Donald Trump

[Pcdunn]

Trust the Colorado electors to try and start something-- call them "Faithless electors" or "Hamilton electors", free speech and civil liberties flourish out here in the West.

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/01/skip...-donald-trump/

[John G]

Looks like Sarah Palin's not happy with Trump: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/03/po...ump/index.html.

I've never been a Sarah Palin fan, to say the least, however in this article she talks a great deal of sense. In fact, to be honest, I'm actually beginning to think that she would make a far better president than Trump!

[John G]

You know, it just amazes me how a guy can come along and, in so many words, say to people "Hey, I'm not part of the political establishment, so you know you can put your trust in Trump!" And millions of people actually believe it, notwithstanding the fact that he demonstrated his "trustworthy" credentials, during the presidential campaign, by making statements such as Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK!

Now for the reality. Even if Trump actually believed in his campaign promises, which I seriously doubt, he hasn't a hope of delivering on most of them. Take, for example, his ill-defined trillion-dollar infrastructure/bridges to nowhere plan. How on earth is he going to convince the private sector to pour their hard-earned cash into such an inevitable economic black hole? And on what part of Donald Trump Fantasy Island does Paul Ryan, a fiscal conservative, hand over a trillion dollars of taxpayers money for the same purpose?

And what about his government/taxpayer financed universal healthcare programme? As for the abandonment of laissez faire economies, in favour of hardline protectionism, well Herbert Hoover learned a very harsh lesson the last time that bit of craziness was attempted, and pro-business Republicans are not about to make the same mistake.

No, I foresee an awful lot of voters are about to learn a very harsh political lesson.

[Hunter]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57...b0a8e150257bc3

[John G]

Donald Trump's actions regarding Carrier surely set a terrible precedent for a president elect. How many other businesses will now seek to ransom the White House, by asking for a few million/billion dollars, on the grounds that they're also considering relocating business abroad? Of course, they could justify this on the basis that the government's giving away free cash, I'm just getting my share!

"But know that fundamentally, political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one business to do what politicians insist, versus establishing policy incentivizing our ENTIRE ethical economic engine to roar back to life, isn't the answer. Cajole only chosen one's on Main Street or Wall Street and watch lines stretch from Washington to Alaska of businesses threatening to bail unless taxpayers pony up." (Sarah Palin, December 2, 2016) http://www.youngcons.com/sarah-palin...ny-capitalism/

Methinks, there's at least one better Republican option for President than Donald J Trump. Electoral College please take note!

[Fleetwood Mac]

You know, it just amazes me how a guy can come along and, in so many words, say to people "Hey, I'm not part of the political establishment, so you know you can put your trust in Trump!" And millions of people actually believe it.

Except the Americans on this thread aren't actually saying that.

Quite clearly no one in the establishment can operate outside of the establishment's rules and regulations, but there is such a thing as extent and in the event you care to read then you'll find that extent is what is being placed before you in this thread.

If by some freak of nature you could lose the ego and consider for a moment that not everyone is stupid, as you would clearly like to believe, then you may arrive at the conclusion that just about anyone who has ever walked this planet is a better bet than Clinton, give or take a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and assorted lunatics.

No, I foresee an awful lot of voters are about to learn a very harsh political lesson.

I foresee your next post being equally pointless.

[John G]

Except the Americans on this thread aren't actually saying that.

Quite clearly no one in the establishment can operate outside of the establishment's rules and regulations, but there is such a thing as extent and in the event you care to read then you'll find that extent is what is being placed before you in this thread.

If by some freak of nature you could lose the ego and consider for a moment that not everyone is stupid, as you would clearly like to believe, then you may arrive at the conclusion that just about anyone who has ever walked this planet is a better bet than Clinton, give or take a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and assorted lunatics.



I foresee your next post being equally pointless.

As I think Abby once pointed out, Fleetwood Mac were a great band. You, however, are not great. I have not suggested that everyone who voted for Trump is stupid or deluded. As I noted in a previous post, I'm sure many people who supported him are under no such illusions, but determined that, for them, Clinton was an even worse choice. Just like the manufacturing worker I saw being interviewed before the election who stated that he was voting for Trump, "because at least with Trump I've got a chance." Nothing at all stupid or irrational about that.

However, I suspect that back on post-truth/ Brexit Fantasy Island little of this will make the slightest sense. Welcome to the world of Orwellian double think!

[Fleetwood Mac]

As I think Abby once pointed out, Fleetwood Mac were a great band. You, however, are not great. I have not suggested that everyone who voted for Trump is stupid or deluded. As I noted in a previous post, I'm sure many people who supported him are under no such illusions, but determined that, for them, Clinton was an even worse choice. Just like the manufacturing worker I saw being interviewed before the election who stated that he was voting for Trump, "because at least with Trump I've got a chance." Nothing at all stupid or irrational about that.

However, I suspect that back on post-truth/ Brexit Fantasy Island little of this will make the slightest sense. Welcome to the world of Orwellian double think!

As I suspected.

[Fleetwood Mac]

John Stuart Mill was not the father of "classic liberalism", that's absurd. In fact, the term didn't even exist at the time: Mill referred to himself simply as a "liberal."

It could be argued that Thomas Hobbes, a very conservative thinker, was the "father" of what subsequently became known as classic liberalism, although the main tenets of the philosophy were developed by enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume, William Robertson and Adam Smith- who uses the term "liberal" in the Wealth of Nations (1776). This was 83 years before Mill's major work on the subject, On Liberty (1859).

In fact, if anything JSM could be regarded as the father of social liberalism, or at least what became known as "new liberalism", as he deviated from the accepted liberal-line by arguing for a more interventionist state.

