Trump Regime thread.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

Definition of welfare (Merriam/Webster)

1. 1

2. 2a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in needb : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed

I see the description 2:a,b... as being used commonly to describe this countries current system. Yet I also see rich companies getting tax breaks and tax free land usage in the name of their corporations, as being a type of welfare as well. It does not apply to 2:a, but it is a massive redistribution of wealth. This is just my view, but when someone tells me, I am tired of welfare....I ask which kind they are referring to.

i am personally tired of being taxed my whole life, to fund both.

 

 

Nobody can really blame you for that. Tax is legal theft. Restricting the size and power of the federal government could kill off income tax.

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

Has Trump taken any rights away from women, LGBTQ minorities, or blacks? Please tell me where he's done this, because I haven't seen it at all.

 

I mean for now you are correct in that he's just targeted muslims. However, unless you think he's going to fire his vice president, entire cabinet, and completely change his mind about everything he's stated he wants to do, those are pretty safe bets. Believe it or not, we're still only one month into him being in charge.

[Cherry 1,302]

I mean for now you are correct in that he's just targeted muslims. However, unless you think he's going to fire his vice president, entire cabinet, and completely change his mind about everything he's stated he wants to do, those are pretty safe bets. Believe it or not, we're still only one month into him being in charge.

 

A temporary ban on immigration from high risk countries is trying to take away rights from Muslims? It's incredibly protectionist, sure, but it's nothing awful.

[OSUViking 505]

I'm not too informed on the coal mining industry, but assuming the industry is dying due to a natural lack of resources or high costs, it should die. Subsidies to any area of energy production are garbage.

 

I would think it's dying because it's woefully inefficient compared to better alternatives.

[Cherry 1,302]

I would think it's dying because it's woefully inefficient compared to better alternatives.

 

If the market deems it so, let it die. Open the market entirely for both clean energy and coal to compete and see who gets more consumption.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I disagree with cherry fundamentally on a lot of things when it comes to politics but I don't think his views make him a bad person. I also don't think he votes or holds political opinions to stick it to you blots.

[RazorStar 4,025]

 

If the market deems it so, let it die. Open the market entirely for both clean energy and coal to compete and see who gets more consumption.

 

The planet literally cannot sustain coal energy, this is one of those times where the free market should not lead to the death of a majority of people on earth.

[blotsfan 2,112]

I disagree with cherry fundamentally on a lot of things when it comes to politics but I don't think his views make him a bad person. I also don't think he votes or holds political opinions to stick it to you blots.

Then his whole "people voted for trump because of mean liberals" argument is bullshit.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

 

The planet literally cannot sustain coal energy, this is one of those times where the free market should not lead to the death of a majority of people on earth.

 

Cherry admitted to not giving a shit about pollution, climate change, the future of the planet, any of that.

 

I think that's the mark of a selfish asshole, but at least he's honest.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Then his whole "people voted for trump because of mean liberals" argument is bullshit.

At the same time I think it's a bit more nuanced than "everybody who voted for Trump is a bad person."

 

 

Cherry admitted to not giving a shit about pollution, climate change, the future of the planet, any of that.

 

I think that's the mark of a selfish asshole, but at least he's honest.

Again, to sure that makes hm a selfish or bad person. I think he's just a bit too married to a certain set of political views to the point where it doesn't allow him be objective about certain things. There needs to be certain safeguards like for example against pollution and there needs to be things like anti-trust laws. The reality is there is no such thing as a free market. There never has been and there never will be.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

If you pay attention to Cherry's posts, it's actually very clear he is a selfish person. He also admits it. He has said time and time again that he doesn't care what Trump does or says as long as Trump cuts taxes and improves the economy. Nothing else means anything to him.

 

That is the definition of a selfish person. But you are right, that doesn't make him a bad person. We all have our faults. The truth is there are a lot of selfish people in the world. I don't really know if they are capable of changing. Being selfish isn't something you really do by choice. It's who you are.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

To be fair and to make a contrasting point though... if what Cherry wants, a better economy and lower taxes, comes to fruition -- that helps over 300 million people. Most people

In this country feel a positive impact from those changes.

 

Yes it helps himself as well, but whether he wants or even cares about the other people is a little irrelevant. Because as mentioned, if what he wants happens, it helps more people than anything else. I just think it's a little hasty to call him selfish (even if he is) based off that alone.

