News Donald Trump as president - is he serious?

[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.

 

[BobG]

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

His TV show, The Apprentice, took in $350,000 for a 30-second advertising spot. If he televises weekly cabinet meetings with 18 minutes worth of commercials in an hour, the government will be able to take in an extra $655 million a year in revenue.

And I have to admit - that might be very entertaining, or terrifying. Either way, it would draw an audience.

 

[Dale]

At some point, we must actually collect revenue from the people and businesses that benefit most from our system of government.

Assuming that by "people and businesses that benefit most" you mean "people with high incomes" then we are already doing that. The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% of earners only pay 3% of the taxes.

 

[turbo]

As of 2007, 1% of the population held over 36% of the wealth in this country. When they pay 36% of the taxes, I'll stop advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

[Vanadium 50]

As of 2007, 1% of the population held over 36% of the wealth in this country. When they pay 36% of the taxes, I'll stop advocating for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Time to stop.

According to the IRS (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/07in05tr.xls) in 2007, the top 1% paid over 40% of the income taxes. (40.42%)

 

[Pengwuino]

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

What kinda weird math language are you using?

 

[jhae2.718]

<> is \ne in several programming languages...

 

[lisab]

<> is \ne in several programming languages...

True that.

 

[KingNothing]

The top 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% of earners only pay 3% of the taxes.

Errmmm...I hate when people say something like this, because it's just playing with numbers. It doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful. It doesn't tell you whether or not that top 10% is being taxed at a higher rate or lower rate because it doesn't tell you how much wealth the top 10% has.

In some countries, where the top 10% have 95% of the wealth, this same statement would mean they are being under-taxed.

 

[Dale]

Errmmm...I hate when people say something like this, because it's just playing with numbers. It doesn't actually tell you anything meaningful. It doesn't tell you whether or not that top 10% is being taxed at a higher rate or lower rate because it doesn't tell you how much wealth the top 10% has.

As turbo-1 and Vanadium50 pointed out, they are paying their fair share by that measure too (in the US).

 

[Proton Soup]

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"

yeah, I'm sure that's all it is. it's just funny that i don't remember him ever doing it before. perhaps it's just that it's being taken seriously on this board that i even notice him now.