Trump Clarifies Position On ‘Shutting Down’ Parts Of The Internet

[Misanthrope]

My response:

 

"it's better than raising taxes because we already know for a fact that the government can't fucking spend money responsible (or intelligently). And that the company owners get to keep some of their profit. The difference here is that the people who actually do the work, get paid for it as they should"

 

 

 

I dislike modern liberals because they have some obsession with giving money to the government, instead of giving it directly to the people who need or deserve it. I don't like taxes because, in the end, they get given to overpaid jackasses who do the most retarded things possible with it.

 

"But you're ignoring the harder work the more dedicated, more intelligent people in the leadership positions create since they obviously are more deserving since we love to point at fringe cases of C.E.O. geniuses instead of the usual sociopaths that cheat their way into fortunes!"

 

:lol:

[Misanthrope]

What? Like giving people healthcare and education? Building infrastructure? Fixing bridges that are in desperate need of repair? Yeah, really retarded ways to spend money. Absolutely no value in them whatsoever. Seriously, why do public schools even exist? And hospitals? Psssh. I preferred it when the shit just ran through the gutter in an open sewer straight out into the ocean and people frequently died of preventable illness.

 

That just assumes government works and actually implements sensible, efficient programs and policies, in reality they end up being wasteful, half assed efforts that go nowhere and fix nothing.

[ivan134]

My response:

"it's better than raising taxes because we already know for a fact that the government can't fucking spend money responsible (or intelligently). And that the company owners get to keep some of their profit. The difference here is that the people who actually do the work, get paid for it as they should"

I dislike modern liberals because they have some obsession with giving money to the government, instead of giving it directly to the people who need or deserve it. I don't like taxes because, in the end, they get given to overpaid jackasses who do the most retarded things possible with it.

Whether you like taxes or not is irrelevant. Deal in facts and not your preconceived notions. I dont understand how you can propose something that is akin to communism and then say that you hate liberal economics when yours is much worse.

[Trik'Stari]

What? Like giving people healthcare and education? Building infrastructure? Fixing bridges that are in desperate need of repair? Yeah, really retarded ways to spend money. Absolutely no value in them whatsoever. Seriously, why do public schools even exist? And hospitals? Psssh. I preferred it when the shit just ran through the gutter in an open sewer straight out into the ocean and people frequently died of preventable illness.

I wasn't saying "get rid of current taxes" I was saying "don't raise them further". Instead, go after the giant corporations that barely pay taxes to begin with. Instead of forcing them to pay taxes, force them to give some of those ridiculous profits directly to their employees. If they start laying people off, damage their ability to be profitable.

 

Infrastructure is indeed important, but so is growing wealth. I would like to encourage an economy that is not based entirely on debt. An economy where people have a decent income and can enjoy their lives. Our current system isn't working, because it's capitalism run completely amok.

 

Nor do I want pure socialism. I want something inbetween. Which is why I would only require the corporations to give back 50% of their profits instead of 100%. This way, we maintain something of an "imbalance" which would hopefully prevent stagnation, and encourage competition.

 

 

"But you're ignoring the harder work the more dedicated, more intelligent people in the leadership positions create since they obviously are more deserving since we love to point at fringe cases of C.E.O. geniuses instead of the usual sociopaths that cheat their way into fortunes!"

 

:lol:

 

I've met my dads various bosses over the bast 26 years that I've been alive. He's worked in manufacturing for more than 30 years.

 

Hard working? Not even close, better educated? Perhaps, but they still generally don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Education is not always a substitute for experience.

[FAQBytes]

Violating international treaties and radio silent-ing an entire nation it's still better than a) carpet bombing it because fuck islam or 2) leave them to their own devices entirely because fuck islamophobia which are the only solutions anybody is proposing currently.

Without doing 1), doing the former would be useless as land lines still exist.

Also, are you not hearing yourself? You are advocating insanity. It just WONT WORK! GET OVER IT!

Violating those treaties won't happen as the rest of the world would turn on us. I gave an alternative, and I can't believe the advocating of this insanity has gone so far.

Also, as I believe I have repeatedly shown, it will be all for not if even 1 person in power exists out of Syria. All they do is relocate. What then? Silence that country too?

Also, how do you think the rest of the world would react to the plan?

[ivan134]

I wasn't saying "get rid of current taxes" I was saying "don't raise them further". Instead, go after the giant corporations that barely pay taxes to begin with. Instead of forcing them to pay taxes, force them to give some of those ridiculous profits directly to their employees. If they start laying people off, damage their ability to be profitable.

