Trump Regime thread.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Yea, I gotta admit I am honestly not a fan of blots' style of talking to Cherry.

 

But blots has been shook as hell since day one and continues to be, so.

[blotsfan 2,112]

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.

No, he is a piece of shit. I was actually similar to Cherry at that age, and I was unquestionably a piece of shit. If your political philosophy is "fuck everyone else, I got mine" then you're a piece of shit. You can rationalize it however you want, but its true. For people that complain about "political correctness" so much, trump supporters sure seem to dislike when people tell it like it is when it comes to their bullshit. If Cherry stops holding such repulsive views, I won't call him out for it anymore. Until then, I see no reason to sugarcoat things just because he's young. No one did for me until I learned my lesson.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Blots, I don't think you learned your lesson.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

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.

 

You should re-read what my last two posts said, because they both express why I believe the free market is the most valuable resource we have to creating equality of opportunity and increased standard of living for all peoples. If I am indeed advocating policies that you believe would actively harm massive amounts of people, then address the position I take and let's have a discussion about it.

 

I explained repeatedly in my last two posts that while I value my own well-being over the well-being of any random individual, I don't let that play a role in policy debates. I believe that the free market and limited regulation is the best for society as a whole, and calling me selfish simply skirts over my policy positions and allows you to rage about my character.

 

I don't care about the policies enacted against minorities as long as they are not infringing upon rights, which I do not believe any of them have. I asked you what policies he has actually put in place to limit the rights of minority groups and you blatantly ignored the question outside of, "Well he temporarily stopped Muslim immigration". I value the rights of individuals to be free from discrimination by the state. I also believe that the state is the primary source of discrimination, and has proven to do nothing but harm minorities when actions are placed to alter their social circumstances. Look at the damage done by the state intervening in housing for minorities in the 50's. The state should not have the power to practice discrimination, or else it will practice discrimination. Do not confuse my desire for a good economy and lower taxes with a disagreement on the necessity of liberty. The rights of every citizen to life, liberty, and property should not be infringed upon by the state.

 

This is a silly question. If slavery removes competition from my field and makes it easier for me to get a job, then I'm an asshole for not wanting to compete and earn my job. I already slammed intervention with the free market, so why would I support a market that is clearly unbalanced and unfair? The purpose of the free market is to allow fair competition for all and let those who work the hardest/have the most talent get the biggest piece of the pie. The more you fuck with the market (see: introducing slavery so select groups can benefit) the further down the shitter you're going to get. Modern society is dominated by shady dealings and a mindset of "You scratch my back and I scratch yours".

 

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.

 

I disagree that we will be going to wars over fossil fuel interests, and if we do it would be largely because the state is intervening too much. If we were to begin running low on fossil fuels in a free market we would see alternatives rise as a means of filling the gap that overuse of fossil fuels have opened up for us. The question is, who would drag us into the unnecessary wars? It's proven time and time again that the American public can and will be dragged into unnecessary wars, if the state is able to benefit from the results of the war. Whether it be political power that is gained, or actual material wealth. It's wrong to label capitalism is an entire entity, because again you're looking at a massive amount of varying goals and interests, whereas the state is really only effective at pursuing one goal or interest. Someone who sees the profitability of clean energy would begin to invest in it, and as it grabs more support we will see a push for clean energy. That's the model of capitalism, and that's how it has been since the early days of industrialization. New products and ideas drive forward the economy, and things continually improve.

 

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,.

 

I think everyone who is willing to write off my political opinions due to my age is underestimating the level of research and thought I have put into my opinions. While they may be viewed as misguided, I would like to think I'm certainly capable of presenting valid points and arguments. They would be just as readily available from many free market advocates that share the same thoughts that I do, so I don't think it would be difficult to find a copy of my views. Love it or hate it, my opinions shouldn't be written off as naivety. We've all experienced life differently, and because of that we all have varying worldviews and thoughts on how things should be handled. It's a matter of just finding a middle ground.

