This is why I suspect that Trump is really a closet Liberal, with a brilliantly contrary plan to put them in the oval office.
Yes, it is fairly easy. It's the obvious and only reasonable assessment, and everyone not talking about an abortion agrees with it - which is why the cemeteries are not full of tiny graves from second term miscarriages, the churches have no rituals for their deaths and never have, governments require no coroner determinations, and so forth. And that's a slide from your original "How about stopping life a few months beforehand?". How many months did you have in mind? Roe vs Wade draws a clear distinction between 7 and 16 weeks, as you must know. And maybe you forgot, you're the "libertarian" who favors letting corporations, churches, and anything else that doesn't call itself a government, do whatever they want to enforce whatever they have decided is a "contract". So what if he were? Does that mean the Republicans voting for him by the millions are closet liberals as well?
I don't understand your point. To have success as a businessman, you have to be much more honest than as a politician. Politician is a synonym for liar, together with this other profession, journalist.
I am beginning to think somebody should collect these things you say. The libertarian planet is a rich source of otherwise unbelievable farce.
He is surely inciting liberals to come to the polls to vote against him too. So we won't know if his (alleged) plan actually worked until election day is done.
Aesthetic Priorities Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Pretty much. It comes up every now and then. The conservative coalition depends in some significant part on never saying certain things explicitly. Notice in 2012 how Ron Paul largely got a pass on his own rape comments, and we might wonder if it is because nobody took him seriously, anyway. But when Todd Akin came right out and actually said the bit about not getting pregnant from rape, the marketplace simply could not ignore the point. Because that's what Ron Paul didn't say. As long as all he did was reserve to himself the judgment of who has been raped and whether or not any given woman deserves her human rights, Ron Paul was safe. It's the interesting thing about Trump's campaign; part of how he is destroying the Republican Party is by "saying what he really thinks", or, as such, saying what conservatives really mean. It is the proverbial elephant in the room. The eight hundred pound gorilla defecating on the conference table. See, it's really weird; in my lifetime, we've known the whole time what this is all about, but it was inappropriate to actually say so. Now that Republicans are coming right out and saying it, people are, you know, somewhere between unsettled and appalled. You can tell, though, who hasn't been paying attention; those people are shocked. But there are a number of old tropes that survive because they are, in fact, true; the rule of thumb is that they should never be said aloud, as such: Dark skin is a criterion of harm and fear, for instance. A woman's place is under a man, is another. Women have no human rights, is a similar, even more explicit theme our society is expected to avoid mentioning. Less "shocking"―that is, similarly unsurprising―but ne'er spoken is an even more absurd-sounding proposition: Perception before reality. That is, we humans will ignore reality as much as possible in order to fashion within our perception a world that suits and satisfies our perception. It is the basic empowerment of the ergo proxy, a twist on Descartes: I think, therefore you are. But it seems we all generally know this is true; we just don't consider the implications because the phenomenal sum would embarrass us. It's a bit like rats performing The Aristocrats in a hedgemaze according to the rules of Texas Hold 'Em except nobody actually knows the rules so we end up humping go'fish, and custom demands that no matter what happens nobody is supposed to come right out and say this is just a bunch of excremental fucking and gambling that does nothing to work our way through the labyrinth. And that's why they aren't supposed to say it. In the end, it's like a joke I have about redemptive monotheists: It is uncertain just how much I should trust the advice of someone who is praying for the end of the world. If we give conservatives everything they want, then humanity will see that it doesn't work. The human toll will be devastating, and there is no cheat code or save file to magically undo the damage; it would take generations to recover, and every step of the way the conservative political aesthetic will fight to further denigrate quality of life. They're not supposed to say certain things because glimpses of these core values exposes the degradation and corruption of those values according to perception and the priority of aesthetics over reality. That tends to happen when one's job is to preserve and protect the worst, most anti-social instincts in a societal endeavor. But every once in a while, we get that glimpse↱. And in Trump's case, this is about as close to a woman's place being under a man as the GOP can get without coming right out and saying it. ____________________ Notes: MissKitty64. "The Second Part of Trump's Answer That Got Audible Gasps From the Audience". Daily Kos. 30 March 2016. KailyKos.com. 5 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1ZMh1LL
Right! Bernie Madoff, Andrew Fastow, Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Charles Ponzi, George Parker and Barry Minkow come to mind. All quite successful for a while. (Heck, Mr. Parker sold the Brooklyn Bridge to someone - twice! And got good money for it.) Some politicians, journalists, businessmen, librarians and cops are quite honest. Others are habitual liars. They are people like anyone else.
