Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[NoahFence]

sunmaster....

Could you walk us through a Trump presidency that includes 9/11 or the Cuban Missile Crisis?

How would you figure he'd react?

 

[sunmaster14]

I sincerely apologize.

But it's terribly difficult not to when the statements I'm responding to are so patently absurd and obviously taken from a reality most of us aren't aware of.

Well, I sincerely don't think they're absurd. And the fact that they're taken from a reality that you're not aware of might be your failing and not mine. I'm trying to make a thoughtful case for Trump. There are a lot of people who will vote for Trump who are neither idiotic nor evil. Nor even ignorant. Personally, I think it would be to your benefit to understand where they're coming from, but if it causes you too much anguish it is better that you don't read my posts.

I guess i need a better command of the language.

I don't quite understand why you feel the need to respond. Are you trying to discourage me from posting here? Because it won't work. But if you want explanations, I'm happy to give them.

 

[sunmaster14]

sunmaster....

Could you walk us through a Trump presidency that includes 9/11 or the Cuban Missile Crisis?

How would you figure he'd react?

I think he would have responded to 9/11 pretty much the way Bush did. He would probably have cut out some of the garbage about Islam being a religion of peace, however. Honestly, I think that kind of mush is counterproductive.

He would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis much like JFK did. Cut a deal on the side to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets taking them out of Cuba. I think, however, the Soviets wouldn't have dared to put missiles in Cuba in the first place if Trump had been President. JFK's weakness in his first meeting with Khruschev is what brought that crisis about.

I think when push comes to shove, Trump will listen to his advisers and do the responsible thing. He's not a madman. He has an inflated ego, and he has verbal diarrhea, but he is not crazy, nor suicidal.

 

[acbytesla]

First of all, bankruptcy doesn't mean that the creditors don't get paid in full. Often they do. Bankruptcy is a means of preserving value and distributing it fairly. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, in particular, is used to restructure a company and keep it operating. All of Trump's bankruptcies have gone through Chapter 11 and come out on the other side as still functioning businesses. Bankruptcy just provided a mechanism for distributing some or all of the ownership to the creditors through an ordered process with judicial oversight.

There is the ideal of bankruptcy and then there is the truth of bankruptcy. The ideal is to preserve as much value for the creditors as possible. The truth however can be very different. What it empirically means that the corporate executives FAILED and seek relief from their responsibilities. The judge has a varying amount of latitude in how they might handle it although some creditors do get to jump the line.

In Chapter 11, it usually means a reschedule of payments, sometimes it's a dismissal of debt. It's sad how often judges have allowed corporate executives to raid their employees pensions funds using the bankruptcy tactic.

As for Trump's bankruptcies. It would be a lie to say that all of them resulted in a functioning business when they came out of chapter 11. Frequently, they were shells of their former selves and that doesn't mean that Trump's failures didn't leave THOUSANDS of victims in his wake.

 

[NoahFence]

I think he would have responded to 9/11 pretty much the way Bush did. He would probably have cut out some of the garbage about Islam being a religion of peace, however. Honestly, I think that kind of mush is counterproductive.

He would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis much like JFK did. Cut a deal on the side to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets taking them out of Cuba. I think, however, the Soviets wouldn't have dared to put missiles in Cuba in the first place if Trump had been President. JFK's weakness in his first meeting with Khruschev is what brought that crisis about.

I think when push comes to shove, Trump will listen to his advisers and do the responsible thing. He's not a madman. He has an inflated ego, and he has verbal diarrhea, but he is not crazy, nor suicidal.

You realize that every shred of evidence he's provided for the highlighted says the exact opposite?

 

[Crossbow]

You realize that every shred of evidence he's provided for the highlighted says the exact opposite?

He has not made that realization, and I seriously doubt that he ever will make that realization.

 

[pgwenthold]

But that's what he's basing his entire campaign on. WTF??!?!

Do you even listen to yourself???

.

OK, to add to the list of Trump qualities

1) Bankruptcies are good
2) Harvard is as big of a scam as Trump Univeristy
3) Trump's business acumen is irrelevant.