 

Is being selfish the worst thing anyway? In an idea word, we could care and take care of everyone... but we don't live in an ideal world.

 

For example, I make sure my bills are paid, I have groceries, and I have anything else I want before donating to local PTOs or other oraganizatioms I've donated to in the past.... does that make me selfish? Maybe... but I fee I have to look out for me and mine before I can start worrying about and taking care of others.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I didn't call him selfish based on that idea alone. If someone admits they are selfish (as he has), I'm probably going to take his or her word for it.

 

But I also don't need to see an admission because it's a clear pattern in his posts. He wouldn't need to admit it for someone to see that he's selfish. And knowing that he's a selfish person explains a lot of his posts and the content of them.

 

Why do you think I stopped engaging with him in these threads? It's really a waste of my time because he and I are on totally different wavelengths. I have family members just like him. A non-selfish person really doesn't make any progress discussing issues with a selfish person. I am quite sure you have probably noticed this in your own life, too, when you encounter someone who is very selfish.

 

The only way to win those battles is to avoid them.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I am not criticizing you for how you have chosen to deal with that. We all have to do what works for ourselves... but think about that. You've cut off interaction with somebody so you don't have to deal with it -- isn't that a little selfish ?

 

Mind you, I don't think all selfishness is a bad thing. Take me for example, I feel good when I make a donation to he Hiawatha PTO... It makes me feel good volunteering for the city of Cedar Rapids when we have flood waters incoming so that they can protect their homes a little. Isn't that, a little selfish?

 

So I think everyone is selfish, just to varying degrees. There's a certain amount of t that is actually healthy. In my mind, you have to be able to care for and about yourself before you can genuinely care about or for other people.

 

Plus I think everyone's perspective is important. That doesn't mean I support that perspective or opinion, but I like hearing why they think the way they do. For example, Blots and I are very very very... different when it comes to political opinions. But as people, I don't think we're nearly quite as far off. So it's interesting to me to hear his side of things... where we live, how we grew up, etc... something or some things have really molded the way we see the world.

 

So, even if Cherry is admittedly selfish, I think it's important to understand him and why he thinks the way he does. Why is it so different from me, you, or somebody else ?

 

That is how we start fixing problems in this country. By listening and understanding each other.

[Warhorse 132]

If you pay attention to Cherry's posts, it's actually very clear he is a selfish person. He also admits it. He has said time and time again that he doesn't care what Trump does or says as long as Trump cuts taxes and improves the economy. Nothing else means anything to him.

 

That is the definition of a selfish person. But you are right, that doesn't make him a bad person. We all have our faults. The truth is there are a lot of selfish people in the world. I don't really know if they are capable of changing. Being selfish isn't something you really do by choice. It's who you are.

 

 

I didn't call him selfish based on that idea alone. If someone admits they are selfish (as he has), I'm probably going to take his or her word for it.

 

But I also don't need to see an admission because it's a clear pattern in his posts. He wouldn't need to admit it for someone to see that he's selfish. And knowing that he's a selfish person explains a lot of his posts and the content of them.

 

Why do you think I stopped engaging with him in these threads? It's really a waste of my time because he and I are on totally different wavelengths. I have family members just like him. A non-selfish person really doesn't make any progress discussing issues with a selfish person. I am quite sure you have probably noticed this in your own life, too, when you encounter someone who is very selfish.

 

The only way to win those battles is to avoid them.

Extremely well said. I have gained major respect for you. I haven't been here long enough to really know the poster you are referring to, I am merely respecting you for your thoughts on the interaction...and that of selfishness in general.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Warhorse

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I am not criticizing you for how you have chosen to deal with that. We all have to do what works for ourselves... but think about that. You've cut off interaction with somebody so you don't have to deal with it -- isn't that a little selfish ?

 

Mind you, I don't think all selfishness is a bad thing. Take me for example, I feel good when I make a donation to he Hiawatha PTO... It makes me feel good volunteering for the city of Cedar Rapids when we have flood waters incoming so that they can protect their homes a little. Isn't that, a little selfish?

 

So I think everyone is selfish, just to varying degrees. There's a certain amount of t that is actually healthy. In my mind, you have to be able to care for and about yourself before you can genuinely care about or for other people.