 

No, he is a piece of shit. I was actually similar to Cherry at that age, and I was unquestionably a piece of shit. If your political philosophy is "fuck everyone else, I got mine" then you're a piece of shit. You can rationalize it however you want, but its true. For people that complain about "political correctness" so much, trump supporters sure seem to dislike when people tell it like it is when it comes to their bullshit. If Cherry stops holding such repulsive views, I won't call him out for it anymore. Until then, I see no reason to sugarcoat things just because he's young. No one did for me until I learned my lesson.

 

Are you intentionally skipping over everything I've written on this thread in the last couple days? Because I feel like you've completely blown past everything I've posted without giving it a second thought. I've highlighted my stances rather clearly, and your response has been to call me a piece of shit and question my character. I'm not going to debate my character and moral values, I'm asking to you to refute my positions when it comes to policy. I've stated multiple times that while I do care about my own well-being, I believe capitalism is the best means of attaining good results for others as well.

 

We're not debating political correctness. We're talking about the fact you're attacking my character and targeting me despite obviously having no reason to other than just being angry about Trump. You think I agree with everything Trump does? You think I'm pulling Phil's position and supporting Trump to be a troll? I voted Trump because I prefer what he presented to what Hillary Clinton presented. If I have the option between taking a belligerent man who has no filter but will help the economy or a woman who is bought off by special interests and will drag the middle class into the dirt, that's an easy choice for me to make. I'm not offended because you're being politically incorrect. I'm offended because you're being a cunt.

 

Repulsive views? When it comes to policy, I've been one of the most composed and descriptive people in this thread when asked to explain myself. If my views are repulsive in your eyes, then I think you have some serious vision problems. I'm not Alt-Right. I'm not advocating for the stripping of rights of any minorities. I'm about as die-hard a libertarian as you can get. I'm in favor of legalizing drugs. I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm in favor of abortion.

 

My entire position stems from a distaste for the ineffectiveness of the state and the inequality it so often brings. Is that a repulsive position? Is it repulsive to dislike the state controlling individuals, whether it be a left-wing or a right-wing state? Is it repulsive to value liberty and the rights of individuals to make their own decisions? Because that's what my position is, and if you believe otherwise you are either ignoring what I've posted or just want to paint a target to shoot at.

 

The beautiful thing is that I believe free market policies not only help myself the best, but help everyone else the best. Two birds with one stone.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Chernobyl426

[oochymp 2,393]

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.

I think you have far too much faith in the market's ability to look beyond immediate payout, this feels extremely relevant:

[Cherry 1,302]

I think you have far too much faith in the market's ability to look beyond immediate payout, this feels extremely relevant:

 

I think it's a tough nut to crack as a whole, because it's factoring in a lot of things to the way to deal with climate change. The common misconception that capitalism is short-sighted can be written off quite easily in my opinion though. Is there not interest in clean energy? Are there not companies right now that are investing in clean energy as a way of profiting long-term? The idea that capitalism doesn't account for things 15-20 years down the road is just simply false. Almost any business will account for plans down the road. People creating new companies will account for things down the road. That's how companies get started up. There is a demand for something, and companies gradually take their place in the market and compete to fill demand. The demand for clean energy is there, and will continue to rise as we get further down the line with our current energy producing methods.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

In completely unimportant and trivial news -- Milo's book was canceled and he has resigned from Breitbart.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Cherry, don't you think the future of the planet and everyone living on it is a little too important to just wait and see if things shake out the way you think?

 

This isn't an ordinary issue. We're talking about the possible extinction of the human race if we don't change things soon. Honestly, we should have had clean energy 5 years ago.

 

Just this once, I think we need to say fuck everything else, it's time to work together to save this planet. Time is running out. 20 years is too late. We've already lost more than 30% of the polar ice caps.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean we'll be dead in 20 years. What I'm saying is that the earth has already suffered tremendous damage due to climate change. Damage that we can't reverse. We can only stop more damage from occurring.

