Can Donald Trump become President Again?

[Lacius]

all the “green” industries out there exist because they’re profitable - the government didn’t do that, consumers did.

Pretending like the government didn't have a hand in creating these green technologies, lol.

Edit: I bought my aforementioned solar panels in part because the federal government paid for about 30% of it, but yeah, fuck the government.

 

[Foxi4]

Pretending like the government didn't have a hand in creating these green technologies, lol.

Edit: I bought my aforementioned solar panels in part because the federal government paid for about 30% of it, but yeah, fuck the government.

The government didn’t invent solar panels, nor does it manufacture or install them. Private industry is perfectly happy doing that, and making mint on it. I’m glad that you received a subsidy - always take free money from the government, it’s a warranted return of your tax money that would’ve otherwise been wasted on nonsense and boondoggles.

 

[Lacius]

The government didn’t invent solar panels, nor does it manufacture or install them.

You act as though the government doesn't invest in cutting-edge scientific research or license technology out to businesses with the purpose of commercializing that technology. I'm honestly trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or are really so stupid that you don't know how the development of science and technology works. Did Google invent the internet? Did Amazon invent rockets?

I suggest you look at the history of photovoltaics and associated technologies.

I’m glad that you received a subsidy - always take free money from the government, it’s a warranted return of your tax money that would’ve otherwise been wasted on nonsense and boondoggles.

I'll take this as a retraction of your "the government didn't do that" nonsense.

 

[Foxi4]

You act as though the government doesn't invest in cutting-edge scientific research or license technology out to businesses with the purpose of commercializing that technology. I'm honestly trying to figure out if you're being disingenuous or are really so stupid that you don't know how the development of science and technology works. Did Google invent the internet? Did Amazon invent rockets?

I suggest you look at the history of photovoltaics and associated technologies.

Oh, you mean this effect that was discovered in the 17th century that eventually found a practical application thanks to Bell Laboratories? Thank you, Bell.

I'll take this as a retraction of your "the government didn't do that" nonsense.

”Getting your own money back via a convoluted scheme” isn’t exactly what I describe as “doing something”. It’s more like a cartoon skit, but we do what we can to claw back what’s ours.

 

[Lacius]

Oh, you mean this effect that was discovered in the 17th century that eventually found a practical application thanks to Bell Laboratories? Thank you, Bell.

My rooftop solar panels are totally 17th century technology. Yep. There definitely haven't been any advancements since then.

”Getting your own money back via a convoluted scheme” isn’t exactly what I describe “doing something”. It’s more like a cartoon skit, but we do what we can to claw back what’s ours.

Whether or not you think my taxes are fair is irrelevant to the fact that 30% of my solar panels were paid for by the federal government, and there's a good chance I wouldn't have gotten them without it. The industry would look a lot different in this country without the federal government's financial assistance, and you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.

 

[Xzi]

There any reason we re-hashing the government versus private sector argument in this thread specifically? Trump leeched off of both, and failed to be an effective leader in either. Couldn't sell steaks at the Sharper Image, and couldn't sell beans from the White House. Truly a man that would be worthy of pity, if he weren't so much more worthy of derision instead.

 

[Lacius]

There any reason we re-hashing the government versus private sector argument in this thread specifically? Trump leeched off of both, and failed to be an effective leader in either. Couldn't sell steaks at the Sharper Image, and couldn't sell beans from the White House. Truly a man that would be worthy of pity, if he weren't so much more worthy of derision instead.

My goal wasn't to derail the thread, but I felt compelled to break my "don't respond to @Foxi4" rule after he posted some things that were stupid even for him.

 

[Foxi4]

My rooftop solar panels are totally 17th century technology. Yep. There definitely haven't been any advancements since then.

The industry continuously innovates, yes.

Whether or not you think my taxes are fair is irrelevant to the fact that 30% of my solar panels were paid for by the federal government, and there's a good chance I wouldn't have gotten them without it. The industry would look a lot different in this country without the federal government's financial assistance, and you'd be stupid to argue otherwise.

