How is a economy fueled by gaming going to lead to anything even resembling greatness? It's the equivalent of stimulating the economy using meth sales. The gaming industry panders to the lowest, basest desires of man and things he's prone to get addicted to.
You seem to have a disconnect between morality and economy and I'd guess one would have to in order to work in the gaming/entertainment industry and expect those people to go home and live a moral life, leading to a more decent society. It doesn't and won't work that way. Depravity is an extremely contagious disease.
“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Or, as my late grampa used to say, "Sh** rolls downhill."
Our economy has changed. We are no longer a military/industrial economy. It does not exist in the United States. Our economy is driven by service industries. That is the reality. There is no morality attached to that statement. It is just a simply observation. Our nation has moved beyond industry. All of the jobs in our country are now service related. Gaming and gambling are just part of that.
I make no commentary on whether this makes America great or not. It is just observation.
I don't work in the industry. But this is where the jobs are. Does this effect people? Of course. But unskilled workers need jobs. The factories are not here, so they go to work as bartenders, waiters, card dealers, etc. It's just a reality. When your choice is to eat or starve, you will feed your children. That's a hard truth.
Surely comparing Ronald Reagans divorce to Donald Trumps former nude model, former mistress wife is like comparing apples to elephant dung. She's like an icon to our failure as a society and what's important to us. Every time I see her I feel sad that the Obamas are leaving.
Clearly you have missed the point. Ronald Reagan gave the United States no fault divorce while he was governor in California. He was sympathetic to the cause because he had experienced a terrible marriage and costly divorce. No-fault divorce has been one of the vehicles used to drive the population deep into moral decay. And it was given to us by a so-called champion of morality. I know many God-fearing Protestants who are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage. My uncle, who loves Jesus as much as anyone, is on marriage number 6. He never could have made it to the 3rd marriage without no-fault divorce. (His 1st wife died tragically.)
We are long past placing morality in this culture on infidelity and divorce. (Not me personally or traditional Catholics). But the divorce culture has shaped our society in such a way that most people do not attach a stigma of bad moral character to a person who has been married and divorced multiple times.
Going back to the title of this thread, the question is how is he better? You all are saying he's got straight A report card and you get mad at me for pointing out that he's got C's and D's in reality. The best prediction for future behavior is past behavior.
I blame this on the current education system in this country. I recently had a discussion with a teacher about this. This is rather unfortunate. Let me point it out in another way, from a Catholic perspective. Let's say I have a particular sin that I struggle with. Let me just use a sɛҳuąƖ sin. These are particularly difficult. But let's say I sneak peeks at unclothed men (I do not for the record, just using an example.) This year, I do it three times a day. I go to confession. I try really hard, but soon, I sneak a peek. I have failed! I don't just give up or call myself a failure. No, I go back to confession and try again. I keep working on my personal life, maybe not putting my self in situations, but none the less, I keep trying. Since I homeschool my children, I will use this example as well. I have a 2nd grader who really struggles with reading and spelling. She studies and tries really hard, but when I test her, she missed 5 out of 10 words. I could give her an F, but I don't. We go back over everything, figure out what she doesn't understand, and try again until she gets it right. Sometimes it takes 2 weeks for her to learn her words. But instead of seeing herself as a failure, she sees herself as diligent. She keeps trying. Many people think that because students don't get an A on a test that they are failures or they didn't try hard enough. This is not true and this is not what happens in real life.
In real life, we don't measure our successes by completing a task on the first try. We measure our successes by how many failures we overcome. This is real life 101. If you haven't learned this from your parents, then they have not done a very good job. You will fail many, many times. Successful people brush off their losses and try again.
You constantly defend Trumps immorality by saying he needed to do it to stay competitive in business. Do you trust that he'll have a moral epiphany when it comes down to your sons life or aligning with war profiteers?
I don't defend anyone's immorality. I just don't use a person's morality as a barometer for their value or their ability to do a job. I have known many men and women who struggled with their own morality. Donald Trump is a pragmatist. I understand this is difficult to grasp. A great many people of his generation are pragmatists. They do things that have to be done to be successful. My parents were like that. I didn't always think they made great decisions but they made decisions based on life rather than ideology.
