That isn't a supportable position. He obviously has plank positions which are themes of his presidency and are repeated again and again and again and again. To suggest they're made up on the fly as he speaks without reference to those issues or the theme is simply not supportable.
No one would suggest that country X doesn't have a right to control its borders and decide who enters and who doesn't.
Unless that country is the US.
I'll tell you what, I'll accept people from mexico on the same standard that Mexico will accept people from the US into Mexico.
Think Mexico would be okay with Americans just crossing the Mexican border, shirking mexican immigration law, existing in the country illegally, getting deported over and over again only to return again, illegal American immigrants to Mexico demanding the rights of citizens, claiming that any attempt to enforce Mexican border law is racism... etc...
The argument used against the US if applied to any other nation would be laughed or shouted out of the room by basically any country.
That people actually presume to use the argument against the US is somewhere between mindless repetition of talking points and mendacious sophistry.
On an issue by issue basis, polls have consistently supported positions he's also supported.
What is more, if Trump policies are cited as Obama or Hillary policies, you find that many people that reflexively oppose Trump agree with the policies. This makes clear that the opposition is not to the actual policies but rather to the R after his name and his self presentation which rubs many people the wrong way.
Again, those that find this an inconvenient observation will say it is opposition to policies that are immoral.
Policies such as what and according to what clearly undefined moral code are we supposed to be judging him?
Not supporting effectively open borders? Americans don't want that. There has been support for reducing immigration and making more strict the policies that allow existing immigration for well over 30 years.
What about so called "free trade"? Its a farce and everyone knows it is a farce. Free trade was something the US pushed during the Cold War as an inducement to join the First World. It was one of the carrots to side with the West over the Russians. It has generally acted to grant foreign companies access to US markets with few questions asked or conditions required. Now that the Cold War is over, there is no justification for it anymore. It is not infinitely sustainable even if we saw infinite political utility for it. There is obvious damage to many American industries and communities to no particular value to our society besides some geopolitical buy in.
What about government corruption? Here any faction that claims this isn't an issue of import is just lying. The last several years have been an endless embarrassing laundry list of corruption, conflicts of interest, nepotism, theft, incompetence, and dereliction of duty. This is actually starting to become an existential issue for the US government itself. If the government neither is doing the things it was created to do reliably nor has the confidence of the people to do those tasks then the role of the government in society collapses. This is how great empires die with some frequency. They hollow out... rot from within... and then one day... the shiny veneer that promised solidity and perfection collapses. Consensus exists that this should be taken seriously.
What else? Gun policy? If the anti gun people had the votes they'd just go to constitutional convention rather than whining endlessly about restrictions and living constitutions etc. We've changed our constitution as recently as the 1980s. If you have the votes, you can change it. If you don't have the votes then all you can do is bitch. That the anti gun people are bitching makes it very clear they don't have the votes.
Most presidents don't pull 50 percent. Naturally this is an average statistic from Gallup... we'll have to see what Trump pulls at the end of his term. But if he gets anywhere near 50 percent then he'll have gotten about as much approval from the public as the average president which is impressive considering the military grade invective thrown at the man.
Lastly we get into this issue of his immorality. Well, according to what? What are the principles of this morality? Is it written down anywhere so we can examine it? Where does it come from? I'm not saying anything he does is or isn't moral because whatever his morality is will be subjective to whatever standard we're using. It is like judging if someone broke the law without citing which legal code the person is under. So where does this moral code come from? Because it sounds increasingly like the code of "you're a bad person because you disagree with my politics". And whilst I can understand that moral code, it is clearly not one that anyone outside that moral paradigm should take seriously.
Back in the day they wouldn't just kick the door down and go in with tactical teams every time they got a call. Obviously use SWAT when you need "Special Weapons And Tactics"... but if what you actually need to do is send some officers over to knock on a door...maybe do that instead.
No one is saying that "Rosenstein appoints Mueller to investigate collusion with Russians" is fake news. What they're saying is that the collusion has no evidence.
The increasingly large scandal is not collusion with Russia but that there is an investigation at all because it is increasingly clear there were serious ethical violations, conflicts of interest, and even with that no actual evidence of collusion.
That it was pushed by people that had a conflict of interest to create a scandal whether justification for one existed or not... and that the institutions corrupted were so compromised that this was even possible is the new scandal.
for example, the Russia collusion story... fake or real? Some will say real... some will say fake. Which is it? There's no evidence but it could be real... it could also be fake.
The problem here is that you have dueling narratives and what is real or not is often not relevant to anyone. We've found this with all the political factions.
Natural gas is a thing and coal is a thing. But short of Hawaii, I don't think oil is a relevant energy source for the grid.
What is more, we're not seeing a decline in the industry. The prices have been kept low due to abundant production not due to lack of demand.
What is more, the whole "wind" argument is very hard to calculate because it tends to be state sponsored stuff that doesn't even have to make economic sense to be built.
A good metric of whether something is affordable is the wealth of the economy implementing an idea.
