

of course you're not

lol

Chris
09-28-2016, 04:15 PM
of course you're not

lol

And of course you're not a Clinton supporter.

LOL

https://i.snag.gy/QiYtq4.jpg

Mark III
09-28-2016, 04:21 PM
How many times did Trump interrupt the moderator? How many times did he interrupt Clinton (that one broke the calculator). Trump had every opportunity to say whatever he wanted.

Face it, he was in over his head, can't control himself, and blew it. He's not the Babe Ruth of debaters , he's a little leaguer https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net/hprofile-ak-prn1/t5/41817_378794428648_3296724_n.jpg

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 04:21 PM
I realize that. I was just reiterating and agreeing. Go have a drink or a spliff or whatever. Chill out a little.


Huh......?

del
09-28-2016, 04:22 PM
And of course you're not a Clinton supporter.

LOL

https://i.snag.gy/QiYtq4.jpg


i've bashed clinton at least as much as i have trump.

you? not so much

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 04:24 PM
I loved it how Trump had to be asked twice to clarify his promise to bring the jobs back and even after getting a second chance, could not say ONE $#@!ING THING about how he'd bring jobs back, only that he would not let them go in the first place.

what an unqualified moron.
Lower tax rates. Sane regulations.

Docthehun
09-28-2016, 04:26 PM
Certainly not wealth-producing jobs. Unless you believe in the myth of Keynesian multipliers.

Working for Boeing, General Electric, General Dynamics aren't wealth producing jobs?

Tell me my friend, any of the above providing income and wealth building to your retirement plan?

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 04:27 PM
It is quite amazing. So many words yet nothing said.
Trump doesn't know the words. Trump doesn't have to. People trained as I was can advise him and execute his intent. Easy peasy.

del
09-28-2016, 04:29 PM
Trump doesn't know the words. Trump doesn't have to. People trained as I was can advise him and execute his intent. Easy peasy.

what will happen when he doesn't want french fries?

Chris
09-28-2016, 04:32 PM
Working for Boeing, General Electric, General Dynamics aren't wealth producing jobs?


No, because they're paid with our money. It's redistribution. It comes at a steep opportunity cost. As such it's not just not wealth-producing but a loss to the economy. --Does defense represent a gain, that's a different argument.

Chris
09-28-2016, 04:39 PM
i've bashed clinton at least as much as i have trump.

you? not so much

See There is No Such Thing as Trickle-Down Economics (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/70839-There-is-No-Such-Thing-as-Trickle-Down-Economics). A criticism of Trump's economic policy. Pay attention.

I don't do bashing.

"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." — Henry Thomas Buckle

Docthehun
09-28-2016, 04:57 PM
No, because they're paid with our money. It's redistribution. It comes at a steep opportunity cost. As such it's not just not wealth-producing but a loss to the economy. --Does defense represent a gain, that's a different argument.

Isn't everything you buy paid with your money? Of course it's redistribution! That's the way to sustain Capitalism. If left unchecked, without that mandatory redistribution, the game would in short order eliminate 70% of the players and it wouldn't take long for it to be down to 1% of the players. Sort of where we're currently headed.

Dr. Who
09-28-2016, 05:11 PM
So what?

According to the Democrats here establishment Republicans are all in on Trump.

Besides, I doubt that your information is accurate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/25/5-things-to-know-about-presidential-debate-moderator-lester-holt/

exploited
09-28-2016, 05:11 PM
Isn't everything you buy paid with your money? Of course it's redistribution! That's the way to sustain Capitalism. If left unchecked, without that mandatory redistribution, the game would in short order eliminate 70% of the players and it wouldn't take long for it to be down to 1% of the players. Sort of where we're currently headed.

Let's not exaggerate. 20% of people would do very well under such a system. Those who do not have the innate drive or intelligence to succeed on their own, without assistance - i.e. 80% of people - would not.

This inability to recognize that most people are not great business people, are not great scientists, are not great thinkers is why the free market capitalism proposed by some here will always fail, unless it is checked.

Intelligent people with compassion for others will do their best to reign in their own desires and wants, to provide for the betterment of all mankind. Those who have been seduced by ideology - be it pure capitalism, or pure socialism - cannot comprehend that we have a very real responsibility to manage ends, and not just means.

One thing that Chris likes to talk about is the Wilt Chamberlain problem. Basically the idea is that redistribution fails because people like Wilt Chamberlain are exceptional, and so others will give them money to see them perform. Of course, for some reason, he doesn't understand that this applies equally as well under capitalism. At the end of the day, you will have an elite order of people - they will be substantially better than the average, and exponentially better than the sub-average. The only way to produce equitable results, then, is to redistribute wealth to some degree. As little as possible is ideal, so that we can maintain work ethic and properly reward individual effort. But no matter how you approach politics, the idea of redistribution must be respected. Those who would seek to end it entirely want nothing more than to enslave the majority to the minority, and almost inevitably think they are part of that ruling group.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:13 PM
Isn't everything you buy paid with your money? Of course it's redistribution! That's the way to sustain Capitalism. If left unchecked, without that mandatory redistribution, the game would in short order eliminate 70% of the players and it wouldn't take long for it to be down to 1% of the players. Sort of where we're currently headed.

Oh good lord, the equivocation. When people exchange what they value less for what they value more there's more than mere redistribution going on, there's generation of wealth, and it's called exchange or trade, not redistribution. When the government takes wealth from some and gives it to others there's only redistribution at, once again, a loss in the opportunity cost of the people it's taken from using it in exchange and generating wealth.

del
09-28-2016, 05:14 PM
lol

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 05:15 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/25/5-things-to-know-about-presidential-debate-moderator-lester-holt/


Once again, how does any of that dispute the idea that his moderation of the debate favored Mrs.Clinton?

Members of of the media, no matter what party affiliation they may have, are tools of the political establishment.

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 05:16 PM
what will happen when he doesn't want french fries?
Go Navy. Never leave your buddy's behind.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:17 PM
Certainly not wealth-producing jobs. Unless you believe in the myth of Keynesian multipliers.

Multipliers are not a myth. Libertarianism largely is.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:19 PM
Oh good lord, the equivocation. When people exchange what they value less for what they value more there's more than mere redistribution going on, there's generation of wealth, and it's called exchange or trade, not redistribution. When the government takes wealth from some and gives it to others there's only redistribution at, once again, a loss in the opportunity cost of the people it's taken from using it in exchange and generating wealth.

There is no opportunity cost for capital that was never created. There is only opportunity cost for capital that exists.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:19 PM
Let's not exaggerate. 20% of people would do very well under such a system. Those who do not have the innate drive or intelligence to succeed on their own, without assistance - i.e. 80% of people - would not.

This inability to recognize that most people are not great business people, are not great scientists, are not great thinkers is why the free market capitalism proposed by some here will always fail, unless it is checked.

