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.
madswitcher said:
As an experiment

go over the last 4 pages of posts and replace any mention of the word 'Wealth' with 'Greed' and see if it changes your opinions.

I like that idea a lot. Always think things through from various angles/positions.

Back to topic:
DJ Trump bragged a lot about a lot of things. So from now on I want to see what it's all about. I really want to hope for some unexpected pleasant surprises coming along, but I'm pretty sure there will also be many disappointments. It will be interesting to observe 'where' and on 'who's side' they unfold.

As for Trump's constant tweeting: first, who on earth has the time to read all that; and second, personally I suspect he handed his smartphone over to his son a long time ago ;)

After all those words, I want to see action now. Let us measure him by that. I wouldn't be all that surprised if he took Brit mate Nigel Farage as a role model: win an election and then quietly leave the scene. But then again, Trump seems to be too... a character to do that.
 
Are we not men?

"In capitalist society, creative activity takes the form of commodity production, namely production of marketable goods, and the results of human activity take the form of commodities. Marketability or saleability is the universal characteristic of all practical activity and all products. The products of human activity which are necessary for survival have the form of saleable goods: they are only available in exchange for money. And money is only available in exchange for commodities. If a large number of men accept the legitimacy of these conventions, if they accept the convention that commodities are a prerequisite for money, and that money is a prerequisite for survival, then they find themselves locked into a vicious circle. Since they have no commodities, their only exit from this circle is to regard themselves, or parts of themselves, as commodities. And this is, in fact, the peculiar "solution" which men impose on themselves in the face of specific material and historical conditions. They do not exchange their bodies or parts of their bodies for money. They exchange the creative content of their lives, their practical daily activity, for money.

As soon as men accept money as an equivalent for life, the sale of living activity becomes a condition for their physical and social survival. Life is exchanged for survival. Creation and production come to mean sold activity. A man's activity is "productive," useful to society, only when it is sold activity. And the man himself is a productive member of society only if the activities of his daily life are sold activities. As soon as people accept the terms of this exchange, daily activity takes the form of universal prostitution.

The sold creative power, or sold daily activity, takes the form of labor; labor is a historically specific form of human activity; labor is abstract activity which has only one property; it is marketable; it can be sold for a given quantity of money; labor is indifferent activity; indifferent to the particular task performed and indifferent to the particular subject to which the task is directed. Digging, printing and carving are different activities, but all three are labor in capitalist society; labor is simply "earning money." Living activity which takes the form of labor is a means to earn money. Life becomes a means of survival.

This ironic reversal is not the dramatic climax of an imaginative novel; it is a fact of daily life in capitalist society. Survival, namely self-preservation and reproduction, is not the means to creative practical activity, but precisely the other way around. Creative activity in the form of labor, namely sold activity, is a painful necessity for survival; labor is the means to self-preservation and reproduction.

The sale of living activity brings about another reversal. Through sale, the labor of an individual becomes the "property" of another, it is appropriated by another, it comes under the control of another. In other words, a person's activity becomes the activity of another, the activity of its owner; it becomes alien to the person who performs it. Thus one's life, the accomplishments of an individual in the world, the difference which his life makes in the life of humanity, are not only transformed into labor, a painful condition for survival; they are transformed into alien activity, activity performed by the buyer of that labor. In capitalist society, the architects, the engineers, the laborers, are not builders; the man who buys their labor is the builder; their projects, calculations and motions are alien to them; their living activity, their accomplishments, are his. "

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1969/misc/reproduction-daily-life.htm



 
Matador said:
Wait: is 65M less than 62M now? 

Maybe the new director of education has already made America great again. From the DISASTER that was "65M is more than 62M". DISASTER! SAD!

PS: We should all talk like Trump here. We should just say whatever we want people to believe regardless of whether it's true or not, and we should all do it in his juvenile Tweet-level language. It'd be fun.

PPS: Let's see how tomorrow goes. I wonder if he'll advocate violence from the pulpit again or if he's going to pretend he's now going to unite the country he spent months tearing apart...
 
mattiasNYC said:
PS: We should all talk like Trump here. We should just say whatever we want people to believe regardless of whether it's true or not, and we should all do it in his juvenile Tweet-level language. It'd be fun.

WHITE Cathode follower - overrated, can't drive current.  Doug Self was a TOTAL LOSER! I use only the BEST JFET's, really extraordinary! TL072 -Chinese, so noisy! Sad!
 
