Donald Trump and What You Need to Know

[kcchiefs6465]

The same guy who said execute Snowden?


No, we are not on the same page. Trump wants to stay in the middle east forever because oil. Is there anyone besides perhaps Lindsey Graham who is this bad openly?

Foreign policy is a huge reason to not vote for him.


And on gun control:


I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.--Donald Trump


And on Iran:


America's primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran's nuclear program must be stopped--by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists. Better now than later!

Pres. Bush authorized a covert program to "undermine the electrical and computer systems" at Natanz, Iran's uranium enrichment facility. What came out of that initiative was the Stuxnet cyber worm. It was unleashed against Iran's nuclear centrifuges and made them spin so fast they destroyed themselves. The operation was very successful and destroyed roughly 1/5 of Iran's centrifuges. No one knows for sure how many months or years we put back on Iran's nuclear clock. Some analysts say 6 months, others 1 or 2 years, But that's the point: the clock is still ticking.--Donald Trump



And on North Korea:

And on North Korea:


[In a Trump presidency], North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadhafi in 1986. I don’t think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump



On China:


China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use for the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have a president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to keep them from screwing us at every turn.--Donald Trump



On the prison population:


Criminals are often returned to society because of forgiving judges. This has to stop. We need to hold judges more accountable, and the best way to make that happen is to elect them. Whey they hurt us, we need to make sure we can vote them out of the job. The rest of us need to rethink prisons and punishment. The next time you hear someone saying there are too many people in prison, ask them how many thugs they’re willing to relocate to their neighborhood. The answer: None.--Donald Trump



On capital punishment:


I can’t believe that executing criminals doesn’t have a deterrent effect. To point out the extreme, 100% of the people who are executed never commit another crime. And it seems self-evident (we can’t put numbers to this) that a lot of people who might otherwise commit a capital crime are convinced not to because they know there’s a chance they could die for it.--Donald Trump



On oil for the sponsoring of coups around the world:


Qadaffi is dead and gone. So what? We have spent more than $1 billion on the Libya operation. And what are we getting in return? A huge bill, that's what. It's incredible how foolish the Obama administration is. Libya has enormous oil reserves. When the so-called "rebels" came to NATO (which is really the U.S.) and asked for help to defeat Qadaffi, we should have said, "Sure, we don't like the guy either. We will help you take out Qadaffi. But in exchange, you give us 50 percent of your oil for the next twenty-five years to pay for our military support and to say thank you for the United States doing what you could never have done on your own." The "rebels" would have jumped at the offer and said yes.

Imagine the amount of oil we could have secured for America. Our policy should be: no oil, no military support.--Donald Trump


Anything not covered?

[Origanalist]

I'm sure more will come.

[kcchiefs6465]

Bump.

[kcchiefs6465]

Bump.

[kcchiefs6465]

Donald Trump and Eminent Domain
by ROBERT VERBRUGGEN April 19, 2011
A brief history. In a free market, there’s a pretty simple process for dealing with the situation that arises when one person covets another’s belongings: The coveter makes an offer to purchase them. If the offer is rebuffed, the coveter can make a new proposal, but he cannot simply take what he wants. It’s an effective way of recognizing the impracticality of the Tenth Commandment while enforcing the Eighth.

Donald Trump’s covetous nature is not in dispute, but what many may forget is that he’s no great respecter of the admonition not to steal, either: The man has a track record of using the government as a hired thug to take other people’s property.

This is called, of course, “eminent domain.” The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment allows the government to take private property for “public use,” so long as “just compensation” is paid. In the infamous 2005 Kelo decision, the Supreme Court held that “public use” could include, well, private use, so long as the new property owner paid more in taxes than the previous one. In other words, it allowed developers and the government to gang up on homeowners. The developer gets more land, the government gets more tax money. The only losers are the original owner and his property rights.

A decade and a half ago, it was fresh on everyone’s mind that Donald Trump is one of the leading users of this form of state-sanctioned thievery. It was all over the news. In perhaps the most-remembered example, John Stossel got the toupéed one to sputter about how, if he wasn’t allowed to steal an elderly widow’s house to expand an Atlantic City casino, the government would get less tax money, and seniors like her would get less “this and that.” Today, however, it takes a push from the Club for Growth to remind us of Trump’s lack of respect for property rights.

The problem dates back to at least 1994. That year, Trump promised to turn Bridgeport, Conn., into“a national tourist destination by building a $350 million combined amusement park, shipping terminal and seaport village and office complex on the east side of the harbor,” reported the Hartford Courant. “At a press conference during which almost every statement contained the term ‘world class,’ Trump and Mayor Joseph Ganim lavished praise on one another and the development project and spoke of restoring Bridgeport to its glory days.”

The wrinkle? “Five businesses and the city-owned Pleasure Beach now occupy the land,” as the Courant put it. The solution? “The city would become a partner with Trump Connecticut Inc. and obtain the land through its powers of condemnation. Trump would in turn buy the land from the city.”

