Public figure or private figure, which is most damaging?

    • Debate

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Public figure or private figure, which is most damaging?

      So this thread came about from an off-topic discussion between myself and @Revolutionary Lancer on the Last Post Game. As we were stopping the normal flow of spam with our verbose posts, we decided to move it to a more natural home.

      The issue came about when we disagreed which was most damaging as a position in regards to Donald Trump. Whether as a President of the US or as a private businessman. This debate will use Trump as an example, but this is not about whether he is a bad president or not. Anyone wanting to defend him should create their own little topic and we'll debate it there. This is more about whether he can cause more damage in which position and why. I am of the opinion that as President, he wields more power now than as a businessman, therefore can inflict more damage. Revolutionary Lancer believes the opposite.

      Rev, would you like to set out your viewpoint and I will do the same before we respond to each other's points? If there are any things you wish to clarify before that, just let me know and we'll discuss it.

      Please feel free to join in with the discussion as long as it stays on topic. This is about what is more damaging as a role, not if he is causing damage. Any attempt to go off topic will be reported as spam.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • This is an interesting question.

      One would think a public figure, such as a president, would have any actions necessarily caged by political opinion and his/her staff.
      This is not to say the position is not important or mistakes deadly as this is most definitely a possible outcome.
      However, because the person is public, I would argue that person is a known quantity.
      In my mind, the private person who also wields power has the potential to be much more damaging.

      Let us take an example.
      The public figure you chose was Trump so we'll stick with him.
      Trump's power is immense in his role as President.
      And one could argue some of his policies will have far-reaching consequences.
      Immediately child separation comes to mind.
      However, while this is a travesty which has essentially divided a nation, it is still a small thing compared to all the power Trump as President wields.
      President Trump is purposely caged by constitutional amendment to a maximum of two 4-year terms.
      President Trump has even had staff ignore his orders which is also a caging factor.
      Contrast this with somebody private, such as the Koch brothers.
      These brothers have been shaping politics in America on the Republican side for almost 4 decades.
      They have lobbied for legislation which allowed for the gerrymandering of districts.
      They have thrown their wealth behind candidates to help them get elected.
      They support many conservative think-tanks.

      I believe both the public and private person in these cases wield tremendous power,
      however, I believe the private person's will have much longer and possibly more damaging effects over the long-term.
      Game Operator for Uriel
      Please send any compliments for how awesome a job I am doing to my SGO: Valent :thumbsup:
      Game Rules
      Terms & Conditions
    • As president a public figure can cause mass amounts of damage with ill formed or planned policies .
      such as failing to terminate past public figure's policies that we're harmful so they in turn continue the damaging policies.
      As a private figure as mentioned above political donations and pandering to get favors from public figures is bad news and has far more reaching scope .
      when it comes to damages caused , for example some automakers lost out on their tax payer bail outs and had to shut down plants causing people to use public assistance programs leading to billions in tax payer debt to pay for those benefits.

      Also when a private figure moves a company's plants to other countries so they can pay less taxes and employee wages they leave the communities they left in ruins and finiancial free fall I have family in one such area that is now 98% below the poverty line.
      no matter what side of the spectrum it is public or private both can cause unrivaled damages.

      I'm not pretty I'm not graceful I am the inevitable fact of truth.there is no unwinnable situation.
      ogame.support.gameforge.com/en
    • Maintaining the idea that his personality is subjective, the usage of "Trump" hereafter is only to simplify the writ.

      All positions of leadership are subject to the dichotomy of positive/negative; whether they are political, corporate, family, religious, or otherwise. As a innate concept fundamental to societal organization, leader positions lend greater power to an individual in society or subset of society in order to maintain the mutually agreed status-quo, I believe they call it a "more" (mor-ae). This exchange in social power is an alleged mutual benefit to those whom compromise their own power to maintain the status quo. Higher leadership positions lend even greater power, and the greater the gap in social power, the greater the compromise necessary.

      Given Trump's normal job status/titles; he is both a public figure and global celebrity, whom has led many successful ventures, and has maintained his position as CEO over multiple corporations. In a corporate setting, the CEO is comparable to the Commander in Chief - or President - though not the same.

      In the United States', the current form of government is an amalgamation of Confederate (not the Southern Confederacy), Republic, Democratic, Bureaucratic, Aristocratic, Socialist, and Anarchic policies. Without giving much mind to the lesser Anarchic and Socialist policies, which are more or less of strict benefit to the public of the US and not for the government itself, we can place a better framework for what actual extent of power Trump would have as President. Sans the election process, most of the President's power is restricted by bureaucratic, Democratic-Republic, and Anarchic policies, the former being the standard hurdles of using power, the midden being the checks-and-balances, and the latter being a seldom seen force. The majority of the President's power is derived from Confederate policies (the original governmental structure of the United States), and by default aristocratic influence.

      Typically, a president cannot pass legislation without first passing it through Congress, legislation being the primary function of which impacts and influences the general citizen's freedoms; this would be "federal legislation." Executive Orders, on the other hand, are those of which would be used to influence the government itself, and by proxy the public. Executive orders, however are restricted and severely limited by our judicial branch (The Supreme Court). If an executive order is found to be unconstitutional or non-compliant with our current amendments, the President can and most definitely will be held accountable. Such orders would forcibly compromise our guaranteed rights, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

      • If Trump passes an order stating, "Anybody who says 'You're fired,' owes Trump 0.25 USD," this would be an infringement on both Life, because it is vital to maintaining order and structure in an work environment, and the pursuit of happiness, because it forces an unreasonable hardship and taxation on an individual.
      • If Trump passes an order stating, "It is a felony to have the name "John" because it sounds queer," this would violate the Liberty of anybody assigned the name John, and forcibly have them incarcerated.


