CDZ Trump,"You've bailed me out 4 times, some years I pay no taxes, I need to lower taxes on the rich"?"

Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to.

Well, as Trump said during the debate, there is good experience and bad experience. I have observed that politicians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected.

As far as "try before you buy" goes, we already know what Hillary's election would portend: Massive corruption at the highest levels of government, plus the very real threat of blackmail by foreign adversaries. Trump, on the other hand, has been a very successful chief executive of a huge commercial enterprise.

This contrast begs the question of what qualities makes effective Presidents (e.g., Reagan and Clinton), as opposed to ineffective Presidents (e.g., Carter and Bush Sr.) Isn't it clear that outlining broad policy objectives and giving subordinates the authority to carry them out is better than obsession with policy details and secrecy?

Has the universe accepted this premise as to who was and who was not effective, and who exactly amongst the population were they effective and/or ineffective for? Certainly not all of society, so who matters? Who decides? Carter was clearly the closest to a man of God we’ve had in a nation obsessed with religion. And yet, the “liberal” media has demonized him.

Fenton Lum, did you miss the hilarity of the post to which you replied or were you just being "kind" in not addressing it. The remark to which I'm referring is this: "[P]oliticians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected."

Let's look at that:

Sentences broken down:
  • Some politicians make bad decisions.
  • Those who do will continue to do so.
  • They do so because making bad decisions gets them re-elected.
Logical thoughts/inferences to draw from them:
  • As incumbents of both parties tend to get re-elected rather than ousted, it stands to reason that those politicians' voters -- no matter their party preference -- can't tell a good idea from a bad one.
  • Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what ideas are good or bad.
  • Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what politicians have or promote good or bad ideas.
So what does that mean for those sentences? They express thoroughly inconclusive ideas that lead literally to nothing of merit; thus they are pointless.

To me it says the problem is not the politicians, but the american public. It's just easier to blame the politicians for engaging in the behaviors the public rewards.
 
Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to.

Well, as Trump said during the debate, there is good experience and bad experience. I have observed that politicians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected.

As far as "try before you buy" goes, we already know what Hillary's election would portend: Massive corruption at the highest levels of government, plus the very real threat of blackmail by foreign adversaries. Trump, on the other hand, has been a very successful chief executive of a huge commercial enterprise.

This contrast begs the question of what qualities makes effective Presidents (e.g., Reagan and Clinton), as opposed to ineffective Presidents (e.g., Carter and Bush Sr.) Isn't it clear that outlining broad policy objectives and giving subordinates the authority to carry them out is better than obsession with policy details and secrecy?

Has the universe accepted this premise as to who was and who was not effective, and who exactly amongst the population were they effective and/or ineffective for? Certainly not all of society, so who matters? Who decides? Carter was clearly the closest to a man of God we’ve had in a nation obsessed with religion. And yet, the “liberal” media has demonized him.

Fenton Lum, did you miss the hilarity of the post to which you replied or were you just being "kind" in not addressing it. The remark to which I'm referring is this: "[P]oliticians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected."

Let's look at that:

Sentences broken down:
  • Some politicians make bad decisions.
  • Those who do will continue to do so.
  • They do so because making bad decisions gets them re-elected.
Logical thoughts/inferences to draw from them:
  • As incumbents of both parties tend to get re-elected rather than ousted, it stands to reason that those politicians' voters -- no matter their party preference -- can't tell a good idea from a bad one.
  • Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what ideas are good or bad.
  • Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what politicians have or promote good or bad ideas.
So what does that mean for those sentences? They express thoroughly inconclusive ideas that lead literally to nothing of merit; thus they are pointless.

To me it says the problem is not the politicians, but the american public. It's just easier to blame the politicians for engaging in the behaviors the public rewards.

Red:
Yes. That's what it tacitly says.