Here’s how the story concluded: “The entire development would cost the city nothing, Trump said, and no private homeowners would be affected because there are no dwellings on the land. Trump would own everything.”

That brings us to the story of the aforementioned elderly widow in Atlantic City, which starts at about the same time. The woman, Vera Coking, had owned property near the Trump Plaza Hotel for three decades, and didn’t want to move. Trump thought the land was better suited for use as a park, a parking lot, and a waiting area for limousines.

He tried to negotiate, at one point offering Coking $1 million for the land. But she wasn’t budging. So New Jersey’s Casino Reinvestment Development Authority filed a lawsuit, instructing Coking to leave within 90 days and offering compensation of only $251,000.

Perhaps the only upside to this story is that in neither case did Trump succeed. The Bridgeport plan fizzled. Coking fought in court, and — in part because these were the days before Kelo was decided, no doubt — she was lucky enough to win. In 1998, a judge threw out the case.

In 2005, however, Trump was delighted to find that the Supreme Court had okayed the brand of government-abetted theft that he’d twice attempted. “I happen to agree with it 100 percent,” he told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto of the Kelo decision.

Can Republicans support someone with so little regard for the property of others? Let’s hope not.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen
..

[kcchiefs6465]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmM4ZBoppNQ
On attempting to take* an elderly widow's property to make parking for limousines:


Everybody coming into Atlantic City sees that property. And it's not fair to Atlantic City and the people. They're staring at this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.--Donald Trump

It would appear he has no understanding of Rights.

[Spikender]

At least Trump doesn't pretend to NOT be a tyrant.

People just don't seem to notice because they're so distracted by his song and dance.

[kcchiefs6465]

Just checking in for the day.....

Didn't see him recant any of his previous positions--only cheap justifications and all around flip-floppery.

Those following Trump closer than I, is he still the only candidate advocating a preemptive military strike against North Korea?

[Spikender]

Just checking in for the day.....

Didn't see him recant any of his previous positions--only cheap justifications and all around flip-floppery.

Those following Trump closer than I, he is still the only candidate advocating a preemptive military strike against North Korea?

Better check out Lindsey Graham, the dude literally can't stop talking about war. He might support a preemptive military strike against Canada for all I know.

[kcchiefs6465]

Better check out Lindsey Graham, the dude literally can't stop talking about war. He might support a preemptive military strike against Canada for all I know.
As amazing at it is, even he is not speaking of a preemptive strike on North Korea.

Tom Cotton neither.

So I guess I would have to ask the question to the conservatives on this forum supporting Trump, what is conservative about another trillion dollar plus war?

Does costly and foolish protectionist policy really justify another trillion dollar war as being considered "conservative?"

Seems spending more money, violating more rights, and adding a war to boot is decidedly un-conservative, I'm sure the logical would admit. He wants 20% import tariffs. In 2015. As a supposed conservative.

Kind of strange, really.

[Occam's Banana]

Better check out Lindsey Graham, the dude literally can't stop talking about war. He might support a preemptive military strike against Canada for all I know.

Lindsey's "to do" list:
1. Iraq
2. Afghanistan
3. Iran
4. Canada
5. The Blue States
6. The Red States

[Spikender]

As amazing at it is, even he is not speaking of a preemptive strike on North Korea.

Tom Cotton neither.

To be real with you, that should've probably been one of the many hints that Trump is nothing but a blowhard who thinks of something extreme that he knows people will latch onto and spits it out of his mouth with no filters or brakes.

Trump doesn't mean it. He's grandstanding about attacking countries that he knows he won't do anything to. It's all talk, no bite.


Lindsey's "to do" list:
1. Iraq
2. Afghanistan
3. Iran
4. Canada
5. The Blue States
6. The Red States

Ha ha, Lindsey already somehow twisted women's healthcare to relate to Iran, he might as well do the same to Canada, at least their healthcare system makes them an easy target.

Too bad I have no rep to give you for such an elegant list.

[kcchiefs6465]

To be real with you, that should've probably been one of the many hints that Trump is nothing but a blowhard who thinks of something extreme that he knows people will latch onto and spits it out of his mouth with no filters or brakes.

Trump doesn't mean it. He's grandstanding about attacking countries that he knows he won't do anything to. It's all talk, no bite.

This sort of talk from a presidential candidate is surely repeated in the various countries he addresses.

I don't much plan he'll get elected but it is not without damage to peace.

That so many people apparently subscribe to his sort of protectionist, progressive, creed is enough to warrant worry.

Not a worry like, "Oh, he will bomb North Korea," but a worry like, "Goddamn, logic matters none, this world is doomed."

He couldn't do half of what he proposes. And in that half would be one of his two good proposals. That is, his tax "policy" (he wouldn't be able to do). He could sure enough veto trade proposals ("free trade" deals), though. Not that he would.

[kcchiefs6465]

Bump.

As this fuck is apparently still in the news.

[Origanalist]

Bump

[acptulsa]

Bump

Funny how the people who bump every other Trump thread on the forum don't bump this one.

Both funny ha ha and funny strange.

[LatinsforPaul]

Funny, none of the Trump trolls have shown their ugly head in this thread. I wonder why? :confused:

[Origanalist]

Funny, none of the Trump trolls have shown their ugly head in this thread. I wonder why? :confused:

Not a single one.

[Natural Citizen]

He isn't qualified to lead a nation. Period. I doubt that he could even pass a High School level World History test truth be told. Well...not that a High School World History test would be difficult to pass in today's educational infrastructure. But you get the idea, I suppose.

He has served to distract primary voters from the actual issues, though. And I think that the other candidates are actually grateful for that because they don't have to discuss them either as long as Donald is the subject while stimulating an illusion of interest in their party. Is brilliant, really, but in a short-sighted way. People are abandoning mainstream debate and mainstream cookie cutter speak. Of course, our armchair political friends who are trustees in this structure seem to be fine with not hearing the issues discussed in hopes of just getting elected, but, in the long run it'll backfire, I think. There is this illusion that we are the only ones who participate in these elections as far as voting and the focus seems to always be on the two-party narrative in all of it's shallow glory. This is a product of just trying to hurry up and get elected as opposed to attempting to change the course of history in any meaningful way. Ron Paul spoke of this and is why I'm reminded of it again. He was correct in his logic.

More threads like this one are beneficial, I think, because these issues need to be discussed. I haven't heard jack squat about these trade agreements lately either. Which is convenient for our prospective political representatives as well being as they don't have to answer any questions about them in the wonderful world of we ask, you decide from our complicit media structure. They, too, have much to gain by not mentioning some of the more critical issues. Again, these trade agreements are a prime example. Media has much to gain by those deals.

I'm really tired of Bushes and Clintons, though. And Donald is, in my view, just another aspect in assuring a Clinton scenario. Not that she is any different than another Bush, but, you know what I mean. Right? He is a plant just to keep the critical issues out of debate all together. And he is succeeding in that regard. Actually, they all are. Nobody wants to discuss the issues. It's shameful. And this is what the two-party system needs to remain in power. It's rigged. Sure, every once in a while they'll throw in a black sheep to sell the illusion of choice like we saw with Obama but it just seems like a freaking family affair or some kind of dynasty calling the shots in our nation over the last generation or so. Screw these people.

I'm thinking of not even voting. And if we get another Bush/Clinton rig, then, I definitely won't vote. Will likely give up political activism all together and just focus on particular pet peeves that I find to be important. There is more power in that. The reality of it is that we're starting from the bottom up now. Our entire infrastructure and historic mechanism for representation has been hijacked and repatriated and then paraded around and televised in true American Idol fashion. It's disgraceful. The only way it will ever truly be about the people again is if the people make it about them. This is, of course, a choice. We're going to just have to accept that and work with it. Focus on your own pet peeves and do what you can to make the world directly around you a better place to live. And if you're lucky you'll meet some like minded people and build on it.

I'll say this, though. 2014 mid-term elections were a great demonstration that American voters are abandoning this mainstream circus. I had shared this elsewhere but I'll add it here again just because it is relevant to what I just typed here moving forward. 2014 had the highest polling numbers for third party candidates than we have seen in modern history. People are waking up. They're beginning to understand the way that the two-party system is rigged in the favor of the same factions that have turned our nation into their personal hobby or family venture, or, in Donald's case, one big ol game of Sim City. And they are rejecting it. Again, in record numbers. 50%. That's how many American voters are no longer affiliated with the Republican or Democratic parties per the 2014 Mid-Term statistics. 50%. Take a second to absorb that for what it is actually worth in the scheme of things. It isn't about getting elected for this growing demographic. It's about principle. Changing the course. It's about rejecting the hijacking of our infrastructure for representation. Do or do not and whatnot.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rfMbw-3e0

[RDM]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480627-Donald-Trump-s-version-of-the-Gettysburg-Address

[kcchiefs6465]

Wasn't aware they ever lost them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-august-2-2015-n402571


We have to give strength and power back to the police. And you're always going to have mistakes made. And you're always going to have bad apples. But you can't let that stop the fact that police have to regain some control of this tremendous crime wave and killing wave that's happening in this country.--[Donald Trump]

http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/violent-crime.jpg

Tremendous.

h/t http://www.theburningplatform.com/2015/08/24/worse-than-hitler/
[Bump]

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/YmYsdYb.png



Donald Trump allies quietly seek money from rich, anonymous patrons

(CNN)Donald Trump appeared at a fundraising event for an outside group that can collect unlimited contributions from secret donors, a move in sharp contrast with his public calls for transparency in money and politics.

Trump attended a fundraising event Sunday at the home of real estate developer Charles Kushner and his wife, Seryl -- Ivanka Trump's in-laws -- on the Jersey Shore. Some attendees were asked to pony up $10,000 for a group called Make America Great Again. According to an invitation, organizers have set up a super PAC as well as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit. While a super PAC is required to disclose its donors, the nonprofit is not.

Donors were given the option of making contributions to the super PAC or to the nonprofit entity, noting their personal information would be kept private if they chose to contribute to the nonprofit, according to an invitation to the event.

Trump "attended as a guest and did not solicit donations from any of the attendees," said campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks. "He is self-funding the campaign."

But there are increasing signs Trump's allies are ramping up their fundraising efforts to build a war chest for a longer than expected campaign. In addition to the New Jersey event, Trump made an appearance at an event hosted by the super PAC in Manhattan last month, a campaign aide confirmed. On Friday, he is scheduled to attend an event in Massachusetts that the host is billing as a fundraiser.

The apparent shift in Trump's fundraising strategy hasn't altered his rhetoric on the stump very much.

Trump has touted his personal wealth as a credential on the campaign trail, bragging that he doesn't need donations from anyone and calling for an overhaul of the campaign finance system.

Trump gave a hint Sunday that he may be changing his tone, saying, "Certainly I would take contributions, I actually like the idea of investing in a campaign."

"But it has to be no strings attached. I don't want any strings attached," he said on CBS' "Face The Nation."

But on Tuesday evening -- just days after appearing at the New Jersey fundraiser -- Trump railed against the lack of transparency in the system and lamented how difficult it is to identify donors who make big contributions to organizations supporting presidential candidates.

"I think the most important thing is transparency," Trump told reporters. "You need to know who's putting up what so when they start making deals in a year or two years or three years, you know what's happening."

...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-fundraising/index.html

[RonPaulMall]

[Bump]

Unfortunately, it isn't 2013 anymore. Many major cities, including Donald Trump's hometown of New York City, are currently experiencing a huge increase in violent crime.

http://thebeatmi.com/the-nyc-crime-wave/

[Wilf]

Unfortunately, it isn't 2013 anymore. Many major cities, including Donald Trump's hometown of New York City, are currently experiencing a huge increase in violent crime.

http://thebeatmi.com/the-nyc-crime-wave/

Did not some fourm members call cities some cesspol of hardcore leftists?

[fr33]

For the morons who are ever vigilant on the lookout for "cuckservatives":
That Time Donald Trump Had A Meeting With DREAMers And Said “You Convinced Me” On Immigration (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481121-That-Time-Donald-Trump-Had-A-Meeting-With-DREAMers-And-Said-%93You-Convinced-Me%94-On-Immigration)

[acptulsa]

Unfortunately, it isn't 2013 anymore. Many major cities, including Donald Trump's hometown of New York City, are currently experiencing a huge increase in violent crime.

Tulsa isn't. And doesn't want to pay for more NYPD cops.

So, Trump is actually running for mayor of NYC? What a relief! I had heard a silly-assed rumor he was running for president.

[RonPaulMall]

Tulsa isn't. And doesn't want to pay for more NYPD cops.

So, Trump is actually running for mayor of NYC? What a relief! I had heard a silly-assed rumor he was running for president.

I don't want to pay for more cops either. But that doesn't change the fact that Trump is correct when he notes that America is in the midst of a crime wave. If Trump proposes increased Federal Funding of cops I'd be the first to object, but that has nothing to do with the correctness of his observations on crime.

[acptulsa]

I don't want to pay for more cops either. But that doesn't change the fact that Trump is correct when he notes that America is in the midst of a crime wave. If Trump proposes increased Federal Funding of cops I'd be the first to object, but that has nothing to do with the correctness of his observations on crime.

Speak for yourself. I'm in America and there's no crime wave here. We don't get what we pay for from the fedgov now. We have to pay for our own Amtrak train, in addition to subsidizing Amtrak for the far wealthier state of Connecticut. Fuck the fedgov. I'm here because I'm sick of big crooked government buffoons just like Trump stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

And I'm sick to death of brainless people coming here and constantly making lame assed excuses for him.

[kcchiefs6465]

Unfortunately, it isn't 2013 anymore. Many major cities, including Donald Trump's hometown of New York City, are currently experiencing a huge increase in violent crime.

http://thebeatmi.com/the-nyc-crime-wave/
Okay.

I was going to simply ignore your article and respond, "No, they really aren't," but that seems a bit unfair.

