Liberals feel/think if you don't support Biden, then you are a MAGA

[Magic Man]

We are doing it. Through sanctions. A civilized way to settle controversies. Not warfare.

So, the exact same way America has been doing it. How has that worked out so far?

Also, by the way, it's already warfare. Russia already invaded and is acting fighting to take it over. The question isn't "warfare or not". The question is how to approach the warfare that's already happening.

 

[anotherneil]

Here is the whole exchange that led up to this. You started by saying that you support "Make America Great Again".

No I didn't; I said that MAGA stands for "make America great again" (with make, great, and again all in lower case letters) and that I'm for that; I'm for the actual, literal idea of making America great again, not necessarily the brand "Make America Great Again" (depending on what that is).

You then suggested things have gotten worse, and your two examples were Second Amendment rights and inflation, and then implied it can be blamed on Biden.

You seem to be projecting - I'm not sure how you get that I implied blame to be assigned to a particular individual.

You were then asked what Trump would do that would improve inflation, and that's how we got here.

So, we'll start here:

1) In what ways have Second Amendment rights been lost?

Ask Hunter.

2) How has inflation gotten worse? If it's about making it "great again", what period are you going back to that had better inflation?

As you can see in my quotes that you, yourself, cited, I said "forward" can be worse in clause 1 of 3; then in an independent clause following clause 1 of 3, I responded to loss of rights in clause 2 of 3; then in another independent clause following clause 2 of 3, I made a statement about other issues, with inflation as an example, in clause 3 of 3. You're conflating what I stated by trying to incorrectly fuse independent clauses 1 of 3 and 3 of 3, which are separated by clause 2 of 3, together.

My position on inflation is that it has always been the entire time it has ever been in existence, going back to when it apparently started in 1929 (following Woodrow Wilson's creation of this repulsive entity called the Federal Reserve in 1913); throughout this entire time, it has been theft and during no portion of that time was anything about it ever "better" - the only acceptable inflation is no inflation at all.

If you want me to reference a period to go back to, a good candidate would be before 1913 and earlier (probably only going back to 1863 or maybe 1837), when there was no private central bank.

Based on this consumer price index chart, it would be somewhere prior to WW2:

3) In what way can the "worse" inflation be blamed on Biden? And then what would Trump do differently?

You're asking a loaded question, but what either one, along with any other politicians with the authority, can do is legislatively eliminate the Federal Reserve act and bar the existence of private central banks. I'll give credit to Biden, Trump, RFK Jr., or anyone else who does away with it.

One other possibility might be to take the litigious approach to have it ruled unconstitutional & in this case no legislative action would be necessary.

Stealing wealth from the general public, especially via cronyism, is not cool.

 

[anotherneil]

Building credibility.


But you’re liberal at stating your opinions without working to justify them.

I don't matter, and I'm not here on this forum to develop a reputation.

 

[anotherneil]

And the SS motto in world war II was God is with US, would that justify in your mind the actions of the SS organization if you believed in God?

How about Arbeit macht Frei, isn't that just like the idea of pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps?

Whataboutism or red herring, and I'm not religious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I didn't; I said that MAGA stands for "make America great again" (with make, great, and again all in lower case letters) and that I'm for that; I'm for the actual, literal idea of making America great again, not necessarily the brand "Make America Great Again" (depending on what that is).


You seem to be projecting - I'm not sure how you get that I implied blame to be assigned to a particular individual.


Ask Hunter.


As you can see in my quotes that you, yourself, cited, I said "forward" can be worse in clause 1 of 3; then in an independent clause following clause 1 of 3, I responded to loss of rights in clause 2 of 3; then in another independent clause following clause 2 of 3, I made a statement about other issues, with inflation as an example, in clause 3 of 3. You're conflating what I stated by trying to incorrectly fuse independent clauses 1 of 3 and 3 of 3, which are separated by clause 2 of 3, together.

My position on inflation is that it has always been the entire time it has ever been in existence, going back to when it apparently started in 1929 (following Woodrow Wilson's creation of this repulsive entity called the Federal Reserve in 1913); throughout this entire time, it has been theft and during no portion of that time was anything about it ever "better" - the only acceptable inflation is no inflation at all.

If you want me to reference a period to go back to, a good candidate would be before 1913 and earlier (probably only going back to 1863 or maybe 1837), when there was no private central bank.

Based on this consumer price index chart, it would be somewhere prior to WW2:

You're asking a loaded question, but what either one, along with any other politicians with the authority, can do is legislatively eliminate the Federal Reserve act and bar the existence of private central banks. I'll give credit to Biden, Trump, RFK Jr., or anyone else who does away with it.

One other possibility might be to take the litigious approach to have it ruled unconstitutional & in this case no legislative action would be necessary.

Stealing wealth from the general public, especially via cronyism, is not cool.

How would you make inflation unconstitutional? That cannot be done with a magical waving of one's hands.

 

[anotherneil]

Educated voters will look at the causes for those prices and make their decision for support based on who is most able to deal with situation, not just the one who claims magic abilities.

When I read "educated voters", what comes to mind as a possible interpretation is voters subjected to political propaganda and labeled "educated" for accepting the conditioning. What, to you, makes for "educated voters"? By saying this, how many voters in general are you leaving out?

BTW, one of the big problems with the deficit and its pressure on interest rates is the Trump tax cut.

This isn't an argument; it's just an unsubstantiated claim, at this point.

Trump's policies as heralded by his spokespeople will not have the effect he claims if you actually ask an economist.

Donald Trump has a degree in economics from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

 

[anotherneil]

you seem to think he will be better at it than the other guy, I guess we are asking if you have a reason to think that way or is it just that he said so?

The problem is that Democrats (or the political Left, socialists, etc.) either ignore or don't understand economic principles - or both; that's one reason Democrats need to be kept away from any political offices in general.

 

[anotherneil]

Gun rights have generally been expanded,

I'm addressing 2nd Amendment rights in general, which does include "gun rights", but if you want a dialogue with me about this, then be consistent with what I'm addressing instead of leaving portions of it out with these sorts of qualifiers.

the loss of Roe v Wade is a far greater concern,

I don't think so; the loss of states' rights from Roe v Wade was the concern that has now been remedied.

amd inflation is a global thing.

I already covered this back in post #69.

Politicians unded normal circumstances can't really do much about it, especially in a free market society.

I suppose you're referring to inflation & yes they can do something about it, such as eliminating the Federal Reserve act, and nothing about a free market society prevents this; if anything it would welcome, endorse, and encourage such action.

 

[anotherneil]

How would you make inflation unconstitutional? That cannot be done with a magical waving of one's hands.

Beats me; I wouldn't have any idea how to make inflation unconstitutional; I agree that it cannot be done with magical waving of hands. Why do you ask?

 

[anotherneil]

Well if we are going to be so hard line on the amendment then we had better make sure citizens are part of militias for these rights to be enforced. The dilemma is that the militia part of the 2nd amednment is ignored, completely. The 2nd amendment is only one sentence, so how does that half get ignored, and the right to own and bear arms get inflated to a broad absolute? What would January 6, 2021 have been different if those Trump supporters been armed with machine guns? The Capitol poilce and congress was lucky there were laws in DC that limited guns. Fortunately most of those rioters followed that law. How many police would have died if the law was ignored?

To my mind the interpretation was compromised, and so was the type of weapons compromized. If an 18 year old kid wants a machine gun and it's allowed due to an uncompromized interpretation of the 2nd amendment, he'd better be part of an official state militia that is well regulated. As we all know, state militias were replaced by national guard units.

Oh my, as if mass killers are so mentally sound that they worry about being killed if they attack children in a school, or people sitting in church? This heavily armed society is insanity. It is vastly more sane to screen people if they want guns, and limit the risk that mentally unstable people will open fire at your picnic. How fast can you get your gun if you are the first to get hit by a .223? Are you going to have your gun in hand every time you are out in public, just in case? Don't want to be caught off guard do you? It's not like mass shooters annouce where and when they will open fire. Maybe you will be at the grocery store minding your own business and you become face to face with a guy who pulls out a gun and aims it at you. Oh dang. Do you ask him to give you 30 seconds so you can pull your gun and have a fair gunfight?

