DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I actually didn't say "honesty", I said does what he says and says what he will do.

Maybe to someone, but not to us. We're the mark (Trump University, Trump Network, etc.). When he says that he will build a wall and says that he won't build a wall, he obviously can't do both.

I think that's pretty thin, Jeff. I think people who look at the past and claim it's a road-map of the future are just doing it out of convenience, because it doesn't work that way, and it's not intelligent to understand things in such an overly-simplistic way. What Trump has said and done in the past is a commentary on, not a guarantee of, his present intentions and future actions. People who swing that needle away from "commentary" toward "guarantee" are liars, and always doing it for their own purposes.

I don't know how your world works, but in my life and dealings with others, past performace is an EXTREMELY valid indicator of future performance. I'd say the exceptions to that fall under 10%

Sergeant Thorne wrote:We are not electing a personality, we are electing someone for their will to carry out the way we want things to be done with regard to our country.

Actually, I AM voting for a personality. The president of the United States is a spokesperson for the country. They should be charming, witty, and have integrity. I vote based on personal character. That's why I can support both Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders even though their positions are wildly different. It's also why I like Ted Cruz, Kasich, and Jeb Bush (and why I would be comfortable with any of them being president, to varying degrees). Guys like Trump are pretty much the opposite of what I look for in a world leader.

callmeslick wrote:I don't know how your world works, but in my life and dealings with others, past performace is an EXTREMELY valid indicator of future performance. I'd say the exceptions to that fall under 10%

In my world it works about the same in linear matters (until some change or shift marks a potential difference). The difference between our worlds at this juncture is that in my world Trump has never been in politics. You might say he's not field tested, but the results are already rolling in care of his opposition. ...Which is great, because we needed the paper to make paper airplanes with!

You guys can feel free to transition to facts and reasonable conjectures at any time, and give me a break from defending Trump.

I don't know, Thorne, if you've ever followed horse racing, but I'll give you this much of an analogy:

One can view Trump as the horse that is 0 for 8 races, and has a consistent problem with some aspect of racing,
today running race number 9 in a steeplechase. Nothing like what he's done before, but he's shown that he's not
good at racing. Do we hope he is completely different today, or have legitimate concern about his issues from past experience?
Now, extrapolate to deciding who is titular head of the nation for the next 4 years, and that isn't a bet I'm about to take.

It's not a bet that I ever expected you to take. Trump is running on a platform of essentially ****ing up the government and foreign policy as far as the globalists are concerned. Now you're not so sure he can be trusted not to ★■◆● it up. ...The only question in my mind is whether or not he'll actually stick to his platform, and show ability beyond his talking points. IMO coming up from behind and winning the GOP primary vote is quite a statement of ability, and while he may be shallow in some areas, he also seems very keen/sharp.

The biggest negatives I see against trump all boil down to him not being as impressive, experienced, or trustworthy as all of the other whores we send to washington... Uh-oh! The people are trying to slip a skank in with all of the high-priced whores! What are they thinking?! Go talk some sense into them, Slick.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...as far as the globalists are concerned.

There's that word again. Globalists. Might was well be synonymous with Illuminati.

Globalism is a good thing. I'm proud to be a "globalist."

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I think that's pretty thin, Jeff. I think people who look at the past and claim it's a road-map of the future are just doing it out of convenience, because it doesn't work that way, and it's not intelligent to understand things in such an overly-simplistic way. What Trump has said and done in the past is a commentary on, not a guarantee of, his present intentions and future actions.

I don't mind if you go all Descartes on me with your categorical doubt, as long as you're consistent. But you can't claim (e.g.) that Cruz and Clinton will be dishonest presidents because they're dishonest people and then give Trump the benefit of the doubt that maybe for some reason he'll change before he becomes president.

Welcome to the deep end of the pool, Jeff. Now stop splashing about, take the water wings off, and let's look a little more closely.

I see Cruz as being more dishonest than Trump, which isn't what I would have expected, knowing just a little about where they came from (thought honestly I don't put anything past religious people). With Trump I haven't seen so much dishonesty as just a way of dealing with topics where honesty is not really a goal. It's not that he's specifically dishonest, so much, he just seems to have a loose relationship with the objective truth. I see that as a matter of world-view and lifestyle more than evidence of deceit. Cruz on the other hand has a very dishonest manner with a shallow Christian facade. He specifically dodges around and shames the truth to achieve his "righteous" goals, while claiming to follow a "God who cannot lie". Hillary plays at being upstanding--a shining beacon of light--while lying through her teeth whenever it suits her, and in matters of covering her own ass certainly has the most to lose.

You might dispute which is more dishonest, but my complaint was with your claim that Trump's past and current behavior doesn't tell us much about his future behavior, whereas you seem comfortable using other candidates' past and current behavior to judge their eligibility to be president.

Well, I'll state the obvious... Clinton and Cruz both have a political history. Trump doesn't.

But you know, you talk about "eligibility to be president", and that statement has kind of lost its meaning anymore. I know what some of the characteristics could be for someone who I would consider to be eligible for the presidency, but at this point we've had a large number of fairly qualified individuals selling us down the river. In light of that, qualifications seem less important to me than intentions and focus (except that someone has to at least be qualified enough to stay on their feet in that arena), and I've pretty much decided that the ideal qualified candidate is an illusion meant to entertain good people while keeping their eyes off of what is actually happening to our country. We are on the verge of some very bad ★■◆● going down in this country, and I know of a lot of people who I'm sure won't stop it (Hillary and Cruz top the list). I don't think it's terribly desperate to hope that Trump will (at least stall it), since he's actually promised to right down the line.

