Trump Hits Another Home run at CPAC!

[Halicia]

I'll try not to laugh when I hear Trump comment about people mooching off the government when he stops siphoning millions of dollars to his private businesses and starts paying taxes.

[Tijuana]

The problem is you are much more pessimistically assuming that they don't do something worthwhile even when they do and are just looking at the removing 2 part without regard to how those 2 are chosen. As far as your jab on the department of education, I wish I could respond but I am not educated enough on that to really know much beyond the part where, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't it prevent some states from trying to teach creationism in science class? Or to stop a few states from trying to whitewash their teachings of slavery in the history books like they had a few states doing by in the early 1900s?

Not sure what you are talking about with Obama though as the main regulation I remember hearing was one keeping them from dumping in the waterways. What did Obama do that makes you say he made it illegal?

Ok, fine. Then you tell me how they are chosen? You don't know any better than me. All we know is there is a choice that needs to be made, and I support there being a choice. You are taking issue with there even being a choice.

Dude, go read up on what has happened to the coal industry under the bullshit water rules. This was an industry wide poison pill regulation that effectively made coal economically un-viable as a competitor to oil and natural gas.

[Fugus]

He doesn't need to make a 2 for 1 rule for his appointees. He can just tell them to do away with all of it. The entire point of the 2 for 1, is to put the staff of the departments to work on seeking out ones that we don't need. A department head can't physically pour through all that alone. But, holy shit we are in the weeds now. Whatever interesting aspect there was, to you talking past me about things I already answered, is wearing thin.

Bottom line, you think every regulation ever written is grand, and/or that Trump is Satan incarnate, and wants us all to die in unique and interesting ways, brought on by a lack of safety. I think have your point down pat enough to no longer need further clarification.

His 2 for 1 rule was meant to apply to all of them with his appointees being the one to head them giving them a great deal of the decision on how that is played out. And the 2 for 1 rule is a horrible way of doing it because it doesn't force them to seek out the ones they don't need, it allows them to seek out the ones they don't WANT regardless of if they need it or not because after they leave, it isn't their problem or using it as a block to keep them from adding more regulations as they are needed. How much regulation do you honestly think they can safely remove even if they had perfect knowledge of what they could really repeal and be a benefit? 10% would be a safe bet depending on industry, 20% I can kinda see, 30% or more you are probably going into crazy land and causing more harm than good.

And again, stop making shit up and putting it in my mouth. That is why you keep getting stuff wrong. I did not think every regulation ever written was grand or any of that crap. Stop reading between lines that don't exist.

You are letting your desire for small government to overtake your rational judgement on the situation and ignoring the facts of the situation that don't align with that desire.

[Wyrt]

Put the regulation "industry" out of work?

Um, he does realize that some of those regulations protect us from being killed by companies right?

[Anevers]

Put the regulation "industry" out of work?

Um, he does realize that some of those regulations protect us from being killed by companies right?

“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

[Zeek Daniels]

Yes, how inspiring. Chest-thumping, xenophobia, and more empty promises.

Not xenophobia. He says it quite clearly that Americans are a diverse people but we are still all Americans and we need to stick together in this struggle against the terror of "radical islam". He also said he is starting to kick out the "bad" people who are illegals. You know gangsters, drug dealers, rapists, murderers.

There is no xenophobia if you obey the laws and enter the country legit. There is a fear when we dont know who you are and what your doing here and how long your staying.

Immigration laws exist for a reason. The same reason you dont let people in your house without knowing who they are is the same reason immigration laws exist. We need documentation. Every US citizen has Documentation that allows them to travel from State to State and be a part of our great nation. Illegals however have Zero documentation and we dont know anything about them.

[Glorious Leader]

I'll try not to laugh when I hear Trump comment about people mooching off the government when he stops siphoning millions of dollars to his private businesses and starts paying taxes.

I mean id love to know what he pays in taxes and what he gets subsidized for. Wed need those tax records of course....

[Wyrt]

Also, does he realize that social security and medicare are welfare and that the people receiving those benefits are retired and not going back to work?

And what about VA benefits for wounded veterans?

[Miztickow]

Wow, What a speech!! So inspiring! Some of his best quotes:



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...sses-cpac.html


He hit every nail on the head with this awe inspiring patriotic speech!

1. lie
2. dangerous to public health
3. lie
4. lie
5. veiled unconstitutional racism
6. lie
7. welfare payouts have been declining since 2010
8. lie
9. lie?

[Fugus]

Ok, fine. Then you tell me how they are chosen? You don't know any better than me. All we know is there is a choice that needs to be made, and I support there being a choice. You are taking issue with there even being a choice.

Dude, go read up on what has happened to the coal industry under the bullshit water rules. This was an industry wide poison pill regulation that effectively made coal economically un-viable as a competitor to oil and natural gas.