 

[NoahFence]

OK, to add to the list of Trump qualities

1) Bankruptcies are good
2) Harvard is as big of a scam as Trump Univeristy
3) Trump's business acumen is irrelevant.

I think I need a vacation from the politics forums. That's the kind of departure from reality that drives me insane. How can his business acumen be irrelevant when it's his and his supporters ONLY (albeit fake) card? It's the ONLY thing they can point to that differentiates Trump from a lunatic who should be in a funny farm.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think I need a vacation from the politics forums. That's the kind of departure from reality that drives me insane. How can his business acumen be irrelevant when it's his and his supporters ONLY (albeit fake) card? It's the ONLY thing they can point to that differentiates Trump from a lunatic who should be in a funny farm.

Just recently, I commented on how one of the arguments seems to be "Maybe it's time to let a businessman run the country."

I noted that, if you are going to do that, shouldn't you choose a GOOD businessman, and the response was, "We don't have that option, all we have is Trump."

But now the argument seems to be, no, it's not important to have a businessman (good or bad) because running the country is nothing like running a business?

"It's time for a businessman!"
"But he's an awful businessman."
"It doesn't matter, it's not like running a business."

So why do we want a businessman again?

 

[sunmaster14]

Just recently, I commented on how one of the arguments seems to be "Maybe it's time to let a businessman run the country."

I noted that, if you are going to do that, shouldn't you choose a GOOD businessman, and the response was, "We don't have that option, all we have is Trump."

But now the argument seems to be, no, it's not important to have a businessman (good or bad) because running the country is nothing like running a business?

"It's time for a businessman!"
"But he's an awful businessman."
"It doesn't matter, it's not like running a business."

So why do we want a businessman again?

Perhaps this is a new concept for you, but my views only have to be internally consistent. They don't have to be consistent with the views of other people who may support the same goal.

This is a frequent strawman used here by mostly liberals. Conservative A says X, and conservative B says Y, and X is not fully consistent with Y. Some people here conclude that A and B are stupid because their views are logically inconsistent with one another. That means nothing. Not everybody has the same reasons for supporting a candidate, or even ones that don't conflict.

 

[NoahFence]

Perhaps this is a new concept for you, but my views only have to be internally consistent. They don't have to be consistent with the views of other people who may support the same goal.

This is a frequent strawman used here by mostly liberals. Conservative A says X, and conservative B says Y, and X is not fully consistent with Y. Some people here conclude that A and B are stupid because their views are logically inconsistent with one another. That means nothing. Not everybody has the same reasons for supporting a candidate, or even ones that don't conflict.

The core message from Trump and his supporters is that his business sense is what makes him qualified.


Yes or no?

 

[acbytesla]

Running the federal government is not like running a business, so his acumen (or lack of it) as a businessman is not terribly relevant. More important is the ability to make tough decisions and take risks, and then take the heat that follows. A perfect example of this would be Bush's decision to proceed with the Iraq surge in 2007. That was the bravest (and the best) Presidential decision I've ever seen. A perfect example of not doing this is pretty much Obama's whole administration (except the decision to pull the trigger on bin Laden). Would Trump be that kind of President? I don't know. I think Hillary would actually, except within normal parameters. She would play between the 45 yard lines, at least in public. In secrecy, she might be less restrained, although that's not actually a good thing. Trump would be less restrained in public. Which is a good thing I think.

While I agree that running the Federal government is not like running a business, the rest of your post is nonsense. Trump's big selling point is that he's supposed to be a brilliant businessman and when it becomes clear that he's not, he offers little. I also think Bush was reckless in attacking Iraq at all. I'll take cautious over reckless when it means both America's treasure in both our sons and daughters as well as our money.

Trump is a LOSER in so many ways. Let's not let him make America a lose as well.

 

[Bob001]

.....
The bureaucracy is too ossified, and the country is being stifled by too much regulation and too much political correctness. Our society is like a stagnant soup on the fire, and we're becoming a little burned on the bottom. Trump is the best bet to stir the pot, if you will.