 

Even if we had perfectly clean energy today, the earth's atmosphere and, most importantly, the climate of our physical earth, have been altered forever. Now add 20 more years of damage on top of that. I truly hope I am not the only person frightened by that image in my mind.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Sarge

[Cherry 1,302]

Cherry, don't you think the future of the planet and everyone living on it is a little too important to just wait and see if things shake out the way you think?

 

This isn't an ordinary issue. We're talking about the possible extinction of the human race if we don't change things soon. Honestly, we should have had clean energy 5 years ago.

 

Just this once, I think we need to say fuck everything else, it's time to work together to save this planet. Time is running out. 20 years is too late. We've already lost more than 30% of the polar ice caps.

 

Edit: Just to clarify, I don't mean we'll be dead in 20 years. What I'm saying is that the earth has already suffered tremendous damage due to climate change. Damage that we can't reverse. We can only stop more damage from occurring.

 

Even if we had perfectly clean energy today, the earth's atmosphere and, most importantly, the climate of our physical earth, have been altered forever. Now add 20 more years of damage on top of that. I truly hope I am not the only person frightened by that image in my mind.

 

I agree that we need to have action taken, but I just disagree in the way in which it should be taken. I think that the demand for clean energy and the feasibility of it on an economic level will begin to grow as we see cheaper alternatives to older forms of energy rise. That is going to be created by private enterprise, and not government action. If we were to just immediately start cutting down on usage of current energy methods we would see MASSIVE hits to the economy as a whole. We would also have to rely on other countries such as China and India to follow through and avoid using fossil fuels. It's not feasible to expect that kind of consistency across the globe, and it's not feasible to expect the government to create alternatives quicker than the market.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I don't get why it's impossible for the government and private entities to work together? Again this is no ordinary issue.

 

Maybe the government can give special tax breaks to companies who design, develop, and sell clean energy systems. Just an idea.

[Cherry 1,302]

I don't get why it's impossible for the government and private entities to work together? Again this is no ordinary issue.

 

Maybe the government can give special tax breaks to companies who design, develop, and sell clean energy systems. Just an idea.

 

Because then it allows the government to favor companies, which would lead to less competition in general. If one company is getting large subsidies and another is not, the company getting large subsidies would have a massive advantage and would naturally dominate the market. It's certainly one of the better options if we would like to go down that road, rather than blatant government funding of these programs. My concern would be on the willingness of the companies that receive subsidization to put in the same effort as a company that is not receiving subsidization would.

[seanbrock 1,684]

I mean, you are right that the government can favor one company over the other but it's more than one company that bids for the contracts. The same thing happens in the private sector all the time. People cut deals with people who they know, like and/or trust. I can see how you would be hesitant to accept that but it happens all the time on the local level with private contractors to build government buildings, do road construction etc.

 

 

 

I disagree that we will be going to wars over fossil fuel interests, and if we do it would be largely because the state is intervening too much. If we were to begin running low on fossil fuels in a free market we would see alternatives rise as a means of filling the gap that overuse of fossil fuels have opened up for us. The question is, who would drag us into the unnecessary wars? It's proven time and time again that the American public can and will be dragged into unnecessary wars, if the state is able to benefit from the results of the war. Whether it be political power that is gained, or actual material wealth. It's wrong to label capitalism is an entire entity, because again you're looking at a massive amount of varying goals and interests, whereas the state is really only effective at pursuing one goal or interest. Someone who sees the profitability of clean energy would begin to invest in it, and as it grabs more support we will see a push for clean energy. That's the model of capitalism, and that's how it has been since the early days of industrialization. New products and ideas drive forward the economy, and things continually improve.

Hold on, what? Dude, we have been going to war for fossil fuel interests for years. That's precisely why we've employed the Nation building foreign policy. The only reason the state is intervening is because those industries are so large that they can buy undue influence in the government and I really fail to see how a free market would prevent that. If anything a free market would say that money=speech. This is just not reality based man.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Holy shit. Cherry was 4 when we went to Iraq.

 

Suddenly this is all in perspective.

[blotsfan 2,112]

And here you go. Trump does something good. Enjoy while you can.

 

reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1601XE?