Intelligent people with compassion for others will do their best to reign in their own desires and wants, to provide for the betterment of all mankind. Those who have been seduced by ideology - be it pure capitalism, or pure socialism - cannot comprehend that we have a very real responsibility to manage ends, and not just means.

One thing that Chris likes to talk about is the Wilt Chamberlain problem. Basically the idea is that redistribution fails because people like Wilt Chamberlain are exceptional, and so others will give them money to see them perform. Of course, for some reason, he doesn't understand that this applies equally as well under capitalism. At the end of the day, you will have an elite order of people - they will be substantially better than the average, and exponentially better than the sub-average. The only way to produce equitable results, then, is to redistribute wealth to some degree. As little as possible is ideal, so that we can maintain work ethic and properly reward individual effort. But no matter how you approach politics, the idea of redistribution must be respected. Those who would seek to end it entirely want nothing more than to enslave the majority to the minority, and almost inevitably think they are part of that ruling group.



I love it when some talk as if they are among the elite and the people are generally too stupid to make their own subjective value judgments. Marx was impatient and untrusting of the people as well, and the result was a dictatorship of the proletariat that was too corrupt to make it to the promised land of communism.


The point of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain problem is not that some are more talented, a weird socialist misunderstanding at that, but that people value things subjectively differently and in the process will trade and echange and while yes money and materialistic things will redistribute unevenly, people will end up with what they and not some elite central planners value.

nic34
09-28-2016, 05:19 PM
Well, the moderator never once interrupted Mrs.Clinton to clarify any point she tried to make and she often said things which needed clarification. He just let it go. He also avoided asking her questions he knew would cause her some discomfort. He clearly favored her. Clearly.

But, that's the way it is and if you are running as a Republican you better be prepared to deal with it. If Donald Trump was guided by a set of values and core beliefs, he could have handled the extra scrutiny he received.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, they nominated a candidate who has no core beliefs other than "I'm great".

Right, Clinton needed little moderation, she answered questions, stayed on topic and didn't brag about how smart she is to have not paid any taxes.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:20 PM
There is no opportunity cost for money that was not created. There is only opportunity cost for capital that exists.

Huh? Makes no economic sense. Sorry. Try again.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 05:21 PM
Right, Clinton needed little moderation, she answered questions, stayed on topic and didn't brag about how smart she is to have not paid any taxes.

Right, he didn't ever interrupt her, ask for a clarification and avoided touchy subjects because she's perfect.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:22 PM
Huh? Makes no economic sense. Sorry. Try again.

You don't know what opportunity cost is, do you?

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:22 PM
Multipliers are not a myth. Libertarianism largely is.


Do you know what Keynes's proof of multipliers was? One of his students programmed a calculator with formulas that output a multiplier. He then ran the program and miracle of miracles out came a multiplier!!

What has libertarianism to do with this?

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:23 PM
You don't know what opportunity cost is, do you?

Try again to use it in a sentence that makes sense.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:24 PM
Do you know what Keynes's proof of multipliers was? One of his students programmed a calculator with formulas that output a multiplier. He then ran the program and miracle of miracles out came a multiplier!!

What has libertarianism to do with this?

Calculators didn't exist.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:25 PM
Calculators didn't exist.

I see like someone else has nothing to say here.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:26 PM
Try again to use it in a sentence that makes sense.

Try phrasing it in a manner that isn't condescending.

Try leading by example.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 05:28 PM
Right, Clinton needed little moderation, she answered questions, stayed on topic and didn't brag about how smart she is to have not paid any taxes.


Right, he didn't ever interrupt her, ask for a clarification and avoided touchy subjects because she's perfect.

He treated her with kid gloves because he works for NBC and he didn't want to do anything which would jeopardize his employment status and his standing among the political ruling class.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:29 PM
I see like someone else has nothing to say here.

If the capital doesn't exist then it doesn't matter what the alternative uses of said non existent capital could yield.

Now , leave me alone. You still have a lot to learn about dealing with your fellow poster.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 05:30 PM
Calculators didn't exist.

Calculators in various forms have existed for quite some time? Do you know the history of these devices?

Dr. Who
09-28-2016, 05:30 PM
Once again, how does any of that dispute the idea that his moderation of the debate favored Mrs.Clinton?

Members of of the media, no matter what party affiliation they may have, are tools of the political establishment.
Perhaps he would not have had to interrupt, had Trump provided more succinct and articulate responses and not squandered part of his allotted time trying to rebut his opponent on the prior question, wandering off-topic or indulging in time-wasting anecdotes.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:32 PM
Calculators in various forms have existed for quite some time? Do you know the history of these devices?

It's a silly diversion.

del
09-28-2016, 05:33 PM
It's a silly diversion.

good of you to admit it.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:36 PM
It's a silly diversion.

You have learned nothing.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 05:36 PM
Perhaps he would not have had to interrupt, had Trump provided more succinct and articulate responses and not squandered part of his allotted time trying to rebut his opponent on the prior question, wandering off-topic or indulging in time-wasting anecdotes.


Yes, favoritism can always be explained away. Explain why he avoided asking her anything about the honesty and trustworthiness issues which surround her? He ignored a lot of valid concerns most people have with her.

But like I said, if you are running as a Republican,ma conservative or a political outsider you need to be prepared for more scrutiny than the liberal establishment candidate. It's a fact of political life.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:42 PM
If the capital doesn't exist then it doesn't matter what the alternative uses of said non existent capital could yield.

Now , leave me alone. You still have a lot to learn about dealing with your fellow poster.


But it does matter whether the uses it's put to are for mere distribution or for exchange which generates wealth. Money doesn't just sit, you know, it's spent or saved and what's saved is invested. Money taken from spending and saving is opportunity cost.

What's imaginary is the Keynes's multiplier effect that if government takes our money and gives it to others it will somehow magically generate wealth. No one has ever demonstrated it true except by the program I described earlier, assume it, program it, run it, and out it comes. But it's just theory. See Ramey on Stimulus and Multipliers (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html) if you doubt what I say.


Hey, you came after me with nonsense and diversions. A little sincerity would go a long way.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:42 PM
You have learned nothing.

From you? No, I haven't. You've said nothing of import or meaning.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 05:44 PM
But it does matter whether the uses it's put to are for mere distribution or for exchange which generates wealth. Money doesn't just sit, you know, it's spent or saved and what's saved is invested. Money taken from spending and saving is opportunity cost.

What's imaginary is the Keynes's multiplier effect that if government takes our money and gives it to others it will somehow magically generate wealth. No one has ever demonstrated it true except by the program I described earlier, assume it, program it, run it, and out it comes. But it's just theory. See Ramey on Stimulus and Multipliers (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/ramey_on_stimul.html) if you doubt what I say.


Hey, you came after me with nonsense and diversions. A little sincerity would go a long way.

I don't want to play with you. You can be condescending with someone else.

AZ Jim
09-28-2016, 05:44 PM
Right, Clinton needed little moderation, she answered questions, stayed on topic and didn't brag about how smart she is to have not paid any taxes.AND unlike Trump she didn't interrupt.

exploited
09-28-2016, 05:45 PM
I love it when some talk as if they are among the elite and the people are generally too stupid to make their own subjective value judgments. Marx was impatient and untrusting of the people as well, and the result was a dictatorship of the proletariat that was too corrupt to make it to the promised land of communism.


The point of Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain problem is not that some are more talented, a weird socialist misunderstanding at that, but that people value things subjectively differently and in the process will trade and echange and while yes money and materialistic things will redistribute unevenly, people will end up with what they and not some elite central planners value.

I am not among that elite. I do well for myself, but I do not have the drive or intelligence to make it without some help. I know people who do have those attributes, and they are truly exceptional, and in no way representative of the average, let alone the sub-average. Luckily, I am just smart enough to recognize that. As for Marx, his analysis was spot-on (especially when placed in historical context), and his solutions were stupid. I am more or less supportive of capitalism - with the understanding that it, like all other systems, needs to be checked and balanced. If it isn't, you will not see paradise, you will see slavery by lack of opportunity.

Some are more talented though. Like Wilt Chamberlain. Otherwise why would people pay to see him? From that exceptional ability comes the accumulation of wealth. People pay to see him, and so each is poorer, and Wilt is richer. Nozick pointed out that there is nothing wrong with these decisions, and he was correct in the sense that the individual got what they wanted. But what happens when Wilt owns all the courts and all the basketballs? This is when the thinking person realizes that Wilt has ceased to earn from his ability, and now relies entirely on his wealth. The results WILL be inequitable - people who would otherwise dominate Wilt, such as Michael Jordan, would never get the chance to compete, because everything is bought and paid for by Wilt. Perhaps he will be generous and allow others to take his mantle - or perhaps not.

We are now at a point where 90% of the wealth on the planet is owned by under 10% of the people. To advocate for your system under those conditions is, simply put, insanity.

AZ Jim
09-28-2016, 05:46 PM
Right, he didn't ever interrupt her, ask for a clarification and avoided touchy subjects because she's perfect.He didn't interrupt her? Did you watch the damn debate at all????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihxwP3bopTo

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 05:54 PM
He didn't interrupt her? Did you watch the damn debate at all????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihxwP3bopTo

I was talking about the moderator. Keep up would you?

You have no ability to follow a discussion.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 05:55 PM
It's a silly diversion.


Yes, it is.

AZ Jim
09-28-2016, 05:57 PM
I was talking about the moderator. Keep up would you?

You have no ability to follow a discussion.You best find an inferior to try and talk down to, I am not him. Why would the moderator need to interrupt her she was a model debater? Get some facts and come back and we'll talk.

Chris
09-28-2016, 05:58 PM
I am not among that elite. I do well for myself, but I do not have the drive or intelligence to make it without some help. I know people who do have those attributes, and they are truly exceptional, and in no way representative of the average, let alone the sub-average. Luckily, I am just smart enough to recognize that. As for Marx, his analysis was spot-on (especially when placed in historical context), and his solutions were stupid. I am more or less supportive of capitalism - with the understanding that it, like all other systems, needs to be checked and balanced. If it isn't, you will not see paradise, you will see slavery by lack of opportunity.

Some are more talented though. Like Wilt Chamberlain. Otherwise why would people pay to see him? From that exceptional ability comes the accumulation of wealth. People pay to see him, and so each is poorer, and Wilt is richer. Nozick pointed out that there is nothing wrong with these decisions, and he was correct in the sense that the individual got what they wanted. But what happens when Wilt owns all the courts and all the basketballs? This is when the thinking person realizes that Wilt has ceased to earn from his ability, and now relies entirely on his wealth. The results WILL be inequitable - people who would otherwise dominate Wilt, such as Michael Jordan, would never get the chance to compete, because everything is bought and paid for by Wilt. Perhaps he will be generous and allow others to take his mantle - or perhaps not.

We are now at a point where 90% of the wealth on the planet is owned by under 10% of the people. To advocate for your system under those conditions is, simply put, insanity.


Yet you repeatedly elevate yourself to one of the elite intelligentsia who proclaims to know better how to spend other people's money. And there you go again. You are more talented than others. Subjective valuation doesn't require talent.

Marx's analysis, his theory of exploitation, is yours.

Chris
09-28-2016, 06:00 PM
I don't want to play with you. You can be condescending with someone else.

Admitting you're playing with others is an act of condescension. So, please, do stop playing.

Good times!

Bethere
09-28-2016, 06:02 PM
Admitting you're playing with others is an act of condescension. So, please, do stop playing.

Good times!

I'm not allowed to tell you what I really think.

Chris
09-28-2016, 06:03 PM
Now I'd like to take a moment to return to a point that might have gotten lost above. And that is that I am not arguing that military spending, at least on defense, is not value gained. Only that it is not wealth generating. War, said Major General Smedley Butler, is a racket. IOW, pure crony capitalism.

Crepitus
09-28-2016, 06:03 PM
Again, so what? You kind of skated over that.

Are you suggesting that a Republican can't be a big government liberal?
The "so what" is that he's blaming Democrats.

And they aren't supposed to be at any rate.

Chris
09-28-2016, 06:05 PM
I'm not allowed to tell you what I really think.

:cry:

Feel free to PM your personal feelings.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 06:06 PM
You best find an inferior to try and talk down to, I am not him. Why would the moderator need to interrupt her she was a model debater? Get some facts and come back and we'll talk.


Please stop embarrassing yourself. For crying out loud, I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 06:07 PM
The "so what" is that he's blaming Democrats.

And they aren't supposed to be at any rate.
Who's " they" and what aren't they supposed to be?

Crepitus
09-28-2016, 06:13 PM
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Stupid is as stupid does.

He is a Token Republican so the sheep can trot out the fact that he is a "Republican"
Repeat after me:. "the whole world is not a conspiracy".

Very good! Now keep saying it until it sinks in.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 06:35 PM
Perhaps he would not have had to interrupt, had Trump provided more succinct and articulate responses and not squandered part of his allotted time trying to rebut his opponent on the prior question, wandering off-topic or indulging in time-wasting anecdotes.

Here's the real reason he was easy on Mrs.Clinton. He learned his lesson from the treatment Matt Lauer received for his moderation techniques. He didn't want to be next. He knows what side he's supposed to represent.

http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-lauer-donald-trump-forum-2016-9

Lauer is getting shredded over his 'disgrace' of a performance at a Trump-Clinton forum

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 06:40 PM
Yet you repeatedly elevate yourself to one of the elite intelligentsia who proclaims to know better how to spend other people's money. And there you go again. You are more talented than others. Subjective valuation doesn't require talent.