Blue:
Okay, but we need solutions not blame and people to blame. Blaming politicians certainly doesn't lead to a solution to the "problem" that resides in the electorate rather than the elected. Blame is useful for prosecutions, but it's useless for developing policy solutions.
 
Trump has been bankrupt. Four times by his own word. Doesn't that mean he needed big government you and me to bail him out?

You wouldn't call the folks who rode GM into the success of new GM on our backs successful would you?

Is there some thread of logic in there?

Consider this:

1. For someone who has initiated hundreds of new enterprises, only four bankruptcies is an amazing success rate.

2. Corporations are limited liability companies formed for the purpose of accumulating capital for projects which, otherwise, might not be undertaken. Bankruptcy is not a bailout, it is simply a process for distributing assets among creditors in the event of project failure.

3. The folks that rode GM's NONbankruptcy "on our backs" were the UAW, who profited from the government's enforced deal while legitimate creditors were stiffed.

Would you like to try again?
 
By the way, forgot to fact correct the OP.

I don't know if he was bailed out 4 times, but he filed for bankrupty six times. He was definitely bailed out by the government on one occasion, as well as having his businesses subsidized.
 
To me it says the problem is not the politicians, but the american public. It's just easier to blame the politicians for engaging in the behaviors the public rewards.

You cannot reason with brainwashed tools, but you can target the machine that is churning them out.
 
Trump has been bankrupt. Four times by his own word. Doesn't that mean he needed big government you and me to bail him out?

You wouldn't call the folks who rode GM into the success of new GM on our backs successful would you?

Is there some thread of logic in there?

Consider this:

1. For someone who has initiated hundreds of new enterprises, only four bankruptcies is an amazing success rate.

2. Corporations are limited liability companies formed for the purpose of accumulating capital for projects which, otherwise, might not be undertaken. Bankruptcy is not a bailout, it is simply a process for distributing assets among creditors in the event of project failure.

3. The folks that rode GM's NONbankruptcy "on our backs" were the UAW, who profited from the government's enforced deal while legitimate creditors were stiffed.

Would you like to try again?

We don't always disagree and I'll give you #1 on a comparative rate. Still he failed and used you and me to save the rest of his dollars from his losses.

Far as # 2, I feel you are wrong even if you had a cute phrase to end your reply. Bankruptcy is bankruptcy. It is using big government to keep you out of debtors prison.

Is it a necessary evil? Yes and to be honest I didn't say I'd get rid of corporate bankruptcy.

Still though, it is what it is. Trump has used us four times by his own words to bail him out. I have used him zero times.
 
"Bailout" seems to be the new word of the day. Used to be "Queen of Diamonds."
 
I'll give Donald credit for somehow convincing millions of people that multiple bankruptcies and a billion-dollar loss in one year is proof positive he has business acumen.
 
I'll give Donald credit for somehow convincing millions of people that multiple bankruptcies and a billion-dollar loss in one year is proof positive he has business acumen.

With $10 billion in assets? How else would you measure business acumen? Selling influence to political donors?
 
I'll give Donald credit for somehow convincing millions of people that multiple bankruptcies and a billion-dollar loss in one year is proof positive he has business acumen.

With $10 billion in assets? How else would you measure business acumen? Selling influence to political donors?

Uh, not with bankruptcies and huge losses. How about creating a business from scratch and building it into an empire? Examples include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet.

Trump is not known for being a good businessman, even among his friends. His one and only strength is showmanship.
 
I have mixed feelings on Trump as a businessman.

How about:
Donald's type of business is good for Donald. He is better off than even I am :) but he has done it in a way which I would call more luck or showmanship and investing than business.
 
I have mixed feelings on Trump as a businessman.

How about:
Donald's type of business is good for Donald. He is better off than even I am :) but he has done it in a way which I would call more luck or showmanship and investing than business.

Luck, as in, inherit $200 million from his dad. Yeah, you could call that luck. You could call it absolutely nothing else, actually.
 

Forum List

Back
Top