The 2 chosen to be removed would depend on the desire of the person looking to remove it. If they are wanting to remove 2 things that protect companies without actually hurting the public, they will target them. If they want to protect the company, they will target that protects the workers or the consumers that deal with the company, if they are looking to destroy the company, they target regulations essential for that program to function.

And again, I am not taking an issue of there being a chance to remove unneeded regulations, that is again you putting words in my mouth. I said that this approach to repealing them is a bad one and can and probably will cause more harm than good with such a piss poor implementation.

I already told you my idea for a choice that would be far superior to the 2 for 1 but you keep ignoring 80% of it and then repeating a portion of it out of context.

And coal is not a clean fuel and need regulations unless you want to offset the costs of that cleanup away from the company itself. That is externalizing costs while internalizing the profits which is a sad thing and as it stands, coal is just more expensive due to how dirty it is as it stands, Solar is now cheaper than coal while creating more jobs.

Edit: AFK.

[Tijuana]

His 2 for 1 rule was meant to apply to all of them with his appointees being the one to head them giving them a great deal of the decision on how that is played out. And the 2 for 1 rule is a horrible way of doing it because it doesn't force them to seek out the ones they don't need, it allows them to seek out the ones they don't WANT regardless of if they need it or not because after they leave, it isn't their problem or using it as a block to keep them from adding more regulations as they are needed. How much regulation do you honestly think they can safely remove even if they had perfect knowledge of what they could really repeal and be a benefit? 10% would be a safe bet depending on industry, 20% I can kinda see, 30% or more you are probably going into crazy land and causing more harm than good.

And again, stop making shit up and putting it in my mouth. That is why you keep getting stuff wrong. I did not think every regulation ever written was grand or any of that crap. Stop reading between lines that don't exist.

You are letting your desire for small government to overtake your rational judgement on the situation and ignoring the facts of the situation that don't align with that desire.

You act as if there will come a time, when they have none to name, and then just no new ones will be able to be made. It's an EO, not a work of stone. He can write a new one tomorrow. I mean, if your big fear, is that we are going to reach a point where it's an industrial free for all, I have no idea why. It's like you think this all happens in some sort of bubble. If we are unsafe, or even if we are not, have no fear, the press will be there to oppose every removed regulation.

That said, I can tell you have not been keeping up with your partisan reading. They are no longer being called regulations by your side. They are now branding them protections. Because, that sounds so much more ominous to remove protections, than to remove regulations.

You are letting your desire for big government to overtake your rational judgement on the situation and ignoring the facts of the situation that don't align with that desire.

[Theinquisition]

What's the issue with regulation? I can see the appeal of the other claims (even if I don't agree with all of them) but deregulation is surely only a bad thing for the consumer?

depends on the regulations, some make it terribly difficult for new small businesses to compete with large corporations.

[Tijuana]

The 2 chosen to be removed would depend on the desire of the person looking to remove it. If they are wanting to remove 2 things that protect companies without actually hurting the public, they will target them. If they want to protect the company, they will target that protects the workers or the consumers that deal with the company, if they are looking to destroy the company, they target regulations essential for that program to function.

And again, I am not taking an issue of there being a chance to remove unneeded regulations, that is again you putting words in my mouth. I said that this approach to repealing them is a bad one and can and probably will cause more harm than good with such a piss poor implementation.

I already told you my idea for a choice that would be far superior to the 2 for 1 but you keep ignoring 80% of it and then repeating a portion of it out of context.

And coal is not a clean fuel and need regulations unless you want to offset the costs of that cleanup away from the company itself. That is externalizing costs while internalizing the profits which is a sad thing and as it stands, coal is just more expensive due to how dirty it is as it stands, Solar is now cheaper than coal while creating more jobs.

Edit: AFK.

Your notion that only one side is going to regulate unfairly is based on...what now?

[Wyrt]

depends on the regulations, some make it terribly difficult for new small businesses to compete with large corporations.

If there are problematic regulations then they should be looked at individually. But this broad stroke of "regulations are bad, remove them!" is dangerous.

[Glorious Leader]

If there are problematic regulations then they should be looked at individually. But this broad stroke of "regulations are bad, remove them!" is dangerous.

More to the point monopolies form because they are incredible profitable. Competition is expensive. Collusion and consolidation are much more profitable. To remove government from the equation merely removes the party taking the bribe. It does not remove the impetus for the bribe.

[Theinquisition]

If there are problematic regulations then they should be looked at individually. But this broad stroke of "regulations are bad, remove them!" is dangerous.

