As someone who was active with CORE and arrested in the mid-60s I'm a bit biased.Hmmmm, OK: do you consider his arrest for activism in 1963 a point in his favor or a smudge on his record.
I think it's a big point to his credit.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
As someone who was active with CORE and arrested in the mid-60s I'm a bit biased.Hmmmm, OK: do you consider his arrest for activism in 1963 a point in his favor or a smudge on his record.
I think it's a big point to his credit.
He wants to tax the heck out of Ford Motor Co. for shipping many job overseas yet he hasn't mentioned that he'll start sourcing his clothing here.This is always an interesting problem, ie, that one plays the game according to the rules, but one thinks the rules should be different.
Is it hypocrisy?
I don't know, in his case.
But It could also be the opposite if one wants to change the rules by which one plays, all for the betterment of society.
If one plans to change the rules, one doesn't change one's strategy before the new rules start.He wants to tax the heck out of Ford Motor Co. for shipping many job overseas yet he hasn't mentioned that he'll start sourcing his clothing here.
I know places in Los Angeles where he can employ people to manufacture his clothing line. I doubt he'd take my recommendations.
If you're going to point fingers at the sins of others, you'd better well be clean yourself.Perhaps to be competitive, he needs to outsource.
In a campaign, it makes sense to mention Ford because it's a significant presence.
I'd expect that he'd be subject to his own newly imposed incentives, which is to
simply change one level playing field (between companies) into another.
If one plans to change the rules, one doesn't change one's strategy before the new rules start.
Perhaps to be competitive, he needs to outsource.
In a campaign, it makes sense to mention Ford because it's a significant presence.
I'd expect that he'd be subject to his own newly imposed incentives, which is to
simply change one level playing field (between companies) into another.
I don't see it the same way, ie, it's not about "sin", but about altering behavior.If you're going to point fingers at the sins of others, you'd better well be clean yourself.
If he wanted to gain one millimeter of respect from me, he'd announce he's opening a clothing warehouse in the US to create his clothing line. Then, he can go after others.
This addresses the problems of corruption & ineptitude.I would hope so. But knowing how some of our trade deals are written, anything is possible.
I see this as a plus in his playbook. It was during a social justice rally of some sort, right? In which case, that is in line with his political platform.Hmmmm, OK: do you consider his arrest for activism in 1963 a point in his favor or a smudge on his record.
It was a play on words, you know what I meant. Please don't play a game of semantics.I don't see it the same way, ie, it's not about "sin", but about altering behavior.
Suppose I go into politics.
(I'll wait til you're don't either laughing or screaming in horror.)
I currently do all sorts of creative & legal things to minimize my tax bill,
spending piles of money to save money, but there is net benefit.
I'm far from alone, so this affects the whole economy. So it's highly
inefficient for us to spin our wheels doing such unproductive things.
I shouldn't do it.
But the nature of this "should not" is that our tax environment shouldn't
cause this to be in my self interest. But I won't change my response to
existing tax laws...it would be foolish, & financially devastating. So I'd like
to change the law so that everyone's behavior would change for the better.
Sadly, the only person I've seen call him on this was David Letterman.Trump certainly is a hypocrite regarding his stance on keeping jobs in America. His entire clothing line is manufactured in China or Mexico. I'm surprised he isn't called out more on this issue.
I responded to what I thought you meant.It was a play on words, you know what I meant. Please don't play a game of semantics.
No, it isn't about taxes per se.I'm a business woman myself and my accountant certainly takes advantage of any tax credit possible to lower my bill. My point isn't about taxes.
I think it's not reasonable to expect someone in business to play by proposed rules instead of current rules.If my campaign slogan was "Make America Great Again", and I complained about jobs being sent overseas, I don't see how I could justify my platform claim when all my manufacturing was done elsewhere. It's really very simple. Sorry we don't agree.
This addresses the problems of corruption & ineptitude.
Since Trump is an unknown political entity, he's not so predictable in these areas.
But I see Hillary as a definite problem, given her lengthy crony capitalist ties.
Hey, this is a risk you neurotypicals take when using words metaphorically without a trigger warning.It was a play on words, you know what I meant. Please don't play a game of semantics.
No, it isn't about taxes per se.I'm a business woman myself and my accountant certainly takes advantage of any tax credit possible to lower my bill. My point isn't about taxes.
I think it's not reasonable to expect someone in business to play by proposed rules instead of current rules.If my campaign slogan was "Make America Great Again", and I complained about jobs being sent overseas, I don't see how I could justify my platform claim when all my manufacturing was done elsewhere. It's really very simple. Sorry we don't agree.
What do you think the odds are of Trump bringing all his clothing manufacturing back to the US if he became president? My bet is slim to none.I think it's not reasonable to expect someone in business to play by proposed rules instead of current rules.
Hypocrisy, and this campaign money issue is one of the reasons I loathe her.But let's apply this standard to politics.....Hillary takes massive amounts of money from Wall St, which conflicts with her campaign to get big money out of politics.
Is this hypocrisy, or simply playing by the rules in order to get the power to change the rules?
If anything, you're too generous to Hillary, who is also a bigot.So the choice could come down to a crony capitalist and a billionaire megalomaniac bigot. What a beautiful world we live in.
If only people put the Hildebeast under such scrutiny. Or, for that matter, Mr. Obama, way back when.It was a play on words, you know what I meant. Please don't play a game of semantics.
I'm a business woman myself and my accountant certainly takes advantage of any tax credit possible to lower my bill. My point isn't about taxes.
If my campaign slogan was "Make America Great Again", and I complained about jobs being sent overseas, I don't see how I could justify my platform claim when all my manufacturing was done elsewhere. It's really very simple. Sorry we don't agree.
I can't give odds.What do you think the odds are of Trump bringing all his clothing manufacturing back to the US if he became president? My bet is slim to none.
Her hypocrisy is way down on my list.Hypocrisy, and this campaign money issue is one of the reasons I loathe her.
If anything, you're too generous to Hillary, who is also a bigot.
But yes, it's a lousy choice....at least for those wedded to the Big Two.
.
Her hypocrisy is way down on my list.
So many other things to disagree about.
It's about comparing the 2 of them, not weighting the most significant issues.I'm curious why you asked about hypocrisy in particular regarding Hillary if it's not a front runner on your gripe list?
Claiming yours is longer than mine, eh?I'm sure my list is as long as yours concerning other Hillary grievous offences .