logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Trump the businessman, Assessing his success
Dingo
post Sep 21 2016, 12:45 AM
Post #1


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Trump's strongest suit in establishing his cred as a presidential candidate is that as a successful businessman he has the experience to improve the economy. Well maybe that success is over rated. Robert Reich has this conversation with a Trump supporter.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/robe...-him-speechless

QUOTE
he’s made a fortune.”

“Has he really?” I asked.

“Of course. Forbes magazine says he’s worth four and a half billion.”

“That doesn’t mean he’s been a success,” I said.

“In my book, it does,” said the Trump supporter.

“You know, in 1976, when Trump was just starting his career, he said he was worth about $200 million,” I said. “Most of that was from his father.”

“That just proves my point,” said the Trump supporter. “He turned that $200 million into four and a half billion. Brilliant man.“

“But if he had just put that $200 million into an index fund and reinvested the dividends, he’d be worth twelve billion today,” I said.

The Trump supporter went silent.


Questions for discussion.
1. Would you rate Trump as a business success?

2. To the extent that he has been, how much would you say is through dishonest practices?

3. In light of his lack of experience in government how much does his business experience qualify him?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 36)
Dingo
post Sep 26 2016, 05:45 PM
Post #21


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



Sorry GS but your mantra has been "less government, less government, less government" with some sort of ambiguous bone thrown to government protecting personal freedom or "rights" whatever that implies. That means generally less of all kinds of government good or bad. I'm not inventing you. I'm reading you. That translates into anarchy followed by an extreme authoritarian backlash, bigger government and much less freedom. A more singular focus on good government which is not your emphasis as you relentlessly show a general anti-government bias would have the effect of increasing freedom and reducing unnecessary government. You are not the first person who in effect advocates the opposite for what you would in fact bring about. I'm reminded of the forced birth fascists who in their purported zeal to save unborn life cut off the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies resulting ultimately in more abortions.

As for my cutting down all the trees I think I am covered there. If you have followed any of my environmental posts I am often on the record with this closing statement.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE

Not that I wish to kill anybody but I am very much for rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use, all sources of greater human freedom and happiness and ultimately less government in my book.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Sep 26 2016, 07:15 PM
Post #22


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 26 2016, 01:45 PM) *
Sorry GS but your mantra has been "less government, less government, less government" with some sort of ambiguous bone thrown to government protecting personal freedom or "rights" whatever that implies. That means generally less of all kinds of government good or bad. I'm not inventing you. I'm reading you. That translates into anarchy followed by an extreme authoritarian backlash, bigger government and much less freedom. A more singular focus on good government which is not your emphasis as you relentlessly show a general anti-government bias would have the effect of increasing freedom and reducing unnecessary government. You are not the first person who in effect advocates the opposite for what you would in fact bring about. I'm reminded of the forced birth fascists who in their purported zeal to save unborn life cut off the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies resulting ultimately in more abortions.

As for my cutting down all the trees I think I am covered there. If you have followed any of my environmental posts I am often on the record with this closing statement.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE

Not that I wish to kill anybody but I am very much for rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use, all sources of greater human freedom and happiness and ultimately less government in my book.


Excuse me, enforcing "rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use" is totalitarian. Free people and markets lead to equilibrium as nature shows, not the death of the planet if left unrestrained. The population growth of a species is limited by its access to water, food, and shelter. Who has the power to implement your desired policies, and how would exercising that power not lead to more death in doing so?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 26 2016, 08:00 PM
Post #23


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Sep 26 2016, 12:15 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 26 2016, 01:45 PM) *
Sorry GS but your mantra has been "less government, less government, less government" with some sort of ambiguous bone thrown to government protecting personal freedom or "rights" whatever that implies. That means generally less of all kinds of government good or bad. I'm not inventing you. I'm reading you. That translates into anarchy followed by an extreme authoritarian backlash, bigger government and much less freedom. A more singular focus on good government which is not your emphasis as you relentlessly show a general anti-government bias would have the effect of increasing freedom and reducing unnecessary government. You are not the first person who in effect advocates the opposite for what you would in fact bring about. I'm reminded of the forced birth fascists who in their purported zeal to save unborn life cut off the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies resulting ultimately in more abortions.

As for my cutting down all the trees I think I am covered there. If you have followed any of my environmental posts I am often on the record with this closing statement.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE

Not that I wish to kill anybody but I am very much for rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use, all sources of greater human freedom and happiness and ultimately less government in my book.


Excuse me, enforcing "rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use" is totalitarian. Free people and markets lead to equilibrium as nature shows, not the death of the planet if left unrestrained. The population growth of a species is limited by its access to water, food, and shelter. Who has the power to implement your desired policies, and how would exercising that power not lead to more death in doing so?

I figured out long ago that 90% of the "free market" mantra is simply a euphemism for government enforced special interests. Let's just say I feel a lot freer in a government created national park than one of your endless "free market" shopping malls. Your implicit commitment to wrecking the environment as long as more people can be accommodated appears obvious. Once again I am for more good government and less bad government. Your defining up bad government as somehow less government and more freedom is a typical form of denialism that I am well acquainted with. Enforcing rigorous family planning would only come about as a last desperate measure. I'm for allowing and encouraging a voluntary approach. I do think there is an important roll for the government acting in the public interest and yes less destructive energy use and wilderness preservation would be included.

MORE TREES LESS PEOPLE!

TOOLS FOR NEED, NOT GREED!

This post has been edited by Dingo: Sep 26 2016, 08:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Sep 26 2016, 11:31 PM
Post #24


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 26 2016, 04:00 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Sep 26 2016, 12:15 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 26 2016, 01:45 PM) *
Sorry GS but your mantra has been "less government, less government, less government" with some sort of ambiguous bone thrown to government protecting personal freedom or "rights" whatever that implies. That means generally less of all kinds of government good or bad. I'm not inventing you. I'm reading you. That translates into anarchy followed by an extreme authoritarian backlash, bigger government and much less freedom. A more singular focus on good government which is not your emphasis as you relentlessly show a general anti-government bias would have the effect of increasing freedom and reducing unnecessary government. You are not the first person who in effect advocates the opposite for what you would in fact bring about. I'm reminded of the forced birth fascists who in their purported zeal to save unborn life cut off the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies resulting ultimately in more abortions.

As for my cutting down all the trees I think I am covered there. If you have followed any of my environmental posts I am often on the record with this closing statement.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE

Not that I wish to kill anybody but I am very much for rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use, all sources of greater human freedom and happiness and ultimately less government in my book.


Excuse me, enforcing "rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use" is totalitarian. Free people and markets lead to equilibrium as nature shows, not the death of the planet if left unrestrained. The population growth of a species is limited by its access to water, food, and shelter. Who has the power to implement your desired policies, and how would exercising that power not lead to more death in doing so?

I figured out long ago that 90% of the "free market" mantra is simply a euphemism for government enforced special interests. Let's just say I feel a lot freer in a government created national park than one of your endless "free market" shopping malls. Your implicit commitment to wrecking the environment as long as more people can be accommodated appears obvious. Once again I am for more good government and less bad government. Your defining up bad government as somehow less government and more freedom is a typical form of denialism that I am well acquainted with. Enforcing rigorous family planning would only come about as a last desperate measure. I'm for allowing and encouraging a voluntary approach. I do think there is an important roll for the government acting in the public interest and yes less destructive energy use and wilderness preservation would be included.

MORE TREES LESS PEOPLE!

TOOLS FOR NEED, NOT GREED!


Not sure why you insist on drifting away from your topic, but I said nothing about special interest backed free markets enforced by government. You're talking about dictatorship, reeducation camps, rationing, ... forced submission ... a belief that you have to do something to save the world from itself, pretending you aren't, not freedom to walk in parks. You are the one in denial if you think you aren't. Your world begins and ends in enslavement, famine, and war, not nirvana. Human history tells us that.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 27 2016, 06:10 AM
Post #25


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Sep 26 2016, 04:31 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 26 2016, 04:00 PM) *
QUOTE(LoneWisdom @ Sep 26 2016, 12:15 PM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Sep 26 2016, 01:45 PM) *
Sorry GS but your mantra has been "less government, less government, less government" with some sort of ambiguous bone thrown to government protecting personal freedom or "rights" whatever that implies. That means generally less of all kinds of government good or bad. I'm not inventing you. I'm reading you. That translates into anarchy followed by an extreme authoritarian backlash, bigger government and much less freedom. A more singular focus on good government which is not your emphasis as you relentlessly show a general anti-government bias would have the effect of increasing freedom and reducing unnecessary government. You are not the first person who in effect advocates the opposite for what you would in fact bring about. I'm reminded of the forced birth fascists who in their purported zeal to save unborn life cut off the means to prevent unwanted pregnancies resulting ultimately in more abortions.