You seem confused. While it is true that governments worldwide invest in development which sometimes leads to various discoveries, those contributions are accidental. Industry did not directly fund the invention of a cordless drill or a microwave because there was no practical use for them at the time as nobody was working or cooking in space - NASA wanted to work or cook in space. If you want to give them credit for that, that’s fair, but only in context. They created a problem that didn’t exist before, and industry found a solution to it on government contract - I will always give credit to the government for its ability to find problems that they can solve with other people’s money. They helped with funding, let’s be realistic here. The same can be said about the Internet, which was originally developed for military purposes (that branch has since split to Milnet) or rockets (developed in large part by Nazis to deliver warheads long-distance). Again, you can stop bragging about your subsidy - I agree that you probably wouldn’t get the panels otherwise, I don’t see how that makes the government a contributor towards development or proliferation - it’s a contributor of (often) Ill-gotten money. As soon as a practical use case exists, industry innovates because there’s a new market to sell a product to.

My goal wasn't to derail the thread, but I felt compelled to break my "don't respond to @Foxi4" rule after he posted some things that were stupid even for him.

Everything I posted is factually correct. “Stupid” is in the eye of the beholder - we’re having this conversation on devices made by corporations over a network built and maintained by corporations using an operating system programmed by a corporation - it’s nice that you see some benefit in governmental investment, but to purport that our technology wouldn’t exist in the absence of said funding is preposterous. The evidence to the contrary is all around us, you use precisely zero government products, but who’s keeping score. Government funding can certainly accelerate things, but I hesitate to give credit for that - anyone can spend money. Science and technology predate the federal government, I’m afraid.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Everything I posted is factually correct.

Contextually wrong, however. And highly selective and sectorial. AKA misleading practices.

 

[Foxi4]

Contextually wrong, however. And highly selective and sectorial. AKA misleading practices.

I don’t know what you mean by that, and I won’t even hazard a guess - you have a bad record of not knowing what you’re talking about, so how can I know what you’re thinking? Did you look up the terms “congress” and “cabinet” yet?

 

[Lacius]

@Foxi4 It's rich to hear you describe someone else as "not knowing what they're talking about," considering the ignorance you've displayed here. Public funding is a vital part of how science innovation works. We wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet on our computers without government research and funding, and my solar panels wouldn't be powering my computer right now if it weren't for government research, funding, and subsidies.

If you can't see how the government subsidizing thousands of dollars worth of a single rooftop solar installation (for example) can't/won't result in the proliferation (your word) of rooftop solar, then you don't understand economics.

I'm sorry if this all conflicts with your delicate little libertarian sensibilities, but the facts don't care about your denialism.

 

[Foxi4]

@Foxi4 It's rich to hear you describe someone else as "not knowing what they're talking about," considering the ignorance you've displayed here. Public funding is a vital part of how science innovation works. We wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet on our computers without government research and funding, and my solar panels wouldn't be powering my computer right now if it weren't for government research, funding, and subsidies.

If you can't see how the government subsidizing thousands of dollars worth of a single rooftop solar installation (for example) can't/won't result in the proliferation (your word) of rooftop solar, then you don't understand economics.

I'm sorry if this all conflicts with your delicate little libertarian sensibilities, but the facts don't care about your denialism.

Fighting a lot of strawmen over there, Don Quixote. I don’t really know why you want to fight this fight over the Internet, but I’m not too bothered by it - I gave up on trying to find any common ground years ago. I’ve never denied that government funding can accelerate research and development via grants - I simply called the money ill-gotten. What I also said was that research and development predates the existence of the government and would’ve continued in the absence of the government, which is indisputable. The gross majority of technological innovation comes from the private sector - always has. The fact that the private sector, like the many universities involved in laying the groundwork for ARPANET (like Stanford) utilise public funding is clever accounting on their part. The idea of telecoms and wide area networks predates any government involvement anyway - it gained steam thanks to Paul Baran while he was under the employment of RAND Corporation. You could even argue that the origins of the Internet predate the first transistor, as the theoretical and mathematical underpinnings were being developed since as early as the 1920’s. If you want to live in the misguided belief that computer networking wouldn’t be developed without the government’s involvement (despite the fact that it’s been actively theorised long before we even had computers) then you’re welcome to do so, I personally find that silly. I understand that you have an outsized admiration for the federal government, but inventions are credited to the brilliant minds behind them, not political constructs. “The government” doesn’t develop anything, researchers and engineers do, so that’s who I’m going to credit. I’m still not sure how we got here from the subject of Trump’s potential presidential run, and I’ve long since lost the interest in the conversation anyway. As for your rooftop panels, I will happily shake hands on giving you 70% of the credit (plus whatever small percentage was taken from you in income tax over your lifetime), since that’s your contribution - as such, I am happy to see private citizens helping reduce their carbon footprint.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