I don't disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

More to the point monopolies form because they are incredible profitable. Competition is expensive. Collusion and consolidation are much more profitable. To remove government from the equation merely removes the party taking the bribe. It does not remove the impetus for the bribe.

no, but it removes the entity with the power to enforce a monopoly by the barrel of a gun.

[Alcsaar]

He won, when is he going to stop campaigning?

I mean hes still got to try to secure that second term, I guess.

[Bodakane]

I think you make some valid points in your posts and are fairly eloquent in doing so, however in this case you are incorrect. To claim the construction of a wall is the very definition of xenophobia doesn't jive. The definition is clear, and building a wall in no way shows intense or irrational fear or dislike. If one judges illegal immigration as an important issue, one logical solution would be to guard ones borders, wouldn't it? Perhaps people have different ideas of what intense and irrational are, but that doesn't change the fact that a wall is just a structure and nothing more. If the definition didn't include those two very important parts (intense and irrational) then your viewpoint would make more sense. Maybe it's just a matter of semantics but I don't think so. When people criticized Obama there were many commentators that immediately set upon them claiming they were doing so strictly out of prejudice. That argument didn't make sense and neither does trying to tie a definition of an overused word to a situation that doesn't merit it.

I think the topic of illegal immigration is fascinating. It's quite amazing that the US is the only country where breaking that law seems to not only be ok, but encouraged. If you are against illegal immigration you are branded xenophobic or racist or both. I wonder what would happen if I decided to head on over to Mexico or Canada or China and decide to just live there.

There are a number of different solutions. This administration and its supporters are choosing the option that says, "we don't want any of you people here". That is xenophobic. Also, it's xenophobic to act like the illegal issue is a massive problem worth spending billions on, when solutions that allow these people to become citizens could generate money. Most countries aren't bordered by walls, you know.

This doesn't even consider the Muslim ban either, which further proves the xenophobia.

We are country literally built and founded on immigration. There's a statue and everything....

[The Stormbringer]

"We're going to put the regulation industry out of work."

Wouldn't that mean fewer jobs?

In all seriousness, we need regulation to survive. Why? Because business will do ANYTHING they can to make a profit, no matter who it fucks over, unless the government tells them otherwise. Let's not kid ourselves and think that your average consumer will (or can) do enough to stop them from doing so.

I've made jokes before that we've now got actual Captain Planet villains running the show, but we do. These are people who see regulation as merely a barrier to additional profit. They fail to accept that a great deal of environmental issues could cause massive ecological damage, or poison people, or make people sick, or make the atmosphere more hazardous, while simultaneously paying off people to publish stories in favor whatever will make them more money.

Regulation, the sort that we have now, is not designed as some pointless bureaucracy to keep people from earning a profit, it's almost universally there for good reasons. Are there unneeded, wasteful, or bad regulations that could be changed? Of course, that's always going to happen, but a blanket statement of 'they're bad, get rid of them' is fucking stupid.

Good luck on your brain problems, Orlong.

[Cyi]

What in the actual fuck does deregulation and unions have to do with anything? Unions have helped more than hurt in every sense of the word. If we didn't have unions, wages would have NEVER increased.

I will grant you, in the past, unions were needed. They are simply not needed anymore, at least in their traditional sense. You can almost single handedly blame union greed for the wreck that the US auto industry suffered, driving up labor costs so high that it wasn't feasible to produce the vehicles. The same issue occurred with many of the pastry companies, such as Hostess. There are industries, mine included, that have workers wages very competitive without the need for an organized, forced labor group.

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't that mean fewer jobs?

In all seriousness, we need regulation to survive. Why? Because business will do ANYTHING they can to make a profit, no matter who it fucks over, unless the government tells them otherwise. Let's not kid ourselves and think that your average consumer will (or can) do enough to stop them from doing so.

I've made jokes before that we've now got actual Captain Planet villains running the show, but we do. These are people who see regulation as merely a barrier to additional profit. They fail to accept that a great deal of environmental issues could cause massive ecological damage, or poison people, or make people sick, or make the atmosphere more hazardous, while simultaneously paying off people to publish stories in favor whatever will make them more money.

Regulation, the sort that we have now, is not designed as some pointless bureaucracy to keep people from earning a profit, it's almost universally there for good reasons. Are there unneeded, wasteful, or bad regulations that could be changed? Of course, that's always going to happen, but a blanket statement of 'they're bad, get rid of them' is fucking stupid.

Good luck on your brain problems, Orlong.

Its showmen ship. The same was said when Obama informed the world he would close Guantanamo. Those higher up knew that he could never close it, but it was a statement to get people motivated, to make a statement that he didn't believe in it. Doesn't matter if it actually occurs, people in this country have a short attention span. The point is, as you stated, there are lots of regulations that are not required and this is a broad statement, basically saying "I'm closing Guantanamo" so get your shit together.