As for my cutting down all the trees I think I am covered there. If you have followed any of my environmental posts I am often on the record with this closing statement.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE

Not that I wish to kill anybody but I am very much for rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use, all sources of greater human freedom and happiness and ultimately less government in my book.


Excuse me, enforcing "rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use" is totalitarian. Free people and markets lead to equilibrium as nature shows, not the death of the planet if left unrestrained. The population growth of a species is limited by its access to water, food, and shelter. Who has the power to implement your desired policies, and how would exercising that power not lead to more death in doing so?

I figured out long ago that 90% of the "free market" mantra is simply a euphemism for government enforced special interests. Let's just say I feel a lot freer in a government created national park than one of your endless "free market" shopping malls. Your implicit commitment to wrecking the environment as long as more people can be accommodated appears obvious. Once again I am for more good government and less bad government. Your defining up bad government as somehow less government and more freedom is a typical form of denialism that I am well acquainted with. Enforcing rigorous family planning would only come about as a last desperate measure. I'm for allowing and encouraging a voluntary approach. I do think there is an important roll for the government acting in the public interest and yes less destructive energy use and wilderness preservation would be included.

MORE TREES LESS PEOPLE!

TOOLS FOR NEED, NOT GREED!


Not sure why you insist on drifting away from your topic, but I said nothing about special interest backed free markets enforced by government.

I'm not drifting away from nothing. You're the one running for the hills. For guys like you "free market" is just one of those "God" words with no referent. It's simply perfume on a smelly fish. It means again government enforced special interest. I understand how a faith system works. Got a problem? Submit it to God ie the free market and the problem is magically solved. No explanation of how that works, just BELIEVE.

QUOTE
You're talking about dictatorship, reeducation camps, rationing, ... forced submission ... a belief that you have to do something to save the world from itself, pretending you aren't, not freedom to walk in parks. You are the one in denial if you think you aren't. Your world begins and ends in enslavement, famine, and war, not nirvana. Human history tells us that.

I'll turn this quote over to Freud. Ever heard of something called projection? You just offered a beautiful example of it. Try reading that line while peaking at a mirror. I think it may slowly dawn on you where that's coming from.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LoneWisdom
post Sep 27 2016, 12:45 PM
Post #26


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 118
Member No.: 8,384
Joined: February-10-08

From: Georgia
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Dingo
QUOTE
Not that I wish to kill anybody but I am very much for rigorous family planning and programs that increase protected wilderness area and more efficient and restrained and earth friendly energy use


QUOTE
Enforcing rigorous family planning would only come about as a last desperate measure. I'm for allowing and encouraging a voluntary approach.


You can dodge all you want, but these are the things you post. Please explain how you would "enforce rigorous family planning" without "killing anybody," or using forced sterilization, abortion, or infanticide, and how that wouldn't involve the use of a despot? Not to mention how you would manage this in every country on the planet without forcing your "religion" on the world?

You're on the record for being a hostile AGW disciple and you definitely post like its your religion. For me, if AGW were actually real, it would just be part of balancing act this planet has been managing since its beginning to maintain equilibrium. Your rant is off the rails.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Sep 27 2016, 02:21 PM
Post #27


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



You're both off topic - this thread is there to answer these three questions, not explore Dingo's attitudes to environmentalism and family planning.

QUOTE
Questions for discussion.
1. Would you rate Trump as a business success?

2. To the extent that he has been, how much would you say is through dishonest practices?

3. In light of his lack of experience in government how much does his business experience qualify him?


I'm not a moderator, so you won't get any come back if you ignore me and carry on at your tangent, but it doesn't take a genius to see you are no more sticking to the subject that Dingo is, LoneWisdom
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Sep 27 2016, 08:08 PM
Post #28


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 27 2016, 07:21 AM) *
You're both off topic

You are right. It has veered off topic. Since it is my thread perhaps I should be even a little more conscientious. So I will try to be a good boy and drop the off topic discussion. The only problem is this has not been a very active forum and if folks like say libertarians need to continually bring topics back to their religious obsession, ie free market as God and government as Devil, my natural inclination is to allow them to say their piece and offer my perspective.

