Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
TribalWar Forums
Page 77 of 626

TribalWar Forums (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/index.php)
-   TWHOF (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=275)
-   -   This is for you Trump voters. (https://www.tribalwar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=683482)

RandalltheVandal 05-10-2016 13:36

who the **** is trying to legalize heroin and meth?
nobody steals to support their pot habit you old ****

Ender 05-10-2016 13:52

Wait. Why are republicans against nafta?

What the **** happened to the grand ole party?

Eggi 05-10-2016 13:55

the republican party has shifted away from republican values of the 90s
now they are democrats except on social issues

thinking that nixing free trade deals and moving back to an insular economy w/ more tariffs, trade wars, etc would be good for our economy is very bizarre to me. ok so a few unskilled ppl get their mfg jobs back but gl buying iphone now that it is 2x as much. u cant be for efficient economy & against free trade sorry gg.

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 14:12

Usa is large enough and material rich we dont have to put up with the rest of the worlds bickering. We can have a self sustaining economy and never feel the market tremors caused by instability in europe and asia. One america for americans.

There have to be limits to immigration. Wouldnt it be wonderful of America could adopt all 3billion of the worlds poor and take care of them? Its a fools errand to think welcoming immigrants is a long term solution, for every immigrant we allow in, theres another 3 born in whatever hell hole country they came from. Less foreign american influence might do mexico some good - its known that usa aid is meant to suppress foreign economies from developing so theyre forced to sell out minerals at huge discounts.

Research the cocoa bean. Switzerland is renowned for chocolate, right? But where do they get the beans from? If chocolate is a value added process and.very simple why dont exporting countries process into a finished good??? Hmmmm..... free trade global economy???

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

JoMo 05-10-2016 14:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender (Post 18570437)
Wait. Why are republicans against nafta?

What the **** happened to the grand ole party?

Trump has framed it so that NAFTA = Outsourcing, stagnant wages, etc...

Not that 'free trade' is a bad thing, but we have incompetent and corrupt people making deals that's leading to a trade imbalance where we are being taken advantage of by these other countries.

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 14:23

What other empire had a trade imbalance with china, maybe rome???

Things turned out ok for them.

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

Reggs 05-10-2016 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by coombz (Post 18570164)
ah yea my bad i misread or just plain didn't read your followup sentence, apologies

while we're just talking hypotheticals here, what about if all of those drugs were legal, but you have to have a legit job to buy 'em? :)

i don't give a **** if people want to get ****ed up on crack and smack as long as they aren't stealing my stereo to pay for it :shrug:

what if all the money that people spend on drugs went to the govt instead of organised crime :jawdrop:

dang

This is retarded.

The people who break into your car will still break into your car. That will never change because they are addicted. The only violence that would be solved from legal drugs would be the violence caused by people who sell it because suddenly contract law would apply to their businesses.

Reggs 05-10-2016 14:57

I think there is a different reason why Trump is talking about NAFTA.

If he pushes getting rid of NAFTA while also pushing the other restrictions that he talks about in his plan of pressuring Mexico to pay for the wall, it's just going to make them more scared.

People have no idea what an absolutely nightmare situation it would be for Mexico if America pulled out of NAFTA, limited work visas, and stopped money transfers to Mexico. It would just push the country back into the stone age.

Kerosene31 05-10-2016 15:10

It is pandering to stupid people, just like has been done in politics here for decades.

http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/that-...amm-1775418875

havax 05-10-2016 15:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570475)
I think there is a different reason why Trump is talking about NAFTA.

If he pushes getting rid of NAFTA while also pushing the other restrictions that he talks about in his plan of pressuring Mexico to pay for the wall, it's just going to make them more scared.

People have no idea what an absolutely nightmare situation it would be for Mexico if America pulled out of NAFTA, limited work visas, and stopped money transfers to Mexico. It would just push the country back into the stone age.

they have no one but themselves to blame

**** mexico

MasterGnr 05-10-2016 16:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570475)
I think there is a different reason why Trump is talking about NAFTA.

If he pushes getting rid of NAFTA while also pushing the other restrictions that he talks about in his plan of pressuring Mexico to pay for the wall, it's just going to make them more scared.

People have no idea what an absolutely nightmare situation it would be for Mexico if America pulled out of NAFTA, limited work visas, and stopped money transfers to Mexico. It would just push the country back into the stone age.

Why is this my problem?

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 16:04

Mexico makes his hair gel

Sent from my XT1030 using Tapatalk

MasterGnr 05-10-2016 16:05

He needs to stop using that ****

Reggs 05-10-2016 16:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterGnr (Post 18570505)
Why is this my problem?

What?