Marx's analysis, his theory of exploitation, is yours.


He does seem to think quite highly of himself.

Cigar
09-28-2016, 06:47 PM
Booo Hooo ... Trump Getting tough by crying.

Dr. Who
09-28-2016, 06:47 PM
Here's the real reason he was easy on Mrs.Clinton. He learned his lesson from the treatment Matt Lauer received for his moderation techniques. He didn't want to be next. He knows what side he's supposed to represent.

http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-lauer-donald-trump-forum-2016-9

Lauer is getting shredded over his 'disgrace' of a performance at a Trump-Clinton forum
Yes Holt did grill Trump over his initial position on the Iraq war, but to be fair Trump has not maintained a consistent public position over the years.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/every-position-donald-trump-iraq

exploited
09-28-2016, 06:55 PM
He does seem to think quite highly of himself.

You okay little buddy? I want you to feel okay, it is important to me.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 06:57 PM
Yes Holt did grill Trump over his initial position on the Iraq war, but to be fair Trump has not maintained a consistent public position over the years.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/09/every-position-donald-trump-iraq

Did you read the article I posted?

Do do you believe the treatment Lauer received had anything to do with Holt's performance?

del
09-28-2016, 07:00 PM
yes

no, lauer is a lightweight- he sucked

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 07:06 PM
Suppose we take two trillion from the rich and put it in the Defense budget to build boats, planes and equipment. Any jobs created?

No; because you first have to extract it from the economy to redistribute it. i see you probably majored in art in college.

What defense budget has ever cost two trillion? Getting rather absurd I see.

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 07:15 PM
Isn't everything you buy paid with your money? Of course it's redistribution! That's the way to sustain Capitalism. If left unchecked, without that mandatory redistribution, the game would in short order eliminate 70% of the players and it wouldn't take long for it to be down to 1% of the players. Sort of where we're currently headed.

One of the most economically ignorant posts of the thread; almost equal to your two trillion in defense spending meme.

i bet you stupidly believe that the economy is finite too. The level of economic ignorance exhibited by the left is tragic and why we elect idiots like Obama.

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 07:16 PM
Let's not exaggerate. 20% of people would do very well under such a system. Those who do not have the innate drive or intelligence to succeed on their own, without assistance - i.e. 80% of people - would not.

This inability to recognize that most people are not great business people, are not great scientists, are not great thinkers is why the free market capitalism proposed by some here will always fail, unless it is checked.

Intelligent people with compassion for others will do their best to reign in their own desires and wants, to provide for the betterment of all mankind. Those who have been seduced by ideology - be it pure capitalism, or pure socialism - cannot comprehend that we have a very real responsibility to manage ends, and not just means.

One thing that Chris likes to talk about is the Wilt Chamberlain problem. Basically the idea is that redistribution fails because people like Wilt Chamberlain are exceptional, and so others will give them money to see them perform. Of course, for some reason, he doesn't understand that this applies equally as well under capitalism. At the end of the day, you will have an elite order of people - they will be substantially better than the average, and exponentially better than the sub-average. The only way to produce equitable results, then, is to redistribute wealth to some degree. As little as possible is ideal, so that we can maintain work ethic and properly reward individual effort. But no matter how you approach politics, the idea of redistribution must be respected. Those who would seek to end it entirely want nothing more than to enslave the majority to the minority, and almost inevitably think they are part of that ruling group.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 07:18 PM
There is no opportunity cost for capital that was never created. There is only opportunity cost for capital that exists.

Good lord; no wonder you people support a lying sociopathic economically clueless socialist.

:biglaugh:

Dr. Who
09-28-2016, 07:20 PM
Did you read the article I posted?

Do do you believe the treatment Lauer received had anything to do with Holt's performance?
It's the reason that I discussed the Iraq war statements. That's why Lauer faced particular criticism. He was comfortable grilling Hillary, but not so much Trump.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 07:24 PM
It's the reason that I discussed the Iraq war statements. That's why Lauer faced particular criticism. He was comfortable grilling Hillary, but not so much Trump.


Now for the second part. Do you believe Hold could have had Lauer's treatment on his mind when he was preparing himself to moderate that debate?

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 07:27 PM
:rofl:

Kids say the darndest things, huh?

exploited
09-28-2016, 07:29 PM
Kids say the darndest things, huh?

So do idiots.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 07:33 PM
How clever...... Biting wisdom on display.

exploited
09-28-2016, 07:34 PM
How clever...... Biting wisdom on display.

You're hilarious :D

Dr. Who
09-28-2016, 07:35 PM
Now for the second part. Do you believe Hold could have had Lauer's treatment on his mind when he was preparing himself to moderate that debate?
I don't doubt it where it comes to the question about his position on Iraq.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 07:36 PM
I don't doubt it where it comes to the question about his position on Iraq.


You sure are trying to tap dance around the question.

Chris
09-28-2016, 07:38 PM
One of the most economically ignorant posts of the thread; almost equal to your two trillion in defense spending meme.

i bet you stupidly believe that the economy is finite too. The level of economic ignorance exhibited by the left is tragic and why we elect idiots like Obama.

Actually it was a reasonable post and deserves a reasonable response rather that an emotional one. I tried to do that. Why don't you?

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 08:01 PM
Actually it was a reasonable post and deserves a reasonable response rather that an emotional one. I tried to do that. Why don't you?

:rofl:

Chris
09-28-2016, 08:01 PM
:rofl:

Another emotional response.

Truth Detector
09-28-2016, 08:03 PM
Another emotional response.

Most of yours are. Now run along and troll someone who might give a schit Chris.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 08:03 PM
Actually it was a reasonable post and deserves a reasonable response rather that an emotional one. I tried to do that. Why don't you?


Actually, the comment he responded to showed absolutely no knowledge of how economic growth is achieved. It was just thae same old liberal mantra of punishing success and redistribution of wealth.

exploited
09-28-2016, 08:04 PM
Another emotional response.

Dude, you and I don't get along, but I still feel compelled to tell you this: do not waste your time on this guy. Period. JLB/Truth Detector hasn't learned anything in well over fifteen years.

Crepitus
09-28-2016, 08:13 PM
Who's " they" and what aren't they supposed to be?

I'm responding to your comments, go back and read the thread.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 08:16 PM
Non responsive. As usual.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 08:37 PM
:cry:

Feel free to PM your personal feelings.

No, thank you.

Chris
09-28-2016, 08:44 PM
Actually, the comment he responded to showed absolutely no knowledge of how economic growth is achieved. It was just thae same old liberal mantra of punishing success and redistribution of wealth.

Well, to me it was a point about how generally conservatives/Republicans, while they criticize social welfare, are big on business/corporate welfare especially if it expands the military. There are reasonable responses to that. Emotional responses kill discussion.

