Why I should vote for Trump?

[Roboramma]

Pretty much all of recorded history until recent times saw most if not all capital being held by one person or very few in a region, time and time again capital ends up being held by an exceedingly small minority. Happens today as well - isn't it something like 1% of the population owns 50% of the entire capital of the world?

That's not the claim that I asked for a citation of.

Here it is again: "Problem with capitalism is that every time it is introduced to a market the number of entities operating as sellers decreases over time."

As an example I'd love to see the analysis of how the number of sellers in Chinese markets decreased since the introduction of capitalism here.

(Just an example of the move toward a more market based economy: my ex-girlfriend's father was imprisoned when he was factory worker here in the 60's for buying broken electronics, repairing them, and then selling the now working items.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Pretty much all of recorded history until recent times saw most if not all capital being held by one person or very few in a region, time and time again capital ends up being held by an exceedingly small minority. Happens today as well - isn't it something like 1% of the population owns 50% of the entire capital of the world?

You like how "capital" was held by aristocrats under aristocratic systems, and was held by nobility under monarchial systems, and was held by the dictator and their cronies under dictatorships?

Capitalism has only existed in recent times when we're talking about recorded history. The US has some extreme concentration of wealth, not because we have capitalism, but because we have some incredibly dumb tax policies and we have tons of lobbyist power.

Most of Europe is also capitalist - would you say it has the same problem?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Then you are not reading what I have posted.

The prosecutions regarding the classified documents and his fraudulent asset valuations are fair. The increasingly desperate moves as we get closer to the election such as having state courts bar Trump from running for election in those states are more dubious and clearly politically motivated.

Actually it's Constitutionally Motivated as the 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.

 

[The_Animus]

Then you are not reading what I have posted.

The prosecutions regarding the classified documents and his fraudulent asset valuations are fair. The increasingly desperate moves as we get closer to the election such as having state courts bar Trump from running for election in those states are more dubious and clearly politically motivated.

Trump tried to overthrow the democratically elected president and install himself instead. Upholding the 14th Amendment to prevent a traitor to the constitution from holding office is not in any way desperate, dubious,
or clearly politically motivated. You've lost all credibility on this topic.

 

[Random]

Then you are not reading what I have posted.

The prosecutions regarding the classified documents and his fraudulent asset valuations are fair. The increasingly desperate moves as we get closer to the election such as having state courts bar Trump from running for election in those states are more dubious and clearly politically motivated.

An ex-President who tried to overthrow the government to stay in power and is therefore ineligible to be President by a plain reading of the Constitution, is not only running for re-election with the support of tens of millions of Americans, but is saying that he should have immunity for his attempted insurrection because he was President at the time.

If you can think of a way to resolve this that doesn't get political, a lot of people would love to hear it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

An ex-President who tried to overthrow the government to stay in power and is therefore ineligible to be President by a plain reading of the Constitution, is not only running for re-election with the support of tens of millions of Americans, but is saying that he should have immunity for his attempted insurrection because he was President at the time.

If you can think of a way to resolve this that doesn't get political, a lot of people would love to hear it.

Resurrection of William Tecumseh Sherman comes to mind.

 

[steenkh]

The increasingly desperate moves as we get closer to the election such as having state courts bar Trump from running for election in those states are more dubious and clearly politically motivated.

Your constitution has an amendment that is designed to protect democracy from being eroded by an elected official, i.e. it is a weak protection against the classical problem of democracy being removed through a majority decision. I say “weak” because it only protects if there has already been an attempt to break the constitution.

Why is that dubious? The political motivation is probably right, because it is a political decision to maintain the democracy.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You like how "capital" was held by aristocrats under aristocratic systems, and was held by nobility under monarchial systems, and was held by the dictator and their cronies under dictatorships?

Capitalism has only existed in recent times when we're talking about recorded history. The US has some extreme concentration of wealth, not because we have capitalism, but because we have some incredibly dumb tax policies and we have tons of lobbyist power.

Tax policies influenced by and based in strong laissez faire capitalism.

Most of Europe is also capitalist - would you say it has the same problem?

