Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 32

On January 31 2017 08:57 Spitfiree wrote: You cannot do the poker comparison here. In poker the factors change more occasionally, while the USA would still want to import the same goods out of the same area unless something drastic changes. The deficit is due to the USA not willing to produce those goods, cause its not worth their time, which frees time to focus on goods of higher value. Corporations having the most benefits out of a trading deficit isn't necessarily bad either as they might not be paying taxes in the USA, but the cash flow of its investors is being spent there, which supports the economy. Meanwhile Trump fires the attorney general, which was gonna happen anyway, except he fucked himself using that reason.

Yea but American are just kind of freeloading the world cause they have the world reserve currency, you think the world is going to keep producing goods for them to consume for paper fiat currencies? Americas consume more than they produce though unless i am wrong?
What i am saying is, its okay some years to consume more goods than you produce but in other years you need to produce more than you consume. Balance it out long term, equilibrium. Can't consume more than you produce every year though. I mean unless you think America has produce as much as they consume than i am wrong in that sense. Americas need to get their economy back in order and that is through better trade deals and policy for the average Americas who badly need support. I think Americans system is too top heavy, helps the elite way more than helping the majority and so it needs change. I still have doubts if trump can do this or not but to not give him a chance is unfair.

I think building a wall is stupid, it wont solve anything and right now i agree he might just be another puppet who doesn't help the majority.
It remains to be seen but i hope he truly can help the world but with his recent activities, it doesn't look as good as the vision he made. i have never really had a discussion about politics and this is hurting my head. Thinking too much. Anyways i am done with my point of view.
Going to go back on the grind soon and ill just read and educate myself through reading what other more insightful lp posters have to say.

Thanks again for this enlightening discussion. I have learned some of my flaws and understand some new terms from more experience posters.

Last thing, i got to read more and definitely educate myself more after reading a lot of tough terms. Guess i play too much poker and not enough time learning about other subjects.

Dunning-Kruger effect good read.
neural network another interesting read
Socratic method yea this is a way i like to learn

Its nice to be able to get response from you guys who have decent amount of knowledge.

On January 31 2017 07:52 Spitfiree wrote: Sure, Daut, except if we are going to use the Socratic method here, it would be in a discussion of the negatives and positives in the various scenarios of trade balance. Neither of them is bad by definition as those are means of measure, not a conclusion to a result. However I cannot have such a discussion with people that think a deficit is a loss and that a balance is better.

Well, I said "neural network" method because he's basically just firing out random arguments and is learning along the way what is nonsensical and what is sound and builds upon the ones that makes sense while dismissing the crap. Socratic method is more beneficial cooperatively, while this way helps just the person spewing word vomit. I guess this has the benefit of forcing you guys to make valid arguments against him?


and LOL and betrayal by an AG upholding the constitution. The video of Jeff Sessions questioning her at her Senate confirmation hearing is completely unreal: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/31/14451228/sessions-yates-confirmation-trump-fired

Shit had something wonderful type out but I mess up the reply, I'll write it again later

On January 31 2017 16:51 Daut wrote: Show nested quote + On January 31 2017 07:52 Spitfiree wrote: Sure, Daut, except if we are going to use the Socratic method here, it would be in a discussion of the negatives and positives in the various scenarios of trade balance. Neither of them is bad by definition as those are means of measure, not a conclusion to a result. However I cannot have such a discussion with people that think a deficit is a loss and that a balance is better. Well, I said "neural network" method because he's basically just firing out random arguments and is learning along the way what is nonsensical and what is sound and builds upon the ones that makes sense while dismissing the crap. Socratic method is more beneficial cooperatively, while this way helps just the person spewing word vomit. I guess this has the benefit of forcing you guys to make valid arguments against him? and LOL and betrayal by an AG upholding the constitution. The video of Jeff Sessions questioning her at her Senate confirmation hearing is completely unreal: http://www.vox.com/2017/1/31/14451228/sessions-yates-confirmation-trump-fired

i like to be proven wrong sometimes cause it helps you grow and have better understanding. every human can do something to increase their happiness or happiness for others. Just have to put in the work and effort. i don't think any humans always make the right choice. If you are always right that doesn't necessary means its good and if you are always wrong it doesn't mean that is also always good. like i have said more balance.