you have a bad record of not knowing what you’re talking about, so how can I know what you’re thinking?

More projection and embarassment from you, mr "boo hoo I am (unspecifiedly) discriminated but I won't make a huge deal of it and I think that not only no one should get protection but I would also find very funny to have someone who bombarded in 4 years more than his predecessor did in 8 elected, uncaring of the fact he admires the man who may as well create WW3"

Did you look up the terms “congress” and “cabinet” yet?

Have you looked about what "fairness" and "equality" mean yet? Better yet, have you looked about what "fascism" means?

 

[Foxi4]

More projection and embarassment from you, mr "boo hoo I am (unspecifiedly) discriminated but I won't make a huge deal of it and I think that not only no one should get protection but I would also find very funny to have someone who bombarded in 4 years more than his predecessor did in 8 elected, uncaring of the fact he admires the man who may as well create WW3"

Donald Trump is the only president since Carter who hasn’t started a new international conflict during his term, if I recall correctly.

Have you looked about what "fairness" and "equality" mean yet? Better yet, have you looked about what "fascism" means?

You’re confusing equal with equitable. Equal means that out of a basket of four apples we both get two apples each, an equal share. Equitable means that I get one apple and you get three because, purportedly, you’re “more hungry” and thus require more apples due to your outsized need. I support the former, you support the latter. That’s the actual point of contention here. I’m helping you out since definitions weren’t your strong suit last time either. “Fairness” is an ethereal construct - to me “fair” means that everybody is treated exactly the same regardless of any innate qualities or circumstances, that’s equal treatment. To you, some people “need” more help than others, and it’s “fair” to give them more (at the cost of others), that’s equitable treatment. Which one of those outcomes is actually “fair” is a matter of personal value systems. In complete isolation, what’s fair is that everybody gets their own apples or starves, but since “we live in a society” as you’ve mentioned, that’s suboptimal. We choose to work together because it’s mutually beneficial, but that has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with optimisation. If I’m taller than you, I can walk around the orchard with the basket and pick apples - you’re shorter, so you can peel them. At the end of the day we’ll bake an apple pie and split it - that’s society optimising a workload.

As for any discussion of fascism (or more specifically, economic fascism, since that’s what the discussion was about in context), I’m not going to recap the last few pages for you, you have your own scroll wheel. I believe we came to a consensus on that already (in my favour, no less).

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Donald Trump is the only president since Carter who hasn’t started a new international conflict during his term, if I recall correctly.

Resurrecting Islamic State from the face of defeat by betraying the Kurds to Erdogan is, I'd argue, worse, as is America's withdrawal from the Paris agreement, as not only this perpetrated an international terrorist threat, but it also accelerated an existential threat to humanity. Not to mention, his ineptitude and admiration for Putin are worse than starting a war in Syria, frankly. Lastly, not "starting" a war doesn't suddenly equate to "not being a warmonger".

That’s the actual point of contention here. I’m helping you out since definitions weren’t your strong suit last time either.

All this libertarian smugness is both silly and out of place considering, as someone else told you, your astounding ignorance and hypocrisy.

Equitable means that I get one apple and you get three because, purportedly, you’re “more hungry” and thus require more apples due to your outsized need.

“Fairness” is an ethereal construct - to me “fair” means that everybody is treated exactly the same regardless of any innate qualities or circumstances, that’s equal treatment.

Hilarious statements from someone who thinks to be so clever to call others ignorant then coming out with such a ridiculous statement "Since I don't believe in this concept it is ethereal and doesn't exist". Oh, and the first meaning of "equitable" is "having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned", so the complete opposite of what you said.