Here are the three points outlined by the article you provided addressed one at a time:


Police Stops Are Down: In New York, pedestrian stops have dropped nearly 95 percent from their 2011 high, because of litigation charging that the NYPD’s stop, question, and frisk practices were racially biased.
http://thebeatmi.com/the-nyc-crime-wave/


Here is some perspective on what exactly they are talking about:



In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
350,743 were black (53 percent).
223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
61,805 were white (9 percent).
341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).
284,229 were black (55 percent).
165,140 were Latino (32 percent).
50,366 were white (10 percent).
In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times.
169,252 were totally innocent (88 percent).
104,958 were black (56 percent).
55,191 were Latino (29 percent).
20,877 were white (11 percent).
In 2014, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 46,235 times.
38,051 were totally innocent (82 percent).
24,777 were black (55 percent).
12,662 were Latino (29 percent).
5,536 were white (12 percent).
In the first quarter of 2015, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 7,135 times.
5,857 were totally innocent (82 percent).
3,693 were black (53 percent).
2,123 were Latino (30 percent).
864 were white (12 percent).
http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data


So greater than 80 percent of the people stopped and frisked were completely innocent even in the state's eyes (that is, they did not have a firearm/weapon, they did not have any warrants, and they did not have any drugs or drug paraphernalia).

The second point from the article you posted:


Homicides Are Up: The NYPD reported 135 murders as of May 31, an increase of 19.5 percent over the same period a year ago.

http://thebeatmi.com/the-nyc-crime-wave/



As of May 31, there have been 135 murders reported in New York City, up 19.5 percent from this time last year, when 113 murders were reported, according to NYPD statistics.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/06/8569198/nypd-more-murders-committed-gunfire


So an increase of 22 murders over a six month period in New York City, a city with a population approximately at 8,500,000 people.

I mean it's not like you have a case of a man executing his family for no apparent reason during this time frame or anything (Queens Dad Kills Wife, Mother-in-Law, and Daughter (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/queens-dad-shoots-kills-wife-mother-in-law-daughter-article-1.2090408)).

I mean if I really started looking into the crime statistics might I find other explanations to this twenty two murder increase? Hell, might even twenty-two murders itself be considered statistically insignificant?

Might it also not be offering the whole picture?


That murder rates in major U.S. cities are on the decline is popular knowledge. New York City is often held up as the example: in 1990, NYC had more than two thousand homicides, by 2014 that number was down to just over 300.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/top-lists/highest-murder-rate-cities/


Yes, what a huge surge in crime. Clearly the police need to be better armed than their fascist counterparts of the 90's.

The last point from the article you provided:


Proactive Policing Saves Lives: In New York City, over 10,000 minority males are alive today who would have been dead had homicide levels stayed at their early 1990s level.

http://thebeatmi.com/the-nyc-crime-wave/


So just to be clear, it is okay to have an astonishing rate of failure with regards to stopping actual criminals so long as lives are saved? What of the people ticketed whose lives were railroaded and their misery? What of the people put behind bars for ingesting, possessing, or selling drugs? Oh, ten years after being branded a felon and made practically unhireable they drank themselves to death or otherwise committed suicide. But that's not in your news articles, is it? Or your numbers? The pain inflicted is of unimaginable consequence.

So the amount of people stopped and frisked (the proactive police work they advocate as a solution to crime) went from over 685,000 people stopped and frisked to around 15,000 people stopped and frisked and the murder rate increased by a total of 22 murders. In a city of 8,500,000 people which averaged a murder rate in the thousands only a couple decades earlier with a population fewer than what it currently sits at.

What is the NY SAFE Act and when was it implemented? The NY SAFE Act is the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act. When was it enacted? It was enacted in 2013. Shocking stuff.

You could effectively eliminate crime by turning America into a prison state. And the jester of the day will blubbering their pie holes about more.

Violent crime is and has been on the decline for quite some time. You can post misleading statistics and numbers until your eyes turn red. Anyone who is actually versed in this nonsense sees through your authoritarian bullshit on first glance.

[Origanalist]

.

You could effectively eliminate crime by turning America into a prison state. And the jester of the day will blubbering their pie holes about more.

.

Just a small nitpick with a great post...we ARE a police state and we haven't eliminated crime. In fact, I'm a one man crime spree. I break the law every damn day. What do you think of that RonPaulMall?

[kcchiefs6465]

Just a small nitpick with a great post...we ARE a police state and we haven't eliminated crime. In fact, I'm a one man crime spree. I break the law every damn day. What do you think of that RonPaulMall?
They do not have the technology available to sift through and link every piece of data or to turn this society into a virtual panopticon. While they do promote soft-totalitarianism, it is not all reaching. Also while they don't particularly care about the Constitution, there is still suspicion towards politicians and the politicians in turn must still pay it lip service.

On the note of everyone committing 'crimes' (sins against the state, I guess) daily, that is what makes the 88% innocent figure all the more absurd. That's 88% of people who did not 'forget' to so much as pay a traffic ticket. Of the 12% who were 'criminals,' the majority of those would be people with petty bench warrants and those in possession of drugs.

