News Donald Trump as president - is he serious?

[KingNothing]

I don't know what to think of this. Is he remotely qualified? Sure he is a successful businessman...but the US government is not a business. PF's thoughts?

 

[Antiphon]

He's more qualified than a college professor would be. The job is about decisive leadership. He has that. Many others don't.

 

[KingNothing]

I think the job is about quite a bit more than that, and it would depend on the professor.

 

[Antiphon]

I think the job is about quite a bit more than that, and it would depend on the professor.

It is about more than that. In general professors are thinkers and businessmen are doers. The Pesident hires thinkers to advise him. The instincts of a doer work better in a position of leadership that those of a thinker.

 

[Newai]

It is about more than that. In general professors are thinkers and businessmen are doers. The Pesident hires thinkers to advise him. The instincts of a doer work better in a position of leadership that those of a thinker.

The instincts of a doer work better in...

Is this from a line of philosophical discourse I'm not familiar with?

 

[Dale]

As Obama's election shows, no administrative qualifications are required.

 

[AlephZero]

"I won't vote for him. I'm afraid he will leave us for a younger prettier looking country".

-- comedian Chris Rock, the last time the Donald considered running.

 

[Pengwuino]

"I won't vote for him. I'm afraid he will leave us for a younger prettier looking country".

-- comedian Chris Rock, the last time the Donald considered running.

hahahahahahahahaha

But seriously, what qualifications are Presidents suppose to have other than exactly what Trump has?

Honestly I think we should elect him for the sole reason that he'll probably fund his own election which means at the very least he is much less likely to be bought out. I don't even think Republicans see political elections as anything but "which a-hole is going to screw us less?". Democrats have hopefully learned to stop thinking the moron they elect is going to be the second coming of Christ and be worthy of hero worship. You would think we can all come together and say "Hey, every President seems to destroy the country and make things worse in their own little way, we might as well elect someone who will probably fix the financial mess at the very least".

For the OP, yes the government is a business! It has a budget, employees, financial considerations, international relations, etc. That's why we're in the situation we're in. We elect people who don't realize the government is not here to just throw money around to their personal special interests. If the government were truly accountable like a business, it would have gone under long ago.

 

[Antiphon]

The instincts of a doer work better in...

Is this from a line of philosophical discourse I'm not familiar with?

No; it's from a line of practical discourse that Philosophers are usually unfamiliar with.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Yeah I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Trump, I pretty much view him to be an attention-hungry opportunist.

 

[WhoWee]

As Obama's election shows, no administrative qualifications are required.

 

[drankin]

Yeah I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Trump, I pretty much view him to be an attention-hungry opportunist.

Sounds a bit like Obama to me.

We need some form of leadership in office. Trump has that on his resume. I'll give him all the attention he wants if he can actually lead.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yeah I don't think I could bring myself to vote for Trump, I pretty much view him to be an attention-hungry opportunist.

Trump? Or every single person in politics?

 

[Char. Limit]

Meh, whether he's serious or not... he'd probably be a better candidate than most of the career politicians. Although the fact that he's a birther really turns me off him.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure he is a successful businessman...but the US government is not a business. PF's thoughts?

I disagree with both of those statements.

 

[drankin]

I disagree with both of those statements.

I wouldn't say he is unsuccessful. Certainly experienced at handling money. More so than our current Prez.

The problem Republicans have with Trump is that if he runs, he is going to steal votes from what would have been for the GOP. Another Perot. Obama in office another term as a result.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problem Republicans have with Trump is that if he runs, he is going to steal votes from what would have been for the GOP. Another Perot. Obama in office another term as a result.

Yeah, I love Trump and Palin. I hope she runs too [maybe with the Alaskan Independence Party! ]

 

[lockem]

Donald Trump would without a doubt be the best GOP candidate for president. I'm a pretty liberal person so I'd rather see a democrat in office but that's probably not going to happen with the way things have been going.

 

[lisab]

Donald Trump would without a doubt be the best GOP candidate for president. I'm a pretty liberal person so I'd rather see a democrat in office but that's probably not going to happen with the way things have been going.