 

Plus I think everyone's perspective is important. That doesn't mean I support that perspective or opinion, but I like hearing why they think the way they do. For example, Blots and I are very very very... different when it comes to political opinions. But as people, I don't think we're nearly quite as far off. So it's interesting to me to hear his side of things... where we live, how we grew up, etc... something or some things have really molded the way we see the world.

 

So, even if Cherry is admittedly selfish, I think it's important to understand him and why he thinks the way he does. Why is it so different from me, you, or somebody else ?

 

That is how we start fixing problems in this country. By listening and understanding each other.

 

The issue isn't a lack of understanding. I understand full well how a selfish person views the world.

 

Actually, the understanding is what inhibits healthy conversations that actually get somewhere. When I talk to a selfish person, it just makes me realize even more how much I dislike interacting with them.

 

You can only give so many chances before you realize it just isn't working.

 

And I think maybe that's one of the reasons why Trump won anyway. (trying to steer back on topic here)

 

People have given this government time after time chance after chance to prove itself. To prove that it works for everyone and not just the wealthy donors. To prove that this time might be different. It never happens.

 

It's not going to happen with Trump either, but at least I get why people thought it might. People wanted change so badly that they hit their friends, families, and political opposites over the head with the nearest Trump-like object.

 

You know what? This is going to sound crazy coming from me, but here goes: I am glad Trump won.

 

How? Why? Sarge, don't you hate Trump and laugh at all the retarded shit he says and does? Damn right I do.

 

But Trump winning proved that people are fed up and that they will look to anyone they can find to try to make a difference. I think that bodes well for the future. Many of these same people now regret their votes. Trump is making a mess, and it's only going to get worse. Isn't that how a problem gets fixed anyway? Most of the time things get worse before they get better.

 

This is probably an incredibly optimistic view, I'll admit. Trump was a bad change, but at least the people tried. They really tried. There was a ton of divisiveness in this election. The personal insults and ending of friendships is bad, but stark differences in opinion can only be good. Even the things we disagree with deserve to be out in the open.

 

By the way, I hope it's clear that I agree with your post quite a bit.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Sarge

[seanbrock 1,684]

Well there are certain things that we can all agree on which is good. I notice Cherry would like to get money out of politics. Maybe he would support rank choice voting too since he seems to lean more libertarian. Seems like we also don't want to go to war with anyone and everyone. I think we can say that's an opinion of myself, blots, JD, Sarge and damn near everyone else. Just not being at war all the time would help tremendously. Plus it's nice to not murder hundreds of thousands of civilians and create a world wide refugee crisis. It would be nice if we could get together on that kind of stuff and iron out the rest later but all we're doing here is talking anyway ha.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Well there are certain things that we can all agree on which is good. I notice Cherry would like to get money out of politics. Maybe he would support rank choice voting too since he seems to lean more libertarian. Seems like we also don't want to go to war with anyone and everyone. I think we can say that's an opinion of myself, blots, JD, Sarge and damn near everyone else. Just not being at war all the time would help tremendously. Plus it's nice to not murder hundreds of thousands of civilians and create a world wide refugee crisis. It would be nice if we could get together on that kind of stuff and iron out the rest later but all we're doing here is talking anyway ha.

It starts with talking though. We talk and gather the opinions of others... maybe we don't adopt those opinions, but it helps us better understand the issues and how other people view them...

 

Then we go outside, talk to other people (crazy, right? Lol) and those precious conversations will at some point begin coming through.

 

Who knows what kind of impact we have on each other or those we are close to ? Maybe we'll help influence a senator or something... ha .

 

Real change doesn't happen over night.

[Cherry 1,302]

I disagree with cherry fundamentally on a lot of things when it comes to politics but I don't think his views make him a bad person. I also don't think he votes or holds political opinions to stick it to you blots.

 

This is the key to having a healthy debate that is intended to help all parties grow. While I may disagree with many people over politics, I am certainly willing to put that disagreement aside when it comes to valuing their character, and discussing things that aren't related to it. That said, I didn't vote for the Don to stick it to Bloots or any other snarky liberal. I did it because I believe his economic policy will benefit the majority of the nation and create jobs. I know other people certainly did vote that way just to stick it to liberals. I know some voted that way to create jobs. I know some voted that way because they hate minorities. There are many different reasons why.

 

The planet literally cannot sustain coal energy, this is one of those times where the free market should not lead to the death of a majority of people on earth.

