News Donald Trump Running for President

[mr166]

Hot off the wires,,,,, He plans to name it the Great Wall of Trump!

 

[WWGD]

In fact I heard that is how he plans to pay down the entire US national debt. The US will build it, he will sell it for a small trillion dollar or so commission and bingo, problem solved. Not feasible, well show me ANY other plan that our glorious politicians have put forth to solve both problems at once.

The whole venture will go broke and then trump will declare bankruptcy and refuse to pay his creditors,

 

[mr166]

"The whole venture will go broke and then trump will declare bankruptcy and refuse to pay his creditors,"

Kind of like GM and Chrysler eh!

 

[WWGD]

"The whole venture will go broke and then trump will declare bankruptcy and refuse to pay his creditors,"

Kind of like GM and Chrysler eh!

Actually, I understand they have paid their debt back. Mainstream is not too great, but trump is not much better either.

 

[jim hardy]

Kind of like GM and Chrysler eh!

Iceland, Argentina , Greece , ...

 

[mr166]

WWGD the original GM bond holders were really raped by the bankruptcy court which invented new laws to enable the government to own the company.. They never got the full amount back. The taxpayers lost about 10 billion also.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/u-s-sells-remaining-stake-in-gm/?_r=0

But that being said, GM looks to be healthy now so the 10 billion was well spent I guess.

 

[mr166]

Iceland is the poster child for how one should handle a debt crisis. They told the banks go to hell and let the chips fall where they may. Soon after the recovery started.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/17/the-miraculous-story-of-iceland/

 

[mr166]

Historically in a bankruptcy the bondholders are first on line to receive payment while others come last. This did not happen in the GM bankruptcy. The courts rewrote case law to allow the government to take it over without proper remuneration to the bondholders . So in reality, the government stole GM from the bondholders and then sold it debt free or with greatly reduced debt to the shareholders.

 

[jim hardy]

So in reality, the government stole GM from the bondholders and then sold it debt free or with greatly reduced debt to the shareholders.

shareholders or bondholders ?

Uncle Sam didn't pay the creditors, eh ? Wait'll we stiff China...

 

[mr166]

JH the shareholders lost any claim to GM once GM defaulted on the bonds. A bond is similar to a mortgage in that respect. If you don't pay the debt you lose the property.

 

[mheslep]

Historically in a bankruptcy the bondholders are first on line to receive payment while others come last. This did not happen in the GM bankruptcy. The courts rewrote case law to allow the government to take it over without proper remuneration to the bondholders . So in reality, the government stole GM from the bondholders and then sold it debt free or with greatly reduced debt to the shareholders.

Not exactly. The federal government acted without regard to existing bankruptcy laws and the SCOTUS declined to attempt to stop it.

 

[mr166]

"Not exactly. The federal government acted without regard to existing bankruptcy laws and the SCOTUS declined to attempt to stop it."

When I said that the courts chose to rewrite case law I was not referring to the SCOTUS. The bankruptcy court chose to rewrite the law. The SCOTUS being the political arm of the presidency that it is did not think that the violation of more than 100 years of civil law warranted intervention!

 

[WWGD]

"Not exactly. The federal government acted without regard to existing bankruptcy laws and the SCOTUS declined to attempt to stop it."

When I said that the courts chose to rewrite case law I was not referring to the SCOTUS. The bankruptcy court chose to rewrite the law. The SCOTUS being the political arm of the presidency that it is did not think that the violation of more than 100 years of civil law warranted intervention!

I don't know the details of what the bankruptcy court did but I don't think it is remotely the case that SCOTUS is an arm of the presidency. Never seen either of Thomas, Alito, Roberts nor Scalia cater to Obama, and Kennedy is a fence-sitter. Hardly makes up for a political arm, despite having other Liberal-friendly judges, it is not predominantly so.

