Religion Trump and guns

[MarAzul]

I was responding to your asinine assertion

Nothing asinine about it and I know you can apply the logic need to make the proper connection to the issue at hand.

 

[theprunetang]

Voting could be done by kids that will eat tidepods for likes on social media.

 

[jonnyboy]

It also seems very convoluted that a person is deemed to be mature enough to vote but still you deny them the right to defend themselves.
Wtf sort of logic is that?

Or old enough to die in a war.

 

[Further]

Nothing asinine about it and I know you can apply the logic need to make the proper connection to the issue at hand.

But do these Trump views affect your support of Trump? He’s advocating almost exactly what Obama did, but actually stznds a chance of success because he’s on the right.

 

[MarAzul]

Or old enough to die in a war.

This old argument does not bother me. Just because a young fellow is physical ready to take orders, do his task, and go to war does not equate to being read to cast an informed vote. No worry, it is not unfair. Is just the way it is.

 

[MarAzul]

But do these Trump views affect your support of Trump? He’s advocating almost exactly what Obama did, but actually stznds a chance of success because he’s on the right.

No it does not. Trump is an ESTP Salesman and deal maker. What he say along the way is what ever he needs to move the negotiations along. It is the end result one needs to wait for before you evaluate. I understand it, I have used similar technique myself, although I usually bring in help to play the role.

 

[Further]

No it does not. Trump is an ESTP Salesman and deal maker. What he say along the way is what ever he needs to move the negotiations along. It is the end result one needs to wait for before you evaluate. I understand it, I have used similar technique myself, although I usually bring in help to play the role.

I thought your stance was absolutely no infringement, no negotiations since there is no movement to be had. But now he is not only negotiating but he is championing the most restrictive gun laws this nation has seen.

Seems to me like this is a clear cut case of cognitive dissonance. There is no way you wouldn’t be pitching a fit if a Democrat President advocated similar policy.

 

[MarAzul]

I thought your stance was absolutely no infringement, no negotiations since there is no movement to be had. But now he is not only negotiating but he is championing the most restrictive gun laws this nation has seen.
Seems to me like this is a clear cut case of cognitive dissonance. There is no way you wouldn’t be pitching a fit if a Democrat President advocated similar policy.

Well we wait and see what becomes law. And I do believe infringements should be done by Amendment. I don't think banning a bump stock is and infringement.
More like guidance in avoiding a dumb, ill conceived accessory.

Your assessment of my reaction if we had a Democratic President is inaccurate. I even voted for a couple. I sure as hell did not like the most recent because he fucked me up and millions like me, with his stupid ACA. Far worse the any President before him. An outstanding example of why expansion of government must be done by amendment.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

I sort of need to see the law I am going to get barf. No spare energy to blow on what if stuff.

Interesting reply. You (or those of your ilk on this board) bang the drum loudly when Trump says the middle class is going to benefit from tax “reform”, or that he has created hundreds of jobs here and hundreds of jobs there. You proclaim he is doing doing a wonderful job and the dissenters should shut their mouths. Yet, we have pretty much seen nothing concrete (or at least worthy of all the hype). To this point. Only words and promises. You denigrate those of us who say we’ll “believe it when we actually see it.” Yet now that Trump talks actual gun “reform” (that goes against conservative ideology) you’re essentially saying “don’t believe everything you hear till it’s a done deal.” Seems typical of the right.....do as I say, not as I do.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I thought your stance was absolutely no infringement, no negotiations since there is no movement to be had. But now he is not only negotiating but he is championing the most restrictive gun laws this nation has seen.

Seems to me like this is a clear cut case of cognitive dissonance. There is no way you wouldn’t be pitching a fit if a Democrat President advocated similar policy.

Sounds to me that Marzy is basically saying, "Trump is a pathological liar, so just because he's saying he wants to take guns away doesn't actually mean he wants to". Whereas a left-leaning president saying the same he would take at his/her word, because statements like these would be fully in keeping with their party's basic stances.

 

[riverman]

Trump has few actual convictions other than those that instantly make him look good...it's why he walks back stuff he says all the time...when he saw over 70 percent of the country wanted some form of gun control...he chucked the GOP under the table and went for it....he desperately needs to win something to take the attention off the dysfunction...he doesn't actually want reform, he wants poll numbers

 

[MarAzul]

Interesting reply.

>>> Thank you. I believe it is my position, not the conservative position.

he has created hundreds of jobs here and hundreds of jobs there.