What does this even mean? "Too much regulation" has been a right-wing meme for decades. But looked at closely, it usually means "We aren't allowed to [screw] people over as much as we want." Legal regulation is always a response to a failure of self-regulation. Workplace health and safety regs started because workers were dying in factory fires and coal mine collapses. Food and drug safety standards are a response to fake drugs and poisoned food. Auto safety standards go back to Detroit building cars with exploding gas tanks because it was cheaper than a $2 plastic part. Etc.. etc. And that's not even mentioning the financial industry regulations imposed after the Great Depression, which protected us from another one for half-a-century until they were relaxed in the '80s, resulting in the Great Recession. When you complain about "regulations" you need to be precise about which specific regulations and the consequences of abolishing them.

And "politically correct" as Trump uses it means "I can insult, demean and lie about anybody I want, and if you don't like it you're just too sensitive."

Trump wouldn't stir the pot. He would set the house on fire to collect the insurance.

 

[Tero]

This angry white men went quite aways past what libertarians can get suppport for. Not that the Trump voters knew what Trump would do, but he represented them. But it's now peaked. How many confused grannies can Trump add now? What drmographic is there left that he can impress with testosterone?

 

[sunmaster14]

What does this even mean? "Too much regulation" has been a right-wing meme for decades. But looked at closely, it usually means "We aren't allowed to [screw] people over as much as we want." Legal regulation is always a response to a failure of self-regulation.

This isn't the right thread, so I won't say much about it except this. I completely disagree with your characterization of regulation. I think federal regulations are almost always solutions in search of a problem, most regulations are designed by big companies to impede competition from smaller ones, and the whole regulatory scheme has become a self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing parasite sucking on the blood of the economy. Some of them are useful and important, but the vast majority are not.

Workplace health and safety regs started because workers were dying in factory fires and coal mine collapses.

How many workers have died in factory fires or coal mine collapses in the last

Food and drug safety standards are a response to fake drugs and poisoned food. Auto safety standards go back to Detroit building cars with exploding gas tanks because it was cheaper than a $2 plastic part. Etc.. etc. And that's not even mentioning the financial industry regulations imposed after the Great Depression, which protected us from another one for half-a-century until they were relaxed in the '80s, resulting in the Great Recession. When you complain about "regulations" you need to be precise about which specific regulations and the consequences of abolishing them.

Putting aside the fact that you're completely wrong about financial regulation (so much of it is counterproductive and actually increases financial instability), you're going to have a hard time explaining why it could possibly make sense that the volume of regulations has increased by a factor of 18 since 1950. Even if all of that was geared to saving lives, is there never any cost-benefit analysis done? A human life is not worth an unlimited amount.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Putting aside the fact that you're completely wrong about financial regulation (so much of it is counterproductive and actually increases financial instability), you're going to have a hard time explaining why it could possibly make sense that the volume of regulations has increased by a factor of 18 since 1950. Even if all of that was geared to saving lives, is there never any cost-benefit analysis done? A human life is not worth an unlimited amount.

Gee, you think maybe the country has changed a little in 66 years? I would be willing to bet that many of those regulations address issues that literally didn't exist in 1950. Or maybe you'd like to return to the America of 1950?

And you're going to have to explain why you think making it harder for the financial industry to defraud its customers is bad for anybody who isn't getting rich that way.

 

[acbytesla]

This isn't the right thread, so I won't say much about it except this. I completely disagree with your characterization of regulation. I think federal regulations are almost always solutions in search of a problem, most regulations are designed by big companies to impede competition from smaller ones, and the whole regulatory scheme has become a self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing parasite sucking on the blood of the economy. Some of them are useful and important, but the vast majority are not.



Putting aside the fact that you're completely wrong about financial regulation (so much of it is counterproductive and actually increases financial instability), you're going to have a hard time explaining why it could possibly make sense that the volume of regulations has increased by a factor of 18 since 1950. Even if all of that was geared to saving lives, is there never any cost-benefit analysis done? A human life is not worth an unlimited amount.

