Show your support for Trump!

[Revoltingest]

How do you think a billionaire who's primary focus has been in construction would profit from war? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/09/arianna-huffington/halliburton-kbr-and-iraq-war-contracting-history-s/
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war

Drumpf?

In neither link did I see any mention of Trump.
I'm not up for watching a video.
Could you elaborate in your own words how he'll profit from war?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course Tump is a d_uchebag and a panderer, but I'm still voting for him. He's not going to do the more extreme things he says he'll do, but he will give America a good kick in the _ss, not unlike what a lazy teenager might need to get his act together.

A proverbial kick in the ***? You might want to be a little more specific with which particular areas of ***-kicking you think will be most beneficial, and whether you're worried some of the ***-kicking might accidentally end up a kick in the nuts instead. His aim seems...well...loose, sometimes.

The world and Democrats hate Trump in the same way they hate American ideals. They want a submissive America, but we're modern-day Rome.

Of course we do. That's why we follow you into stupid wars, and let you park B1's here, despite it not being to the liking of our largest trading partner. Because we hate you. As for a modern day Rome...which particular part of Roman history are you emulating? What parallels are you seeing?

We're the leader of the free world. We're exceptional. We kick _ss and take names.

You're delusional if you truly believe that. You're truly exceptional in terms of military power, so if you want that to be your calling card, and measure of your 'leadership' then more power to you. It's not what the founding fathers would have hoped for, but ya know...gotta roll with the times, I guess...

In America, you can flip the bird to the President's face and nobody will arrest you. (Try doing that to a monarch.)

Tell you what...you stroll up to the President and do that, and I'll stroll up to our Prime Minister and do it. Wanna take a bet about who comes off second best?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

In neither link did I see any mention of Trump.
I'm not up for watching a video.
Could you elaborate in your own words how he'll profit from war?

Drumpf video is just a joke/play on Trump's own ancestral family name. It's funny: two thumbs up. I'd give it a third, if I but had another thumb.

The links were simple discussions of how Halliburton (a construction company) profitted from having their own businessman member (Cheney) steer the US into unecessary war, then direct gov't contracts to said company. But regardless of profit margins, it is undeniably clear that Drumpf has no olive branch clenched in his teeth.
I feel certain that the one and only reason he has no record of voting YES on every military action over the last 2 decades is because the US public has (until now) had enough wits to not elect this twit to any public office. Though now it seems that tens of millions want him as commander and chief.

 

[BSM1]

That's quite interesting. Why not?

If he can't do what he wants in one term I don't think his ego will let him continue. Also I don't think his hot wife will enjoy downsizing her living arraignments for more than one term...just sayin'...

 

[Revoltingest]

Drumpf video is just a joke/play on Trump's own ancestral family name. It's funny: two thumbs up. I'd give it a third, if I but had another thumb.

The links were simple discussions of how Halliburton (a construction company) profitted from having their own businessman member (Cheney) steer the US into unecessary war, then direct gov't contracts to said company. But regardless of profit margins, it is undeniably clear that Drumpf has no olive branch clenched in his teeth.
I feel certain that the one and only reason he has no record of voting YES on every military action over the last 2 decades is because the US public has (until now) had enough wits to not elect this twit to any public office. Though now it seems that tens of millions want him as commander and chief.

This isn't even about Trump.
But it's certainly possible that Trump could arrange his affairs to profit from war.
Then again, so could every other candidate.

 

[Underhill]

I look at Bernies plans and I see things a bit differently. If I were his adviser, this is how I would approach his first year.

Health care. We definitely need to do something. Overhaul Obamacare or replace it, but either way it needs to happen. If Bernie could work out a compromise with Republicans that replaced Obamacare, even if it were a single payer system, I suspect you could get some republican support in the name of "doing away with Obamacare". Give them the 'win' by letting them beat Obamacare into submission.

Immigration. There are still a lot of people who think, on both sides of the aisle, that we need reform. I think this could happen.

College Tuition. Something needs to be done here. I am not a fan of just offering completely free college, but there should be a path to going to school. Offer it free to vets and those who were in the peace corp. Offer it free to those working even. But expect something. I could see that being the end result of someone like Bernie working with republicans. If they managed to work out the first two, this one should be manageable.

From there who knows. But this notion that Bernie, if elected, will just run amok isn't realistic at all. If he managed anything, it would be via compromise.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

This isn't even about Trump.
But it's certainly possible that Trump could arrange his affairs to profit from war.
Then again, so could every other candidate.

That is certainly weak sauce. I can't even smell bacon in that sauce.