[Cherry 1,302]

I mean, you are right that the government can favor one company over the other but it's more than one company that bids for the contracts. The same thing happens in the private sector all the time. People cut deals with people who they know, like and/or trust. I can see how you would be hesitant to accept that but it happens all the time on the local level with private contractors to build government buildings, do road construction etc.

 

Hold on, what? Dude, we have been going to war for fossil fuel interests for years. That's precisely why we've employed the Nation building foreign policy. The only reason the state is intervening is because those industries are so large that they can buy undue influence in the government and I really fail to see how a free market would prevent that. If anything a free market would say that money=speech. This is just not reality based man.

 

I completely agree, even in the free market we see deals get cut based on the connections people make. That said, it still allows for competition if you are going to have deals being made that bolster what companies can do. There would still be companies competing to have a better product, even though there is a struggle for power in the market.

 

You missed the second part of my post.

 

and if we do it would be largely because the state

 

 

The state interest in fossil fuels, or in fuel in general has been the only way we've been dragged into conflict in recent years.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Chernobyl426

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

I think it's a tough nut to crack as a whole, because it's factoring in a lot of things to the way to deal with climate change. The common misconception that capitalism is short-sighted can be written off quite easily in my opinion though. Is there not interest in clean energy? Are there not companies right now that are investing in clean energy as a way of profiting long-term? The idea that capitalism doesn't account for things 15-20 years down the road is just simply false. Almost any business will account for plans down the road. People creating new companies will account for things down the road. That's how companies get started up. There is a demand for something, and companies gradually take their place in the market and compete to fill demand. The demand for clean energy is there, and will continue to rise as we get further down the line with our current energy producing methods.

 

I think you need to look into the science of climate change. What we need, right fucking now, are severe limitations on fossil fuels, something that will, yes, hurt the market and business in the short term, but will prevent the planet from warming more than it already is going to.

 

You stated that you think the market will self-correct prior to reaching the point of no return. I think you are, quite literally, gambling the human race on capitalism- a system which, at least up to now, has shown zero evidence that it will in fact fully self-correct in time.

 

The world is already nearly at 1.3 degrees warming over the norm, (celsius), no matter what we do. Even if we were to somehow stop all emissions immediately, it is too late to prevent that amount of warming, according to what scientific consensus predicts. That is a manageable increase, but it will still result in a sea level rise that will take some islands off the map.

 

Even with realistic and severe restrictions, 2 degrees is probably an optimistic model for where we can hold the global temperature. While again, yes, this would not result in human extinction, sea levels will rise even further. This is probably our best case scenario, with immediate and severe restrictions on fossil fuel usage. The market will not do this. The government would have to step in.

 

If we do continue on our current path, then by the year 2100ish the world will be a full four degrees celsius warmer than average, which would be catastrophic, to put it mildly.

 

The longer we wait to do something, the worse the consequences will be.

 

Do you really want to gamble with something that has the potential to have such disastrous consequences if we wait too long?

Edited February 22, 2017 by Thanatos

[seanbrock 1,684]

The state interest in fossil fuels, or in fuel in general has been the only way we've been dragged into conflict in recent years.

Why do you think the state is so interested in fossil fuel?

[Cherry 1,302]

Why do you think the state is so interested in fossil fuel?

 

Huge demand for it and the Bush administration wasn't afraid to go after another country's oil reserves for the sake of benefiting donors would be my guess.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

I think you need to look into the science of climate change. What we need, right fucking now, are severe limitations on fossil fuels, something that will, yes, hurt the market and business in the short term, but will prevent the planet from warming more than it already is going to.

 

You stated that you think the market will self-correct prior to reaching the point of no return. I think you are, quite literally, gambling the human race on capitalism- a system which, at least up to now, has shown zero evidence that it will in fact fully self-correct in time.

 

The world is already nearly at 1.3 degrees warming over the norm, (celsius), no matter what we do. Even if we were to somehow stop all emissions immediately, it is too late to prevent that amount of warming, according to what scientific consensus predicts. That is a manageable increase, but it will still result in a sea level rise that will take some islands off the map.

