2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

Thargor wrote: »

A monkey could get that rate of return if handed 200 million in the 70s, all he did was take over the property investment company his father built for him and go along for the ride, its not any sign of intelligence or economic acumen.

Try telling that to the Vanderbilts.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Try telling that to the Vanderbilts.

The Vanderbilts overspent their money and wasted Cornelius' fortune because they were reckless and stupid. Trump might not be as silly as them, but that doesn't mean that he's a business genius either. Not anyone can turn 200m into 4bn (and then lie when claiming he's worth 10bn :pac:) but it's not as much of an outstanding feat as the dozens of other billionaires who started with far less money and are now worth far, far more than Trump. Trump got lucky that he was born into a wealthy family and had 200m to begin with.

And I'm not sure why you think an MBA from Wharton is an indication of his intelligence. Getting into Ivy League schools was far easier in his day, and accepted students were more likely to be accepted because of their surname and family's chequebook than because of their academic performance. A degree from a top school should never be an indication of how smart/dumb a person is.

Severard

There is far too many Republicans contending for the nomination at the moment. They really need to get this sorted soon so that they can focus their efforts. From what I seen of them during the debate recently I really don't like any of the republican candidates but that being said if Hilary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination I would prefer any of the Republican candidates over her. Even Rick Perry.

Although Bernie Sanders is by far the best choice of the democrats, at 73 his age (and the potential health problems that come with being that age) could be an issue. I consider myself a liberal yet if Sanders doesn't get the nod I would like to see a Republican get elected. This is pretty much the same as what happened in the UK elections recently. I despise the Tories yet when they won I was actually quite happy as the alternative - Labour led by that imbecile Ed Miliband - was a much worse option. American politics is in dire straits these days.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

And I'm not sure why you think an MBA from Wharton is an indication of his intelligence. Getting into Ivy League schools was far easier in his day, and accepted students were more likely to be accepted because of their surname and family's chequebook than because of their academic performance. A degree from a top school should never be an indication of how smart/dumb a person is.

Because Wharton is the top business school in all the US. It is no cakewalk no matter how rich you are. Going by your argument, it would equate to saying someone getting an education from MIT means nothing either if the person had some cash in hand before entering.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

Because Wharton is the top business school in all the US. It is no cakewalk no matter how rich you are. Going by your argument, it would equate to saying someone getting an education from MIT means nothing either if the person had some cash in hand before entering.

Did you read my post? I said 'in his day'. Trump graduated in 1968; a time when Ivy League classes comprised of more private prep school students than now. Currently, there is far more competition for places at these schools than back in the '60s, and academic performance is held in higher regard than one's background. Getting an Ivy League education is great, but there is nothing to suggest that Ivy League students have a higher intelligence than other students. This is going by accounts from my American relatives, both of whom attended Harvard and Yale in the 1960's.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Did you read my post? I said 'in his day'. Trump graduated in 1968; a time when Ivy League classes comprised of more private prep school students than now. Currently, there is far more competition for places at these schools than back in the '60s, and academic performance is held in higher regard than one's background. Getting an Ivy League education is great, but there is nothing to suggest that Ivy League students have a higher intelligence than other students. This is going by accounts from my American relatives, both of whom attended Harvard and Yale in the 1960's.

So, how was Wharton School of Business rated in 1968, as you seem to think it makes a difference?

And I somewhat agree with you about Ivy League students intelligence in most aspects of Ivy League School, as daughter #3 just turned down Yale and Princeton. But there are some exceptional schools within some colleges in the Ivy League... such as law from Harvard, political science from Yale, and business from Penn (Wharton). And if you are a white male or female, you do need to be pretty damn smart to get into them.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

So, how was Wharton School of Business rated in 1968, as you seem to think it makes a difference?

And I somewhat agree with you about Ivy League students intelligence in most aspects of Ivy League School, as daughter #3 just turned down Yale and Princeton. But there are some exceptional schools within some colleges in the Ivy League... such as law from Harvard, political science from Yale, and business from Penn (Wharton). And if you are a white male or female, you do need to be pretty damn smart to get into them.

It was rated very well, but as I've said before, it was easier to get into top schools back then if you had a big surname and your family was wealthy than now.

There are great schools yes, but the difference in the education you receive from Harvard or Iowa State is classmates you have and the reputation of your school. There are idiots with Harvard and Yale degrees, just like ones with state college ones and ones with no degrees.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Bernie is an [un]affiliated Independent, but caucuses with the DNC (And the DNC lets him). He is a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist.

MightyMandarin

Would it be fair to characterise Trump as the Joe McCarthy of 2015?

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Would it be fair to characterise Trump as the Joe McCarthy of 2015?

No. Why would you even think so?

KingBrian2

Surprised the Democrats are not offering more candidates. Trump is way ahead of his rivals but the Dems seem fine with Clinton. Looks like they want a coronation after all. They need to have more good candidates challenging the party elite.

hatrickpatrick

Severard wrote: »

I really don't like any of the republican candidates but that being said if Hilary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination I would prefer any of the Republican candidates over her. Even Rick Perry.

