Trump

Discussion in 'Politics' started by William Joyce, Apr 9, 2011.

  1. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    I may have to look more closely at him... having plenty of money means you can tell it like it is.

    List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    On foreign affairs: We need to take care of ourselves.

    On foreign wars: We build a road in Afghanistan, they blow it up. We don't build schools here.

    On Obama's birth certificate: I'm not convinced he has one. He may not have been born in this country.

    On jobs: They are being outsourced.

    On spending: It's out of control.
     
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Secretary of Commerce, definitely.

    President, not on your life.
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,678
    It's important for people like Trump to run because it forces career politicians to focus on issues they're afraid of, like Obama's B.C., national debt, illegal aliens and so forth.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. washamericom
    Offline

    washamericom Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,381
    Thanks Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    they'll have to paint trump on airforce one. i wonder if o'henry acts like an adult on da airplane.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2011
  5. JimH52
    Offline

    JimH52 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    19,225
    Thanks Received:
    3,090
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    US
    Ratings:
    +8,199
    I think his idea of seizing the oil fields in Iraq pretty much tells you he is not a serious candidate. He will not get the GOP nomination. He is very far removed from their ideology. But the Tea Party will surely find some of his over the edge thinking intriguing. He could end up playing a modern day Perot. He certainly has the cash to run, and I think the Tea Party will be his sponsor.

    At this point Romney is the accepted GOP nominee, unless something drastically changes. Will the Tea Party accept Romney? That is the question that bothers some of the GOP brass.
     
  6. frazzledgear
    Offline

    frazzledgear Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,479
    Thanks Received:
    541
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +541
    Without commenting on anything else, comparing infant mortality rates between nations is impossible and totally meaningless. Do you SERIOUSLY believe a baby born in Anguilla or Slovenia has a better chance of surviving than in the US?

    There are NO uniform standards in determining infant mortality. Someone didn't come along and announce -"HEY, all nations must determine their infant mortality rates (or any other kind of human health rates) using THIS standard". No one has the authority to force any nation to use any particular standard and every nation decides for itself how it will count their human health statistics. The World Health Organization has recommendations but does not require the use of any particular standards and will accept whatever it is given. In addition, those trying to compare the self-reported statistics of all nations do NOT even attempt to weight them in accordance to the particular standard each nation has chosen for itself to even TRY to come up with an even slightly more valid comparison. Some nations refuse to even identify what standard they used to determine their human health statistics. And on top of that, in some nations determining human health statistics is a function of a political organization so the rates can be "properly" manipulated or falsified for political purposes. Who knew man could be so devious, huh?

    1. First each nation through whatever internal board, organization or government agency it uses to set its own standards for reporting human health statistics and decides for itself what will be counted as a live birth. You'd think this one would be easy-but no. The US and most western nations count any baby as a live birth who takes a single breath whether voluntarily or assisted -regardless of that infant's stage of development -and even if that baby never takes another one. But about 1/3 of the world's countries will only count as a live birth any baby born at 26 weeks gestation or older. A few won't even count any born earlier than 28 weeks. And they don't count these extremely premature babies as a live birth because in that particular country a baby born at that stage of development has zero chance of survival anyway. In several of these countries if a baby is born earlier than they have decided to count as a live birth and it continues to live for a while and then dies hours, days and even months later -it is still not counted as a live birth and infant death but as a stillborn. The highest risk of death for a premature baby is the first 24 hours and that risk remains high in proportion to the number of weeks of prematurity so an extremely premature baby is still at high risk of dying even several months later. But if you very conveniently don't count their birth as a live one no matter how long they live -then when that child dies even a couple of months later, that death isn't counted as a real infant death either. Very convenient way for any nation that wants to pretend it has top notch medical care for its population -to hide the fact it doesn't and that in reality their human health statistics stack up pretty poorly with other nations. Like Cuba does.

    2. Then each nation decides for itself how long after birth a baby's death they will count as part of their infant mortality. The global average is to count any baby's death that occurs three months or less after that baby's birth. Think about that -its the AVERAGE -which means some nations aren't even counting that long. Last time I researched this there were two nations that only counted as an infant death a baby who died in the first 48 hours after its birth -but only if that baby was born after the 28th week of gestation. Now those are some numbers a nation can work with! It also means that even in the average country any baby that dies 3 months and one day after it is born is NOT counted as part of their infant mortality statistics even though that child is definitely still an infant! The average counting period among western nations is 6 months -meaning that even among those nations some are counting less than 6 months. But the US has the longest counting period on the planet and only a couple of nations count as long as we do. In this country any child who dies within 1 year of its birth is counted as part of our infant mortality rate.