one more poker analogy, if poker were like chess not many would gamble cause the better player will crush the weaker player but poker is more balance thus more fun. some times you win sometimes you lose. if you always beat your opponent, you think he is going to keep playing you? and if you always lose, are you going to keep playing the same guy? of course not, you are going to find someone who is on your level. where you can beat a percentage of the time.

In short what i am trying to say is i guess the term yin yang.

yea this a way shorter reply than what i orginally type. tilt

You want to be right more times than you're wrong, just like you want to win more than lose in poker. I'm all about balancing your life in terms of like, hedonism vs asceticism or whatever, and I think it's good that you have an inquisitive attitude where you're entering a discussion with an open mind and willingness to admit to being wrong, but your examples aren't that good. There's no real benefit to balancing being fit with being unfit, healthy with unhealthy, smart with stupid - in some areas, one is clearly preferable. And while 'right vs wrong'/ factual vs false or whatever isn't always easy to determine non-arbitrarily, you want to be right more than you want to be wrong and you want your information to be factual more than you want it to be false.

But acknowledging the (strong) possibility of being wrong on a subject, especially if you have grounds to believe others know more than you about it, is indeed healthy.

On January 31 2017 20:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: You want to be right more times than you're wrong, just like you want to win more than lose in poker. I'm all about balancing your life in terms of like, hedonism vs asceticism or whatever, and I think it's good that you have an inquisitive attitude where you're entering a discussion with an open mind and willingness to admit to being wrong, but your examples aren't that good. There's no real benefit to balancing being fit with being unfit, healthy with unhealthy, smart with stupid - in some areas, one is clearly preferable. And while 'right vs wrong'/ factual vs false or whatever isn't always easy to determine non-arbitrarily, you want to be right more than you want to be wrong and you want your information to be factual more than you want it to be false. But acknowledging the (strong) possibility of being wrong on a subject, especially if you have grounds to believe others know more than you about it, is indeed healthy.

i agree for sure, you want to take 10 steps forward than maybe 1 step back(proportionally) so you don't take going forward for granted.
Not going to lie, -_- never was interested in this stuff till now so my knowledge is weak and i am finally starting to get interest in this thing called politics.

On January 30 2017 18:03 lostaccount wrote: Baal I don't think trading is bad if majority of both country benefit. That is not the case right now with America trade policy, big corporations benefit the most. Trump I think or hope is trying to help the majority instead of just the top. I agreed trump can be more diplomatic and more respectful to other country. He is definitely not prefect and I don't agreed with all his policy but I get a feeling he is trying to help more than hurt. Which remains to be see, but I'll give him a chance. I might wrong here though It's okay if Americans lose their jobs to Mexicans but with trumps new policy of trying to get jobs back from Mexicans that's not okay? Like I said I believe in trade if a lot of people benefit but is that the case for Americans right now? I have no problem with Mexicans prospering as long as it is not at the expense of the average Americans and only benefitting the elites or huge corporations. 16% deficit is not tiny in my view. If I lost 16% of anything it will hurt a bit. It might not be huge or game changer but I can't call it tiny though. Just my 2 cents Baal and if I'm wrong or mistaken in any part, I'm always open to listening and learning. Thanks

Some big corporations benefit because they trade a lot of goods, but these are companies that produce goods/services, they employ the american workforce, they are not the banking and financial sector spinning money around drying businesses fucking everyone over.

