Republic vs democracy vs anarchy
- This topic has 179 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:
so its a crime to hire people that want to see his agenda succeed? Don't really see the point of linking this 'progressive' website
The point is the actual politics of those appointees, CP, which yet again draws into question your belief that Trump is acting in the interests of the majority of ordinary Americans and not simply camoflaging a bunch of corporate lobbyists.The point of raising the issue of Goldman Sachs is that it brings into question the accusations he made against Ted Cruz and Hilary Clinton that they were in the pockets of Goldman Sachs. Just who is serving Goldman Sachs?This is not about the politics of envy but politics of class….He is a representative of the capitalist class…or at least a sizable section of it. When push comes to shove, he will carry out the interests of the ruling class and not as you hope, ordinary Americans.I say that it clear to see now…but i am confident that you too will recognise that fact later.What is that saying from Mark Twain? “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”I think you are perhaps in a state of denial. How long that remains, depends on how deluded you are
USAID face cuts of 28%. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would lose the most, taking a hit of 31.4% The Superfund program, which manages and attempts to clean up hundreds of sites poisoned with lead, asbestos and dioxins, would see its cash cut by $330m Health and human services would face the biggest cut of all: $12.6bn or 16.2%. Agriculture loses 21% of its budget, Labour 21% and transport 13% But Eisenhower's military/industrial complex where defence department spending would rise by $54bn (£44bn) or 10%, including $2bn for nuclear weapons, while homeland security would get a 6.8% boost. The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and its research labs, would gain $1.4bn. People not bombs….or do you prefer bullets to butter
you talk in very vague terms and it seems you don't really understand what you are saying. You aren't going to convert people to your ideology by relentlessly demonizing capitalism. You are starting to remind me of a religious fanatic that preeches the end of the world if you don't conform to their set of beliefs. sorry but I can't keep hitting my head against a brick wall anymore
If anyone has been vague, it has been yourself, CP. You are projecting your own flaws on to me.I have been very specific in my responses to you, expressing a view and then backing them up with supporting statements. That is how honest debate takes place. The reason you find you are hitting your head against a brick wall is because you simply don't know how to answer and it is yourself who is resorting to repeating the same old assertions without back-up justificationsFrom the beginning of this thread you have received forthright and direct answers and because the conclusions are not the ones you wish to hear you grasp at straws in your accusations against my replies to you. Go back to the beginning of this topic and re-read everything that has been posted, perhaps that might enlighten you.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If anyone has been vague, it has been yourself, CP. You are projecting your own flaws on to me.I have been very specific in my responses to you, expressing a view and then backing them up with supporting statements. That is how honest debate takes place. The reason you find you are hitting your head against a brick wall is because you simply don't know how to answer and it is yourself who is resorting to repeating the same old assertions without back-up justificationsFrom the beginning of this thread you have received forthright and direct answers and because the conclusions are not the ones you wish to hear you grasp at straws in your accusations against my replies to you. Go back to the beginning of this topic and re-read everything that has been posted, perhaps that might enlighten you.just try to comprehend other ideas other than your own. its all i can say
Capitalist Pig wrote:just try to comprehend other ideas other than your own. its all i can sayIt is you and not alan with cognitive dissonance
The betrayal of Trump's supporters and voters by him goes on and on and on…Recall the frequency of his claims during the election campaign to be on the side of the miners.Trump has now proposed eliminating funding for economic development programs supporting laid-off coal miners and others in Appalachia, which will would cut funds to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the U.S. Economic Development Administration. 400 of the 420 counties where ARC operates in voted for Trump.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-appalachia-idUSKBN16N2VF
Vin wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:just try to comprehend other ideas other than your own. its all i can sayIt is you and not alan with cognitive dissonance
how so?
