Donald trump. what is your take on him?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
C.U. wouldn't have had the impact it did if we had 100% transparency for political donations.  Funneling money via tax-exempt 501(c)'s allows anyone (corporations included) to make unlimited donations without fear of disclosure (not specifically covered under the C.U. decision).

I think most people problems with C.U. are actually about the "dark money" phenomena more than anything else.

I'm all for transparency. But the actual law that was overturned had specific prohibitions on the press with respect to elections - a term of 60 days / 30 days before a federal or primary election.  Any restriction like that can be a slippy slope for executive enforcement.
There's nothing in the 1st amendment allowing anonymous free speech - a law could be passed about transparency without having to 'overturn CU'
So, I stand by what I wrote pointing out the danger of restricting the freedom of press at a time when it seems to make sense, not thinking ahead to a worst case scenerio.

 
dmp said:
With Trump's escalating war with the press, it brings up an argument I've had with people for years about the Citizen's United decision and efforts to overturn it with a constitutional amendment.
Yes, in a brief window of history it may seem that you would want to restrict the ability of corporations to make whatever media they want - especially when it is untrue and blatantly propaganda. Yes, it may be powerful in elections and lead to some undesirable outcomes.
But then you have such a political turn with a minority of people succeeding in electing a person like Trump to the Presidency. He is trying to instigate his own reality and "alternative facts" and seems willing to use anything in his disposal against opponents - the press, "intelligence".
Do we want a law on the books giving the executive standing to tell corporations they cannot print something? NYT, WSJ, PBS - these are all corporate structures.
A free press / free speech and a vigorous public dialog is fundamental to this countries persistence (and ideally, an informed public and that will distinguish lies from facts)
We agree (mostly) and CU is the less bad tradeoff to protect speech. 

I wouldn't mind figuring out some way to reduce the time and money wasted on elections, but do not see anything obvious.

Besides corporate big money, we have to manage big union influence. Not trivial.

JR

PS: I am not sure why government employees need unions to protect them from tax payers??  :eek:
 
"Why Unions Are Still Needed

Labour unions formed in the 19th century as a response to wage and time exploitation of workers and dangerous working conditions. Although many people take the 40-hour work week for granted, this standard was won through union efforts. Many people think unions are no longer necessary, but recent discoveries of wage theft among low-wage workers indicate that many of the issues that triggered union formation in the 19th century are still valid issues.


Equalization of Power

        Labour unions equalize power between labour and ownership. According to David Edward O’Connor and Christopher C. Faille in their book “Basic Economic Principles: A Guide for Students,” labour unions increase the power of labour to be more on par with management through collective bargaining and strikes. Without this equalization of power, in some cases ownership and management may exploit the power inequality by lowering wages, increasing work hours, or forcing workers to work in unsafe conditions.

Collective Bargaining

        Collective bargaining is, according to “Basic Economic Principles: A Guide for Students,” the main source of labour’s increase in power through unionization. By speaking as one, labour has the ability to slow or stop production if a fair contract is not negotiated.

Fair Wages

        According to Howard Zinn in “A People’s History of the United States,” pre-union wages were incredibly low, often too low to pay for basic food and shelter for workers and their families. Unionization often led, and leads, to wages that are adequate and more fair.

Workplace Safety

        Unions were, and often still are, instrumental in workplace safety issues. According to “A People’s History of the United States,” the Pemberton Mill collapsed in the winter of 1860, killing 88 people. Similar situations were one of the issues leading to the unionization of mill workers and the reduction of many workplace dangers.

Enforcement of Labour Laws

    Unionization prevents employers, especially employers of low-wage workers, from ignoring labour and payment laws, a common occurrence in 2009, according to a study cited in a Sept. 1, 2009 article in the New York Times. According to this article, 68 percent of low-wage workers had experienced at least one wage related violation of employment law in the previous week, and one in five workers reported trying to form a union to force labor law compliance. Forty-three percent of low-wage workers trying to form a union reported illegal retaliation, such as firing or suspension as a result of unionization efforts.



