| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sanders has made a name for himself basically saying "you know what, f--- rich people!" People like that message.
It's a little deeper than that. As far as the rich are concerned he's interested in tearing apart certain legal methods of tax evasion so mega corporations have to pay their share of taxes, etc.
He also wants to examine what other countries are doing better than we are, why they are, and emulate that to improve quality of life, education, and health of citizens.
|
So ummm, the merits of third parties aside, what about this Trump fellow? Wacky, isn't he?Yes. Yes he is.
Well... actually, he sounds like exactly the sort of candidate you are asking for. Not in his particular policy positions, but in the fact that some of them go against 'party orthodoxy'.
That said, even in the currently polarized environment there are always a few people in the major parties who differ from the majority on specific issues. Indeed, on the Democrat side I don't think there are ANY positions which candidates HAVE to support to get elected (i.e. nothing equivalent to the GOP climate change denial/inaction requirement). Certainly plenty of positions that the vast majority support, but no absolutes. There are Democrats pushing anti-muslim bigotry, corporate run schools, guns for everyone, et cetera.
As an easy rule of thumb, the centrist position always involves conditionals, and usually involves numbers -- which makes sense, because centrism is usually driven by pragmatics and empiricism, instead of by ideology. Abolishing taxes because "taxes are theft" is an extremist position; a centrist would try to find a specific level of taxes that maximizes public benefit. A centrist position on the death penalty could be that there's nothing wrong with it in theory, but that it's implemented badly/unfairly, and therefore the current situation needs to be fixed -- and executions need to be halted until the fix happens. A centrist position on drug legalization is that some drugs need to be decriminalized to some extent.Gosh, I'm a centrist. Who knew. :)
Well, not on climate change, but that's because I don't think the costs are prohibitive and that the sooner we start paying them the less prohibitive they'll be.But that's basically true of all my positions. I'm not for them for ideological reasons. I'm for them because I think they'll work better.
Well, even the ideologues hold their positions because "[they] think they'll work better." The difference tends to be that ideologues believe that any minor variation from their approved solutions won't work at all....
But it doesn't surprise me that you're a centrist -- in the United States, there aren't any leftist extremists any more.
And I suspect most people would argue the same way. With the possible exception of the real Bible thumpers who start with "God Said So". And some of the more extreme libertarians, but most of them do think their version will work better. As do most of the greens & various socialist or communist types.
Well, "socialist and communist types" are basically extinct in the modern US. And the greens are generally leftist-centrist but rarely extremist (until you get into some of the eco-terrorist wingnuts).
But there are many more extremists on the right. Biblical literalists, as you mentioned. "Taxation is theft" libertarians, and their more educated cousins, the hardcore Austrian economists as well as the gold bugs. There don't seem to be many royalists any more, but there is a well-documented fascist community.
While this can sound perfectly reasonable, it often times isn't. For example the centrist opinion on climate change would be summed up "Climate change is most likely real, but we shouldn't do anything about it". It's essentially the corporate political opinion on the topic, it's what Exxon-Mobil believes.I don't think that's quite the case. No rational person would hold that climate change is real but we shouldn't do anything about it. The centrist position in this case is that climate change is real, but the costs of dealing with it are prohibitive, in which case a) more research is needed to find ways of dealing with it, and b) the question needs to be revisited when the economics changes.
As an easy rule of thumb, the centrist position always involves conditionals, and usually involves numbers -- which makes sense, because centrism is usually driven by pragmatics and empiricism, instead of by ideology. Abolishing taxes because "taxes are theft" is an extremist position; a centrist would try to find a specific level of taxes that maximizes public benefit. A centrist position on the death penalty could be that there's nothing wrong with it in theory, but that it's implemented badly/unfairly, and therefore the current situation needs to be fixed -- and executions need to be halted until the fix happens. A centrist position on drug legalization is that some drugs need to be decriminalized to some extent.