 

[mr166]

The more I read about Trump the more I like him and believe he is exactly what the US needs. A blog called the Gawker published his cellphone number and instead of getting mad and ineffective he changed the outgoing message to a campaign message. I just read that he wants a wall built along the US Mexican border. I agree there is nothing new there but here is the twist, HE WANTS MEXICO TO BUILD AND PAY FOR IT! He said if they want to do business in the US this is what they must do.

 

[WWGD]

The more I read about Trump the more I like him and believe he is exactly what the US needs. A blog called the Gawker published his cellphone number and instead of getting mad and ineffective he changed the outgoing message to a campaign message. I just read that he wants a wall built along the US Mexican border. I agree there is nothing new there but here is the twist, HE WANTS MEXICO TO BUILD AND PAY FOR IT! He said if they want to do business in the US this is what they must do.

Do you seriously believe Mexico will go along with that? How feasible to you think it is to construct a 2,000-mile border along the desert? Do you think Mexico is a lap dog of the US? Will trump keep armed guards every 1000 ft. or so? What is the cost of maintenance? How about the issues of eminent domain? How long do you think it will take for those issues to be addressed in court? Those bastard Mexicans taking away all those dream jobs, scrubbing toilets for $3 /hr and working 70 hours a week without complaining.

 

[Czcibor]

The more I read about Trump the more I like him and believe he is exactly what the US needs. A blog called the Gawker published his cellphone number and instead of getting mad and ineffective he changed the outgoing message to a campaign message. I just read that he wants a wall built along the US Mexican border. I agree there is nothing new there but here is the twist, HE WANTS MEXICO TO BUILD AND PAY FOR IT! He said if they want to do business in the US this is what they must do.

Mexico? You think that guns flooding them from USA are big enough problem for them? ;)

 

[Czcibor]

The more I read about Trump the more I like him and believe he is exactly what the US needs. A blog called the Gawker published his cellphone number and instead of getting mad and ineffective he changed the outgoing message to a campaign message. I just read that he wants a wall built along the US Mexican border. I agree there is nothing new there but here is the twist, HE WANTS MEXICO TO BUILD AND PAY FOR IT! He said if they want to do business in the US this is what they must do.

This idea of winning an election by promising that an other country would have to do something is an interesting idea. But not only US phenomena. The most recent case that I can think of is Syriza in Greece. They voted for a party who promised them that German taxpayers would give them more money and absolve big part of debts. I remember also older case, from around 1960s ("Heban" by Ryszard Kapuściński) in an election in a sub-Saharan African country that during an election campaign a politician in a freshly independent country promised plenty of money in form of compensation from former colonial power, convincing his voters that they deserve so.

Needless to say such idea are very popular. There are usually some minor implementation problems...

EDIT: Anyway, thanks for helping me to make a better understanding of Trump's stances, I wondered to what extend it is just those who dislike him try to portrait him in unfavourable way.

 

[Astronuc]

Debate field is set: Trump, Bush in; Santorum, Fiorina out
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/debate-field-is-set-trump-bush-in-santorum-125876129346.html

In -

Beyond Trump, those selected among the top 10 — based on recent national polls — include Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Out -

Those who didn’t make the field for the first debate include Fiorina, the GOP’s only female presidential candidate, Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore.

 

[BobG]

My initial impression of Trump is that he's a clown that has no chance of winning the nomination. He will succeed into turning the Republican nomination into a circus that hurts Republican chances of nominating a decent candidate.

However...

If he does win the nomination and win the Presidency, how bad would he be? Being President isn't like staring in a reality TV show and it takes more than outrageous comments made during a campaign. But, Trump actually is more than just his persona. He has been incredibly successful in business (in spite of some failures, too). There has to be some substance behind all of the bluster.

I don't think he'd be as bad as electing someone that had spent the first 40+ years of his life killing brain cells.

He might not be great (in fact, he probably would be bad), but I don't think he would wind up being the worst President of my lifetime. Surely he'd rank higher than Carter and Bush.

(Not exactly a ringing endorsement, I know.)