    So let's consider just where the US is likely going to stand when it counts all babies as a live birth who takes a single breath, regardless of its stage of development -and even if dies seconds later. And then is among the very few on the planet that counts as part of their infant mortality statistics any baby who dies within one year of its birth. In reality the US has one of the best infant mortality rates on the planet -and if every nation determined its infant mortality rates the same way we do, then we wouldn't have to pretend that nations like Slovenia and the Czech Republic and Malta and Anguilla actually have such superior medical care over the nation that leads in medical advancements and technology. And no one would be able to falsely brag that a baby born in their country is actually more likely to survive than one born in this country. Although in spite of reported stats like this you still don't see people flocking to Slovenia for their medical care -but they sure do come here for it.

    Figures never lie -but if there is no uniform and common agreement on where the numbers come from and how they are collected -then in reality it means they are useless for purposes of comparison with another nation using a totally different standard. But they still do it anyway. A nation's statistics on human health at BEST is only good for comparing improvement or declines in those rates within that one nation itself only. NOT in order to compare it with some other nation -and with only a few exceptions, countries tend to collect this kind of data to keep track of how THEY are doing -not how some other country is doing in comparison. So they really are useless for international comparisons until they are specifically collected for that reason using identical standards -which is never going to happen.

    Ok -I couldn't help myself on commenting on another one. Have you REALLY ever looked at the REAL consequences of trying to prevent companies who compete on a global level from taking their jobs to the populations best suited for the kind of job they need filled? Just how much MORE are you really willing to pay for the goods you consume and buy from companies that compete on a global level? Three or four times more than you do now? Want to start paying $15 for a 10 oz. bottle of ketchup if we can force Heinz ketchup to stop outsourcing its menial ketchup bottle filling jobs? Or are you going to buy the ketchup made by a foreign company that hasn't been restricted from finding the best fit for itself between jobs and the level of education/skills it needs in their employees? What do you think happens to US companies and ALL their jobs when you prevent them from being able to compete globally by placing artificial restraints that other foreign companies don't face. Who REALLY benefits by placing those restraints on US companies because it isn't Americans in case you believe it is. What makes you think globally competing US companies -already facing the second highest tax rate on the planet in our country, OWE it to Americans to also keep every one of their jobs in this country paying the high wages Americans demand when there are BILLIONS on the planet willing to do it for less? How about the fact that since companies can and do take their jobs to the populations with the level of education and skills best suited for those jobs -means YOU are actually paying bargain prices for the goods you consume. How about the fact that thousands of jobs are IN SOURCED to the US from other countries. And those are high paying jobs that require a high level of education. What if other countries insisted those jobs stay within their borders too -willing to pay 3 times or more for all THOSE goods too? The poor in this world can only get out of it by working their way out -but they lack the education and skills to do those high paying jobs that are insourced here. The ones being outsourced from here to there are exactly the ones they need! It doesn't take any skill or much education to answer a phone -but that population still lacks the skills and education needed for the high tech jobs we do very well in this country. We all benefit by having MORE people escape poverty whether it is in our country or another one. It can't happen all at once, they aren't going to go from poverty to being at the top competing with us for the very best jobs. They must work their way out just as this one did and that means the lowest. Those who do compete with us for the best jobs put pressure on our own population to keep high standards for our own skills and education so that we remain an attractive place for companies looking for workers with OUR skills and education. No one wins by putting artificial restraints making it more difficult for companies to compete -and if a company can't compete, it will go under -taking all its jobs with it as well as the product it used to make. So in the end there will be FEWER jobs and FEWER goods giving you FEWER choices that will all cost you much, much more.

    Our government's spending is definitely out of control. First place I would look to cut is foreign aid. The stated and un-stated goals of foreign aid were to improve relationships between the recipient nation and the US. And it has been an utter failure. It doesn't work.
     
  7. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,072
    Thanks Received:
    422
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +429
    I am not sure that some of the social Christian conservatives would vote for a man that has been married 3 times. It kinda shows that he does not follow his vows, does it not?
     
  8. washamericom
    Offline

    washamericom Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,381
    Thanks Received:
    735
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    i think clinton may have changed all of that, he is now, after all, "the president of the world".
    reagan, divorced... he turned out ok.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2011
  9. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,729
    Thanks Received:
    11,051
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,062
    On Nancy Pelosi: Doing a good job. :lol:
     
  10. Toro
    Offline

    Toro Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    50,729
    Thanks Received:
    11,051
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    The Big Bend via Riderville
    Ratings:
    +25,062
    It's important for people like Trump to run because it makes people appreciate career politicians more.

    Plus, it makes everything so much more amusing!
     

Share This Page