By Ma Wen Jie"

http://www.teamsters879.ca/why-are-labour-unions-needed/
 
DaveP said:
Most of what he said was fair comment, but there is no point in arguing how we got to where we are now, our ancestors operated under different rules and morality.  It is our job to deal with the mess we've inherited, much like climate change.

Yeah, and your example that follows ignores that the colonialists didn't just disconnect and leave everyone else to their devices, they have kept influence and control over poor nations for decades. It's just that it's not at the tip of a bayonet any longer.

But let's take a step back and look at BOTH birth control AND why women were marching:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38724063

Donald Trump has signed an executive order to ban federal money going to international groups which perform or provide information on abortions.

Yeah, it's sort of retroactive birth control, but still, are you 'getting' their concerns now?

 
Yeah, and your example that follows ignores that the colonialists didn't just disconnect and leave everyone else to their devices, they have kept influence and control over poor nations for decades. It's just that it's not at the tip of a bayonet any longer.
I really cannot be bothered to argue with you about what our ancestors did or did not do.  I cannot change what happened, I was not involved in what happened and I refuse to feel guilty about it.  I would remind you that the British commonwealth is still working well, it doesn't exactly support your bayonet jibe.

Regarding abortion: I  don't mind admitting that I totally agree with Trump on this.

I think abortion should only occur if the mother's life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest.

I totally support women's rights in terms of equality (I'm a feminist remember) but I also believe in everyone's responsibilities, including women.  We have had the pill for 50+ years and sex education for longer than that, so there is absolutely no excuse to use abortion as a birth control method.  There are lots of childless couples out there who would be only too willing to take an unwanted child.  A friend of my daughter has had 3 abortions, completely irresponsible.

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
Regarding abortion: I  don't mind admitting that I totally agree with Trump on this.

I think abortion should only occur if the mother's life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest.

I totally support women's rights in terms of equality (I'm a feminist remember) but I also believe in everyone's responsibilities, including women.  We have had the pill for 50+ years and sex education for longer than that, so there is absolutely no excuse to use abortion as a birth control method.  There are lots of childless couples out there who would be only too willing to take an unwanted child.  A friend of my daughter has had 3 abortions, completely irresponsible.
Now we have guaranteed this thread will surpass 100 pages by the end of the month!  8)

All I'll say is this:  if you feel that strongly about abortion, then you totally shouldn't have one...

...oh wait...
 
DaveP said:
I really cannot be bothered to argue with you about what our ancestors did or did not do.  I cannot change what happened, I was not involved in what happened and I refuse to feel guilty about it.  I would remind you that the British commonwealth is still working well, it doesn't exactly support your bayonet jibe.

The influence of the west isn't limited to your commonwealth. I'm not suggesting you feel guilty of anything you weren't even indirectly responsible for, I'm only suggesting that if your country is responsible for something then it might be morally obligated to take the consequences for that.

DaveP said:
Regarding abortion: I  don't mind admitting that I totally agree with Trump on this.

I think abortion should only occur if the mother's life is in danger, or in cases of rape or incest.

I totally support women's rights in terms of equality (I'm a feminist remember) but I also believe in everyone's responsibilities, including women.  We have had the pill for 50+ years and sex education for longer than that, so there is absolutely no excuse to use abortion as a birth control method.  There are lots of childless couples out there who would be only too willing to take an unwanted child.  A friend of my daughter has had 3 abortions, completely irresponsible.

DaveP

Well, now you know why women are protesting. In addition to this, a lot of conservatives who agree with this decision also agree with tying aid to third world countries with the mandate to teach abstention rather than birth control. So again you're de facto aligning yourself with groups that really promote something that has effects directly in opposition to what you say you want to see accomplished.

And look at what at least used to be one of the absolutely most wealthy, advanced, democratic, healthy states on the planet - Sweden - and see how it and others like it, at the very forefront of all of what we want, got there by liberating women and giving them not just equal rights but control over their own bodies. That is part of the key to wealth, health and a smaller population.

