in light of all the stuff this guy put out there (and he put a lot)
i'm thinking if that didn't sway people i doubt his tax returns would have made difference (esp with his supporters)
of course i could be wrong
You probably have a point. To make a difference would require those who voted for him to care about things beyond his 4th grade school yard bully routine. *shrug*
The reason his tax returns are a big deal is because of his refusal to release them. He was born into wealth, he didn't go from rags to riches; and his riches are probably greatly exaggerated.
in light of all the stuff this guy put out there (and he put a lot)
i'm thinking if that didn't sway people i doubt his tax returns would have made difference (esp with his supporters)
however a father helping his son (i help mine) and tax returns (as long as they're ok with the irs) shouldn't really have any bearing on who you are
money leaves a trail and i'm sure if there were something to it we'd know by now (or i'd like to think we would know by now)
in today's environment laundering money isn't that easy (there are gov lists for suspects)
my primary concern with trump and clinton is warmongering
peace
The reason his tax returns are a big deal is because of his refusal to release them. He was born into wealth, he didn't go from rags to riches; and his riches are probably greatly exaggerated.
I would argue that he hasn't been all that successful. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and daddy helped him out - a lot. Also, why will he STILL not release his tax returns - the ONLY presidential candidate anyone can remember who hasn't? Perhaps because in addition to revealing extensive financial ties to Russia, they'll also point out that he's not worth anywhere near what he claims to be worth.
i was referring to his appointees
however a father helping his son (i help mine) and tax returns (as long as they're ok with the irs) shouldn't really have any bearing on who you are
money leaves a trail and i'm sure if there were something to it we'd know by now (or i'd like to think we would know by now)
in today's environment laundering money isn't that easy (there are gov lists for suspects)
my primary concern with trump and clinton is warmongering
More like this: still preferring the competent, experienced, trained and intelligent woman over the incessantly lying, narcissistic, reality-denying, mentally ill f*cktard.
I used to ask what it would take for Dubya's supporters to shed the scales from their eyes. I'm not going to bore you with a recount of Bush's screwups and failures.
I ask the same question now about Trump. It won't take nearly as many disasters for Trump's supporters to lose faith, I suspect, but Trump stands an excellent chance of committing far more disasters and being a far worse President than Dubya.
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I'm glad someone finally pointed this out. But, given a totally clean slate, you think the House would take Trump? Out of anyone they could name? I think they'd take Ryan.
I think the GOP would erupt into open combat (yes, literally) if the House of Reps elected someone besides Trump. It would be political suicide for the individual politicians and for the GOP if Ryan or someone else got elected. You cannot completely ignore the popular will of your base.
I would argue that he hasn't been all that successful. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and daddy helped him out - a lot. Also, why will he STILL not release his tax returns - the ONLY presidential candidate anyone can remember who hasn't? Perhaps because in addition to revealing extensive financial ties to Russia, they'll also point out that he's not worth anywhere near what he claims to be worth.
Over the long haul, the only thing he has been confirmed as succeeding at, it seems, is being a reality TV show star.
So he can lay claim to have shared the rarified air breathed by Mama June Shannon and Josh Duggar. Pretty elite company.
i'm not necessarily paranoid about successful people
and i don't know a lot about some of these picks
i'll stick with the default (cronyism?)
i'd like to see someone that understands tools
I would argue that he hasn't been all that successful. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and daddy helped him out - a lot. Also, why will he STILL not release his tax returns - the ONLY presidential candidate anyone can remember who hasn't? Perhaps because in addition to revealing extensive financial ties to Russia, they'll also point out that he's not worth anywhere near what he claims to be worth.
Given his selection of appointees so far, what do you think is the likely outcome?