      While the examples above may be extreme, you may see how that could apply to protecting Federally protected statuses, such as, Age, Race, Religion, Ethnicity, Sex, Gender, etc.

      In terms of our amendments, amendments cannot be removed unless they are found to be unconstitutional. They cannot be overturned, nor over-written, only modified to ensure they stay compliant with the preexisting conditions. They are modified to assist in maintaining the protection of our rights, as technology often requires, but the Constitution and the sanctity of the People typically takes precedence over selfish action. The President may have considerable authority, but it is not met without resistance, limitations, and protocol.

      As a President Trump is granted varying immunity, but at the same token has less leniency in other areas. In terms of his Freedom of Speech, he is more restricted now than he was before. He also has to contend with social pressure, and our global media outlets have ensured he is always under watch. Former presidents have made audacious abuse of their power, and some were incorrectly condemned due to mishandling by media corporations.

      [hr]EDIT: I wonder why they removed the Horizontal Ruler tag?

      As a CEO, Trump would still be subjected to our laws, without that diplomatic immunity, but his actions would not be consistently under review. His fealty would be unto himself, as the "almighty dollar" is above all else - Aurum et potestas. something he cannot bother pursuing while in office. Former presidents have used the office to facilitate and accumulate wealth and social standing, and carry out careers afterwards, the most recent example being Obama's Netflix deal. (Reminder: Only an example of the abuse of the office, not a jab at the man.)

      As a CEO, Trump has full control over his estate, his company, and though his job and title are allegedly owing responsibility to the share-holders of his corporation, being a CEO means he is a majority share-holder, and could only further incentivize him to owe allegiance to himself. C-corporations typically elect board members based on share count, as those share-holders would undoubtedly have more reason to ensure the corporation remains profitable.

      While our government may institute several laws that are intended to prevent criminal actions, the reality is, our greatest freedom is the volition to apply anarchism without warrant. Crimes may always be crimes, but unless the criminal is caught, the action remains anarchic and lawless, and the existing victim(s) will be left without appropriate justice. Having access to his financial assets gives him tremendous power in terms of legal assets, which are undoubtedly applied to ensure he doesn't make legal faux-pas that could have otherwise incriminated him. I have seen a plethora of corporations abuse these laws, and even manage to find quick loop-holes that make it possible to continue to commit lawless actions without grounds for incrimination. My former employer being on scale with organized crime, to be honest.

      The grim reality, here in the States', is that corporations, legally defined as "persons," have the same freedoms as a native citizen. It is through this singular loop-hole that I retain the greatest fear of Trump being a CEO, more than being a President. As the currently adopted status quo stands, as implement by the prior two Presidents, Corporations are now lent more power than the individual citizen, because "a Coporation's pursuit of happiness is determined based on the share-holder's desires and interests," and the share-holder's desires and interests are most easily defined as being "profit."

      That is what bothers me, and that is why I fear him more as a CEO than as a President. My surprise argument being he is as equitably unconstitutional as George Bush Sr., but with healthier intentions for the Citizens.

      Closer: A CEO can effectively rape an employee, terminate the victim's employment, and use the Fifth amendment to cover it up, so long as no evidence, proof, or viable witness testimony can be produced. Even under trial a CEO is subjected to less doubt than a President, as a President must face higher scrutiny. I know, because I've seen it, many times.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • If you only look as both as singular person ( 1 private person (CEO) vs 1 public person (president)) then i tend to agree that a CEO can me more harmfull.

      But if you factor in the whole environment (surrounding structures, support by underlings, rescources at hand etc.) for me it always has to be the president that is more dangerous... because at least so far no CEO i heard of has threatened another country with nuclear war.

    • bibob wrote:

      If you only look as both as singular person ( 1 private person (CEO) vs 1 public person (president)) then i tend to agree that a CEO can me more harmfull.

      But if you factor in the whole environment (surrounding structures, support by underlings, rescources at hand etc.) for me it always has to be the president that is more dangerous... because at least so far no CEO i heard of has threatened another country with nuclear war.
      Vladimir Putin flew his Airforce craft unreasonably close the the United States' naval crafts as a flex and display of power. Mutually assured destruction has long been a tool in many governments' negotiation box, including Germany, Australia, The UK, France, Russia, China, and any other countries whom have obtained nuclear weaponisation. The Cuban missile crisis was one such instance where a similar flex was made on our part. Militarism is diplomacy, to quote Grumpy, "Sometimes Diplomacy means having a bigger stick."

      The threat is as real as it is a deterrent, and given the precarious nature of North Vietnam, it wasn't necessarily the easiest debacle to handle. I would ask how other governments are dealing with the potential weaponisation in NK, but I digress, it isn't part of the topic.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • Hmmmm, interesting ideas. Rev., you seem to be arguing that a public figure has more constraints on their power than a private CEO, therefore the CEO has more power and can cause more damage. Rather than go through your point one by one, at the moment (as there are points I will disagree with you such as Trump being successful; that you missed out on the oligarchical aspects of the US government, which is minor but; how civil rights are being eroded; etc), I will rebut with the following statements. There are more constraints on public, political power because it can be more powerful than the power wielded by the private corporation affecting more lives. With more power, more damage can be inflicted. Political power is not necessarily about legislation. The US President cannot stand trial therefore the ability to hold them to account is dependent on the political will to enforce the checks and balances.

