Is Donald Trump Really Considering a Presidential Run in 2012?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter drankin
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
145 replies · 22K views
mheslep said:
On reflection, I believe I'll have to back up a little on Obama's tax pledge and admit the situation between the President and Congress complicates the issue, at least with respect to the pending Jan 2011 tax increases.

I think if President Obama directly said to Congress, "Extend all the tax cuts for now," that Congress would probably have gone along.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
CAC1001 said:
I think if President Obama directly said to Congress, "Extend all the tax cuts for now," that Congress would probably have gone along.
All the tax cuts? I can't see Pelosi/ Reed ever going along with that after years and years of bashing Bush, the 'rich', and the kitchen sink for not 'sharing the burden'.
 
mheslep said:
All the tax cuts? I can't see Pelosi/ Reed ever going along with that after years and years of bashing Bush, the 'rich', and the kitchen sink for not 'sharing the burden'.
You don't exactly need Pelosi and Reid, if you have the entire Rep side voting in favor. You just have to convince enough Dems from the more conservative states to join in. And if you propose something like a 2-year extension, I think that can be sold without a lot of trouble.
 
Donald Trump is the US's version of Maine's Les Otten. Otten led his investors into financial ruin again and again while reaping a nice personal fortune for himself. Want to invest in the purchase and expansion of ski areas in New England, with its spotty weather, high-cost snow-making, and lousy boiler-plate ski surfaces? Les is the guy to sell it to you. Want a nice (EXPENSIVE) condo on the lower slopes that you can stay in a few weekends a year and ski to lower lifts and ski back down home every day? That sounds like heaven to a skier. How about trying to rent out such over-built and under-used condos to short-term renters, and have to pay for the damages done by irresponsible jerks who don't give a crap about your property? There is a lot of money to be made in such enterprises, but it is not to be made in the prime thrust of the public offering. Repairs, maintenance, rental-brokering are the hot profit-makers.

Creeps can always accumulate fortunes, once they get established. The more inventive and secretive they are, the longer they can pose as investment "mavens" while fleecing the idiots that trust them. Otten's latest enterprise (apart from a failed run at governor) is the wood-pellet business. You'd have to be an idiot to buy a wood-pellet stove if you live in Maine. If things get bad, the price of bagged wood pellets will only go up. If things go bad, there are thousands of Mainers with chain saws that will sell you all the wood you want at competitive prices, so you can stay warm all winter.
 
Last edited:
turbo-1 said:
Donald Trump is the US's version of Maine's Les Otten. Otten led his investors into financial ruin again and again while reaping a nice personal fortune for himself. Want to invest in the purchase and expansion of ski areas in New England, with its spotty weather, high-cost snow-making, and lousy boiler-plate ski surfaces? Les is the guy to sell it to you. Want a nice (EXPENSIVE) condo on the lower slopes that you can stay in a few weekends a year and ski to lower lifts and ski back down home every day? That sounds like heaven to a skier. How about trying to rent out such over-built and under-used condos to short-term renters, and have to pay for the damages done by irresponsible jerks who don't give a crap about your property? There is a lot of money to be made in such enterprises, but it is not to be made in the prime thrust of the public offering. Repairs, maintenance, rental-brokering are the hot profit-makers.

Creeps can always accumulate fortunes, once they get established. The more inventive and secretive they are, the longer they can pose as investment "mavens" while fleecing the idiots that trust them. Otten's latest enterprise (apart from a failed run at governor) is the wood-pellet business. You'd have to be an idiot to buy a wood-pellet stove if you live in Maine. If things get bad, the price of bagged wood pellets will only go up. If things go bad, there are thousands of Mainers with chain saws that will sell you all the wood you want at competitive prices, so you can stay warm all winter.

Please cite examples at least.
 
Here you go.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/809974

While American Skiing’s stockholders were taking a bath, Otten’s compensation remained healthy.

SEC filings and newspaper reports show, for example, that his salary went as high as $400,000 with a bonus of $23,000 in 2001. At that point, his salary had grown 16 percent since 1997, while the company’s losses were pegged at $130 million.

Additionally, at that time, Otten’s wife, Christine, was paid $54,000 to run the company’s retail purchasing and had the option to buy stock well below the market value, as did Otten.

An investor who had bought the stock when it first went on the market would have seen a $1,000 investment shrink to $83 at the time of the 2001 SEC filing.

Brad McCurtain of Maine Securities followed the company closely during that period, and he told Edward Murphy of the Maine Sunday Telegram, “When you look at the year that they had now — they lost $52 million and the stock price is down — what is the justification of paying someone a bonus? What’s the justification for handing out stock options? What are these people doing for you?”