A few years ago I was at a grocery store and I heard a disturbance. It was none of my business but there was a lady with her two kids running my way. Something was up. It turned out some guy had walked in with an AR15. The cops got called. The manager and secuirty asked him to leave. They guy said he was defending his 2nd amendment rights and wasn't a threat. Well there were a lot of people in that store that didn't know anything about this guy. Some people left their carts and ran from the store. I didn't see all this close up, I paid for my items and left. I read about it later on Facebook.

OK, the guy wasn't a threat and didn't shoot anyone. But no one wanted to trust a guy walking into a store with an AR15 given the risk. No one wants to get a bullet in the face because they assumed he was just a guy defending his 2nd amendment rights, and not a disgrunted employee out for revenge. Stores started banning people with guns because just the threat of not knowing is disruptive and unfair to shoppers.

I remember than mom with her kids. Is having access to a gun more important than her feeling safe getting groceries? Should moms worry about taking their kids anywhere in public because there are people walking around with guns? This is how idealism fails.

Look at you deflecting from gun violence. Humans are not perfect beings. Many humans have low emotional intelliegnce and stuggle to manage their emotions. Look at road rage. Look at domestic volence. What I prefer is more mental healthcare access. But as we know the cost of living keeps going up, and insurance companies have cut mental health benefits. This is why medication is being used more, and those who lack resources often end up commiting crimes and end up in prison. This is why libertarians overestimate their ideals, as if all humans will become wise, responsible, and accountable if we eliminate laws. No, that has never worked in any civilization ever in human history. Even many wild west towns banned guns in city limits. Why? Because the good people did not want to be killed by the stupid and undisciplined. It's called law and order for a reason.

Sorry, inflation is global. That's not to say there aren't local issue, like a bad crop affecting prices, but that's why there are futures markets on certain commodities. For example Biden sold a lot of oil that the USA had in reserves back in 2022, and it helped stabilize the price of oil on the gloabl market. He sold it at $97 a barrel. After the price of oil dropped he bought back oil for the reserves at $67 a barrel. That was a profit of over $500 billion for the USA. This illustrates how inflation can be managed at a global level. But corporations these days are global. They sell to all markets at prices they can get and maximize profits.

https://thehill.com/business/4561631-corporate-hit-record-high-as-economy-boomed-in-fourth-quarter-of-2023/#:~:text=Adjusted%20profits%20after%20taxes%20hit,the%20third%20quarter%20of%202022.

Oh, sorry, I just accidentally noticed that I missed this post. I guess I'm replying to so much on this thread that some responses are slipping through. I'll read through it & get back to the mental arm wresting later (well - perhaps).

 

[Magic Man]

No I didn't; I said that MAGA stands for "make America great again" (with make, great, and again all in lower case letters) and that I'm for that; I'm for the actual, literal idea of making America great again, not necessarily the brand "Make America Great Again" (depending on what that is).

This problem was then pointed out to you. It's the "again" part. The whole point of "make America great again" is to harken back to a "simpler, better time", that time when older people can pretend was all-around better. If all you want to do is improve America, then you wouldn't support "make America great again". That's a specific slogan with a specific implication. You also went on to make comments that implied you do support a conservative agenda, which then calls into question whether your "I don't support MAGA, I just support 'make America great again'" was genuine.

You seem to be projecting - I'm not sure how you get that I implied blame to be assigned to a particular individual.

Nope, no projection here. You're tacitly supporting Trump with the support for "make America great again", and then you pointed to two ways things have gotten worse: losses in the Second Amendment, and inflation. You didn't explicitly blame Biden, but it was pretty clear you were leaning that way. Then when someone asked why you'd blame Biden, you didn't reject that premise. You could have said "I don't blame Biden", but you didn't.

Ask Hunter.

