• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Trump Presidency

Status
Not open for further replies.
newyorkguy said:
As quoted in the OP on the eve of Trump's inauguration:


In reality the plan will cause upwards of twenty million Americans to lose their healthcare insurance. Here's what I don't get.

Trump poses as a successful businessman yet he commits to something without knowing he can deliver on it. Successful businessmen don't normally do that. Case in point:

In New York a local enterprise zone (funded by the state) made some infrastructure investments to enhance the viability of a industrial park. Local interests wanted one of the companies (a big one) to agree to set a hiring target for local residents when the business started to grow as a result of the publicly funded improvements (new access roads, upgraded utilities etc). The big company said it could not make that kind of commitment. Why?

A state official urged them to make a public commitment, saying the lack of one was becoming a political issue. The company CEO said, "Obviously I understand the pressure you're under. But I can't commit this company to a goal unless I'm reasonably certain we can fulfill it. And I'm not reasonably certain."

The state official said, "Make a commitment now. Later, if you can't fulfill it, just say, 'Sorry the situation has changed.'"

The CEO said, "We don't do that. Our reputation is, in many ways, all we have. We have to protect it."

Why then has Trump continued to insist his healthcare plan will be better, cover everybody and at lower cost? When the reality is, it won't cover everyone, it's not better (unless you consider increased mortality to be better) and for many people it will be more expensive, prohibitively expensive.

I get the idea of electing a successful businessman to be president. I don't really agree with it but I understand the logic. But they elected the wrong guy! ;)
Click to expand...


Did the project come in on budget?
 
The Don said:
I know... Trump, Dubya and to a certain extent even the sainted Ronnie were all people who were not noted for their intellectual ability. Indeed George W Bush and Ronald Reagan were regularly satirised here in the UK for their lack of intellectual capability. Looking at the elections since 1980....

Successful GOP candidates didn't need to be smart, they just needed to have something about them. Unsuccessful GOP candidates (Bush senior, Dole, McCain, Romney) seemed to be smart.

Successful Democratic candidates need to be charismatic but being smart is not a disqualifying characteristic. Unsuccessful candidates (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Hillary) may be smart but they're a bit boring or unengaging.
Click to expand...

The something about them was smart and competent people. Trump has placed about himself more blundering ignoramuses.
 
Sideroxylon said:
The something about them was smart and competent people. Trump has placed about himself more blundering ignoramuses.
Click to expand...


Yes. One doesn't need to be very clever, just clever enough to not believe one's own hype, to understand what one cannot do and to employ clever people to do that for one.

Given that Trump appears to have utterly fallen for his own hype, he's not going to ever accept that he might need some help.
 
3point14 said:
Yes. One doesn't need to be very clever, just clever enough to not believe one's own hype, to understand what one cannot do and to employ clever people to do that for one.

Given that Trump appears to have utterly fallen for his own hype, he's not going to ever accept that he might need some help.
Click to expand...

When you're the self-acknowledged expert on everything why would one need help?
 
Stacko said:
Regnad Kcin addressed the obvious formatting issues with the fake cover:



This is a guy that has a plaque at one of his courses commemorating a civil war battle that never happened. He also stole and modified his 'family crest'. This fits with his well established behavior of being a liar and a fraud.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything I said suggests he isn't a liar or fraud.

I'm just suggesting that perhaps the cover was originally created for other reasons and perhaps by the Apprentice folk (production company, network or something).

ETA: Ah, re-reading your post, I wonder if you read "in-house" as "Time Magazine". I didn't mean that Time originally created the cover for any purpose at all.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
ETA: Ah, re-reading your post, I wonder if you read "in-house" as "Time Magazine". I didn't mean that Time originally created the cover for any purpose at all.
Click to expand...

I did.

I still think it's more likely that he had it faked for himself given his long history of having fake and self aggrandizing things made for himself. Of course that that exclude the Apprentice folk from making it knowing how to stroke his ego.
 
Here's a good piece on why calling Trump a toddler is inaccurate and insulting to toddlers.

My 2-year-old son misbehaves all the time. The reason is simple: He’s a toddler.

He stuck his foot in a serving bowl at dinner Tuesday night. He screams in inappropriate situations. He’s terrified of vacuum cleaners. He thinks it’s funny to throw rocks at birds. He has poor impulse control and limited understanding of the consequences of his actions.

But he’s also, fundamentally, a good kid. If you tell him no, he’ll usually listen. If you remind him of the rules, he’ll acknowledge them and obey. He shows remorse when his misdeeds are pointed out to him, and if you walk him through a cause-and-effect chain he’ll alter his behavior. Like all little kids, he needs discipline, and he’s got a lot to learn. But he is learning, and he has some notion of consequences and right and wrong.

Trump is not like that — at all.

Perhaps the most telling anecdote about Trump comes from 1990, when, having leveraged his dad’s money into a couple of Manhattan real estate projects, he went about building a debt-financed casino that he could never properly manage. By December, it looked like he was going to have to default on an interest payment on the loans he’d used to finance the Trump Taj Mahal. As Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher detailed for the Washington Post’s book Trump Revealed, he got out of trouble thanks to a shady under-the-table loan from his father, who dispatched a family attorney to New Jersey:

Trump used this $3.5 million loan from his dad to make the interest payment and avoid losing the casino. But why didn’t Fred just loan Donald the money straightforwardly? Well, New Jersey regulators prohibited casino owners from receiving loans from non-approved entities. Hence the shady deal. But as Mother Jones reported last October, there was nothing legit about this solution:

This is not the worst thing Trump has done in his life. But it is entirely emblematic of America’s post-Reagan treatment of business regulation. What a wealthy and powerful person faced with a legal impediment to moneymaking is supposed to do is work with a lawyer to devise clever means of subverting the purpose of the law. If you end up getting caught, the attempted subversion will be construed as a mitigating (it’s a gray area!) rather than aggravating factor. Your punishment will probably be light and will certainly not involve anything more than money. You already have plenty of money, and your plan is to get even more. So why not?
Click to expand...
 
Looking at his twitter feed I see him referencing sugar deal with Mexico. A subject I know nothing about. Anyone want to clue me in as to whether this is a good thing?
 
Civet said:
Looking at his twitter feed I see him referencing sugar deal with Mexico. A subject I know nothing about. Anyone want to clue me in as to whether this is a good thing?
Click to expand...

It's being supported by the American Sugar Alliance so presumably it's a new tariff to drive sugar prices up.

The U.S. sugar industry earlier this month announced support for a tweaked trade deal with Mexico after initially opposing the long-awaited agreement.

The American Sugar Alliance, which represents sugar farmers and producers, told the Commerce Department that it will back the “tightened” deal aimed at bringing Mexico’s sugar industry into compliance with U.S. law.

"We've had productive conversations with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross over the past week, and we recognize that he is 100 percent dedicated to ending the job loss and injury caused by Mexico's predatory trade practices," said Phillip Hayes, a spokesman for the trade group, in a statement.*
Click to expand...

US sugar deals have been bad for the domestic consumer for ages.
 
Stacko said:
It's being supported by the American Sugar Alliance so presumably it's a new tariff to drive sugar prices up.



US sugar deals have been bad for the domestic consumer for ages.
Click to expand...

Yes they have been bad, but the effect is barely noticeable to the average consumer so big sugar will continue to get away with it. The domestic consumer doesn't really worry about whether they pay 60 cents a pound or 75 cents a pound. It doesn't even register whether the 5 lb bag is $3.00 or $3.75.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom