Up Like Trump

[Elwar]

Guys I really need to know is trump implicated with Epstein? You know I can agree with everything with the guy but this is a no no issue. So is he guilty of the same acts of clinton and Epstein?

Edit: taking Flynn as VP would solve my doubts and be one step closer to make America great again. Flynn knows or will know if trump is involved with Epstein. Then taking him would assure that diesbold machine are working properly (the foundation will play nasty Algore is their excuses and losing isn't an option they went so far in corruption).

Flynn isn't the best orator America has ever seen however it would assure a trump presidency a sound and impartial basis to build on. For all the project to make America great again the involvement of all is necessary and Flynn would bring a lot of real support. Only downside is that trump will need to be honest. The truth and nothing else. It will be hard work to clean the mess of the previous admin.

Trump is guilty of the same acts as Clinton. He too supports universal health care.

[Spendulus]

Guys I really need to know is trump implicated with Epstein? You know I can agree with everything with the guy but this is a no no issue. So is he guilty of the same acts of clinton and Epstein? ...

No he is not, but expect a great more of this smearing.  That's what US Democrats do.  In the past it is always worst in the last month of a presidential campaign.

[WhalingWhales]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

[tvbcof]

Trump is guilty of the same acts as Clinton. He too supports universal health care.

The opposite is to not support 'universal health care.'  In anything remotely resembling a sane system, a desire for 'universal health care' is the only position which makes a lot of sense.  This is to say nothing whatsoever about implementation.

It is pretty clear to me that the problem we have in the U.S. is there is no mechanism by which cost controls can do their job.  I intellectually supported the idea of 'single payer' at one time, but dropped it before Obamacare because it was clear that in the U.S. the power structure is incentivized to lay a foundation of sickness in order to maximize profits for the health care industry.  It's a fallout from our legacy and growth of our crony capitalist system and 'single payer' would simply provide a nexus for more efficient exploitation by corporations.  As a side effect of my studies of vaccination, it seems to me that this model is exhibited in other quasi-socialist 'public health' systems in Europe.

Prior to Obamacare I supported a 'public option' system.  This would give entities without unlimited financial resources (states in this case) the leverage needed to implement cost controls.  Of course there are downsides to such a system as there are with any.  As best I can tell this basic strategy of giving power to entities who have the need and ability to control costs is Trump's line of reasoning as well.  These are 'market force' principles which should not be completely alien to Libertarians...I would not think...

[RoomBot]

Guys I really need to know is trump implicated with Epstein? You know I can agree with everything with the guy but this is a no no issue. So is he guilty of the same acts of clinton and Epstein? ...

No he is not, but expect a great more of this smearing.  That's what US Democrats do.  In the past it is always worst in the last month of a presidential campaign.

Agreed & stocking up on *popcorn*

[RoomBot]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

Wall?

Mexican President says, No WAY JOSE:


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/world/mexico-president-fareed-interview/

[Elwar]

Trump is guilty of the same acts as Clinton. He too supports universal health care.

The opposite is to not support 'universal health care.'  In anything remotely resembling a sane system, a desire for 'universal health care' is the only position which makes a lot of sense.  This is to say nothing whatsoever about implementation.

It is pretty clear to me that the problem we have in the U.S. is there is no mechanism by which cost controls can do their job.  I intellectually supported the idea of 'single payer' at one time, but dropped it before Obamacare because it was clear that in the U.S. the power structure is incentivized to lay a foundation of sickness in order to maximize profits for the health care industry.  It's a fallout from our legacy and growth of our crony capitalist system and 'single payer' would simply provide a nexus for more efficient exploitation by corporations.  As a side effect of my studies of vaccination, it seems to me that this model is exhibited in other quasi-socialist 'public health' systems in Europe.

Prior to Obamacare I supported a 'public option' system.  This would give entities without unlimited financial resources (states in this case) the leverage needed to implement cost controls.  Of course there are downsides to such a system as there are with any.  As best I can tell this basic strategy of giving power to entities who have the need and ability to control costs is Trump's line of reasoning as well.  These are 'market force' principles which should not be completely alien to Libertarians...I would not think...

The opposite would be to allow the free market to bring us innovation and lower prices in health care rather than a centralized system that can only end in a Venezuela type of tragedy (as centralized systems tend to do).
Clearly Trump does not support the free market.

[Masha Sha]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

[Elwar]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

[vokain]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

Is it wrong to think that Trump will implement more cost controls than the alternative options? If so good enough for me, not like I can have my libertarian utopia in a snap of a couple fingers

[tvbcof]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

Is it wrong to think that Trump will implement more cost controls than the alternative options? If so good enough for me, not like I can have my libertarian utopia in a snap of a couple fingers

To me, Elwardian Libertarians and the Sandersnista flavor of Socialists are two peas in a pod.  Run-of-the-mill utopians without enough common sense to make much of a difference one way or another.  They are basically like the large dense object found by groping about in a toolbox when a hammer has been mis-placed, and to the more shrewd actors who have that basic potential they are inevitably used as such.

