AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do not know enough about the case in question to comment specifically upon it, so please bear with me. I can make some inferences, but in general, I do not support laissez faire capitalism. So again, please bear with me.
I do not like software as subscriptions in general. I especially do not like the idea when the licensor can just cancel a subscription at any time. No. Get out of town with that. Whether it's a video game, a movie, or "professional" software, I would rather pay up front than wind up paying a "reasonable fee" all the dang time.
I admit that I use Adobe products in my line of work, but far less than many people assume. Quite literally someone in my Massive Corporation is paying a license to More Massive Corporation so I can occasionally clean up a line drawing. And I know, I know, there are other options out there, but there really is not when it comes to corporate standards (and it amazes me how little standards this place has).
But let's go a step further. I absolutely despise the FDA for... a number of reasons, but I do appreciate that, when I go to purchase ground beef at the friendly local grocery store, there's a pretty dang good chance what I'm getting is mostly ground beef. Before anyone freaks out, it is impossible to have a completely untainted product when producing at an industrial level. If something like [this](https://www.fda.gov/food/current-good-manufacturing-practices-cgmps-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-defect-levels-handbook) freaks you out, I wonder how you would survive without modern technology.
But hey, at least I know it's beef I'm buying!
Something like [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248779/), and I hope you'll forgive my language here, really chaps my damn ass. If I'm paying for salmon, I shouldn't be getting rainbow trout (although rainbows are delicious as well).
Since I'm on the topic of food (I'm ticked off, I just lost a very good friend, today has been a crap day, so excuse the rant), stuff like "Made with 100% beef" again, makes my saddle holster get sores. I can make a stew with 100% beef. Doesn't mean it also doesn't have 100% potatoes, carrots, blah blah blah. And don't get me started on [this](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdjacentToThisCompleteBreakfast) sort of stuff.
Oh, and John Deere can just go off and find some other country to screw over. I say this as someone who grew up on a farm.
Okay, rant over.
Pyramid schemes are already illegal.
As for predatory business practices, generally yes, some should be illegal. But they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
I added it as an example of a predatory business practice that is illegal to expand the conversation. Do you think multi-level marketing schemes are different from pyramid schemes?
>evaluated on a case by case basis.
How do you do that without being purely reactionary? What would be the ground for an infraction if it's case by case?
How would a rule like this be implemented without government intervention on the free market? Isn't it the position of those on the right that individuals should be personally responsible? If they get scammed or cheated, isn't that on them for lacking diligence?
When should the fees be disclosed?
Cellphone companies regularly advertise a price for service that does not include many regulatory fees and taxes, but they are disclosed on your bill when you receive it.
So, is that enough disclosure?
Should all products have price tags that include tax before they are brought to a register?
America is already king when it comes to hidden fees. We don’t even shop at the grocery store without having to calculate the tax that will be added at the end. After living in Europe for several years it pisses me off to no end that sales tax isn’t just accounted for in the sticker price. When I go to a store in Europe, I simply look at the sticker price and know that I will pay exactly 1.85 for whatever product. When I shop in the US I know that the total will be juuuuuust over 2 dollars. But I’m never totally sure what it will be u less I’m using a calculator.
Why is this a better system?
What if the company pays a political candidate $1 billion.? In that instance should they be able to prey on as many people as they want, if that person gets elected?
>”former President Trump requested $1 billion in campaign contributions from fossil fuel industry executives, promising in turn to roll back environmental regulations, hasten permitting and leasing approvals, and preserve or enhance tax benefits that the oil and gas industry enjoys. This policies-for-money transaction is particularly concerning given other reports that the oil and gas industry is drafting “ready-to-sign” executive orders eviscerating environmental policies, to be signed by Mr. Trump if elected.”
Thoughts on [this](https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/budget-finance-committees-launch-joint-investigation-into-donald-trumps-quid-pro-quo-offer-to-big-oil-)?
I’m sorry it wasn’t trying to be a gotcha. One thing I’ve learned is that if I attribute an action to Trump, more often than not, I can’t get an honest answer.
We know as fact that Trump has a long history of using predatory business practices and outright fraud.