It appears to me that you notice the polarization of capital and the fading middle class and attribute this ignorantly to factors like trade agreements, does NAFTA contribute to this? I don't really know, you would need to know the inner workings of the deal perfectly to truly know, just saying "oh some manufactoring jobs are going to Mexico instead of the US" which is true, but as I mentioned earlier, you also refine OUR fuel, which creates jobs in the US and leaves a lot of money there.

What you must understand are two some basic concepts of economics and trade, the US as a developed nation imports commodities, meaning very simple products, natural resources, grains etc, and you sell us advanced products, like computers etc, that is the perfect trade agreement for the US, basically we do the hard labor, plowing fields and selling you food for much cheaper you can produce and instead your workforce becomes more skilled and sell us advanced goods, technology etc.

The second thing is that trade deficit for advanced countries is normal, for example, if you are an african super poor country with lets say diamonds, you will obviously have a trade surplus, because you dont posses the wealth to import many goods but have a lot of resources to sell, is this a thriving nation? probably not, this is what happens with China, they have always had a trade surplus yet they arent remotely as wealthy as the US or the west countries with a trade deficit.


That being said a 16% trade deficit with Mexico IS small, this is not a matter of opinion, you cant just say "oh it looks big to me", it is very small compared to your deficit with most of the world, countries you are not neighbors with.

Now, I am not against protectionist policies, they can help for example, a total free-trade agreement with China would be extremely dangerous thats why almost every country on the world has huge taxes on chinese products or your economy blows up because you cannot compete with their prices, however this is not the case for NAFTA.

Trumps bullying position on NAFTA are the same as the wall, its a political ploy to sow the anti-immigration sentiment, he has being doing business all his life, as I said, you dont need to be a genius to know you dont spit in the face of the guy you are about to negotiate with, he did it because he is playing politics, Mexico economy is stable, immigration is in an all-time low and continuously decreasing, it is a pot that does not need to be stirred.

On February 01 2017 07:49 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2017 18:03 lostaccount wrote: Baal I don't think trading is bad if majority of both country benefit. That is not the case right now with America trade policy, big corporations benefit the most. Trump I think or hope is trying to help the majority instead of just the top. I agreed trump can be more diplomatic and more respectful to other country. He is definitely not prefect and I don't agreed with all his policy but I get a feeling he is trying to help more than hurt. Which remains to be see, but I'll give him a chance. I might wrong here though It's okay if Americans lose their jobs to Mexicans but with trumps new policy of trying to get jobs back from Mexicans that's not okay? Like I said I believe in trade if a lot of people benefit but is that the case for Americans right now? I have no problem with Mexicans prospering as long as it is not at the expense of the average Americans and only benefitting the elites or huge corporations. 16% deficit is not tiny in my view. If I lost 16% of anything it will hurt a bit. It might not be huge or game changer but I can't call it tiny though. Just my 2 cents Baal and if I'm wrong or mistaken in any part, I'm always open to listening and learning. Thanks Some big corporations benefit because they trade a lot of good, but these are companies that produce goods/services, they employ the american workforce, they are not the banking and financial sector spinning money around drying businesses fucking everyone over. It appears to me that you notice the polarization of capital and the fading middle class and attribute this ignorantly to factors like trade agreements, does NAFTA contribute to this? I don't really know, you would need to know the inner workings of the deal perfectly to truly know, just saying "oh some manufactoring jobs are going to Mexico instead of the US" which is true, but as I mentioned earlier, you also refine OUR fuel, which creates jobs in the US and leaves a lot of money there. What you must understand are two some basic concepts of economics and trade, the US as a developed nation imports commodities, meaning very simple products, natural resources, grains etc, and you sell us advanced products, like computers etc, that is the perfect trade agreement for the US, basically we do the hard labor, plowing fields and selling you food for much cheaper you can produce and instead your workforce becomes more skilled and sell us advanced goods, technology etc. The second thing is that trade deficit for advanced countries is normal, for example, if you are an african super poor country with lets say diamonds, you will obviously have a trade surplus, because you dont posses the wealth to import many goods but have a lot of resources to sell, is this a thriving nation? probably not, this is what happens with China, they have always had a trade surplus yet they arent remotely as wealthy as the US or the west countries with a trade deficit. That being said a 16% trade deficit with Mexico IS small, this is not a matter of opinion, you cant just say "oh it looks big to me", it is very small compared to your deficit with most of the world, countries you are not neighbors with. Now, I am not against protectionist policies, they can help for example, a total free-trade agreement with China would be extremely dangerous thats why almost every country on the world has huge taxes on chinese products or your economy blows up because you cannot compete with their prices, however this is not the case for NAFTA. Trumps bullying position on NAFTA are the same as the wall, its a political ploy to sow the anti-immigration sentiment, he has being doing business all his life, as I said, you dont need to be a genius to know you dont spit in the face of the guy you are about to negotiate with, he did it because he is playing politics, Mexico economy is stable, immigration is in an all-time low and continuously decreasing, it is a pot that does not need to be stirred.