No, in our current political climate, seeing climate change as something to take action on is left leaning, at least in the US (which I assume we're talking about the US, since the thread is about Trump). In Europe, what you're describing might be a more centrist viewpoint, but there the spectrum on the topic is shifted more to the left, compared to the US, as a whole.
Moderate doesn't mean what most people think it means. Most people don't hold "moderate" views. In fact, it's an extremely small minority of people who primarily hold moderate viewpoints in this country.
What is much more common is that people hold views that sit on both ends of the spectrum. They might be to the right on X, but to the left on Y. In many surveys, Americans report that they are "moderate". The truth is that if you ask questions about how they voted for and where they place certain issues and what views they hold, there are still moderates in this country, but they drop to something like 8-10%. Most of them are politically uninformed and rarely if ever vote. By uninformed, I mean they identified Obama as the conservative candidate and Romney as the liberal one.
There's no such thing as a belief that isn't ideologically imbalanced, when you break it down to a granular enough level.
Okay, but balance is a scale. There are beliefs that are more consistent with an ideology, and beliefs that are less consistent.
I was giving you far reaching examples of each category.
You didn't give me categories. You gave me a bunch of individual beliefs.
Some things are simply diametrically opposed.
Sure.
You're either pro death penalty or you're anti.
Well, no. See, that's the very same black-and-white thinking you railed against earlier. There is a spectrum of beliefs, even on the death penalty issue.
You can't be "for it in some instances" because the death penalty is only applied TO some instances.
You can believe that the death penalty is justified in murder cases but not in rape cases, or in cases of anything as egregious as attempted murder, etc. Some non-western countries apply the death penalty very broadly.
It's not as if those proposing its continuance are in favor of graduating it up to the punishment for every crime.
There are some people who feel the death penalty should apply to more crimes than it does currently.
You're either for a graduated tax system, or you're not.
Okay, seriously, the black-and-white thinking isn't doing you any favors, here. You're talking about tax law, for crying out loud. If anything deserves careful, deliberate, nuanced thinking, it's this.
The particular methodology isn't the problem for flat tax enthusiasts, it's that it is not equivalent altogether. The formula isn't the problem, it's the answer to the equation. For those things that supposedly have a centrist answer, such as abortion, it all boils down to a situational yes or no.
I disagree.
Anyway, I was saving time and using examples by simplifying my beliefs.
Which you seem to be arguing for above.
As I said, we are far too complex of a society to simply paint it with a broad brush. I simply did not have the inclination to type out a massive essay about the nitty gritty of my personal beliefs to each and every specific situation, especially when it isn't going to change the mind of anyone I'm speaking to. I simply gave an example of a set of beliefs that are supposedly contradictory when they really don't have anything to do with one another beyond the overtly simplistic ideals of less or more regulation.
Your belief that they don't have anything to do with one another is probably why they appear so inconsistent to the rest of us.
I know I'm not the only person who doesn't fit into the two cookie cutter molds, and not just because MMCJawa pointed out that he also doesn't fit in the mold. The overwhelming majority of everyone I have made acquaintance with cannot identify completely with one party or another.
That doesn't mean they don't follow an internally-consistent ideology. It just isn't a party-aligned ideology. Maybe it's religion-aligned. Maybe it's culturally-aligned. The difference is that I can't think of any ideology that your particular grab bag of beliefs would fit into.
I don't mean this as a particular insult in a personal manner, but many people believe that it is exactly that attitude - pick a party, stick with it, and shut up and do the best to support one of those two groups - that is exactly the problem, Scott.
I don't much care what the oh-so-elusive "many people" believe. I care what the people who know what they're talking about believe.
Well...I think there is a centrist policy on climate change, it just happens to fit into the measures that the democrats and such endorse. You could go far far more left on the issue, by attempting to implement things like severely reduce meat consumption, upgrade transit infrastructure to reduce car usage, increase taxes on carbon polluters, etc. It's just those things would mostly go over like a lead balloon in this country.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an easy rule of thumb, the centrist position always involves conditionals, and usually involves numbers -- which makes sense, because centrism is usually driven by pragmatics and empiricism, instead of by ideology.