Infrastructure is indeed important, but so is growing wealth. I would like to encourage an economy that is not based entirely on debt. An economy where people have a decent income and can enjoy their lives. Our current system isn't working, because it's capitalism run completely amok.

Nor do I want pure socialism. I want something inbetween. Which is why I would only require the corporations to give back 50% of their profits instead of 100%. This way, we maintain something of an "imbalance" which would hopefully prevent stagnation, and encourage competition.

I've met my dads various bosses over the bast 26 years that I've been alive. He's worked in manufacturing for more than 30 years.

Hard working? Not even close, better educated? Perhaps, but they still generally don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Education is not always a substitute for experience.

With the exception of forcing corporations to redistribute their wealth to employees, everything else you're talkng about IS liberal economics.

[Misanthrope]

I wasn't saying "get rid of current taxes" I was saying "don't raise them further". Instead, go after the giant corporations that barely pay taxes to begin with. Instead of forcing them to pay taxes, force them to give some of those ridiculous profits directly to their employees. If they start laying people off, damage their ability to be profitable.

 

Infrastructure is indeed important, but so is growing wealth. I would like to encourage an economy that is not based entirely on debt. An economy where people have a decent income and can enjoy their lives. Our current system isn't working, because it's capitalism run completely amok.

 

Nor do I want pure socialism. I want something inbetween. Which is why I would only require the corporations to give back 50% of their profits instead of 100%. This way, we maintain something of an "imbalance" which would hopefully prevent stagnation, and encourage competition.

 

 

 

I've met my dads various bosses over the bast 26 years that I've been alive. He's worked in manufacturing for more than 30 years.

 

Hard working? Not even close, better educated? Perhaps, but they still generally don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Education is not always a substitute for experience.

 

Not to go in circles I can tell you that collectivists will accuse you of being anti government and not "progressive" and conservatives will accuse you of being well, a collectivist and a communist looking to destroy wealth.

 

You'd find that most sensible, politically centered ideas get shit on by both sides since people love rhetoric and strictly adhering to economical ideas whenever they make sense or not.

[Builder]

That just assumes government works and actually implements sensible, efficient programs and policies, in reality they end up being wasteful, half assed efforts that go nowhere and fix nothing.

Most of Europe would beg to disagree. Social democracy has been working outside the US for ~80 years.

 

I wasn't saying "get rid of current taxes" I was saying "don't raise them further". Instead, go after the giant corporations that barely pay taxes to begin with. Instead of forcing them to pay taxes, force them to give some of those ridiculous profits directly to their employees. If they start laying people off, damage their ability to be profitable.

 

Infrastructure is indeed important, but so is growing wealth. I would like to encourage an economy that is not based entirely on debt. An economy where people have a decent income and can enjoy their lives. Our current system isn't working, because it's capitalism run completely amok.

 

Nor do I want pure socialism. I want something inbetween. Which is why I would only require the corporations to give back 50% of their profits instead of 100%. This way, we maintain something of an "imbalance" which would hopefully prevent stagnation, and encourage competition.

Education is always a substitute for experience in fields that require it. Trades don't, that's the point of trades. 

 

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious how you're proposing something just short of a centrally planned economy while railing against proven Keynesian strategies for fixing the one we have?

 

Also keep in mind that the top marginal tax rate used to be 95%. These days it's what, 30-35%? As the Beatles said, "That's one for you; nineteen for me. 'Cause I'm the taxman."

[FAQBytes]

As I said, I'm not entirely familiar with satellite technology. I guess that wouldn't work then. Could you not do something on the satellite end that would cause the satellite itself to essentially "ignore" signals from a specific geographical location?

Not without causing everything to go dark. In order to that you would have to destroy every radio tower in the country. In that case, the country would also have no way to report crimes over phone as all the lines would be dead. Once that happens, the only way to inform the police of crimes is running out in the street and yelling out the crime. You remove all emergency lines and everything. Nobody can call hospitals. Places can't call for aid. Americans can't contact home. What then?

What would I have to inform you of in order to make you and the others realize this is a bad plan? I have shown that it will be 0% effective. To have any effectiveness every form of communication in the country would have to be destroyed, and even then it won't work because they just relocate.

What do I have to do?

[Trik'Stari]

With the exception of forcing corporations to redistribute their wealth to employees, everything else you're talkng about IS liberal economics.

Perhaps. I am both anti corporation, and anti government. Since both are completely self centered to the point of being sociopathic.

 

Not to go in circles I can tell you that collectivists will accuse you of being anti government and not "progressive" and conservatives will accuse you of being well, a collectivist and a communist looking to destroy wealth.