Matador said:
WHITE Cathode follower - overrated, can't drive current.  Doug Self was a TOTAL LOSER! I use only the BEST JFET's, really extraordinary! TL072 -Chinese, so noisy! Sad!

Chinese are not NOISY! smh Liberal LIE! USA will WIN again with ALL CAPS. (true)
 
Matador said:
Wait: is 65M less than 62M now? 

If so, I have a ton of SPICE simulations to redo... ;)
If the spice simulation equations for the election were based on the electoral map, not just popular votes, there is no problem. Both candidates knew the rules of the contest and one got more of the votes that counted.

This is the 5th time that the popular vote disagreed with electoral vote.

An amusing sports analogy is that popular votes are like the yards gained in a football game, while electoral votes are like touchdowns.  The team with the most touchdowns wins.

The popular vote was specifically rejected by our founders as not the best way to elect leaders. In fact senators used to be appointed by the state legislators before that was changed by amendment to a popular election (I am not sure I agree with that amendment).

This is a fair thing to discuss, but don't discount the wisdom and study of all other existing government systems by our founders before crafting this.

I am sure it could be improved, simple democracy isn't the way IMO.

JR 

PS: I am still waiting for technology to contribute more to better governance than twitter... some work is being done to parse data bases so we can more easily find out who all our representatives in government are. Do you know? I don't.
 
JohnRoberts said:
This is a fair thing to discuss, but don't discount the wisdom and study of all other existing government systems by our founders before crafting this.
I get that, and I'm not saying he didn't win by the rules everyone agreed to beforehand (and I'll note with some irony that Trump himself bashed the unfairness of the EC, but to quote him, "That was before I won, and now I don't care.")

But that isn't/wasn't the point I was making:  your actual statement was:

[quote author=JohnRoberts]
If you are arguing for higher taxes, the recent election just voted against that.
[/quote]
I would make the argument that the plurality of public voters definitely did not vote against higher taxes.  And to be fair, Clinton's tax plan pushed the majority of tax increases to >$5M earners, so it would be more correct to say "higher taxes on the 0.1% income brackets".
 
Matador said:
I get that, and I'm not saying he didn't win by the rules everyone agreed to beforehand (and I'll note with some irony that Trump himself bashed the unfairness of the EC, but to quote him, "That was before I won, and now I don't care.")

But that isn't/wasn't the point I was making:  your actual statement was:
I would make the argument that the plurality of public voters definitely did not vote against higher taxes.  And to be fair, Clinton's tax plan pushed the majority of tax increases to >$5M earners, so it would be more correct to say "higher taxes on the 0.1% income brackets".

I do not think personal taxes was the only reason people voted one way or the other.  It surely was not the dominant reason for me.

Elections have consequences and we now get to see what happens next.

I do not see Trump as a typical republican, but he is more republican than Hillary. The republicans have not been that good on controlling spending growth either, so maybe this new psuedo-republican (ex-businessman)  will be different. One thing I liked about Romney was his business skills... (I've been losing for a long time  ??? ).

Now the question becomes is Trump different for better, or worse.  I am not smart enough to predict which but remain optimistic. Don't let that stop anybody, I'm sure there is a lot of frustration out there, I know how voting for the loser feels.

JR
 
dmp said:
Well I guess this means we never discover time travel.
I wouldn't hold my breath for that....  Time dilation (perhaps) predicts relative time travel into the future (by approaching speed of light that actually slows time for that moving observer), but won't move it backwards.

JR
 
In a certain respect, time travel is possible:

B3-eLwZCYAAOkDg.jpg
 
I was much less horrified by his inauguration speech than I was by his stump speeches. That's about the best thing I can say today.
As John has said, we'll have to wait and see what actually happens. If he starts the exit on NAFTA we'll know he was serious about shutting down trade.
As to arguing if the voters voted for this or that - in general it's hard to pin down to single issues and ends up just being partisan bickering.  It is different now than from past elections with Trump - who said so many things that were just bluster. How many people voted to see Hillary locked up? Probably a lot. Polls say tax reform is a low priority for voters.  Polls also say Trump has record low support.  But then again, most people think polls are wrong these days. Ironic headline for Dec 2016: Polls reporting majority of voters think polls are wrong.
But for all the Obama fans, comparison of the crowd between inaugurations. Left Obama, Right Trump.
 
