Do Posters on CAF Truly Want to Understand Each Other?

[Neithan]

I think the general idea is that there is some sort of ideal balance between a completely free market (laissez-faire capitalism) and a completely planned market (totalitarian communism). Where that ideal balance lies is the source of much debate. Personally I like the ordoliberal and distributist ideas that are actually efforts to maintain a free market as opposed to a monopolized one (whether government or corporate).

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

That would be a misrepresentation – and you know it – there are major issues with over-regulation, which is what Trump is concerned about.

If you want to get down to specific examples we can. I never said I want over-regulation. As I said, Trump is going WAY to far. I work in the aerospace industry. This Boeing scenario is a disaster of epic proportions. 400 dead people and $20B lost, hundreds of layoffs already - an it is just getting started.
The root cause is that Boeing demanded self-regulation. Obama complied - and then Trump took it to another level (when he refused to ground the plane and did not appoint an FAA head - among several other things). Boeing realized they could stretch things even further. Read the emails and text messages.

As certain as I am that you have the expertise and insight into the industry that you know better than the head of the FAA exactly what constitutes “sufficient evidence” regarding when to ground an airplane and risk the loss of reputation to a company and the loss of hundreds of jobs, it appears that such a call is one of judgement. Trump is not the FAA, and there was an acting administrator who was responsible for making the call.

“Since this accident occurred, we were resolute in our position that we would not take action until we had data to support taking action,” acting FAA Administrator Dan Elwell said on a call with reporters. “That data coalesced today, and we made the call.”
Source: Trump grounds Boeing jets amid global outcry - POLITICO

Canada made the same call just hours before Trump. Were they derelict in their responsibilities, also?

I suspect the reason “understanding each other” is so difficult is that we all think we are experts on all subjects and that our opinions on such weighty matters should count as much as those charged with the responsibility to make those judgements.

In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

Same problem today.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

That would be a misrepresentation – and you know it – there are major issues with over-regulation, which is what Trump is concerned about.

If you want to get down to specific examples we can. I never said I want over-regulation. As I said, Trump is going WAY to far.

Way too far is a judgement call.

Obama introduced over 600 major regulations that cost the US $743 billion, or $2,294 per person to maintain and enforce those regulations. That was more than any other president. Or the regulations require

In the equivalent amount of time to complete 194 million additional hours of paperwork, it would take 97,429 employees working full-time (2,000 hours a year) to comply with these new federal requirements.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Your statement amounts to “I don’t trust Republican/Trumpists or any non-Democrats” but … I DO trust [some] Democrats.

Would that be about right?

No, it’s not right. Don’t put words in my mouth or make things up.

Take my statement at face value.

The idea of taking things “at face value” is an interesting one.

Back in 2017 when Hurricane Maria battered Puerto Rico, the Democrat politicians there continually attacked President Trump for not providing sufficient assistance in due time.

Most people took those reports “at face value” and accepted the words of those Democrat politicians.

Now those same politicians are under FBI investigation for corruption and for keeping the supplies from reaching the people in need.

Anti-Trump San Juan Mayor's Admin Reportedly Under FBI Investigation

An angry mob stormed a warehouse very recently and found a stash of emergency supplies from 2017.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/all-hell-breaks-loose-in-puerto-rico/

These were Democrat politicians with great animus against the president. I recall the San Juan mayor, Carmen Yulin Cruz making a name for herself by trashing President Trump in the media. Yet, she is one accused of corruption and hiding those supplies.

I don’t recall any Trumpist politicians doing anything of the sort, do you?

Of course, Breitbart and CFP are not in your sphere of trustworthy media outfits, but – for the record – does that make the story false?

 

[PaulinVA]

By stipulating “those who are not Democrats” as the politicians you would not trust to do anything right, the inference is that there are at least some Democrats who you would trust.

No, I’m not implying that at all.

f that isn’t the proper inference, then logically speaking you have TWO options:

1. You left out Democrats from the “non-Democrats” set because there are some/all Democrats that you do trust.
2. You left out Democrats in specifying the non-Democrats that you do not trust because you have not made any firm assessment on the trustworthiness of Democrats and are not ready to include/exclude them from the class of politicians you do not trust.

Am I missing something? A third option?

I expressed no opinion about Democratic politicians.

Just because I say I like vanilla and strawberry ice cream does not mean I dislike chocolate ice cream. It simply means I like vanilla and strawberry.

What I don’t understand is why you have to take the conversation down this path. is it for control?

 

[goout]

so ummm, I was reading the thread and there’s a lot of discussion about social welfare and the role of government.
So I thought I would search this thread for the word “subsidiarity” cause it’s a bedrock Catholic social priniciple.
and I did not find a reference to it…

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

By stipulating “those who are not Democrats” as the politicians you would not trust to do anything right, the inference is that there are at least some Democrats who you would trust.

No, I’m not implying that at all.

f that isn’t the proper inference, then logically speaking you have TWO options:

1. You left out Democrats from the “non-Democrats” set because there are some/all Democrats that you do trust.
2. You left out Democrats in specifying the non-Democrats that you do not trust because you have not made any firm assessment on the trustworthiness of Democrats and are not ready to include/exclude them from the class of politicians you do not trust.

Am I missing something? A third option?

I expressed no opinion about Democratic politicians.

Just because I say I like vanilla and strawberry ice cream does not mean I dislike chocolate ice cream. It simply means I like vanilla and strawberry.

What I don’t understand is why you have to take the conversation down this path. is it for control?

Except that you didn’t express your political views in the same way that you expressed your tastes regarding ice cream above. The two were not equivalent. One was negative, the other positive.

If you say about ice cream what you said about politics you would have said…

I do not like any ice cream that is not vanilla (or strawberry), nor would I eat any of them.

That statement is akin to…

I would never trust “those who are not Democrats” to do anything right.

At face value, that proclamation on vanilla ice cream implies that vanilla is the only ice cream you like and would eat.

Back pedalling to any other “position” vis a vis ice cream is somewhat deceptive or, at least, vaguely elusive.

Perhaps this is why posters on CAF have a difficult time understanding other posters on CAF?

To wit: Posters haven’t fully worked out the implications of their own views.

 

[PaulinVA]

Perhaps this is why posters on CAF have a difficult time understanding other posters on CAF?

To wit: Posters haven’t fully worked out the implications of their own views.

I’m done. I’m not responding to this anymore.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Way too far is a judgement call.

Obama introduced over 600 major regulations that cost the US $743 billion, or $2,294 per person to maintain and enforce those regulations. That was more than any other president. Or the regulations require

This is all subjective. I am all for deregualtion as well - when it makes sense. But the facts in aerospace is that 400 people are dead, $20B of cash is gone, hundreds of planes are grounded, prices go up (because of fewer planes), thousands are laid off, and companies go out of business - all because of deregulation. If you read my note, you will notice that this actually started under Obama. But Trump put it all on steroids, and now the economy is going to take a 0.5% GDP hit because of it. But worst of all, people are dead. That is the true shame of it all. This tragedy was easily avoided with a few simple checks - but the almighty buck took precedence.

As Aristotle wrote, “One swallow does not a summer make.”

 

[Servant31]

I’m sorry I didn’t see the original video, I’m not sure if it’s nit there, apologies. I was more commenting on the debate going on in a post about understanding each other…lol.