I'm not sure if I'd go as far as to support a Republican, but yeah Hillary Clinton is one of the most unliberal Democrats in recent memory. Her stance on internet freedom and NSA surveillance is enough to make my skin crawl.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Surprised the Democrats are not offering more candidates. Trump is way ahead of his rivals but the Dems seem fine with Clinton. Looks like they want a coronation after all. They need to have more good candidates challenging the party elite.

Tellin ya man, Al Gore as the Dark Horse. They like to call him a bit of a quack but did you know that 14 of the 15 hottest years on global record have happened since 2000, and that July 2015 is the hottest month of global record ever? Watch him show up this fall descending from an escalator a scissor-lift.

MightyMandarin

Amerika wrote: »

No. Why would you even think so?

Similar topics and somewhat similar styles, I guess. Like McCarthy, Trump seems to fear monger about foreigners a lot; always talking about 'the mexicans' and even cites stories of illegals raping women as proof. He's not suggesting he'd create something like the HUAC, but if he gets to the White House, I can see him going on the hunt for illegals and ploughing resources into deportation and also 'the wall'.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

But have you seen Obama speak without the use of a teleprompter and prepared speech. Donald Trump runs circles around him. Obama is mighty pitiful when having to stand on his own accord. But Obama’s a charismatic actor... and his record, and not merely the polls, reflect it.

Yes, I have heard him speak in person. Although I do not favour many of Obama's policies, I have actually been seated in the 3rd row audience of an Orange County Fairgrounds meeting where Obama had spoken, and he did so without a teleprompter, and extemporaneously fielded several questions from the audience that were across-the-board in topics while he paced the stage, and he answered them all with more eloquence, knowledge, and understanding than any of the 15 (or more) Republican candidates now running for the GOP nomination (regardless if these GOP opponents used teleprompter, prepared speeches, or Sarah Palin's infamous school girl index cards).

Trump by comparison would have looked the telly entertainer buffoon that he has thus far portrayed himself, making loudmouthed, brash, uneducated, bigoted, and sensationalist statements to spike free media coverage, and would more than likely get cheers from The Crowd of Gustav Le Bon.

And if you know Orange County, California, you would realise that Obama had spoken in enemy territory, where Republicans typically dominate voter registrations, win the county during elections, and showed up in significant numbers that day to ask questions, along with protest signs at the Fairgrounds entrance.

And lastly, the teleprompter and prepared speech Obama criticism is getting soooooo old it has become cliché. All presidents have used the teleprompter and have prepared speeches, consequently this point is meaningless and moot.

MightyMandarin

I don't give a toss whether the person I vote for needs a teleprompter; if their policies are good enough and they seem legit, I'll vote for them irrespective of how uncharming or awkward they might seem.

Our own Taoiseach is a poor orator and doesn't seem as engaging as his predecessor (Bertie Ahern) was, yet despite this, I'll vote for his party in the next GE because he's done well imo.

Overheal

I just don't get why this teleprompter garbage became a thing, as if Obama was the first black person politician to use a telemprompter. I think its the republican deflect/backhand in response to GWB's classic gaffes and such.

Stop watching and listening to so much corporate media, afaiac.

MightyMandarin

Overheal wrote: »

I just don't get why this teleprompter garbage became a thing, as if Obama was the first black person politician to use a telemprompter. I think its the republican deflect/backhand in response to GWB's classic gaffes and such.

Stop watching and listening to so much corporate media, afaiac.

Surely Joe Biden's gaffes is the typical deflection? At least that's all Amerika seems to go on about anytime a Republican says something silly.

Overheal

I mean to be fair I think trivial media-fed bullsplat is all we chattered about here during the 2008 election, it was back when there was still some news in the news and the sideshow stuff was new and interesting. Now I think the media has been consumed by the gimmicks and the gotcha questions and the soundbytes; meanwhile when actual news breaks out there's more fuss say, like in the case of the NSA spy revalations, fuss about "I've got nothing to hide, Snowden is a traitor to the greatest nation on earth, bla bla bla" instead of being upset that the intelligence community lied to voters, lied to congress, lied to everybody about not having those programs or violating civil liberties. Just as an example.

sinead88

Overheal wrote: »

I mean to be fair I think trivial media-fed bullsplat is all we chattered about here during the 2008 election, it was back when there was still some news in the news and the sideshow stuff was new and interesting. Now I think the media has been consumed by the gimmicks and the gotcha questions and the soundbytes; meanwhile when actual news breaks out there's more fuss say, like in the case of the NSA spy revalations, fuss about "I've got nothing to hide, Snowden is a traitor to the greatest nation on earth, bla bla bla" instead of being upset that the intelligence community lied to voters, lied to congress, lied to everybody about not having those programs or violating civil liberties. Just as an example.

I agree completely. It's almost terrifying how little whistle blowers are listened to. Bradley, now Chelsea Manning, has been ignored for example. This "greatest nation on earth" bull**** is rubbish. I've grown immune to the entire concept of unbiased reporting. I reckon all news outlets are owned by the same people and that's genuinely terrifying. I really do think Bernie Sanders could help with the reporting of most unbiased events. Also, while I'm very progressive, I refuse to believe that most Republicans are religious weirdos. There must be some moderates hiding somewhere.