 

 

I disagree that the majority of the people on Earth will be killed by pursuing free market options with energy. As the effects of climate change continue to impact us, I think we will see a shift in the market demands for clean energy. As of now though, I think it's incredibly inefficient to basically shut down all coal production. This is one of the issues where I'm very tolerant as to what others are seeing, because it really does come down to what your faith in the market is, and it's a huge leap to take. I have faith that the market will in the end protect us from damaging ourselves beyond a survivable state, and I also believe that alternative methods of dealing with production of dirty energy will emerge to better limit the negative effects caused by pollution.

 

If we are going to go down this road, and it's a tough road to go down because of how many different countries rely upon dirty energy, we would need governments to immediately cease all sources of non-clean energy and eliminate their usage. Putting subsidies into clean energy is not the road to go down, and honestly it's a waste of money at this point. The government should not intervene in the market in terms of providing subsidies because it drives inefficiency in the production of new clean energy relative to what private investment would do. The problem with immediately eliminating the usage of non-clean energy is that the world primarily runs on that right now, and you would need to completely revamp our methods of travel. We don't have cheap alternatives to that, and so that's going to be a huge burden on society as a whole.

 

 

Then his whole "people voted for trump because of mean liberals" argument is bullshit.

 

No it's not. People voted for Trump for a large variety of reasons. I voted primarily because my political ideology revolves around protecting the free market and advocating for low business tax rates. Clinton would have continued to send jobs overseas and killed domestic business by imposing outrageous business tax rates and attempting to further target the rich (while accepting some dirty cash to make sure they got what they wanted). Some people voted for Trump because he isn't politically correct and fought the status quo. Others voted for him because they're racists pieces of shit. In a system with only two options, I really do think it's silly to place a candidate's entire platform on all individuals who voted for them. I try to avoid placing the entire Hillary or Bernie platform on people who support them. Every individual has different ways of viewing how the government should be run.

 

Cherry admitted to not giving a shit about pollution, climate change, the future of the planet, any of that.

 

I think that's the mark of a selfish asshole, but at least he's honest.

 

Relative to what my needs are, no I do not care about any of those. The problem like I stated above with this election cycle, or any election cycle in general, is the tendency to place entire platforms on people. I care about pollution, climate change, and the future of the planet, but it's not high on my list relative to other things like economic opportunity or limited government intervention in the market. It's a matter of what you think best benefits the society, or yourself. While I do think focusing on limited regulation best benefits myself, I think it also benefits the society as a whole. I think the alternatives that will be produced for clean energy through private enterprise without government incentive are going to be much more efficient than government handling of the current environmental situation we're facing.

 

The reason why I advocate so hard for the market, and why I'm so adamant about sharing my ideology, is that I do truly believe that it is the best way to help the largest number of people. Feel free to disagree. I know the standpoint you're coming from though. I used to look at conservative thinking very much the same way, and I understand why the appeal of simply reallocating resources through government intervention is appealing. That said, I've found it to be ineffective through all the research and time I've spent studying it, and I'd much prefer a system which I believe works better. I certainly favor my interests over society as a whole, but I'm not out to crush the environment and destroy everyone below me to better myself. I care about other people too.

 

At the same time I think it's a bit more nuanced than "everybody who voted for Trump is a bad person."

 

Again, to sure that makes hm a selfish or bad person. I think he's just a bit too married to a certain set of political views to the point where it doesn't allow him be objective about certain things. There needs to be certain safeguards like for example against pollution and there needs to be things like anti-trust laws. The reality is there is no such thing as a free market. There never has been and there never will be.

 

This is a key to these debates between people are in favor of intervention and people are not in favor of intervention. When you look at an entire group of people as simply being bad people it takes the subject out of the debate and turns it into a mud-slinging contest where people argue over morality, not substance. It's not about your moral values, it's about your political stance and the results it would have on the population as a whole. If I believed that coal was an inefficient product and would harm large amounts of people without eventually being flushed out of the market through cleaner alternatives, but I could get rich off of coal, would I? That's certainly a bridge I'd have to cross when I get there, but I would like to think I would pass on it. Again, while I advocate for free market policies because they benefit myself, I also believe they benefit the population as a whole when given time to work free from government regulation or subsidization.