Please take the L and let's move on as, in one of the few non-ridiculous things you said that didn't spectacularly backfire in your face, it's really interesting how we ended up here from a Trump re-election thread.

 

[Foxi4]

Resurrecting Islamic State from the face of defeat by betraying the Kurds to Erdogan is, I'd argue, worse, as is America's withdrawal from the Paris agreement, as not only this perpetrated an international terrorist threat, but it also accelerated an existential threat to humanity. Not to mention, his ineptitude and admiration for Putin are worse than starting a war in Syria, frankly. Lastly, not "starting" a war doesn't suddenly equate to "not being a warmonger".

>Salon dot com

All this libertarian smugness is both silly and out of place considering, as someone else told you, your astounding ignorance and hypocrisy.

Always happy to help.

Hilarious statements from someone who thinks to be so clever to call others ignorant then coming out with such a ridiculous statement "Since I don't believe in this concept it is ethereal and doesn't exist". Oh, and the first meaning of "equitable" is "having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned", so the complete opposite of what you said.

Please take the L and let's move on as, in one of the few non-ridiculous things you said that didn't spectacularly backfire in your face, it's really interesting how we ended up here from a Trump re-election thread.

That’s not what ethereal means, that’s not how the word “equitable” applies in context of distribution of goods. Equitable distribution is not necessarily equal - it’s based on need. In common law you usually see it in divorce cases when marital assets are divided. For instance, if the mother keeps the children while the father opts for visitation rights, the mother will likely be awarded a larger share of total assets because her needs are larger than those of the father - she has additional mouths to feed. The court opts for equitable distribution in this instance, on account of the children.

The best way to show the difference between equality and equity is with an example. Let’s assume I wanted to distribute food to a group of children and adults. If I wanted equality, I would simply give the same amount of food to everybody. If I wanted equity, however, things become more complicated: how do I distribute the food “fairly” or “justly”? Should children get less food because they can’t eat as much? Should I give different rations to different people based on how hungry they say they are? Regardless of the criteria I use, my attempt at trying to decide a “fair” distribution and not an “equal” one means I am looking to achieve equity and not equality.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/equality-vs-equity/

I’m correct. While we’re on the subject of taking L’s, I’m ready for your concession speech, go for it.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Why? I’m correct. You’re objectively wrong.

More projection and delusion, but that's not uncommon with libertarians.

>Salon dot com

I'm sorry, Fox News and GB News were not available, you Fuhrage cultist.

That’s not what ethereal means, that’s not what equitable means in context of distribution of goods. Equitable distribution is not necessarily equal - it’s based on need. In common law you usually see it in divorce cases when marital assets are divided. For instance, if the mother keeps the children while the father opts for visitation rights, the mother will likely be awarded a larger share of total assets because her needs are larger than those of the father - she has three additional mouths to feed.

Oh so now you were making a legal distinction? How clever, are you a lawyer? A real one I mean, not someone who relied on Google for 5 minutes. If so, you should know that fairness, in common law, is a legal concept, not something "ethereal", either for you or anyone else. It's also hilarious that, in the link you posted, it talks explicitly about LGBT people - you know, some of those you claim that don't need extra protection.

 

[FAST6191]

Have you looked about what "fairness" and "equality" mean yet? Better yet, have you looked about what "fascism" means?

Given your musings thus far I might actually be curious what yours are, and whether they would match dictionaries.

For the sake of things.

Fairness. The act of not imposing artificial roadblocks to someone or something attempting an action.

Equality. Related to above but everybody gets the same chance to impress, live, thrive and survive. There will likely be differences based on all manner of things from randomness to biology however. Some however have the bizarre idea that it means everybody should be represented by whatever metrics in proportion (or exceeding if they are "disadvantaged" despite that being a contradiction in terms, maths and logic) to the population locally and at large.

