Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Donald Trump for President Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
THAT, leader of the western world OMG. If three states vote against him will that be three no TRUMPS!!!!!!!!!!! Make it law now,
 
3o85xASgGCAvQpMkGQ.gif
 
The guy who writes this supports Spurs, but it's still very interesting (and Cillizza is very smart)

Why no one should take Donald Trump seriously, in one very simple chart

There's a tendency when someone like Donald Trump announces that he is running for president to view -- and analyze -- him through the same lens that we do for the other men and women actively seeking the presidency. What's his policy vision? Who's in his political inner circle? What would a Trump presidency look like?

Asking any of these questions gives Trump a benefit of the doubt that he simply doesn't deserve: That a path exists for him to be president.

It doesn't. Not even close.

Here's all you need to know about Trump's seriousness as a candidate, in 1 simple chart:

imrs.php


Among Republicans -- you know, the people who decide the identity of their party's presidential nominee -- Trump has a net negative 42 rating. As in 23 percent of Republicans had a favorable view of Trump while 65 percent(!) had an unfavorable one. Want even more? Compare the number of Republicans who feel strongly favorable to Trump (11 percent) to those who feel strongly unfavorable (43 percent). No one in the field is anywhere close to those numbers; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the only candidate other than Trump to have higher unfavorable than favorable ratings among his own party.

And it's not even (or only) his brutal image problems that doom Trump. Just one in ten Republicans (11 percent) have no opinion of him. So, Trump is both extremely well known and extremely disliked by the members of the party he is running to represent.

You cannot and do not win anything when your numbers look like Trump's. I can't say it any more clearly than that. There's nothing you can say or do -- not that Trump would ever even consider going on an image rehabilitation tour -- to change how people feel about you. Republicans know Trump. And they really, really don't like him.

Trump, of course, knows this. His goal is attention, not winning. And in truth, even that would be fine if Trump had an issue (or issues) that he cared about and wanted to draw attention to via his presidential bid. He doesn't. He just says stuff. Lots and lots of stuff. And it's not clear that he's spent more than the five seconds before he speaks thinking about what he's going to say.

Trump has every right to run. This is a democracy after all. But what he should not get is covered as though this is an even-close-to-serious attempt to either win the Republican nomination or influence the conversation in GOP circles in any significant way. It's not.
Click to expand...
 

There is a misguided tradition in the USA that "more money" = "highly qualified." It's resides particularly among wealthy billionaires who, because they have run a business (usually in a very Draconian fashion) think they can run a country. We had Ross Perot in the early 90s, then later that idiot/philanderer Herman Cain (who's claim to fame was bringing a mediocre pizza chain out of bankruptcy), and now Trump, one of the most dangerously incompetent ego-maniacs around. Sad.
 
verreauxi said:
There is a misguided tradition in the USA that "more money" = "highly qualified." It's resides particularly among wealthy billionaires who, because they have run a business (usually in a very Draconian fashion) think they can run a country. We had Ross Perot in the early 90s, then later that idiot/philanderer Herman Cain (who's claim to fame was bringing a mediocre pizza chain out of bankruptcy), and now Trump, one of the most dangerously incompetent ego-maniacs around. Sad.
Click to expand...

Yea but wouldn't it be funny?

Well up until the world is vaporised by nuclear war.
 
verreauxi said:
There is a misguided tradition in the USA that "more money" = "highly qualified." It's resides particularly among wealthy billionaires who, because they have run a business (usually in a very Draconian fashion) think they can run a country. We had Ross Perot in the early 90s, then later that idiot/philanderer Herman Cain
(who's claim to fame was
bringing a mediocre pizza chain out of bankruptcy), and now Trump, one of the most
dangerously incompetent ego-maniacs around. Sad.
Click to expand...
See what you are saying but it's not like any of them became President and neither will Trump. Trying to think of a President who transitioned straight from the business world. Maybe Hoover?
 

wm02 said:
See what you are saying but it's not like any of them became President and neither will Trump. Trying to think of a President who transitioned straight from the business world. Maybe Hoover?
Click to expand...