 

I try not to be married to my set of political views too much, and I'm willing to change based on what I believe will help the highest amount of people as much as possible. I already discussed pollution, and at the current time I just don't think it's feasible to attempt to alter how our energy is produced. I believe cleaner alternatives and means of eliminating pollution will rise as we get further along as long as we let the market run its course.

 

I thought I already discussed anti-trust laws, but to restate my position, I am certainly in favor of using the government as a means of breaking up trusts. I believe that at this current point in time we are not in a free market, we are in a crony capitalist mess that must be broken up by removing money from politics. That's why I advocated a smaller government earlier, so it's more transparent when it comes to funding and potential bribery. The smaller the government, the easier it is to see through the bullshit. That's the only way to achieve a freer market.

 

If you pay attention to Cherry's posts, it's actually very clear he is a selfish person. He also admits it. He has said time and time again that he doesn't care what Trump does or says as long as Trump cuts taxes and improves the economy. Nothing else means anything to him.

 

That is the definition of a selfish person. But you are right, that doesn't make him a bad person. We all have our faults. The truth is there are a lot of selfish people in the world. I don't really know if they are capable of changing. Being selfish isn't something you really do by choice. It's who you are.

 

I think you misjudge my purpose for being so high on Trump cutting taxes and improving the economy. It's not because I'm selfish and I stand to benefit the most from that. It's because I believe almost all problems stem from an ineffective economy and high tax rates burdening private individuals and businesses. It's not because I don't care about social issues or environmental problems. It's because I believe that if you were to cut taxes and open up opportunity for all individuals, we would see huge leaps as a whole society.

 

If you want to characterize me as selfish because you believe I am too focused on my own good, go ahead. I'm not going to tout my own character when it comes to policy, or pretend that I am interested in what other people do. That said, I try to be as objective as possible when it comes to advocating for policies that benefit everyone as a whole.

 

If your targeting of my character is intended to overshadow what policies I actually present, I'd argue it simply makes my position look better. If you believe that individuals are selfish, than you must also believe that individuals can be selfless. That's a huge part of why I advocate making the market as private as possible. The government can only select one option. They can only be selfish or selfless. Individuals can decide for themselves. For every dollar you take from a rich man who wants to save it, you're taking a dollar from a rich man who wants to be charitable.

 

To be fair and to make a contrasting point though... if what Cherry wants, a better economy and lower taxes, comes to fruition -- that helps over 300 million people. Most people

In this country feel a positive impact from those changes.

 

Yes it helps himself as well, but whether he wants or even cares about the other people is a little irrelevant. Because as mentioned, if what he wants happens, it helps more people than anything else. I just think it's a little hasty to call him selfish (even if he is) based off that alone.

 

Is being selfish the worst thing anyway? In an idea word, we could care and take care of everyone... but we don't live in an ideal world.

 

For example, I make sure my bills are paid, I have groceries, and I have anything else I want before donating to local PTOs or other oraganizatioms I've donated to in the past.... does that make me selfish? Maybe... but I fee I have to look out for me and mine before I can start worrying about and taking care of others.

 

Exactly. People are inconsistent. Some will look out for themselves, and others will look out for others. I believe that the larger the government is, the more muddled we get. The people who look out for themselves are able to feed off of a large government, and utilize it for ideas that aren't beneficial to the highest amount of people. While there are certainly those who use that power for good, I believe it's more effective to simply let the market decide those factors. In the end, I believe that lower taxes and a better economy with a smaller government are all essential to a freer and healthier society. Goods become cheaper. Jobs are more readily available. People can pursue things they desire easier.

 

Whether anyone wants to label me as an individual as selfish is irrelevant to the situation, because everyone pursuing different interests typically works out the best. The man who wants to donate can donate. The man who wants to save can save. The man who wants to blow his money on a jet ski can blow his money on a jet ski, and help the jet ski industry along the way.

 

Individuals looking out for their own interests (and by own, I mean any variety of interests they have) are simply too effective to be replaced by governmental programs allocating resources or limiting the right of individuals to act as they choose, assuming they aren't actively harming others (and we can have that debate about climate change around this idea of harming others).

 

 

I didn't call him selfish based on that idea alone. If someone admits they are selfish (as he has), I'm probably going to take his or her word for it.

 

But I also don't need to see an admission because it's a clear pattern in his posts. He wouldn't need to admit it for someone to see that he's selfish. And knowing that he's a selfish person explains a lot of his posts and the content of them.