I agreed with what you are saying about trade but 16% still seem high to me. If 16% is small what is big?I'm just sadden by the greed and corruption of the elite. Eye opening for me per se. They need to start taxing the ultra rich and help everyone. Not just the top. Seriously who the hell needs 1 billion dollars. Adjust or get left behind, just like in poker can't be stagnant but give us a fair chance and don't be greedy cough cough PokerStar. I just hate how big corporation squeeze every single penny off you if they could. People need to learn how to share. Politic can be a tough lesson. Some times there is a lot of negativity which is tough to bear.
I guess I am too naive where everybody can get along.

It doesn't seem to me that if Trump rips up NAFTA and closes tax loopholes that it necessarily follows that Americans will see GREAT manufacturing jobs again. Companies that are forced into making products within the US are either going to pay minimum wage or be heavily automated. It more likely IMO that companies that begin operating in the US due to a protectionist policy will automate the workforce. Why pay someone that makes mistakes and shows up late to shift when you can have a machine do the work 24hrs a day close to perfect. This dream from 20+ years ago that you can get out high school and go work in a coal mine or some steel plant and get paid a decent wage and be middle class is dead. Without some formal higher education or a trade skill if you live in the US you are likely fucked.

It also seems strange to think what the USA will export to Mexico. A quick look at what they are currently exporting makes it kind of clear why there is a trade deficit.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/
http://www.worldstopexports.com/united-states-top-10-exports/

Considering that some of the top exports are things like cars and Aircraft/spacecraft it doesn't seem likely that anything Trump does anytime soon is gonna fix the deficit with Mexico