A July 2003 SEC filing reveals that as part of the Otten separation agreement with American Skiing the company paid him and his executive assistant $480,000 (Otten’s share is not broken out) and transferred ownership of a vehicle worth about $20,000 to Otten.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
turbo-1 said:
Here you go.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/809974

I'm not seeing a comparison between Otten to Trump. Otten has only owned a single publicly traded company that was eventually delisted when it became obvious it was a sham. And he failed at it. He is what I would call a wanna-be CEO. Trump has always been the real deal.

Trump has enormous successes and enormous failures. No question, but he stays in the game. You got to give him that. He deals in risky ventures but that's the kind of business he apparently likes.

That being said, maybe Trump being the President isn't the kind of risky venture that the US would want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This morning, an interview with Donald Trump on Good Morning, he is again voicing his consideration of running for President. Possibly challenging Palin as a candidate.
 
drankin said:
This morning, an interview with Donald Trump on Good Morning, he is again voicing his consideration of running for President. Possibly challenging Palin as a candidate.

This is the famous DiFelice effect.

For those that don't know, Mark DiFelice is a pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers that only has one pitch - an 82 mph fastball. This guy should get slaughtered by opposing hitters! Instead, he strikes out 8.7 batters per 9 innings. Granted, he only has a 5-1 career won-loss record, because he's a middle reliever - no manager in his right mind would put someone that slow and with only pitch on the mound as a starter.

Still, every game he pitches, every drunk Brewer fan in the stands lines up outside the Brewer's locker room after the game asking for a job. Even the Italian Sausage asks for a chance to pitch (but she was once hit in the head, so that might have something to do with that). If a pitcher like DiFelice can succeed, anybody can succeed!

Palin attracts the same sort of response. In the latest Pew Research poll, she, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee are virtually tied as the leading Republican candidate for 2012. If Palin can be a front runner, then any American that has ever been on TV for at least 30 seconds feels like they have a chance to be President.

I know I'm looking for eyewitness News reports hoping for the chance to stand around in the background while the reporter gives his on the spot story. I want to be President, too!
 
BobG said:
This is the famous DiFelice effect.

For those that don't know, Mark DiFelice is a pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers that only has one pitch - an 82 mph fastball. This guy should get slaughtered by opposing hitters! Instead, he strikes out 8.7 batters per 9 innings. Granted, he only has a 5-1 career won-loss record, because he's a middle reliever - no manager in his right mind would put someone that slow and with only pitch on the mound as a starter.

Still, every game he pitches, every drunk Brewer fan in the stands lines up outside the Brewer's locker room after the game asking for a job. Even the Italian Sausage asks for a chance to pitch (but she was once hit in the head, so that might have something to do with that). If a pitcher like DiFelice can succeed, anybody can succeed!
I take the moral of that story to be any hack sports writer can publish. DiFelice is apparently an average talent for the sport, but nevertheless he is a pitcher in Major League Baseball. The drunks, the sports writers are not and can not be. Maybe there's a bit more to pitching at that level than the speed of his fastball. One does not get there because of who your daddy knows, because you can give a good speech, or because of where you went to college. Likewise, maybe there's more to being at the top of the Manhattan real estate game through boom and bust than most people know, or think they know because of Trump's annoying self-promotion. Trump acquitted himself well in the interview, I think.
 
MATLABdude said:
Apparently, it was started by his lawyer "unbeknownst to his boss"...

While that's possible, just that comment alone raises doubts of his and/or his team's integrity.
 
mugaliens said:
While that's possible, just that comment alone raises doubts of his and/or his team's integrity.
Any Trump underling that does anything that could affect the Trump "brand" in the public eye is doing it with the Donald's full knowledge and approval. You can be sure of it.
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/10/trump.presidency/index.html?hpt=Sbin

The Donald would impose a 25% chinese tax. What do you think?

My first thought was, "How out to lunch is The Donald that he thinks the WTO would allow for protectionistic tariffs, or that withdrawal from the WTO would be a simple no-impact decision?"

Then I Googled, and it appears that there may be a loophole or few:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/con...ency-manipulation-amendment-senate-tax-bill-i
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-13/wto-rejects-chinese-complaint-against-u-s-s-anti-dumping-tariffs-on-tires.html

But across the board 25% hike, revocation of MFN status (which would probably have to occur for these measures to take place), or use of this as anything but another dog-whistle? I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
speaking of winning pitching without stuff. have you ever watched tom glavine pitch?
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/10/trump.presidency/index.html?hpt=Sbin

The Donald would impose a 25% chinese tax. What do you think?

He's always been a negotiator - sometimes you need capture your rivals attention.