Perhaps Gray Seal or LoneWisdom or other acolytes of the faith would like to start a thread which would allow a discussion along these lines. I'm game. Just not here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 3 2016, 04:39 PM
Post #29


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



The current problem that Trump has regarding his business acumen and whether that counts as a qualification for becoming POTUS involves him losing nearly a billion dollars and taking the tax write-off over a period of time, with 18 years or more being the speculation. The business loss testifies to his lack of business acumen; the tax write-off, while being possibly legal (point of audit?), points to his complacency for a tax system that benefits the wealthy over the working class that he needs to vote for him. Perhaps the only way out for him is to immediately release his tax returns, but that could besmirch him even more among the majority of voters who do pay fed taxes.

Looks like an impossible problem for even the sane, but Trump has some serious personality problems, to put it mildly, that exacerbate the situation. Namely, that he stews too much over irrelevant issues. He can't keep his eye on the ball, to use a sports metaphor. He pays too much attention to the pawns, to use a chess metaphor. He is cutting off his own nose to spite his face, to use a saying that has never made sense to me--and so it's appropriate.

Trump makes no sense to me, and it appears that more voters are coming to the same conclusion the more this candidate performs his self-destructive and self-delusional dance. Even Johnson sticking out his tongue during a serious interview and flubbing a couple of easy questions make more sense. I no longer entertain the possibility that Trump is trying to throw the election on purpose as well. No, this guy is bad at business, bad at debating, bad at relationships, bad for the country, and in general an impoverished soul in dire need of salvation of some sort. Which, of course, he will never seek because he's too much in love with himself. That in turn could be an outward expression of deep self-hatred, which would be a reason to have compassion for such a sick puppy.

That is assuming that Trump isn't a psychopath. If he is, there's no hope for him. Best that can happen is to keep him away from possible victims, which is to say everybody on the planet. Turn him into a Matrix battery or send him into Truman's world (the movie).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 4 2016, 03:28 AM
Post #30


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 3 2016, 09:39 AM) *
Trump makes no sense to me, and it appears that more voters are coming to the same conclusion the more this candidate performs his self-destructive and self-delusional dance.

Trump makes no sense to me either other than as a terminal narcissist. But a lot of people buy his delusional dance and you have to ask why. It is of course aided and abetted by a media that can't get enough of him and his daily verbal screw-ups. Maybe he's some kind of reality star antidote to political boredom.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 5 2016, 11:51 AM
Post #31


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Dingo @ Oct 3 2016, 11:28 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 3 2016, 09:39 AM) *
Trump makes no sense to me, and it appears that more voters are coming to the same conclusion the more this candidate performs his self-destructive and self-delusional dance.

Trump makes no sense to me either other than as a terminal narcissist. But a lot of people buy his delusional dance and you have to ask why. It is of course aided and abetted by a media that can't get enough of him and his daily verbal screw-ups. Maybe he's some kind of reality star antidote to political boredom.

Good point. He certainly isn't your typical politician and says exactly what's on his muddled mind, which for about 25% of the electorate is an attraction. Seems another 25% like him because he isn't a Clinton. That could turn out to be his downfall, hope I hope. If he does win, don't know what I'll do--maybe get a Kevlar body suit? Naw, seems this place is under special protection now that our Native American granddaughter is living here and helping out the old farts of the family. She even got a local job with a decent future, not bad for this cow town. Remarkable, actually. So I remarked on it.

Even a Trump win can't harsh that mellow. Mushroom clouds over Colorado Springs would, for a very brief moment.

But that's not going to happen. As while in hospice and what I told the nurse, I don't feel like I am dying. She gave me that sardonic look, which I witnessed turning into surprised delight at my graduation. I also don't feel that this is the end game for this country and civilization. However, Trump getting this far is a clear wake-up call.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Oct 17 2016, 01:28 AM
Post #32


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



I recently saw a TV bio on Trump. They said the only casinos that went into default in Atlantic City at that time were casinos owned by Trump. Add that to the billion dollar right-off he took, saving him 18 years of paying federal taxes and I'd say his credentials as a competent businessman look pretty murky. I guess being a good actor that conveys the idea of business success is all that's required to win the republican nomination. I wonder if the b-movie actor that preceded him in attaining political success was his inspiration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NetMan
post Oct 17 2016, 09:14 PM
Post #33


***
... man behind the curtain.

Sponsor
December 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 42
Member No.: 8,951
Joined: September-18-08

From: Elgin, Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat




1. Would you rate Trump as a business success?
No. If he has a business that succeeds ... it's due to the people he hired to run it ... and their ability to NOT do everything he says or suggests ... and still keep their jobs.