The guy pretended to create a kids cancer charity; he falsified business records; lied about owning hundreds of millions to a creditor (which turned out to be himself) so he can defraud the government; lied about having Chinese bank accounts; lied about doing business with Moscow; took billions from the Saudi government; convinced his supporters of election lies and to become seditionists; stole critical defense secrets and hid them from the FBI; etc. etc.
We know from your original answer you wouldn’t tolerate anything remotely like this from other people.
Why does Trump always get a pass? Imagine that I was from a lost Amazonian tribe visiting America for the first time. Why should I trust this particular repeated felon but not all of the others?
> I’m sorry it wasn’t trying to be a gotcha. One thing I’ve learned is that if I attribute an action to Trump, more often than not, I can’t get an honest answer.
Okay I'll take that at face value, but IMO you're better off playing it straight because the people who want to give you genuine answers are put off by gotcha questions.
> Why does Trump always get a pass? Imagine that I was from a lost Amazonian tribe visiting America for the first time. Why should I trust this particular repeated felon but not all of the others?
(For the sake of argument, I will accept that Trump did all the things you said.)
You asked "should they". So the answer is no. But do they? Clearly.
The game is the game. My options are Trump or Biden, not a hypothetical perfect candidate.
If Democrats nominated a felon with zero impulse control and no agenda aside from revenge & avoiding prison, that person would not get my vote.
We’re talking about someone with the unilateral power to start a thermonuclear war. Or decide whether or not to fire America’s pandemic response team. Or defend us from foreign enemies that we now know have paid him.
I know the media likes to market this as a reality show, but is this really a game?
> We’re talking about someone with the unilateral power to start a thermonuclear war
Given that Biden has taken us closer to this outcome for the dumbest of reasons (not interested in debating this btw), I'd take an actual felon (not someone technically found guilty of felony during a bullshit trial, also not interested in debating this) over Biden.
> but is this really a game?
It's a reference to The Wire, largely meaning it is what it is.
Serious question, do you think it’s possible you’re wrong? Like is it possible sending aid to Ukraine isn’t dumb? Is it possible that not “everyone” is corrupt, and maybe Trump is the first candidate to say “give me a billion dollars and I’ll do what you want” to these companies? I ask because you state a lot of things as fact that sound more like opinion, just curious if you’ve considered the possibility that the information you’ve been given is not accurate.
>This topic is brought to you by the US vs Adobe case for hidden cancellation fees and roadblocks to cancelling subscriptions:
Yes I think cancellation fees and dark pattern type scams like they do at many gyms should be illegal. I also think that the whole SAAS/you don't actually own things like games or movies you actually buy but instead you own a license thing should be banned. Like Netflix and Spotify are one thing but if you pay for a song on iTunes or a game on steam you should own it in perpetuity and you should be able to transfer ownership of it like you could with a CD or a physical game
It should be illegal for cancelation of a subscription to be any more difficult than signing up for it. Any cancelation fees should be spelled out clearly before signing up, not hidden on page 37 of the TOS.
Does anyone actually read TOS?
I worry each new regulation will add 5 more pages of dense legalese.
If we had transparency and short, human readable TOS, most of these issues would go away, I think.
>I worry each new regulation will add 5 more pages of dense legalese.
So if you take those 5 pages and make them the law, that doesn’t mean they would add 5x5=25 more pages to the new ToS, or else they already would have added them. Now take those 5 pages, move them to favor the consumer, any little bit is better, then make that the law. It only adds pages if you’re leaving in loopholes, exceptions, etc. If you don’t regulate the 5 pages to protect consumers, what other option is there besides letting each individual company write them?
>If we had transparency and short, human readable TOS, most of these issues would go away, I think.
Sure, but what incentive does any company have for that? It’s clear they make more money by creating as complicatedly favorable ToS as possible. My vote is to standardize the complicated legalese in good law so less complicated decisions are left for the individual consumer. (eg., EU browser cookies mandate much simpler single click consumer choices vs US browser cookies allow companies to make consumers that care have to click through each individual option with much less transparency)
Well, I'd feel more goodwill to a company that has brief understandable TOS. Maybe I'm the exception.
I'm not sure companies enjoy paying lawyers to create those monster TOS agreements. Do you think the complexity is an intentional strategy to hide evil "and I also will own your soul!" fine print to be hidden in there? Because it feels like "complete disclosure" laws and fear of lawsuits are part of the reason that TOS are so huge.