Eh... that's not my experience. Most of the centrists I know are a long way from pragmatic and empirical. Rather, they just assume that if there are two primary sides on an issue then they are probably equally 'extreme' and the proper answer is always somewhere in the middle.
So, for example, if you are driving down the road and come to a T intersection;
Leftist: We should go left. I remember that's the way we went last time to get to our destination, there is a sign right there pointing left for it, and I can actually see it in the distance off there to the left.
Rightist: We should go right. Your memory is wrong, that sign is obviously forged, and that stuff in the distance could be anything... EXCEPT our destination.
Centrist: Oh, you are both just extremists! Obviously we should go straight!
As an easy rule of thumb, the centrist position always involves conditionals, and usually involves numbers -- which makes sense, because centrism is usually driven by pragmatics and empiricism, instead of by ideology.Eh... that's not my experience. ....
So, for example, if you are driving down the road and come to a T intersection;
...
Centrist: Oh, you are both just extremists! Obviously we should go straight!
I'm glad to see that your "experience" is so solidly grounded in realism.
No, in our current political climate, seeing climate change as something to take action on is left leaning, at least in the US (which I assume we're talking about the US, since the thread is about Trump).
While this can sound perfectly reasonable, it often times isn't. For example the centrist opinion on climate change would be summed up "Climate change is most likely real, but we shouldn't do anything about it". It's essentially the corporate political opinion on the topic, it's what Exxon-Mobil believes.I don't think that's quite the case. No rational person would hold that climate change is real but we shouldn't do anything about it. The centrist position in this case is that climate change is real, but the costs of dealing with it are prohibitive, in which case a) more research is needed to find ways of dealing with it, and b) the question needs to be revisited when the economics changes.
As an easy rule of thumb, the centrist position always involves conditionals, and usually involves numbers -- which makes sense, because centrism is usually driven by pragmatics and empiricism, instead of by ideology. Abolishing taxes because "taxes are theft" is an extremist position; a centrist would try to find a specific level of taxes that maximizes public benefit. A centrist position on the death penalty could be that there's nothing wrong with it in theory, but that it's implemented badly/unfairly, and therefore the current situation needs to be fixed -- and executions need to be halted until the fix happens. A centrist position on drug legalization is that some drugs need to be decriminalized to some extent.
Er, no. If climate change is real, it is something to (in the abstract) take action on, since otherwise there will be negative consequences. To deny that there are negative consequences is either irrational or it's to deny the reality of climate change.
The centrist position is that "yeah, we probably should do something about that if there were anything practical we could do, but there isn't." If for some reason the climate fairy were to appear and solve our climate issues, the centrist position would be all for that (as opposed to the rightist positions that there is nothing to solve), but absent the intervention of the fae, the solutions that mere mortals can develop and implement are impractical and too costly to be useful.
Just remember, most people supporting Trump aren't supporting his views. They are supporting the fact that he is willing to actually express his opinion no matter the political consequences. Even most of his supporters know he his crazy. They just want a politician who behaves like something other than a politician.
Bear in mind that 65% of Republicans support Trump's idea that Muslims should be barred "for the time being" from entering the US. And whether you agree with that or not (and let's please not derail this conversation talking about it), we have to accept that that's basically Trump's most extreme position. It's the one that's gotten other candidates to actually call him out. So the fact that a majority of Republicans support it contradicts your theory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...I think there is a centrist policy on climate change, it just happens to fit into the measures that the democrats and such endorse. You could go far far more left on the issue, by attempting to implement things like severely reduce meat consumption, upgrade transit infrastructure to reduce car usage, increase taxes on carbon polluters, etc. It's just those things would mostly go over like a lead balloon in this country.Ah, so Democratic position is centrist while the "left" position on climate change is what the right imagines the Democratic one to be. :)
Well, reality does have a well-known liberal bias. For example, the PoliFact fact checkers have scored both major Democratic candidates (Clinton and Sanders) well above almost all of their Republican opponents (and blow Trump out of the water). For example, of Hillary's statements, 16%, 11%, and 1% of the statements she's made have been rated Mostly False, False, or "Pants on Fire," respectively. Sanders is roughly similar -- 14%, 14%, and 0%.