Well he may look acceptable when grouped with the current candidates or would-be candidates, but I just cannot take him seriously. Maybe I'm too old school, but I think anyone who has been on a reality show has pretty much burned the Presidential bridge.

 

[KingNothing]

It's not a business. It may share some many things in common, but it isn't. In the strict sense, it just simply is not. It is a government.

I can see why people make the comparison, but there are a lot of differences too. If the government is a business and we the citizens are consumers...we also do not have an individual choice in whether or not we buy some services or products. I can't decide that I don't want to be policed. I can't decide to use no government products or services, and subsequently pay no taxes.

If the government by itself were a business, wouldn't that mean their ultimate goal is to maximize profit?

 

[WhoWee]

Well he may look acceptable when grouped with the current candidates or would-be candidates, but I just cannot take him seriously. Maybe I'm too old school, but I think anyone who has been on a reality show has pretty much burned the Presidential bridge.

I think he can inflict a great deal of damage onto the re-election effort because of his celebrity status - soften up the President for the "real" candidate.

 

[lisab]

I think he can inflict a great deal of damage onto the re-election effort because of his celebrity status - soften up the President for the "real" candidate.

Perhaps. Or he can stay in the race as a third party candidate and ensure Obama's reelection.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think he can inflict a great deal of damage onto the re-election effort because of his celebrity status - soften up the President for the "real" candidate.

Why do you think a tea partier is going to carry weight with Independent voters who will decide the election?

It is hard to believe that Trump can come up with any new accusations. I realize he's a birther now who claims to have secret knowledge, but I doubt that dog will hunt anymore. It didn't work the first time. Beyond that, what new accusations can anyone imagine? Obama has been accused of being everything from a Muslim terrorist to radical black Christian.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well he may look acceptable when grouped with the current candidates or would-be candidates, but I just cannot take him seriously. Maybe I'm too old school, but I think anyone who has been on a reality show has pretty much burned the Presidential bridge.

I didn't think of this. Good point, he's done for.

 

[jtbell]

Trump's solution to rising gasoline prices? http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04/donald-trumps-solution-on-gas-prices-get-tough-with-saudi-arabia-seize-oil-fields-in-libya-and-iraq.html.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not a business. It may share some many things in common, but it isn't. In the strict sense, it just simply is not. It is a government.

While they may not be exactly the same, there are huge similarities that if actually acted on would be a big help. Particularly with the current fiscal crisis, the idea that a business must turn a profit would help deal with that problem.

If the government is a business and we the citizens are consumers...

We're also the board of directors.

If the government by itself were a business, wouldn't that mean their ultimate goal is to maximize profit?

Yes! But before you can "maximize" profit, you first have to make a profit. And that's our biggest current economic problem!

 

[turbo]

Yes! But before you can "maximize" profit, you first have to make a profit. And that's our biggest current economic problem!

At some point, we must actually collect revenue from the people and businesses that benefit most from our system of government. The GOP is dead-set against that, but that's where the money lies and where the tax-advantaged loopholes have been targeted for years. The government must tax fairly, including the people and businesses that thrive while common people pay and pay.

Re:Trump.
Trump is not an idiot, but he is an opportunist who sees (IMO) the potential to make himself a few extra millions with his posing. Sending "investigators" to Hawaii to "research" Obama's birth records is pure crap. Anybody with a couple of firing neurons could figure out that having two separate birth announcements in two different newspapers from 'way back then is pretty convincing evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Why would his parents have faked his birth-records in a time when it was inconceivable that a mixed-race baby could become the president of the US? The fact that there is a sliver of the US populace that believes that idiotic idea is testament to the racism that underlies our political system. There is a segment of the the US electorate that is mad a hell that a (half) black man could have been elected President, and they will pretend to "believe" any illogical conspiracy theory to justify their attempts to de-legitimize his election.

I hope Trump has enough money and enough misguided ego to run in 2012. He can single-handedly throw the GOP into the trash that way. Now, we need an equally misguided and dishonest Democrat to do the same to his/her party. The US needs a European-style parliamentary system, in which political parties need to form coalitions to govern, and in which governments can be dissolved with no-confidence votes.