>>>Well, I think we have the lowest unemployment rate of all time now, or close. Work force participation is climbing a little too, which is a big thing.

bang the drum loudly when Trump says the middle class is going to benefit from tax “reform”,

>>>> Aw well, you may have me confuse with some other, I have not bang the drum on this much at all. But then I do think the workers will benefit from this,
not directly as much as from keeping the country competitive creating jobs in this country.
You can not have the highest business taxes in the world and expect to keep creating jobs in this country.

You proclaim he is doing doing a wonderful job and the dissenters should shut their mouths

>>>Naw, dissent is one thing, and it is ok. I do it myself I really got pissed when the ACA stripped me and million like me of our earned compensation which was health care insurance. But to go on and on before you are harmed is illogical. To do it with vulgar language directed at our President, is disgusting.

You denigrate those of us who say we’ll “believe it when we actually see it.

>>> I do not believe I have been the one you discribe here. But if you find where I did it, I will eat the words.

you’re essentially saying “don’t believe everything you hear till it’s a done deal.”

>>> Yes that is exactly what I think. This President does work people, so what sort of deal will he get through Congress? Will it be some sort of composite deal?
a little gun control thing and some other want on the other side, we shall see. But I also do not think it will end up being opposed by the NRA! Congressmen are not going to do that! That is terminal.

 

[Nate]

View attachment 18995

This makes my heart warm.

 

[MarAzul]

Trump is a pathological liar,

Your assessment would read fairly well if you deleted the above. You may have inferred it, But no way did I say it or imply such.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Your assessment would read fairly well if you deleted the above. You may have inferred it, But no way did I say it or imply such.

If I replaced it with "dishonest negotiator" would that be more apt?

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

>>> Thank you. I believe it is my position, not the conservative position.


>>>Well, I think we have the lowest unemployment rate of all time now, or close. Work force participation is climbing a little too, which is a big thing.


>>>> Aw well, you may have me confuse with some other, I have not bang the drum on this much at all. But then I do think the workers will benefit from this,
not directly as much as from keeping the country competitive creating jobs in this country.


>>>Naw, disent is one thing, and it is ok. I do it myself I really got pissed when the ACA stripped me and million like me of our earned compensation which was health care insurance. But to go on and on before you are harmed is illogical. To do it with vulgar language directed at our President, is disgusting.


>>> I do not believe I have been the one you discribe here. But if you find where I did it, I will eat the words.


>>> Yes that is exactly what I think. This President does work people, so what sort of deal will he get through Congress? Will it be some sort of composite deal?
a little gun control thing and some other want on the other side, we shall see. But I also do not think it will end up being opposed by the NRA! Congressmen are not going to do that! That is terminal.

When it comes to numbers, especially those related to (un)employment, I usually fall back to the old adage that “figures lie and liars figure.” Personally, I believe this kind of “information” is nothing more than a political tool and therefore highly susceptible to serious manipulation. So it carries little actual weight when it comes to my opinions.

 

[MarAzul]

If I replaced it with "dishonest negotiator" would that be more apt?

No, I do not see anything dishonest in the technique. It is a way to fire up negotiations and deal making. Like I say, I have used it. I opens up avenues of thinking so that progress can be made.

 

[Further]

Sounds to me that Marzy is basically saying, "Trump is a pathological liar, so just because he's saying he wants to take guns away doesn't actually mean he wants to". Whereas a left-leaning president saying the same he would take at his/her word, because statements like these would be fully in keeping with their party's basic stances.

I understand Trump supporters like Mags who believe trump will shake things up and that alone is worth the price of admission.

But I don’t understand supporters who claim certain hard line views yet the second Trump flips, they make excuses.

 

[MarAzul]

When it comes to numbers, especially those related to (un)employment, I usually fall back to the old adage that “figures lie and liars figure.” Personally, I believe this kind of “information” is nothing more than a political tool and therefore highly susceptible to serious manipulation. So it carries little actual weight when it comes to my opinions.

Well then look at tax revenues in and unemployment costs out. I read somewhere recently about welfare costs and food stamp cost falling but I don't remember where to find it. But I suppose all things can be manipulated.

Perhaps when wages rise is the only thing to watch. When labor is short wage must rise, unless we import some more and damn, we have had enough of that.

 

[MarAzul]

But I don’t understand supporters who claim certain hard line views yet the second Trump flips, they make excuses.