On February 01 2017 10:00 lostaccount wrote: Show nested quote + On February 01 2017 07:49 Baalim wrote:   On January 30 2017 18:03 lostaccount wrote: Baal I don't think trading is bad if majority of both country benefit. That is not the case right now with America trade policy, big corporations benefit the most. Trump I think or hope is trying to help the majority instead of just the top. I agreed trump can be more diplomatic and more respectful to other country. He is definitely not prefect and I don't agreed with all his policy but I get a feeling he is trying to help more than hurt. Which remains to be see, but I'll give him a chance. I might wrong here though It's okay if Americans lose their jobs to Mexicans but with trumps new policy of trying to get jobs back from Mexicans that's not okay? Like I said I believe in trade if a lot of people benefit but is that the case for Americans right now? I have no problem with Mexicans prospering as long as it is not at the expense of the average Americans and only benefitting the elites or huge corporations. 16% deficit is not tiny in my view. If I lost 16% of anything it will hurt a bit. It might not be huge or game changer but I can't call it tiny though. Just my 2 cents Baal and if I'm wrong or mistaken in any part, I'm always open to listening and learning. Thanks Some big corporations benefit because they trade a lot of good, but these are companies that produce goods/services, they employ the american workforce, they are not the banking and financial sector spinning money around drying businesses fucking everyone over. It appears to me that you notice the polarization of capital and the fading middle class and attribute this ignorantly to factors like trade agreements, does NAFTA contribute to this? I don't really know, you would need to know the inner workings of the deal perfectly to truly know, just saying "oh some manufactoring jobs are going to Mexico instead of the US" which is true, but as I mentioned earlier, you also refine OUR fuel, which creates jobs in the US and leaves a lot of money there. What you must understand are two some basic concepts of economics and trade, the US as a developed nation imports commodities, meaning very simple products, natural resources, grains etc, and you sell us advanced products, like computers etc, that is the perfect trade agreement for the US, basically we do the hard labor, plowing fields and selling you food for much cheaper you can produce and instead your workforce becomes more skilled and sell us advanced goods, technology etc. The second thing is that trade deficit for advanced countries is normal, for example, if you are an african super poor country with lets say diamonds, you will obviously have a trade surplus, because you dont posses the wealth to import many goods but have a lot of resources to sell, is this a thriving nation? probably not, this is what happens with China, they have always had a trade surplus yet they arent remotely as wealthy as the US or the west countries with a trade deficit. That being said a 16% trade deficit with Mexico IS small, this is not a matter of opinion, you cant just say "oh it looks big to me", it is very small compared to your deficit with most of the world, countries you are not neighbors with. Now, I am not against protectionist policies, they can help for example, a total free-trade agreement with China would be extremely dangerous thats why almost every country on the world has huge taxes on chinese products or your economy blows up because you cannot compete with their prices, however this is not the case for NAFTA. Trumps bullying position on NAFTA are the same as the wall, its a political ploy to sow the anti-immigration sentiment, he has being doing business all his life, as I said, you dont need to be a genius to know you dont spit in the face of the guy you are about to negotiate with, he did it because he is playing politics, Mexico economy is stable, immigration is in an all-time low and continuously decreasing, it is a pot that does not need to be stirred. I agreed with what you are saying about trade but 16% still seem high to me. If 16% is small what is big?I'm just sadden by the greed and corruption of the elite. Eye opening for me per se. They need to start taxing the ultra rich and help everyone. Not just the top. Seriously who the hell needs 1 billion dollars. Adjust or get left behind, just like in poker can't be stagnant but give us a fair chance and don't be greedy cough cough PokerStar. I just hate how big corporation squeeze every single penny off you if they could. People need to learn how to share. Politic can be a tough lesson. Some times there is a lot of negativity which is tough to bear. I guess I am too naive where everybody can get along.

If this is your attitude then Trump is just about the worst president imaginable for you.