And they hold up this evident failure as a good strategy to combat crime? So just to spell it out for those who aren't quite aware what this means: That means that they rob everyone (i.e. a crime) to pay for a police initiative in which they could not get higher than a 18% rate of criminals versus law abiding citizens in a society with literally countless laws, regulations, and codes.

RonPaulMall is of the persuasion that crimes are only committed by citizens. Specifically, that robbery, extortion, and theft are not crimes when perpetrated by the state.

[kcchiefs6465]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Donald Trump's call for a 25% tariff on Chinese goods is winning him a lot of attention as he weighs a presidential run in 2012.

hxxp://money.cnn.com/2011/04/17/news/economy/trump_china_trade_war/



He says, '[China] manipulates the currency' like the United States is not the reserve currency of the world.



Something Else



"What is restriction?"

"It is partial prohibition."

"What is prohibition?"

"Absolute restriction."

"So that what holds true of the one, holds true of the other?"

"Yes; the difference is only one of degree. There is between them the same relation as there is between a circle and the arc of a circle."

"Then, if prohibition is bad, restriction cannot be good?"

"No more than the arc can be correct if the circle is irregular."

"What is the name which is common to restriction and prohibition?"

"Protection."

"What is the definitive effect of protection?"

"To exact from men a greater amount of labour for the same result."

"Why are men attached to the system of protection?"

"Because as liberty enables us to obtain the same result with less labour, this apparent diminution of employment frightens them."

"Why do you say apparent?"

"Because all labour saved can be applied to something else."

"To what?"

"That I cannot specify, nor is there any need to specify it."

"Why?"

"Because if the sum of satisfactions which the country at present enjoys could be obtained with one-tenth less labour, no one can enumerate the new enjoyments which men would desire to obtain from the labour left disposable. One man would desire to be better clothed, another better fed, another better educated, another better amused."

"Explain to me the mechanism and the effects of protection."

"That is not an easy matter. Before entering on consideration of the more complicated cases, we must study it in a very simple one."

"Take as simple a case as you choose."

"You remember how Robinson Crusoe managed to make a plank when he had no saw."

"Yes; he felled a tree, and then, cutting the trunk right and left with his hatchet, he reduced it to the thickness of a board."

"And that cost him much labour?"

"Fifteen whole days' work."

"And what did he live on during that time?"

"He had provisions."

"What happened to the hatchet?"

"It was blunted by the work."

"Yes; but you perhaps do not know this: that at the moment when Robinson was beginning the work he perceived a plank thrown by the tide upon the seashore."

"Happy accident! he of course ran to appropriate it?"

"That was his first impulse ; but he stopped short, and began to reason thus with himself:— "'If I appropriate this plank, it will cost me only the trouble of carrying it, and the time needed to descend and remount the cliff.

"'But if I form a plank with my hatchet, first of all , it will procure me fifteen days' employment; then my hatchet will get blunt, which will furnish me with the additional employment of sharpening it; then I shall consume my stock of provisions, which will be a third source of employment in replacing them. Now, labour is wealth. It is clear that I should ruin myself by appropriating the shipwrecked plank. I must protect my personal labour; and, now that I think of it, I can even increase that labour by throwing back the other plank into the sea.'"

"But this reasoning was absurd."

"No doubt. It is nevertheless the reasoning of every nation which protects itself by prohibition. It throws back the plank which is offered it in exchange for a small amount of labour in order to exert a greater amount of labour. It is not in the labour of the Customhouse officials that it discovers a gain. That gain is represented by the pains which Robinson takes to render back to the waves the gift which they had offered him. Consider the nation as a collective being, and you will not find between its reasoning and that of Robinson an atom of difference."

"Did Robinson not see that he could devote the time saved to something else?"

"What else?"

"As long as a man has wants to satisfy and time at his disposal, there is always something to be done . I am not bound to specify the kind of labour he would in such a case undertake."

"I see clearly what labour he could have escaped."

"And I maintain that Robinson, with incredible blindness, confounded the labour with its result , the end with the means, and I am going to prove to you..."

"There is no need. Here we have the system of restriction or prohibition in its simplest form. If it appear to you absurd when so put, it is because the two capacities of producer and consumer are in this case mixed up in the same individual."

"Let us pass on, therefore, to a more complicated example."

"With all my heart. Some time afterwards, Robinson having met with Friday, they united their labour in a common work . In the morning they hunted for six hours, and brought home four baskets of game. In the evening they worked in the garden for six hours, and obtained four baskets of vegetables.

"One day a canoe touched at the island. A good-looking foreigner landed, and was admitted to the table of our two recluses. He tasted and commended very much the produce of the garden, and before taking leave of his entertainers, spoke as follows:—

"'Generous islanders, I inhabit a country where game is much more plentiful than here, but where horticulture is quite unknown. It would be an easy matter to bring you every evening four baskets of game, if you would give me in exchange two baskets of vegetables.'

"At these words Robinson and Friday retired to consult, and the argument that passed is too interesting not to be reported in extenso.