You seem to be assuming that Hillary and Bernie don't want people to work. If you're suggesting the flat tax type Republican ideals are superior to anything involving income redistribution, we've tried that. 1920s america had extreme income inequality, woman and child labor and no worker protections. The greatest prosperity and upward class mobility in america came when the highest tax rate was 91%. No I don't think people should get free money but those high tax rates force employers to pay higher wages to avoid those taxes. Without needing to resort to immoral businesses to make money. And no I don't think that this is the entire economic picture but neither is a flat tax.
Your information is incorrect. Early Americans paid no taxes on their incomes. Zero. One of the first uniform taxes was the estate tax first introduced in 1797. They were used to finance wars but often were repealed shortly thereafter. Corporate income taxes were implemented in 1909, I think, and the federal income tax was not introduced until 1913. That tax was introduced to finance WWI and the tax was 1% for those who made less than $20000 a year. Those with incomes of over $500000 paid a 7% tax. Upward mobility in the United States came because people could work hard and save their money. They could build a business and pass it on to their children without fear of death taxes.
As for women and children, the 1920s was a transition period from an agricultural society to a full blown manufacturing society. About 50% of women worked on their farms. Those women who did go out to work, were single and they became telephone operators, school teachers, secretaries, music teachers, and clothing store clerks. Once a married woman had children, she mostly returned home. A few remained working and child care was left to grandmas Yes, there were no standard wages. People negotiated wages themselves. Sometimes this was successful, other times not. Child labor is a different story. Most of the children who worked in the mills and mines were children of immigrants or poor families who lost their farms and moved to the cities for work. Yes, those conditions were deplorable. And yes, they were paid very little for long working hours. From a Protestant perspective, as these business owners and industrial magnates were, they didn't see any problem with this. They believed it was better for the Catholic immigrants to work 12 hours a day because it was less time they could spend drinking. Idle hands are the devil's workshop, they believed. Most didn't have a choice but to put their children to work. The rents were often higher than they could afford.
You said you will vote for him so long as your allowed to practice your faith freely, but his push of the gaming industry will eventually make it's way into your life and you will be forced to deal with it. He's also very pro-gαy, pro-chice, the most liberal Republican I've seen.
I already have to deal within the parameters of the economy. No one is going to be forced to work at the casino. My son has, and did. He graduated from college and it was a decent paying job. It didn't corrupt him. Sure he gambled some, but from a Catholic perspective, that's not necessarily a sin. He didn't gamble away his apartment or his car. There are as many immoral women working as nurses as there are working as bartenders.
In case you haven't noticed, society is pro-gαy, pro-choice, and liberal. TV and movies have made sure of that. At most companies, there are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs. They bring their partners to Christmas parties. They can't be counseled out of it. Public schools have unisex bathrooms and unisex gyms. They are managers at MacDonald's and the grocery stores. A Republican risks political ѕυιcιdє if they run on a campaign that opposes abortion completely--they must approve of exceptions. They sell condoms in the aisle at Rite Aid and Walmart. Unless you live under a rock or in a cave in the desert, liberal society is in your face. It's not going anywhere. Any one who believes any politician is going to change that is ideological. It is not going to happen. Not even through the Supreme Court. When Republicans use these social conservative creds is is precisely to get votes from evangelical Christians. What have any of them really done to stop abortion, to stop gαy-marriage, to stop the progression of liberal policies? Absolutely Nothing. Because they can't. It's all rhetoric to get elected.
He is the definition of a neo con.
You have no idea what a neocon is. Originally the term was used in the 80s to describe a liberal who disagreed with the Democrats on defense issues. Today, its mostly used to reference hawkish politicians of both parties. A neocon believes that Americas greatness comes from America being a great power, through vast and unlimited global military involvement. Neocons believe that we will lose our credibility in the world or respect if we stop trying to bring democracy to countries.
The Bushes are Neocons. The Clintons are Neocons. Rubio is a Neocon. Donald Trump is as far from a Neocon as possible.
Topic: How is Trump better than Hillary or Sanders? (Read 4385 times)