 

[Dembadon]

My initial impression of Trump is that he's a clown that has no chance of winning the nomination. He will succeed into turning the Republican nomination into a circus that hurts Republican chances of nominating a decent candidate.

However...

If he does win the nomination and win the Presidency, how bad would he be? Being President isn't like staring in a reality TV show and it takes more than outrageous comments made during a campaign. But, Trump actually is more than just his persona. He has been incredibly successful in business (in spite of some failures, too). There has to be some substance behind all of the bluster.

I don't think he'd be as bad as electing someone that had spent the first 40+ years of his life killing brain cells.

He might not be great (in fact, he probably would be bad), but I don't think he would wind up being the worst President of my lifetime. Surely he'd rank higher than Carter and Bush.

(Not exactly a ringing endorsement, I know.)

Picturing him speaking with Putin or other foreign leaders makes me really, really nervous.

 

[Astronuc]

FACT CHECK: GOP candidates veer from the truth in 1st debate
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-look-gop-candidates-statements-debate-015104208--election.html

Fiorina shines in first Republican debate
http://news.yahoo.com/carly-crush-fiorina-shines-first-republican-debate-174005862.html

In night of introductions to national audience, Jeb Bush underperforms
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/in-night-of-introductions-to-national-audience-126078442126.htmlApparently Donald Trump doesn't have time to be polite, but only enough to be obnoxious.

 

[mheslep]

FACT CHECK: GOP candidates veer from the truth in 1st debate
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-look-gop-candidates-statements-debate-015104208--election.html .

Carson's military numbers were misleading. But otherwise I don't see any non-Trump GOP untruthful statements in that list. More likely the press (the AP in this case) veers from the truth.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump dumped from conservative gathering over remarks about Megyn Kelly
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-dumped-...ver-remarks-about-megyn-kelly-124628606.html#

 

[jim hardy]

Trump dumped from conservative gathering over remarks about Megyn Kelly

Yeah, hindsight is always 20/20.
He should have said
"Madam were you in a previous life one of Orestes' Furies ?".

http://www.chrysler.org/images/collections/bouguereau-orestes-furies.jpg
(Original at Chrysler Museum in Norfolk)

 

[jtbell]

A number of posts about immigration issues have been moved to a new thread.

Posts in this thread should relate specifically to the Trump campaign.

 

[Astronuc]

Do we need a not-a-Trump thread for the other 16 GOP candidates?

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-steels-itself-uncertainty-white-house-race-142344727--election.html

There were apparently two debates, one with the top 10 GP candidates and another for the other 7 who haven't placed so well in the polls.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump parts ways with political adviser Roger Stone
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-parts-ways-with-political-adviser-126201438431.html

 

[russ_watters]

Do we need a not-a-Trump thread for the other 16 GOP candidates?

Yes, once the campaign/election season starts, we should have a thread about the Republican nomination race. Until then, this Trump giggle-fest is fine as an empty placeholder.

 

[Evo]

Yes, once the campaign/election season starts, we should have a thread about the Republican nomination race. Until then, this Trump giggle-fest is fine as an empty placeholder.

Yes. it's too early for a serious contender thread.

 

[phinds]

Yes. it's too early for a serious contender thread.

WHAT? You don't take The Donald seriously? He will have evil things to say about you.

 

[Dembadon]

WHAT? You don't take The Donald seriously? He will have evil things to say about you.

He'll probably blame it on her hormones.

During Thursday's presidential debate, Kelly pressed Trump about misogynistic, sexist comments he made in the past, such as calling some women "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals."

Trump slammed Kelly, saying her questions were "ridiculous" and "off-base."

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. "Blood coming out of her wherever."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/donald-trump-cnn-megyn-kelly-comment/

 

[russ_watters]

I think it is hilarious how incoherent gibberish creates such pseudo-PC anger in people.

 

[phinds]

I think it is hilarious how incoherent gibberish creates such pseudo-PC anger in people.