      I am operating on the idea that the more power is present, the more restrictions there are to it. To take an example that was used earlier, the nuclear bomb is a great example. The most powerful weapon known to humans and it has only been used once. The threat of the weapon gives a country power, which is why 60-70 years on, we are still alarmed when countries try and acquire the technology. But this weapon has only been used once (technically twice as it was two bombs, just one attack) in warfare because of the concept of mutually assured destruction as well as the consequences of using such a powerful weapon (radiation, retaliation, political objections, etc). As with the nuclear bomb, political power can be seen to be extremely powerful, requiring checks and balances.

      However, power is not all about legislation. Whilst Trump has had some minor successes with little bits of legislation (the attempt to end Obamacare, changes in taxes for the rich, etc), the damage he has caused is through other means. Firstly, let us consider behaviour. Trump's attitude, his words, supporters, etc, have encouraged far right elements. Far right populism which can be seen with Jair Bolsonaro, Nigel Farage, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson), Steve Bannon, Viktor Orban, Breitbart, etc have been encouraged by Trump's win and words. His alliance with the evangelical right has encouraged one of the most insane anti-abortion laws to be passed. This is due to influence, a powerful weapon in the political armoury. Other options abound, executive orders, attempts to declare National Emergencies, shut down, pardons (today I heard Conrad Black was pardoned for example), reorganisation of government departments, etc, these are things that could be done without necessarily going through those checks and balances. Never mind the behaviour and attitudes taken towards other countries, backing out of the Paris Agreement, enjoying the company of dictators, etc In short, political power can be damaging in more subtle ways, dependent on ideology and focus.

      This of course is not forgetting that recently it has been explained how the US President cannot stand trial. This is part of the Mueller report, which is an interesting example of how problematic things are. For those that are unaware, the Mueller Report looked at the allegations of election tampering with the Russian government. A brief overview can be found on Wiki. Mueller has been careful in his conclusions but stated that they could not charge Trump with a crime because a sitting President cannot stand trial (for fear of upsetting governing and pre-empt any impeachment). In other words, the US President can be considered in some ways to possibly be above the law, especially if the situation is spun correctly. The point about CEO being able to hide things then, is possibly less problematic, especially if Trump gets impeached it would be likely that he would be pardoned by his successor (like Nixon). This is of course dependent on whether the Democrats would apply the impeachment process in due consideration of these facts as it is likely that the Republicans may not due to the current nature of US politics.

      So in summary, whilst a CEO could potentially hold a lot of power over employees, obstructing justice in various ways, the President of the US has further reaching consequences for those not just in government, but throughout the world.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • Largenton wrote:


      Please feel free to join in with the discussion as long as it stays on topic. This is about what is more damaging as a role, not if he is causing damage. Any attempt to go off topic will be reported as spam.

      Largenton wrote:


      However, power is not all about legislation. Whilst Trump has had some minor successes with little bits of legislation (the attempt to end Obamacare, changes in taxes for the rich, etc), the damage he has caused is through other means. Firstly, let us consider behaviour. Trump's attitude, his words, supporters, etc, have encouraged far right elements. Far right populism which can be seen with Jair Bolsonaro, Nigel Farage, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (aka Tommy Robinson), Steve Bannon, Viktor Orban, Breitbart, etc have been encouraged by Trump's win and words. His alliance with the evangelical right has encouraged one of the most insane anti-abortion laws to be passed. This is due to influence, a powerful weapon in the political armoury. Other options abound, executive orders, attempts to declare National Emergencies, shut down, pardons (today I heard Conrad Black was pardoned for example), reorganisation of government departments, etc, these are things that could be done without necessarily going through those checks and balances. Never mind the behaviour and attitudes taken towards other countries, backing out of the Paris Agreement, enjoying the company of dictators, etc In short, political power can be damaging in more subtle ways, dependent on ideology and focus.

      ...
      So in summary, whilst a CEO could potentially hold a lot of power over employees, obstructing justice in various ways, the President of the US has further reaching consequences for those not just in government, but throughout the world.
      Does this mean I can report you for spam since you did what you threatened to report if someone else did? You literally try to argue he is causing damage. Take that crap to another thread like you have requested everyone else do.

      As for the end of the paragraph which I have changed to orange for ease of reading, I think this is a key that needs to be left out when having this discussion. No matter the side of the fence you claim to be. If a CEO does something that I don't agree with, I might consider that more damaging. If a president signs an executive order or pardons someone and I don't like the policy or the person pardon, I would consider that the most dangerous.

      Policy is not what is supposed to be in question here. What is more damaging is what is in question here.
      Policy can be argued all day long and we will get nowhere, looking past policy and seeing the widespread influence would be the key to answering this question if someone could put their personal feelings aside for long enough to look.

      For example. as has been stated. a President ANY president is under a microscope. Technology is advancing (more of a microscope) and the constitution is limiting and was created by our forefathers to purposely limit the power and branch of the government has over another.

      While all those restrictions apply to someone in the government, it is not ultimately the president that makes the final decision on most things. the past few presidents including Trump have tried to take credit for things but it is the House and Senate that ultimately had to decide, by the people and for the people.

      So what about CEO's?
      Enter
      1.) Enron
      2.) Waste Management
      3.) Tyco International
      4.) Health South
      5.) WorldCom

      These are just to name a few companies that, Cooked books, Broke laws, Illegally traded or otherwise conned investors into buying stock in their company. All of which had a devastating effect on the economy and investors as a whole.