You seem to think all actions stem from a political position. Not true, many actions are prompted by Management style.

This is the first time we have had a real savvy Manager as the Chief Executive. About time!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No, I do not see anything dishonest in the technique. It is a way to fire up negotiations and deal making. Like I say, I have used it. I opens up avenues of thinking so that progress can be made.

Not really being a businessman or a negotiator, I likely don't understand what you mean when you refer to "the technique" then. I had interpreted this:

What he says along the way is what ever he needs to move the negotiations along.

...as suggesting that he makes statements that aren't true in order to motivate people to act based on their belief that the statement may, in fact, be true. But that would involve saying untrue statements, which is by definition dishonesty.

Since you're saying there's nothing dishonest in the technique he's using, would you be so kind as to correct my disconnect and help me understand what I'm missing?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Not really being a businessman or a negotiator, I likely don't understand what you mean when you refer to "the technique" then. I had interpreted this:

...as suggesting that he makes statements that aren't true in order to motivate people to act based on their belief that the statement may, in fact, be true. But that would involve saying untrue statements, which is by definition dishonesty.

Since you're saying there's nothing dishonest in the technique he's using, would you be so kind as to correct my disconnect and help me understand what I'm missing?

Where I find less value in your example is that I have not seen the same amount of concern towards previous administrations.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Where I find less value in your example is that I have not seen the same amount of concern towards previous administrations.

My example? Concern towards previous administrations? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm not making value judgments on anyone. I'm just trying to understand/clarify Marazul's statement, since he took issue with one aspect of my paraphrase.

 

[MarAzul]

dishonesty.

I see nothing dishonest about leaving the impression that you may get what you want and even agreeing to what you want. This and being fully aware that others will eventually shoot it down. Perhaps even so far into the process as the courts.
This is completely honest negotiation and fruitful if you get what you want or part of what you seek. Perhaps even both contentious parties win or win something.
Not possible if you stand on ridged ideological prohibition, as most politician do. Business managers do not.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

My example? Concern towards previous administrations? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm not making value judgments on anyone. I'm just trying to understand/clarify Marazul's statement, since he took issue with one aspect of my paraphrase.

In reading your statements that I have identified, you call out the President for doing exactly what others have done. Seems disingenuous to me.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

In reading your statements that I have identified, you call out the President for doing exactly what others have done. Seems disingenuous to me.

Again, I'm not "calling him out". But even if I were, what makes you think I favored dishonesty from any previous president? Wouldn't you need some prior precedent to suggest disingenuousness?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I see nothing dishonest about leaving the impression that you may get what you want and even agreeing to what you want. This and being fully aware that others will eventually shoot it down. Perhaps even so far into the process as the courts.
This is completely honest negotiation and fruitful if you get what you want or part of what you seek. Perhaps even both contentious parties win or win something.
Not possible if you stand on ridged ideological prohibition, as most politician do. Business managers do not.

I follow your thinking on this.

The difference would be to out right lie to the public, fully knowing that what you are telling them is an untruth.

"Your premiums will go down"

"You can keep your Doctor"

"The FBI and the DOJ are not investigating you, President Trump"

 

[MarAzul]

"Your premiums will go down"

"You can keep your Doctor"

"The FBI and the DOJ are not investigating you, President Trump"

Hard to survive whoppers like those.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Again, I'm not "calling him out". But even if I were, what makes you think I favored dishonesty from any previous president? Wouldn't you need some prior precedent to suggest disingenuousness?

Fairly simple, I have read your statements in this thread. No need to hand pick, you know what you have written. Lets agree that you have been less than flattering towards the President. I compare that with how you have treated other administrations on here, and there is an obvious difference.

I get it, you do not like The Donald. I respect your opinion. Just seems like a waste of effort to apply standards to him that others have not lived up to.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Fairly simple, I have read your statements in this thread. No need to hand pick, you know what you have written. Lets agree that you have been less than flattering towards the President. I compare that with how you have treated other administrations on here, and there is an obvious difference.

I get it, you do not like The Donald. I respect your opinion. Just seems like a waste of effort to apply standards to him that others have not lived up to.

If you're attempting to suggest that I have been flattering toward previous administrations, then you're confusing me with someone else. And even in this thread, I have not made any statements about President Trump. You're welcome to try to find one, but you will not. Every post I'd made was regarding my reading of Marazul's post, not making any declarations of my own positions.

You incorrectly and unfairly characterize my opinion when you have no valid basis to do so.