No, thanks. I'm asking you. You made the claim. I'm just asking for the support for it.

As you can see in my quotes that you, yourself, cited, I said "forward" can be worse in clause 1 of 3; then in an independent clause following clause 1 of 3, I responded to loss of rights in clause 2 of 3; then in another independent clause following clause 2 of 3, I made a statement about other issues, with inflation as an example, in clause 3 of 3. You're conflating what I stated by trying to incorrectly fuse independent clauses 1 of 3 and 3 of 3, which are separated by clause 2 of 3, together.

My position on inflation is that it has always been the entire time it has ever been in existence, going back to when it apparently started in 1929 (following Woodrow Wilson's creation of this repulsive entity called the Federal Reserve in 1913); throughout this entire time, it has been theft and during no portion of that time was anything about it ever "better" - the only acceptable inflation is no inflation at all.

If you want me to reference a period to go back to, a good candidate would be before 1913 and earlier (probably only going back to 1863 or maybe 1837), when there was no private central bank.

Based on this consumer price index chart, it would be somewhere prior to WW2:

The problem with that is all of the massive changes to our society since 1913 (or before). How would you keep the necessary things we have now while fixing inflation?

You're asking a loaded question, but what either one, along with any other politicians with the authority, can do is legislatively eliminate the Federal Reserve act and bar the existence of private central banks. I'll give credit to Biden, Trump, RFK Jr., or anyone else who does away with it.

One other possibility might be to take the litigious approach to have it ruled unconstitutional & in this case no legislative action would be necessary.

Stealing wealth from the general public, especially via cronyism, is not cool.

I think this all goes back to two things: your support for the phrase "make America great again" and your reference to losing Second Amendment rights. The first is unnecessarily confusing. As I said, if you just want to improve America in some ways, then say that. Don't say you support "make America great again", since that has a deeper meaning. The second one further implied conservative support.

Now, if you got rid of the Federal Reserve, what would you put in its place to ensure confidence in banks, interest rate and price stability, and the other positives it provides?

In what way do you think the Federal Reserve is stealing wealth from the general public?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Beats me; I wouldn't have any idea how to make inflation unconstitutional; I agree that it cannot be done with magical waving of hands. Why do you ask?

Because it is a silly argument to make if you have no idea if something is unconstitutional or not. "We should make meatloaf unconstitutional". Your argument is almost that bad.

 

[Magic Man]

The problem is that Democrats (or the political Left, socialists, etc.) either ignore or don't understand economic principles - or both; that's one reason Democrats need to be kept away from any political offices in general.

Ah, there we go. Don't get all defensive, when people "mistake" you for a conservative (or Trump supporter). Your "No, I don't support MAGA or Trump, I just support 'make America great again'" is obviously disingenuous at this point, as it already seemed.

What is it about economic principles that you think democrats don't understand and that republicans do?

 

[Pogo]

The problem is that Democrats (or the political Left, socialists, etc.) either ignore or don't understand economic principles - or both; that's one reason Democrats need to be kept away from any political offices in general.

We have been hearing this crap since since Ronnie Rayguns totted out his Horses**t theory that by cutting taxes for the rich they would produce benefits for the others, All that has happened is that the difference between rich and poor incomes has increased a long with the deficits due to the expense of maintaining an economy and infrastructure. Trump's tax cuts for corporations resulted not in the extra money going to wages and improvements, but to stock buybacks that just consolidated the wealth generated in the pockets of those already at the top of the pyramid. He wouldn't spend money on infrastructure without private enterprise supposedly supporting the costs so as expected, nothing got done.

The reality is Democrats are basing their policies on methods that have been shown to work for more than just the already rich and Republicans have suckered their base into going along with self-destructive behaviour. A theory is only useful if it's predictions match reality and Republican policies based on their "theories" have not led to the supposed improvement of economics for all.
Again,

Alaska is up there because while it has a Republican government, it pays its windfall taxes directly to the people as income.

You have been fooled by sloganeering.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm addressing 2nd Amendment rights in general, which does include "gun rights", but if you want a dialogue with me about this, then be consistent with what I'm addressing instead of leaving portions of it out with these sorts of qualifiers.