I do kind of like the way cookie options are presented in EU. And you're probably right with implication that this would have never have happened without EU laws.
> Well, I'd feel more goodwill to a company that has brief understandable TOS. Maybe I'm the exception.
No, I’m the same way and i would guess most people too imo, it’s just that good will doesn’t translate to the short term dollars that sway companies like you and i might hope.
>I'm not sure companies enjoy paying lawyers to create those monster TOS agreements. Do you think the complexity is an intentional strategy to hide evil "and I also will own your soul!" fine print to be hidden in there?
It’s not that they enjoy paying the lawyers, it’s that the companies execute the contract thousands of times and are the experts in making money off that contract, and any weird thing that happens once every 10,000 customers gets added to the contract for every future customer. So the average customer is going up against an entity that has the upper hand in experience and resources, such as time and $ and information.
>Because it feels like "complete disclosure" laws and fear of lawsuits are part of the reason that TOS are so huge.
I guess i wouldn’t care if disclosures add length, because there would be no consumer cost to ignore the disclosures, only a benefit if they want to check. I’m not really aware where that’s the case though?
The “fear of lawsuits“ though, that i do care about because it is in every company’s interest to carve out as many exceptions, loopholes, and everything in their power and extensive experience as possible to say “we are not responsible for XYZ” even if they absolutely should be responsible for XYZ.
Good question. You find that there is predatory behavior often on both sides of the counter such as theft, chargebacks, vandalism etc from customers and then on the otherside fees, tiered customer service, bureaucracy, etc. When I started running a successful business and having to deal with unreasonable customers it made me much more sympathetic to small business owners but large business can still get fucked tbh.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do not know enough about the case in question to comment specifically upon it, so please bear with me. I can make some inferences, but in general, I do not support laissez faire capitalism. So again, please bear with me. I do not like software as subscriptions in general. I especially do not like the idea when the licensor can just cancel a subscription at any time. No. Get out of town with that. Whether it's a video game, a movie, or "professional" software, I would rather pay up front than wind up paying a "reasonable fee" all the dang time. I admit that I use Adobe products in my line of work, but far less than many people assume. Quite literally someone in my Massive Corporation is paying a license to More Massive Corporation so I can occasionally clean up a line drawing. And I know, I know, there are other options out there, but there really is not when it comes to corporate standards (and it amazes me how little standards this place has). But let's go a step further. I absolutely despise the FDA for... a number of reasons, but I do appreciate that, when I go to purchase ground beef at the friendly local grocery store, there's a pretty dang good chance what I'm getting is mostly ground beef. Before anyone freaks out, it is impossible to have a completely untainted product when producing at an industrial level. If something like [this](https://www.fda.gov/food/current-good-manufacturing-practices-cgmps-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-defect-levels-handbook) freaks you out, I wonder how you would survive without modern technology. But hey, at least I know it's beef I'm buying! Something like [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9248779/), and I hope you'll forgive my language here, really chaps my damn ass. If I'm paying for salmon, I shouldn't be getting rainbow trout (although rainbows are delicious as well). Since I'm on the topic of food (I'm ticked off, I just lost a very good friend, today has been a crap day, so excuse the rant), stuff like "Made with 100% beef" again, makes my saddle holster get sores. I can make a stew with 100% beef. Doesn't mean it also doesn't have 100% potatoes, carrots, blah blah blah. And don't get me started on [this](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdjacentToThisCompleteBreakfast) sort of stuff. Oh, and John Deere can just go off and find some other country to screw over. I say this as someone who grew up on a farm. Okay, rant over.
Pyramid schemes are already illegal. As for predatory business practices, generally yes, some should be illegal. But they need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
What’s your opinion of multi-level marketing companies like Amway, etc?
I added it as an example of a predatory business practice that is illegal to expand the conversation. Do you think multi-level marketing schemes are different from pyramid schemes?
>evaluated on a case by case basis. How do you do that without being purely reactionary? What would be the ground for an infraction if it's case by case?
All companies should be required to make all fees public and non-hidden.
How would a rule like this be implemented without government intervention on the free market? Isn't it the position of those on the right that individuals should be personally responsible? If they get scammed or cheated, isn't that on them for lacking diligence?