To a much, much lesser degree.

 

[psionl0]

An ex-President who tried to overthrow the government to stay in power and is therefore ineligible to be President by a plain reading of the Constitution, is not only running for re-election with the support of tens of millions of Americans, but is saying that he should have immunity for his attempted insurrection because he was President at the time.

If you can think of a way to resolve this that doesn't get political, a lot of people would love to hear it.

It's funny how "plain reading" only becomes important if it appears to support a POV.

Any other time the constitution has to be interpreted and that is the problem. Those who want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it supports banning Trump. Those who don't want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it doesn't support banning Trump.

As I have pointed out earlier, trying to ban Trump this way is at best risky and at worst downright stupid. Had we not done anything that would draw attention to Trump then his campaign would be starved of the oxygen it needs. As it is, if the SC sides with Trump then not only has he had a ton of publicity for free but he has a rallying "lawyers are trying to destroy democracy" BS catch cry to add to his campaign.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

It's funny how "plain reading" only becomes important if it appears to support a POV.

Any other time the constitution has to be interpreted and that is the problem. Those who want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it supports banning Trump. Those who don't want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it doesn't support banning Trump.

As I have pointed out earlier, trying to ban Trump this way is at best risky and at worst downright stupid. Had we not done anything that would draw attention to Trump then his campaign would be starved of the oxygen it needs. As it is, if the SC sides with Trump then not only has he had a ton of publicity for free but he has a rallying "lawyers are trying to destroy democracy" BS catch cry to add to his campaign.

And that will only works to bankrupt the Republican party once Trump becomes the Nominee and the Republicans start paying all Trump's legal fees and fines. Mitch McConnell knows that's going to hurt other Republican candidates down the line. So Mitch might tell his court, to get rid of Trump.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

*citation needed

The economic history of the USSR, history's only pur capitalist country.

 

[Random]

It's funny how "plain reading" only becomes important if it appears to support a POV.

Any other time the constitution has to be interpreted and that is the problem. Those who want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it supports banning Trump. Those who don't want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it doesn't support banning Trump.

Hey, it seems clear to me and millions of other people, and lawyers trying to argue otherwise have been presenting pretty weak tea for their preferred interpretations. If you are already down to "Who makes the formal determination anyway", you are already admitting that there is merit to the case.

As I have pointed out earlier, trying to ban Trump this way is at best risky and at worst downright stupid. Had we not done anything that would draw attention to Trump then his campaign would be starved of the oxygen it needs. As it is, if the SC sides with Trump then not only has he had a ton of publicity for free but he has a rallying "lawyers are trying to destroy democracy" BS catch cry to add to his campaign.

Oh piffle. Trump thrives on media attention of any sort. If it wasn't the 14th Amendment case, it would have been something else. If a celebrity politician with millions of fans wants to get media attention, no amount of inaction on the part of his opponents will stop him.

 

[Crossbow]

Here is your chance Trump supporters. Tell us what Trump promised and accomplished as President. How he improved your lives and the lives of your countrymen. What made his Presidency better than Biden's. Why the future of this country and the world will be better by going back to Trump.

Tell us;

About the Mexican wall that he built and how Mexico paid for it.
About Trump the builder was America's infrastructure President.
About the great construction projects that he built.
About how he was going to replace the Affordable Care Act with something better.
How he united the country and improved our lives.
What made Trump's Presidency better than Biden's.

Tell me why I should vote for Trump. And if you can't do that. Why are you?

Well, ...

If one is a resident of Nevada, then one does not have to worry about voting for Trump, because Trump cannot appear on the Nevada primary ballot.

This is because that POS Trump who so often claimed to be a "genius", brilliantly neglected to fill out the paperwork to file in order appear on the Nevada primary ballot.

https://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-wont-nevada-ballot-154819859.html

 

[Stacyhs]

It need not be a purely futile gesture. If the Democrats were to win a majority in both houses of Congress but lose the presidency then that would send them a powerful message. As a bonus, it would limit the harm that Trump could inflict.

And just what would that powerful message be?

Can't wait to hear this spin.