Second Amendment rights and "gun rights" are generally synonyms. You'd have to specify in which ways you think the two terms differ, instead of hiding behind this kind of pedantry.

I don't think so; the loss of states' rights from Roe v Wade was the concern that has now been remedied.

Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. States don't have unlimited power. Some things are controlled by the federal government, as they should be. You'd have to show why states should have the right to make abortions illegal.

I already covered this back in post #69.


I suppose you're referring to inflation & yes they can do something about it, such as eliminating the Federal Reserve act, and nothing about a free market society prevents this; if anything it would welcome, endorse, and encourage such action.

How specifically would eliminating the Federal Reserve Act stop inflation? And yes, technically someone could try this, but it has no real support and would be an insanely massive change to how things are done.

 

[Stevicus]

When I read "educated voters", what comes to mind as a possible interpretation is voters subjected to political propaganda and labeled "educated" for accepting the conditioning. What, to you, makes for "educated voters"? By saying this, how many voters in general are you leaving out?

I've noticed this tack being used quite a bit. I'm not even sure what "educated voters" would refer to, although I've seen some polls and studies which suggest that those with advanced degrees tend to vote more Democratic. I can't vouch for their accuracy, but I often see articles along those lines. It would suggest that, if only Trump supporters were better educated or received better information, they would make different choices.

But I see the current issue more as a dispute over competing philosophies and moral values.

 

[F1fan]

I don't matter, and I'm not here on this forum to develop a reputation.

You are doing a good job at both. You offer plenty of opinions, and little evidence that you are correct.

When I read "educated voters", what comes to mind as a possible interpretation is voters subjected to political propaganda and labeled "educated" for accepting the conditioning. What, to you, makes for "educated voters"? By saying this, how many voters in general are you leaving out?

That's why there are reputable media sources that the educated voter will rely on, and reject poor quality media like FOX, Newmax, Epoch Times, etc. We can clearly see those who rely on and use poor quality media, as thei bias is observed.

This isn't an argument; it's just an unsubstantiated claim, at this point.

Oh the irony.

Donald Trump has a degree in economics from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

So your claim is tht Trump got a degree, how many decades ago, and he has retained this knowledge despite showing signs of mental decline and emotional instability? Above you were critical of the educated. And here you make a claim about Trump without offering any evidence that it's relevant to his actions as president.

Beats me; I wouldn't have any idea how to make inflation unconstitutional; I agree that it cannot be done with magical waving of hands. Why do you ask?

I've been asking Trump supporters how Trump will be better for the economy. I get no answers. Could it be that many voters don't understand how inflation occurred globally post pandemic?

Oh, sorry, I just accidentally noticed that I missed this post. I guess I'm replying to so much on this thread that some responses are slipping through. I'll read through it & get back to the mental arm wresting later (well - perhaps).

Yeah, and you had no rebuttal to my points about the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd amendment ignoring half the sentence, and liberally expanding the other half. And that at LEAST it's a good compromise to limit the kinds of weapons the average citizen can own.

 

[McBell]

I've noticed this tack being used quite a bit. I'm not even sure what "educated voters" would refer to,

My first guess would be things along the lines of:

• No one knows what Trump was even charged with
• It was not a felony, it was a misdemeanor
• Trump was not allowed to testify because of the gag order
• the gag order is a first amendment violation

and that is just a small sampling from Trumps hush money trial.

 

[McBell]

Donald Trump has a degree in economics from one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

 

[Stevicus]

My first guess would be things along the lines of:

• No one knows what Trump was even charged with
• It was not a felony, it was a misdemeanor
• Trump was not allowed to testify because of the gag order
• the gag order is a first amendment violation

and that is just a small sampling from Trumps hush money trial.

The first one, I think it would be a matter of simply looking up online what the official charges were.

But the other points might require a certain degree of legal education that most of the general public wouldn't have. If one has to be a law school graduate in order to be considered educated enough to vote, then that would reduce the pool of educated voters considerably.