"Friday: What do you think of it?
"Robinson: If we close with the proposal, we are ruined.
"F.: Are you sure of that? Let us consider.
"R.: The case is clear. Crushed by competition, our hunting as a branch of industry is annihilated.
"F.: What matters it, if we have the game?
"R.: Theory! it will no longer be the product of our labour.
"F.: I beg your pardon, sir; for in order to have game we must part with vegetables.
"R.: Then, what shall we gain?
"F.:. The four baskets of game cost us six hours' work. The foreigner gives us them in exchange for two baskets of vegetables , which cost us only three hours' work. This places three hours at our disposal.
"R.: Say , rather, which are subtracted from our exertions. In this will consist our loss. Labour is wealth, and if we lose a fourth part of our time, we shall be less rich by a fourth.
"F.: You are greatly mistaken , my good friend. We shall have as much game, and the same quantity of vegetables, and three hours at our disposal into the bargain. This is progress, or there is no such thing in-the world.
"R.: You lose yourself in generalities! What should we make of these three hours?
"F.: We would do something else.
"R.: Ah ! I understand you. You cannot come to particulars. Something else, something else— this is easily said.
"F.: We can fish, we can ornament our cottage, we can read the Bible.
"R.: Utopia ! Is there any certainty that we should do either the one or the other?
"F.: Very well, if we have no wants to satisfy we can rest. Is repose nothing?
"R.: But while we repose we may die of hunger.
"F.: My dear friend, you have got into a vicious circle. I speak of a repose which will subtract nothing from our supply of game and vegetables. You always forget that by means of our foreign trade nine hours' labour will give us the same quantity of provisions that we obtain at present with twelve.
"R: It is very evident, Friday, that you have not been educated in Europe, and that you have never read the Moniteur Industriel. If you had, it would have taught you this: that all time saved is sheer loss. The important thing is not to eat or consume, but to work. All that we consume, if it is not the direct produce of our labour, goes for nothing. Do you want to know whether you are rich? Never consider the satisfactions you enjoy , but the labour you undergo. This is what the Moniteur Industriel would teach you. For myself, who have no pretensions to be a theorist, the only thing I look at is the loss of our hunting.
"F.: What a strange conglomeration of ideas! but...
"R.: I will have no buts. Moreover, there are political reasons for rejecting the interested offers of the perfidious foreigner.
"F.: Political reasons!
"R.: Yes, he only makes us these offers because they are advantageous to him.
"F.: So much the better, since they are for our advantage likewise.
"R.: Then by this traffic we should place ourselves in a situation of dependence upon him.
"F.: And he would place himself in dependence on us. We should have need of his game, and he of our vegetables, and we should live on terms of friendship.
"R.: System! Do you want me to shut your mouth?
"F.: We shall see about that. I have as yet heard no good reason.
"R.: Suppose the foreigner learns to cultivate a garden, and that his island should prove more fertile than ours. Do you see the consequence?
"F.: Yes ; our relations with the foreigner would cease. He would send us no more vegetables, since he could have them at home with less labour. He would take no more game from us, since we should have nothing to give him in exchange, and we should then be in precisely the situation that you wish us in now.
"R.: Improvident savage! You don't see that after having annihilated our hunting by inundating us with game, he would annihilate our gardening by inundating us with vegetables.
"F.: But this would only last till we were in a situation to give him something else; that is to say, until we found something else which we could produce with economy of labour for ourselves.
"R. Something else, something else! You always come back to that. You are at sea, my good friend Friday; there is nothing practical in your views."

"The debate was long prolonged , and, as often happens, each remained wedded to his own opinion . But Robinson possessing a great ascendant over Friday, his opinion prevailed, and when the foreigner arrived to demand a reply, Robinson said to him—

"'Stranger , in order to induce us to accept your proposal, we must be assured of two things:

"'The first is, that your island is no better stocked with game than ours, for we want to fight only with equal weapons.

"'The second is, that you will lose by the bargain . For, as in every exchange there is necessarily a gaining and a losing party, we should be dupes, if you were not the loser. What have you got to say?'

"'Nothing,' replied the foreigner; and, bursting out a-laugh-ing, he regained his canoe."

"The story would not be amiss, if Robinson were not made to argue so very absurdly."

"He does not argue more absurdly than the committee of the Rue Hauteville."

"Oh! the case is very different. Sometimes you suppose one man, and sometimes (which comes to the same thing) two men working in company. That does not tally with the actual state of things. The division of labour and the intervention of merchants and money change the state of the question very much."

"That may complicate transactions, but does not change their nature."

"What! you want to compare modern commerce with a system of barter."

"Trade is nothing but a multiplicity of barters. Barter is in its own nature identical with commerce, just as labour on a small scale is identical with labour on a great scale, or as the law of gravitation which moves an atom is identical with that same law of gravitation which moves a world."

"So, according to you, these arguments, which are so untenable in the mouth of Robinson, are equally untenable when urged by our protectionists."