Total nonsense.
I want us to have all the regulations we need and not one more. But it's never that simple.

My experience is that businesses will push everything to the limit for a buck. There are countless counterfeit drugs on the market right now that are killing people. We found out a couple of years ago that meatpacking plants were mixing horsemeat into the hamburger grind.

I for one am glad that there are regulations on electrical breakers so my house doesn't burn down. Then of course the rules on pollution have certainly cleaned up both the air in Seattle as well as the waterways. As a fishermen, I'm glad that there are catch limits and someone is assuring that my grandchildren will be able to experience the joy of reeling in a steelhead on the Skagit as I have. I'm glad we have regulations for speeding and seat belts airbags and car seats. Go back into the 50s and check out how some interior auto designs killed people in car crashes.

Financial regulations are ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE. As we know where there is a profit to be made, someone will do something reckless. Hell, my biggest problem with Bill Clinton is that he signed both the banking and commodities reform acts in 1999 which among other things opened the door for the financial meltdown in 2008. I want to bring back Glass Steagal.

 

[Biscuit]

I love the stir the pot argument! We need someone to recklessly agitate American society and politics with out regard for the consequences, without a goal, without a vision, and with out a desired outcome. Just shake the whole thing up a see were we are when the pot has settled again. Brilliant.

One of the aspects of America that makes us so successful is we are seen as a reliable partner in the world. We transfer power through a peaceful process and while different political parties have different strategies and different views we always keep our promises, we always pay our debt, and we can be trusted to keep the course in a chaotic world. This makes a highly attractive place to be aligned with. Now a chunk of America wants to put an oligarch into the oval office who will default on our debt, default on our obligations to our allies, and radically change the course of America's foreign and domestic politics because... well we need to stir the pot.

The man has no qualifications. He lacks a moral compass and has no realistic plans to "make america great again." His policies would result in the devaluation of our currency and our credit, violations of the freedom of religion, 1st amendment, and equal protection under the law sections of the constitution, and create trade wars with our most important trading partners.

 

[acbytesla]

I love the stir the pot argument! We need someone to recklessly agitate American society and politics with out regard for the consequences, without a goal, without a vision, and with out a desired outcome. Just shake the whole thing up a see were we are when the pot has settled again. Brilliant.

One of the aspects of America that makes us so successful is we are seen as a reliable partner in the world. We transfer power through a peaceful process and while different political parties have different strategies and different views we always keep our promises, we always pay our debt, and we can be trusted to keep the course in a chaotic world. This makes a highly attractive place to be aligned with. Now a chunk of America wants to put an oligarch into the oval office who will default on our debt, default on our obligations to our allies, and radically change the course of America's foreign and domestic politics because... well we need to stir the pot.

The man has no qualifications. He lacks a moral compass and has no realistic plans to "make america great again." His policies would result in the devaluation of our currency and our credit, violations of the freedom of religion, 1st amendment, and equal protection under the law sections of the constitution, and create trade wars with our most important trading partners.

You nailed it. It's like people forget just how bad it could be. It's like they forgot the foreclosures, the wars and the other issues.

Having the US default on its loans may just be the worst idea on the planet next to using nuclear weapons haphazardly. Both of which Trump has suggested.

I'm a Democrat and haven't been a fan of the last 5 Republican presidents, but never was I genuinely afraid of them being elected. I'm genuinely afraid of Trump being elected.

 

[dudalb]

Back to the election. Recent polls tracking intention to vote show Trump perilously close to Clinton, even leading in national terms; however, not state-by-state yielding key electoral votes. Not yet, anyway.

I can hardly believe there are so many [censored], completely [censored], [censored] in the US. But, then, there are the polls for you. [Censored.] Back to medieval mindsets we go, knuckles a-drag. Damn, more [censored]; seems I'm a tad upset.

I suggest you go to Nate Silver for some anlyisis of poll information.
Clinton has a overall 4 to 5 percent lead overall,that is normal for a leader post labor day.
You do seem to be upset;maybe you should calm down and get more information before going on a rant.
And you do seem not to like Americans overall anyway....