Quote:

---

Lately, most Americans, regardless of their political leanings, have been asking themselves some version of the same question: How did we get here? How did the world’s greatest democracy and economy become a land of crumbling roads, galloping income inequality, bitter polarization and dysfunctional government?

---

Quote:

---

Signym, this is why I do not think you live in America. Your strange delusion is that changing the President also changes what the top 50% of Americans do to the bottom 50%.

---

Quote:

---

If you ever wondered why replacing one political party with another does not overthrow within a few years the top 1%, that article will explain it to you.

---

Quote:

---

Signym, one of the selling points for you to vote for Trump was he would not start a war with Russia but Hillary would. And then Signym writes nothing about those 210 anti-tank missiles for killing Russians and antagonizing Putin. Instead, Signym writes hundreds of words about Hillary being bribed. Signym, you are wasting time.

---

Quote:

---

Yes. At the absolute best, it's redundancy.- SIX

Redundancy to what? To the non-existent national training and jobs programs? To the non-existent public works projects?- KIKI

And that's only if it were done on a temporary basis as a program to transition existing military service members out of an active duty role. -SIX

Why? just because you say so doesn't make it so. - KIKI

I don't agree, but not because it necessarily represents an numeric expansion (i.e. numbers of military volunteers increasing) but because it expands the scope of "military code of justice" to non-military situations even further. If there's any reason at all for putting recruits under "martial law" it's because they will be forced into a wartime situation, where obedience is required. But there's no reason to put people under "martial law" because they're learning how to make their beds, brush their teeth, and run a bulldozer. - SIGNY

This will STILL be the military. People will go for basic training. They will be called up for combat duty if they need to defend the country. - KIKI

That's kind of my point. If the end goal here is not actually lowering the existing numbers in the military - SIX

It's not. And I never said it was. It's to get us more value at home for government money spent on the military that would otherwise be wasted.- KIKI

I fear that the numbers would rise because of how desperate people are going to become for any sort of meaningful jobs as more get shipped overseas or replaced with automation. ... I don't believe the Government would put any limits to how many people could join this program since the labor would be extremely cheap ... Who's to say that this wouldn't grow? - SIX

Are you saying the government would somehow be 'forced' to admit the flood of applicants? And. Wait. Weren't you arguing this was such a bad deal no one would go for it? Do you think you can keep your arguments straight? 0 KIKI

... and they'd be signing over their lives on contract to the Government until their time was up. These "employees" would have no real say about the direction their lives go while enlisted ... SIX

You mean, JUST EXACTLY LIKE HOW THINGS ARE NOW? - KIKI

Everybody here knows how corrupt our Government and businesses are. SIX

Do you have a point? - KIKI

... and by the time they could leave there might not be a whole lot of good paying jobs utilizing the skills they learned SIX

... And that's different from now ... how exactly? KIKI

... if there are now twice as many new recruits in there as well as a waiting list, so they're probably much more likely to re-enlist for a small bonus or bump in pay for the next 4 years of their lives. This circle only stands to get more vicious as the ranks become professional caliber after re-enlisting 1 or 2 times because it's better than the alternatives. - SIX

And how's THAT different from now?- KIKI

You just go round and round, and go nowhere.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hmm... offhand, it's the "value added" argument ..., the one that should be the most acceptable ... that troubles me most. It creates a motivation that could expand the [military] endlessly, EVEN IF there are no current wars being fought and no need for a constant/ expanded military force. The program would eliminate any possible "peace dividend" and any possible rational for reducing the military force/ budget by expanding the scope of the military into peacetime. I think that's the thing that bothers me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My point, GSTRING, is that politicians of BOTH parties lie. You don't like Trump because he lies? Well, guess what ... do did Hillary and Obama and Bush and Bill. You don't like politicians because they're personally skeezy? Because they violate your Constitutional rights? Don't have the interests of the "common man/ woman" at heart? Represent the oligarchy? Concocted false flags to get us into war?

Huh. Could be said of every President that I can think of in my lifetime except (maybe) Kennedy, but I was too young to know anything about politics back then.

Let's get to characteristics that DIFFERENTIATE politicians, not ones that they all share.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
My point, GSTRING, is that politicians of BOTH parties lie. You don't like Trump because he lies? Well, guess what ... do did Hillary and Obama and Bush and Bill. You don't like politicians because they're personally skeezy? Because they violate your Constitutional rights? Don't have the interests of the "common man/ woman" at heart? Represent the oligarchy? Concocted false flags to get us into war?

Huh. Could be said of every President that I can think of in my lifetime except (maybe) Kennedy, but I was too young to know anything about politics back then.

Let's get to characteristics that DIFFERENTIATE politicians, not ones that they all share.

---

The shear number of Trump's lies are so staggering that you would make money in Vegas if you take 1 to 9 odds he's lying every time he speaks. This isn't, "they all do it" territory, not even close. This is gluttonous lying, gorging, Roman banquet style lying. This is sociopathic lying bordering on mental health issues volume of lying. I believe amongst his other epically poor traits, his lying is one of the worst ones. So this lying of his DIFFERENTIATES him from all of his predecessors. Bonus for Putin!

---

Quote:

---

The shear number of Trump's lies are so staggering that you would make money in Vegas if you take 1 to 9 odds he's lying every time he speaks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Yes. At the absolute best, it's redundancy.- SIX

Redundancy to what? To the non-existent national training and jobs programs? To the non-existent public works projects?- KIKI

And that's only if it were done on a temporary basis as a program to transition existing military service members out of an active duty role. -SIX

Why? just because you say so doesn't make it so. - KIKI

I don't agree, but not because it necessarily represents an numeric expansion (i.e. numbers of military volunteers increasing) but because it expands the scope of "military code of justice" to non-military situations even further. If there's any reason at all for putting recruits under "martial law" it's because they will be forced into a wartime situation, where obedience is required. But there's no reason to put people under "martial law" because they're learning how to make their beds, brush their teeth, and run a bulldozer. - SIGNY

This will STILL be the military. People will go for basic training. They will be called up for combat duty if they need to defend the country. - KIKI

That's kind of my point. If the end goal here is not actually lowering the existing numbers in the military - SIX

It's not. And I never said it was. It's to get us more value at home for government money spent on the military that would otherwise be wasted.- KIKI

I fear that the numbers would rise because of how desperate people are going to become for any sort of meaningful jobs as more get shipped overseas or replaced with automation. ... I don't believe the Government would put any limits to how many people could join this program since the labor would be extremely cheap ... Who's to say that this wouldn't grow? - SIX

Are you saying the government would somehow be 'forced' to admit the flood of applicants? And. Wait. Weren't you arguing this was such a bad deal no one would go for it? Do you think you can keep your arguments straight? 0 KIKI

... and they'd be signing over their lives on contract to the Government until their time was up. These "employees" would have no real say about the direction their lives go while enlisted ... SIX

You mean, JUST EXACTLY LIKE HOW THINGS ARE NOW? - KIKI

Everybody here knows how corrupt our Government and businesses are. SIX

Do you have a point? - KIKI

... and by the time they could leave there might not be a whole lot of good paying jobs utilizing the skills they learned SIX

... And that's different from now ... how exactly? KIKI

... if there are now twice as many new recruits in there as well as a waiting list, so they're probably much more likely to re-enlist for a small bonus or bump in pay for the next 4 years of their lives. This circle only stands to get more vicious as the ranks become professional caliber after re-enlisting 1 or 2 times because it's better than the alternatives. - SIX

And how's THAT different from now?- KIKI

You just go round and round, and go nowhere.- SIX

---

Hmm... offhand, it's the "value added" argument ..., the one that should be the most acceptable ... that troubles me most. It creates a motivation that could expand the program endlessly, EVEN IF there are no current wars being fought and no need for a constant/ expanded military force. The program would eliminate any possible "peace dividend" and any possible rational for reducing the military force/ budget by expanding the scope of the military into peacetime. I think that's the thing that bothers me.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:

My point, (which you seem to be unable to comprehend) is that the military is ALREADY a large part of the US job-related economy.

---

Quote:

---

And just to make the point further, the US military is not the single largest employer in the US - it's the single largest employer in the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You whine, bitch, and moan endlessly about Trump. I'd take it a lot more seriously if you didn't have such a big fucking double standard/ hole in your head.

---

I'd take you a little more seriously if you realized that Obama is no longer president. You and people of you ilk, constantly defend Trump (omg) by blaming someone who's out of work and has zero effect on your life. "If only you'd criticized John Tyler like this..." Big fucking transparent hole in your head.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The shear number of Trump's lies are so staggering that you would make money in Vegas if you take 1 to 9 odds he's lying every time he speaks.

---

Prove it.

HINT: You can't.

---

Quote:

---

After 8 years of the disastrous Obamanomics being blamed on Bush

---

Quote:

---

, now MSM is claiming Trump's unleashed Economy is really Obama's Economy.

---

Quote:

---

btw, many countries with COMPULSORY service offer civilian, non-combat service alternatives, including Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GSTRING, here's the thing: A "lie" is when people say something that they know to be untrue. In order to know whether someone is lying, you have to know what THEY think is true and what THEY think is false. Since we can't crawl into Trump's mind, we don't know what HE thinks is fact and what isn't. We would need a statement of intent ...Oh, I just said that to get the press/ Democrats/ deep state off my back.

It was the same argument with GWB and Iraq's so-called WMD. I could demonstrate morning, noon, and night that GWB was wrong, wrong, wrong. But, was he lying? I don't know. I'm not sure that HE had the mental capacity to sustain a lie over such a long term. Maybe everyone else ... Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld ... maybe THEY lied to GWB and he believed them. I was left with the choice that either GWB lied, or else he was fatally incompetent. (Fatal for our troops and for a huge number of Iraqis, that is.) But in the end, I don't think I could "prove" that he lied unless someone published a formerly secret diary where GWB admitted to lying.

So I'm not about to try and prove that Trump "lied" or "didn't lie" with each his statements. Instead, we can discuss whether or not he was right or wrong. Some of his statements that YOU deem to be a "lie" I think were actually correct.

---

Quote:

---

Which statements that CC/G/pizmobeach deems a lie do you consider to be factually inaccurate?

---

Quote:

---

"Sir, should you get a nobel prize?"
"Everyone thinks I should..."

---

Quote:

---

"Everybody is with Tomi Lahren, a truly outstanding and respected young woman! "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Which statements that CC/G/pizmobeach deems a lie do you consider to be factually inaccurate?

---

Quote:

---

"Sir, should you get a nobel prize?"
"Everyone thinks I should..."

---

Statements which contain universally-inclusive (or exclusive) terms like "everyone", "nobody", "always", and "never" are categorically suspect. We don't even know if the "laws of physics" apply universally, much less an opinion.

Quote:

---

"Everybody is with Tomi Lahren, a truly outstanding and respected young woman! "

---

Same problem. And I don't even know who that is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Apparently she is basing her theory upon some TV Show set in Colorado. Our Military Strategy has a preference of not fighting War on our own soil - which would lead to certain loss. Tell me, which Foreign Aggitators or Aggressors, or Oceans, border Colorado?"

What the fuck are you trying to say? That Colorado doesn't have a shit-ton of military bases? That all of the US military is stationed oversees? That the constitution doesn't specify the military is for the common defense?

My point, (which you seem to be unable to comprehend) is that the military is ALREADY a large part of the US job-related economy.

If you were to gather all of the military bases and installations in one single place in the US, it would be a city as large as Dallas, exclusively populated by military personnel. Just to reiterate, that Dallas-sized city would be ONLY military personnel. There would be no waitresses, meter-readers, cashiers or stockboys. There would be no Walmarts, no grocery stores, no Chevrons. No landlords or landscapers. It would be a city the size of Dallas, with nobody but the military.

That's how big the military is as an employer.


And just to make the point further, the US military is not the single largest employer in the US - it's the single largest employer in the world.

MarketWatch
https://www.marketwatch.com › The Margin
Jun 17, 2015 - At 3.2 million strong, the U.S. military is the largest employer in the world

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

The shear number of Trump's lies are so staggering that you would make money in Vegas if you take 1 to 9 odds he's lying every time he speaks.

---

Prove it.

HINT: You can't.

---

Eh? I have always suspected that you are such a believer in the use of lying that long ago you stopped considering it a bad thing. I suspect that you - just like Trump - find truth telling to be a sign of weakness. "You'll never get anywhere telling the truth!"

Maybe you are unable to penetrate his NY style of speaking and are enraptured every time he makes a speech?
Maybe you are just a fan of Russia and love to see him create disruption? I think I know the truth.

How about I post his lies every day for the next week? How about just the last 4 days?

"Sir, should you get a nobel prize?"
"Everyone thinks I should..."
Not really.

"Sadly, I was forced to cancel the summit..."
He wasn't forced.

"Not surprisingly, the GREAT Men & Women of the FBI are starting to speak out against Comey, McCabe and all of the political corruption and poor leadership found within the top ranks of the FBI. Comey was a terrible and corrupt leader who inflicted great pain on the FBI! "

They are? Who? Cites for anything in that statement? 2, 3, 5 lies in that one tweet?

"Clapper has now admitted that there was Spying in my campaign. Large dollars were paid to the Spy, far beyond normal. Starting to look like one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history. SPYGATE - a terrible thing!"
No he didn't. "largest scandals in US History?" Not so much.

"WITCH HUNT!" that lie never gets old.

"Everybody is with Tomi Lahren, a truly outstanding and respected young woman! "
No.

"John Brennan is panicking. He has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the Country, he has disgraced the entire Intelligence Community. He is the one man who is largely responsible for the destruction of American’s faith in the Intelligence Community..."
No, that would be you.

That's just the last 4 days - there are more in that time fame, just why bother? You will defend *cough* lie about *cough* his chaos style as long as he's in office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GSTRING, here's the thing: A "lie" is when people say something that they know to be untrue. In order to know whether someone is lying, you have to know what THEY think is true and what THEY think is false. Since we can't crawl into Trump's mind, we don't know what HE thinks is fact and what isn't. We would need a statement of intent ...Oh, I just said that to get the press/ Democrats/ deep state off my back.

It was the same argument with GWB and Iraq's so-called WMD. I could demonstrate morning, noon, and night that GWB was wrong, wrong, wrong. But, was he lying? I don't know. I'm not sure that HE had the mental capacity to sustain a lie over such a long term. Maybe everyone else ... Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld ... maybe THEY lied to GWB and he believed them. I was left with the choice that either GWB lied, or else he was fatally incompetent. (Fatal for our troops and for a huge number of Iraqis, that is.) But in the end, I don't think I could "prove" that he lied unless someone published a formerly secret diary where GWB admitted to lying.

So I'm not about to try and prove that Trump "lied" or "didn't lie" with each his statements. Instead, we can discuss whether or not he was right or wrong. Some of his statements that YOU deem to be a "lie" I think were actually correct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:Statements which contain universally-inclusive (or exclusive) terms like "everyone", "nobody", "always", and "never" are categorically suspect. We don't even know if the "laws of physics" apply universally, much less an opinion.

---

Quote:

---

That's a very popular tactic used by people who lie, a bit like: "I was joking." I think you just are not familiar with sales people or Trump in particular. I know their schpiel backwards and forwards. "Never admit a wrong..." "Never ask a question that has a "no" answer..." On and on. It's a fascinating and exceptionally slimey business. No, I wasn't a sales person - save your "humor."
Lying is like eating a Big Mac for Trump - he never had much of a social filter

---

Quote:

---

Statements which contain universally-inclusive (or exclusive) terms like "everyone", "nobody", "always", and "never" are categorically suspect. We don't even know if the "laws of physics" apply universally, much less an opinion. SIGNY

Huh? What sort of BS is that????- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I see no benefit to increasing that power."

NOT increasing!!! NOT INCREASING. NOT INCREASING!! NOT INCREASING!!

I had only 3 things I said would change

1) no overseas wars
2) public works types assignments
3) job training

If those are the ONLY things that change, what does that mean for everything else?

EVERYTHING ELSE STAYS THE SAME.

My god, but you are dense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GSTRING, here's the thing: A "lie" is when people say something that they know to be untrue. In order to know whether someone is lying, you have to know what THEY think is true and what THEY think is false. Since we can't crawl into Trump's mind, we don't know what HE thinks is fact and what isn't. We would need a statement of intent ...Oh, I just said that to get the press/ Democrats/ deep state off my back.

It was the same argument with GWB and Iraq's so-called WMD. I could demonstrate morning, noon, and night that GWB was wrong, wrong, wrong. But, was he lying? I don't know. I'm not sure that HE had the mental capacity to sustain a lie over such a long term. Maybe everyone else ... Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Rumsfeld ... maybe THEY lied to GWB and he believed them. I was left with the choice that either GWB lied, or else he was fatally incompetent. (Fatal for our troops and for a huge number of Iraqis, that is.) But in the end, I don't think I could "prove" that he lied unless someone published a formerly secret diary where GWB admitted to lying.

So I'm not about to try and prove that Trump "lied" or "didn't lie" with each his statements. Instead, we can discuss whether or not he was right or wrong. Some of his statements that YOU deem to be a "lie" I think were actually correct.

---

That's a very popular tactic used by people who lie, a bit like: "I was joking." I think you just are not familiar with sales people or Trump in particular. I know their schpiel backwards and forwards. "Never admit a wrong..." "Never ask a question that has a "no" answer..." On and on. It's a fascinating and exceptionally slimey business. No, I wasn't a sales person - save your "humor."
Lying is like eating a Big Mac for Trump - he never had much of a social filter, and now that he's the most powerful man on earth, his ego knows no bounds, few rules apply.

He is purposely overstating for effect. Just listen to him, he uses the "every blank" expression constantly. "Everyone is horrified by what the FBI is doing."

Here's more - over statement (lying) for effect - you have to wonder if he's a bit drunk in this clip:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4731522/factual-errors

You have to watch the video there ^

Error #1: The $700B defense budget for FY18 is not the largest ever. It was larger under the Obama administration: $710B in FY11 and $714B in FY10. And that's without adjusting for inflation!

Error #2: The number of ships in the Navy today is not the smallest since the end of WWI. We have 283 ships today, and in 2007 (Bush administration) we had 279.

Error #3: The Navy will not get to 355 ships "very soon." The Navy's 30-year plan says it will not get to that level until after 2050, but it could possibly be accelerated to the 2030s. Either way, it's not very soon.

Error #4: Getting to 355 ships is not an increase of "a couple of hundred" ships. Here's the math: 355 - 283 = 72

Error #5: The 355-ship fleet has not yet been "approved." The ships have not all been authorized yet, and Congress appropriates the money one year at a time.

Error #6: This year's military pay raise is not the first in ten years. There were pay raises in each of the past ten years, & some were higher than this year's raise.
FY09: 3.9%
FY10: 3.4%
FY11: 1.4%
FY12: 1.6%
FY13: 1.7%
FY14: 1.0%
FY15: 1.0%
FY16: 1.3%
FY17: 2.1%
FY18: 2.4%

I believe these comments:

"These lies are told purposefully - to be repeated on Fox etc and to become "reality" for the masses."

"That's Trumps main MO - tell so many lies we can't keep up."

"That's a debating technique, called the Gish Gallop."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well jack - let me know when someone makes you god, and I can believe everything you claim.

Otherwise, it's CLEARLY evident you have no argument besides your knee JERK reaction.

---

Quote:

---

Is it a way to get more "value" out of the military budget?

---

Quote:

---

Is is a way to improve the civilian infrastructure?

---

Quote:

---

Is it a "stealth" jobs or job training program?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
KIKI, I'm still trying to make sense of the purpose of your proposal. Is it a way to get more "value" out of the military budget? Is is a way to improve the civilian infrastructure? Is it a "stealth" jobs or job training program? All of the above?

In any case, let's say that - as you say - everything remains the same. The budget, the number of recruits, everything. But let's say that by some miracle OUTSIDE circumstances change ... the USA decides to not to jump into more military adventures and the necessity for the military decreases. Will the military budget and the number of recruits be allowed to decrease? Or will we hear ... If we let these people go unemployment will increase? But look, we have them working on jobs programs already!

Pffft! No incentive to actually reduce military spending. There goes the "peace dividend!"

---

Quote:

---

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm
Enlisted personnel make up about 82 percent of the Armed Forces and carry out military operations.
Administrative 51,283
Combat Specialty 151,501
Construction 30,322
Electronic and Electrical Equipment Repair 129,209
Engineering, Science, and Technical 161,571
Healthcare 68,365
Human Resource Development 29,574
Machine Operator and Production 23,293
Media and Public Affairs 19,371
Protective Service 76,567
Support Service 26,783
Transportation and Material Handling 142,198
Vehicle and Machinery Mechanic 160,690
Non-occupation or unspecified coded personnel 14,559

The remaining 18 percent are officers—military leaders who manage operations and enlisted personnel.
Combat Specialty 35,743
Engineering, Science, and Technical 53,097
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial 29,230
Healthcare 26,967
Human Resource Development 8,449
Media and Public Affairs 1,053
Protective Service 5,611
Support Service 3,388
Transportation 45,346
Non-occupation or unspecified coded personnel 24,705

---

Quote:

---

I added to my post, see above

---

Quote:

---

That would be our "peace dividend."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

***

If you look at FDR, what did he do? He swept up the broken human refuse of the Gilded Age, "provided" jobs and welfare to the common people crushed under the Great Depression. But what did he REALLY do? Did he REALLY save "the people"? Or did he "really" save capitalism and financialism from impending revolt?

****

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

*****

I will go back to the story of washerwomen at the riverbank, seeing babies floating down the river, drowning. One woman cries and wrings her hands. Another woman organizes a village brigade to rescue babies from the river. But a third breaks way to run upstream.

Where are you going? cry the rescue brigade, We need you for the rescue!!

I'm going upstream to find the bastards who are throwing the babies in! is the reply.

Well, we seem to be busy saving [some] babies from the river. Maybe we should catch the bastards who are throwing them in.

*****

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Deliberately lying requires a big social filter. If you just blurt out whatever pops into your head at the moment, it will be very difficult to lie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So by your own opinion, Trump is constitutionally incapable of lying consistently. Correct?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you transcribed is a bunch of factually incorrect statements. Whether they were deliberate, inexact, or uninformed is I suppose a matter for discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Since people constantly accuse Trump of not knowing the details of how the government works or what's in the budget, some of it might be sheer carelessness. It's a point I find useless to argue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's not. JSF asked which of Trump's statements were inaccurate, and those were the ones I can say were clearly incorrect. His other statements were mixtures of accuracies, potential accuracies, and inaccuracies, and each one would require debating the three or four points in each statement to determine how accurate each one was. Not a debate I felt like doing, and if I did you would simply say I was posting too many words!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Deliberately lying requires a big social filter. If you just blurt out whatever pops into your head at the moment, it will be very difficult to lie.

---

Um, no it wouldn't - I keep telling you that's what salesmen do. I don't think you have had any experience with sales people. It's a study, it becomes second nature. This guy trained in the crucible of NYC. He knows the downside to lying is virtually non existent for him. He lied again this morning.

---

Quote:

---

Deliberately lying requires a big social filter. If you just blurt out whatever pops into your head at the moment, it will be very difficult to lie. - SIGNY

Um, no it wouldn't - I keep telling you that's what salesmen do. - CC

---

Quote:

---

So by your own opinion, Trump is constitutionally incapable of lying consistently. Correct? - SIGNY

Way incorrect. He is a consummate liar. He's even got you snowed. I thought you were smart? How do you miss all of this? - CC

---

Quote:

---

What you transcribed is a bunch of factually incorrect statements. Whether they were deliberate, inexact, or uninformed is I suppose a matter for discussion.- SIGNY

2 things on that:
1. you're saying he's lying or pretty damn stupid, or a combination of both. That doesn't concern you?

---

Quote:

---

2. I get the argument for incompetence, but when you see the pattern of him always making "false statements" that always make him and his people look better and brighter, then you realize there's an underlying methodology, and it's called lying. - - CC

---

Quote:

---

Since people constantly accuse Trump of not knowing the details of how the government works or what's in the budget, some of it might be sheer carelessness. It's a point I find useless to argue. - SIGNY

Dodge away. =CC

---

Quote:

---

It's not. JSF asked which of Trump's statements were inaccurate, and those were the ones I can say were clearly incorrect. His other statements were mixtures of accuracies, potential accuracies, and inaccuracies, and each one would require debating the three or four points in each statement to determine how accurate each one was. Not a debate I felt like doing, and if I did you would simply say I was posting too many words! - SIGNY

There's no debate necessary - the facts were posted. You choose to not understand and that is your right. - CC

---

Quote:

---

"Sadly, I was forced to cancel the summit..."
He wasn't forced.

---

Quote:

---

"Not surprisingly, the GREAT Men & Women of the FBI are starting to speak out against Comey, McCabe and all of the political corruption and poor leadership found within the top ranks of the FBI. Comey was a terrible and corrupt leader who inflicted great pain on the FBI! "

They are? Who? Cites for anything in that statement? 2, 3, 5 lies in that one tweet?

---

Quote:

---

"Clapper has now admitted that there was Spying in my campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Large dollars were paid to the Spy

---

Quote:

---

far beyond normal.

---

Quote:

---

Starting to look like one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history. SPYGATE - a terrible thing!"

---

Quote:

---

Democrats see GOP state and federal legislators who routinely slash taxes on the wealthy, and services for the poor, in defiance of their constituents’ wishes;

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by captaincrunch:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Deliberately lying requires a big social filter. If you just blurt out whatever pops into your head at the moment, it will be very difficult to lie.

---

Um, no it wouldn't - I keep telling you that's what salesmen do. I don't think you have had any experience with sales people. It's a study, it becomes second nature. This guy trained in the crucible of NYC. He knows the downside to lying is virtually non existent for him. He lied again this morning.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So by your own opinion, Trump is constitutionally incapable of lying consistently. Correct?

---

Way incorrect. He is a consummate liar. He's even got you snowed. I thought you were smart? How do you miss all of this?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you transcribed is a bunch of factually incorrect statements. Whether they were deliberate, inexact, or uninformed is I suppose a matter for discussion.

---

2 things on that:
1. you're saying he's lying or pretty damn stupid, or a combination of both. That doesn't concern you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The 2 Most Stupid and incompetent Presidents we've had in a long time are Clinton and Obama. And those 2 have no rivals regarding the incessant lies they peddled.
But that doesn't seem to concern you, or other trolls.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

I added to my post, see above

---

Oh, I didn't see this until later ...

Quote:

---

That would be our "peace dividend."

---

More people employed at civilian work under a military/government structure?

Okay, let me take another run at this. Maybe another THREE runs at this!

***

What is the REAL solution to unemployment? Does it consist of the government running after the corporations, cleaning up after the human wreckage that they leave behind by sweeping up the unemployed, homeless, and poverty-stricken into government jobs and welfare programs? Doing it more "efficiently" by hijacking a wasteful (military) program? Or does it consist of eliminating the REAL source of unemployment, which is the PROFIT MOTIVE which continually puts people out of work? (Corporations as "job creators". HA! "Job destroyers" is more like it!)

If you look at FDR, what did he do? He swept up the broken human refuse of the Gilded Age, "provided" jobs and welfare to the common people crushed under the Great Depression. But what did he REALLY do? Did he REALLY save "the people"? Or did he "really" save capitalism and financialism from impending revolt?

****

IMHO, the "real" solution to unemployment doesn't mean "the government providing" jobs to the unemployed. Instead, "the government" should be changing the laws which incentivize unemployment to begin with.

The REAL solution would be to rewrite the laws of "incorporation" to disallow individual ownership of "the means of production" (a la The Dispossessed) and disallow monetary creation by the banks via "fractional reserve banking". The creation of Federal welfare programs doesn't save The People, it saves capitalism from its own self-destruction. The REAL solution, IMHO, is to create a system which actively destroys concentration of power. It's a kind of "anti-monopoly" system which doesn't apply just to businesses but also to ideas (no trade-able "copyrights" and "patents" which can be transferred to someone besides the original author/inventor) and media (if you have to pay to transmit an idea, it's no longer "free speech", it's advertising). Because POWER CONCENTRATES (it has a kind of gravitational force, in which power begets more power, like mass attracts more mass) there must be a force which actively disperses it. (one of my arguments with libertarians is that "market forces" will solve everything. HAHAHAHA!)

*****

I will go back to the story of washerwomen at the riverbank, seeing babies floating down the river, drowning. One woman cries and wrings her hands. Another woman organizes a village brigade to rescue babies from the river. But a third breaks way to run upstream.

Where are you going? cry the rescue brigade, We need you for the rescue!!

I'm going upstream to find the bastards who are throwing the babies in! is the reply.

Well, we seem to be busy saving [some] babies from the river. Maybe we should catch the bastards who are throwing them in.


*****

"I believe in solving problems, not sharing them" Well, I believe in solving problems, not sharing them. And not creating them, either. If we would STOP CREATING problems, maybe we wouldn't have so many to solve. And maybe "the government" wouldn't have to solve the problems ("coincidentally" accruing even more power to itself) that it, itself, created.

*****

And finally, regarding Ursula Le Giun: While I find The Left Hand of Darkness some of the Earthsea Trilogy and some short stories to be the most readable, The Dispossessed is the most challenging. She attempts to create an entire society based on an entirely different economic structure, and I think her rigorous treatment of this new society reveals some warts that make it unattractive and possibly unworkable (for example the tendency to form hierarchies and bureaucracies even in a strictly egalitarian society). I feel that she has missed some vital ingredients in her thought experiment. I read that she passed way recently, which I find a terrible shame. Scifi has devolved into a mishmash of sword and sorcery; the last real unknown depth to investigate is human society. Very few writers attempt that topic: Azimov, L'Engle, Le Guin, Cherryh, Busby (Young Rissa), and MZ Bradley are the only ones that I know which present real, different options to our current structure.
-------

Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

As long as you insist that everything is the Republicans'/ Democrats' fault, then you fail to grasp the REAL problem with American politics.

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

The 2 Most Stupid and incompetent Presidents we've had in a long time are Clinton and Obama. And those 2 have no rivals regarding the incessant lies they peddled.
But that doesn't seem to concern you, or other trolls.

---

China loaned $500 million to an Indonesian blah blah blah.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"What is the plan to eradicate power hungry despots across the globe, thereby ending further need of Forceful Defense?" There's no mention in the Constitution of having the military engage in wars overseas (especially not being the aggressor in a war of choice), only for "common (states) defense".

"What is the benefit of taking Nuclear Power Plant Operators (which college gradjitates are not qualified for), Avionics Technicians (after training equivalent to more than 5 years of college), medics/corpsmen - or illiterate Obama's corpse-men - or heavy equipment Construction Engineers/SeaBees, and retrain them to become Ummm, highly trained hmmmm carpenters?"

Quote:

---

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/military/military-careers.htm
Enlisted personnel make up about 82 percent of the Armed Forces and carry out military operations.
Administrative 51,283
Combat Specialty 151,501
Construction 30,322
Electronic and Electrical Equipment Repair 129,209
Engineering, Science, and Technical 161,571
Healthcare 68,365
Human Resource Development 29,574
Machine Operator and Production 23,293
Media and Public Affairs 19,371
Protective Service 76,567
Support Service 26,783
Transportation and Material Handling 142,198
Vehicle and Machinery Mechanic 160,690
Non-occupation or unspecified coded personnel 14,559

The remaining 18 percent are officers—military leaders who manage operations and enlisted personnel.
Combat Specialty 35,743
Engineering, Science, and Technical 53,097
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial 29,230
Healthcare 26,967
Human Resource Development 8,449
Media and Public Affairs 1,053
Protective Service 5,611
Support Service 3,388
Transportation 45,346
Non-occupation or unspecified coded personnel 24,705

---

Now, as impressive as all of this sounds, the military trains people in an extremely narrow way. You don't learn to "build", you learn to set up specific models of military-supplied prefab units. You don't learn to "operate heavy machinery" you learn to drive one particular type of military vehicle. ... I'll have to get to this later. Family calls ...
Back now. Training and equipping military personnel for non-military duties would give them something they could take into a civilian economy. But that's not the main purpose of this.

"How will the peaceniks be convinced that continued Defense Spending devoid of military operations would be a good idea?" Peaceniks might be more in favor of it if it doesn't involve killing brown people overseas, but returns value to the country.

"How will Budget Hawks be convinced that excessive government spending on non-Defense functions is a warranted idea?" This would still be the military - trained, equipped, and ready to defend the country. But providing benefit while not in combat.

"What is the purpose of converting the DoD from the only cost-beneficial entity of the Federal Government (used to be 2nd behind NASA, but Bobo got rid of that) into one of the worst, like the rest of the welfare programs? (NASA had $1.21 return per $1 spent, DoD had $1.06 return, and welfare scams like this returned about $0.33 return per $1 spent)." I think you need to talk to the budget people in Washington and tell them the trillions spent in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are really benefits, not huge budget deficits.

"Is the only percieved goal of this idea to replace private sector jobs/work with wasteful public sector work and thus "growing the Economy with Big Government Spending" again?" No, the purpose is to get more value from military spending.

"What is the benefit of trading all battlefields from outside North America in exchange for locations inside USA chosen by the terrorist or despot Aggressor? Why turn New York, LA, Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, Dallas into Fallujah, Mosul?" If we were actually fighting them instead of giving them money and supplies (like we did in Syria) you might have just reitersted Putin's goal.

SECOND is a troll because it constantly misrepresents what people post, fails to address their actual positions, and resorts to personal attacks when its brain isn't working (which is most of the time).

---