Had to look this up--seems like Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce and head of US Food Administration before receiving the Presidential nomination. No prior elected service, but much more political experience than the three previously mentioned.
 
SerenityNigh said:
Had to look this up--seems like Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce and head of US Food Administration before receiving the Presidential nomination. No prior elected service, but much more political experience than the three previously mentioned.
Click to expand...
Ah, forgot he was in the Cabinet. Knew more of his mining business experience. Still amazing his first elected position was as president. Like a bald President, probably something we won't see in our lifetimes.
Damn politicians and their magnificent hair
 
SerenityNigh said:
Had to look this up--seems like Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce and head of US Food Administration before receiving the Presidential nomination. No prior elected service, but much more political experience than the three previously mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yes, in a previous life, I taught US History. It went with the band gig.

His Wiki is very concise and explanatory. Quite a remarkable man, who was forever blamed for the economic collapse that happened on his watch. Those of us who are free-market types note his faith in top-down solutions for economic problems, and the historical result of their application in both his and the ensuing administration. When we had a terrible depression in 1920, Harding allowed the market to take its course and the problem worked itself out in about eighteen months, creating the boom economy that the US experienced until 1929. I've seen "experts" at work, and my skepticism knows no bounds. The problem is prescribing solutions with insufficient information for an efficient market to operate and really meet the needs of individual citizens. People need to read some Mises and Hayek.

Hoover was a professional mining engineer and was raised as a Quaker. A Republican, Hoover served as head of the U.S. Food Administration during World War I, and became internationally known for humanitarian relief efforts in war-time Belgium.[1] As the United States Secretary of Commerce in the 1920s under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, he promoted partnerships between government and business under the rubric "economic modernization". In the presidential election of 1928, Hoover easily won theRepublican nomination, despite having no elected-office experience. Hoover is the most recent cabinet secretary to be elected President of the United States, as well as one of only two Presidents (along with William Howard Taft) elected without electoral experience or high military rank.

Hoover, a globally experienced engineer, believed strongly in the Efficiency Movement, which held that the government and the economy were riddled with inefficiency and waste, and could be improved by experts who could identify the problems and solve them. He also believed in the importance of volunteerism and of the role of individuals in society and the economy. Hoover, who had made a small fortune in mining, was the first of two Presidents to redistribute his salary (President Kennedy was the other; he donated all his paychecks to charity).[2] When the Wall Street Crash of 1929 struck less than eight months after he took office, Hoover tried to combat the ensuing Great Depression with moderate government public works projects such as the Hoover Dam. The record tariffs imbedded in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and aggressive increases in the top tax bracket from 25% to 63%, coupled with increases in corporate taxes,[3] yielded a "balanced budget" in 1933, but the economy plummeted simultaneously and unemployment rates rose to afflict one in four American workers. This downward spiral set the stage for Hoover's defeat in 1932 by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who promised a New Deal. After Roosevelt assumed the Presidency in 1933, Hoover became a spokesman for opposition to the domestic and foreign policies of the New Deal. In 1947, President Harry S. Truman appointed Hoover to head the Hoover Commission, intended to foster greater efficiency throughout the federal bureaucracy. Most historians agree that Hoover's defeat in the 1932 election was caused primarily by the downward economic spiral, although his strong support for prohibition was also significant.
Click to expand...
 
mezzrow said:
Yes, in a previous life, I taught US History. It went with the band gig.

His Wiki is very concise and explanatory. Quite a remarkable man, who was forever blamed for the economic collapse that happened on his watch. Those of us who are free-market types note his faith in top-down solutions for economic problems, and the historical result of their application in both his and the ensuing administration. When we had a terrible depression in 1920, Harding allowed the market to take its course and the problem worked itself out in about eighteen months, creating the boom economy that the US experienced until 1929. I've seen "experts" at work, and my skepticism knows no bounds. The problem is prescribing solutions with insufficient information for an efficient market to operate and really meet the needs of individual citizens. People need to read some Mises and Hayek.
Click to expand...
Austrian school, no?
They suggest that Hoover meddled too much in the economy, right?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top