To me it looks like textbook crony capitalism - rewarding the faithful and using power to ensure loyalty (isn't this exactly what his supporters said he wouldn't do?). More billionaires than any other cabinet - not that billionaires are necessarily bad people, but they don't have a perspective on 'regular' life.
i'm not necessarily paranoid about successful people
I have been trying to figure out the Tillerson selection — from my guess as to Trump 's perspective, and giving a heaping portion of benefit of the doubt. Here is what I have come up with: throughout his campaign, and now in these days of being President-elect, Trump has consistently expressed his desire for improving relations with Russia. Conspicuously, he has not done the same in regards to China. With China, it has been more threats and warnings about there being a new sheriff in town. Trump sees Russia as a more natural ally, one that we can do "business" with. He has done lots of business with Russian interests. He believes that a business approach is one the Russians understand, and that can be used to reason with them on all issues. plus, the Russians need their ties to the American economy and Americam businesses. the wealth of Putin and his cronies is tied up in this system. Witness the contracts Russia has with Exxon Mobil for Arctic oil exploration, currently dormant because of sanctions imposed due to Crimea and Ukraine. In sum, Trump believes he can deal successfully with Russia in a businessman to businessman level, which probably is how he views everything. The same is not as true with China. The ideology is a stronger driver there and the trade imbalance provides China with more flexibility to withstand pressure exerted by the U.S. So, that brings us to Tillerson, the surprise choice for Secretary of State who came out of nowhere in the last week or so to get the nod. What are his credentials for this job? His main credential appears to be that as head of Excon Mobil he has had extensive business relations in Rusdia, has brokered major deals there, and has a rather longstanding business relationship with Putin himself. The Russians like him and know they can do business with him. If Trump's view is to cultivate Russia as an ally, one that can be counted on as leverage against China, this may appear to make sense. Of course, what I have painted here is way too simple of a foreign policy picture. Still, one might be able to discern the emerging poles of Trump's foreign policy tent. An awful lot riding on a new relationship with Russia — and conducting foreign policy and seeing the world through a businessman's prism. Right now, with the scant information I have read about Tillerson, it is the only way I can make sense of his selection, nothing against him as an individual, it is just that I see little evidence of his having been steeped much in the intracacies of the Byzantine world of foreign policy. What Trump sees as his main qualification — his relationship with Putin and other top Russians - is what makes others (McCain, Graham, Rubio) nervous. If nothing else, it is an unorthodox pick.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 14, 2016 - 9:33am
I have been trying to figure out the Tillerson selection — from my guess as to Trump 's perspective, and giving a heaping portion of benefit of the doubt. Here is what I have come up with: throughout his campaign, and now in these days of being President-elect, Trump has consistently expressed his desire for improving relations with Russia. Conspicuously, he has not done the same in regards to China. With China, it has been more threats and warnings about there being a new sheriff in town. Trump sees Russia as a more natural ally, one that we can do "business" with. He has done lots of business with Russian interests. He believes that a business approach is one the Russians understand, and that can be used to reason with them on all issues. plus, the Russians need their ties to the American economy and Americam businesses. the wealth of Putin and his cronies is tied up in this system. Witness the contracts Russia has with Exxon Mobil for Arctic oil exploration, currently dormant because of sanctions imposed due to Crimea and Ukraine. In sum, Trump believes he can deal successfully with Russia in a businessman to businessman level, which probably is how he views everything. The same is not as true with China. The ideology is a stronger driver there and the trade imbalance provides China with more flexibility to withstand pressure exerted by the U.S. So, that brings us to Tillerson, the surprise choice for Secretary of State who came out of nowhere in the last week or so to get the nod. What are his credentials for this job? His main credential appears to be that as head of Excon Mobil he has had extensive business relations in Russia, has brokered major deals there, and has a rather longstanding business relationship with Putin himself. The Russians like him and know they can do business with him. If Trump's view is to cultivate Russia as an ally, one that can be counted on as leverage against China, this may appear to make sense. Of course, what I have painted here is way too simple of a foreign policy picture. Still, one might be able to discern the emerging poles of Trump's foreign policy tent. An awful lot riding on a new relationship with Russia — and conducting foreign policy and seeing the world through a businessman's prism. Right now, with the scant information I have read about Tillerson, it is the only way I can make sense of his selection, nothing against him as an individual, it is just that I see little evidence of his having been steeped much in the intricacies of the Byzantine world of foreign policy. What Trump sees as his main qualification — his relationship with Putin and other top Russians - is what makes others (McCain, Graham, Rubio) nervous. If nothing else, it is an unorthodox pick.