Yes, ALL of the candidates could profit from war. Wartime presidents have better odds of being re-elected, and they get better info on where and when to cut deals for their retirement. The money they come out with is exponentially connected to their own entering finances and their willingness to work "the art of the deal".
But Trump is the candidate with the quotes I cited in post #38, along with his threat to kill the uninvolved families of ISIL terrorists because apparently sparing civilian women and children is just wimpy political correctness gone too far.
He's the one with the big yet feeble ego. The one with the violent zealot supporters. The one promoting building up the US military to levels never before dreamed of (regardless of the fact that we have held that position for over a century), and forcing other nations to pay for our border walls and to pay our military intervention in their countries.

Again, of all the candidates, it is clear that Trump is THE MOST LIKELY to lead the US to war, followed closely by Cruz.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is certainly weak sauce. I can't even smell bacon in that sauce.

No bacon for these candidates!

Yes, ALL of the candidates could profit from war. Wartime presidents have better odds of being re-elected, and they get better info on where and when to cut deals for their retirement. The money they come out with is exponentially connected to their own entering finances and their willingness to work "the art of the deal".
But Trump is the candidate with the quotes I cited in post #38, along with his threat to kill the uninvolved families of ISIL terrorists because apparently sparing civilian women and children is just wimpy political correctness gone too far.
He's the one with the big yet feeble ego. The one with the violent zealot supporters. The one promoting building up the US military to levels never before dreamed of (regardless of the fact that we have held that position for over a century), and forcing other nations to pay for our border walls and to pay our military intervention in their countries.
Again, of all the candidates, it is clear that Trump is THE MOST LIKELY to lead the US to war, followed closely by Cruz.

Not addressing yet why Trump is less risky with respect to war than Hillary, some thoughts.....
- His zealous supporters wouldn't foreshadow his behavior.
(Just for fun: Were this cromulent, then Hillary's supporters would foreshadow her becoming a negro.)
- His ego seems no larger than his rivals. (Running for prez attracts outsized egos.)
The difference is that his is more on display, while Hillary persona is more controlled.

 

[metis]

He's a breath of fresh air compared to Obama, who believes that businesses aren't built by the people who built them.

Absolutely false, and that's not what he said. What he did say is that no business was built in isolation from other people and groups that created the necessary ingredients that were needed to launch a new business, which is just plain old common sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely false, and that's not what he said.

From FactCheck.Org....
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

**** the morals of the people and their will. Society at large has never, and will never, make something "good" because it's popular opinion. Chattel-slavery at one point was supported by overwhelming portions of the population. Would you care to argue slavery became moral because it's what "the people" wanted? Populism is what destroys countries. Fascism, Communism and all the other assorted extreme ideologies are inherently populist, and have only ever taken power because of the "will of the people".

Trump is a demagogue, and his volk are little more than the American equivalent of failed beer-hall putschists.

I think slavery is evil, but I also think it's wrong for the minority to impose its morality on the majority. To quote Jimi Hendrix, "I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to." In other words, a population has the right to govern itself--even if the population is stupid. To paraphrase a dead guy, "We have the leadership we deserve."

 

[Nietzsche]

I think slavery is evil, but I also think it's wrong for the minority to impose its morality on the majority. To quote Jimi Hendrix, "I'm the one who has to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to." In other words, a population has the right to govern itself--even if the population is stupid. To paraphrase a dead guy, "We have the leadership we deserve."

Yeeeeah, no. That's a recipe for genocide, enslavement, lynchings, pogroms and beheadings. People are often wrong(see Trump's popularity if you need any further proof). Slobodon Milosevik had the "people" behind him, and only got rid of him after peoples who weren't led by nationalist ******** decided to see what they thought about steel rain.

Populism is political cancer. In many ways it is worse than Stalinism, Fascism and Nazism because at least those ideologies have the backbone to stand up for something beyond "whatever this group of morons thinks to do".

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

Yeeeeah, no. That's a recipe for genocide, enslavement, lynchings, pogroms and beheadings. People are often wrong(see Trump's popularity if you need any further proof). Slobodon Milosevik had the "people" behind him, and only got rid of him after peoples who weren't led by nationalist ******** decided to see what they thought about steel rain.

Populism is political cancer. In many ways it is worse than Stalinism, Fascism and Nazism because at least those ideologies have the backbone to stand up for something beyond "whatever this group of morons thinks to do".

But I think you're missing the point. By whose standard is it wrong? The minority is always going to view the majority as "wrong" or else they'd join the majority.

Personally, I believe that there is no objective morality. All those slavers honestly believed that what they were doing was morally acceptable, or else they wouldn't have done it.

How are we supposed to know if the majority is ever right or wrong?

A Buddhist might consider an exterminator a mass murderer, but you might just see an exterminator as the dude getting the bugs out of your walls. We destroy entire ecosystems for lumber and paper, which is something that the victims can't comprehend. Forest critters might consider us evil. But are we? Are you evil for writing on paper?