"Yes; only the error is better concealed under a complication of circumstances."

"Then, pray, let us have an example taken from the present order of things."

"With pleasure. In France, owing to the exigencies of climate and habits, cloth is a useful thing. Is the essential thing to make it, or to get it?"

"A very sensible question, truly! In order to have it, you must make it."

"Not necessarily. To have it, some one must make it, that is certain; but it is not at all necessary that the same person or the same country which consumes it should also produce it. You have not made that stuff which clothes you so well. France does not produce the coffee on which our citizens breakfast."

"But I buy my cloth, and France her coffee."

"Exactly so; and with what?"

"With money."

"But neither you nor France produce the material of money."

"We buy it."

"With what?"

"With our products, which are sent to Peru."

"It is then, in fact, your labour which you exchange for cloth, and French labour which is exchanged for coffee."

"Undoubtedly."

"It is not absolutely necessary, therefore, to manufacture what you consume."

"No; if we manufacture something else which we give in exchange."

"In other words, France has two means of procuring a given quantity of cloth. The first is to make it; the second is to make something else, and to exchange this something else with the foreigner for cloth. Of these two means, which is the best?"

"I don't very well know."

"Is it not that which, for a determinate amount of labour, obtains the greater quantity of cloth?"

"It seems so."

"And which is best for a nation, to have the choice between these two means, or that the law should prohibit one of them, on the chance of stumbling on the better of the two?"

"It appears to me that it is better for the nation to have the choice, inasmuch as in such matters it invariably chooses right."

"The law, which prohibits the importation of foreign cloth, decides, then, that if France wishes to have cloth, she must make it in kind, and that she is prohibited from making the something else with which she could purchase foreign cloth."

"True."

"And as the law obliges us to make the cloth, and forbids our making the something else, precisely because that something else would exact less labour (but for which reason the law would not interfere with it) the law virtually decrees that for a determinate amount of labour, France shall only have one yard of cloth, when for the same amount of labour she might have two yards, by applying that labour to something else!"

"But the question recurs, 'What else?"

"And my question recurs, 'What does it signify?' Having the choice, she will only make the something else to such an extent as there may be a demand for it."

"That is possible; but I cannot divest myself of the idea that the foreigner will send us his cloth, and not take from us the something else, in which case we would be entrapped. At all events, this is the objection even from your own point of view. You allow that France could make this something else to exchange for cloth, with a less expenditure of labour than if she had made the cloth itself?"

"Undoubtedly."

"There would, then, be a certain amount of her labour rendered inert?"

"Yes; but without her being less well provided with clothes, a little circumstance which makes all the difference. Robinson lost sight of this, and our protectionists either do not see it, or pretend not to see it. The shipwrecked plank rendered fifteen days of Robinson's labour inert, in as far as that labour was applied to making a plank, but it did not deprive him of it. Discriminate, then, between these two kinds of diminished labour— the diminution which has for effect privation, and that which has for its cause satisfaction. These two things are very different, and if you mix them up, you reason as Robinson did. In the most complicated, as in the most simple cases, the sophism consists in this: Judging of the utility of labour by its duration and intensity, and not by its results; which gives rise to this economic policy: To reduce the results of labour for the purpose of augmenting its duration and intensity."

Frédéric Bastiat. Economic Sophisms (Kindle Locations 3238-3358).

Here's a link to the ebook:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44145

[helmuth_hubener]

Just a small nitpick with a great post...we ARE a police state and we haven't eliminated crime.

Ha, ha; great point. Will we ever learn, do you think?

[kcchiefs6465]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T52w6dFM3T4

[kcchiefs6465]

Bump.

[AuH20]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bp0lV4VnsM&feature=youtu.be

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQCS6mgEDE

http://i.imgur.com/KXe1AVy.png

[enhanced_deficit]

Trumpster often comes across as a pompous, attention-hungry, forceful, egotistical hurricane of a man who is more shrewed than most of professional politicians bought out by lobbies. Sad news is that he will probably be huge improvement over sold neocons tools like disgraced drone gangsta, SWC Bush, Ted Goldman, robot Marco Rubio etc.

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4

[Fivezeroes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQCS6mgEDE

http://i.imgur.com/KXe1AVy.png


You know the sad thing is ISIS would do the same thing to you, that is before they lopped your head off on camera for the world to see.

[AuH20]

You know the sad thing is ISIS would do the same thing to you, that is before they lopped your head off on camera for the world to see.

ISIS does indeed waterboard but they never pull you back up for air.

http://therightscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/isisdrown3.jpg

[limequat]

You know the sad thing is ISIS would do the same thing to you, that is before they lopped your head off on camera for the world to see.

Well, that's just the way the CIA works.

[kcchiefs6465]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bp0lV4VnsM&feature=youtu.be
Thank you for adding yet another reason why no one should vote for Trump.