Overheal

The media is indeed largely run by a small fist of people, and its best to avoid most of it. news articles I care less about, as you become very learned about discerning the factoids from the injected editorials.

Black Swan

Trump claims that he can make a meaningful change if elected president, but what actual past experiences (that we can objectively verify) show that he can in fact do what he says, which would qualify him for the highest position in US government? Let's leave the subjective political spin and comparisons with other politicians behind for a moment, and completely focus on Trump's qualifications in particular.

1. He has experience as a corporate CEO, which may prepare him to understand the US economy.
2. (I am struggling to come up with a 2nd experienced-based qualification for president)

The Randy Riverbeast

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump claims that he can make a meaningful change if elected president, but what actual past experiences (that we can objectively verify) show that he can in fact do what he says, which would qualify him for the highest position in US government? Let's leave the subjective political spin and comparisons with other politicians behind for a moment, and completely focus on Trump's qualifications in particular.

1. He has experience as a corporate CEO, which may prepare him to understand the US economy.
2. (I am struggling to come up with a 2nd experienced-based qualification for president)

Hasn't he also gone bankrupt multiple times? That might go against the CEO thing.

MightyMandarin

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Hasn't he also gone bankrupt multiple times? That might go against the CEO thing.

Plenty of billionaires and multi millionaires have gone bankrupt in order to default on their debts before bouncing back a few years later. It's a common occurrence in America.

Mr.Micro

The mere mention of Trump as a potential candidate as president of the U.S. reminds me of the film Deadzone, with Christopher Walken and Martin Sheen, the latter being nuke crazy. He is the last thing the US needs, let alone the world.

jobbridge4life

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Plenty of billionaires and multi millionaires have gone bankrupt in order to default on their debts before bouncing back a few years later. It's a common occurrence in America.

It may well be but it is not exactly a badge of honour and it does dent his claim to being business savant.

jobbridge4life

Black Swan wrote: »

Trump claims that he can make a meaningful change if elected president, but what actual past experiences (that we can objectively verify) show that he can in fact do what he says, which would qualify him for the highest position in US government? Let's leave the subjective political spin and comparisons with other politicians behind for a moment, and completely focus on Trump's qualifications in particular.

1. He has experience as a corporate CEO, which may prepare him to understand the US economy.
2. (I am struggling to come up with a 2nd experienced-based qualification for president)

I think he also feels that his experience in business and his 'ball-busting' persona will be of benefit in terms of representing US interests.

Amerika

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Similar topics and somewhat similar styles, I guess. Like McCarthy, Trump seems to fear monger about foreigners a lot; always talking about 'the mexicans' and even cites stories of illegals raping women as proof. He's not suggesting he'd create something like the HUAC, but if he gets to the White House, I can see him going on the hunt for illegals and ploughing resources into deportation and also 'the wall'.

The building of the wall is law (see the Secure Fence Act of 2006). And by 'hunt for illegals' do you mean following our laws?

jobbridge4life

Amerika wrote: »

The building of the wall is law (see the Secure Fence Act of 2006). And by 'hunt for illegals' do you mean following our laws?

Amerika what do you propose to do to deal with the enormous damage that removing all illegals from the US would do?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Yes, I have heard him speak in person. Although I do not favour many of Obama's policies, I have actually been seated in the 3rd row audience of an Orange County Fairgrounds meeting where Obama had spoken, and he did so without a teleprompter, and extemporaneously fielded several questions from the audience that were across-the-board in topics while he paced the stage, and he answered them all with more eloquence, knowledge, and understanding than any of the 15 (or more) Republican candidates now running for the GOP nomination (regardless if these GOP opponents used teleprompter, prepared speeches, or Sarah Palin's infamous school girl index cards).

Trump by comparison would have looked the telly entertainer buffoon that he has thus far portrayed himself, making loudmouthed, brash, uneducated, bigoted, and sensationalist statements to spike free media coverage, and would more than likely get cheers from The Crowd of Gustav Le Bon.

And if you know Orange County, California, you would realise that Obama had spoken in enemy territory, where Republicans typically dominate voter registrations, win the county during elections, and showed up in significant numbers that day to ask questions, along with protest signs at the Fairgrounds entrance.

And lastly, the teleprompter and prepared speech Obama criticism is getting soooooo old it has become cliché. All presidents have used the teleprompter and have prepared speeches, consequently this point is meaningless and moot.

Was it a prepared stump speech given to a bunch of supporters with pre determined questions? That is the only way can picture it as you described, because I’ve seen him speak and field questions in a prepared and unprepared format, and his performance between the two is like night and day.

And the point being meaningless and moot is wrong. He was elected because of his speaking eloquence where he convinced people he would be a transformational leader, and instead all we got was a Chicago politician.

Also, the teleprompter and prepared speech Obama criticism is no more a cliché then the Sarah Palin ‘heartbeat from the presidency’ shtick that pops up here even more often.