 

You'd find that most sensible, politically centered ideas get shit on by both sides since people love rhetoric and strictly adhering to economical ideas whenever they make sense or not.

That's pretty much how I know it will work. Both sides are pissy that they don't get to line their fucking pockets. And that's exactly what I would say in the debate. "you don't like because you can't dip your dirty fucking finger into the dike"

 

 

Not without causing everything to go dark. In order to that you would have to destroy every radio tower in the country. In that case, the country would also have no way to report crimes over phone as all the lines would be dead. Once that happens, the only way to inform the police of crimes is running out in the street and yelling out the crime. You remove all emergency lines and everything. Nobody can call hospitals. Places can't call for aid. Americans can't contact home. What then?

What would I have to inform you of in order to make you and the others realize this is a bad plan? I have shown that it will be 0% effective. To have any effectiveness every form of communication in the country would have to be destroyed, and even then it won't work because they just relocate.

What do I have to do?

 

I'm simply asking questions because I am not familiar with the infrastructure. If what you are saying is true, then yeah, it won't fucking work. I'm assuming the physical ethernet lines are laying right next to phone and power lines.

 

At that point, you might as well be carpet bombing I guess. it would have the same effect. (mass chaos, confusion, and destruction)

[Misanthrope]

Without doing 1), doing the former would be useless as land lines still exist.

Also, are you not hearing yourself? You are advocating insanity. It just WONT WORK! GET OVER IT!

Violating those treaties won't happen as the rest of the world would turn on us. I gave an alternative, and I can't believe the advocating of this insanity has gone so far.

Also, as I believe I have repeatedly shown, it will be all for not if even 1 person in power exists out of Syria. All they do is relocate. What then? Silence that country too?

Also, how do you think the rest of the world would react to the plan?

 

I think that while economical and technological embargoes seem extreme, you really can't call me the extremist when half the people support killing innocent civilians in order to kill Islamic terrorists and the other half supports doing nothing while continuing to allow Islamic terrorists to kill people.

[Builder]

Perhaps. I am both anti corporation, and anti government. Since both are completely self centered to the point of being sociopathic.

 

You're basically a communist with no sense of history at this point. Honestly, I'm stunned. But if you're looking into the manifesto or Das Kapital, give me a holler and I'll come help you figure it out.

[Misanthrope]

Most of Europe would beg to disagree. Social democracy has been working outside the US for ~80 years.

 

Conceded for the sake of argument: that just doesn't fixes a nation with legally sanctioned bribing of legislators like the US and their lobbying. You really can't trust Authority just because it's the Authority, specially when their track record probes they're incapable of being trusted.

 

Also the other half of Europe, you know to the right of the Berlin wall, has experience on what happens with unquestionable authority and coincidentally all those nations are much more worst off than the wealthier, more moderate rich nations to the west of the wall now. 

[Trik'Stari]

You're basically a communist with no sense of history at this point. Honestly, I'm stunned. But if you're looking into the manifesto or Das Kapital, give me a holler and I'll come help you figure it out.

Yeah, all I need to know about the real world implementation of full blown communism is China and the Soviet union. Both of which were arguably more harmful than good. I'm trying to develop a working .......I'm not sure what word to use here (economic theory?) between capitalism and socialism.

 

One that still thrives on competition, but doesn't fuck people over so completely (that latter part applying to both capitalism and communism/socialism). One that encourages competition and fair pay, but also allows for people to succeed and have more than others (no point in pushing yourself if you can only have the same shitty personal possessions as everyone else, barring the politburo)

 

Basically, capitalism with restraints that actually work. Not by simply punishing a company by taking money from them, but by punishing them by making it possible for someone else to do the same thing as them, but being less asinine about it.

[FAQBytes]

I think that while economical and technological embargoes seem extreme, you really can't call me the extremist when half the people support killing innocent civilians in order to kill Islamic terrorists and the other half supports doing nothing while continuing to allow Islamic terrorists to kill people.

Ehh, from my standpoint you are doing the former, and unfortunately doing nothing to separate yourself from the latter. Also, this is a false dilemma, as I fall into neither.

Focus on what will work. Infiltrating these organizations communications networks isn't that difficult, and there are plenty of organizations willing to do that for free. Once there is a monetary incentive has been put into place, you instantly raise the level of the ability of people to do so. Some Anonymous hackers already have done just that. Once the gov't recognizes that that method will be far more effective and far cheaper, maybe we'll make progress.

PR: We are paying a reward for all information on Daesh communications.

What they are saying: Alright hackers, we're gonna pay you this time. Get the ball rolling.