 

Even with realistic and severe restrictions, 2 degrees is probably an optimistic model for where we can hold the global temperature. While again, yes, this would not result in human extinction, sea levels will rise even further. This is probably our best case scenario, with immediate and severe restrictions on fossil fuel usage. The market will not do this. The government would have to step in.

 

If we do continue on our current path, then by the year 2100ish the world will be a full four degrees celsius warmer than average, which would be catastrophic, to put it mildly.

 

The longer we wait to do something, the worse the consequences will be.

 

Do you really want to gamble with something that has the potential to have such disastrous consequences if we wait too long?

 

My argument is that the market itself is a better means of producing alternatives to help transition to cleaner energy than government investment. I'd have to definitely look more into how subsidization would work without tipping the balance, but I would be more in favor of that than anything else.

 

I think if you severely restricted fossil fuel usage effective immediately the economy would essentially collapse though. That's why I'm opposed to serious restrictions.

[Warhorse 132]

Posted but changed my mind.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Warhorse

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

My argument is that the market itself is a better means of producing alternatives to help transition to cleaner energy than government investment. I'd have to definitely look more into how subsidization would work without tipping the balance, but I would be more in favor of that than anything else.

 

I think if you severely restricted fossil fuel usage effective immediately the economy would essentially collapse though. That's why I'm opposed to serious restrictions.

 

What evidence do you have the market is a better means? We don't have time to wait for the market to figure this out.

 

Economic collapse > End of the world as we know it.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

This is what I'm talking about, Cherry. You're literally saying the economy is more important than preserving our planet. If you're not saying that, you are sure as hell implying it.

 

You don't see that as just a bit selfish? Tell you what. You and your family can have all the money you want. Your grandchildren will never live to spend it. That's the reality of climate change. Sometimes the economy needs to take a back seat, dude.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I think a lot of people over exaggerate the impact of Climate Change.

I am not saying it doesn't exist or it isn't hurting the planet. I think the fact that it's happening is pretty well agreed upon, but how fast and how drastic is a much bigger and more debated topic. There are climate change scientists who claims that we are actually cooling off, there are others who say there has been a pause in warming, others claim that official date has been manipulated to push a political agenda .

 

Different scientists and experts said Mt. Kilimanjaro would be ice / snow free before now... There have been studies done to actually show that the ice is not anywhere near melting and will not be "gone" for a very long time.

 

They also made claims about the Arctic melting before 2100 while other climate scientists say.. Yes, there may be less overall ice coverage, but there is nothing to worry about at this time.

 

Climate science is very inexact and part of the reason we can't come to an agreement on how to adequately deal with it.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Utterly and completely wrong. There is an overwhelming consensus on climate change and its effects, and there are no serious climate change studying scientific bodies that actually think we are cooling off, since that would be idiotic and directly contrary to observable fact.

 

The "pause in global warming" has been thoroughly debunked over and over. It's taking a graph out of context to highlight a small area. Yet it constantly rears its head, probably because climate change skeptics have no real evidence to support their position.

 

Only far right wing news organizations such as Fox News, with some help from the New York Post and the Washington Times- which I see has been linked- and those with large ties to oil try to push this narrative. Actual scientists are overwhelmingly convinced that climate change is serious, real, and that humanity is a large factor, at the very least, in global climate change.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Utterly and completely wrong. There is an overwhelming consensus on climate change and its effects, and there are no serious climate change studying scientific bodies that actually think we are cooling off, since that would be idiotic and directly contrary to observable fact.

 

Only far right wing blogs (and Fox News), and those with large ties to oil try to push this narrative. Actual scientists are overwhelmingly convinced that climate change is serious, real, and that humanity is a large factor, at the very least, in global climate change.

 

Please give me these unbiased reports that over 51% of all scientists agree to be true. I'd love to read them.

 

EDIT:

 

Give me the impacts of climate change. I don't care to read about scientists agreeing that it is happening, that it's human made, etc.. I already conceded that in my previous post. I want specific data, predictions, years, ETC that a vast majority of scientists all agree on.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Favre4Ever