Try: make an attempt or effort to do something.
For: used as a function word to indicate purpose

No, it is not a "fact" that his policies will make the lives of nearly everyone worse either. A number of things are improvements over the status quo and clintonian alternatives.
US presidents always cause massive amounts of suffering, but who is the hyper-statist among us?
Attributing "personal gain" as his intent for the suffering requires substantiation and disproves your rebuttal.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 17 2017 09:11pm

Trump is trying to enact policies that will cause the things I suggested, whether his intention is to cause those things or not. My statement was semantically correct.

His overall policies will without question be a net negative for the majority of the world. The only feasible rationalization is on fictitious ethical principles like justice or freedom. Some of his suggestions, I assume, will have net benefits, but the sum of his policies will have significant net negative consequences.

Yes the personal gain part was a description of his intentions. In my previous post what I meant was that I said nothing about whether making the world a worse place was his deliberate intention. Yes I implied his intention with his becoming president and his policy suggestions is at least partially for personal benefit.

"Trying to make the lives of nearly everyone in the world worse worse and cause massive amounts of suffering for his own personal gain"
Intentions...

This post was edited by FroggyG on Mar 17 2017 09:25pm

Nah you failed.
reread what you wrote, consult a dictionary, seek out a psychiatrist, do whatever you have to do.
You are continually wrong.


Opinion declared as unquestionable fact/10


>Anything to the contrary is 'fictitious ethical principles' with the implication that those are to be discounted and dismissed, and that you have the objective truth as your measurement.

ofc nonsense.

No 'freedom' isnt the only thing that can rationalize his policies. I could come up with any number of reasons why someone might prefer his policies and not consider them a net negative for the majority of the world or for the US, even if i dont share most of those.
Your claim is on weak footing logically.

At the end of the day we are mere months into his presidency. You dont even know what his policies will end up being and how they will pan out, and you have shown a clear lack of understanding and knowledge surrounding a number of policies over the years.
Your own opinion is not objective truth, nor is your preferred unstated criteria the only legitimate one.


The US federal government's policies will have net negative consequences in my view as well.
But Trump's in particular will be net negative on what grounds? and compared to what?
Many of his potential changes are good in my view and you just dont understand them or agree.

'The world' has a use for a counter balance to the lunacy of the left in my POV.

We have the option of continuing down the unhinged path you and much of the left are on, or intelligently and accurately understanding issues and criticizing him when he deserves it in hopes of improving conditions, persuading others and setting it straight.
The former undermines attempts at the latter. Crying wolf and whatnot desensitizes people to criticism.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Mar 17 2017 09:52pm

>im so tired about hearing bout drumpf he has no chance



e: never noticed this one

run for President in 2020 then


This post was edited by excellence on Mar 17 2017 09:56pm

If there's a human pyramid, and I'm trying to knock over the people on the base, I'm necessarily trying to knock over the whole pyramid, regardless of whether my intentions are to do so.



Obviously nobody can perfectly predict the future, but we can give informed analyses of various policies and their expected outcomes. It is not an opinion that millions of people will lose healthcare if Republicare is passed. It is not an opinion that reduction in the EPA will result in acceleration of climate change. It is not an opinion that removal of government funding to biomedical science will result in a significant reduction in medical technology progress and as a result a reduction in progress on combating aging and curable diseases. We can say with very high certainty that these consequences will occur given our current knowledge.



The consequences of political policies is the only way they can be judged. If the consequences are good, the policy is good.



I don't see how passing a health care plan that results in an extra 20 million (give or take) people losing their healthcare, cutting funding for biomedical research, or removing EPA funding and eliminating any environmental regulations, accelerating climate change, could conceivably have a net benefit on the world but I'm all ears because I'd like to feel more optimistic for a change.

That is not to say that these policies will have no positives, these are extremely complex issues and as with any complex political issue the proposed solutions inevitably have both advantages and drawbacks. But I don't see how anyone could argue the overall, net outcome could be advantageous.



He's already released many of his plans. We have his budget proposal. We have the GOP healthcare plan. We have thousands of statements of his intentions. I know quite well what many of his policy proposals are and can guess what his forthcoming policy proposals will be, I can make an informed analysis of their expected consequences.


--
2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 1 Anonymous): majorblood

sup fam

This post was edited by Voyaging on Mar 18 2017 12:20am

if you need a little saturday laugh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/03/17/how-the-white-house-made-me-real-news/?utm_term=.e0b05a0d9a5a

I think they just agreed with the article

I quoted some things that the Trump administration has already shown that they believe to be true

trump is gonna bomb north korea!