[Builder]

Conceded for the sake of argument: that just doesn't fixes a nation with legally sanctioned bribing of legislators like the US and their lobbying. You really can't trust Authority just because it's the Authority, specially when their track record probes they're incapable of being trusted.

No, I strongly agree. I'm not saying it won't take a long time and probably a few fundamental cultural shifts but I think it'll happen eventually unless we elect a dictator as it seems some of us are wont to do with Trump. Most representative democracies are fucked anyways. There were a few studies on what would happen if we required everyone to vote in elections in the US and it would have been like 50 years or something since we elected a conservative. The reason they keep winning is low voter turnout, the only time Republicans ever win is with low voter turnout.

 

Yeah, all I need to know about the real world implementation of full blown communism is China and the Soviet union. Both of which were arguably more harmful than good. I'm trying to develop a working .......I'm not sure what word to use here (economic theory?) between capitalism and socialism.

 

One that still thrives on competition, but doesn't fuck people over so completely (that latter part applying to both capitalism and communism/socialism)

Nah nah those are state capitalist systems, and authoritarian ones at that. I'm a syndicalist myself but Marx has a lot of good historiography and historical philosophy too. Dialectical materialism would be a good place to start if you're really interested. If you're not ready for Marxism I started with Hegel myself which is sort of Marxism lite from a certain interpretation.

[Trik'Stari]

No, I strongly agree. I'm not saying it won't take a long time and probably a few fundamental cultural shifts but I think it'll happen eventually unless we elect a dictator as it seems some of us are wont to do with Trump. Most representative democracies are fucked anyways. There were a few studies on what would happen if we required everyone to vote in elections in the US and it would have been like 50 years or something since we elected a conservative. The reason they keep winning is low voter turnout, the only time Republicans ever win is with low voter turnout.

 

Nah nah those are state capitalist systems, and authoritarian ones at that. I'm a syndicalist myself but Marx has a lot of good historiography and historical philosophy too. Dialectic materialism would be a good place to start if you're really interested.

I'm less interested in theory, and more interested in practical applications. Although I have come a ways over the past few years. Mainly from seeing the bullshit my dad puts up with. He works 60 hours a week, makes this company millions, they just got a huge, multi-million dollar deal with Kroger, solely because Kroger knows his reputation, and knows he is running the east coast division of the company, and his benefit for all of this? Something like $2600 in commissions? Capitalism is one thing, but that's just fucking douchebag behavior.

 

I've met his immediate boss (the company owners son). Complete, fucking, tool. Guy wouldn't know a shopping cart from a hand basket if you shoved both up his ass.

[Builder]

I'm less interested in theory, and more interested in practical applications. Although I have come a ways over the past few years. Mainly from seeing the bullshit my dad puts up with. He works 60 hours a week, makes this company millions, they just got a huge, multi-million dollar deal with Kroger, solely because Kroger knows his reputation, and knows he is running the east coast division of the company, and his benefit for all of this? Something like $2600 in commissions? Capitalism is one thing, but that's just fucking douchebag behavior.

That's something Marx was acutely aware of. In fact, he went so far as to say that all employment under capitalism is inherently exploitative because employees are only employed as long as they produce more value than they consume. i.e. you're only employed because they make a profit off of you

[ivan134]

Conceded for the sake of argument: that just doesn't fixes a nation with legally sanctioned bribing of legislators like the US and their lobbying. You really can't trust Authority just because it's the Authority, specially when their track record probes they're incapable of being trusted.

Also the other half of Europe, you know to the right of the Berlin wall, has experience on what happens with unquestionable authority and coincidentally all those nations are much more worst off than the wealthier, more moderate rich nations to the west of the wall now.

Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are to the east of that wall and they're not moderate. The countries you are talking about are just, relatively speaking, still recovering from the influence of the Soviet Union so what you're saying is very disingenuous. Japan and canada are not moderate either.

[ivan134]

Yeah, all I need to know about the real world implementation of full blown communism is China and the Soviet union. Both of which were arguably more harmful than good. I'm trying to develop a working .......I'm not sure what word to use here (economic theory?) between capitalism and socialism.

One that still thrives on competition, but doesn't fuck people over so completely (that latter part applying to both capitalism and communism/socialism). One that encourages competition and fair pay, but also allows for people to succeed and have more than others (no point in pushing yourself if you can only have the same shitty personal possessions as everyone else, barring the politburo)

Basically, capitalism with restraints that actually work. Not by simply punishing a company by taking money from them, but by punishing them by making it possible for someone else to do the same thing as them, but being less asinine about it.

