A Question for Trump or "Ford and the Chicken Tax"

[dimreepr]

56 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you live in England.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but England imposes curfews as well after the passage of the crime and disorders act.

While it's True England doesn't impose them nearly as often, England has 54 million people. The United States of American has 330 million. There's an obvious difference in population.

 

In the land of the free, why are so many in prison?

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In the land of the free, why are so many in prison?

Subtract the actual cost of housing a prisoner from the cost to the taxpayer, and you find there's an investment opportunity in supporting tougher laws.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Subtract the actual cost of housing a prisoner from the cost to the taxpayer, and you find there's an investment opportunity in supporting tougher laws.

 

only virtual ones...

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you live in England.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but England imposes curfews as well after the passage of the crime and disorders act.

While it's True England doesn't impose them nearly as often, England has 54 million people. The United States of American has 330 million. There's an obvious difference in population.

 

The C & A act refers to specific named individuals (sometimes there may be more than one) not indiscriminately to whole communities.

The last time that was done was in the Irish troubles and took long debate in Parliament.

But curfews was only one example that sprang to mind remembering the recent storms in the US. We also have nothing equivalent to the national guard ot each state of the US.

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Everyone in the west forgets that its tax, that built everything, that made the west great; we reap what we sow...

regulations are taxing for a reason...

Can't agree with you there.

Ove ther entrance to the County Distirct Hospital are inscribed the words

Built With Public Subscriptions.

 

What taxes built the great Quaker companies of our past and their towns and cities - Cadbury's, Frys, Clarks, ?

 

What taxes sent the Pilgrim Fathers to found America?

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Per 100,000 people in the U.S. 737 are in prison compared to just 148 in England. What does total population size have to do with anything? India has 4x the population of the U.S. but just 80 per 100,000 in prison. The U.S. far exceeds other nations in the percentage of citizens our criminal justice system imprisons, Here. Also there doesn't appear to be any correlation internationally to population size and that percentage.

In the U.S. conservatives support and encourage laws restricting individuals while simultaneously ideologically opposing the same for corporations. 

What did any of this have to do with curfews?

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In the land of the free, why are so many in prison?

I didn't mention prison.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

But curfews was only one example that sprang to mind remembering the recent storms in the US. We also have nothing equivalent to the national guard ot each state of the US.

1

The majority of what the national guard does is disaster relief. I don't see why that's a problem.

[studiot]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The majority of what the national guard does is disaster relief. I don't see why that's a problem.

But you did make an unfair comparison concerning curfews.

Depends if the disaster relief is helping or shooting people.

[Raider5678]

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

But you did make an unfair comparison concerning curfews.

 

You brought up the curfews. I'm confused as to what you're implying. What did I say that you considered unfair?

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

Depends if the disaster relief is helping or shooting people.

They haven't been federally deployed for riots for more than 25 years, and that was in California.

Last time they killed someone while deployed in the U.S. was 48 years ago.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What did any of this have to do with curfews?

You quoted Studiot's post which was a response to me. I noted the do as we say but not as we do manner in which U.S. conservatives being for regulations against individuals but against the same for corporations. Studiot referenced the way that attitude extends across the pond. The U.S. leads the world in incarcerations yet has the gall to point the finger at England about criminal justice matters. The "land of the free" remark was sarcastic. 

So to answer your question my post was directly inline with the context of the exchange between Studiot and myself which you jumped in on. You may want to tightly debate curfews but curfews aren't the point. 

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

In the U.S. conservatives support and encourage laws restricting individuals while simultaneously ideologically opposing the same for corporations. 

Surely you can see past the fact that just because they support some laws restricting individuals doesn't mean they have to support every law restricting corporations.

Please tell me you are not that ignorant to the conservative position.

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The majority of what the national guard does is disaster relief. I don't see why that's a problem.

The "majority" is disaster relief? I think you are mistaken.

Quote

 

In 2005, National Guard members and reservists were said to comprise a larger percentage of frontline fighting forces than in any war in U.S. history (about 43 percent in Iraq and 55 percent in Afghanistan).[41] There were more than 183,366 National Guard members and reservists on active duty nationwide who left behind about 300,000 dependents, according to U.S. Defense Department statistics. In 2011, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey, Jr. stated that "Every Guard brigade has deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, and over 300,000 Guardsmen have deployed in this war."

The "One weekend a month, two weeks a year" slogan has lost most of its relevance since the Iraq War, when nearly 28% of total US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of 2007 consisted of mobilized personnel of the National Guard and other Reserve components.[45] In July 2012, the Army's top general stated his intention to increase the annual drill requirement from two weeks per year to up to seven weeks per year.[46]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States#Twenty-first_century

 

 

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Surely you can see past the fact that just because they support some laws restricting individuals doesn't mean they have to support every law restricting corporations.

Please tell me you are not that ignorant to the conservative position.

You sure seem to be. 

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The "majority" is disaster relief? I think you are mistaken.

The majority of what it does domestically.

If we're talking about wars now then it's an entirely different matter.

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You sure seem to be. 

Alright then. If that's a logical argument.

In the U.S. Liberals support and encourage removing laws restricting individuals while simultaneously ideologically opposing the same for corporations.

[studiot]

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You quoted Studiot's post which was a response to me.

Sorry to both of you. My mistake.

 

However the question, if their main activity is disaster relief, what do they need guns for still remains?

 

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by studiot

[John Cuthber]

18 hours ago, Phi for All said:

When you can't boycott the products in question, you have to vote for politicians who have higher standards and will reflect that in the regulations they impose.