While he does have business experience (unlike the President) - he's more of a deal maker.

If the Congress becomes more accountable to the voters and reduces spending - Trump might be able to change the US mind-set from acceptance of the inevitability of a runaway welfare state and a bleak future to a revival of entrepreneurship (IMO).

Without a strong partnership with Congress (a clear Republican majority in House and Senate) - he'd be a trainwreck in another direction (again IMO).
 
Wow, Trump comes up with possibly the nuttiest ideas we've heard from a Presidential "candidate" in a while, and people are actually taking him seriously??!
 
Gokul43201 said:
Wow, Trump comes up with possibly the nuttiest ideas we've heard from a Presidential "candidate" in a while, and people are actually taking him seriously??!
Are you referring to his 25% Chinese tariff idea in particular? If so, what is your threshold of nuttiness for import tariffs? 20%? 5%? 1%?
 
Not the number specifically. Just the ideas and their justifications.

For starters, on China: "I see them as the enemy. They want to take over this country economically."

And on the OPEC: Of course, there's nobody here that calls them and says, 'Fellows, you better not do it. "

Do these strike you as statements of wisdom?
 
mheslep said:
Are you referring to his 25% Chinese tariff idea in particular? If so, what is your threshold of nuttiness for import tariffs? 20%? 5%? 1%?

How about 49%. That was the McKinley tariff in the 1890's. In the short term, it was good for labor (which Republicans appealed to back in that day), but it also raised prices, which devastated farmers. That was a different era when high tariffs weren't considered so unusual.

It only meets its goals if there are domestic manufacturers able to meet demand, but they're being denied a spot in the market because of foreign competition. The very fact that domestic manufactureres are being denied a spot in the market place because of low prices should make it clear that tariffs have to result in higher prices if they're going to achieve their goal.

Of course, if other countries respond by raising their tariffs, then domestic manufacturers are once again denied a spot in the market because the entire market has just gotten smaller. Tariffs work when you're building an economy in the first place - they don't work to sustain your economy.

It sounds nice as a campaign slogan, but they usually don't pan out very well when you're the number one economy in the world that everyone copies.

It winds up mirroring the debate about corporate taxes. Regardless of what the corporate tax rate is in the US, other countries will set theirs just a little lower within a few years so raising or lowering them winds up having little effect on US businesses in spite of it often being a hot campaign issue.
 
BobG said:
How about 49%. That was the McKinley tariff in the 1890's. In the short term, it was good for labor (which Republicans appealed to back in that day), but it also raised prices, which devastated farmers. That was a different era when high tariffs weren't considered so unusual.

It only meets its goals if there are domestic manufacturers able to meet demand, but they're being denied a spot in the market because of foreign competition. The very fact that domestic manufactureres are being denied a spot in the market place because of low prices should make it clear that tariffs have to result in higher prices if they're going to achieve their goal.

Of course, if other countries respond by raising their tariffs, then domestic manufacturers are once again denied a spot in the market because the entire market has just gotten smaller. Tariffs work when you're building an economy in the first place - they don't work to sustain your economy...
So on that basis you argue against tariffs for today's US?
 
Gokul43201 said:
Not the number specifically. Just the ideas and their justifications.

For starters, on China: "I see them as the enemy. They want to take over this country economically."

And on the OPEC: Of course, there's nobody here that calls them and says, 'Fellows, you better not do it. "

Do these strike you as statements of wisdom?
No I don't think that's sound, though I reserve further comment without seeing the context. I've not see/heard those comments by Trump.
 
They're from the CNN article posted upthread (the one that mentions the 25% tariff).
 
Nothing personal to the OP, but my reaction to Trump running is paroxysmal laughter.
 
my ideal republican ticket: sarah palin for pres and donald trump for vp. the sad part is i am not sure they would not win.
 
In all honesty I wouldn't mind seeing a pop star as the president that way I can not be doubted when I say that one movie idiocracy or what ever was not a joke.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Wow, Trump comes up with possibly the nuttiest ideas we've heard from a Presidential "candidate" in a while, and people are actually taking him seriously??!

My confidence in Trump's ability to be President is lower than the frequency of a sinusoidal curve of infinite wavelength.
 
mugaliens said:
My confidence in Trump's ability to be President is lower than the frequency of a sinusoidal curve of infinite wavelength.

:smile: (and the following is a compliment)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/gZEdDMQZaCU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Hmmm... I can't seem to embedd the video. :sad:
 

Similar threads

News Donald Trump Running for President
  • StevieTNZ
  • · Replies 350 ·
  • General Discussion
12
Replies
350
Hate uni, really considering dropping it
  • uperkurk
  • · Replies 10 ·
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10