 

[Nietzsche]

But I think you're missing the point. By whose standard is it wrong? The minority is always going to view the majority as "wrong" or else they'd join the majority.

Personally, I believe that there is no objective morality. All those slavers honestly believed that what they were doing was morally acceptable, or else they wouldn't have done it.

No. Greed trumps morals every day of the week. I say this as someone who'd happily throw just about everyone I know under a train in exchange for a few hundred thousand dollars.

How are we supposed to know if the majority is ever right or wrong?

I am reasonably sure that "enslaving an entire people because they've got more melanin" and "killing all these people because of how they were born" is a reasonably safe values judgement that one can make. But since you're voting for Trump, I suppose I understand why this would be so difficult.

A Buddhist might consider an exterminator a mass murderer, but you might just see an exterminator as the dude getting the bugs out of your walls. We destroy entire ecosystems for lumber and paper, which is something that the victims can't comprehend. Forest critters might consider us evil. But are we? Are you evil for writing on paper?

Not talking about animals or trees, are we?

 

[Underhill]

From FactCheck.Org....
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Here you go again taking one line out of 60 minute speech and trying to imply something that was obviously not the intent.

Here is the context.

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together."

And he is right. Those in power want you to believe they did it alone. They earned their place. And they may be right, but only up to a point. Virtually anyone who is wealthy made it there by using infrastructure, investment, inheritance and/or those who work for him. Nobody does it alone.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

From FactCheck.Org....
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

OMG That steaming mass of purulent feces is still around in conservative circles?
I thought that everybody with IQs greater than Limbaugh, O'Rielly and Beck knew that was the next line of GOP lies, like ACORN, Swift-boaters, Benghazi, Birthers, etc, etc..... Each and every one of which has been clearly shown to be an undeniable fabrication.
OK. One last time.

 

[fantome profane]

Could you elaborate in your own words how he'll profit from war?

It would feed his massive insatiable ego. Don't know if that counts as profit, but a megalomaniac (exactly the correct word to describe Trump) might want to be seen as a strong victorious warrior.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here you go again taking one line out of 60 minute speech and trying to imply something that was obviously not the intent.

I'm fully aware of the context.
But note that I was correcting a very specific erroneous post which claimed that Obama did not say that.
He did actually say...
"If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

I recognize that the context mitigates Obama's extreme claim.
But it doesn't lessen the wrongful mischief I see in his phrase. It's just slightly different.
What I read is that everyone is smart & hard working, & that these entrepreneurs weren't all that
responsible for their success because of infrastructure & help from others. His intent is to justify
taking more from them. But they already paid & still pay for their help (labor, material), & they pay
taxes & fees for infrastructure. It's simply an emotional appeal to the not so entrepreneurial masses,
convincing that they're entitled to more, & that businesses are obligated to give ever more.

 

[Revoltingest]

OMG That steaming mass of purulent feces is still around in conservative circles?
I thought that everybody with IQs greater than Limbaugh, O'Rielly and Beck knew that was the next line of GOP lies, like ACORN, Swift-boaters, Benghazi, Birthers, etc, etc..... Each and every one of which has been clearly shown to be an undeniable fabrication.
OK. One last time.

Still trying to sanitize & re-spin Obama's speech to be something other than what he actually said?
It's not the partisan issue you'd make it out to be. His speech offends more than just conservatives.
It should bother anyone who opposes rampant growth of taxes & government spending.
See my above post (#58) for more.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Of course Tump is a d_uchebag and a panderer, but I'm still voting for him. He's not going to do the more extreme things he says he'll do, but he will give America a good kick in the _ss, not unlike what a lazy teenager might need to get his act together.

The world and Democrats hate Trump in the same way they hate American ideals. They want a submissive America, but we're modern-day Rome. We're the leader of the free world. We're exceptional. We kick _ss and take names. In America, you can flip the bird to the President's face and nobody will arrest you. (Try doing that to a monarch.) In America, you can build your own business and nobody will annex it. You can publish anything about the government and not be charged with treason. (Not even the British have that freedom.) You can post online about atheism and not receive lashings, like what happened to the young guy in Saudi Arabia recently.

At this time in history, Trump is the braggadocious jack_ss America needs. We certainly don't need Comrade Sanders or Hillary Klingon; we've suffered enough of that under Barry Soetero.

I'm not American, and I probably find Cruz the candidate most to my liking out of the major parties, but Trump has a few redeeming features. He is an idiot and petty and whining. I also think he will actually be quite moderate as President - the comparisons between him and Hitler are histrionic nonsense. But his victory would at least not only stop a Democrat becoming president but would be a huge two fingers to political correctness and that part of the left-liberal ideology.