 

[Stacyhs]

Whatever you decide to call it, it is putting Trump straight on course to the White House.

Oh, no! Let's let a former POTUS face zero consequences for the multitude of crimes he committed against the the country because the idiots who would have voted for him ANYWAY might ....vote for him?

 

[Stacyhs]

You seem to think that this is somehow the fault of the Democrats or those working to hold Trump accountable.

Wait a minute. I though everything already was the fault of the Dems. Or is that Boomers? Or only Dem Boomers? Or is that Centrist Dem Boomers?

I see it as a problem with the polity and the whole "I am not a Trump supporter, but..." crowd for whom a win against the dreaded libs is more important than anything else. It is also a safe stand for those who will go on to vote for Trump just to stick it to the libs. Trump will come to power not because of the liberals or Dems, but because there is hude swath of the population who are right-wing morons and of course gerrymandering.

True. But don't forget the Electoral College which is the biggest reason Republicans continue to win when the majority of Americans don't vote for them. The EC is undemocratic.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump tried to overthrow the democratically elected president and install himself instead. Upholding the 14th Amendment to prevent a traitor to the constitution from holding office is not in any way desperate, dubious,
or clearly politically motivated. You've lost all credibility on this topic.

 

[Stacyhs]

Your constitution has an amendment that is designed to protect democracy from being eroded by an elected official, i.e. it is a weak protection against the classical problem of democracy being removed through a majority decision. I say “weak” because it only protects if there has already been an attempt to break the constitution.

Why is that dubious? The political motivation is probably right, because it is a political decision to maintain the democracy.

 

[Susheel]

Seems all this still rankles as a constant reminder that certain people here supported and voted for him despite warnings that they chose to ridicule and ignore. I guess going against logic and common sense just to own the libs comes at a cost.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The prosecutions regarding the classified documents and his fraudulent asset valuations are fair. The increasingly desperate moves as we get closer to the election such as having state courts bar Trump from running for election in those states are more dubious and clearly politically motivated.

Actually it's Constitutionally Motivated as the 14th Amendment is part of the United States Constitution.

Trump tried to overthrow the democratically elected president and install himself instead. Upholding the 14th Amendment to prevent a traitor to the constitution from holding office is not in any way desperate, dubious,
or clearly politically motivated. You've lost all credibility on this topic.

In today's United States, only one of the two major political parties supports the rule of law. In particular, only one of the two major political parties supports the US Constitution.

That is why members of the party that does not take the US Constitution seriously will say attempts to take the US Constitution seriously are politically motivated. After all, it is not something their party would do.

I believe psionl0 is trying to say what I wrote in the two paragraphs above, but is saying it badly. Random and steenkh both said it much better:

An ex-President who tried to overthrow the government to stay in power and is therefore ineligible to be President by a plain reading of the Constitution, is not only running for re-election with the support of tens of millions of Americans, but is saying that he should have immunity for his attempted insurrection because he was President at the time.

If you can think of a way to resolve this that doesn't get political, a lot of people would love to hear it.

Your constitution has an amendment that is designed to protect democracy from being eroded by an elected official, i.e. it is a weak protection against the classical problem of democracy being removed through a majority decision. I say “weak” because it only protects if there has already been an attempt to break the constitution.

Why is that dubious? The political motivation is probably right, because it is a political decision to maintain the democracy.

psionl0 responded by writing this:

Any other time the constitution has to be interpreted and that is the problem. Those who want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it supports banning Trump. Those who don't want to ban Trump will interpret the constitution such that it doesn't support banning Trump.

As I have pointed out earlier, trying to ban Trump this way is at best risky and at worst downright stupid. Had we not done anything that would draw attention to Trump then his campaign would be starved of the oxygen it needs. As it is, if the SC sides with Trump then not only has he had a ton of publicity for free but he has a rallying "lawyers are trying to destroy democracy" BS catch cry to add to his campaign.

psionl0 seems to be saying the party that takes the US Constitution seriously should stop doing so, because taking the US Constitution seriously creates a clear distinction between that party and the other major party, and any such clear distinction will appear political to the party in thrall to an insurrectionist.