Chris
09-28-2016, 08:45 PM
Dude, you and I don't get along, but I still feel compelled to tell you this: do not waste your time on this guy. Period. JLB/Truth Detector hasn't learned anything in well over fifteen years.

I disagree with your ideas and ideology. It's not personal.

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 08:45 PM
Well, to me it was a point about how generally conservatives/Republicans, while they criticize social welfare, are big on business/corporate welfare especially if it expands the military. There are reasonable responses to that. Emotional responses kill discussion.
What is business/corporate welfare?

Chris
09-28-2016, 08:49 PM
What is business/corporate welfare?

Tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies, protectionist policies etc that benefit businesses/corporations.

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 08:52 PM
Tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies, protectionist policies etc that benefit businesses/corporations.
Let's go one by one. What tax rate would you consider to not be corporate welfare? What individual tax rate do you believe is personal welfare?

What level of regulation do you believe is sufficient so it is not corporate welfare. What about for individuals? Are all levels of freedom from government interference welfare?

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 08:55 PM
Tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies, protectionist policies etc that benefit businesses/corporations.
Subsidies we can agree on. No business should receive a gift from the treasury. I don't know if a protectionist policy is corporate welfare,but it is a bad idea in general.

We agree on two out of your four items.

Chris
09-28-2016, 08:59 PM
Let's go one by one. What tax rate would you consider to not be corporate welfare? What individual tax rate do you believe is personal welfare?

What level of regulation do you believe is sufficient so it is not corporate welfare. What about for individuals? Are all levels of freedom from government interference welfare?


The distinction I make is between being pro-business and pro-market. Jonah Goldberg explained this difference in Pro-Business or Pro-Market (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375309/pro-business-or-pro-market-jonah-goldberg) thusly: "Just to clarify, the difference between being pro-business and pro-market is categorical. A politician who is a “friend of business” is exactly that, a guy who does favors for his friends. A politician who is pro-market is a referee who will refuse to help protect his friends (or anyone else) from competition unless the competitors have broken the rules. The friend of business supports industry-specific or even business-specific loans, grants, tariffs, or tax breaks. The pro-market referee opposes special treatment for anyone." Trump's economic plans are pro-business. Reducing taxes and regulations for everyone would be pro-market.

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 09:03 PM
The distinction I make is between being pro-business and pro-market. Jonah Goldberg explained this difference in Pro-Business or Pro-Market (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375309/pro-business-or-pro-market-jonah-goldberg) thusly: "Just to clarify, the difference between being pro-business and pro-market is categorical. A politician who is a “friend of business” is exactly that, a guy who does favors for his friends. A politician who is pro-market is a referee who will refuse to help protect his friends (or anyone else) from competition unless the competitors have broken the rules. The friend of business supports industry-specific or even business-specific loans, grants, tariffs, or tax breaks. The pro-market referee opposes special treatment for anyone." Trump's economic plans are pro-business. Reducing taxes and regulations for everyone would be pro-market.
I think you take as much or as little philosophy as you like.

A significant, across the board tax rate reduction and regulation roll-back, using your definition is pro-market.

Using the threat of punitive tariffs while renegotiating poor trade arrangements is cloudy. It depends on what happens to the agreement.

Chris
09-28-2016, 09:10 PM
I think you take as much or as little philosophy as you like.

A significant, across the board tax rate reduction and regulation roll-back, using your definition is pro-market.

Using the threat of punitive tariffs while renegotiating poor trade arrangements is cloudy. It depends on what happens to the agreement.

Trump's trade policies are progressive if not mercantilist. I think I'll post on that tomorrow....

MisterVeritis
09-28-2016, 09:12 PM
Trump's trade policies are progressive if not mercantilist. I think I'll post on that tomorrow....
And his business policies, using your definition are pro-market.

Bethere
09-28-2016, 09:13 PM
Trump's trade policies are progressive if not mercantilist. I think I'll post on that tomorrow....

Who cares?

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 09:16 PM
Well, to me it was a point about how generally conservatives/Republicans, while they criticize social welfare, are big on business/corporate welfare especially if it expands the military. There are reasonable responses to that. Emotional responses kill discussion.

When you say Republicans / conservatives, you lose a little credibility with me. Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. Conservatism and Republicanism are two completely different things.

There was a time when the Republican party was the home of conservatism. That's not the case any longer.

Tahuyaman
09-28-2016, 09:18 PM
Trump's trade policies are progressive if not mercantilist. I think I'll post on that tomorrow....


Trump is a big government liberal. He just portrays it slightly differently than Hillary Clinton does.

IMPress Polly
09-29-2016, 05:52 AM
Let me put matters in perspective for you, people: Trump was interrupted by the moderator more often because he answered the questions at hand far less often, thus causing the moderator to probe further. That doesn't mean he was interrupted less often overall. Trump interrupted Clinton more than 50 times.

In fact Mr. Trump came into this debate with what for him constitutes a structural advantage: the Commission on Presidential Debates barred the moderator from engaging in live fact-checking; something the moderators had been allowed to do in the 2012 debates. Considering what the fact-checking organizations have revealed about Mr. Trump's statements in the debate subsequently, imagine if there had been no such prohibition. Would he have fared better or worse had he and Clinton been held to the same standards that Obama and Romney were in 2012, do you think?

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 07:38 AM
Actually, the comment he responded to showed absolutely no knowledge of how economic growth is achieved. It was just thae same old liberal mantra of punishing success and redistribution of wealth.

He knows that; Chris just enjoys trolling people. ;)

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 07:42 AM
Well, to me it was a point about how generally conservatives/Republicans, while they criticize social welfare, are big on business/corporate welfare especially if it expands the military.

That is a bullschit claim that cannot be supported by any facts. You seem to be quite full of them....but again, it had nothing to do with the post I responded to. But continue to make this about me so I can continue reporting your trolling. ;)


There are reasonable responses to that. Emotional responses kill discussion.

What generally kills discussions are thread trolls who want to make the issue about particular posters while ignoring the obvious bullschit posted by others; aka, your emotional foot stomping around the forum and tPF thread bans.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 07:44 AM
Tax cuts, deregulation, subsidies, protectionist policies etc that benefit businesses/corporations.

When do corporations pay taxes? What regulations have been de-regulated that create this welfare? What protectionist policies are benefitting what industries?

It's so easy to run off at the mouth when you don't have to back it up with anything other than empty bloviating.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 07:46 AM
Let me put matters in perspective for you, people: Trump was interrupted by the moderator more often because he answered the questions at hand far less often, thus causing the moderator to probe further. That doesn't mean he was interrupted less often overall. Trump interrupted Clinton more than 50 times.

In fact Mr. Trump came into this debate with what for him constitutes a structural advantage: the Commission on Presidential Debates barred the moderator from engaging in live fact-checking; something the moderators had been allowed to do in the 2012 debates. Considering what the fact-checking organizations have revealed about Mr. Trump's statements in the debate subsequently, imagine if there had been no such prohibition. Would he have fared better or worse had he and Clinton been held to the same standards that Obama and Romney were in 2012, do you think?