      Companies can make decisions that can ultimately destroy trade and other such things. It is often caught well after the fact when the damage has already been done.

      That to me breeds danger and fear more than a President who has no real individual power (We are not a dictatorship) and lives under a microscope.
    • OK time to make one or two things clear.....

      Hassle wrote:

      Does this mean I can report you for spam since you did what you threatened to report if someone else did? You literally try to argue he is causing damage. Take that crap to another thread like you have requested everyone else do.
      Did pointing out that Trump associates with the far right upset you? Sorry, that is a fact, these individuals have all spent time and benefited from this.

      The point I was making is one regarding "the oxygen of publicity", long seen in arguments against pseudoscience circles and relevant here. Since we are using Trump as the focus of this discussion and as an example, it is legitimate to discuss this aspect. By associating with these far right individuals, Trump is lending respectability to their causes. Take Stephen Yaxley-Lennon or Tommy Robinson as he is known. A vile thug, Trump tweeted his support, along with his supporters, when Yaxley-Lennon was imprisoned for breaking the law again (Yaxley-Lennon has been convicted of various crimes), there was a petition from Trump's government to free him and our MPs had to petition the American government to attempt to stop Yaxley-Lennon gaining a Visa from Pompeo when he wished to speak to Congress. Yaxley-Lennon was banned from entering the US after he did so illegally. These things have encouraged Yaxley-Lennon to spread his hate speech and currently he is attempting to become an MEP for the North West of England, despite the fact his campaign has been marred with violence and he is facing trial for contempt of court again never mind being sued for lies which caused a school boy to be attacked. Trump and his administration have lent respectability to individuals like this who are the far right.

      Rather than discussing whether or not this has happened which is what I wanted to avoid, the point was that this is an example of how damaging a public figure can be with Trump's actions for reference. Now if you wished to discuss this point you would have to not deny this happens but show how this is not damaging in comparison to a private figure. Have I wasted enough time on this point now?

      Policy is under the microscope here because this is about politics. The actions of a politician are dependent on ideology and can be measured in its damage. I have not stipulated that we should only consider legislation, but that politics is more than just that. I have also argued previously that constraints to limit power merely demonstrate how powerful someone is, therefore can inflict more damage. I have already pointed out that the President is unable to stand trial as well meaning that there is less accountability in that direction.

      Finally, in regards to dictatorship, your politics are based on the writings of Cicero, a Late Roman Republic politician who idealised that state. That state has dictators, including Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, who became dictator for life. Arguing therefore that you are not a dictatorship ignores the very real threat.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • You have to stoop to demeaning and derogatory communication to get your "point" across in a discussion??
      I will ignore it though you may not even care to consider that I might tend to agree with you in most areas. I am not sure you know how to have a genuine discussion while trying to sit and understand another perspective.

      My concern on your view is that you have claimed allegiance to an argument that could just as well apply to Kim K. and the clan.

      Rev. Al Sharpton can cause just as much damage given the publicity.
      Not once have I argue that damage is not caused. Note, that not once have you acknowledge the "Private" examples that have been laid before you.

      Side note, if you are trying to argue that because the rest of the world put "limits" on North Korea, that means they have the most power. I am concerned about the rock you are living under. :headbanging: :crazy: :rofl:
      By your own admission

      Largenton wrote:


      Hassle wrote:

      Does this mean I can report you for spam since you did what you threatened to report if someone else did? You literally try to argue he is causing damage. Take that crap to another thread like you have requested everyone else do.

      I have also argued previously that constraints to limit power merely demonstrate how powerful someone is, therefore can inflict more damage. I have already pointed out that the President is unable to stand trial as well meaning that there is less accountability in that direction.
      Finally, in regards to dictatorship, your politics are based on the writings of Cicero, a Late Roman Republic politician who idealised that state. That state has dictators, including Sulla, Pompey and Caesar, who became dictator for life. Arguing therefore that you are not a dictatorship ignores the very real threat.
      So to make sure I understand this, again, your "logic" says Kim Jung-Un is the most powerful man alive because he has restrictions from not just his country, but EVERY country that does not agree with his policies and how he treats the people of North Korea??

      Again, shall I refer to another "Private" disaster? Enter the momo challenge.
      You ever heard of it? do you know who started it? Oh never mind, its a hoax! wait is it?
      What about the tide-pod challenge?
      Smack cam?
      "Do it for the vine"
      Silly Salmon challenge?

      Some of these you may know, some you may not have heard of, ALL of them have cause abuse and damage that can never be erased.
      The worst part? PRIVATE people started these PUBLIC influences and IGNORANT people have fallen prey.

      Dare I got further into the damage that "Celebrity prosperity pastors" cause?
      The Catholic church scandals?

      One could argue the policies of far right are so intrusive of individual rights that there may be another war just to fix it.
      One could also argue that the policies of the far left are so damaging that if implemented there would be no coming back from the moral decay.

      The side you and I choose does not matter in this discussion. What matters is that as you have even stated, the policies in place can measure damage done.
      What I pose to you is that the Private situations and damage that can be caused is so unknown and so widespread and SO VIRAL, that this damage well outweighs the damage that can be "MEASURED" in politics, because it is impossible to quantify the damage being done.

      Take school shootings as the most recent example of WHY this is so important to consider. You can argue all day about politics and guns kill people and we need to remove them and amend the 2nd amendment etc. ALL OF THAT IS MEASURABLE.
      What about survivors remorse? huh no one cares about that or even thinks about it. More people have committed suicide from survivors remorse then from the shooting itself!