On February 01 2017 16:57 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On February 01 2017 10:00 lostaccount wrote:   On February 01 2017 07:49 Baalim wrote:   On January 30 2017 18:03 lostaccount wrote: Baal I don't think trading is bad if majority of both country benefit. That is not the case right now with America trade policy, big corporations benefit the most. Trump I think or hope is trying to help the majority instead of just the top. I agreed trump can be more diplomatic and more respectful to other country. He is definitely not prefect and I don't agreed with all his policy but I get a feeling he is trying to help more than hurt. Which remains to be see, but I'll give him a chance. I might wrong here though It's okay if Americans lose their jobs to Mexicans but with trumps new policy of trying to get jobs back from Mexicans that's not okay? Like I said I believe in trade if a lot of people benefit but is that the case for Americans right now? I have no problem with Mexicans prospering as long as it is not at the expense of the average Americans and only benefitting the elites or huge corporations. 16% deficit is not tiny in my view. If I lost 16% of anything it will hurt a bit. It might not be huge or game changer but I can't call it tiny though. Just my 2 cents Baal and if I'm wrong or mistaken in any part, I'm always open to listening and learning. Thanks Some big corporations benefit because they trade a lot of good, but these are companies that produce goods/services, they employ the american workforce, they are not the banking and financial sector spinning money around drying businesses fucking everyone over. It appears to me that you notice the polarization of capital and the fading middle class and attribute this ignorantly to factors like trade agreements, does NAFTA contribute to this? I don't really know, you would need to know the inner workings of the deal perfectly to truly know, just saying "oh some manufactoring jobs are going to Mexico instead of the US" which is true, but as I mentioned earlier, you also refine OUR fuel, which creates jobs in the US and leaves a lot of money there. What you must understand are two some basic concepts of economics and trade, the US as a developed nation imports commodities, meaning very simple products, natural resources, grains etc, and you sell us advanced products, like computers etc, that is the perfect trade agreement for the US, basically we do the hard labor, plowing fields and selling you food for much cheaper you can produce and instead your workforce becomes more skilled and sell us advanced goods, technology etc. The second thing is that trade deficit for advanced countries is normal, for example, if you are an african super poor country with lets say diamonds, you will obviously have a trade surplus, because you dont posses the wealth to import many goods but have a lot of resources to sell, is this a thriving nation? probably not, this is what happens with China, they have always had a trade surplus yet they arent remotely as wealthy as the US or the west countries with a trade deficit. That being said a 16% trade deficit with Mexico IS small, this is not a matter of opinion, you cant just say "oh it looks big to me", it is very small compared to your deficit with most of the world, countries you are not neighbors with. Now, I am not against protectionist policies, they can help for example, a total free-trade agreement with China would be extremely dangerous thats why almost every country on the world has huge taxes on chinese products or your economy blows up because you cannot compete with their prices, however this is not the case for NAFTA. Trumps bullying position on NAFTA are the same as the wall, its a political ploy to sow the anti-immigration sentiment, he has being doing business all his life, as I said, you dont need to be a genius to know you dont spit in the face of the guy you are about to negotiate with, he did it because he is playing politics, Mexico economy is stable, immigration is in an all-time low and continuously decreasing, it is a pot that does not need to be stirred. I agreed with what you are saying about trade but 16% still seem high to me. If 16% is small what is big?I'm just sadden by the greed and corruption of the elite. Eye opening for me per se. They need to start taxing the ultra rich and help everyone. Not just the top. Seriously who the hell needs 1 billion dollars. Adjust or get left behind, just like in poker can't be stagnant but give us a fair chance and don't be greedy cough cough PokerStar. I just hate how big corporation squeeze every single penny off you if they could. People need to learn how to share. Politic can be a tough lesson. Some times there is a lot of negativity which is tough to bear. I guess I am too naive where everybody can get along. If this is your attitude then Trump is just about the worst president imaginable for you.

ROFL yeah, he seems to like Trump yet seems to severely align with the economical left lol, he is confused to say the least.