For Trump, the numbers are 15%, 39%, and 22%, respectively. For Rubio, the numbers are 23%, 15%, and 2%. Jeb Bush is 26%, 6%, and 3%.
|
|
The centrist position is that "yeah, we probably should do something about that if there were anything practical we could do, but there isn't." If for some reason the climate fairy were to appear and solve our climate issues, the centrist position would be all for that (as opposed to the rightist positions that there is nothing to solve), but absent the intervention of the fae, the solutions that mere mortals can develop and implement are impractical and too costly to be useful.
Centrist: Oh, you are both just extremists! Obviously we should go straight!I'm glad to see that your "experience" is so solidly grounded in realism.
Which you then set out to prove by providing your own 'go straight!' example?
For the record... empirical analyses of climate change have found that there actually ARE practical/cost effective things we can do about it. The belief to the contrary is entirely founded in extreme right-wing propaganda. Just like the claims that we couldn't do anything about acid rain without bankrupting the economy. Or the ozone hole. Or smog. Every time there is an environmental issue requiring some action to correct it the right wing insists that it doesn't exist and there is nothing we could do about it if it did. The left points to studies showing addressing it will cost far less than leaving it to fester. And 'centrists' go with their knee-jerk standard 'a pox on both your houses'.
Most of the time there IS a right answer... and thus taking the 'middle way' between 'correct' and 'crazy' is just another form of crazy.
You're either pro death penalty or you're anti. You can't be "for it in some instances" because the death penalty is only applied TO some instances.
Actually, I think a lot of "pro-lifers" would drop their stance if the death penalty was applied a lot more rarely than it currently is. Some states and judges are a lot more "liberal" with it than others, after all. I think that's a compromise many would find acceptable. Not me, but many. :P
I don't think that's quite the case. No rational person would hold that climate change is real but we shouldn't do anything about it. The centrist position in this case is that climate change is real, but the costs of dealing with it are prohibitive, in which case a) more research is needed to find ways of dealing with it, and b) the question needs to be revisited when the economics changes.
I think at its worst centrism leans towards the "Golden Mean" fallacy, which is what Irontruth is referencing. "The Truth is in the Middle" should, in my opinion, refer more to a state of mind while deciding than an actual decision-making strategy (have an open mind, but don't compromise for the sake of finding "truth").
"Centrist" labels are often applied just to make an argument sound more sensible. My socialist father fancies himself very moderate, in fact, because he's been convinced that "moderate = reasonable" (which it doesn't—I may agree with a lot of his beliefs, but I know most would not call them moderate at all). As such, I have trouble really seeing Centrism as a concrete affiliation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...I think there is a centrist policy on climate change, it just happens to fit into the measures that the democrats and such endorse. You could go far far more left on the issue, by attempting to implement things like severely reduce meat consumption, upgrade transit infrastructure to reduce car usage, increase taxes on carbon polluters, etc. It's just those things would mostly go over like a lead balloon in this country.Ah, so Democratic position is centrist while the "left" position on climate change is what the right imagines the Democratic one to be. :)Well, reality does have a well-known liberal bias. For example, the PoliFact fact checkers have scored both major Democratic candidates (Clinton and Sanders) well above almost all of their Republican opponents (and blow Trump out of the water). For example, of Hillary's statements, 16%, 11%, and 1% of the statements she's made have been rated Mostly False, False, or "Pants on Fire," respectively. Sanders is roughly similar -- 14%, 14%, and 0%.