This is the point - for a while. When people start their jobs, this may be correct. The problem is that as a businessman, you depend on other people signing contracts with you, and risking their own money for this. If you are known to be a liar, this becomes very difficult. So you may lie with success for some time, but not for a really long time. The situation is very different if you are a journalist or a politician. As a journalist, you will be simply out of the job if you refuse to lie. And as a politician, you will be unable to collect enough money for a campaign, and to win elections.
Yep. In other words, they are just like politicians. Again, just like a politician. You can lie for a while. But eventually your lies catch up with you and no one will vote for you any more.
Why can The Donald come out with completely ridiculous ideas like his latest plan to "enforce" Mexico to pay for his $10 billion (give or take a few $hundred billion) wall, and his supporters accept it unquestioningly? He proposes having Western Union stop illegal immigrants from remitting funds back to Mexico. Reality check--does that cost more than the remittances themselves to police? How long will it take? And if Western Union can determine which remittances are from illegal immigrants, why not get them to pass on the information to the Immigration Dept? Lastly, is WU the only agency illegal immigrants use, or will all the remittance agencies be tasked with detecting (somehow) transfers from illegal aliens? Can he just sign some executive order (I bet he believes that's all it will take) and hand it to someone who isn't black or hispanic, or (ugh) a woman?
I disagree. Politicians are known to be liars, nobody wonders if a politician does not hold the promises made during the election campaign - and this does not prevent him from being elected yet another time
Some are, some aren't. Like everyone else. You think all politicians are liars for the same reason many cops think all people are criminals - because the ones you deal with are. But that's not because all people are criminals, it is because the population that police encounter are pre-selected to be criminals. (Cops don't get called when the party next door is quiet, respectful and law-abiding.) I do, and I know which politicians keep their promises - and to what degree. And yes, it does affect how I vote.
No problem! That's what his wall will do. If there is a wall, then there's no way the money can cross the border! It's a terrific plan, really great. Everyone loves it.
Because that is what his supporters wants to hear. He has been able to tap into the fears of the Republican "base", the ones that politicians, even from the right, have tended to dismiss or just kind of talk over in the past. So by offering to apparently make Mexico build a "wall", he is offering them a sense of security, of being shut in from all bad and outside elements. Rational people see it for what it is. Pure lunacy and not a real plan. I mean, he hasn't even explained how he would get Mexico to even build it or fund it until he came up with this latest plan of holding onto the money being transferred to Mexico. All he's doing is standing on a stage and making a promise that he knows he can't keep, but he knows that people want to hear. You need to remember that his supporters don't care about any of that rational stuff. And they use other banks and institutions as well. The remittances are being sent from family to family. So it is literally relatives sending money back to help. My parents and I did it with my grandparents for years after we migrated to Australia. That money isn't being sent to the Mexican Government. So he is asking a Government that doesn't treat its poor well to begin with, to make the poor suffer more or give up a chunk of money for 'the wall'. Suffice to say, if he does become President, the poor in Mexico could become even poorer if he is able to implement this plan. To wit, he would cause major issues for the banks because this is a huge source of income for them, just as he would simply force illegal immigrants to find a different way to get their money across the border and bypass the banks altogether. But again, Trump is not preaching to rational people. Well it would probably need to work it's way through congress and make it's way through the courts. So no, he couldn't.
Given I have the flu, I'll be more specific. There's a legal question and a moral question. The moral question, is a good question. Questions of consciousness generally come up.