In both the US and UK the party in power did not get the majority of the vote.

 

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

In the U.S. Liberals support and encourage removing laws restricting individuals while simultaneously ideologically opposing the same for corporations.

It is Trump who criticizes his own appointees in the Justice Dept., calls legal inquiries he disagrees with "shams", brags that it is smart not to pay taxes, yet claims to be the "law and order" President, all while his supporters  (conservatives) chant "lock her up" directed at Clinton and Fienstien. The Contradictions are numerous and I simply don't see any legitimate equivalency. Conservatively plainly see all regulations(business or individual) as formalities which either help or hurt their personal end goals. They do not see regulations as something which serves the public at large or as somethings which must be fairly enforced. Just take at look at what's happening with Saudi Arabia. A U.S. resident was murdered and our Republican President publicly responds by highlighting the importance of not losing out on an arms deal. Meaning Saudi Arabia has been using those arms to do things like blow up school buses full of children in Yemen. Please spare us your false equivalencies. Under Democratic leadership we simply saw nothing like what we are currently seeing. 

[John Cuthber]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

But further regulation or deregulation appears almost irrelevant here as there is precious little enforcement.

We have an ever expanding army of 'Regulators'

Well, you are sort of half-right.

The government which doesn't want regulation did away with many of the regulators.

They sold off FERA.
They cut numbers in other , similar departments like safety (and, indeed, the police). So the "ever expanding army of 'Regulators'" just isn't real.

But they have succeeded in getting you to blame the people who are trying to make it better.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

However the question, if their main activity is disaster relief, what do they need guns for still remains?

 

 

Because this is America .

 

[Raider5678]

48 minutes ago, studiot said:

However the question, if their main activity is disaster relief, what do they need guns for still remains?

1

The National Guard originally fought in the United State's Revolutionary War, and have kept guns since then.

It represents a state militia, so as to be able to deal with domestic matters without having to deploy federal armies in the U.S.A mainland because of the Posse Comitatus Act.

It's purpose was to prevent the acting federal government from using federal troops to police the country.

The National Guard is loyal to the State legislature first, and the federal government second. Not even the president can activate the National Guard without that state governors permission. 

 

Additionally, as @Ten oz rightfully pointed out, they do participate in international wars. Hence, guns.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's purpose was to prevent the acting federal government from using federal troops to police the country.

Yet Trump vows to deploy troops at the border to police the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-pledges-to-deploy-military-to-defend-southern-border/2018/04/03/85e21106-375f-11e8-af3c-2123715f78df_video.html?utm_term=.7dde48389921

[studiot]

52 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Well, you are sort of half-right.

The government which doesn't want regulation did away with many of the regulators.

They sold off FERA.
They cut numbers in other , similar departments like safety (and, indeed, the police). So the "ever expanding army of 'Regulators'" just isn't real.

But they have succeeded in getting you to blame the people who are trying to make it better.

Yes that was the theory when the Tories got in.

But since then we have had Offcom and OffGen reorganised, with new toothless regualtors created.

We have had many changes to the Building regulations, again with new regulators (some under Offgem Or is it one f I'm not sure? I know they wasted nearly £10k of my money)

And as a regular listener to You and Yours I am often hearing of similar stories with other regulators that usually don't concern me, mostly in the financial sector.

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Yet Trump vows to deploy troops at the border to police the country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-pledges-to-deploy-military-to-defend-southern-border/2018/04/03/85e21106-375f-11e8-af3c-2123715f78df_video.html?utm_term=.7dde48389921

Luckily that law is in place because we don't have the military guarding our border.

On 10/18/2018 at 8:00 AM, studiot said:

Is what Ford are doing good business or 'sharp practice' ?

Neither. It's tax evasion. Hence illegal.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Luckily that law is in place because we don't have the military guarding our border.

Then why would anyone support a president who overtly threatens breaking the law?

[studiot]

9 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The National Guard originally fought in the United State's Revolutionary War, and have kept guns since then.

It represents a state militia, so as to be able to deal with domestic matters without having to deploy federal armies in the U.S.A mainland because of the Posse Comitatus Act.

It's purpose was to prevent the acting federal government from using federal troops to police the country.

The National Guard is loyal to the State legislature first, and the federal government second. Not even the president can activate the National Guard without that state governors permission. 

 

Additionally, as @Ten oz rightfully pointed out, they do participate in international wars. Hence, guns.

 

55 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Because this is America .

 

Hi again to both of you.

 

So when they went to rescue Mrs Smith from her rooftop in the hight of floods.

Why did they need to be encumbered with automatic weapons?

Was she really such a threat?

 

If they went out to say Haiti or Indonesia or somewhere and had to roll their sleeves up and work alongside the relief agencies pulling people out of the wreckage, I bet I would see them on TV with their guns slung over their shoulders.

 

Peacekeepers in Bosnia were not so well armed (though they needed them there)

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

So when they went to rescue Mrs Smith from her rooftop in the hight of floods.

Why did they need to be encumbered with automatic weapons?

1

They don't.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

If they went out to say Haiti or Indonesia or somewhere and had to roll their sleeves up and work alongside the relief agencies pulling people out of the wreckage, I bet I would see them on TV with their guns slung over their shoulders.

 

They don't.

 

[studiot]

Well perhaps things have improved, I'm glad to see that.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Hi again to both of you.

I am sure you do not mean anything by it but I would prefer not to be responded to in direct association with Raider5678. My views do not mirror theirs. I find the use of weapons during aids missions totally ridiculous and unnecessary as I suspect you probably do as well.