So Hillary, in your opinion, must have answered all the questions, according to the leftist moderator, 100% of the time and 100% accurate which is why she wasn't hounded and interrupted?

:biglaugh:

Chris
09-29-2016, 07:49 AM
That is a bullschit claim that cannot be supported by any facts. You seem to be quite full of them....but again, it had nothing to do with the post I responded to. But continue to make this about me so I can continue reporting your trolling. ;)



What generally kills discussions are thread trolls who want to make the issue about particular posters while ignoring the obvious bullschit posted by others; aka, your emotional foot stomping around the forum and tPF thread bans.


I was trying to state his position (which I might be wrong about).

I agree, it is wrong. I myself presented an argument against it.

You think it wrong but you seem to have no argument whatsoever why it's wrong.

I'm not making it about you but your bloviating emotional responses, your posts that lack substance.

If that position--"generally conservatives/Republicans, while they criticize social welfare, are big on business/corporate welfare especially if it expands the military"--is BS then do more than assert it is. Give an argument.

Chris
09-29-2016, 07:55 AM
When do corporations pay taxes? What regulations have been de-regulated that create this welfare? What protectionist policies are benefitting what industries?

It's so easy to run off at the mouth when you don't have to back it up with anything other than empty bloviating.


They don't pay taxes but pass them off to consumers as higher prices. But that makes them less competitive. Lowering taxes allows them to sell at cheaper prices than their competitors.

"What regulations have been de-regulated that create this welfare?" doesn't even make sense as a question. Deregulation itself is a form of corporate welfare. Deregulation allows corporation to save in the production process and again more easily compete.

Tariffs, quotes and other protectionist products allow US manufacturers advantages over foreign competition. And it costs US consumers who pay it.


Again, do you have any argument here?

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 08:03 AM
I was trying to state his position (which I might be wrong about).

I agree, it is wrong. I myself presented an argument against it.

You think it wrong but you seem to have no argument whatsoever why it's wrong.

Let me get this right; you make a statement that is patently false, then demand that those who point it out make the argument as to why it is false? That's pretty lame don't you think?

What I will do is lead you into the right direction; who has controlled the purse strings the most over the last five decades? Democrats or Republicans?

I will even assist you more; Republicans have only controlled the Congress during the last six years of BillyBob's Presidency, where they actually BALLANCED the budget, and the first six years of the Bush Presidency, where most of the spending was related to a recession and tax reductions to create jobs, and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan which had universal support....until the leftist media and Democrats who voted FOR them decided it was politically expedient to be against it and subsequently led the American sheeple to put Democrats in control again.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 08:06 AM
They don't pay taxes but pass them off to consumers as higher prices. But that makes them less competitive. Lowering taxes allows them to sell at cheaper prices than their competitors.

So then your claim that tax cuts are a form or corporate welfare was false; correct?


"What regulations have been de-regulated that create this welfare?" doesn't even make sense as a question. Deregulation itself is a form of corporate welfare. Deregulation allows corporation to save in the production process and again more easily compete.

So you cannot explain what regulations have been "de-regulated" that results in this corporate welfare. Thank you again.


Tariffs, quotes and other protectionist products allow US manufacturers advantages over foreign competition. And it costs US consumers who pay it.

What specific tariffs are creating this claimed "corporate welfare?" What industries?


Again, do you have any argument here?

Apparently you don't have anything; but that was predictable from the start. But go ahead and stomp your feet; it's how you deal with denial. :biglaugh:

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:08 AM
Let me get this right; you make a statement that is patently false, then demand that those who point it out make the argument as to why it is false? That's pretty lame don't you think?

What I will do is lead you into the right direction; who has controlled the purse strings the most over the last five decades? Democrats or Republicans?

I will even assist you more; Republicans have only controlled the Congress during the last six years of BillyBob's Presidency, where they actually BALLANCED the budget, and the first six years of the Bush Presidency, where most of the spending was related to a recession and tax reductions to create jobs, and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan which had universal support....until the leftist media and Democrats who voted FOR them decided it was politically expedient to be against it and subsequently led the American sheeple to put Democrats in control again.


I made a summary statement about what another poster was trying to get at. Do you or do you not have an argument against that? That's all that matters. This is a forum for discussion. Discuss. OR DON"T. If you have nothing to contribute but emotional blather then why post?

Lead me in the right direction? I already argued against what that posted posted. I'm waiting for you to argue against it. Why are yo arguing with me?

Controlling purse strings has nothing to do with the summary I gave of another poster's point.

Docthehun
09-29-2016, 08:09 AM
Corporate taxes do indeed get passed on. On the other hand, the largest percentage of those "passed on" taxes is a mandatory re-distribution of my profit in the form of social "welfare". It seems odd to me that you would rail against re-distribution, when 80% of Americans support the notion of Social Security and 70%, Medicare. It would seem logical to me that I, along with other business owners, should be the ones railing against re-distribution, not the beneficiaries.

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:11 AM
So then your claim that tax cuts are a form or corporate welfare was false; correct?



So you cannot explain what regulations have been "de-regulated" that results in this corporate welfare. Thank you again.



What specific tariffs are creating this claimed "corporate welfare?" What industries?



Apparently you don't have anything; but that was predictable from the start. But go ahead and stomp your feet; it's how you deal with denial. :biglaugh:



No. Tax cuts can be a form of corporate welfare.

Deregulating banks can be a form of corporate welfare.

Specific tariffs? Sugar tariffs.

I am answering all your questions. When are you going to present an argument, about anything?

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 08:14 AM
I made a summary statement about what another poster was trying to get at. Do you or do you not have an argument against that? That's all that matters. This is a forum for discussion. Discuss. OR DON"T. If you have nothing to contribute but emotional blather then why post?

Lead me in the right direction? I already argued against what that posted posted. I'm waiting for you to argue against it. Why are yo arguing with me?

Controlling purse strings has nothing to do with the summary I gave of another poster's point.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 08:17 AM
No. Tax cuts can be a form of corporate welfare.

But you stated: "They don't pay taxes but pass them off to consumers as higher prices. " If they don't pay taxes, how can tax cuts be a form of corporate welfare?


Deregulating banks can be a form of corporate welfare.

How so; give me a specific example.


Specific tariffs? Sugar tariffs.

How is it welfare to prevent foreign sources of sugar from DUMPING their products on our shores? You don't think American jobs should have some form of protection against such acts?


I am answering all your questions. When are you going to present an argument, about anything?

No you're not; you're dancing around your claims and spinning like a top.....but that is okay....you seldom disappoint.