I don't see how you get Trumps very pointed and nasty comments about women as "incoherent gibberish". It is coherent and despicable.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see how you get Trumps very pointed and nasty comments about women as "incoherent gibberish". It is coherent and despicable.

He said:

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes," Trump told CNN's Don Lemon on Friday night. "Blood coming out of her wherever."

If that was a menstruation joke then it also would have needed to be an x-ray vision joke. And maybe it was?

Please don't misunderstand: I'm not defending Trump and I do think he's a mysogynist. But this entire media frenzy over him is just that: frenzy. It has no substance. No thought. Like I said in post #7, Trump sounds like he's drunk or high and as a result, people have to interpret what he's saying because it doesn't even make sense. Was that an off-the-cuff mysogynistic menstruation remark? Probably -- but more than that, it was gibberish. And what makes it worthy of being plastered all over the news? It's summer and all the real reporters are on vacation, maybe?

It's either that or talk about the still expanding Hillary email and IRS scandals, right?

By the way, are bad comb-over jokes misandry?

 

[Finny]

Yes. it's too early for a serious contender thread.

That's unfair to Carly.
Is it too early for a Hilary thread?

 

[DiracPool]

I think it's pretty clear that Trump won't be the Republican nominee. His demeanor is too petulant to garner the majority vote of the populace. However, I do admire his model to eschew "political correctness." As a child of the 80's, I'm just about as filled up with political correctness as I can stand, it makes me want to vomit. If you have an opinion, state it. You don't have to state it in a hate-mongering fashion, but don't be a woosey and bow to political correctness.

 

[DiracPool]

Trump dumped from conservative gathering over remarks about Megyn Kelly

If you watched the debate, I think you'd have to admit that Megyn Kelly was "baiting" Trump with those questions. Again, I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I think he showed admirable restraint in the face of what I'd call a sucker-punch attack.

 

[WWGD]

I think it's pretty clear that Trump won't be the Republican nominee. His demeanor is too petulant to garner the majority vote of the populace. However, I do admire his model to eschew "political correctness." As a child of the 80's, I'm just about as filled up with political correctness as I can stand, it makes me want to vomit. If you have an opinion, state it. You don't have to state it in a hate-mongering fashion, but don't be a woosey and bow to political correctness.

Sadly very few hit that reasonable in-between of being open and assertive with being an a-hole.

 

[Finny]

Do you seriously believe Mexico will go along with that? How feasible to you think it is to construct a 2,000-mile border along the desert? Do you think Mexico is a lap dog of the US? Will trump keep armed guards every 1000 ft. or so? What is the cost of maintenance? How about the issues of eminent domain? How long do you think it will take for those issues to be addressed in court? Those bastard Mexicans taking away all those dream jobs, scrubbing toilets for $3 /hr and working 70 hours a week without complaining.

Mexico would have no choice.
Very feasible. You probably mean 'construct...a wall" [Israeli's have already done it;border already there.]
Don't need MORE armed guards...for every 1,000 ft. All they need to be told: "Enforce existing US law."
Cost of mtc much less than cost of illegal rapists, thieves, drug dealers, cartel members.
Forever.
Anybody wants to come here legally and work, great.

 

[russ_watters]

That's unfair to Carly.

I disagree. I think it is too early to know if she will be a viable candidate.

Is it too early for a Hilary thread?

She's certainly viable, but since she isn't campaigning yet, I would think it too early for a thread on her candidacy too.

 

[russ_watters]

Sadly very few hit that reasonable in-between of being open and assertive with being an a-hole.

All else being equal though, I'd rather have an honest a-hole than a nice fraud.

 

[William White]

If you have an opinion, state it. You don't have to state it in a hate-mongering fashion, but don't be a woosey and bow to political correctness.

This is the problem - because no matter how lightly you walk - somebody will be offended.

If an opinion of a politician is, for example, that halal slaughter should be banned; there would be a sizable proportion of muslims that would accuse the politician of hate speech.The problem is NOT people being politically incorrect; its not even the increasing number of people that are terminally offended by everything; the problem is the thinking classes CARING that people are offended.