Don't flatter yourself. I never referenced you. I don't even know what your question means.

MasterGnr 05-10-2016 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570518)
What?

Don't flatter yourself. I never referenced you. I don't even know what your question means.

Your assessment that Mexico would be thrown back into the stone age if we get rid of NAFTA or do anything else that could be good for the US and bad for Mexico. Why do I care if Mexico is affected?

I also have the same view on foreign financial aid. **** them. Pump that money into schools, veterans programs, or infrastructure.

America First!

Greedo909 05-10-2016 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18570440)
the republican party has shifted away from republican values of the 90s
now they are democrats except on social issues

thinking that nixing free trade deals and moving back to an insular economy w/ more tariffs, trade wars, etc would be good for our economy is very bizarre to me. ok so a few unskilled ppl get their mfg jobs back but gl buying iphone now that it is 2x as much. u cant be for efficient economy & against free trade sorry gg.

NAFTA is the opposite of free trade, its a crony mercantilist policy. It's about the federal government cartelizing control over the economy by controlling trade. There is nothing actually 'free' about it. If they honestly were interested in free trade, they could actually repeal the tariffs and government trade restrictions that hinder free trade to begin with. If you're being honest with yourself you know why that isn't going to happen, and what the government and big business have to gain through these 'free trade' agreements.

This is pretty much what's going on with marijuana 'legalization.' The government isn't actually decriminalizing anything, they are giving specific cronies immunity from being held to the same laws everyone else is held to. Meanwhile idiot potheads that have no clue whats going on, and progressives like Eggi, will attack you by saying 'aren't you for freedom to control what goes into your body?' In response to me being against crony drug laws they'll say- 'I thought you were libertarian, shouldn't you be for legalization?' Using Eggi-NAFTA-fantasyland-logic this would represent free marijuana use, no different from decriminalization. In reality, government regulation negates the word 'free'.

Reggs 05-10-2016 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterGnr (Post 18570523)
Your assessment that Mexico would be thrown back into the stone age if we get rid of NAFTA or do anything else that could be good for the US and bad for Mexico. Why do I care if Mexico is affected?

I also have the same view on foreign financial aid. **** them. Pump that money into schools, veterans programs, or infrastructure.

America First!

I don't care what you care about. Is english your first language? I don't care about Mexico either.

Reggs 05-10-2016 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18570526)
This is pretty much what's going on with marijuana 'legalization.' The government isn't actually decriminalizing anything, they are giving specific cronies immunity from being held to the same laws everyone else is held to. Meanwhile idiot potheads that have no clue whats going on, and progressives like Eggi, will attack you by saying 'aren't you for freedom to control what goes into your body?' In response to me being against crony drug laws they'll say- 'I thought you were libertarian, shouldn't you be for legalization?' Using Eggi-NAFTA-fantasyland-logic this would represent free marijuana use, no different from decriminalization. In reality, government regulation negates the word 'free'.

Wrong

It's more "free" than it was before. It could be better, but it's a step in the right direction. Look at how the Soviet Union was compared to the oligarchies Russia has today. It's more free than it once was, but it could be better. It's just a growing pain.

Greedo909 05-10-2016 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570537)
Wrong

It's more "free" than it was before. It could be better, but it's a step in the right direction. Look at how the Soviet Union was compared to the oligarchies Russia has today. It's more free than it once was, but it could be better. It's just a growing pain.

I guess we can call China free because it's more free than North Korea too.

Reggs 05-10-2016 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18570543)
I guess we can call China free because it's more free than North Korea too.

Jesus christ you're stupid. That doesn't compare to what I said in the leist. Learn english and reread my post.

SuperTrap 05-10-2016 16:47

"least" Learn english

motoxbudd 05-10-2016 16:50

imo, ALL imported goods should be taxed in direct proportion to the difference in avg workers wages. example: if imported widgetA costs $100, but countryA wages are 1/10th that of usa average in same industry, a 90% import tariff should be applied, making widgetA cost $190 to import from countryA.

granted, this unfairly/incorrectly assumes entire cost of item is labor only, but as raw and pre processed materials that go into production of widgetA are also prob much lower in countryA due to workers being paid 50cents/day

Greedo909 05-10-2016 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570545)
Jesus christ you're stupid. That doesn't compare to what I said in the leist. Learn english and reread my post.

:picard:

Free Trade has a specific meaning, look it up. It's not a relative term. Free trade agreements do not necessitate the actual practice of free trade.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free-trade.asp
http://www.britannica.com/topic/free-trade
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-trade
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20trade

absent 05-10-2016 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18570440)
the republican party has shifted away from republican values of the 90s
now they are democrats except on social issues

thinking that nixing free trade deals and moving back to an insular economy w/ more tariffs, trade wars, etc would be good for our economy is very bizarre to me. ok so a few unskilled ppl get their mfg jobs back but gl buying iphone now that it is 2x as much. u cant be for efficient economy & against free trade sorry gg.