alanjjohnstone wrote:The betrayal of Trump's supporters and voters by him goes on and on and on…Recall the frequency of his claims during the election campaign to be on the side of the miners.Trump has now proposed eliminating funding for economic development programs supporting laid-off coal miners and others in Appalachia, which will would cut funds to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the U.S. Economic Development Administration. 400 of the 420 counties where ARC operates in voted for Trump.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-appalachia-idUSKBN16N2VFmore money spent by the government does not translate into more jobs all of the time. That being said trump is getting rid of regulations that are hampering us energy industries. why don't you mention that too? oh thats right because that would crush your narrative
CP, i simply focussed on the topic at hand, your claim that Trump represents the ordinary American and discussing his energy policies would mean exposing his lip-service to climate change policies by continual support for the fossil-fuel industries. But since you insist, try reading all of this articlehttps://qz.com/851080/trumps-promise-to-coal-miners-will-hurt-jobs-in-other-republican-states/or this onehttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/nifty-map-shows-why-coal-power-struggling-trump-notwithstandingOr thishttps://fee.org/articles/trump-isnt-bringing-coal-back/As you are against government subsidies, i expect you to denounce the money given to the fossil fuel industries.https://www.benzinga.com/news/17/02/9106510/coal-companies-lobby-for-clean-energy-subsidiesThis from the business sector media itself
Quote:During his campaign and after, Trump expressed a commitment to reviving the coal industry. While his America First Energy Plan identifies a focus on clean coal technology, it is otherwise unclear what other specific actions the Trump administration would take to support the coal industry. But given that the implementation of clean coal technology will only add to the cost of using coal as a source fuel, it would be reasonable to expect some sort of subsidy or other incentive that would allow coal to be more competitive in the market. Increases in the price of natural gas could also make coal more cost-attractive and make it possible for coal to reclaim some lost market capacity.In other words, CP, "more money spent by the government does not translate into more jobs all of the time."…a lesson you are only so keen to teach us but something yourself don't wish to heed.But lets speak plain. Environmental regulations are not killing the coal industry – the realities of the capitalist energy market and competition from cheaper alternatives are. And Trump can do little to change that.
alanjjohnstone wrote:CP, i simply focussed on the topic at hand, your claim that Trump represents the ordinary American and discussing his energy policies would mean exposing his lip-service to climate change policies by continual support for the fossil-fuel industries. But since you insist, try reading all of this articlehttps://qz.com/851080/trumps-promise-to-coal-miners-will-hurt-jobs-in-other-republican-states/or this onehttp://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/nifty-map-shows-why-coal-power-struggling-trump-notwithstandingOr thishttps://fee.org/articles/trump-isnt-bringing-coal-back/As you are against government subsidies, i expect you to denounce the money given to the fossil fuel industries.https://www.benzinga.com/news/17/02/9106510/coal-companies-lobby-for-clean-energy-subsidiesThis from the business sector media itselfQuote:During his campaign and after, Trump expressed a commitment to reviving the coal industry. While his America First Energy Plan identifies a focus on clean coal technology, it is otherwise unclear what other specific actions the Trump administration would take to support the coal industry. But given that the implementation of clean coal technology will only add to the cost of using coal as a source fuel, it would be reasonable to expect some sort of subsidy or other incentive that would allow coal to be more competitive in the market. Increases in the price of natural gas could also make coal more cost-attractive and make it possible for coal to reclaim some lost market capacity.In other words, CP, "more money spent by the government does not translate into more jobs all of the time."…a lesson you are only so keen to teach us but something yourself don't wish to heed.But lets speak plain. Environmental regulations are not killing the coal industry – the realities of the capitalist energy market and competition from cheaper alternatives are. And Trump can do little to change that.
since you have reached your own finite conclusion I don't think its worth dicussing this anymore. Like I said, its like beating your head against a brick wall. no matter what I say to counter your argument it won't matter because you have already reached a conclusion in your mind.
These are NOT MY conclusions, CP, but that of those who have studied the topic and are well-read in the field. Promises made to the miners for the sake of their votes simply cannot be kept and again it is not me saying that but people withing the industry saying it.I keep coming back at you with evidence not assertions and all you do is challenge the messenger and not question the statements.
alanjjohnstone wrote:These are NOT MY conclusions, CP, but that of those who have studied the topic and are well-read in the field. Promises made to the miners for the sake of their votes simply cannot be kept and again it is not me saying that but people withing the industry saying it.I keep coming back at you with evidence not assertions and all you do is challenge the messenger and not question the statements.not really, but you can continue to live in your elitest bubble I won't bother you
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.