/townhall/ - Townhall

>>16187
Oh no a guy who started multiple businesses didn't have a 100% success rate how horrible

>>16188
I'm pointing out the contradiction in Republican politicians' rhetoric. They only care about you once you're successful. If you haven't succeeded yet, they will actively try to thwart your efforts and shame you for failing, but once you get a little success they change their tune -- it's the sadistic game they like to play with the citizenry. Democrats, on the other hand, know to keep it in the bedroom. Republicans are not your friends.

>>16189
The Republican Party believes in second chances and not being defined by a few mistakes out of decades of work?
I guess I'd agree with that. Seems pretty sensible to me.

>>16190
While that's what they would like you to believe, unfortunately, that's not what they are about. (video related)

>>16191
I really just don't see why I'd care for your particular narrative about otherwise mundane, inoffensive acts here.
Like, oh no, man with many businesses didn't have a 100% perfect track record, oh no he engaged in something totally legal that the state itself has a direct hand...
Why should I care?
Why does this make republicans the bad guy?

It seems to me like it's just empty emotional appeals without any real substance behind them.

>>16192
For example, Dave Ramsey has a youtube channel where he sells outrage over large amounts of debt and what he considers financial mismanagement for views. He plays off of the cultural stigma around being in debt or filing for bankruptcy while presenting an emotional appeal to the caller, yet Trump, who is the President of the United States, elected twice and for his business acumen, has done so six times. I never heard Ramsey suggest gaming the system like Trump -- it's pretty typical of right-wing Trixies -- no consistent story - just say whatever is convenient for them at any given time.

So, you get Fundamentalist Christian programs that guilt you into debt management programs instead of bankruptcy, and people like Ramsey who take on the role of savior if you follow his plan (pulling from Christianity), while Trump has used the system to benefit himself six times. It's hypocritical. They are merely opportunists with no respect for the culture they grew up in -- warping it to their advantage.

(I should also add that the point of bankruptcy to begin with was to give someone a fresh start in the eyes of society, and that this protection has been eroded over the years, as well, due to people such as Trump taking advantage of it (he would be eroding its cultural significance) -- (and due to corporations lobbying to erode consumer protection, eroding actual protections), using it instead for personal gain while disregarding its intended purpose entirely.)

>>16193
I gotta be honest, I can barely understand what you're saying. What do you mean he "sells outrage over large amounts of debt"?
You mean he has a youtube channel where he talks about that?
I have no idea what your dashed sections are meant to tell me. I don't know what you mean by "Right wing trixies", nor where the "consistent story" even comes in to play.
I don't even know where "fundamentalist christians" came into play, or why we're talking about debt management programs. Trump isn't a fundamentalist christian, so I fail to see why it's in any way relevant to him.
I also don't see where your assumption that Trump is 'gaming the system' or somehow not using bancruptcy for its intended purposes, anyways, as it seems to me that's pretty well established as the way it works in the first place by design.

Is English your second language, perhaps?
I would posit that may well be why you do not understand American systems, or how our political institutions as a whole work.

I always suspected the narrative of trump being 'smart' for 6 bankruptcies is a lot of post-roc rationalization on Trump's part, a lot of "uhh ... I meant to do that" . If it was intentional tjough, then it's irrelevant whether or not it was legal, he was taking advantage of a flaw of the system using bankruptcies in ways against the intended function of it, and it reflects very poorly on his character (as do many other instances of fraud on trump's part and the trump organization's part) and has been a big part of why many have, for decades, never seen him as trustworthy.

>>16194
It could take pages to explain. Did you see the video in the other thread?: https://ponyville.us/townhall/res/15704.html? But I will nonetheless break it down a little more.

>What do you mean he "sells outrage over large amounts of debt"?
I mean he's an opportunist.

>I don't know what you mean by "Right wing trixies"...
A Trixie would be someone who says one thing and does another. Someone without a consistent story would be someone who is a Trixie because their actions are inconsistent with their words.

>I don't even know where "fundamentalist christians" came into play
Fundamentalist Christians have a strong influence on lower and middle-class culture, which politicians, in turn, must figure out how to appeal to in order to win votes, regardless of whether they are a fundamentalist or not. One example of an attempt to appeal to these voters was the infamous Trump photo op at St. John's Church.

>I also don't see where your assumption that Trump is 'gaming the system' or somehow not using bancruptcy for its intended purposes
When a law is made, there is typically a reason behind it. This reason can be called the "spirit of the law." When the law is passed, it is then written down in words (or letters). In interpreting law, one must consider both the spirit (the reason the law was made) and the letter (the way it was written down) of the law to fully understand how it applies to a specific situation.

When someone ignores the spirit of the law (the reason it was made), interpreting it only by the letter, they may be said to be "gaming the system," because the way in which they are using it was not the original reason for its creation.

>>16195
Interesting thought.

>>16196
I saw it. It was more or less the same thing I've said here already, about emotive language and accusations without any real substance.

>I mean he's an opportunist.
Which is still just as meaningless as the first bundle.
More so, if anything, since "opportunist" covers an even larger area.

>A Trixie would be someone who says one thing and does another.
That makes the context even more confusing.
You'd said "I never heard Ramsey suggest gaming the system like Trump -- it's pretty typical of right-wing Trixies -- no consistent story - just say whatever is convenient for them at any given time."
So, what'd be the 'say one thing' part, and where's the 'do another' bit come in?
Are you meaning to suggest this Ramsey guy games the system, even though he doesn't say to do so? Where does consistent story come in to play? Or convenience, for that matter?

>Fundamentalist Christians have a strong influence on lower and middle-class culture, which politicians, in turn, must figure out how to appeal to in order to win votes, regardless of whether they are a fundamentalist or not.
That still appears to have nothing to do with what was discussed at hand.
Whether or not they've got to fall into these cultural norms doesn't mean they're responsible for some kind of hypocrisy from them.
Even if we assume there's some kind of deviation from these norms occurring here to be hypocrticial from, in the first place.

>When someone ignores the spirit of the law (the reason it was made), interpreting it only by the letter, they may be said to be "gaming the system," because the way in which they are using it was not the original reason for its creation.
Which seems to be your assumption, and not something you've spent any time even backing up, at this stage. Just've repeatedly insisted it is so.

Why do you believe declaring a company bankrupt when it has become only a money sink is against the spirit of the law around bankrupcy?
What makes it somehow 'wrong' to do, despite being near as I can tell at least, the intention of such policies?

>>16195
I've never heard a narrative that he's "smart" because he filed 6 bankrupcies, personally.
The explanation I've always heard is that he's started a lot of businesses.
Not every one is going to be a success.

>>16197
>Which is still just as meaningless as the first bundle.
An opportunist is someone who lacks moral and ethical concern, instead focusing on getting what they want -- see Kohlberg's Levels of Moarlity - level 2, self-interest, for further reading.

>That makes the context even more confusing.
I mean I never heard Ramsey suggest to his callers that they should game the system, as Trump has done, in order to improve their finances. Yet, this is considered OK by Trump supporters. In other words, there is a double standard -- Trump is allowed to do it because he's rich and he's Trump, but regular people are still discouraged away from doing it.

>That still appears to have nothing to do with what was discussed at hand.
The relevance is that Fundamentalist Christians say people should be moral, yet many appear unable to tell when their moral inclinations are being manipulated, don't care, or supports such manipulation. This leads them to voting against their interests.

>Which seems to be your assumption, and not something you've spent any time even backing up, at this stage.
This would require research, but I'm pretty sure the idea came out of a populist social reform movement. Money only exists as a tool to the wealthy. For the middle, working, and lower classes, it has cultural significance. For them, bankruptcy was meant to remove the social stigma of being in debt and give someone a fresh start at the house, wife, and pension.

>>16198
the magazine article does raise some questions, such as -- was trump originally embarrassed and trying to hide his first bankruptcies? Then after a while, he just got used to them so changed his story?

>>16199
>An opportunist is someone who lacks moral and ethical concern
Which again, still leaves absolutely nothing for me to go off of in the original context.
He's an opportunist because... What? He just is?

>I mean I never heard Ramsey suggest to his callers that they should game the system, as Trump has done,
Assuming you are correct that he's "gamed" the system, is Donald Trump this Ramsey character?
From what you've described, seeing as you've labeled him an "opportunist" with an explicit moral derision, I would think it pretty irrelevant what he thinks.
Certainly he is not the entirety of Trump supporters either.

Why must Donald Trump, and anyone who supports him, abide by the divine will of Ramsey as though his word comes straight from the heavens themselves?
Seems rather absurd to me. Near as I can tell, there's nothing to justify such a thing, beyond perhaps a conflation of two individuals as the same because they're on the same 'side' politically, which even itself might be a stretch.

>The relevance is that Fundamentalist Christians say people should be moral, yet many appear unable to tell when their moral inclinations are being manipulated, don't care, or supports such manipulation.
Okay, but based on what?
And even so, why is that anyone else's problem?
Surely this is an issue for fundamentalist christians, not anyone else, even if we accept your rhetoric.
It doesn't leave Trump or his supporters hypocritical.
At best, it might leave Fundamentalist Christians hypocritical.

>For them, bankruptcy was meant to remove the social stigma of being in debt and give someone a fresh start at the house, wife, and pension.
Okay. But you do understand personal bankruptcy and bankruptcy of a business are two different things, and holding different legal regard as consequence, no?

>the magazine article does raise some questions, such as -- was trump originally embarrassed and trying to hide his first bankruptcies? Then after a while, he just got used to them so changed his story?
I would humbly suggest that political comics are utterly worthless in all cases.
They invariably contain at best a strawman, and far more typically just flatly dishonest characterizations.
I find no interest in the article; It seems it was just writ by someone critical of the man, and throwing it in with the usual snippy eye-catching way that asserts emotive talking points without any context or explanation.

My politics