For Trump, the numbers are 15%, 39%, and 22%, respectively. For Rubio, the numbers are 23%, 15%, and 2%. Jeb Bush is 26%, 6%, and 3%.
I'd love to see a Republican defend this disparity. Will they accuse Politifact of bias? Try to make it seem like Democrats' lies are fewer in number but more egregious in nature? Or do they just accept that lies are more readily accepted in the Republican Party?
In case anyone is wondering what we're talking about, this is the article that breaks down the tendency of Republican candidates to lie, and of Democratic candidates to tell the truth.
No, in our current political climate, seeing climate change as something to take action on is left leaning, at least in the US (which I assume we're talking about the US, since the thread is about Trump).
While this can sound perfectly reasonable, it often times isn't. For example the centrist opinion on climate change would be summed up "Climate change is most likely real, but we shouldn't do anything about it". It's essentially the corporate political opinion on the topic, it's what Exxon-Mobil believes.I don't think that's quite the case. No rational person would hold that climate change is real but we shouldn't do anything about it. The centrist position in this case is that climate change is real, but the costs of dealing with it are prohibitive, in which case a) more research is needed to find ways of dealing with it, and b) the question needs to be revisited when the economics changes.
As an easy rule of thumb, the centrist position always involves conditionals, and usually involves numbers -- which makes sense, because centrism is usually driven by pragmatics and empiricism, instead of by ideology. Abolishing taxes because "taxes are theft" is an extremist position; a centrist would try to find a specific level of taxes that maximizes public benefit. A centrist position on the death penalty could be that there's nothing wrong with it in theory, but that it's implemented badly/unfairly, and therefore the current situation needs to be fixed -- and executions need to be halted until the fix happens. A centrist position on drug legalization is that some drugs need to be decriminalized to some extent.
Er, no. If climate change is real, it is something to (in the abstract) take action on, since otherwise there will be negative consequences. To deny that there are negative consequences is either irrational or it's to deny the reality of climate change.
The centrist position...
You realize that the difference between what you're arguing with me over is essentially so small, as to make no difference. Your point is purely over the motivations of inaction, when really the point is that inaction is the result.
The centrist position on climate change is inaction, while recognizing (even if only in private) it's existence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see a Republican defend this disparity. Will they accuse Politifact of bias? Try to make it seem like Democrats' lies are fewer in number but more egregious in nature? Or do they just accept that lies are more readily accepted in the Republican Party?
In case anyone is wondering what we're talking about, this is the article that breaks down the tendency of Republican candidates to lie, and of Democratic candidates to tell the truth.
Somehow...I don't think Trump and co have much to worry about regarding their base and fact checking...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...I think there is a centrist policy on climate change, it just happens to fit into the measures that the democrats and such endorse. You could go far far more left on the issue, by attempting to implement things like severely reduce meat consumption, upgrade transit infrastructure to reduce car usage, increase taxes on carbon polluters, etc. It's just those things would mostly go over like a lead balloon in this country.Ah, so Democratic position is centrist while the "left" position on climate change is what the right imagines the Democratic one to be. :)
Pretty much. US politics runs on this in regards to a slew of issues besides climate change. Some folks just love their slippery slopes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...To briefly summarize, I don't think I'd sleep very well if nuclear launch codes were in Mr. Trump's hands.
Trump is good, but an off-suit ace or king can also be useful if played at the right time.
:P
(On topic: vote third party and break the dichotomy!)
Don't get us re-started on third party candidates, Paulicus. We've already been over that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, Trump just scares me. The fact that so many Americans agree with him is even more scary.
When I read so many of his statements regarding people of ethnicities other than European, it just reminds me of all of the mistakes that civilizations and individuals of the past have made- mistakes that are almost universally looked down upon as egregious. While this is by far the easiest and most shocking comparison to make, just look at Nazi Germany. Certain citizens are required to wear visible identification of their beliefs. Trump wants Muslims to wear identification classifying them as Muslim. Identification like this leads to the dehumanizing of certain groups of people. Muslims are already looked down upon, as Jewish people were looked down upon in Germany. History repeats itself. It's a phrase that I remind myself of over and over again. People keep making the same foolish mistakes. What happens if the U.S. finally picks its war with the wrong country, and BOOM, World War III?