The US during the Space Race could dump something like 4 percent of its huge GDP into space exploration. This is not something that was done because it was economical but rather because we had the money and the will to do something that was NOT economical.
New York doing something doesn't mean it is economical. New York, the US, Germany, California, etc can do all sorts of things that are economically idiotic because they have the money to blow on ideas that don't make financial sense.
Show me the wind farms of Africa? If it is so economical, why do they not do it? Why do they implement other energy sources?
Why do the solar power factories in China power themselves with coal power? No one can get solar panels cheaper than the chinese. The economics are better for them than anyone else. And yet they don't do it. Why?
Because it isn't economical. Obviously. As in 1+1=2 obvious.
We can pretend otherwise but I'll just be putting on a Santa suit for children at that point.
Now just because something isn't financially sensible doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. We just have to justify on another basis.
Argue morality or whatever makes you happy. But if you tell me it is "money"... well... I'm going to pull out the excel spread sheet. And then you're going to have to explain to me why the numbers don't add up. And if that doesn't happen... questions of core competency or integrity will be queried. Not be rude or hostile here. But if an argument is irrational it is only sensible to treat the person making it as irrational.
Please argue for financially poor ideas on a basis besides finance.
Slashdot Mirror
All of which has nothing to do with policies or the job he's doing. I mean, its the same tired ad hominem.
...
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-...
I'm not making it up.
This is a good example of what I was talking about.
This is just ad hominem. On the issues, what do you disagree with, please?
Make a complete argument, please. What corruption do you think he's facilitating?
There was a series of scandals with the IRS, the EPA, the DOS, the DOD, the DOJ, and the FBI prior to his election.
There seems plenty of justification for a general purge.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-...
MSNBC finds this credible for whatever you take from that.
exactly... Its just tired ra ra sis boom bah to intimidate. Its as meaningless as the stamping of the feet from one side of the stadium.
That isn't a supportable position. He obviously has plank positions which are themes of his presidency and are repeated again and again and again and again. To suggest they're made up on the fly as he speaks without reference to those issues or the theme is simply not supportable.
Only Rosie O'Donald.
No one would suggest that country X doesn't have a right to control its borders and decide who enters and who doesn't.
Unless that country is the US.
I'll tell you what, I'll accept people from mexico on the same standard that Mexico will accept people from the US into Mexico.
Think Mexico would be okay with Americans just crossing the Mexican border, shirking mexican immigration law, existing in the country illegally, getting deported over and over again only to return again, illegal American immigrants to Mexico demanding the rights of citizens, claiming that any attempt to enforce Mexican border law is racism... etc...
The argument used against the US if applied to any other nation would be laughed or shouted out of the room by basically any country.
That people actually presume to use the argument against the US is somewhere between mindless repetition of talking points and mendacious sophistry.
On an issue by issue basis, polls have consistently supported positions he's also supported.
What is more, if Trump policies are cited as Obama or Hillary policies, you find that many people that reflexively oppose Trump agree with the policies. This makes clear that the opposition is not to the actual policies but rather to the R after his name and his self presentation which rubs many people the wrong way.
Again, those that find this an inconvenient observation will say it is opposition to policies that are immoral.
Policies such as what and according to what clearly undefined moral code are we supposed to be judging him?
Not supporting effectively open borders? Americans don't want that. There has been support for reducing immigration and making more strict the policies that allow existing immigration for well over 30 years.
What about so called "free trade"? Its a farce and everyone knows it is a farce. Free trade was something the US pushed during the Cold War as an inducement to join the First World. It was one of the carrots to side with the West over the Russians. It has generally acted to grant foreign companies access to US markets with few questions asked or conditions required. Now that the Cold War is over, there is no justification for it anymore. It is not infinitely sustainable even if we saw infinite political utility for it. There is obvious damage to many American industries and communities to no particular value to our society besides some geopolitical buy in.
What about government corruption? Here any faction that claims this isn't an issue of import is just lying. The last several years have been an endless embarrassing laundry list of corruption, conflicts of interest, nepotism, theft, incompetence, and dereliction of duty. This is actually starting to become an existential issue for the US government itself. If the government neither is doing the things it was created to do reliably nor has the confidence of the people to do those tasks then the role of the government in society collapses. This is how great empires die with some frequency. They hollow out... rot from within... and then one day... the shiny veneer that promised solidity and perfection collapses. Consensus exists that this should be taken seriously.
What else? Gun policy? If the anti gun people had the votes they'd just go to constitutional convention rather than whining endlessly about restrictions and living constitutions etc. We've changed our constitution as recently as the 1980s. If you have the votes, you can change it. If you don't have the votes then all you can do is bitch. That the anti gun people are bitching makes it very clear they don't have the votes.
On and on and on. The man is sitting at 50% approval right now.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/11...
Most presidents don't pull 50 percent. Naturally this is an average statistic from Gallup... we'll have to see what Trump pulls at the end of his term. But if he gets anywhere near 50 percent then he'll have gotten about as much approval from the public as the average president which is impressive considering the military grade invective thrown at the man.