While I don't disagree, I would suggest a complication: • Sales • Juristics • Politics While individuals, communities, and entire societies strive toward the virtue of honesty, we find in sales, juristics, and politics a necessary malleabiliy about truth; it seems inevitable that we take things too far. Nonetheless, there is an aspect about a crafty sales pitch, nuanced legal argument, or even mundane political appeal, that transforms deception into some manner of virtue. In any case, the marketplace seems to eat it up. And, yeah, this is the year for drinking with Ockham↗. But the thing about the phantom-liberal conspiracy theory is that it's one thing for Donald Trump to wreck the GOP by coming right out and saying a bunch of stuff, but the personal damage he's doing to himself is insane. Does he, then, by the phantom-liberal potsherd, believe he is such a celebrity that he can recover? Is he so comforted by wealth that it doesn't matter, and he can spend the rest of his life bitterly complaining that none of us appreciate what he did for us? That's the part I can't figure out; it would be similarly complex if he was trying to destroy the soccon wing in order to reinforce the conservative business agenda. But in any context, wrecking his own reputation is the part that doesn't make sense. Ockham would, drunk or sober, most likely suggest Trump is just an egoecentric, even megalomaniacal, bastard and there's nothing to be done about that but turn out and vote.
Right now I'm shifting my HBO series, from Trump bein' a made guy in The Sopranos, to more like Al Swearingen in Deadwood. He seems to be wearing a kind of old-west persona with the "there will be riots", unless the rules get changed to say he wins with a plurality of candidates, and he's got the people behind him who believe it too, because they already believe he can build the wall. So, listen good, see?
I agree with all of the above. Trump is playing on all the hate and misinformation that has been fed to the Republican base for decades. Kennedy used an executive order to invoke the Cuban embargo. The POTUS has tremendous powers over US foreign policy. The US Congress could override the POTUS with a 2/3rd s majority vote. But that's not easy. Trump could very well use executive orders to implement his Mexican wall effort. But there would be consequences, and none of them would be good.
The chickens have come home to roost. He can certainly try and use an executive order to implement his Mexican wall effort, but this one goes beyond foreign policy and will affect American banks adversely. In short, he will have to change the banking laws and regulations in the US to force American banks to collect the funds and implement these changes and to make the banks either pass the funds on to the US Government or to refuse their customers the ability to send the funds to their relatives in Mexico. This is not a simple embargo. This doesn't deal with trade in as much as it deals specifically with financial transfers. The Patriot Act allows the banks and Governments to track and deny the ability to send funds to terrorist organisations. So he would have to change the laws to suit what he plans or wants to do. And that would require Congress and it would be challenged by the banks and people in America because they are not sending the funds to illegal or terrorist organisations or to support terror. It would also have a terrible knock on effect as it could affect all international transfers. At present Indians and the Chinese in the US send the most funds overseas. To wit, what he plans to do would discriminate against Mexicans if that is all he is targeting. If Trump is planning on using those financial transfers or ceasing or denying migrants in the US to send funds abroad, the banks will lose a massive chunk of profit and I doubt they will take it lying down. And if Trump plans to discriminate against Latino's in the US who send funds back to their families, then that could become an even uglier fight. His intention is to try to force Mexico to hand over $10 or so billion with the threat of not allowing Mexican migrants to send the funds to Mexico. What he has not realised or understood is that migrants in the US aren't sending it to their respective Governments. Mexican migrants in the US are sending it directly to their relatives, so Mexico will not have those funds to draw from to build this wall. What his plan will do is virtually cripple the Mexican economy as those who would normally be getting those funds will no longer have that money to spend in Mexico to buy food, pay for utilities and the like. Thus far, there is no ability to track how much of those funds are being sent by illegal migrants. And he has not been able to detail what he would do if migrants found another way to transfer the funds over and bypass the banks altogether. I am sure that his plans sounds great to his base voters, but in reality, it probably would not go down well in financial and legal circles and this would be struck down very quickly.
