Changing Mind About Trump

[Traveler]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the cynical point of view.

The non-cynical point of view is to recognize the checks and balances present in that power.  The capitalist structure of the US with the US Constitution sitting on top of it puts boundaries on that power.  If you're talking about the Philippines, then the boundaries are different.

In any case - making blanket statements that all Corporations are evil and do evil things with their money is just as unrighteous as making blanket statements that all politicians are evil and would sacrifice righteousness for their puppetmasters.  It is especially bad when you use this prejudice to decide that "upper management" don't deserve their earnings but all "workers" do.

 

Okay since you do not understand – it is power that corrupts good people – it is not good people that corrupt power.   Trump said it himself – the “system” is rigged (meaning corrupt). Think about that and explain why and how Trump has been successful?

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

My 22-year-old son claims that Trump's actions as president can be completely understood simply by reading Trump's book The Art of the Deal. I plan to test his observation.

[Traveler]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Something to consider - the problem with big government, big business, little government, small business, any kind of government, any kind of methods of exchange - they are all run by humans.  Fallible, error-prone, fallen, sinful humans.  There are zero ways to have a perfect arrangement as long as humans are calling the shots.  

Looking forward to when Christ returns, judges everyone, kills all the bad people, and sets up his throne as undisputed and unchallenged king over all the earth.   And even then, with satan bound and the Son of God Himself running things, a perfectly just government, no death, world peace, and humans knowing all things - even with 1000 years of all that, we humans will still figure out a way to screw things up and will still form opposition armies and have one last big fight, one last bunch of killing and death.  

Humans are the issue, not any particular way we organize ourselves to accomplish various things. 

You almost have the right idea - but I think you don't quite get it because of the terms you use.  Instead of "Humans"; try  the term "the Natural Man".  Other than that - I think we are seeing the mostly the same problem.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Okay since you do not understand – it is power that corrupts good people – it is not good people that corrupt power.   Trump said it himself – the “system” is rigged (meaning corrupt). Think about that and explain why and how Trump has been successful?

 

The Traveler

Okay, you like treating me like a kid.  That's fine.  I actually like to feel like a kid so you can just keep doing it.  You're too old to understand me, I guess - Power is LIMITED in the US.

Trump IS NOT EVIL.  He is successful because... CAPITALISM.  The fact that you believe Trump doesn't deserve his success is telling.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

My 22-year-old son claims that Trump's actions as president can be completely understood simply by reading Trump's book The Art of the Deal. I plan to test his observation.

You also need to read Gingrich's book to go with that.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You also need to read Gingrich's book to go with that.

Which? 1945? (Kidding.) Do you mean Contract with America?

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which? 1945? (Kidding.) Do you mean Contract with America?

No.  Understanding Trump.

It analyzes his communication style and personality.  Art of the Deal gives insight to his decision-making.  Understanding Trump gives more insight to why he says and does things the way he does.   Art of the Deal is written by Trump so it has that Trump-style of communication but as it is in written form it is a lot more controlled than his public speeches, especially his reactive speeches (including twitter).

Edited January 11, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

23 hours ago, Vort said:

Which? 1945? (Kidding.) Do you mean Contract with America?

Vort, I just watched Gingrich on Ingraham's show and he stated that Kilmeade's new book - Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans - would be a good read that would bring light to understanding Trump's fight with the establishment and his role as a change agent in today's politics.  My son has the book and I'm waiting for him to hurry up and finish it already so I can get my hands on it, so I haven't read this one yet.

Edited January 12, 2018 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 11:17 AM, anatess2 said:

Okay, you like treating me like a kid.  That's fine.  I actually like to feel like a kid so you can just keep doing it.  You're too old to understand me, I guess - Power is LIMITED in the US.

Trump IS NOT EVIL.  He is successful because... CAPITALISM.  The fact that you believe Trump doesn't deserve his success is telling.

I would have a different slant.  He is successful because of oligarchy and commercialism.  He inherited much of his wealth and utilized commercialism to stay afloat.  Without the oligarchy of the rich family he comes from, he probably would have gone to the poorhouse with his first bankruptcy.  Class advancement or changing has slowed down in the US over the past few generations, with the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor due to this more oligarchical system in place in the US currently.  With government controls today, business is less capitalism in many instances, and more oligarchy instead.  You have a few breakouts (and big ones at that), but overall, many of the high places in our business world are controlled by the same families who controlled it 40 years ago, 80 years ago, and 100 years ago.

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I would have a different slant.  He is successful because of oligarchy and commercialism.  He inherited much of his wealth and utilized commercialism to stay afloat.  Without the oligarchy of the rich family he comes from, he probably would have gone to the poorhouse with his first bankruptcy.  

This is incorrect analysis.  Oligarchy does not exist in the US as is evident by the fall of the Clintons and Bush's and the end of the Kennedy's and Rockefellers.  Oligarchy doesn't thrive under the US Constitution.  Commercialism is not a bad thing.  You probably are talking about Corporatism.  That does exist in the US and the decades after the Great Depression has shown its strengthening as governments leaned towards protectionist mindset.

Trump's father is rich but Trump did not get rich because of his dad.  Trump is a much bigger visionary than his dad ever was.  He uses the levers of government to survive competition because he must.  He is not the one in government making levers as shown by Trump's excoriating speeches on the Congress floor as a private citizen having been invited by Congress to solicit his advice.  He's been ringing the warning bells since the 80's.  If you're going to accuse Trump of corporatism then you'll have to put Mitt Romney right there ahead of him.  Romney and his father's hands has been in government for decades.

Bankruptcy doesn't need to send anybody to the poor house.  That's the reason why Title 11 of the US Code was created.  This, of course, was not created for Corporatism.  This was created so that the little guy in the Corporation will not get wiped out with the demise of the business.  Trump is not the little guy in his Corporation.  Trump doesn't have just one business.  He has hundreds.  I once tried to count the businesses just with his name on it and it was around 250+ if I recall correctly.  Out of 250+, he had 4 of them going through bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy is not for him to avoid the poor house.  Bankruptcy was for the government to restrict the business so it can re-organize and re-structure or close down limiting the number of little people who lose their shirts.   

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Class advancement or changing has slowed down in the US over the past few generations, with the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor due to this more oligarchical system in place in the US currently.  With government controls today, business is less capitalism in many instances, and more oligarchy instead.  You have a few breakouts (and big ones at that), but overall, many of the high places in our business world are controlled by the same families who controlled it 40 years ago, 80 years ago, and 100 years ago.

Not oligarchial - corporatist.  And that, exactly, is why Trump has been fighting the government since his interview with Oprah.  And you can see even today the disruption he is creating in the top level of corporatist government.  That guy is draining the swamp or putting the spotlight on it.

Edited January 17, 2018 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This is incorrect analysis.  Oligarchy does not exist in the US as is evident by the fall of the Clintons and Bush's and the end of the Kennedy's and Rockefellers.  Oligarchy doesn't thrive under the US Constitution.  Commercialism is not a bad thing.  You probably are talking about Corporatism.  That does exist in the US and the decades after the Great Depression has shown its strengthening as governments leaned towards protectionist mindset.

Trump's father is rich but Trump did not get rich because of his dad.  Trump is a much bigger visionary than his dad ever was.  He uses the levers of government to survive competition because he must.  He is not the one in government making levers as shown by Trump's excoriating speeches on the Congress floor as a private citizen having been invited by Congress to solicit his advice.  He's been ringing the warning bells since the 80's.  If you're going to accuse Trump of corporatism then you'll have to put Mitt Romney right there ahead of him.  Romney and his father's hands has been in government for decades.

Bankruptcy doesn't need to send anybody to the poor house.  That's the reason why Title 11 of the US Code was created.  This, of course, was not created for Corporatism.  This was created so that the little guy in the Corporation will not get wiped out with the demise of the business.  Trump is not the little guy in his Corporation.  Trump doesn't have just one business.  He has hundreds.  I once tried to count the businesses just with his name on it and it was around 250+ if I recall correctly.  Out of 250+, he had 4 of them going through bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy is not for him to avoid the poor house.  Bankruptcy was for the government to restrict the business so it can re-organize and re-structure or close down limiting the number of little people who lose their shirts.   

Not oligarchial - corporatist.  And that, exactly, is why Trump has been fighting the government since his interview with Oprah.  And you can see even today the disruption he is creating in the top level of corporatist government.  That guy is draining the swamp or putting the spotlight on it.

I can tell we will see this differently from each other.  Rather than get wrapped up in it, I think I'll focus on the areas which we do agree on instead.  I think we have far more in common than differences overall.