2. To the extent that he has been, how much would you say is through dishonest practices?
Most, if not all. Not saying he breaks the law. You can be dishonest and remain law abiding. Success isn't always about doing the right thing. It's all how you spin it.


3. In light of his lack of experience in government how much does his business experience qualify him?
None. He's a salesman. He creates an image. There's no real substance to it. He knows how to invoke an emotional response to his rhetoric. It's what any successful salesman does.
My neighbor once said, "Trump tells it like it is. No matter if you want to hear it or not". I partially disagreed. I believe Trump speaks his mind, albeit unfiltered. It's the content in his mind that matters. Not necessarily reality as we know it. He tells it like it is ... as he sees it. And with his experience as a salesman, he manages to merge with the unhappy emotional side of a lot of people. It doesn't actually take a mind reader to say what a lot of people are thinking ... especially in a world of politically correctness and encouraged tolerance. Some folk just don't like to be tolerant. It means change, and that scares a lot of people. He plays to those emotions ... very well in fact. I suppose one could say, "a successful businessman is a successful salesman first". But I would also add that a successful salesman is only part of a successful businessman. I think that's where Trump falls short.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 18 2016, 12:49 AM
Post #34


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(NetMan @ Oct 17 2016, 05:14 PM) *
1. Would you rate Trump as a business success?
No. If he has a business that succeeds ... it's due to the people he hired to run it ... and their ability to NOT do everything he says or suggests ... and still keep their jobs.
...

Fascinating "analysis".

Care to share how you arrived not only at the above conclusion, but also its implicit corollary, which is ...

If Trump has a business that fails ... it's due to the people he hired to run it ... and their doing EVERYTHING he says or suggests ... lest they lose their jobs.

... ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Oct 18 2016, 04:34 PM
Post #35


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,355
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



The Daily Show nailed it last night: Trump is running his campaign as if it were a reality TV show.

That explains a lot of the otherwise inexplicable ways that Trump's mind works. It also fills in gaps regarding his behavior during the second debate. Some of the things that became clear to me:

Mugging the camera

Waving of arms and gesturing with fingers a lot more than pretty much all politicians

Seeking conflict even with his VP pick

Promoting unsubstantiated accusations, most currently that the election is rigged when in reality, he's losing because he sucks as a political candidate.

This take on Trump makes the most sense to me and reveals an interesting part of who he is, namely that all the world's a stage and he's the leading man. While I do respect The Bard, it is a very narrow view of reality that in politics defines a tyrant. For example, only Trump can solve your problems. He's the most! (gushes the 1950s teen girl in her poodle skirt).

But in reality TV, this delusion is ratings gold. So we see the surprisingly high polling numbers for Trump that will probably not be reflected in the actual election. Trump is fixated on the sizes of his audiences, another trait of an entertainer. Maybe he's aware of what he's doing, but I doubt it.

What I now see Trump doing is taking the idea of using entertainment to sell himself to an extreme level. Forget about his lack of substance and logic, it's the showman people should vote for. While he does this, Clinton plods along like a regular politician, getting into details that are considered too wonky these days. SOTH Ryan does the same thing, as do most serious and effective politicians.

With this in mind, the election becomes a fight between illusion and reality. Earlier I thought it was idealism versus realism, but Trump has no ideals. It's all just illusion. If he wins, we'll have our first play-acting POTUS.

So what will the electorate buy, the illusion or the reality? I'd put my money on reality, even though it's not as entertaining. Maybe in the analysis of history, it'll be clear that the dancing orangutan was too obviously just a stomping simian. Thanks for the show, apeman, but Tarzan not know where Tarzan go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NetMan
post Oct 18 2016, 08:38 PM
Post #36


***
... man behind the curtain.

Sponsor
December 2008

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 42
Member No.: 8,951
Joined: September-18-08

From: Elgin, Illinois
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 17 2016, 07:49 PM) *
QUOTE(NetMan @ Oct 17 2016, 05:14 PM) *
1. Would you rate Trump as a business success?
No. If he has a business that succeeds ... it's due to the people he hired to run it ... and their ability to NOT do everything he says or suggests ... and still keep their jobs.
...