 

Why do you think I stopped engaging with him in these threads? It's really a waste of my time because he and I are on totally different wavelengths. I have family members just like him. A non-selfish person really doesn't make any progress discussing issues with a selfish person. I am quite sure you have probably noticed this in your own life, too, when you encounter someone who is very selfish.

 

The only way to win those battles is to avoid them.

 

This is an excuse to avoid discussion. If you engage me in an actual debate about our ideas, I'm more than happy to express my own. If I'm being a sarcastic shithead, call me out on it and ask me to be more substantive. I know I can be insufferable at times.

 

If you believe I am selfish, than ignore making this personal at all. Just debate policy. I'm more than happy to defend my positions without being personal.

 

 

 

 

The issue isn't a lack of understanding. I understand full well how a selfish person views the world.

 

Actually, the understanding is what inhibits healthy conversations that actually get somewhere. When I talk to a selfish person, it just makes me realize even more how much I dislike interacting with them.

 

You can only give so many chances before you realize it just isn't working.

 

And I think maybe that's one of the reasons why Trump won anyway. (trying to steer back on topic here)

 

People have given this government time after time chance after chance to prove itself. To prove that it works for everyone and not just the wealthy donors. To prove that this time might be different. It never happens.

 

It's not going to happen with Trump either, but at least I get why people thought it might. People wanted change so badly that they hit their friends, families, and political opposites over the head with the nearest Trump-like object.

 

You know what? This is going to sound crazy coming from me, but here goes: I am glad Trump won.

 

How? Why? Sarge, don't you hate Trump and laugh at all the retarded shit he says and does? Damn right I do.

 

But Trump winning proved that people are fed up and that they will look to anyone they can find to try to make a difference. I think that bodes well for the future. Many of these same people now regret their votes. Trump is making a mess, and it's only going to get worse. Isn't that how a problem gets fixed anyway? Most of the time things get worse before they get better.

 

This is probably an incredibly optimistic view, I'll admit. Trump was a bad change, but at least the people tried. They really tried. There was a ton of divisiveness in this election. The personal insults and ending of friendships is bad, but stark differences in opinion can only be good. Even the things we disagree with deserve to be out in the open.

 

By the way, I hope it's clear that I agree with your post quite a bit.

 

Again, I think you're simply misinterpreting my positions. I'm a huge advocate of getting money out of politics and fixing our current government. I believe that's one of the most selfish groups around given how quick they are to hold hands with big business and advocate for policies that harm the American consumer. It's clear that the American people are fed up with political climate. Now it's just a matter of figuring out what works best for everyone. Some people believe it can be done by changing who is in power. Others want large cuts and a lot of transparency. It just depends. The end goal is the same.

 

Well there are certain things that we can all agree on which is good. I notice Cherry would like to get money out of politics. Maybe he would support rank choice voting too since he seems to lean more libertarian. Seems like we also don't want to go to war with anyone and everyone. I think we can say that's an opinion of myself, blots, JD, Sarge and damn near everyone else. Just not being at war all the time would help tremendously. Plus it's nice to not murder hundreds of thousands of civilians and create a world wide refugee crisis. It would be nice if we could get together on that kind of stuff and iron out the rest later but all we're doing here is talking anyway ha.

 

I would certainly like to see rank choice voting. I'm definitely leaning a lot more libertarian over anything else. I am hard on the right, but I stray as far as possible from government interference. Again, also largely isolationist from a military perspective. I think having nuclear arms is enough to deter any major conflicts, so really only special forces and niche areas of the military are necessary. The Syrian refugee crisis was largely created by funding rebel groups and trying to change the political climate of other regions across the globe, which has proven to be ineffective time and time again.

[blotsfan 2,112]

That is the definition of a selfish person. But you are right, that doesn't make him a bad person. We all have our faults. The truth is there are a lot of selfish people in the world. I don't really know if they are capable of changing. Being selfish isn't something you really do by choice. It's who you are.

 

Yes it does. I don't give a shit how honest you are about it. If you believe that we should enact policies that actively harm people (in a real way, not in a "now i cant afford a fourth yacht" way) just because it makes you better off, you're a bad person.