Fascism. Originally. A political philosophy attempted in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s. Can play with some etymology if you like but other than the sticks thing being a symbol in some modern clueless types it serves little purpose in quick definitions. "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" would probably be said to be the defining mantra of such a thing (actually rather less pithy in the original Italian which is a rarity in these things) and fairly fitting for its approach to the world both in intent and action.
More latterly. Some have attempted to cast it as anything extreme right wing (rather odd given its original adherents and their philosophies prior to and in action and traditional definitions thereof) in political philosophy. I don't know if this means we get to have a discussion about horseshoes, ignorance or malice attempting to mischaracterise things, and above it all it does rather a disservice should you wish to discuss either actual fascism of the time, aligned groups (one would usually include nazbol, national socialism and things that may not have achieved such a level of long standing notoriety, to say nothing of the connections to general communism) or the like.

Anyway any chance we could get back to the analysis of whether enough centrists would be swayed one way or the other, protest votes put off (or made), turnout among the relevant classes (or indeed what those classes might be -- saw some rather fascinating data on the racial demographics that run contrary to the white = republicans + libertarians, everything else + some white = democrats as it pertains to the "latino" block the other day, and discussion of the youth vote is also a fun one)? That was getting somewhat interesting before this little off topic aside with even some juicy data to look at. Politics might be boring and largely irrelevant as it pertains to the US (generally I would go with whatever the colour of tie the puppet in charge is wearing the interest groups, immediate nature and long term stagnation means nothing really changes) but the stats, and to a lesser extent psychology, can have some fun things. Can even have some discussion if the sea change is enough to ponder things; wartime guy in charge vs peace time can be different, if the sands have shifted such that he might be particularly ill suited then maybe that is in place.

 

[Foxi4]

More projection and delusion, but that's not uncommon with libertarians.

I'm sorry, Fox News and GB News were not available, you Fuhrage cultist.

Oh so now you were making a legal distinction? How clever, are you a lawyer? A real one I mean, not someone who relied on Google for 5 minutes. If so, you should know that fairness, in common law, is a legal concept, not something "ethereal", either for you or anyone else. It's also hilarious that, in the link you posted, it talks explicitly about LGBT people - you know, some of those you claim that don't need extra protection.

More specifically, I don’t believe anyone should get any extra protections - everyone should be treated exactly the same. I’ve edited my post to add some additional information. Your lot loves sources, so I figured adding one was warranted. I hope you find this treatment equitable, since I know the difference between the words “equal” and “equitable” and you don’t, so I’m adding information based on your needs. You can concede at any time.

Edit: You mean Farage. That’s his last name. I’m also not exactly a fan, fellow traveler at best (lest I need to remind anyone who started the Brexit movement which goes directly against my interests as a Pole in the United Kingdom).

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You can concede at any time.

I concede is that your ill-placed arrogance cannot cover your several Ls, but rather makes them more obvious, that's what I concede and that's after having seen your ramblings, we are only missing "taxation is theft" and the picture is complete.

More specifically, I don’t believe anyone should get any extra protections - everyone should be treated exactly the same.

which, as any person with education above 5th grade can tell, is perhaps the safest way to ensure everyone is treated differently. Thank you for confirming you are below that.

so I figured adding one was warranted. I hope you find this treatment equitable, since I know the difference and you don’t,

The only thing you seem to know is how to fail at Google 101, like plenty of others all-rounder pundits that belong with you lot.

Anyway any chance we could get back to the analysis of whether enough centrists would be swayed one way or the other, protest votes put off (or made), turnout among the relevant classes (or indeed what those classes might be -- saw some rather fascinating data on the racial demographics that run contrary to the white = republicans + libertarians, everything else + some white = democrats as it pertains to the "latino" block the other day, and discussion of the youth vote is also a fun one)? That was getting somewhat interesting before this little off topic aside with even some juicy data to look at. Politics might be boring and largely irrelevant as it pertains to the US (generally I would go with whatever the colour of tie the puppet in charge is wearing the interest groups, immediate nature and long term stagnation means nothing really changes) but the stats, and to a lesser extent psychology, can have some fun things. Can even have some discussion if the sea change is enough to ponder things; wartime guy in charge vs peace time can be different, if the sands have shifted such that he might be particularly ill suited then maybe that is in place.

In general, I feel that centrists are swayed NOT to vote for someone, rather than vote for the opposite - at least, that's what I've seen happen. Which, at the end of the day, is wholly insufficient.