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:18 AM
Corporate taxes do indeed get passed on. On the other hand, the largest percentage of those "passed on" taxes is a mandatory re-distribution of my profit in the form of social "welfare". It seems odd to me that you would rail against re-distribution, when 80% of Americans support the notion of Social Security and 70%, Medicare. It would seem logical to me that I, along with other business owners, should be the ones railing against re-distribution, not the beneficiaries.


Not sure I understand how taxes passed on to consumers becomes social welfare. The passing on of taxes means consumers pay more for your goods and services.

Rail? Argue--or are you addressing another's emotional posts? :)

I don't assume popular opinion makes things right. Aside from the moral question of taking from some to give to others, there's the argument that those you're taking from loss opportunity costs in not being able to spend or save their wealth in exchange for more.

I'm not against those who pay in to SS and Medicare getting a return. They ought to be free to invest that money as they see fit though.

You should be railing.

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 08:18 AM
Let me put matters in perspective for you, people: Trump was interrupted by the moderator more often because he answered the questions at hand far less often, thus causing the moderator to probe further. That doesn't mean he was interrupted less often overall. Trump interrupted Clinton more than 50 times.

In fact Mr. Trump came into this debate with what for him constitutes a structural advantage: the Commission on Presidential Debates barred the moderator from engaging in live fact-checking; something the moderators had been allowed to do in the 2012 debates. Considering what the fact-checking organizations have revealed about Mr. Trump's statements in the debate subsequently, imagine if there had been no such prohibition. Would he have fared better or worse had he and Clinton been held to the same standards that Obama and Romney were in 2012, do you think?
So-called fact checking is nothing more than legitimizing someone's opinion. Holt's fact checks were both incomplete and wrong. Meanwhile we are losing the nation.

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 08:21 AM
"What regulations have been de-regulated that create this welfare?" doesn't even make sense as a question. Deregulation itself is a form of corporate welfare. Deregulation allows corporation to save in the production process and again more easily compete.


This is an evil, statist position.

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:25 AM
But you stated: "They don't pay taxes but pass them off to consumers as higher prices. " If they don't pay taxes, how can tax cuts be a form of corporate welfare?



How so; give me a specific example.



How is it welfare to prevent foreign sources of sugar from DUMPING their products on our shores? You don't think American jobs should have some form of protection against such acts?



No you're not; you're dancing around your claims and spinning like a top.....but that is okay....you seldom disappoint.



I explain, tax cuts give a competitive advantage. Read what I post.

Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

Competitive advantage. Already answered. And remember the question is how protectionist policies are a form of corporate welfare.

Again, I have given answers.

Where's your argument?

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:26 AM
This is an evil, statist position.

Agree, both government regulation and deregulation can be a form of statism. If it is anti- or pro-business, it is statist, and not pro-market.

Common Sense
09-29-2016, 08:27 AM
LOL...yeah, it was so unfair. Poor Trump took the bait offered to him by Clinton and made a fool of himself.

If you want to call something unfair, how about Trump interrupting Clinton over 50 times during her allotted time.

Stop being such victims...

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:29 AM
LOL...yeah, it was so unfair. Poor Trump took the bait offered to him by Clinton and made a fool of himself.

If you want to call something unfair, how about Trump interrupting Clinton over 50 times during her allotted time.

Stop being such victims...


Do we want either a bait taker or a baiter as President? I don't think so.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 08:30 AM
I explain, tax cuts give a competitive advantage. Read what I post.

I read it, and it still makes ZERO sense. So I ask again, if corporations do not actually PAY taxes and pass on their costs to their consumers, how then are tax cuts corporate welfare?


Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.

How specifically was that corporate welfare? You do understand the definition of welfare right?


Competitive advantage. Already answered. And remember the question is how protectionist policies are a form of corporate welfare.

Once again; no specifics just empty rhetoric.


Again, I have given answers.

Again, those aren't answers; but I understand that you cannot defend your statements with much more than hot air. ;)


Where's your argument?

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t107/Draconum321/Fail/FailSeal.gif

:rofl:

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 08:31 AM
Agree, both government regulation and deregulation can be a form of statism. If it is anti- or pro-business, it is statist, and not pro-market.
This position is seriously broken. I shall assume you made an error in typing.

Common Sense
09-29-2016, 08:31 AM
Do we want either a bait taker or a baiter as President? I don't think so.

Her baiting was fairly benign. His reactions however illustrate a lack of self control. Do you think as President he wouldn't be baited by his critics?

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 08:32 AM
LOL...yeah, it was so unfair. Poor Trump took the bait offered to him by Clinton and made a fool of himself.

If you want to call something unfair, how about Trump interrupting Clinton over 50 times during her allotted time.

Stop being such victims...

I am amused by the position that suggests that YOUR distorted views supplant reality.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 08:32 AM
Her baiting was fairly benign. His reactions however illustrate a lack of self control. Do you think as President he wouldn't be baited by his critics?

LMAO @ lack of self control. Liberals just love to make stupid things up all the time.

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:36 AM
I read it, and it still makes ZERO sense. So I ask again, if corporations do not actually PAY taxes and pass on their costs to their consumers, how then are tax cuts corporate welfare?



How specifically was that corporate welfare? You do understand the definition of welfare right?



Once again; no specifics just empty rhetoric.



Again, those aren't answers; but I understand that you cannot defend your statements with much more than hot air. ;)



http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t107/Draconum321/Fail/FailSeal.gif

:rofl:


If you are acting as referee here then you are not participating in discussion.


As I explained, lower taxes allow lower prices which is a competitive advantage. They also allow for greater profits. Why do i need to explain such simple things to you?

Give us your definition of welfare.

Already gave an example, the sugar tariffs.

Yes, these are answers.

Where is your argument?

https://i.snag.gy/ky8VQG.jpg

Chris
09-29-2016, 08:37 AM
Her baiting was fairly benign. His reactions however illustrate a lack of self control. Do you think as President he wouldn't be baited by his critics?

But it was baiting. And that is not Presidential anymore than his taking the bait. What'd they think it was a forum or something?

Common Sense
09-29-2016, 08:38 AM
LMAO @ lack of self control. Liberals just love to make stupid things up all the time.

Was he controlled in that debate? Or did he loose focus and take the bait?

Here's your chance to be honest for once.

Tahuyaman
09-29-2016, 10:17 AM
Let me put matters in perspective for you, people: Trump was interrupted by the moderator more often because he answered the questions at hand far less often, thus causing the moderator to probe further. That doesn't mean he was interrupted less often overall. Trump interrupted Clinton more than 50 times.

In fact Mr. Trump came into this debate with what for him constitutes a structural advantage: the Commission on Presidential Debates barred the moderator from engaging in live fact-checking; something the moderators had been allowed to do in the 2012 debates. Considering what the fact-checking organizations have revealed about Mr. Trump's statements in the debate subsequently, imagine if there had been no such prohibition. Would he have fared better or worse had he and Clinton been held to the same standards that Obama and Romney were in 2012, do you think?