 

Cherry has said countless times he doesn't care what policies are enacted against black people, LGBTQ people, muslim people, etc if it means Trump lowers taxes. So Cherry, I got a hypothetical for you: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would be opposed to making slavery legal in the US again, despite the fact that it would remove a lot of direct competition for the field you're going into, and would most likely make prices cheaper.* So this is a case where wrong actions to help you is not worth it. Well then, I have to ask where is the line with you? At what point does removing rights from people that aren't you stop being worth it for the sake of letting you take home a little more money each month?

 

 

*If this assumption is incorrect then please leave TGP and the human race forever.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Investing in clean energy is something that will pay HUGE dividends in the future and we can afford to invest in it. Not only is it morally and environmentally sound but it's something that could put us at the forefront of the energy market in a much more meaningful way than just being the biggest consumers because in reality we're not going to keep being the biggest consumers as countries like India and China develop and it could have a huge impact on everything, even the value of our currency. Instead of going to war or using other countries as proxies to fight wars against our enemies, spewing TRILLIONS of dollars to secure our fossil fuel interests, we should be looking to the future. The problem with capitalism is that it is so very short sighted in that it's focus on profit RIGHT NOW above all else that it neglects to prepare for 10, 15, 20 years down the road. It's definitely feasible to alter our energy strategies.

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

Yes it does. I don't give a shit how honest you are about it. If you believe that we should enact policies that actively harm people (in a real way, not in a "now i cant afford a fourth yacht" way) just because it makes you better off, you're a bad person.

 

Cherry has said countless times he doesn't care what policies are enacted against black people, LGBTQ people, muslim people, etc if it means Trump lowers taxes. So Cherry, I got a hypothetical for you: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would be opposed to making slavery legal in the US again, despite the fact that it would remove a lot of direct competition for the field you're going into, and would most likely make prices cheaper.* So this is a case where wrong actions to help you is not worth it. Well then, I have to ask where is the line with you? At what point does removing rights from people that aren't you stop being worth it for the sake of letting you take home a little more money each month?

 

 

*If this assumption is incorrect then please leave TGP and the human race forever.

Lol dude, the kid isn't a piece of shit or anything. He's still developing his political views. He's still learning shit. By the time Cherry is our age he could have a totally different point of view. Could be exactly the same or largely the same, but you're the one who is being an asshole bro. I think Cherry is just wrong, but his intentions are in the right place. He just thinks that the free market solves the most problems for most people and it gives everybody an equal opportunity or as equal as possible to succeed and compete. Again, I fervently disagree with him and think it's an naive point of view, but it doesn't mean he's a bad person.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Lol dude, the kid isn't a piece of shit or anything. He's still developing his political views. He's still learning shit. By the time Cherry is our age he could have a totally different point of view. Could be exactly the same or largely the same, but you're the one who is being an asshole bro. I think Cherry is just wrong, but his intentions are in the right place. He just thinks that the free market solves the most problems for most people and it gives everybody an equal opportunity or as equal as possible to succeed and compete. Again, I fervently disagree with him and think it's an naive point of view, but it doesn't mean he's a bad person.

 

The problem with saying that is the complete lack of culpability for your thoughts. The problem with that is that it works both ways. If he is so young and naive that people should pay him no mind when he says something dumb, the reciprocal has to be given the same weight. So really when you say he is just young and dumb and using the former to absolve the latter, you nerf everything he says and now none of it can be taken at face value and there is no burden for critical thinking either way and all of his opinions are meaningless in that scenario,.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I think it's possible to disagree or even debate with someone without saying they're a bad person though. idk maybe I'm nuts. Most people think they're the good guys.There isn't a very high percentage of sociopaths out there so people generally find was to justify and validate their beliefs. We all do really.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I think it's possible to disagree or even debate with someone without saying they're a bad person though. idk maybe I'm nuts. Most people think they're the good guys.There isn't a very high percentage of sociopaths out there so people generally find was to justify and validate their beliefs. We all do really.

 

Oh most definitely, at least I would hope so. Somewhere at some point in time Americans got told that it is impossible for 2 opposing views to both be right. The best example s the gun debate where the left says we have a gun problem, and the right says we have a mental health crisis in this country, it is not the guns' fault. Republicans and Democrats will go round and round about this and they are both right...but they are so convinced there can only be one solution. It is the funniest, yet most heartbreaking thing to watch in the world. Both parties that lead our nation are a collection of the stupidest motherfuckers we could find...which says what about the electorate. I am still hoping for an asteroidal impact soon and press the reset button on this place.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Ngata_Chance