Thunderdome

[QUOTErederick Foresight, post: 4336024, member: 488296"]I think that shooting from the hip is generally overrated. As for Trump's real estate business, let's remember that he got his start with his father's money, his father's connections and incredible tax breaks that he could not have gotten without his father's money and his father's connections:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html

Shooting from the hip can work when you have all manner of connections and people cleaning up after you, because then you can succeed in spite of yourself. What he should have taught at Trump University is how to be born into money and connections so that other people could deal with the pesky details of getting things done while he talks blue-sky.

After spending time with him regularly over a period of 18 months, his own ghost writer said that Trump couldn't concentrate or focus for any length of time.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

Even in business, he'd be dead in the water had it not been for his father's money or his father's connections. And the incredible tax breaks that he got because of his father's money and his father's connections.[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of people who still manage to become abject failures even with the old mans money and connections, so I'll give the guy some credit. What I find absolutely astonishing is his inabilty to shut his mouth after making the point. The guy is just too much in love with the sound of his own voice. While being a relentless slef promoter has it's benefits at some point you just become a narcissistic ass. He crosses that point repeatedly. The man has some very good points about just what a scam government really is, but he just doesn't look like a man you'd want at the helm with the final word. Looks like four more years of circling the drain.
 
Trump either knows well that he can't bring back some jobs in manufacturing, or he simply doesn't understand globalization.

Maybe there is some equation that I am missing that he understands. Let's say it is something simple like this:

Code: 
manuJobsCreated = (1 / CorpTaxRte) + VATOnImports + numofUnemLowerEdMen

What we were sold was that numofUnemLowerEdMen, that men were going to retrain away from low paying jobs by turning them into numOfUnemAvgEdMen. This is what Washington was talked into by lobbyists and allowed global corporations to take away manufacturing jobs with no repercussions. The reality is far grimmer, and the assumptions were horribly skewed.

About three million jobs were created out of globalization. However, how about the offsetting number of millions of jobs lost to globalization? People refuse to come out and say it, but that is the exact reason Trump is even this close in polls: Those jobs lost are in Ohio, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. In other words, many of the states where this election is hanging in the balance!

On the issue of regulation, I think Trump is 100% correct. Some companies should be regulated to the teeth. Others should have a very smooth regulatory structure that is easy to deal with. I believe we have way too much finalization in this country already. Open your eyes and start counting the number of banks you see - there are more banks than gas stations in the US. We don't need more banks.

But Trump gives no examples on over-regulation. Why not tie the abstract with the real?

It is too bad that Trump doesn't enumerate which businesses have problems with regulation. Of course, this is the problem with Trump in general. He has been told that what worked for Reagan will work for him. Talk in grand sweeping abstract terms. Don't get bogged down in details. The guy is stuck in the 80's and 90's in terms of the detail that voters want.

He says he knows how to defeat ISIS. But he keeps it a secret. The reason? He doesn't believe in telling the enemy his strategy. Not wholly unreasonable, if you were very explicit in the rest of your policies. Instead, because he has no real substance, the MSM attack him relentlessly because the skeleton is held up by invisible strings. What else can they do? They can't talk about the actual policy because there isn't one!

What about health care? Just that Obamacare is a disaster and he is going to replace it. That sort of rhetoric may work within his own base, it won't win him an election in the age where people are massively informed like they are today. Replace it with what?

The Emperor has no clothes.
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:
Yeah, 'cause if they're not gonna play by Trump's rules, he should just take his ball and go home.
More...
In all fairness, I think Lester Holt did an average job. Why only average?

  • National Health Care was not brought up.
  • National Security was not brought up.
  • Skyrocketing Tuition for higher education was not brought up.
  • Corporate greed affecting and government inaction affecting millions who can't afford simple live saving drugs, was not brought up.
  • Citizens United and money in politics was not brought up.
Seriously? What fucking country are you living in Lester Holt?

In fact, if he concentrated on just those top three things, and had substantive policies to back it up, he would win the swing voters!

But Houdini doesn't explain his magic tricks.
 
Last edited:
No more debates, eh? So the whiny rich kid doesn't want to play. If this is truly the case and he's going to keep pissing and moaning about being treated right... Donald I have a suggestion. Stop being such a cunt. Right now you look about as presidential as some sissy frat boy who just found out his girlfriend dumped him for the hispanic gardner. You're bitching about a mic that didn't work to your liking and here come the the conspiracy accusations. Time to man up Donald and own your own shit. Otherwise this is going to be an embarrassment of monumental proportions
 
Once again the republicans find themselves in a problem of their own making. The Presidential Debate Commission is a typical big government/media/corporatist organization, filled with partisan democrats and cuck republicans. They pick moderators from the media, which by definition means they are liberal and biased.

The republicans could pull out of the whole thing or redraw the law establishing it. That however would mean crossing Big Media which the RINOs like Paul Ryan and various cucks are not about to do. So they participate in a charade in which they are bullied and harassed by liberal journalists while the democrat candidate sits smugly out of harm's way. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Hillary had been given the questions before hand, since corruption is inherent in everything the Clintons do.

A better arrangement would be to have three debates and let each candidate pick a single mod for the first two and maybe have two mods for the last debate, one chosen by each candidate. A candidate could hardly complain about unfairness from a mod they had selected, and if their mod was too unfair on the other candidate, a backlash could be expected, plus the mod would lose credibility.

If you had this sort of setup, the first debate maybe would be called by Chris Matthews and the second by Sean Hannity. The third would feature Rachel Maddow and Ann Coulter. Tell me that wouldn't be more entertaining and informative than having a moron like Lester Holt arguing incessantly with Trump?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top