Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to discuss changes to the electoral college or its failings or strengths please take it to a different thread or start a new one.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, no its not.

Once side (i.e. Trump and the republicans) seek to enact bigoted policies. To turn huge portions of the population into second class citizens. Nothing that Clinton or the democrats came anywhere close to that, regardless of what you might think of her financial or foreign policies.

Trump was a racist. You chose not to take a stand. You...are... culpable.
Click to expand...
Taxation is slavery. Can't support a slaver
Click to expand...
Ok, lets ignore the hyperbole of the whole 'taxation is slavery' nonsense. (I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world now who are actual, real slaves who would probably think the whole "taxation=slavery" minimizes the fact that they basically have no rights.

So you supported (indirectly) a guy who:
- Is enacting Tariffs.. which are basically a form of tax.
- Enacted a tax plan where the taxes on a large number of people will actually be HIGHER than it was before the plan was enacted.
- Is culpable in seeing a huge increase in debt... which will have to be paid for by future generations, through (guess what) taxes!

Then of course you have all the other little details that should make a libertarian cringe... the return to strict enforcement of pot, rollback of gay rights, threats to abortion rights.

Anyone claiming to be a libertarian but is so focused on tax laws that they ignore Trump's actions in other areas of freedom isn't really a libertarian... they are actually a republican who is pretending to be a libertarian.

Once again... you could have took a stand against a racist. You did not. You are culpable.
 
Segnosaur said:
Ok, lets ignore the hyperbole of the whole 'taxation is slavery' nonsense. (I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world now who are actual, real slaves who would probably think the whole "taxation=slavery" minimizes the fact that they basically have no rights.

So you supported (indirectly) a guy who:
- Is enacting Tariffs.. which are basically a form of tax.
- Enacted a tax plan where the taxes on a large number of people will actually be HIGHER than it was before the plan was enacted.
- Is culpable in seeing a huge increase in debt... which will have to be paid for by future generations, through (guess what) taxes!

Then of course you have all the other little details that should make a libertarian cringe... the return to strict enforcement of pot, rollback of gay rights, threats to abortion rights.

Anyone claiming to be a libertarian but is so focused on tax laws that they ignore Trump's actions in other areas of freedom isn't really a libertarian... they are actually a republican who is pretending to be a libertarian.

Once again... you could have took a stand against a racist. You did not. You are culpable.
Click to expand...

A) it isn't hyperbole.

B) when both are slavers, it is unethical to rate them the support one.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Ok, lets ignore the hyperbole of the whole 'taxation is slavery' nonsense. (I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world now who are actual, real slaves who would probably think the whole "taxation=slavery" minimizes the fact that they basically have no rights.
Click to expand...
A) it isn't hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Actually yes it is.

That type of nonsense is why I could never vote for Libertarians. Because even if I supported the idea of more social and economic freedom simultaneously, the fact that they result to such nonsense as "taxation=slavery" shows that they have no real perspective on how the world actually works.




B) when both are slavers, it is unethical to rate them the support one.
Click to expand...
It is when one is openly bigoted and the other is not.

Once again, a racist was elected to the presidency. You did nothing to stop him. YOU ARE CULPABLE.
 
Segnosaur said:
Is that why the Trump administration has asked a court in texas to eliminate provisions in the Affordable care act that require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tru...are-pre-existing-conditions/story?id=58686718
Click to expand...

Depends how you define "pre-existing condition." You assume he means a health-related condition. The pre-existing condition could be "has a lot of money." Or "Last name is 'Trump.'" If that's the case, it's a true statement.
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually yes it is.

That type of nonsense is why I could never vote for Libertarians. Because even if I supported the idea of more social and economic freedom simultaneously, the fact that they result to such nonsense as "taxation=slavery" shows that they have no real perspective on how the world actually works.

one is openly bigoted and the other is not.

Once again, a racist was elected to the presidency. You did nothing to stop him. YOU ARE CULPABLE.
Click to expand...

I'm culpable for both of those slavers. The choice I make, the moral one, is a hard, lonely road.

ETA: I also never denied culpability. of course I am. Do you know that line in CCR, "Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you?"

Yes, 100%, all the time. I have a lot of shame from Watergate.
 
Last edited:
Trump tweeted

"The safety of the American People is my highest priority. I have just concluded a briefing with the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Secret Service..."
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweeted

"The safety of the American People is my highest priority. I have just concluded a briefing with the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Secret Service..."
Click to expand...

Finally one briefing down, after only 2 years.
 
LSSBB said:
It is hyperbole. And I vote Libertarian. I just think that the "slavery" claim of taxation does in no way match being put in irons, whipped and being forced to work the fields. I think a different term is required.
Click to expand...

Of course all work is slavery as well. Do this or die seems a good definition of slavery, and work or starve is of course then slavery. That means slavery is fundamentally a good thing as it is the purest expression of the free market.
 