[Elwar]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

Is it wrong to think that Trump will implement more cost controls than the alternative options? If so good enough for me, not like I can have my libertarian utopia in a snap of a couple fingers

To me, Elwardian Libertarians and the Sandersnista flavor of Socialists are two peas in a pod.  Run-of-the-mill utopians without enough common sense to make much of a difference one way or another.  They are basically like the large dense object found by groping about in a toolbox when a hammer has been mis-placed, and to the more shrewd actors who have that basic potential they are inevitably used as such.

There is certainly not much difference between Hillary and Trump. The last time the presidency was up for grabs by both parties Trump voted right alongside Hillary for Barack Obama.

We actually have 2 Republican governors with proven fiscally conservative track records that will likely be in the debates against the two big government Democrats. They are far from utopian and certainly would not be my first pick as a libertarian but at least they don't support centralization of power.

[vokain]

There is no free market when a selected group of people can socialize their loss and privatize their profits, furthermore if those people are able to achieve regulatory capture and still need to be bailed it tells you that they are better at corrupting than finance ;-).

So all argument about what ever in the context of a free market are mute. This is where Obama failed to explain and chose to (again) build a narrative. If mostly Jewish white men of Wall Street will not lose their income because of their total incompetency why shall black get nothing too? Who is gonna loot faster America and move away?

And you think that Trump would change that at all? He supported the bailouts. He thrives on government interference in the market.

Is it wrong to think that Trump will implement more cost controls than the alternative options? If so good enough for me, not like I can have my libertarian utopia in a snap of a couple fingers

To me, Elwardian Libertarians and the Sandersnista flavor of Socialists are two peas in a pod.  Run-of-the-mill utopians without enough common sense to make much of a difference one way or another.  They are basically like the large dense object found by groping about in a toolbox when a hammer has been mis-placed, and to the more shrewd actors who have that basic potential they are inevitably used as such.

There is certainly not much difference between Hillary and Trump. The last time the presidency was up for grabs by both parties Trump voted right alongside Hillary for Barack Obama.

We actually have 2 Republican governors with proven fiscally conservative track records that will likely be in the debates against the two big government Democrats. They are far from utopian and certainly would not be my first pick as a libertarian but at least they don't support centralization of power.

I do love me some Gary Johnson. Who's the other person?

[Masha Sha]

Best and only VP for trump is Flynn...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psk4jH2DAqw

(Pence is too cheap (£))

And just by the attacks on Flynn you can know how much the demcratic side is afraid...

[tvbcof]

Best and only VP for trump is Flynn...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psk4jH2DAqw

(Pence is too cheap (£))

And just by the attacks on Flynn you can know how much the demcratic side is afraid...

Yup.  It was one of the first things I noticed when I started researching Flynn.  I honestly would not be surprised if a yellow puddle was to be found under the chair of one of the Dem-tinged establishment talking heads who I noticed early in my researched.  Clearly rattled.

[Spendulus]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

Wall?

Mexican President says, No WAY JOSE:


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/world/mexico-president-fareed-interview/

I got some news for you.  The Mexican president is not in charge of whether the US builds a wall or not.

[RoomBot]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

Wall?

Mexican President says, No WAY JOSE:


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/world/mexico-president-fareed-interview/

I got some news for you.  The Mexican president is not in charge of whether the US builds a wall or not.

Of course.  The article states that he won't pay for it. 

[Masha Sha]

Best and only VP for trump is Flynn...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psk4jH2DAqw

(Pence is too cheap (£))

And just by the attacks on Flynn you can know how much the demcratic side is afraid...

Yup.  It was one of the first things I noticed when I started researching Flynn.  I honestly would not be surprised if a yellow puddle was to be found under the chair of one of the Dem-tinged establishment talking heads who I noticed early in my researched.  Clearly rattled.

I sincerely think it could be the best combination not only to win the election but to make America great again.

Flynn is worth listening to. As an advice to the guy I would tell him to chill out during interviews and understand that in America people are more interested to learn and listen than to confront him. He should listen to the way GWB speaks, simply and deeply. Rural rancher awareness. Key word: relax, chill, enjoy and have fun.

[mrhelpful]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

You know for a damn fact mexico isnt going to fork up to pay a wall all across bottom line of texas.

The fact he said mexico would pay for it is just dumb, and if he thinks we all would want to pay for it thats even more dumb.

Then again that would question on spending in general since half the US is made up of immigrants who made US what it is today...

[Spendulus]

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

Wall?

Mexican President says, No WAY JOSE:


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/world/mexico-president-fareed-interview/

I got some news for you.  The Mexican president is not in charge of whether the US builds a wall or not.

Of course.  The article states that he won't pay for it.  

He's not in charge of whether Mexico pays for it or not.  All that the US has to do is place a small fee on "Remittances" from the US to Mexico.  That's the money all the illegal Mexicans here are sending back to their families.

So you see, this is really not very complicated.

Will he really build a wall?
I read it can be done, it would cost about 8 Billion and could be done in 4 years, the same amount of time he would be in office.
I think he will.

You know for a damn fact mexico isnt going to fork up to pay a wall all across bottom line of texas.

The fact he said mexico would pay for it is just dumb, and if he thinks we all would want to pay for it thats even more dumb.

Then again that would question on spending in general since half the US is made up of immigrants who made US what it is today...

See above and please comment, if you like.  By the way, it's not just Texas.  Four US states border Mexico.