Is this straight from Wikipedia? Adam Smith is often cynically manipulated by people with a vested interest in claiming he was opposed to government intervention - so be careful in the event you're copying and pasting.

In fact, the so-called 'invisible hand' was only mentioned once by Smith in Wealth of Nations, and he used it in a context to oppose the division of labour rather than what is generally taught in schools today (i.e. as a means of opposing regulation).

The context was this: he felt that the division of labour would de-skill workers and so in any civilised society the government would have to intervene to prevent workers being condemned to repeating the same mechanical actions which would ultimately lead to ignorance. He was firmly in favour of regulation when it benefited the working man and against it when it benefited the elite. As was JSM.

[Ginger]

just about anyone who has ever walked this planet is a better bet than Clinton, give or take a Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and assorted lunatics.

This, exactly. I like Trump, and expect great things from him. Even if I didn't, though, Hillary frightens me. She'd committed vocally to doubling down on our insane and pointless Syrian policy*, even though that would almost certainly lead to military confrontation with Russia. I can easily see her getting us into a major war simply to prove that she's as tough as any man, and won't back down. What makes her more dangerous is that she subscribes to that theory that American military intervention is justified when we have no interests to protect, so long as we can pretend that we're actuated by grand moral principles.

* While Samantha Powers' A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide hasn't (yet) gotten as many people killed as Mein Kampf, it's made an impressive start. Had Hillary gotten into the oval office, it would have caught up real quick, IMHO.

[John G]

As I suspected.

A typical post-truth reply, straight out of the Donald Trump handbook. Just as I suspected. You see, we can both play this game!

[John G]

Is this straight from Wikipedia? Adam Smith is often cynically manipulated by people with a vested interest in claiming he was opposed to government intervention - so be careful in the event you're copying and pasting.

In fact, the so-called 'invisible hand' was only mentioned once by Smith in Wealth of Nations, and he used it in a context to oppose the division of labour rather than what is generally taught in schools today (i.e. as a means of opposing regulation).

The context was this: he felt that the division of labour would de-skill workers and so in any civilised society the government would have to intervene to prevent workers being condemned to repeating the same mechanical actions which would ultimately lead to ignorance. He was firmly in favour of regulation when it benefited the working man and against it when it benefited the elite. As was JSM.

Well, considering I have a politics degree I've no reason to resort to Wikipedia. Mind you, a more sensible reply this time,which I'll probably respond to when I've got more time. Maybe you're not a total Donald Trump acolyte after all!

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, considering I have a politics degree I've no reason to resort to Wikipedia. Mind you, a more sensible reply this time,which I'll probably respond to when I've got more time. Maybe you're not a total Donald Trump acolyte after all!

Adam Smith was a philosopher. I really shouldn't need to point this out, but it seems it has escaped your attention.

'Not quite sure what Donald Trump and Adam Smith have in common and why they should be placed on the same thread, and I suspect you have no idea either. The only difference being that you're the one placing them together for some unfathomable reason.

[Karl]

'Not quite sure what Donald Trump and Adam Smith have in common and why they should be placed on the same thread, and I suspect you have no idea either. The only difference being that you're the one placing them together for some unfathomable reason.

You tend to do this, twice on the same page now:

"Except the Americans on this thread aren't actually saying that."

No one was talking about Americans on this thread. He was talking about "millions" of Americans, which strongly suggests Americans in this thread was not the Americans he was talking about.

And now with Adam Smith, which no one has placed in context of Donald Trump, yet you claimed they did. A simple Ctrl-F search revealed the entire context: Classical Liberalism. You first claimed that John Stuart Mill was the father of Classical Liberalism. For all I know he was. But John G. disagreed with this, offering the following instead:

It could be argued that Thomas Hobbes, a very conservative thinker, was the "father" of what subsequently became known as classic liberalism, although the main tenets of the philosophy were developed by enlightenment thinkers such as David Hume, William Robertson and Adam Smith- who uses the term "liberal" in the Wealth of Nations (1776). This was 83 years before Mill's major work on the subject, On Liberty (1859)."

And that was all he said about Adam Smith. But then you had a hang-up about Adam Smith, and now you are claiming he was somehow comparing Adam Smith and Donald Trump, and I just don't see how you managed to think that.

As for your question, why Adam Smith and Donald Trump should even be placed in the same thread together, the answer is for the exact same reason that John Stuart Mill and Donald Trump should be placed in the same thread together.

[John G]

Adam Smith was a philosopher. I really shouldn't need to point this out, but it seems it has escaped your attention.

'Not quite sure what Donald Trump and Adam Smith have in common and why they should be placed on the same thread, and I suspect you have no idea either. The only difference being that you're the one placing them together for some unfathomable reason.

Now I think it's you that's relying on Wikipedia! Adam Smith was a pioneer political economist (although he was also a philosopher). In fact, a leading economic think tank is known as the Adam Smith Institute-that should give you a bit of a clue! As should the fact that his major work was titled, "An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

And as Karl has quite rightly pointed out on his excellent post, I never suggested Adam Smith and Donald Trump had anything in common. In fact, if anything the reverse is true, as Adam Smith was a strong advocate of free trade, whereas Donald Trump has protectionist instincts. Incidentally, Herbert Hoover, another Republican president was a protectionist and, as has already been explained to you, this had disasterous implications for the American economy; whereas Roosevelt, perhaps the most interventionist president America has ever had, was opposed to protectionism.

Frankly, your posts are becoming more and more muddled, although I'm beginning to see why you're a Donald Trump supporter!

You might want to read these articles, which will give you a basic understanding of the issues: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...istory-Matters http://what-when-how.com/the-america...t-tariff-1932/