47 replies to this topic

[Shokkou]

Trump isn't stupid just like Bush II wasn't stupid.
It's all smoke and mirrors.

I'm inclined to believe this. If you listened to what he said in Scotland that everyone was so riled up over, he was actually very mild mannered and reasonable in contrast to what we often see of him during rallies here in the US. He knows how to present himself in different settings without compromising on what he believes in - assuming he believes in the things he says.

 

 

 

Clinton is a bad politician as evidenced by the fact that she keeps getting caught in all manner of lies, some of which are completely idiotic lies for her to have even tried to make in the first place. Now if we're approaching this from a purely pragmatic rather than ethical standpoint she's still a bad politician. If not because she lies all the time even when there's no apparent benefit to doing so then because she keeps getting caught.

 
She can still make good deals, she just can't hide those deals for shit.
 
Trump makes bad deals.

All she's accomplished in her career is to let some embassy staff get killed, hand tons of classified data over to the Chinese, and quite possibly intimidate her husband's rape accusers into silence - at least one of which has withstood scrutiny in a way that other prominent false claims like UVA could not. As much as you might want this to be about her "deals" being discovered, this is in fact simply about her own self-interested lies that she keeps getting caught in... because she's a bad politician (and an absolutely abhorrent person). On the matter of Trump, the man's never been a legislator or an executive in Washington so whatever bad political deals you'd like to insinuate he's made are nothing more than a load of fever dream malarkey.

 

No he makes bad business deals.

By all means try to sweep my comments on Hillary under the rug and proceed to make vague claims about Trump that you then provide no backing for. Top stuff, Redezra.

[Redezra]

Nah fair enough Shokkou... oh wait

 

http://www.rollingst...ilures-20160314

 

Oh shit what

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...otlight-n531906

 

No way

 

http://fortune.com/2...os-pay-failure/

 

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.2526913

 

http://finance.yahoo...-204923129.html

 

 

But seriously though, "Hey so I'm a shitty liar that can't hide their less than good dealings for shit, vote for me cause I'm good at being in charge" is waaaaaaaaaaay better than "I'm a fantastic liar but I have literally no idea what the fuck I'm doing when in charge, vote for me cause I'm good at being in charge"

[KiWi]

If you don't want to present an argument because it's too obvious that Trump is a shit, that's your prerogative, but posting yahoo news articles, that list the same 13 failed businesses as that rolling stones article, is not making the argument for Trump being a base businessman.

Should we count off the number of lies, or failed bills Hillary has backed, and then post 4 republican circle jerk sites talking about the same Benghazi shit?

Or to directly address the case you did present, a failing business does not mean the person who ran the company failed. It's a simple tenant of entrepreneurship that failure is part of the process. Trump didn't fail 12 times (or 13 times if we go with Rolling Stones instead of Yahoo news), but learned 13 ways not to start a business! He's very much like Edison in that way. Who was a very successful businessman (and scientist!).

If he profited; has money from selling products that were bought, then he a successful businessman. If you want to discuss how well he did, or the morals & means to which he accomplished the simple goal of profit (i.e. the goal of business) then I'm sure we'd be willing to hear such an argument.

[Redezra]

Yeah no, good businessmen don't sink functional companies. Failure is part of the whole doing stuff spirit, but the idea is you learn how not to fail. Trump's recent history tends to suggest he has not learnt this, and instead operates by force of money.

 

I mean sure, disagree with me if you want, but that's basically why I don't see him as a viable (or rather, sane, I'm pretty sure people are going to make him president anyway) presidential candidate. I don't care if people are shifty, as long as they can play well in international politics.

[Shokkou]

I don't know. Profiting off a "failure" seems like someone who knows what they're doing.

[King Biscuit]

I don't know. Profiting off a "failure" seems like someone who knows what they're doing.

See 2012 GOP Candidate Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital for deets.

[Shokkou]

I don't know. Profiting off a "failure" seems like someone who knows what they're doing.

See 2012 GOP Candidate Mitt Romney's record at Bain Capital for deets.

This doesn't really address my point that if Trump is able to dig a win out of a loss that seems like a much more valuable skill than Clinton who keeps finding ways to fumble her positives into negatives. To see this, we need look no further than her decision to push her "woman president" schtick to the point where the balance shifted from it being tenuously defensible as a position of equality into full-blown and inarguable entitlement. I keep hearing in this thread that Clinton is good at being in charge without anything to show for it, without anything being said to defend her from the failures being brought up against her, and with plenty of evidence to suggest that she is not. It's almost as if all this bluster about Clinton being a good leader is just that. Bluster that's been allowed to build over her political career in spite of her every failing no matter how obvious they were. Well her struggle now to defeat a candidate like Trump seems to paint a picture of someone who's reached the height of their career. She's burned up all her political capital and spent any goodwill she may have had left to make this grand push to the White House and I think we all know she won't make it. In 40 years when I'm retired and doing whatever it is I decide to do, I expect few people will remember the name Hillary Clinton. Because she was worthless, ineffectual, and a failed politician.

[Redezra]

Let me reiterate: Clinton is not a good solution. She's just better than Trump.

 

I don't think pulling a loss out of a win is neccisarily the sort of skill you want as your head of state. Tact, respectfulness, acceptance, subtlety, diplomatic skill is what you want. Trump doesn't have any of that. Examples include basically any time he opens his mouth.