Why do people say Donald Trump is not a ''serious'' candidate?

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

I laughed a lot at that, actually. Thanks.

But while I'm at it, lets go through these a little.

 

Not caring about what people say about him is not a good thing when people are calling him an insensitive !@#$ for saying a majority of mexicans are rapists, murderers, and drug dealers.

 

 

Tell that to to his 4 filings for corporate bankruptcy.

 

 

Substitute "public infamy", "negative press", or "descent into self-parody" in place of "public success", and that statement is reasonably accurate.

 

 

 

So? That is a selling point? Anyone can think big. I can think I want a really awesome sandwich, go and make that sandwich, and lo and behold, I'm thinking big and making big. The only thing Donald Trump has made are buildings named after him, big whoop.

Number 1 in polls? heh

[Braunsberg]

Number 1 in polls? heh

His surge is primarily due to the fact that the other major candidates have not started campaigning yet to the degree Trump has. Of the GOP candidates, Jeb Bush is the closest in national polls to Hillary Clinton, who is currently on top.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/07/14/usa-today-suffolk-poll-republicans-donald-trump/30102255/

[Greatnate]

 

-snip-

The picture has my vote.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

[Greatnate]

 

This picture does not. It makes about as much sense as Trump himself.

[Phaik]

Replace his name with my name and it's still true. Does that mean I'm just as qualified as he is?

 

I have not filed corporate bankruptcy 4 times (actually, not even once!). So, by his logic, I'm better at being a CEO than he is. Where's my unearned salary?!?

[WISD0MTREE]

Simply because the President has the greatest authority in the military does not mean he or she makes all the military decisions.

 

The President has an important role in many, many things aside from the military, and therefore any good president will seek extensive help from officials that work more directly with the military.

 

That's why George W. Bush received so much criticism for ignoring countless military figures who assured him Iraq had no nuclear facilities, and went to war anyway. To find, lo and behold, no nuclear facilities.

Yes, but they make lots of important ones. 

 

Ok, let's talk about a chemical company called Pollution and Water. A kid becomes the CEO of PaW. The kid should have some basic knowledge about chemical plant operations. I'm not saying that the kid should be a chemical engineer. Let's say that the plant catches on fire and it is in the news. The future of PaW relies on the kid's response. Sure he can get engineers to do all of the work, but should the kid really trust that the engineers will make the right choice? Most likely they will, but maybe the CEO has a bigger plan. 

 

Technically Bush said "weapons of mass destruction" which could also be chemical or biological. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by WISD0MTREE

[Warren Harding]

Number 1 in polls? heh

Polls are meaningless at this point. History shows us this time and time again.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

This statement is not only ridiculous, its completely factually incorrect. Vermont ranks as one of the most intelligent state in the Union, consistently ranking in the top 10 depending on what criteria you use. With very high highschool graduation rates, high rates of college degrees among its citizens and it scores good in math and reading. New Hampshire, also scores typically high which as it stands now has the highest support for Bernie in the early primary states. I don't know what America you think you are living in, but I don't think its the right one. If you want to talk about the voting records of rural people, try looking at the absolute lunatics and liars that the rural south elects, like Tom Cotton who is from my state.

 

 

Also, you poor baby, someone messed up your hamburger so it must mean they shouldn't live a dignified life or be able to feed their kids without government assistance. Do you need a hug?

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/smallbusiness/1102/gallery.smartest_states/

BOOM

[Adama]

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/smallbusiness/1102/gallery.smartest_states/

BOOM

They rank number five on this list, how does that contradict anything I said? Why are you being so dense on this issue. You are wrong this time Morgan, just accept it.

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

They rank number five on this list, how does that contradict anything I said? Why are you being so dense on this issue. You are wrong this time Morgan, just accept it.

The thing about Corporate bankruptcy, sometimes it is much more beneficial to the PERSON. When your corporation is in debt, and you really don't want to pay it back out of your own pocket, you declare it. The business is ruined but you aren't.

 

Trump knows how to make money, and he WILL make your people get what they work for. And unless you're disabled, you will go out and get a job and stop relying on the Government and stop taking peoples money that they have worked hard for.

 

Donald Trump is a businessman. He is worth 4 billion yearly. His own economic development is extremely high, what makes you think that he won't make America's better?

 

 

Thee thing about Capitalism, if you want to achieve and grow, you WILL. The economy will help you immensely. Capitalism improves economy, while socialism disproves it. Why, you ask? It takes away peoples hard earned money, and makes people not have the ability to afford a business, or working. If you look at the socialist and communist countries in the world, they are extremely corrupt, disorganized, and less civil rights.

 

When you have money anything can happen, because people want money, what happens when you take the hope of prosperity away from them? the don't work, riot, and use the black market to make their income. With capitalism, you have the option to make money legally and prosper more. 