You work at a welfare job in a company that exists only because it charges the US government 5000 dollars for a nut and a bolt.

Eggi 05-10-2016 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by absent (Post 18570560)
You work at a welfare job in a company that exists only because it charges the US government 5000 dollars for a nut and a bolt.

well that has nothing to do w/ my post, but since u went so far out of ur way to say something that is factually incorrect 3 times in only 25 words:

u r extremely insulated and dumb

maybe u should stop scamming ppl into buy supplements w/ no scientific evidence of them being beneficial & instead go out into the real world and get a real job

ps i dont work defense
pps most of my cos revenue comes from commercial sales
ppps many of the us gov contracts are fixed price or cost+ if u dont know what that means maybe u should look it up

gg

Eggi 05-10-2016 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18570526)
NAFTA is the opposite of free trade, its a crony mercantilist policy. It's about the federal government cartelizing control over the economy by controlling trade. There is nothing actually 'free' about it. If they honestly were interested in free trade, they could actually repeal the tariffs and government trade restrictions that hinder free trade to begin with. If you're being honest with yourself you know why that isn't going to happen, and what the government and big business have to gain through these 'free trade' agreements.

i agree that we should get rid of subsidies and tariffs except where it leaves our industries at a significant disadvantage to other countries where their governments are providing subsidies. i mean, unless you call that crony mercantilism (lol). based on your asinine post, i'm guessing im more libertarian when it comes to economic policy than you are.

ps have fun voting for trump u dummy

Reggs 05-10-2016 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedo909 (Post 18570558)
:picard:

Free Trade has a specific meaning, look it up. It's not a relative term. Free trade agreements do not necessitate the actual practice of free trade.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free-trade.asp
http://www.britannica.com/topic/free-trade
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-trade
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free%20trade

You're really on a role here. Every single time you reply it has literally no relation to anything I've posted. It's like you're having a conversation with yourself.

Gandalf 05-10-2016 17:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandalltheVandal (Post 18570426)
who the **** is trying to legalize heroin and meth?
nobody steals to support their pot habit you old ****

Sigh. The true libertarian would say "hell yeah, make all drugs legal, it's my body, my choice".

I'm not talking about pot, dumb ****.

SuperTrap 05-10-2016 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570592)
You're really on a role here. Every single time you reply it has literally no relation to anything I've posted. It's like you're having a conversation with yourself.


"Roll" Jesus Christ dude

RandalltheVandal 05-10-2016 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf (Post 18570593)
Sigh. The true libertarian would say "hell yeah, make all drugs legal, it's my body, my choice".

I'm not talking about pot, dumb ****.

bull****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandalf (Post 18570424)
All of you that support legalization of drugs fail to realize the costs for doing so. Sure, we'd save money on incarceration, but we'd be spending money on hospital costs, treatment, and increased crime from theft to feed their addictions. People addicted to Meth and Heroin aren't normally functioning tax paying members of society.

OK, end of my rambling.

"All of you support legalization of drugs."

no, we dont. We (mostly)support the legalization of pot.

Validuz 05-10-2016 17:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperTrap (Post 18570080)
You really are ****ing retarded. Trump blamed the deal on Clinton. Bush negotiated the deal. Clinton signed it into law. The blame falls on both but who negotiated the deal? Bush. Who signed the negotiated agreement? Bush. Why? because it was his deal. That is what trump was railing on. ****ing moron. You would expect a presidential candidate to know how things went down.

Go **** yourself **** stain

:rofl: You can cry about Bush Sr doing whatever all you want.

Clinton signed it into law. Hell, he agreed with it before signing it into law. It's not like he was strong-armed by Congress or something.

You're a piece of **** hypocrite.

Validuz 05-10-2016 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingSobieski (Post 18570448)
...

Its a fools errand to think welcoming immigrants is a long term solution, for every immigrant we allow in, theres another 3 born in whatever hell hole country they came from.

...

One correction. For every poor, dumb immigrant we take in, hundreds/thousands are born.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18570440)
the republican party has shifted away from republican values of the 90s
now they are democrats except on social issues

thinking that nixing free trade deals and moving back to an insular economy w/ more tariffs, trade wars, etc would be good for our economy is very bizarre to me. ok so a few unskilled ppl get their mfg jobs back but gl buying iphone now that it is 2x as much. u cant be for efficient economy & against free trade sorry gg.