Of course his speech would be more moderate than the BS he spouts ad lib. It doesn't really tell us much I think, exactly because it is written for the vast public for a large event.  I still find it curious that the speech was written the way it was though. While it wasn't the normal Trump-Twitter-diatribe, it was still written in a very simplistic way. Just look at the structure of it. I think he's thought to speak at the level of a 6th grader or something similar according to a recent study of his speeches. I'm not surprised.

As for content:

"America will start winning again, winning like never before."

That's the typical low-brow nonsense I'd expect some to like. Everything in life is a competition, and you're a winner or a loser. America will start to WIN.

"We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation."

Let's see how that shakes out then, seeing that some fiscal conservatives vote R reflexively. Where's that money going to come from?

"We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones -- and unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth."

Something about military spending and engaging in multiple wars for a long time to come.....
 
Of course his speech would be more moderate than the BS he spouts ad lib. It doesn't really tell us much I think, exactly because it is written for the vast public for a large event.  I still find it curious that the speech was written the way it was though. While it wasn't the normal Trump-Twitter-diatribe, it was still written in a very simplistic way. Just look at the structure of it. I think he's thought to speak at the level of a 6th grader or something similar according to a recent study of his speeches. I'm not surprised.
I was surprised by his competence, even Obama told him it was a good job afterwards.
It was a speech to his supporters above all else and that his promises were still valid, it was giving notice to the world that the old order had changed.  IMHO, it was not a speech about lofty ideals, it was a speech to deal with a crisis  and a statement of impending action to deal with it.  He came across as someone you mess with at your peril, Iran may need to think carefully before taunting US warships, which I expect have already received new rules of engagement.

I thought the protesters smashing windows and setting fire to cars were just playing to all the cameras of the press, it just ruined their cause whatever it was.

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
I was surprised by his competence, even Obama told him it was a good job afterwards.

It's probably expected of an outgoing president to say that. I'd have been more surprised if he hadn't. And as for "competence"; what competence? It was a written speech. How hard is that to execute?

DaveP said:
He came across as someone you mess with at your peril, Iran may need to think carefully before taunting US warships, which I expect have already received new rules of engagement.

Which is incredibly dangerous and does not bode well for US security. That tough guy attitude in conjunction with his vindictive petty nature is exactly why the US is at bigger risk than before.

DaveP said:
I thought the protesters smashing windows and setting fire to cars were just playing to all the cameras of the press, it just ruined their cause whatever it was.

DaveP

Of course it was unnecessary. Hopefully people will understand that those "protesters" likely didn't really rally for any particular cause, or at the very least not any well-founded cause they truly believe in that is also shared with other people with some degree of intelligence and empathy.
 
Which is incredibly dangerous and does not bode well for US security. That tough guy attitude in conjunction with his vindictive petty nature is exactly why the US is at bigger risk than before.
It is incredibly dangerous for Iran, I would have thought.

DaveP
 
DaveP said:
It is incredibly dangerous for Iran, I would have thought.

DaveP

Are you part of that tedious anti-Iran crowd? Sorry for the aggressive question, but I'm tired from working night-shifts, and all the implied assertions just bore me to death.

Iran hasn't acted nearly as aggressively against the US as vice versa. We even have the US to thank for the current Iranian leadership. If Trump wants to make the US safer then he'd just stay away from Iran with the exception of sticking to the nuclear deal that's been struck. Iran has nothing to gain from a confrontation with the US or Israel. Nothing. Zero. And its leaders aren't suicidal enough to actually launch any attacks at either.

Iran acting aggressively against US boats is what we see in the west, and we generally don't hear much about the opposite, and if so, it typically just gets rolled into all other military operations in the region. So, with a broader context in mind one has to look at the region again and its current state and its history. Then we can see what's what. And again, in that context Iran is hardly a problem. ISIS is, Al Qaeda is, and the conflict between Israel and Palestine is.

Now, if Trump takes a tough-guy approach towards Iran he risks bringing more terrorism to US soil. It might not be Iranians - as a matter of fact I'm convinced it wouldn't be - but it might very well come from others in the region who then views this as an extended war now more explicitly against Islam itself,  and not just extremism.

Couple that with the incredibly stupid notion of putting a US embassy in Jerusalem and you have all the tone-deaf ingredients for increasing the 'target' on the back of America, or more specifically, most likely us New Yorkers (as opposed to people in the very countrysides that voted for that clown).

It's just not a smart thing to do, regardless of what US media has said about Iran.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top