Inukshuk
Well-Known Member
It is really sad that your pessimistic world view does not allow dialogue. You seem intelligent enough that if you had even a spark of hope about the future, you could be part of the solution.
TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?
- Thread starter crazyheart
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
I never drank the kool-aid of the crooked old hag - unlike it seems 80% of Canadians.
No. I'm stating that it's possible to redeem Creation without over regulating businesses.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
We are not talking redemption here. We are talking about keeping our world in a state in which we can live on it. In a perfect world, there should be no need for environmental regulation, but so far it has not worked. Businesses, save some very forward thinking ones, are not especially predisposed to be responsible in their handling of the environment until prodded by either consumer pressure or at least the threat of regulation. I find the situation has improved, but largely due to consumer pressure, not any good intentions on the part of the businesses.
GordW
Church-Geek-Oramus
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Except Business tends to think ANY regulation is over regulation. IT is in the communal interest to ensure that our lives are lived in a way that brings sustainability.
The next argument is that mandating fair treatment of employees is also driving business away and so the path to "make America Great Again" is to turn back the labour clock a few decades...
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Which then sets up the ironic situation of the US backpedaling on the environment and labour just as China, whom they have criticized on both fronts, is working on cleaning up its act.
Sustainability is nought more than a pipedream, because we are unable to account for everything that will ever happen in the future.
I'm all for clean water, air and land, and working to achieve those things. However, what good is Americans' having those things when so many businesses are closing operations in the US and thus so many people are left without jobs. Destroying the EPA isn't putting businesses first, it's putting people first.
Along the same lines - it's time we Canadians did away with the Ministry of the Environment.
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Jae said:
So why are you supporting a man who outsources so much of his work instead of using American workers?? I would think that someone who wants to "make America great again" would provide more employment for Americans when he has the chance. That is more than hiring people for his bankrupt hotels. It also means using American products instead of outsourced products.
When Trump was just a businessman, it made good business-sense for him to outsource. In other words, he was doing his job well. Should he now defeat the crooked old hag and become President, he'll have a new job and I'm sure he'll do it just as excellently. He's a winner. An absolute winner. Believe me.
No Jae's presumption is that destruction roués ... and heis thickly immersed in the laid out plan to ND dite all ... to hell with essential creation? Tis a hell of a bang coming from an ogre ... cosmological bore?
What do you expect from the little big man that doesn't believe in determinates ... are hard chit to take except to learn how not to do it ...
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
m.m.m.. Companies are not sent packing to other countries. They happily go because government sets trade deals to make it more profitable for them to go - and will even supply them with killers in their guest countries to kill environmentalists. Happens often in Latin America. Far from suffering, the very wealthy are now making their biggest profits in history.
What does 'make American great again' mean? Is that a reference to the good old days when the U.S. slaughtered its native peoples to steal their land? To its installation of dictators in places like Cuba and Haiti to provide cheap labour? It's invasion of the Phillipines with mass murder and torture followed by dictatorship? Oh - or would it be its invasions of Canada and Mexico to steal their land? Was America great when it bombed helpless Laos and Cambodia - killing about 20% of the total populations? Was it great when it bombed North Korea killing 30% of the population - mostly women and children?
And, oh, jae, I'll just bet you think that climate change is all just a plot by scientists to get attention.
What does 'make American great again' mean? Is that a reference to the good old days when the U.S. slaughtered its native peoples to steal their land? To its installation of dictators in places like Cuba and Haiti to provide cheap labour? It's invasion of the Phillipines with mass murder and torture followed by dictatorship? Oh - or would it be its invasions of Canada and Mexico to steal their land? Was America great when it bombed helpless Laos and Cambodia - killing about 20% of the total populations? Was it great when it bombed North Korea killing 30% of the population - mostly women and children?
And, oh, jae, I'll just bet you think that climate change is all just a plot by scientists to get attention.
Tis the small things that appear like a light in the dark ... a train about to run over you if you can't get beyond prescribed tracs?
Graeme Decarie
Well-Known Member
lack of regulation creates jobs? Great. So Hitler was being progressive in creating all those jobs for guards through the holocaust.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
I'm still working on how calling Clinton a "crooked old hag" fits your stated goal of seeing both candidates as children of God and seeing the good in them. "Crooked" is perhaps arguable, but "old hag" seems merely pejorative and not in keeping with your stated plan.
Anyway, going with your post and applying it to both candidates the choice is between
(1) a crooked old hag and
(2) an even older guy who's promoted xenophobia and racism and violence, who has criticized former prisoners of war and attacked a family who lost a son on active combat duty, who has revelled in his ability to avoid paying taxes, who has admitted committing sexual assualt and is now trying to bully into silence women who have come forward to confirm that he did what he said he did, who has threatened to ban an entire religion from entering the US, who has presided over several bankruptcies, who has verbally attacked several women, who has openly mused about using nuclear weapons and encouraged other countries to build their own nuclear weapons, who has openly admired Vladimir Putin and encouraged Russia to hack into the Democratic Party's emails.
I think both parties could and should have done better, but ... well ... that's the choice.