It's funny that you should bring up a Romney / Obama debate. Remember Candy Crowley? She ran interference for Obama during a debate to the cheers of the libs, but was later proven to be wrong on her facts.

Of course the liberals didn't care that she was wrong. She gave Obama an assist and that's all that mattered.

IMPress Polly
09-29-2016, 11:35 AM
MisterVeritis wrote:
So-called fact checking is nothing more than legitimizing someone's opinion. Holt's fact checks were both incomplete and wrong. Meanwhile we are losing the nation.

What are you, some kind of postmodernist? Here in the real world there still exists a distinction between facts and opinions.


Truth Detector wrote:
So Hillary, in your opinion, must have answered all the questions, according to the leftist moderator, 100% of the time and 100% accurate which is why she wasn't hounded and interrupted?

:biglaugh:

What the fuck?! I said nothing of the kind! I found several questions Clinton answered (note: she answered) to be dishonest; in particular her rationale for supporting NAFTA but not the TPP. All I was saying is that there are no grounds on which to claim that the debate was skewed against Trump. And yes, between the two, he is the bigger liar.

Incidentally, why do you so often laugh at your own dumb jokes, especially considering that they're not even really jokes? You ever notice how nobody else ever laughs with you?

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 11:40 AM
Do we want either a bait taker or a baiter as President? I don't think so.

Either way; YOU will end up with one or the other. Now sit back, do what you do and sit this one out and we will give you the results on November 8th.

Most likely, it will be Trump.

Chris
09-29-2016, 11:43 AM
Either way; YOU will end up with one or the other. Now sit back, do what you do and sit this one out and we will give you the results on November 8th.

Most likely, it will be Trump.

Yes, we will lose either way.

Trump looks bad right now.

This is some of what I do.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 11:44 AM
Was he controlled in that debate? Or did he loose focus and take the bait?

Here's your chance to be honest for once.

I am struggling to comprehend YOUR version of a lack of self control. If that was a lack of self control, Obama has been spiraling out of control for the last 8 years.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxnL6lBC020

Topics Liberals should try to avoid in order to NOT look like a bunch of hypocritical morons:

(1) self control
(2) honesty
(3) experience
(4) transparency
(5) telling the truth

Carry on.

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 11:44 AM
What are you, some kind of postmodernist? Here in the real world there still exists a distinction between facts and opinions.

Nearly all fact checking pieces are opinion pieces.

No one smart trusts the mainstream media. This is a way to wheedle themselves back in. It is not going to work.

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 11:45 AM
Yes, we will lose either way.

Trump looks bad right now.

This is some of what I do.
Trump IS the underdog. No doubt.

You are going to love the eight year Trump presidency.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 11:48 AM
What the $#@!?! I said nothing of the kind! I found several questions Clinton answered (note: she answered) to be dishonest; in particular her rationale for supporting NAFTA but not the TPP. All I was saying is that there are no grounds on which to claim that the debate was skewed against Trump.

No; what you were insinuating is that Clinton wasn't bombarded with follow ups because she must have been giving HONEST answers that did not require fact checking.


And yes, between the two, he is the bigger liar.

The facts do not support this assertion unless you think lying to the American people while in public office is just part of every day life in Washington. Trump doesn't lie; he exaggerates. Try to comprehend the difference to avoid continues confusion.


Incidentally, why do you so often laugh at your own dumb jokes, especially considering that they're not even really jokes?

Because I am not laughing at myself; I am laughing AT YOU. Struggling with the OBVIOUS again I see. :biglaugh:


You ever notice how nobody else ever laughs with you?

O M G!!! No other complete and total strangers on a political board are laughing WITH ME!!!! YIKES.

You can stop crying and stomping your feet now.

AZ Jim
09-29-2016, 11:50 AM
Trump IS the underdog. No doubt.

You are going to love the eight year Trump presidency.Just whistling in the graveyard.

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 11:53 AM
Just whistling in the graveyard.
Is this what you meant to say?

http://disappearingidioms.com/whistling-past-the-graveyard/
Whistling Past the GraveyardThere seems to be two meanings for this idiom, both dependent on the same metaphoric setting and action — but while one is mostly positive, the other, not so much. The first connotes a situation in which a person does something (whistling, maybe?) to make of show – to others, or even more commonly, to oneself — of bravery, or at least nonchalance, in the face of danger or difficulties.
The second meaning describes an individual who is genuinely confident and cheerful while in pursuit of a course of action at the same time blithely oblivious to the real risks involved – i.e., clueless.

Chris
09-29-2016, 11:54 AM
Trump IS the underdog. No doubt.

You are going to love the eight year Trump presidency.

Underdog, yes.

We'll see, but I won't like it no matter who wins.

AZ Jim
09-29-2016, 11:56 AM
Is this what you meant to say?

http://disappearingidioms.com/whistling-past-the-graveyard/
Whistling Past the Graveyard

There seems to be two meanings for this idiom, both dependent on the same metaphoric setting and action — but while one is mostly positive, the other, not so much. The first connotes a situation in which a person does something (whistling, maybe?) to make of show – to others, or even more commonly, to oneself — of bravery, or at least nonchalance, in the face of danger or difficulties.
The second meaning describes an individual who is genuinely confident and cheerful while in pursuit of a course of action at the same time blithely oblivious to the real risks involved – i.e., clueless.
I said what I meant to say.

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 11:56 AM
Underdog, yes.

We'll see, but I won't like it no matter who wins.
I predict you will love the Trump presidency despite yourself.

Chris
09-29-2016, 11:57 AM
No; what you were insinuating is that Clinton wasn't bombarded with follow ups because she must have been giving HONEST answers that did not require fact checking.



The facts do not support this assertion unless you think lying to the American people while in public office is just part of every day life in Washington. Trump doesn't lie; he exaggerates. Try to comprehend the difference to avoid continues confusion.



Because I am not laughing at myself; I am laughing AT YOU. Struggling with the OBVIOUS again I see. :biglaugh:



O M G!!! No other complete and total strangers on a political board are laughing WITH ME!!!! YIKES.

You can stop crying and stomping your feet now.


You're posting style reminds me of this...


https://vimeo.com/15476780

MisterVeritis
09-29-2016, 11:57 AM
I said what I meant to say.
What do you believe "whistling in the graveyard" means?

AZ Jim
09-29-2016, 12:39 PM
What do you believe "whistling in the graveyard" means?Oh for crissake get a fuckin hobby, you aren't the smartest among us in spite of your self appraisal.

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 04:22 PM
You're posting style reminds me of this...

Your posting style reminds me of this....

http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac159/GIFsforhire/Sad-Crying/boohoo.gif

Truth Detector
09-29-2016, 04:28 PM
Oh for crissake get a $#@!in hobby, you aren't the smartest among us in spite of your self appraisal.

http://i1264.photobucket.com/albums/jj482/thegoddessinyou/temper-tantrum.gif