      Now tell me again, is it out of sight out of mind? just because we can't measure something doesn't make it disappear from reality.
    • when being on top in any field you have few sides to please, and you cant please them all

      problem is when there's a person in top ( be it political or businness), who can't project 'power' or authority....it most likely comes from charisma

      harm will be done anyway, you can't be a saint, thats like mathematically impossible..


      part of democracy, you don't like sth well who cares....
    • Might I suggest that you refrain from hurling insults next time before being upset when people respond in kind? Accusing me of breaking my own rules (in an attempt to keep things on topic rather than be side tracked with a stale fight over whether Trump is a bad or good thing for the US Presidency). This thread was originally intended to be a discussion between myself and Revolutionary Lancer because we were interested in something and we were discussing it in the wrong place. I thought it would be nice to involve others for points of view rather than temper tantrums. Again, I suggest taking your own advice and rather than getting het up and coming into this all guns ablazing, you read what my point was.

      Hassle wrote:

      My concern on your view is that you have claimed allegiance to an argument that could just as well apply to Kim K. and the clan.
      I have claimed allegiance to an argument that has been stated many times over. That giving individuals with far right views a voice is dangerous. That allowing poisonous ideologies and beliefs to be heard by people and given support by those in power is dangerous. This is why there is a general policy now to not name gun men in mass shootings as it is thought to encourage others as well as giving them what they desire. This was an attempt to give an example through what we were discussing. Now if you have a problem with the oxygen of publicity argument then it is worth investigating, rather than making a quick reference to one or two people. You've merely named names, not shown how they would be as damaging. On the other hand I have shown that Trump has given legitimacy to the far right, even one of the Trump diplomats attempting to interfere with the British legal system. Now that is damaging.

      Hassle wrote:

      Not once have I argue that damage is not caused. Note, that not once have you acknowledge the "Private" examples that have been laid before you.
      Actually that was an attempt to explain to you why giving examples of Trump's behaviour is relevant so that we have something more measurable. In regards to the private examples, I have not doubted that these companies have caused damage. I had very little time this morning to completely answer all this due to real life, so it is hard to answer statements on companies other than they have caused damage. A lot of damage. Yet this is behaviour that should have been constrained and is out of the ordinary (i.e. not legal) that you name. I've merely limited myself to legal behaviour in my examples, which when we consider defunding scientific research and obscuring important climate change measures has way bigger implications than a recession.

      Hassle wrote:

      Side note, if you are trying to argue that because the rest of the world put "limits" on North Korea, that means they have the most power. I am concerned about the rock you are living under
      Actually there is a damage control here, which is a form of power in this regard, especially when we consider part of it is the fear of a "rogue state" gaining access to nuclear weaponry an extremely frightening power as the period of 1945-1991 proved. The same applies with the checks and balances system of the US system, which its predecessor reverted into an Empire. Again, my point about the Late Roman Republic is about preventing power abuse and creating a Caesar. Attempts to limit a power is indication of its power or at least potential.

      Hassle wrote:

      Some of these you may know, some you may not have heard of, ALL of them have cause abuse and damage that can never be erased.
      The worst part? PRIVATE people started these PUBLIC influences and IGNORANT people have fallen prey.

      Dare I got further into the damage that "Celebrity prosperity pastors" cause?
      The Catholic church scandals?
      How is this an argument against the point I am making?

      Hassle wrote:

      What I pose to you is that the Private situations and damage that can be caused is so unknown and so widespread and SO VIRAL, that this damage well outweighs the damage that can be "MEASURED" in politics, because it is impossible to quantify the damage being done.
      Can you explain to me how the relatively few bits of damage from private situations is comparable to say policies that demote critical thinking, reduce education, encourage climate change etc? One could argue that some of these private events are due to lack of care from public sector?

      Hassle wrote:

      Take school shootings as the most recent example of WHY this is so important to consider. You can argue all day about politics and guns kill people and we need to remove them and amend the 2nd amendment etc. ALL OF THAT IS MEASURABLE.
      What about survivors remorse? huh no one cares about that or even thinks about it. More people have committed suicide from survivors remorse then from the shooting itself!
      It is tempting to point out the flaw in that last sentence, but in respect to suicide victims, I'll rather point out that the aftercare and the previous care from the government in terms of mental health care may be more to blame here than survivor's remorse. These incidents show a problem with healthcare, a system which should be universal in a country like the US. And I am prepared to argue all day that mental health is extremely important and that governments should do more about it. However, it is interesting when we are discussing health care or the lack of it when we have a state which refuses to organise itself to provide universal health care because of political ideology.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • Please don't delineate.

      I find the idea that he associates with the "far-right" is fool-hardy, at best, considering political philosophy is comprised of three dichotomies; Economy, (De)Centralization, and Diplomacy.

      Also, a man's company is not exactly the greatest basis for judging character. I associate with Christians, Satanists, Buddhists, Hindi, Anarchists (Like, government certified and medicated), skids, criminals, drug addicts, law enforcers, and business types. How would you peg me?

      Just as well, we can freely interpret what we will of what anybody says, within or without context. As an example, a relatively recent example is Trump's alleged statement about windmills causing cancer.