But as usual men want to decide what women do to their bodies. I'd reiterate again the yearning for a more modest woman to boot, and I think we see clearly the disconnect between not just conservative but reactionary views and progressive ones.

Again; you may not like the way Swedish women behave or look and the abortions they've had, but Sweden led the way along with a handful of others in the 60's-70's, and for good reason.
 
In addition to this, a lot of conservatives who agree with this decision also agree with tying aid to third world countries with the mandate to teach abstention rather than birth control. So again you're de facto aligning yourself with groups that really promote something that has effects directly in opposition to what you say you want to see accomplished.
I'm not falling for that construction, I'm totally against Catholic teaching on birth control, it has no place in a world approaching maximum capacity.

But as usual men want to decide what women do to their bodies.
That is a bogus argument and is incidental to the issue and is used by women's groups to avoid talking about responsibility.

Men and women have a responsibility to avoid pregnancy if they don't want a child, it is not their right to say "we couldn't be arsed to take precautions, so please give us an abortion".  If a condom splits there is always the morning after pill which is available without prescription now in the UK.

I am sick to death about people bleating on about their rights, rights, rights, with never a whisper about their responsibilities.
Rights are equally as important as Responsibilities , they are opposite sides of the same coin.

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
I am sick to death about people bleating on about their rights, rights, rights, with never a whisper about their responsibilities.
Rights are equally as important as Responsibilities , they are opposite sides of the same coin.

DaveP

Yeah, but Dave, it's women who have to spend 9 months pregnant before then going through a tremendously emotional experience during which she no doubt bonds with the born child only to then either be responsible for it until it is an adult, or give it away which just compounds the emotional 'issue'.

It's not men who bear that burden.

So in that context I find it hugely demeaning to imply that women feel nothing and feel no responsibility for having abortions. This isn't like returning a pair of shoes. They  live with their decisions their entire lives. If there's any  group not taking responsibility it's probably men, broadly speaking.

Yet here are men telling women what to do.  Again.

You  should dress this way. Don't  be too slutty. Be modest. Don't have abortions. Etc.....

Again: If you can't comprehend why women all around the world are sick of hearing what they're allowed to do by men then of course you can't understand why they'd demonstrate the current administration in Washington.
 
" The following is a statement from Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa on President Donald Trump signing an executive order to formally withdraw the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership.

   

    “Today, President Trump made good on his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. With this decision, the president has taken the first step toward fixing 30 years of bad trade policies that have cost working Americans millions of good-paying jobs.

   

    “The Teamsters Union has been on the frontline of the fight to stop destructive trade deals like the TPP, China PNTR, CAFTA and NAFTA for decades. Millions of working men and women saw their jobs leave the country as free trade policies undermined our manufacturing industry. We hope that President Trump’s meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto on Jan. 31 opens a real dialogue about fixing the flawed NAFTA.

   

    “We take this development as a positive sign that President Trump will continue to fulfill his campaign promises in regard to trade policy reform and instruct the USTR to negotiate future agreements that protect American workers and industry.”

And with that statement, pundit attention will closely follow the Trump-Trumka relationship which promises to be one of the more interesting in US politics over the next few years. As Axios points out, "Trump and top advisers like Steve Bannon see an opportunity to destroy traditional political alliances. Their theory worked in the election: They peeled white working class voters (and many union households) away from the Democrats. Now, they believe that delivering major items for this constituency — watch also for a confrontation with Big Pharma — could further wreck the Democrats' hold on organized labor."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-23/labor-unions-pivot-praise-trumps-tpp-withdrawal-describe-meeting-president-incredibl
 
this is a good one  ;D

edit:  ??? forgot the link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MSQm3hqEUU
 
Yeah, but Dave, it's women who have to spend 9 months pregnant before then going through a tremendously emotional experience during which she no doubt bonds with the born child only to then either be responsible for it until it is an adult, or give it away which just compounds the emotional 'issue'.

It's not men who bear that burden.

So in that context I find it hugely demeaning to imply that women feel nothing and feel no responsibility for having abortions. This isn't like returning a pair of shoes. They  live with their decisions their entire lives. If there's any  group not taking responsibility it's probably men, broadly speaking.
I agree with all of that, it's a life changing event every which way you turn.  That is why society has provided so many convenient ways of contraception.