It already exists and its being practiced by a lot of European countries, Canada and Japan. You arenjust unwilling to accept it because you think taxes are the antichrist.

[Misanthrope]

Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are to the east of that wall and they're not moderate. The countries you are talking about are just, relatively speaking, still recovering from the influence of the Soviet Union so what you're saying is very disingenuous. Japan and canada are not moderate either.

 

So I'm not being fair by being critical of collectivists because....the communist nations are poor as the result of former collectivism....

[ivan134]

So I'm not being fair by being critical of collectivists because....the communist nations are poor as the result of former collectivism....

No, you are equating Keynesian economics to collectivism.

[FAQBytes]

I'm simply asking questions because I am not familiar with the infrastructure. If what you are saying is true, then yeah, it won't fucking work. I'm assuming the physical ethernet lines are laying right next to phone and power lines.

At that point, you might as well be carpet bombing I guess. it would have the same effect. (mass chaos, confusion, and destruction)

Ehh, sorry for lumping you in with the others, I just get tired of repeating myself to the point where I stopped looking at the names.

You are correct for the most part as that was the most economical way of doing it. Much cheaper to put 2 lines into 1 larger hole. You're already digging bigger than the pipe will be.

Aside from that, most communications lines are routed through the control centers for radio towers, as that is where most originate. Think of the image of the old operators in old films. Essentially the same thing. Eliminating the towers will eliminate the control centers as they are one and the same essentially (most are connected).

It's just amazing to me how far some people are willing to go in order to defend a stupid idea that has to have someone else make a way that might have a potential of even maybe working a tiny bit.

While not harmful when for pure conjecture, when advocated for implementation, that's when it's toxic.

The best way to give an example of this to a person inside the "I like the idea" stance, read the following.

Saying that "feeding the homeless to the hungry is a way of solving both world hunger and homelessness" is not toxic when it is purely conjecture. It essentially states you have to throw away morality to have it be a solution, but it is technically correct.

However, when someone says "Hey, we have to implement this", and is seriously going out and advocating for it without irony, the idea becomes extremely toxic as you then advocate genocide of billions.

While that example is very extreme, it's really not that far off from what you all advocate for with what I am hearing, as this is what I have heard from the pro:

We are willing to throw an entire nation into chaos, cut off both internal and external communications by bombing every landline and radio tower in the nation, and desert everything there, all for nothing because it won't even remotely work because people can move around and you advocate for a geographic-based solution for a global problem.

I hope this makes it clear why I vehemently oppose this.

Even if we stick to a Chinese-style firewall, you advocate billions of dollars of expenditure for something which again, is a geographic solution for a global problem which doesn't even solve for the geographic problem due to the ease of getting around it.

Note: You refers to those who advocate for Trump's plan.

[Trik'Stari]

It already exists and its being practiced by a lot of European countries, Canada and Japan. You arenjust unwilling to accept it because you think taxes are the antichrist.

I think taxes are idiotic (NOT ENTIRELY, but a lot of what they are spent on, IS) because I've worked for the government before. You will never find a more retched hive of waste, self justification, and complete idiocy. I'd rather give the money directly to the people, by specifying that the corporations need to give half of their profits directly to their employees. The corporate tax rates would essentially remain the same.

 

Why do this? Why not just raise minimum wage? Because minimum wage doesn't work. It does raise how much you get paid, but the corporations just raise prices and fire people to offset that increase in overhead. So instead, specify that the money to be given to the employees be 50% of profit, ontop of the currently existing minimum wage. That way if they raise prices, they just have to give more money to employees. And then, if they start laying people off and outsourcing, you take away their patents and make them public domain. That way, ANYONE can make the exact same product (including the original patent owner) and they end up losing money, and someone else decides "fuck it, I can make a decent living making this product, I'll start hiring the people they just fired, and make this product. Not like they can do anything to stop me".

[Trik'Stari]

-snip

I understand where you are coming from, however I would point out that morality is an entirely social construct (please see: The price equation on the evolution of altruism). What is best for the majority of the group, will be considered moral. Yes, that solution would basically f**k over an entire country, the real question being, is it called for. Will the harm that ISIS does to the people in that country, and to the rest of the world, be worth the complete f**king of said country? (and also, as @Builder pointed out, will it even work, would doing absolutely nothing work? I don't think doing nothing will work. Doing nothing didn't work against the Nazi's, but then again I'm not a fortune teller)

 

(I am now going to start censoring my F-bombs, because I know a mod will come through here at some point and censor them anyways. Because some people apparently can't handle F-bombs in 2015)