Edited January 17, 2018 by JohnsonJones
Adding I think we have far more in common than differences overall

[JohnsonJones]

On the note that I mentioned above, did anyone catch President Nelson's reference to the Philippines yesterday?  He brought it up specifically in relation to the LDS church, the natural disasters that occur there, the LDS involvement all over the world, and LDS humanitarian services all within a paragraph or two!  It seems the Philippines are a very important arena that they keep an eye on in regards to the Members and LDS faithful in that nation. 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I can tell we will see this differently from each other.  Rather than get wrapped up in it, I think I'll focus on the areas which we do agree on instead.  I think we have far more in common than differences overall.

Well, hope we agree that Flake is a flake?

This is a Mormon who just compared Donald Trump to Stalin.  Stalin - the guy who was responsible for the deaths of 25 million people.  The same Mormon who dared use the yellow-journalism-embroiled Philippines in that out-of-touch (that phrase is too mild to express what I really want to say) speech.

Flake and Romney need to just go away and be quiet

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

On the note that I mentioned above, did anyone catch President Nelson's reference to the Philippines yesterday?  He brought it up specifically in relation to the LDS church, the natural disasters that occur there, the LDS involvement all over the world, and LDS humanitarian services all within a paragraph or two!  It seems the Philippines are a very important arena that they keep an eye on in regards to the Members and LDS faithful in that nation. 

Yes.  The Philippines is currently surging in membership so much so that even I am shocked.  I am pleased, of course.  I just hope and pray that this surge does not undo the ultra conservative legal protections we have on Marriages and the Family that remains instituted due to the predominant Catholic faith.  Converts seeking Eternal Families may find it easier to overturn the anti-divorce laws in place so they can leave their non-member spouse than to work on the family's conversion.  Other than this, I am excited for the positive influence the Church will have on the Filipino people especially on matters of self-reliance.

[JohnsonJones]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.  The Philippines is currently surging in membership so much so that even I am shocked.  I am pleased, of course.  I just hope and pray that this surge does not undo the ultra conservative legal protections we have on Marriages and the Family that remains instituted due to the predominant Catholic faith.  Converts seeking Eternal Families may find it easier to overturn the anti-divorce laws in place so they can leave their non-member spouse than to work on the family's conversion.  Other than this, I am excited for the positive influence the Church will have on the Filipino people especially on matters of self-reliance.

I too am very supportive of anti-divorce laws.  It seems that in nations that have these, one of the first things to show the decline in morality of that nation is when they rid themselves of those laws (not always, but sometimes).  For example, Ireland used to be a very Catholic nation and also had very strict laws concerning divorce.  They got rid of those laws in 1995 (by referendum, made into law in 1996), and within twenty years they went from one end to the other, as they now not only allow easy divorce, they also allow Gay Marriage and see that fornication and adultery are very common occurrences.

I hope that is not a Mormon influence or that Mormons push for things like that.  I'm old fashioned in that way in that I believe we should hold firm to our marriages and our spouses, and if there are problems, look to oneself as the problem instead of blaming one's spouse.

It is also warms the heart when non-member spouses and families join the church.  It does not always happen (and in my family, though my wife and kids are members, despite my efforts I don't think any of the others will ever join the church for example, at least in this life), but I think there is always great happiness and rejoicing on earth and heaven when part member families all become members and eventually are sealed in the temple. 

 

Edited January 18, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Lindy]

My two cents: I too have softened my outlook on Trump after following and watching what he has done for this country since taking office. I was extremely skeptical on where our country would head with him in the Oval Office. I have never liked the man because of his ego- he does have a huge ego, but it is part of who he is. His language is vulgar, but it is part of who he is. Before I joined the Church, my language was just as bad as his- my kids knew when they pushed me too far.... potty mouth mom. Curbing my language was about as hard as giving up coffee. 

But, Trump IS intelligent and he cares for his country more than the previous president did (IMHO). Wanting to keep his country and its citizens safe is commendable, standing for the flag and what it represents is commendable, loving his family is commendable. 

When he got upset over the overpaid football players showing disrespect for our nations flag..... He stood up and said something, he stood up. Knowing he would give the media fuel to add to their burning of his character..... he stood up. He didn't bow, he didn't apologize for upset feelings over our flag... he stood up. 

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by Lindy
Misspelled word

[NeuroTypical]

By the way, it's near impossible to lay the current round of good news from corporations at any feet other than Donald Trump's.  

- No, this isn't due to regular economic cycles or any type of cyclical boom.
- No, this isn't due to Pres Obama's policies coming to fruition (or that of any other prior administration).
- No, the changes to the tax code wouldn't have happened anyway, Trump fought tooth and nail for it against everyone, both right and left.  
- No, you can't say "the Pres doesn't write legislation, he just signs it" in this case, because he used his political capital and power and push and sway to get the legislation done the way he wanted.