Sure, everyone keeps railing on Trump for his racist beliefs, but they rail on him because the results of his beliefs were catastrophic in the past.
If Trump gets elected, I am seriously considering fleeing the U.S. When I see members of my own family siding with Trump on matters of ethnic background, I begin to wonder why the heck I continue to live my life surrounded by a dangerously discriminatory populace.
Wow, reading over this, I guess I seem really paranoid. I'll just hope that I'm catastrophizing the situation, and that none of what I just spoke of comes to pass. ^_^'
I agree with that. But we already talked about the merits (or lack thereof, depending on who you ask) of voting for a third-party presidential candidate (which is very different from seeking electoral reform).
Of course, I'm in Oregon. I could vote for Princess Discord and it would have the exact same effect on the elections.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way he keeps pushing ahead despite his foibles, it's almost as if he has a secret card up his sleeve. Some kind of play that always wins...
A Trump card, as it were?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the OP there is mention that the media "hates" Trump and I believe the exact opposite is true. The media love to sensationalize and Trump does all the work for them. Seriously, think of any other person you believe the media to focus on negatively for a moment. Most stories require a real stretch to be spun negatively, often taking quotes out of context to do so. Not with Trumpy, they can pretty much print whatever he says and it gets tons of views. The best part is he doubles down on a lot of terrible quotes making the stories all that much more sweeter. Say what you will about Trumpy but the guy is one hell of a circus ringleader.
I don't know what to say logically speaking on the OP. My thoughts are anything but logical in the discourse currently.
Emotionally, I dislike Trump. I don't think he's a nice person. He seems to be a womanizer, and truly of a hateful and mean character.
At least, that's how I see him.
Much of the Field of Republican candidates are not ones that I particularly am in favor of. Most of it, I admit, is emotional response to them. I think in many ways, that might be how some Americans will feel...or not...I'm not them.
I don't care for Christie that much. I saw a video many years ago, a teacher asked him a question which I think was about education. His response....to scream and yell and tear that teacher from the union a new one. I hated seeing him do that. People said that's what a politician needs to do in that state...but I don't buy it. The teacher wasn't the one shouting or yelling or making ruckus and pointing fingers. That was Christie and I really didn't like him ever since.
I know...that's purely emotional and not based on logic.
Ted Cruz...I have no idea if he's good or bad...but he's half Canadian isn't he? More so, and on the emotional side though...I don't have as much problems with his ideas to shut down the government over budget...but to default on the debt and debt limit. He was willing to destroy the US credit and monetary system for...politics. To me, he's willing to sacrifice the US and everyone in it to make political points...and that...once again is my emotional response.
Jeb Bush...this is also purely emotional...he's a Bush. We've had two Bushes in the White House in 25 years. Why do we need 3 of them in 30. That family has had it's chance...this is the US...not some place where we have a monarchy with a ruling family. He also seems not above being a sort of firebrand against others.
Carly Fiorina...this is probably the most logical of my emotional responses to the Republican field of candidates. She did terrible things to HP when she was in charge. No offense to her...and she may be nice (I don't know), but that's not quite the leadership I'd want to see in charge of a nation. She seems very smart and normally prepares well...but that spectre of HP keeps haunting over her. So in that light, still emotional response on whether I like her or not.
Don't know enough about Marco Rubio to say one way or the other. He just seems to be there.
In fact, of all the candidates from the Republicans...the only one I really seem to like is Carson. It's not specifically his ideas...it's more emotional as well. He seems like a genuinely NICE guy. I could actually support someone who seems like they are nice at least.
That's also the reason I like Sanders. From what I've seen of him thus far, he seems like a Genuinely NICE guy.