      The quote verbatim:
      (Statement about home ownership values dropping near windmills) "... And they say "the noise causes cancer. You tell me that one, okay? ..." (Follow up statement about migratory and local avian fauna populations being impacted by the structures)

      This alleged statement is grandly short of anything substantial. The way this had been portrayed by news media was that Trump, himself, asserted that windmills (or the noises of) cause cancer. The reality is that this bit of speech was nothing more than a fragmented thought, a bit off the cuff to roll through to his next talking point. If we dissect the information, we need to know whom "they" is, but this could mean anybody. It could be scientists, though I don't know if a study about this was or had ever been conducted, or if it had been some bit he picked up from a family or person making such a claim. He caps it with a question asking the audience to affirm or deny the notion.

      Despite the underwhelming reality, it didn't stop the general public's imagination, nor the news media from misconstruing this 'bite.'

      As a CEO, Trump has no purpose to directly address the public, all of his affairs are private, and thereby he acquiesces that danger. As a President, I fear the news media more than he.

      Trump doesn't directly associate with the "far-right," rather, they choose to associate with him. There was some tripe about him and the KKK, but he hadn't responded, confirmed nor denied. This was publicly interpreted as "being associated with the KKK." I haven't the slightest doubt that if the Black Panthers took upon the same approach he would have done the same thing.

      It was also illustrated that Trump called immigrants "animals," when it was quite clear that he referred to the gang members of MS-13 as being "animals;" only if because they operate outside of humanitarianism.

      I do not fear Trump as a President, because the globe over people are so afraid of him being the President they've willfully embraced the ideology of condemning him prior to his inauguration.

      -----

      Also, Nixon was actually innocent, he had no idea about the Watergate scandal, he did deserve that pardon.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • Revolutionary Lancer wrote:

      Please don't delineate.

      I find the idea that he associates with the "far-right" is fool-hardy, at best, considering political philosophy is comprised of three dichotomies; Economy, (De)Centralization, and Diplomacy.
      Far right is usually used to refer to a particular types of political ideology. The fact is that the names I have mentioned are far right in that they support policies that are identifiable as authoritarian and nativist. They are also populist in nature. Jair Bolsonaro for example, has made clear comments and actions that supported the far right junta of Brazil during the 80s, including their use of torture on political opponents. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has lied and persecuted Muslims in order to drive his political agenda. When I refer to the far right I am using an umbrella term certainly. These people are right winged populists whose politics vary in extremity (Nigel Farage barred Stephen Yaxley-Lennon from UKIP when he was leader), but they advocate political stances which are objectionable.

      Revolutionary Lancer wrote:

      Also, a man's company is not exactly the greatest basis for judging character. I associate with Christians, Satanists, Buddhists, Hindi, Anarchists (Like, government certified and medicated), skids, criminals, drug addicts, law enforcers, and business types. How would you peg me?
      Requires more context. Yes the person's company could be legitimate, for example, you could be a social worker, police, mental health practitioner, etc for all I know, however, here what is important is context (although I am a little confused by how anarchists can be medicated, it is a political ideology).

      Trump's company has led those of the far right politics to associate with him, that is established. But Trump and his government has reached out to these people too. A diplomat from the US threatened consequences if the Stephen Yaxley-Lennon case wasn't reviewed, a case which he plead guilty to contempt of court and was sent to prison because of a previous suspended sentence. Nigel Farage was invited to speak on stage with Trump and his connections with Trump have been made pretty obvious. Whilst it is expected that world leaders such as Trump would spend time with other world leaders that are not seen in particularly good lights, Trump has spent a lot of time associating with those unpalatable ones. In this case, context is required, especially as has been discussed, he is being held to high scrutiny and for good reason. I am not convinced however, that he is the innocent party in the connections with the far right.

      Revolutionary Lancer wrote:

      Just as well, we can freely interpret what we will of what anybody says, within or without context. As an example, a relatively recent example is Trump's alleged statement about windmills causing cancer.
      I have not discussed what he might or might not say however, I am basing a lot of this on what he has done. Certainly the man has only a passing acquaintance with the truth and may commit more Bushisms than George W himself, but I have refrained from that because I am not sure it is relevant and because his articulacy is lacking.

      Revolutionary Lancer wrote:

      It could be scientists, though I don't know if a study about this was or had ever been conducted, or if it had been some bit he picked up from a family or person making such a claim.
      The only study I can find on google scholar is the psychological mechanisms on people blaming windmills for health conditions, in other words a study into the "nocebo effect" of windmills. It's entirely possible he got it from watching Fox News too. Trump's affair with the media seems to be dependent on whether or not they say nice things about him. And that is dangerous as a free media is important for accountability reasons and this is something that has been criticised on an international level.

      However, I do not think necessarily that what he might or might not say is important to the conversation as it regards him too personally. Our debate was meant to focus on him as an example, his words, whilst making an interesting point about scrutiny are a little peripheral to this. It might be best then if we concentrate on his deeds rather than words in this scenario. This is the reason for my point to Hassle, that we could nit-pick about what he has said or hasn't said, how it has been taken out of context or in context and it would waste our time. Discussing what he has done however, would be useful in estimating what sort of damage he could commit in that role.


      Revolutionary Lancer wrote:

      I do not fear Trump as a President, because the globe over people are so afraid of him being the President they've willfully embraced the ideology of condemning him prior to his inauguration.
      I fear him because his behaviour and attitude in world politics is alarming.

      Let us expand upon a point I made earlier which shows how dangerous he is. I want to move this towards a science aspect, which gives us an important point to discuss. I noted clearly that Trump had withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, an important commitment to tackling climate change that has a global effect. The US is important in that regard because of its standing as a superpower and because it is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China. The first part is important, as a country with influence, agreeing to the Paris Agreement is helpful in devising a worldwide strategy that has coherence. The second part is still important, but a little more secondary when you consider the ways some of the states in the US have negated Trump's climate change denial stance.