and regardless of political beliefs we all want to see something good happen or i want to think that we do
from what i know/understand is that he's considered pro-business yet protectionist (economic nationalism, mercantilism, etc.)Trump
if he's smart yeah - he's like, a really smart guy. trust me. he'll lay out some reasonable - a concept with which he is utterly unfamiliar. guidelines that incentivize long term production, get out of the way and monitor/regulate only when necessarynot at all (essentially the principle of prosperity)
if he's foolish - he's got that down. he'll incentivize long term destruction/war, feed the beast and compound this screw up by restricting trade
good potential if this is done right, if not, expect more of the same old shot- that's what we could have expected with Clinton
and regardless of political beliefs we all want to see something good happen or i want to think that we do
from what i know/understand is that he's considered pro-business yet protectionist (economic nationalism, mercantilism, etc.)
if he's smart he'll lay out some reasonable guidelines that incentivize long term production, get out of the way and monitor/regulate only when necessary (essentially the principle of prosperity)
if he's foolish he'll incentivize long term destruction/war, feed the beast and compound this screw up by restricting trade
good potential if this is done right, if not, expect more of the same old shot
Given his selection of appointees so far, what do you think is the likely outcome?
To me it looks like textbook crony capitalism - rewarding the faithful and using power to ensure loyalty (isn't this exactly what his supporters said he wouldn't do?). More billionaires than any other cabinet - not that billionaires are necessarily bad people, but they don't have a perspective on 'regular' life.
and regardless of political beliefs we all want to see something good happen or i want to think that we do
from what i know/understand is that he's considered pro-business yet protectionist (economic nationalism, mercantilism, etc.)
if he's smart he'll lay out some reasonable guidelines that incentivize long term production, get out of the way and monitor/regulate only when necessary (essentially the principle of prosperity)
if he's foolish he'll incentivize long term destruction/war, feed the beast and compound this screw up by restricting trade
good potential if this is done right, if not, expect more of the same old shot
Given his selection of appointees so far, what do you think is the likely outcome?
To me it looks like textbook crony capitalism - rewarding the faithful and using power to ensure loyalty (isn't this exactly what his supporters said he wouldn't do?). More billionaires than any other cabinet - not that billionaires are necessarily bad people, but they don't have a perspective on 'regular' life.
As bad as trump is, I can't see anyone else getting past the taint of illegitimacy that would follow the deal making that would come from the house process.
We are going to have 2 years of blatant hypocrisy and rampant corruption. The republicans now hold all the levers and this is all on them. If they can't demonstrate a commitment to their stated values of fiscal conservatism and opposition to crony capitalism (my guess: they won't), then it will give the Democrats the best chance to overcome a stacked deck in 2018. If the public don't recognize teh value of checks and balances and the importance of voting in elections by that point, then there really is no hope and we are in for an idiocracy future.
trump is in
and regardless of political beliefs we all want to see something good happen or i want to think that we do
from what i know/understand is that he's considered pro-business yet protectionist (economic nationalism, mercantilism, etc.)
if he's smart he'll lay out some reasonable guidelines that incentivize long term production, get out of the way and monitor/regulate only when necessary (essentially the principle of prosperity)
if he's foolish he'll incentivize long term destruction/war, feed the beast and compound this screw up by restricting trade
good potential if this is done right, if not, expect more of the same old shot
As bad as trump is, I can't see anyone else getting past the taint of illegitimacy that would follow the deal making that would come from the house process.
We are going to have 2 years of blatant hypocrisy and rampant corruption. The republicans now hold all the levers and this is all on them. If they can't demonstrate a commitment to their stated values of fiscal conservatism and opposition to crony capitalism (my guess: they won't), then it will give the Democrats the best chance to overcome a stacked deck in 2018. If the public don't recognize teh value of checks and balances and the importance of voting in elections by that point, then there really is no hope and we are in for an idiocracy future.