Fascinating "analysis".

Care to share how you arrived not only at the above conclusion, but also its implicit corollary, which is ...

If Trump has a business that fails ... it's due to the people he hired to run it ... and their doing EVERYTHING he says or suggests ... lest they lose their jobs.

... ?


I have to admit, my "analysis" is base solely on my observations and impression. I have worked for people who micromanage and Trump strikes me as a micro-manager.
Bringing up employees and their jobs was an assumption on my part. My apologies.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 18 2016, 11:34 AM) *
The Daily Show nailed it last night: Trump is running his campaign as if it were a reality TV show.

That explains a lot of the otherwise inexplicable ways that Trump's mind works. It also fills in gaps regarding his behavior during the second debate. Some of the things that became clear to me:

Mugging the camera

Waving of arms and gesturing with fingers a lot more than pretty much all politicians

Seeking conflict even with his VP pick

Promoting unsubstantiated accusations, most currently that the election is rigged when in reality, he's losing because he sucks as a political candidate.

This take on Trump makes the most sense to me and reveals an interesting part of who he is, namely that all the world's a stage and he's the leading man. While I do respect The Bard, it is a very narrow view of reality that in politics defines a tyrant. For example, only Trump can solve your problems. He's the most! (gushes the 1950s teen girl in her poodle skirt).

But in reality TV, this delusion is ratings gold. So we see the surprisingly high polling numbers for Trump that will probably not be reflected in the actual election. Trump is fixated on the sizes of his audiences, another trait of an entertainer. Maybe he's aware of what he's doing, but I doubt it.

What I now see Trump doing is taking the idea of using entertainment to sell himself to an extreme level. Forget about his lack of substance and logic, it's the showman people should vote for. While he does this, Clinton plods along like a regular politician, getting into details that are considered too wonky these days. SOTH Ryan does the same thing, as do most serious and effective politicians.

With this in mind, the election becomes a fight between illusion and reality. Earlier I thought it was idealism versus realism, but Trump has no ideals. It's all just illusion. If he wins, we'll have our first play-acting POTUS.

So what will the electorate buy, the illusion or the reality? I'd put my money on reality, even though it's not as entertaining. Maybe in the analysis of history, it'll be clear that the dancing orangutan was too obviously just a stomping simian. Thanks for the show, apeman, but Tarzan not know where Tarzan go.


I read in an article by biographer D'Antonio. "Trump's greatest talent turns out to be not building businesses, but constructing a larger-than-life public figure. D’Antonio says he thinks Trump has worked to create a strong brand mostly because his ego "needed the attention." However, Trump also figured out how to make the attention profitable as well."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Oct 18 2016, 10:48 PM
Post #37


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(NetMan @ Oct 18 2016, 04:38 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Oct 17 2016, 07:49 PM) *
QUOTE(NetMan @ Oct 17 2016, 05:14 PM) *
1. Would you rate Trump as a business success?
No. If he has a business that succeeds ... it's due to the people he hired to run it ... and their ability to NOT do everything he says or suggests ... and still keep their jobs.
...

Fascinating "analysis".

Care to share how you arrived not only at the above conclusion, but also its implicit corollary, which is ...

If Trump has a business that fails ... it's due to the people he hired to run it ... and their doing EVERYTHING he says or suggests ... lest they lose their jobs.

... ?


I have to admit, my "analysis" is base solely on my observations and impression. I have worked for people who micromanage and Trump strikes me as a micro-manager. ...
...

OK. That, however, inevitably leads me to the following:

If, as you assume, Trump is indeed a micromanaging (a.k.a. "control freak") type of business owner, and ...

If, as you clearly believe, a business run by such an owner is more likely to fail than one that isn't, ...

How do you explain the fact that Trump's not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30, but 40 years' long career in the business world has featured many more successes than failures?

Or is your "analysis" based on the additional assumption on your part that he's got some unique/extraordinary ability, one that micromanaging (a.k.a. "control freak") type people in all walks of life (i.e. not just business owners) utterly lack, to just "flip the switch" and become a NON-micromanaging (a.k.a. NON-"control freak") type business owner at (as they say) the drop of a hat?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: September 19th, 2018 - 02:04 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.