Lastly we get into this issue of his immorality. Well, according to what? What are the principles of this morality? Is it written down anywhere so we can examine it? Where does it come from? I'm not saying anything he does is or isn't moral because whatever his morality is will be subjective to whatever standard we're using. It is like judging if someone broke the law without citing which legal code the person is under. So where does this moral code come from? Because it sounds increasingly like the code of "you're a bad person because you disagree with my politics". And whilst I can understand that moral code, it is clearly not one that anyone outside that moral paradigm should take seriously.
Back in the day they wouldn't just kick the door down and go in with tactical teams every time they got a call. Obviously use SWAT when you need "Special Weapons And Tactics"... but if what you actually need to do is send some officers over to knock on a door.. .maybe do that instead.
We'll see.
... care to name any patent titan in china that was founded in china where the patents are developed in china?
If not, then my point is sustained.
And yet Gawker lost their court case.
Its weird how a not breaking the law gets a court to find against you.
Oh wait, you're wrong.
don't be silly... they're talking about cellphones and laptops etc. Who owns the patents on that stuff?
It isn't china.
Who collects the license fees to make that stuff.
It isn't china.
What about chinese software? Anything you want to mention anyone cares about?
Its a garbage argument. Everyone has pointed this out. The article is autistic shit.
they'd have to be pretty near zero.
If Chinese "tech" is so good, then where are the patents?
They have a big market and they've assimilated a lot of foreign tech. But to say they've developed their own... show it?
Where is the chinese tech?
So no answer. Your automatic concession has been noted.
So no answer to the question.
Just down votes because you looked stupid. This is why I hate anons. I want to know what sad screen name is associated with your bad opinions.
You didn't cite the easily cited evidence that has to exist because you're so right.
This means either you want to lose or I am right.
So that is a concession on your part or my righteous victory over your dumb lie.
Which is it?
Cite your evidence or you're conceding.
Throwing dumb insults at me doesn't save your sad argument. It just makes you look tired, desperate, and pathetic.
Cite it or you lose.
Choose.
Cite something to validate your position or you've proven the fake news argument valid against YOU.
No one is saying that "Rosenstein appoints Mueller to investigate collusion with Russians" is fake news. What they're saying is that the collusion has no evidence.
The increasingly large scandal is not collusion with Russia but that there is an investigation at all because it is increasingly clear there were serious ethical violations, conflicts of interest, and even with that no actual evidence of collusion.
That it was pushed by people that had a conflict of interest to create a scandal whether justification for one existed or not... and that the institutions corrupted were so compromised that this was even possible is the new scandal.
That is real.
Russian collusion angle however is fake news.
Except that's a very stupid lie.
Cite the evidence right now or concede you're spreading a very stupid lie.
Because, we can just search things. A simple search will answer the question almost instantly.
Put your argument on the line. Let us see it. If it is "sooooo obvious" this should be easy. Do it.
I've put this challenge to a bunch of people that, like you, said it was obvious. Then they flaked
Are you serious? Cite it.
No seriously. Cite it now or you will be conceding the point. If it is so obvious... cite it. Evidence. Cite it.
for example, the Russia collusion story... fake or real? Some will say real... some will say fake. Which is it? There's no evidence but it could be real... it could also be fake.
The problem here is that you have dueling narratives and what is real or not is often not relevant to anyone. We've found this with all the political factions.
Natural gas is a thing and coal is a thing. But short of Hawaii, I don't think oil is a relevant energy source for the grid.
What is more, we're not seeing a decline in the industry. The prices have been kept low due to abundant production not due to lack of demand.
What is more, the whole "wind" argument is very hard to calculate because it tends to be state sponsored stuff that doesn't even have to make economic sense to be built.
A good metric of whether something is affordable is the wealth of the economy implementing an idea.
The US during the Space Race could dump something like 4 percent of its huge GDP into space exploration. This is not something that was done because it was economical but rather because we had the money and the will to do something that was NOT economical.
New York doing something doesn't mean it is economical. New York, the US, Germany, California, etc can do all sorts of things that are economically idiotic because they have the money to blow on ideas that don't make financial sense.
Show me the wind farms of Africa? If it is so economical, why do they not do it? Why do they implement other energy sources?
Why do the solar power factories in China power themselves with coal power? No one can get solar panels cheaper than the chinese. The economics are better for them than anyone else. And yet they don't do it. Why?
Because it isn't economical. Obviously. As in 1+1=2 obvious.
We can pretend otherwise but I'll just be putting on a Santa suit for children at that point.
Now just because something isn't financially sensible doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. We just have to justify on another basis.
Argue morality or whatever makes you happy. But if you tell me it is "money"... well... I'm going to pull out the excel spread sheet. And then you're going to have to explain to me why the numbers don't add up. And if that doesn't happen... questions of core competency or integrity will be queried. Not be rude or hostile here. But if an argument is irrational it is only sensible to treat the person making it as irrational.
Please argue for financially poor ideas on a basis besides finance.