You are offended. Great. Good for you. So what.

That should be the line

 

[WWGD]

Mexico would have no choice.
Very feasible. You probably mean 'construct...a wall" [Israeli's have already done it;border already there.]
Don't need MORE armed guards...for every 1,000 ft. All they need to be told: "Enforce existing US law."
Cost of mtc much less than cost of illegal rapists, thieves, drug dealers, cartel members.
Forever.
Anybody wants to come here legally and work, great.

Do you know for sure the rapists, etc. came through the Mexican border? They could have come in through different points, even legally, through airports, by going through Canada and going across the border, etc. The facts that there are rapists, etc. and the Mexican border is open does not imply that the criminals came through the Mexican border. So that is all speculation until there is evidence to this effect . And good luck waiting 5 yrs or so for your application to work in the US. I do have friends who have gone through it so I do know. And then be held by the 'nads by your boss who knows you cannot afford to lose your job.

 

[WWGD]

All else being equal though, I'd rather have an honest a-hole than a nice fraud.

This is the problem - because no matter how lightly you walk - somebody will be offended.

If an opinion of a politician is, for example, that halal slaughter should be banned; there would be a sizable proportion of muslims that would accuse the politician of hate speech.The problem is NOT people being politically incorrect; its not even the increasing number of people that are terminally offended by everything; the problem is the thinking classes CARING that people are offended.

You are offended. Great. Good for you. So what.

That should be the line

But you see, this has been studied and there are ways of being constructive, getting your point across and finding solutions; no need to be offensive. You can see, e.g., books on "Crucial Conversations". I don't mean being wishy-washy here; you do get your point across in a non-offensive way, because it is just not necessary to be offensive if you have the right skills (which I don't ). If you are not offensive, this allows the other party to lower its guard and address your points. This is not just about a trite "being nice" ; anyone can greatly benefit from this: you can voice out your disagreements in a way that they are most likely to be addressed, and you do this without sacrificing your dignity. Once the other party is offended, communication shuts down, and it escalates into a contest of who can hurt who the most.

Nor do I mean to preach; I could obviously be better at this myself.

 

[russ_watters]

There are two separate issues in that, though both are essentially that you are looking at the issues backwards:

1. You don't get to build Presidential candidates to order: you pick from the menu. In my view, the vast majority are the "nice fraud" variety.

2. You don't get to tell people what they are and aren't offended by: people get to decide for themselves. And some people simply will not accept negativity, no matter how nicely the message is dressed.

Both of these issues appear to me to be at play with Trump. To a person (like me) sick and tired of an endless stream of "nice frauds", an "honest a-hole" is a breath of fresh air. So I like his attitude: but he's got no substance and that's why I don't see him as a serious candidate. But others with unfocused/unthought anger might support him until the issues catch-up with him. At the same time, the media frenzy is based on attacking Trump for anything and everything they can get their hands on. Controversy sells newspapers (well...banner ads), so they love it and play it up.

For right now, these two sides are in a positive feedback-loop with each other.

 

[William White]

But you see, this has been studied and there are ways of being constructive, getting your point across and finding solutions; no need to be offensive. You can see, e.g., books on "Crucial Conversations". I don't mean being wishy-washy here; you do get your point across in a non-offensive way, because it is just not necessary to be offensive if you have the right skills (which I don't ). If you are not offensive, this allows the other party to lower its guard and address your points. This is not just about a trite "being nice" ; anyone can greatly benefit from this: you can voice out your disagreements in a way that they are most likely to be addressed, and you do this without sacrificing your dignity. Once the other party is offended, communication shuts down, and it escalates into a contest of who can hurt who the most.

Nor do I mean to preach; I could obviously be better at this myself.

But some people will always take offense; however slight the provocation.

That is the problem - there ARE ways of being constructive - and it has resulted in political correct behaviour.

Frankly, I don't care if people are offended, I'm in this camp
http://i.imgur.com/84yvB5p.jpg

 

[Finny]

I think you'd have to admit that Megyn Kelly was "baiting" Trump with those questions. Again, I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but I think he showed admirable restraint in the face of what I'd call a sucker-punch attack.

Trump is a big boy. Shame on Trump, assuming he used the words Megyn quoted, for crying 'unfair'. This is just a warm up, nothing compared to the mis characterizations that will come from the 'mess media'. Putin, radical terrorists and Kim Jong-Il, to name a few others, by that standard of 'unfair, would be off the charts. So far anything Trump has said has offended me loads less than did "redistribution'. Now THAT's scary!

On the other hand, if people previously thought Reagan might pull the nuclear trigger, what might foreign bad guys think about Trump? Do you think they would [a] try to goad him into a launch, be especially deferential fearing an outburst, or [c] refuse to even meet the guy for fear of being outmaneuvered?
[Sorry for the boldface...can't get rid it.]

 

[WWGD]

There are two separate issues in that, though both are essentially that you are looking at the issues backwards:

1. You don't get to build Presidential candidates to order: you pick from the menu. In my view, the vast majority are the "nice fraud" variety.

2. You don't get to tell people what they are and aren't offended by: people get to decide for themselves. And some people simply will not accept negativity, no matter how nicely the message is dressed.

Both of these issues appear to me to be at play with Trump. To a person (like me) sick and tired of an endless stream of "nice frauds", an "honest a-hole" is a breath of fresh air. So I like his attitude: but he's got no substance and that's why I don't see him as a serious candidate. But others with unfocused/unthought anger might support him until the issues catch-up with him. At the same time, the media frenzy is based on attacking Trump for anything and everything they can get their hands on. Controversy sells newspapers (well...banner ads), so they love it and play it up.

For right now, these two sides are in a positive feedback-loop with each other.

I agree with your first point, but on the 2nd, if you look at the situation at the right level of generality, there are significant commonalities to people's psychological make up, e.., everyone wants to save face , everyone wants to be heard, etc. You just need to adapt these ideas to the situation at hand in the right way.

But some people will always take offense; however slight the provocation.

That is the problem - there ARE ways of being constructive - and it has resulted in political correct behaviour.

Frankly, I don't care if people are offended, I'm in this camp
http://i.imgur.com/84yvB5p.jpg

Yes, well, you cannot have a guarantee of something that will work all the time, but you can try to maximize the odds of having a positive communication. And, no, there is a clear difference between the trite, wishy-washy messages and methods of PC and the methods of crucial conversations; the two are not equivalent.

 

[William White]

Yes, well, you cannot have a guarantee of something that will work all the time, but you can try to maximize the odds of having a positive communication. And, no, there is a clear difference between the trite, wishy-washy messages and methods of PC and the methods of crucial conversations; the two are not equivalent.

yes, but one leads to the other - this is not an opinion - it is an observation of what I have seen in my lifetime.

Especially if you are trying NOT to offend the greatest number of people.

what you think is wishy washy, other people think is polite

 

[WWGD]

<Snip>

On the other hand, if people previously thought Reagan might pull the nuclear trigger, what might foreign bad guys think about Trump? Do you think they would [a] try to goad him into a launch, be especially deferential fearing an outburst, or [c] refuse to even meet the guy for fear of being outmaneuvered?
[Sorry for the boldface...can't get rid it.]

Do you want to experiment and find out what they will do? In this area I prefer to stick to what has worked (albeit not that greatly all the time) in this respect, this is not an area in which I like to take risks.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with your first point, but on the 2nd, if you look at the situation at the right level of generality, there are significant commonalities to people's psychological make up, e.., everyone wants to save face , everyone wants to be heard, etc. You just need to adapt these ideas to the situation at hand in the right way.

But no matter what you do without destroying the message, it won't be successful all the time. And as they say, the squeaky wheel gets mic'd up by the media.