LSSBB said:
It is hyperbole. And I vote Libertarian. I just think that the "slavery" claim of taxation does in no way match being put in irons, whipped and being forced to work the fields. I think a different term is required.
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, been to the forums at "Reason" lately?
The forums there have been almost totally hijacked by Trumpers claiming to be Libertarians,and any real Libertarians are driven off with insults and ridicule.
I think Reason's rep as one of the best websites promoting a Libertaian POV is going be damaged by the where their forums have become such a cesspool.
 
dudalb said:
Speaking of which, been to the forums at "Reason" lately?
The forums there have been almost totally hijacked by Trumpers claiming to be Libertarians,and any real Libertarians are driven off with insults and ridicule.
I think Reason's rep as one of the best websites promoting a Libertaian POV is going be damaged by the where their forums have become such a cesspool.
Click to expand...
[OT]
The only forum I have time for (too much at that) is this one. Sometimes I go to Metabunk, mainly for source material for Facebook Flat Earther and Truther whack-a-mole sessions for ISS, Space.com and WGN news, and sporadically at that. I got stuff to do.[/OT]
 
Segnosaur said:
Ok, lets ignore the hyperbole of the whole 'taxation is slavery' nonsense. (I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world now who are actual, real slaves who would probably think the whole "taxation=slavery" minimizes the fact that they basically have no rights.

So you supported (indirectly) a guy who:
- Is enacting Tariffs.. which are basically a form of tax.
- Enacted a tax plan where the taxes on a large number of people will actually be HIGHER than it was before the plan was enacted.
- Is culpable in seeing a huge increase in debt... which will have to be paid for by future generations, through (guess what) taxes!

Then of course you have all the other little details that should make a libertarian cringe... the return to strict enforcement of pot, rollback of gay rights, threats to abortion rights.

Anyone claiming to be a libertarian but is so focused on tax laws that they ignore Trump's actions in other areas of freedom isn't really a libertarian... they are actually a republican who is pretending to be a libertarian.

Once again... you could have took a stand against a racist. You did not. You are culpable.
Click to expand...
Why is the only way to take a stand against a racist candidate voting for the democratic candidate whom you also dislike, albeit to a lesser extent? To me that's problematic.

Especially in a case where you live in, say Illinois. Illinois is a blue state. Pre-election polling had Clinton winning by around 12 points with the Libertarian and Green parties taken into account. ( Link ) This was borne out in reality as Clinton won 56% to 39% (Link

So a voter who liked neither candidate voting for the Green or Libertarian parties did nothing to help Trump or hurt Clinton. In that case they already knew they were safe in their choice. There is a reason neither party spends much time in Illinois in a presidential elections these days. Last time the state went Republican was 1988. In recent years it hasn't even been close.

Now, some of those who voted for the third parties might have voted for Clinton as a "lesser of two evils" vote if they were in a more tightly contested state. For voters in those states, you might have a point.

But at the same time, if there were a different Republican candidate, many who voted for Gary Johnson might have voted for the Republican for reasons similar to why you say they should have voted for Clinton.

Let me ask you this: Do you think it would be better if only the two major parties were allowed on the ballot? That way no third party could steal votes.

More disappointing really is how Congressional Republicans have fallen into line with Trump, at least in public. I have little respect for party loyalty when voting on issues. I have more respect, in principle, for RINOs and DINOs than an I do for those who stick to the party line. I would like to see the Republicans punished for this in the mid-terms and will vote accordingly.
 
TomB said:
Why is the only way to take a stand against a racist candidate voting for the democratic candidate whom you also dislike, albeit to a lesser extent? To me that's problematic.
Click to expand...
Its an imperfect world. Would be great if someone could wave a magic wand and make the problems go away (without introducing all new problems). But until that happens, anyone who supports a known bigot like Trump (or, alternatively, does not support their opponent) is morally culpable for any bigoted policy decisions that result.

Especially in a case where you live in, say Illinois. Illinois is a blue state.
Click to expand...
Yes, some states were solidly democratic or republican so an individual vote wouldn't matter. Of course, a voter should never assume anything, but even if a single vote was unlikely to swing the electoral college in Illinois, I still think there is value in having a higher popular vote count (even if it doesn't contribute to electoral college victory). It stresses to politicians the electorate is less willing to tolerate racism.
Let me ask you this: Do you think it would be better if only the two major parties were allowed on the ballot? That way no third party could steal votes.
Click to expand...
I am not really sure.

Legally I think its a non-starter. (I doubt legislation could be crafted that would be constitution that would limit ballots to 2 parties.)

I suspect that if such a law did exist you'd just get more non-voters and spoiled ballots.
 
TomB said:
Let me ask you this: Do you think it would be better if only the two major parties were allowed on the ballot? That way no third party could steal votes.
Click to expand...

Only allowing two parties on a ballot (everything else being equal) is anti-democratic.

Whether it's wise to vote for a particular party or not, in some given circumstance, is an entirely different question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom