Total Trump Victory Celebration Thread

[Justafan]

3 minutes ago, pat said:

Ah so the counter argument here is that cheaper labor doesn't lead to lower prices?

 

It sounds like the common sense argument here is for both immigration and antitrust enforcement to prevent price gouging.

 

Seeing as those policies lost in the election, I am predicting both higher cost of labor, and higher prices.  Thats about as clear a recipe I can think of for increased inflation.

That's quite a leap in logic you are making there. 

 

As predicted, I see that there is no interest in an honest discourse on the topic. 

[NashvilleNinja]

4 hours ago, Justafan said:

Show me the economic consensus. 

 

And if I've learned anything from spending time on Titans Report, it's be wary of the consensus. 

 

 

This is the political sub. Keep football out of here. And be grateful for that generational talent that Gonzi is going to draft for us.

[NashvilleNinja]

4 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Morality precludes such a hoarding of wealth.

 

So... one homeless man under the bridge has collected far more goods than the other homeless men down Homeless Ave. He should be forced to give and spread out his goodies. And the homeless czar should determine what that guy has to give up. Right?

 

Your comment isn't a factual error. This is a fundamental wrongness in philosophy. No one has the moral authority, nor should they have the legal ability, to determine how successful a person is or can be. There is nothing moral or immoral about money or having lots of it. But even if there was, the idea that people shouldn't have the freedom to pursue ____ amounts of it is antithetical to the founding principles of this country.

[Jamalisms]

We're talking about billionaires, not homeless people. 

 

Again, morality precludes hoarding that much wealth and anyone who can't grasp that concept is a pathetic loser. Read it as many times as you need to.

[NashvilleNinja]

8 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

We're talking about billionaires, not homeless people. 

 

Again, morality precludes hoarding that much wealth and anyone who can't grasp that concept is a pathetic loser. Read it as many times as you need to.

 

I'm not talking about either. And I absolutely grasp the concept. It's a stupid concept. Read that as many times as you need to.

[Jamalisms]

43 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Wouldn't it be moral to make money and use that money to help people?

 

As a general premise, I could offer some objections to the idea that it's of moral benefit to take money out of a system, only to reinvest (far) less of it back into the system ... but that's irrelevant.

 

Making money and hoarding enough money to become a billionaire are worlds apart. Even though you're mostly just here to muddy the waters of any discussion, I'll offer you advice:

 

Take some time looking into why people struggle with large numbers and how best to begin working through properly conceptualizing the difference between millions and billions or, as Elon will soon approach, trillions.

 

You're not getting from millions to billions (or trillions) while helping people in meaningful ways without abusing systems and creating negative situations for others on a far greater scale. It's simply not possible.

[Jamalisms]

On 1/20/2025 at 4:49 PM, Titandan said:

No one's stopping you from becoming a billionaire

 

5 hours ago, Jamalisms said:

 

Morality precludes such a hoarding of wealth.

 

42 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said:

 

... homeless man under the bridge ... homeless men down Homeless Ave. ... homeless czar ...

 

39 minutes ago, Jamalisms said:

We're talking about billionaires, not homeless people. 

 

27 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said:

 

I'm not talking about either.

 

... uh ... ok? Good chat. Thanks for the enlightening dialogue. I'll leave you with this:

 

There's a reason greed is a sin. It just happens to be the sin we most wish to have an opportunity to engage in, so people love making excuses.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NashvilleNinja said:

 

So... one homeless man under the bridge has collected far more goods than the other homeless men down Homeless Ave. He should be forced to give and spread out his goodies. And the homeless czar should determine what that guy has to give up. Right?

 

Your comment isn't a factual error. This is a fundamental wrongness in philosophy. No one has the moral authority, nor should they have the legal ability, to determine how successful a person is or can be. There is nothing moral or immoral about money or having lots of it. But even if there was, the idea that people shouldn't have the freedom to pursue ____ amounts of it is antithetical to the founding principles of this country.

 

I mean the problem in this thread and in this country is that people do not want to discuss history, cause and effect, policy, or "delve deep", but speak from perspectives of authority or having strong knowledge. This happens across a variety of belief systems and perspectives. I see a lot of things devolve into hypotheticals or perspective taking--where you can move the goalpost about what freedom is. 

 

Right now, we are at a point in American history where it is completely transparent that the wealthiest people on the planet are purchasing and exhibiting influence on our government and elections. 

 

You cannot look at the role Elon Musk plays in the election and deny this. You cannot look at the actions of Bezos an Zuckerberg or things like Citizens United--at some point this level of influence becomes objective fact, a current event. 

 

So the hypothetical should not have anything to do with whether or not it is morally right or wrong for a business man to do whatever the fuck they want and try to hoard wealth. 

 

The conversation we need to be having is about the American idea--the question I would ask is should we let our government evolve in a way where this amount of influence and access is allowed? Is beneficial to America? 

 

In this way, traditional talking points are things I do not want to hear. 

 

If a conservative person supports these individuals but says they are about "small government" or "less government influence", I think it is fair to call bullshit on that. 

 

We are seeing a full court press in terms of action, with Musk's role in all of this as transparent as humanly possible. There is no need for hypothetical or philosophical conversations. 

 

And some may be okay with the US government being a tool for the wealthiest to increase their piece of the pie, for Trump to make his own profits through control and hawking his bullshit merchandise, but these things are happening. 

 

[El Guapo]

I didnt hear one thing about this when Zuckerberg was on the democrat side. When he spent millions on the 20 election. Not one peep when not just money but actively banning conservative opinions on twitter, facebook. Not one complaint about the huge amount of funds from soros. The Koch brothers were the ultimate boogie men until they were found to be anti Trumpers. 
 

 

['Nator]

So Trump pardoned this dude Ross Ulbricht. 

 

What's the issue with this guy? 

 

"Dark Web website creator who used it to sell drugs and to murder 5 people" is what one side says. (most mainstream/lib Twitter accounts) 

 

"Guy that created a site that other people then privately used to do a whole lot of bad stuff/just bc people used his product for evil doesn't mean he should pay" is the other view. (Libertarian jerk off accounts on Twitter.) 

 

Which is it? 

Edited January 22, 2025 by 'Nator

[NashvilleNinja]

46 minutes ago, 'Nator said:

So Trump pardoned this dude Ross Ulbricht. 

 

What's the issue with this guy? 

 

"Dark Web website creator who used it to sell drugs and to murder 5 people" is what one side says. (most mainstream/lib Twitter accounts) 

 

"Guy that created a site that other people then privately used to do a whole lot of bad stuff/just bc people used his product for evil doesn't mean he should pay" is the other view. (Libertarian jerk off accounts on Twitter.) 

 

Which is it? 

 

You forgot to include the corrupt agents who went to jail. That the investigation was sketchy AF and length of prison term being insanely out of proportion (2 life sentences+ for creating a website) is the main contention. Not that he shouldn't have to pay, but that he has paid. Arguably more than he maybe should have.

 

The murder for hire thing was thrown out so that's not even what the 2 life sentences were for. Hell, one of the would-be victims of it allegedly supports Ross.

 

 

And the drugs? The government has always had a stick up its ass about that. But it's perfectly fine for people to be hooked on drugs as long as it's the big pharma-approved shit that brings in revenue. Because that's all the government cares about. It's why murder and all that other shit wasn't what ultimately brought down Capone. It was tax evasion. Government barely gives a damn who you kill... but if they didn't make any money off of it, you're fucked.

 

At the end of the day he was made an example of for essentially challenging the government's gatekeeper stranglehold on revenue of commerce.

[Titans279]

18 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said:

 

You forgot to include the corrupt agents who went to jail. That the investigation was sketchy AF and length of prison term being insanely out of proportion (2 life sentences+ for creating a website) is the main contention. Not that he shouldn't have to pay, but that he has paid. Arguably more than he maybe should have.

 

The murder for hire thing was thrown out so that's not even what the 2 life sentences were for. Hell, one of the would-be victims of it allegedly supports Ross.

 

 

And the drugs? The government has always had a stick up its ass about that. But it's perfectly fine for people to be hooked on drugs as long as it's the big pharma-approved shit that brings in revenue. Because that's all the government cares about. It's why murder and all that other shit wasn't what ultimately brought down Capone. It was tax evasion. Government barely gives a damn who you kill... but if they didn't make any money off of it, you're fucked.

 

At the end of the day he was made an example of for essentially challenging the government's gatekeeper stranglehold on revenue of commerce.

You are an idiot 

['Nator]

25 minutes ago, NashvilleNinja said:

 

You forgot to include the corrupt agents who went to jail. That the investigation was sketchy AF and length of prison term being insanely out of proportion (2 life sentences+ for creating a website) is the main contention. Not that he shouldn't have to pay, but that he has paid. Arguably more than he maybe should have.

 

The murder for hire thing was thrown out so that's not even what the 2 life sentences were for. Hell, one of the would-be victims of it allegedly supports Ross.

 

 

And the drugs? The government has always had a stick up its ass about that. But it's perfectly fine for people to be hooked on drugs as long as it's the big pharma-approved shit that brings in revenue. Because that's all the government cares about. It's why murder and all that other shit wasn't what ultimately brought down Capone. It was tax evasion. Government barely gives a damn who you kill... but if they didn't make any money off of it, you're fucked.

 

At the end of the day he was made an example of for essentially challenging the government's gatekeeper stranglehold on revenue of commerce.

 

 

I didn't forget to include shit, buddy. I think I made it fairly fuckin clear that I'm unfamiliar with the case & laid out all I knew about it & was legitimately asking for info. 

 

 

[NashvilleNinja]

1 minute ago, 'Nator said:

 

 

I didn't forget to include shit, buddy. I think I made it fairly fuckin clear that I'm unfamiliar with the case & laid out all I knew about it & was legitimately asking for info. 

 

 

 

Lol Ok, and I gave info. 

 

[NashvilleNinja]

10 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

You are an idiot 

 

K