And please don't put me in with  the anti-slut dress crowd, a women should be allowed to walk around naked and not be molested.

I look at it like this: It's like women are saying, "its our right to drive a car without driving  lessons, a licence or insurance, and we demand free break-down trucks (tow trucks) and immunity from prosecution if we crash".

If a woman driver gets drunk and mows down a child in the street she is a criminal.  If she gets drunk and shags without contraception, it's her right to have the morning after pill, not to let it develop into a baby that gets pulled out to die in a dish.

Why is it so hard to live a responsible life today?

DaveP
 
"Yet Friday’s inaugural address seems to have thrown Mr Trump’s adversaries into a state of shock. It turns out he actually meant those things. He spoke of “America first” as his principle; “protection” as his policy and “buy American” as his motto. Millions gathered on Saturday in cities across the country and globally for “women’s marches” to protest against his presidency. Mr Trump accepts the radical implications of his world view. In fact, he has a good chance of enacting it.

That Mr Trump’s oratory has the power to shock is a vindication of sorts. His campaign was about things that are invisible to ruling-class America, starting with non-ruling class America. Invisibility, anonymity, voicelessness was the theme of the whole speech: “One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores,” he said, “with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind”.

This sentence sounds like it is about deindustrialisation, but it is just as much about rulers’ hubris. The climax of the speech is: “Hear these words: You will never be ignored again.” Mr Trump thus proposes a new identity for the ruling class: not as compassionate champions of the excluded, not as bold captains of industry, not even as thoughtful defenders of common decency — but as pigs at the trough."

https://www.ft.com/content/73b8f37e-df3a-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6
 
Mr Trump thus proposes a new identity for the ruling class: not as compassionate champions of the excluded, not as bold captains of industry, not even as thoughtful defenders of common decency — but as pigs at the trough."
Well said

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
Women who's life is in danger, women who have been raped and women who have been involved in incest.

DaveP
And who gets to decide who is raped, and who was involved in incest?  Does a woman need to get a signed doctor's letter saying her life is in danger, then go before a judge to avoid prosecution?  Have you read A Scarlet Letter?

At some core, you are saying abortion is WrongTM, and arguing that abortion is the killing of a child no different than a drunk driver hitting a child crossing the street (an analogy I'll leave aside at the moment), yet you say the morning after pill is ok:  which are two viewpoints that seem at odd with one another.  It's like asserting that shooting someone is ok, but poisoning them should be illegal?

DaveP said:
Why is it so hard to live a responsible life today?
Why is it so hard to just let women make their own choices, free from judgement from others (usually men)?  Why is it necessary to legislate responsibility?
 
Why is it so hard to live a responsible life today?

Why is it so hard to live and let live and not impose your moral choices on other people? Especially when what you are foisting on someone is incredibly difficult, expensive, and not needed by society (more people). If society wants to stop abortions, provide the means for people to have children with less of a personal burden. Even in the 1st world, it is difficult to raise a child.
It is especially awful to impose this on the third world while at the same time refusing to admit refugees, which is the 1st world direction. How about anyone who wants an abortion is instead offered a visa to the UK with generous public support for raising the child? Or how about people who make 'small' mistakes like not paying taxes on their nanny (like Mulvaney) are required to adopt a baby from the 3rd world and raise it to adulthood? Put your money where your morals are.
Millions of people die of Malaria throughout the  world but god forbid someone wants to abort a baby they won't be able to provide for.
I had a baby last fall and I can't imagine doing it alone - or without adequate financial resources - or without wanting the child.
If someone doesn't want a child they shouldn't be forced to have it - personal freedom.  It's better for the individuals and society - it is only difficult for moralizing authoritarians. And I don't mean that insultingly. Strictly based on the meaning of the words:
moralizing: comment on issues of right and wrong, typically with an unfounded air of superiority.
authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom

ps  this thread is ready for a change of subject.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top