      Now I don't know what your stance is on the matter, but let us consider this from a scientific perspective. Climate change exists and is real. The vast majority of scientists in the field have been warning politicians for years that it is real and that the predicted issues would be catastrophic. Individual contributions, like recycling, using solar panels, not using cars as much, etc, etc, are all helpful. But world leaders are those who can enforce, encourage and dedicate their countries and others to take action. This is a global crisis that has larger implications than a recession and would cause far more damage to not just ourselves, but to the entirety of the planet. Now Trump is clearly a climate change denier and this can be seen in his private actions. His properties are set to be fined because of their lack of energy efficiency. The ETS, an organisation in the UK fined him for breaching EU regulations on carbon pollution when he visited the UK before 2016 in one of his private planes. This is not to mention his government policies which have cut funding for the environment, including that which protects against climate change.

      I generally follow science when it comes to things like this. It is stupid not to, especially as it is the best method of finding out about our reality so to speak. When scientists are warning en masse that this is a global problem, then it is best to listen, it is their lives work. So withdrawing and cutting back on environmental protections that reduce this measure to me is perhaps the most damaging thing we can do.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • Ah-ha ah, I get it I get it, you're looking at the grand scheme.

      Okay, so that's why people are so upset about him. So, we're talking about all that, and this is what I'm looking at: usdebtclock.org/

      Personally, I'm Buddhist, but I cannot concern myself with an entity that is not myself, and I cannot control nor protect everything. I wish to preserve much, but unfortunately I am not "serious" enough to be afraid of Trump in his current position.

      I'm only twenty-nine, and I'm a laser operator, prior to this I was at the highest echelon of my former employer, I had plateaued and could learn nothing from them.

      As for Anarchists being medicated. These individuals, pending their case, may be medicated as deemed fit by the federal government and required to attend therapy, in order for the individual to receive government aid, or social security income.

      Anarchy is indeed a basal political philosophy, or the belief that one should only govern ones-self. This is conflicting and extremist against the core political philosophy of the United States, and would be a declaration of believing one was above the rule of the federal government itself.

      I'm tired, and I need to to rest tonight and tomorrow. Thursday is my first court date for the aforementioned issue from the Spam thread; I wish I had more energy to offer this discussion; just a bit to let ye know I hadn't gone lights out yet.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • 1st off, I haven’t read this thread but I e read some of it to give my opinion on it.

      2nd, whether you like it or not, I’m a Trump supporter and I did vote for him and will be voting for him again in 2020.

      3rdly, I believe anyone in political office whether they be good or bad has the potential to effect the common citizen more than anyone in business. With business if you don’t like what the person is doing you simply buy the competitors product. Elected officials have the power enact laws or push laws through that may effect you for the rest of your life. Now you can essentially buy the competitors product by voting for the other person next time around but it takes so long and so much effort to get laws changed that they may never be changed or you may have to live with it for several decades. Let’s face it, our congress hasn’t been able to pass a budget on time in years which greatly effects myself because I’m employed by the DoD. But with being said, if we can’t even do that what makes anyone think we are going be able to do anything more challenging? There is a huge divide in our country and the democrats refuse to see the good in anything the republicans come up with and vice versa, all over some party lines. If there were only two parties I would fall under the Republican Party but mostly I am a Libertarian cause I see good and bad out of both parties.

      Also, you guys mention “hate speech”, while I personally don’t condone hate speech towards anyone, I believe that the right to participate in hate speech towards any person or group is fundamental in a free society. That goes along with our first amendment which is important as any other amendment.

      I’m regards to the 2nd Amendment, you can say it should be banished etc etc, but all that does it hurts the law abiding citizen. There is a story I would like to share.

      One day a wolf killed a sheep and all the sheep saw it. They came to the conclusion that teeth kill sheep and decided it was in their best interest to pull all their teeth so no more sheep would die and they did. The next day, the wolf still had teeth and still killed sheep.

      What am I getting at? Enacting gun laws will only effect the law abiding citizens that won’t be out there murdering people in the first place. Even if they do say “turn em all in” i for one would rather die (literally) than hand in my firearms. Do I wish to use them on any person? No of course not, but I’m prepared to do so if I have to. My choice is to die on my feet rather than live on my knee’s. There are many more people out there that have my same thoughts that changing that Amendment would only cause a civil war and it would be an extremely bloody battle with every door they tried to kick in to get those firearms. The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st and every other constitutional right.
      “War does not determine who is right — only who is left.”

      GMOD but main sections are Polaris - Yildun, General and the SpamBoard
      My S/MOD is Rav3n so go annoy him if I have angered you!

      The post was edited 2 times, last by clittle ().

    • @Revolutionary Lancer

      Thanks for the reply. I will respond in more detail when I get home from holiday. For now I will wish that everything went well last Thursday.

      @Hassle

      I am tagging you in this post because I want to illustrate why I stated this is not a debate on Trump, but to merely use him as an example. I had my reasons and that was to encourage fruitful and interesting discussion and not rehash old divisions between people. What people think of Trump as a President is not important. It is spam and it is disrespectful. Hence my original post.

      @clittle

      At the start of your post you show a profound disrespect for the discussion as well as making yourself look bad. You admitted that you haven't read the topic. If you had done so, you would have realised that no one cares if you like Trump or not. The question was which is more damaging, public or private individuals using Trump as an example because that is where myself and Rev, started the conversation.