 

[CAC1001]

At some point, we must actually collect revenue from the people and businesses that benefit most from our system of government. The GOP is dead-set against that, but that's where the money lies and where the tax-advantaged loopholes have been targeted for years. The government must tax fairly, including the people and businesses that thrive while common people pay and pay.

Rep. Paul Ryan's budget bill which the Democrats are demagoguing would close up most of the major loopholes that have come into effect since 1986. Some Republicans and libertarians are for a flat-tax and yes I am aware of plenty of arguments against it, but the idea behind it is that it would make it impossible for corporations and wealthy individuals to use loopholes to skirt out of paying taxes, because it is a consumption tax.

I hope Trump has enough money and enough misguided ego to run in 2012. He can single-handedly throw the GOP into the trash that way. Now, we need an equally misguided and dishonest Democrat to do the same to his/her party. The US needs a European-style parliamentary system, in which political parties need to form coalitions to govern, and in which governments can be dissolved with no-confidence votes.

From what I have read about the functionings of the various European governments, European-style government is the last thing I think this country needs. We'd end up with one-party governance of one type, and from what I have seen of the parties, that would be a bad thing.

As for Trump, I think he is highly ignorant on core areas of policy, way too extreme on others, and also his ego/personality will blow his chances. The way he talks, as a person at another forum I attend put it, "...it's like walking up to a woman in a bar and telling her you own a Lamborghini and have a big cock."

Today I just saw him talking in an interview about Mitt Romney, and he was saying about how "my net worth is many, many times greater than Mitt Romney's" yes, real humble

 

[russ_watters]

At some point, we must actually collect revenue from the people and businesses that benefit most from our system of government. The GOP is dead-set against that...

Well, no, the GOP isn't dead-set against it[edit: and of course we actually DO collect money from the group you refer to], it's just that the GOP judges "the people and businesses that benefit most" differently from you. We see those as the ones who get money from the government instead of paying taxes. The way the rich "benefit" most is simply by the government staying out of the way. In short:

-The rich support the government.
-The poor benefit from the government.

And frankly, I think it would be tough to make a logical and historically accurate argument that shows the opposite! What you're saying sounds to me to be directly contrary to two of the most fundamental founding principles of the US. But I'd love to hear it...

 

[russ_watters]

Why do you think a tea partier is going to carry weight with Independent voters who will decide the election?

WhoWee did not say anything about any tea partier.

 

[WhoWee]

Why do you think a tea partier is going to carry weight with Independent voters who will decide the election?

It is hard to believe that Trump can come up with any new accusations. I realize he's a birther now who claims to have secret knowledge, but I doubt that dog will hunt anymore. It didn't work the first time. Beyond that, what new accusations can anyone imagine? Obama has been accused of being everything from a Muslim terrorist to radical black Christian.

Let's not over-think this one. The only "accusation" Trump needs to make is that President Obama doesn't know what he's doing - no experience. The masses know the Trump brand (Richie Rich like) and will take his word for it - IMO.

The President has to account for an out of control spending agenda, high gas prices, high unemployment, the start of a new (not a war - not taking sides) venture, Gitmo and the terror trials, and now the S&P assessment. The President has accumulated a great many sound bites - he will need to run against himself this time - not George Bush.

 

[russ_watters]

…, but that's …where the tax-advantaged loopholes have been targeted for years.

That part is just plain factually wrong, but hey if you want to get rid of all deductions while believing that, I'm all for it!

 

[Borg]

Trump's solution to rising gasoline prices? http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04/donald-trumps-solution-on-gas-prices-get-tough-with-saudi-arabia-seize-oil-fields-in-libya-and-iraq.html.

I saw that last night and couldn't believe what I was hearing.

 

[CAC1001]

Well, no, the GOP isn't dead-set against it[edit: and of course we actually DO collect money from the group you refer to], it's just that the GOP judges "the people and businesses that benefit most" differently from you. We see those as the ones who get money from the government instead of paying taxes. The way the rich "benefit" most is simply by the government staying out of the way. In short:

-The rich support the government.
-The poor benefit from the government.

I would say that in many instances, the poor do not benefit from the government, but are instead to a degree enslaved by the government when the welfare state is excessive. Market capitalism is the best poverty-fighter.

 

[WhoWee]

I saw that last night and couldn't believe what I was hearing.

I think his point is why go to war if you don't benefit from the effort. Why soften up a target and let someone else (Iran perhaps) assume control and profit?

 

[CAC1001]

I think his point is why go to war if you don't benefit from the effort. Why soften up a target and let someone else (Iran perhaps) assume control and profit?

Well four things I'd say:

1) The U.S. didn't go into Iraq in the name of formal empire

2) We do not need to take over the oil in order to prevent Iran or whomever from taking control over the region. We could establish a permanent military presence in Iraq just as we did in Germany after WWII, and Japan, and South Korea after the Korean War. A permanent military presence there to provide security so Iraq can (hopefully) become a thriving democracy and economy in the Middle East, and thus a strong ally with a strong military of its own, would be an enormous benefit down the line.

3) Think about the foreign policy implications if the U.S. starts acting like a 21st century version of the old British Empire? The whole "We are all about freedom and democracy" thing goes out the window. If we invade any country in the name of national security or democracy, we will never be believed to be trying to do good in the world again.

It will give full excuse to a country like China to try and take control over Taiwan. If we complain, they could say, "What are you complaining about, you went and took control over a whole country for their oil, and now you are complaining to us for doing the same (imperialism)!?"

Or if Russia decides to start really trying to bully their former Soviet-bloc satellites (something they already do to a degree), again, we have no moral high ground. We can't try to take diplomatic actions even against them for such actions, as we would be laughed at completely.

Also, formal empire makes little sense economically, as it costs too much, so even if one is okay with it, it still isn't really wise. You have to have a way to prevent uprisings among the people and control them and so forth. If the people do revolt, what then? The United States military goes from global peacekeeper to being the equivalent of Stormtroopers?

Unless a nation absolutely has to for whatever reason, it is a lot easier to just buy natural resources from other nations then to conquer said nations and exploit the resources on your own.

4) Morally, it's wrong IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

Well three things I'd say:

1) The U.S. didn't go into Iraq in the name of formal empire

2) We do not need to take over the oil in order to prevent Iran or whomever from taking control over the region. We could establish a permanent military presence in Iraq just as we did in Germany after WWII, and Japan, and South Korea after the Korean War. A permanent military presence there to provide security so Iraq can (hopefully) become a thriving democracy and economy in the Middle East, and thus a strong ally with a strong military of its own, would be an enormous benefit down the line.

3) Think about the foreign policy implications if the U.S. starts acting like a 21st century version of the old British Empire? The whole "We are all about freedom and democracy" thing goes out the window. If we invade any country in the name of national security or democracy, we will never be believed to be trying to do good in the world again.

It will give full excuse to a country like China to try and take control over Taiwan. If we complain, they could say, "What are you complaining about, you went and took control over a whole country for their oil, and now you are complaining to us for doing the same (imperialism)!?"

Or if Russia decides to start really trying to bully their former Soviet-bloc satellites (something they already do to a degree), again, we have no moral high ground. We can't try to take diplomatic actions even against them for such actions, as we would be laughed at completely.

Also, formal empire makes little sense economically, as it costs too much, so even if one is okay with it, it still isn't really wise. You have to have a way to prevent uprisings among the people and control them and so forth. If the people do revolt, what then? The United States military goes from global peacekeeper to being the equivalent of Stormtroopers?

Unless a nation absolutely has to for whatever reason, it is a lot easier to just buy natural resources from other nations then to conquer said nations and exploit the resources on your own.

We should not forget that Mr. Trump is a professional deal maker. Your (somewhat IMO) emotional response yielded a demand for a permanent base in Iraq.

 

[CAC1001]

We should not forget that Mr. Trump is a professional deal maker.

For real-estate.

Your (somewhat IMO) emotional response yielded a demand for a permanent base in Iraq.

Because we already invaded Iraq and toppled Hussein, and are trying to turn it into a liberal democracy, so a permanent base there for security reasons I'd be fine with. The difference is such a base would be to protect the Iraqi people as opposed to oppressing the Iraqi people.

 

[Proton Soup]

I saw that last night and couldn't believe what I was hearing.

would it be offensive if i said he sounds like a guido? i can believe hearing it, I'm just not sure why he's saying it. as far as i know, there are private contracts in iraq to extract the oil. and it wasn't until gadaffi threatened to nationalize his own fields to get a fair price on libya's oil that the world started freaking out and releasing airline bombers from prison.

 

[lockem]

Donald Trump would without a doubt be the best GOP candidate for president. I'm a pretty liberal person so I'd rather see a democrat in office but that's probably not going to happen with the way things have been going.

Trump's solution to rising gasoline prices? http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04/donald-trumps-solution-on-gas-prices-get-tough-with-saudi-arabia-seize-oil-fields-in-libya-and-iraq.html.

After reading this I retract that comment. That's insane.

Edit: Actually I don't know. He still might be the best GOP candidate, but that's not saying much.

 

[Borg]

would it be offensive if i said he sounds like a guido? i can believe hearing it, I'm just not sure why he's saying it...

Interesting article from CNN this morning. I didn't realize that he has 'considered' a run for president so many times.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/19/byron.trump.president/index.html"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WhoWee did not say anything about any tea partier.

The fact that Trump is a birther with secret knowledge would be enough, I would think [CRACKPOT!], but he is a tea partier.
http://storyballoon.org/blog/2010/09/23/donald-trump-tea-party-is-extremely-powerful-and-i-love-it/

 

[WhoWee]

The fact that Trump is a birther with secret knowledge would be enough, I would think [CRACKPOT!], but he is a tea partier.
http://storyballoon.org/blog/2010/09/23/donald-trump-tea-party-is-extremely-powerful-and-i-love-it/

If you're correct - it must mean the Tea Party is picking up momentum?

 

[Char. Limit]

If you're correct - it must mean the Tea Party is picking up momentum?

No. Nope. The one does not logically follow from the other. It's possible for both to be happening at once, but they are certainly not connected in any way. The fact that a delusional man like Trump supports the tea party doesn't mean they're gaining momentum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you're correct - it must mean the Tea Party is picking up momentum?

Okay, if you think the approval of a crackpot conspiracy theorist is momentum, then I hope you get plenty more momentum like that!

This kills any chance of capturing the center.

 

[WhoWee]

No. Nope. The one does not logically follow from the other. It's possible for both to be happening at once, but they are certainly not connected in any way. The fact that a delusional man like Trump supports the tea party doesn't mean they're gaining momentum.

Now, now - Trump has his finger on the pulse of America - he knows what sells. If he's aligned himself with the Tea Party (as Ivan has indicated) I'll assume it's because his charts are pointing in their direction.

 

[WhoWee]

Okay, if you think the approval of a crackpot conspiracy theorist is momentum, then I hope you get plenty more momentum like that!

This kills any chance of capturing the center.

I don't think Trump will actually run - just inflict a lot of pain on the re-election campaign.

 

[lisab]

Now, now - Trump has his finger on the pulse of America - he knows what sells. If he's aligned himself with the Tea Party (as Ivan has indicated) I'll assume it's because his charts are pointing in their direction.

Finger on the pulse? Wow, from what I see, Tea Party <> The Center.

The center will hold, IMO. It always does.

I'd say Trump's charts are wrong.

 

[WhoWee]

Finger on the pulse? Wow, from what I see, Tea Party <> The Center.

The center will hold, IMO. It always does.

I'd say Trump's charts are wrong.

People like to be entertained - he's making the process interesting - again - IMO.

 

[Borg]

People like to be entertained - he's making the process interesting - again - IMO.

Some people are entertained by horror movies but, it isn't my cup of Tea.