This is happening because Trump meaningfully slashed the corporate tax rate, and now corporations from all over the planet will be moving cash into the US, because it's now attractive to do so.  Another way to put that, is corporations from all over the planet have intentionally kept cash out of the US for decades, because it was painfully expensive to do otherwise.

Even CNBC is admitting it (albeit without saying the dreaded "T" word):  Apple announces plans to repatriate billions in overseas cash, says it will contribute $350 billion to the US economy over the next 5 years

Quote

Apple, already the largest US taxpayer, anticipates repatriation tax payments of approximately $38 billion as required by recent changes to the tax law. A payment of that size would likely be the largest of its kind ever made.
...
The company also promised to create 20,000 new jobs and open a new campus.

There should be absolutely zero doubt in any rational mind, regardless of political persuasion: We would not be seeing these news stories if Hillary (or Bernie, or even Johnson) had won the election.  You don't have to like the guy.  You can despise/loathe/hate him - you gotta give him this one.

Gorsuch, now taxes.  Two utterly undeniable, totally un-ignorable, un-dismissable wins for the guy who constantly ticks everyone off by tweeting insults.

Edited January 18, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I too am very supportive of anti-divorce laws.  It seems that in nations that have these, one of the first things to show the decline in morality of that nation is when they rid themselves of those laws (not always, but sometimes). 

It had the opposite effect in Brazil.  Divorce was so difficult that people decided it was easier never to get married.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It had the opposite effect in Brazil.  Divorce was so difficult that people decided it was easier never to get married.

Not yet likely in the Philippines where the predominant Catholic culture of it being a tragedy to be known as somebody who engages in sex before marriage still prevails.

[bytebear]

I'm currently reading Scott Adams book, "Win Bigly" which is about Trump being a "master persuader", that he uses very specific techniques to get what he wants, and how you have to set your world view to his to understand why he's winning, and everyone else is not.  Essentially, everyone is predicting things that aren't true.  Call it "fake news' if you want, but from Trump will lose to markets will crash to Russia hacking.  It's all wrong, and it continues to be wrong.  Adams was one of the few who has been 100% correct on his predictions about Trump. I highly recommend you read his blog.   He's also a dyed in the wool liberal, who just happens to see beyond the veil of liberalism.

[Vort]

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I too am very supportive of anti-divorce laws.  It seems that in nations that have these, one of the first things to show the decline in morality of that nation is when they rid themselves of those laws (not always, but sometimes).

Which way does the cause-effect go? My belief is that, in this case, the laws follow (and then reinforce) the public sentiment. Liberalized divorce laws don't cause high divorce rates, though they probably exacerbate the problem.

As Carb noted, strict divorce laws caused many Brazilians to abandon marriage. This happened in Italy and other areas of Europe, as well. Laws that benefit a society with mostly moral people can turn to the society's destruction as the people abandon morality. It's well-known that a wicked people need different laws than a righteous people. Not necessarily more or less strict, per se, just different.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, bytebear said:

He's also a dyed in the wool liberal, who just happens to see beyond the veil of liberalism.

I don't think Scott Adams is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool or otherwise.

[bytebear]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't think Scott Adams is a liberal, dyed-in-the-wool or otherwise.

According to his book, he is, at least policy wise.  He has a whole section on his political views.  I do think he has learned that liberalism is a fair weathered friend though.

Edited January 18, 2018 by bytebear

[Guest]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Not yet likely in the Philippines where the predominant Catholic culture of it being a tragedy to be known as somebody who engages in sex before marriage still prevails.

Which statement were you referring to?  

JJ said that anti-divorce laws lead to greater morality among the people.

I said that in Brazil anti-divorce laws led to people refusing to get married in the first place.

Whatever happened or may yet happen in the Philippines doesn't really address what happened and continues to happen in Brazil.

[Mike]

16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I too am very supportive of anti-divorce laws.  It seems that in nations that have these, one of the first things to show the decline in morality of that nation is when they rid themselves of those laws (not always, but sometimes).  For example, Ireland used to be a very Catholic nation and also had very strict laws concerning divorce.  They got rid of those laws in 1995 (by referendum, made into law in 1996), and within twenty years they went from one end to the other, as they now not only allow easy divorce, they also allow Gay Marriage and see that fornication and adultery are very common occurrences.

I lean away from supporting anti-divorce laws. I think they don't influence people to live morally in general nor chastely in the specific.