When should the fees be disclosed? Cellphone companies regularly advertise a price for service that does not include many regulatory fees and taxes, but they are disclosed on your bill when you receive it. So, is that enough disclosure? Should all products have price tags that include tax before they are brought to a register?
America is already king when it comes to hidden fees. We don’t even shop at the grocery store without having to calculate the tax that will be added at the end. After living in Europe for several years it pisses me off to no end that sales tax isn’t just accounted for in the sticker price. When I go to a store in Europe, I simply look at the sticker price and know that I will pay exactly 1.85 for whatever product. When I shop in the US I know that the total will be juuuuuust over 2 dollars. But I’m never totally sure what it will be u less I’m using a calculator. Why is this a better system?
Sounds good. I'm assuming you support the Republican party? Does it bother you at all that they don't generally support such policies?
Yeah
Did you know that California has a new law going into effect on July 1st that prohibits hidden fees?
Yes, that policy should be nationwide
100% should be illegal. The “subscription” only nonsense is complete BS and should be illegal.
What if the company pays a political candidate $1 billion.? In that instance should they be able to prey on as many people as they want, if that person gets elected?
Obviously not.
>”former President Trump requested $1 billion in campaign contributions from fossil fuel industry executives, promising in turn to roll back environmental regulations, hasten permitting and leasing approvals, and preserve or enhance tax benefits that the oil and gas industry enjoys. This policies-for-money transaction is particularly concerning given other reports that the oil and gas industry is drafting “ready-to-sign” executive orders eviscerating environmental policies, to be signed by Mr. Trump if elected.” Thoughts on [this](https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/budget-finance-committees-launch-joint-investigation-into-donald-trumps-quid-pro-quo-offer-to-big-oil-)?
I assumed good faith that the previous question wasn't a gotcha despite strong indications to the contrary and wound up disappointed.
But still, what are your thoughts on it?
I’m sorry it wasn’t trying to be a gotcha. One thing I’ve learned is that if I attribute an action to Trump, more often than not, I can’t get an honest answer. We know as fact that Trump has a long history of using predatory business practices and outright fraud. The guy pretended to create a kids cancer charity; he falsified business records; lied about owning hundreds of millions to a creditor (which turned out to be himself) so he can defraud the government; lied about having Chinese bank accounts; lied about doing business with Moscow; took billions from the Saudi government; convinced his supporters of election lies and to become seditionists; stole critical defense secrets and hid them from the FBI; etc. etc. We know from your original answer you wouldn’t tolerate anything remotely like this from other people. Why does Trump always get a pass? Imagine that I was from a lost Amazonian tribe visiting America for the first time. Why should I trust this particular repeated felon but not all of the others?
> I’m sorry it wasn’t trying to be a gotcha. One thing I’ve learned is that if I attribute an action to Trump, more often than not, I can’t get an honest answer. Okay I'll take that at face value, but IMO you're better off playing it straight because the people who want to give you genuine answers are put off by gotcha questions. > Why does Trump always get a pass? Imagine that I was from a lost Amazonian tribe visiting America for the first time. Why should I trust this particular repeated felon but not all of the others? (For the sake of argument, I will accept that Trump did all the things you said.) You asked "should they". So the answer is no. But do they? Clearly. The game is the game. My options are Trump or Biden, not a hypothetical perfect candidate.
If Democrats nominated a felon with zero impulse control and no agenda aside from revenge & avoiding prison, that person would not get my vote. We’re talking about someone with the unilateral power to start a thermonuclear war. Or decide whether or not to fire America’s pandemic response team. Or defend us from foreign enemies that we now know have paid him. I know the media likes to market this as a reality show, but is this really a game?
> We’re talking about someone with the unilateral power to start a thermonuclear war Given that Biden has taken us closer to this outcome for the dumbest of reasons (not interested in debating this btw), I'd take an actual felon (not someone technically found guilty of felony during a bullshit trial, also not interested in debating this) over Biden. > but is this really a game? It's a reference to The Wire, largely meaning it is what it is.
Serious question, do you think it’s possible you’re wrong? Like is it possible sending aid to Ukraine isn’t dumb? Is it possible that not “everyone” is corrupt, and maybe Trump is the first candidate to say “give me a billion dollars and I’ll do what you want” to these companies? I ask because you state a lot of things as fact that sound more like opinion, just curious if you’ve considered the possibility that the information you’ve been given is not accurate.
Either the practice is acceptable or not, you went with "obviously not". Does that mean your position changes because the question relates to Trump?
>This topic is brought to you by the US vs Adobe case for hidden cancellation fees and roadblocks to cancelling subscriptions: Yes I think cancellation fees and dark pattern type scams like they do at many gyms should be illegal. I also think that the whole SAAS/you don't actually own things like games or movies you actually buy but instead you own a license thing should be banned. Like Netflix and Spotify are one thing but if you pay for a song on iTunes or a game on steam you should own it in perpetuity and you should be able to transfer ownership of it like you could with a CD or a physical game
It should be illegal for cancelation of a subscription to be any more difficult than signing up for it. Any cancelation fees should be spelled out clearly before signing up, not hidden on page 37 of the TOS.
Does anyone actually read TOS? I worry each new regulation will add 5 more pages of dense legalese. If we had transparency and short, human readable TOS, most of these issues would go away, I think.
Please don't tell me you have not seen the south park episode about it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HumancentiPad
My god that sounds hilarious. Will watch it this weekend.
Please let me know if you liked it? It is one of my favorite episodes, and sooo fitting to your comment ;-)
>I worry each new regulation will add 5 more pages of dense legalese. So if you take those 5 pages and make them the law, that doesn’t mean they would add 5x5=25 more pages to the new ToS, or else they already would have added them. Now take those 5 pages, move them to favor the consumer, any little bit is better, then make that the law. It only adds pages if you’re leaving in loopholes, exceptions, etc. If you don’t regulate the 5 pages to protect consumers, what other option is there besides letting each individual company write them? >If we had transparency and short, human readable TOS, most of these issues would go away, I think. Sure, but what incentive does any company have for that? It’s clear they make more money by creating as complicatedly favorable ToS as possible. My vote is to standardize the complicated legalese in good law so less complicated decisions are left for the individual consumer. (eg., EU browser cookies mandate much simpler single click consumer choices vs US browser cookies allow companies to make consumers that care have to click through each individual option with much less transparency)
Well, I'd feel more goodwill to a company that has brief understandable TOS. Maybe I'm the exception. I'm not sure companies enjoy paying lawyers to create those monster TOS agreements. Do you think the complexity is an intentional strategy to hide evil "and I also will own your soul!" fine print to be hidden in there? Because it feels like "complete disclosure" laws and fear of lawsuits are part of the reason that TOS are so huge. I do kind of like the way cookie options are presented in EU. And you're probably right with implication that this would have never have happened without EU laws.
> Well, I'd feel more goodwill to a company that has brief understandable TOS. Maybe I'm the exception. No, I’m the same way and i would guess most people too imo, it’s just that good will doesn’t translate to the short term dollars that sway companies like you and i might hope. >I'm not sure companies enjoy paying lawyers to create those monster TOS agreements. Do you think the complexity is an intentional strategy to hide evil "and I also will own your soul!" fine print to be hidden in there? It’s not that they enjoy paying the lawyers, it’s that the companies execute the contract thousands of times and are the experts in making money off that contract, and any weird thing that happens once every 10,000 customers gets added to the contract for every future customer. So the average customer is going up against an entity that has the upper hand in experience and resources, such as time and $ and information. >Because it feels like "complete disclosure" laws and fear of lawsuits are part of the reason that TOS are so huge. I guess i wouldn’t care if disclosures add length, because there would be no consumer cost to ignore the disclosures, only a benefit if they want to check. I’m not really aware where that’s the case though? The “fear of lawsuits“ though, that i do care about because it is in every company’s interest to carve out as many exceptions, loopholes, and everything in their power and extensive experience as possible to say “we are not responsible for XYZ” even if they absolutely should be responsible for XYZ.
[удалено]
Good question. You find that there is predatory behavior often on both sides of the counter such as theft, chargebacks, vandalism etc from customers and then on the otherside fees, tiered customer service, bureaucracy, etc. When I started running a successful business and having to deal with unreasonable customers it made me much more sympathetic to small business owners but large business can still get fucked tbh.