Now, people will say nice guys finish last in politics, and if we had nice guys as president...we'd be eaten alive politically in world politics. That's why they say we need someone like Clinton or Trump...someone who is a hardnose...and they may be right. Overall, though, I can only say why I dislike many of the candidates.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one can possibly be right about us needing someone like Trump.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump isn't even that great of a dealmaker.
Again, if he took his wealth and just invested in broad mutual funds in the stock market in 1982, he'd be twice as wealthy as he is now.
Yes he's made a lot of money, but he's grown his wealth half as fast as the rest of corporate America. He's a below average business man. He's only rich because he started out with his father's real estate holdings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump isn't even that great of a dealmaker.
Again, if he took his wealth and just invested in broad mutual funds in the stock market in 1982, he'd be twice as wealthy as he is now.
Yes he's made a lot of money, but he's grown his wealth half as fast as the rest of corporate America. He's a below average business man. He's only rich because he started out with his father's real estate holdings.
Y'know, months ago one of the commentators on a local NPR call in show (I know, I know) pointed out that, when you're a head of state, you can't just puff out you chest and tell all the other heads of state "You're fired." Nor can you puff out your chest and tell other branches of government to "Do it." But both of those seem to be Trump's only negotiating strategies.
|
|
He's not the President the country needs, but he's the President the country deserves.
He's the candidate the GOP deserves. The country as a whole would never vote that guy into office. Heck, he's a long shot even for the GOP nomination. He can't get enough votes to win without significant evangelical or establishment (aka Wall Street) backing... which he doesn't have currently.
Even though his ability to accumulate wealth can be respected, that doesn't make him Presidential material. Secretary of Treasury, I can see, but the economy is only one part of government (and, if I may add, more of a legislative part, since they make the budget).
No but apparently you can puff out your chest and say "F congress".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's not the President the country needs, but he's the President the country deserves.
Deserves? Ouch.
{straps on +5 colander of conspiracy piercing} Could The Donald be a Daeshchurian Candidate?
Trump isn't even that great of a dealmaker.
Again, if he took his wealth and just invested in broad mutual funds in the stock market in 1982, he'd be twice as wealthy as he is now.
Yes he's made a lot of money, but he's grown his wealth half as fast as the rest of corporate America. He's a below average business man. He's only rich because he started out with his father's real estate holdings.
As I said, most of my ideas for the current presidential election politics are based off of emotion rather than logic. It probably wouldn't matter if he were the most successful business man on the planet...I still wouldn't like him from my perceptions of him.
He's not the President the country needs, but he's the President the country deserves.Deserves? Ouch.
{straps on +5 colander of conspiracy piercing} Could The Donald be a Daeshchurian Candidate?
Not unless Daesh got to him back in the mid-80's. On the first page, I linked several articles where you can see elements of Trumps racism from 87 and 88.
This conversation reminds me of a recent Trevor Noah skit...
As I said, most of my ideas for the current presidential election politics are based off of emotion rather than logic. It probably wouldn't matter if he were the most successful business man on the planet...I still wouldn't like him from my perceptions of him.Trump isn't even that great of a dealmaker.
Again, if he took his wealth and just invested in broad mutual funds in the stock market in 1982, he'd be twice as wealthy as he is now.
Yes he's made a lot of money, but he's grown his wealth half as fast as the rest of corporate America. He's a below average business man. He's only rich because he started out with his father's real estate holdings.
At the end you point out that the country needs hard nose people to deal with other countries. I'm pointing out that Trump may not be as good a negotiator as his wealth might suggests. He certainly has a hard personality, but his ability to negotiate is overestimated.
This conversation reminds me of a recent Trevor Noah skit...
No, no, the other Trevor Noah Trump skit.
Let me rephrase that, then. Even if he were as good with his money as some parties have insinuated, it wouldn't be enough to be more than a Secretary of Treasury, or perhaps a Federal Reserve Chairman. Presidents require more than economic savvy.