On February 02 2017 06:30 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 01 2017 16:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On February 01 2017 10:00 lostaccount wrote:   On February 01 2017 07:49 Baalim wrote:   On January 30 2017 18:03 lostaccount wrote: Baal I don't think trading is bad if majority of both country benefit. That is not the case right now with America trade policy, big corporations benefit the most. Trump I think or hope is trying to help the majority instead of just the top. I agreed trump can be more diplomatic and more respectful to other country. He is definitely not prefect and I don't agreed with all his policy but I get a feeling he is trying to help more than hurt. Which remains to be see, but I'll give him a chance. I might wrong here though It's okay if Americans lose their jobs to Mexicans but with trumps new policy of trying to get jobs back from Mexicans that's not okay? Like I said I believe in trade if a lot of people benefit but is that the case for Americans right now? I have no problem with Mexicans prospering as long as it is not at the expense of the average Americans and only benefitting the elites or huge corporations. 16% deficit is not tiny in my view. If I lost 16% of anything it will hurt a bit. It might not be huge or game changer but I can't call it tiny though. Just my 2 cents Baal and if I'm wrong or mistaken in any part, I'm always open to listening and learning. Thanks Some big corporations benefit because they trade a lot of good, but these are companies that produce goods/services, they employ the american workforce, they are not the banking and financial sector spinning money around drying businesses fucking everyone over. It appears to me that you notice the polarization of capital and the fading middle class and attribute this ignorantly to factors like trade agreements, does NAFTA contribute to this? I don't really know, you would need to know the inner workings of the deal perfectly to truly know, just saying "oh some manufactoring jobs are going to Mexico instead of the US" which is true, but as I mentioned earlier, you also refine OUR fuel, which creates jobs in the US and leaves a lot of money there. What you must understand are two some basic concepts of economics and trade, the US as a developed nation imports commodities, meaning very simple products, natural resources, grains etc, and you sell us advanced products, like computers etc, that is the perfect trade agreement for the US, basically we do the hard labor, plowing fields and selling you food for much cheaper you can produce and instead your workforce becomes more skilled and sell us advanced goods, technology etc. The second thing is that trade deficit for advanced countries is normal, for example, if you are an african super poor country with lets say diamonds, you will obviously have a trade surplus, because you dont posses the wealth to import many goods but have a lot of resources to sell, is this a thriving nation? probably not, this is what happens with China, they have always had a trade surplus yet they arent remotely as wealthy as the US or the west countries with a trade deficit. That being said a 16% trade deficit with Mexico IS small, this is not a matter of opinion, you cant just say "oh it looks big to me", it is very small compared to your deficit with most of the world, countries you are not neighbors with. Now, I am not against protectionist policies, they can help for example, a total free-trade agreement with China would be extremely dangerous thats why almost every country on the world has huge taxes on chinese products or your economy blows up because you cannot compete with their prices, however this is not the case for NAFTA. Trumps bullying position on NAFTA are the same as the wall, its a political ploy to sow the anti-immigration sentiment, he has being doing business all his life, as I said, you dont need to be a genius to know you dont spit in the face of the guy you are about to negotiate with, he did it because he is playing politics, Mexico economy is stable, immigration is in an all-time low and continuously decreasing, it is a pot that does not need to be stirred. I agreed with what you are saying about trade but 16% still seem high to me. If 16% is small what is big?I'm just sadden by the greed and corruption of the elite. Eye opening for me per se. They need to start taxing the ultra rich and help everyone. Not just the top. Seriously who the hell needs 1 billion dollars. Adjust or get left behind, just like in poker can't be stagnant but give us a fair chance and don't be greedy cough cough PokerStar. I just hate how big corporation squeeze every single penny off you if they could. People need to learn how to share. Politic can be a tough lesson. Some times there is a lot of negativity which is tough to bear. I guess I am too naive where everybody can get along. If this is your attitude then Trump is just about the worst president imaginable for you. ROFL yeah, he seems to like Trump yet seems to severely align with the economical left lol, he is confused to say the least.

Haha I just didn't know better so I thought I give him a chance but after the discuss with you guys I have a better understanding now. Definitely Got a different perspective. I never said I was right. I just gave my opinion and challenge you to prove me why it was wrong. I am thankful for the discussion.

I love how he suddenly embraces the neoliberal model after speaking against it for so long.

But you know.. he says it like he means it :D Guy Laliberte could certainly learn something from this cirque

On February 02 2017 09:28 Spitfiree wrote: I love how he suddenly embraces the neoliberal model after speaking against it for so long. But you know.. he says it like he means it :D Guy Laliberte could certainly learn something from this cirque

I believe in whatever helps humanity progress as a race

I mean Trump ...

On February 02 2017 11:20 Spitfiree wrote: I mean Trump ...

Guy learn that i play poker and can help him on his game , if you got guys number tell him to message me and ill try and help him stack some regfish lol.

As for trump, he needs to find a win win solution and not a win-lose solution. What he is doing is good for some but he needs to understand how to make it work for most or everyone