Free trade? This is where Eggi the Economist tells us what free trade is.

:lol: Corporate sponsored deals (and its direct benefits) are now "free trade" in Eggi's mind.

Greedo909 05-10-2016 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eggi (Post 18570591)
i agree that we should get rid of subsidies and tariffs except where it leaves our industries at a significant disadvantage to other countries where their governments are providing subsidies. i mean, unless you call that crony mercantilism (lol). based on your asinine post, i'm guessing im more libertarian when it comes to economic policy than you are.

ps have fun voting for trump u dummy

Trumps' trade policies are terrible as well, that doesn't mean he's wrong about NAFTA even if it makes him a hypocrite on free trade.

Rothbard:

Quote:

In truth, the bipartisan establishment’s trumpeting of “free trade” since World War II fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange. The establishment’s goals and tactics have been consistently those of free trade’s traditional enemy, “mercantilism” — the system imposed by the nation-states of 16th to 18th century Europe. President Bush’s infamous trip to Japan was only one instance: trade policy as a continuing system of maneuverings to try to force other countries to purchase more American exports.

Whereas genuine free traders look at free markets and trade, domestic or international, from the point of view of the consumer (that is, all of us), the mercantilist, of the 16th century or today, looks at trade from the point of view of the power elite, big business in league with the government. Genuine free traders consider exports a means of paying for imports, in the same way that goods in general are produced in order to be sold to consumers. But the mercantilists want to privilege the government-business elite at the expense of all consumers, be they domestic or foreign.

In negotiations with Japan, for example, be they conducted by Reagan or Bush or Clinton, the point is to force Japan to buy more American products, for which the American government will graciously if reluctantly permit the Japanese to sell their products to American consumers. Imports are the price government pays to get other nations to accept our exports.

Another crucial feature of post-World War II establishment trade policy in the name of “free trade” is to push heavy subsidies of exports. A favorite method of subsidy has been the much beloved system of foreign aid, which, under the cover of “reconstructing Europe,” “stopping Communism,” or “spreading democracy,” is a racket by which the American taxpayers are forced to subsidize American export firms and industries as well as foreign governments who go along with this system. Nafta represents a continuation of this system by enlisting the U.S. government and American taxpayers in this cause.
The NAFTA Myth | Murray N. Rothbard

coombz 05-10-2016 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggs (Post 18570592)
You're really on a role here.

when are you going to learn English?

havax 05-10-2016 19:00

:lol:

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 19:23

The types of governments that societies ultimately adopt are a symptom of the culture and situation in which a society finds itself.

The USSR, without authoritarian communism, could not have won WW2. Stalin took the plow and gave the Russians a nuclear weapon. Most Russians lived in serfdom prior to Communism and the great majority were the same poor and destitute social class - Communism flourished in such an atmosphere.

The Russians had the emancipation manifesto in 1861 that freed the 23 million serfs.

The Americans had the emancipation proclamation in 1863 that freed the 3 million slaves.

Drawn in contrast it's not hard to imagine why and how Communism took such a stringent foot hold in Russia and persists today in China.

The Chinese are culturally dissimilar from Americans in that they are not individualistic and are very communal people. Communism goes hand in hand with the Chinese mindset - being Confucius and playing nice with neighbors is a very communist thing to do.

The American 2 party system of democratic representation is the LEAST stable form of government in the world - there is no other country in the world practicing this style because they all instantly fail.

The failure of the USSR and USA are going to be very fascinating case studies to compare in the coming decades. The answer lies somewhere inbetween being Communist and being Capitalist. Use tools from each system that best serve a particular purpose - don't be a fan boy of a form of governance, be a pragmatist that can look clearly at any form and discern their inherent benefits.

JoMo 05-10-2016 20:49

WV called for Trump. Trump tied with Hillary in Battleground states. Hillary National lead collapsing.

https://m.popkey.co/7457d6/O9wpk.gif

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 21:10

I think it's all but a shoe in at the moment for Trump.

Doth think thou establishment protest too much.

Just let it happen baby, relax, it'll all be over soon.

SuperTrap 05-10-2016 21:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Validuz (Post 18570611)
:rofl: You can cry about Bush Sr doing whatever all you want.

Clinton signed it into law. Hell, he agreed with it before signing it into law. It's not like he was strong-armed by Congress or something.

You're a piece of **** hypocrite.


Die soon pls

KingSobieski 05-10-2016 21:16

lololololololololololol

http://www.electronics-lab.com/wp-co.../02/md_smt.jpg

i'll see you all in hell :D


Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:31.
Page 77 of 626

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2003, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All Content Copyright 1999-2020 Tribalwar.Com, LLC