      Is this important to make this distinction? Yes, because of the nature of the board. It is a discussion board, where we discuss things. Engaging in the conversation is important because it makes you not look like a disrespectful person and it also makes you look like you can listen, therefore displaying some intelligence. Your points are irrelevant and it kinda makes you look bad for bringing them up when no one has discussed them. The First Amendment point is rubbish and despite your excuses, shows a passive acceptance of hate speech which Popper's Intolerance paradox musings neatly skewer. The Second Amendment argument is also deeply disrespectful to nearly every other nation that has gun control laws and again it paints a rather unpleasant portrait of yourself in an unflattering light.

      In essence it is spam. Worse than that, its inciting the type of conversation which I didn't want and is off topic. It is rather immature imo.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • Every point that I brought up was brought up in previous comments to include freedom of speech and gun rights. I don’t see how my opinions are disrespectful to anyone since I wasn’t condoning hate speech or violence. I simply stated that hate speech can’t be outlawed because if it is, then where does it stop and who says “what is hate speech”? Being in the military for 10 years I learned that I would fight for the freedom for people to hate and disrespect me or anyone they felt was deserving.

      Also I added that a person that is a public official has way more weight than a private individual because of what they can levy against an entire country. I also read the first few comments but no I didn’t read the entirety of the thread.

      P.S. Don’t like my opinions? Get over it! They won’t change.
      “War does not determine who is right — only who is left.”

      GMOD but main sections are Polaris - Yildun, General and the SpamBoard
      My S/MOD is Rav3n so go annoy him if I have angered you!
    • Those points you note are out of context, showing very clearly that you were not reading properly. The gun control issue? This was an argument about the influence of the private individual, used as an example. Your opinion about guns was not relevant. Furthermore, I noted that your point was disrespectful to other countries as you argue that we are gullible sheep. You also portray those with issues and the shooters as wolves, different from normal people, which isn't true and simplifies the issue.

      As for hate speech, here is a definition of you are having problems. You seem confused and rather ignorant about the difference between having insults thrown at you and people making racist threats of killing others or spreading lied about innocent children because of their skin colour. The only time freedom of speech was mentioned was when Rev discussed how Trump was limited by his office. I mentioned hate speech because I was talking about how influential Trump was on the subject, again, something that is only tangential to the First Amendment.

      Again, the majority of your post was not relevant. That is disrespectful and quite frankly, no one cares if you support Trump. Mentioning it just makes you look like you are boasting about ignorance.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      And the COMA's opinion on the matter....
    • New

      I believe in a case like this, we could compromise that he is equitably dangerous in both positions, if only for separate reasons.

      Trump as President may be able to willfully decide on the use of nuclear weaponry, however he is still bound by several International laws and codes to not use such a weapon. Just as well, the use of nuclear weapons is for all intents and purposes considered a "War Crime."

      Presidents can indeed cause much damage, take Barrack Obama for this example, and more precisely ObamaCare. Upon approval of ObamaCare former president Obama enacted a Federal Mandate, or a federal requirement, a mandate that requires tax-paying citizens to own an asset or portion of property under perjury of civil criminality. This asset was insurance, and in a capitalistic society whose market structure is a bit more complicated than A+B+C, that was a very damaging move.

      The poverty line required for applicants to receive ObamaCare was staggeringly low, and didn't offer the level of coverage as privately owned insurance. To make matters worse, as health insurance was required to be owned, the insurance market responded to the sudden "demand" by increasing the costs abroad. Had I money at the time I would have invested into insurance company stocks, if only because I knew these stock values would hike. The actual cost of private health insurance compounded, regardless of whether you were with that firm already or not. This destabilized the American economy by forcibly shifting free-market dollars into a funnel, which drained those dollars into a non-tangible asset. Essentially, a bunch of folks got rich by making and producing absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, companies that provided insurance to their employees, with or without co-pays, had their premiums hike, and if the employee had co-payment, their premiums increased also.

      It was an extraordinarily reckless action, and within the past two decades, one of the most economically dangerous decisions; my jury is still out on the repercussions of Bill Clinton's assemblies with China.

      Referring to the earlier Oligarchical comments, this would have been the third time such a precedent would have taken place - Hillary being president, I mean, after Bill. George Bush Jr. after George Bush Sr., and Franklin Roosevelt after Theodore Roosevelt.

      joke
      Thankfully it's pretty well ingrained in American culture to mock and have distaste for a crowned ruler, we have a holiday for that, "Independence Day." --- This was intended as a joke, kind of.


      My energy isn't quite back up to snuff, but I did have a minor victory in court. I've caught a former co-worker lying to a judge and two police officers, so I just need to subpoena the proper information and he'll be a knight out of my way. This guy, he's the only thing stopping me from getting my former employer slapped for things like organized crime and such, but a hand-written confession of organized crime is such a beautiful thing, and he foolishly gave it to me at this first hearing. Now I'm going to torch him for slander and libel.

      I find that people often under-estimate me, particularly my intellect, but if I can make a forty year old man cry over a game of chess, I bet I can make a 55 year old man cry in court.

      EDIT: I also think this a shame, but to reiterate, please don't bicker. I had requested this to be a "NotD" thread in hopes that would circumvent this exact type of exchange, however I had also hoped that conversing about this subject wouldn't erupt into a matter of subjectivity over the political divisiveness. Be a Huey Freeman, not a Riley.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Revolutionary Lancer ().