Am I being overly lenient on Trump in my personal analyses? I would say very possibly. Should I start listening to the people saying what a terrible person Trump is? ...What is their goal? I mean the actual end-goal--what are they actually settling for?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Clinton and Cruz both have a political history. Trump doesn't.

False. I think what you mean to say is "he's never held an office."

Sergeant Thorne wrote:We are on the verge of some very bad ★■◆● going down in this country...

Extremely doubtful. This view only seems to be shared by those with apocalyptic fantasies and authority issues. Then again, you're someone who thinks gay people are ruining America...

If I recall correctly, Eisenhower never held public office either before becoming President.

woodchip wrote:If I recall correctly, Eisenhower never held public office either before becoming President.

but, he operated and managed within the Federal Government for his entire career. You did see that obvious difference before tossing out that weak retort, didn't you?

Now there's some mitigating of roles slick. Ike was in the military, and while at the beck and call of the Govt., he wasn't answerable like some politician casting about for votes. You can say the same for Trump as he had to operate in the guidelines of federal rules and regulations. So your post is meaningless.

woodchip wrote:Now there's some mitigating of roles slick. Ike was in the military, and while at the beck and call of the Govt., he wasn't answerable like some politician casting about for votes. You can say the same for Trump as he had to operate in the guidelines of federal rules and regulations. So your post is meaningless.

Every one of us has to operate in the "guidelines of federal rules and regulations" because it's the law. There is a difference between someone with a military background vs someone in business. In the military you are ready to give you life for the welfare of every citizen whereas in business your main motivation is your own profits. Business people serve a subset of the population only as long as it suits them.

Once again, don't make the mistake of thinking the US government needs to be run like a business. It's the opposite of a business.

Government and business are not opposites, they serve different functions, and can provide benefit or detriment to society depending on how they are run.

Saying government and business are opposites is like saying up is the opposite of left.

And no…the government shouldn’t be run like a business, but the executive branch is analogous to management, but that being said…Trump is probably the last manager I would place in charge of the executive branch.

Spidey wrote:Government and business are not opposites, they serve different functions, and can provide benefit or detriment to society depending on how they are run.

I think you are missing a fundamental understanding of what "government" is.

What an amazingly lame statement, yea…I’m just too stupid to know what “govern” means.

Any more gems of wisdom you wish to impart?

Spidey wrote:…I’m just too stupid to know what “govern” means.

It's not that you are too stupid (though I'll let you claim whatever level of stupidity you wish), it's that restricting governance to "a body that provides services," as implied by your statement, really doesn't capture the role of government, whatsoever. I think one of the problems we have in this country is that people never stop to think about government, what it is, what it stems from, and how it relates to a populace. Now I'm not suggesting Plato's "Republic" to be required reading for grade school kids, but it is clear a lot of people view the government as a homogeneous body that "does a thing." While this is an easy model to ingest it really doesn't match reality. This is why I chuckle when people make comparisons between government and business as if they are somehow equal in some way.

Sorry, but you were the one that made the comparison by describing them as opposites.

And I never “implied” anything as to “a body that provides services” I simply pointed out that the two have different functions, and you read the rest into what I said.

The fact that I even said they provide “different” functions should have clued you into the fact that I wasn’t drawing any kind of parallels. (other than the executive branch and the management analogy)

I completely understand the differences between the two and the functioning of the two, I just dispute the idea that they are opposites. For which you obviously took offence.

Spidey wrote:...you read the rest into what I said.

This is a huge trend with you. I wonder if you might be a little more clear in your writing. If you say "they are not opposites" then go on to make a comparison of how they are similar, then are you really getting your point across? I still have seen no clear indication that you understand why they are fundamentally opposite.

The only comparison I made was in managerial skills.

I still have seen no clear indication that you understand why they are fundamentally opposite.

Correct…because they are not.

Government’s main task is to see to the well being of the country, provide justice, make laws and things like that, so that would imply that businesses’ main task is to see to the destruction of the country, impede justice, break laws etc…

Perhaps you are the one who needs to be more clear.

let's go over this one more time:
Government provides for the good of the people with ZERO profit motive, the ability to change revenue at the stroke of a pen, and a debt that cannot be 'discounted' or traded for ownership.
Business operates on higher debt interest, and aims for ongoing profits for the ownership and management of the corporation.


maybe no diametrically opposite, but damned close.

So you’re saying the fact that one is for profit and one is non profit is what makes them opposites?

So just to be clear:

A non profit business is the opposite to a for profit business…correct?

So they are relative opposites in a single issue, big deal…you can find this condition in many systems that are not opposites in the entirety, which is what I thought vision meant.

So yes, on that single issue they are opposites, business gives us profit and government gives us deficit...the exact opposite of profit.

the non-profit example is relevant, in that virtually all depend on interaction with government to exist in the first place. They operate in the grey area, and probably aren't your best hope for your argument.

No, you don’t understand…I’m not using that example for my argument, it was an honest question.

I’m simply trying to understand the reasoning behind the idea that two systems with some basic differences are to be considered opposites.

It would be nice if vision would at least give the context for the term opposite in this usage.

well, I can't answer that, because, if you notice above, I said the 'weren't exactly diametric opposites', but the similarity between business and government finances are minimal, at best.

Basically within both Business and Government you will find a human hierarchy. However the similarity pretty much ends there.