 

When the borders are open to illegals, people will smuggle drugs, cause crimes, etc etc. but not all people will do that. True. Fine. But the best way to stop smuggling is (what Trump proposed) to build a wall. All along the border. And to see what other immigration policies that help people cross legally.

 

America has the ability to prosper even more, with bigger military, better economy (even though its twice as better than China's). I believe that hope is here.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Lysandre Mackintosh

[Lan]

This is why:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLI-eEC5DVc

 

Enjoy. 

[Braunsberg]

Yes, but they make lots of important ones. 

 

Ok, let's talk about a chemical company called Pollution and Water. A kid becomes the CEO of PaW. The kid should have some basic knowledge about chemical plant operations. I'm not saying that the kid should be a chemical engineer. Let's say that the plant catches on fire and it is in the news. The future of PaW relies on the kid's response. Sure he can get engineers to do all of the work, but should the kid really trust that the engineers will make the right choice? Most likely they will, but maybe the CEO has a bigger plan. 

 

Technically Bush said "weapons of mass destruction" which could also be chemical or biological. 

Indeed, they make lots of important decisions. But even the decisions made directly by the president almost exclusively involve information from officials who have more specific roles. That's why there is a Cabinet, and why leaders in various departments and agencies work with the president on a daily basis. And even putting that aside, although Hillary Clinton has never served in the military, her experience as a federal official more likely than not means that she has familiarity with the armed forces. Good presidents don't have to be military people.

 

As for Bush, precisely - but nothing classifiable as a WMD was discovered in Iraq during the war. Saddam Hussein certainly wasn't a hero, but the aftermath of the war has left Iraq shattered into lots of smaller factions and served as a catalyst for the growth of groups like ISIS. It is quite likely that these effects have resulted in greater bloodshed than Hussein's dictatorship. In any case, the point is, you should not point fingers at Hillary Clinton for not being a military person when the last Republican president ignored the advice of military officials, and started a war that killed thousands of Americans and accomplished very little.

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/smallbusiness/1102/gallery.smartest_states/

BOOM

You basically just saved us the trouble of proving our own point. Of the top five states on that list, three are in the northeast. One of them is Vermont, which happens to be Bernie Sanders' state of origin. That is exactly what we just said.

 

 

The thing about Corporate bankruptcy, sometimes it is much more beneficial to the PERSON. When your corporation is in debt, and you really don't want to pay it back out of your own pocket, you declare it. The business is ruined but you aren't.

Ah, that first point. You are precisely correct. Donald Trump filed bankruptcy for those businesses and stuck all the leftover money in his own fat pocket, with no regard for the employment or well-being of those employed by his corporations.

 

Trump knows how to make money, and he WILL make your people get what they work for.

Trump knows how to make money off the backs of others. The fact that he's good at it is precisely why he shouldn't be admired - it's exploitation.

 

And unless you're disabled, you will go out and get a job and stop relying on the Government and stop taking peoples money that they have worked hard for.

Ok, you really, really need to learn more about economics. You can't just solve everything by getting a job. People who are poor scarcely have access to anything more than minimum-wage jobs, and when that wage has to provide for a family, there is nothing left over for education or any other investment that will improve job opportunities for said poor person. I'm afraid the real world doesn't operate like the day in kindergarten when you learned what money was.

 

Donald Trump is a businessman. He is worth 4 billion yearly. His own economic development is extremely high, what makes you think that he won't make America's better?

Why do we think Donald Trump won't make the country better? Because 1) his self-serving version of capitalism benefits him, not everyone else, and 2) in case you are unaware, there is a lot more to politics than money and economics. A good president needs to be very attentive of the needs of the people in many respects: economics, social policies, defense, education, welfare, healthcare.... the list goes on and on. And even if Donald Trump was as economically adept as you seem to believe, he has still proven nothing more than inept in almost every other area.

 

Thee thing about Capitalism, if you want to achieve and grow, you WILL. The economy will help you immensely. Capitalism improves economy, while socialism disproves it. Why, you ask? It takes away peoples hard earned money, and makes people not have the ability to afford a business, or working. If you look at the socialist and communist countries in the world, they are extremely corrupt, disorganized, and less civil rights.

I'm beginning to wonder if you could find the United States on a map.

 

If you want to achieve and grow, you will, eh? Then why are there people in the United States who have been working for 30 years and remain poor? Or why, in Mexico, people who work in factories run by American companies somehow never seem to improve their living conditions? Capitalism isn't some magic utopia for anyone who works hard - it just doesn't work that way. Capitalism, if anything, promotes exploitation of cheap labor and minimal investment in working conditions. That's why American corporations have absolutely no problem with putting thousands of impoverished Mexicans and Chinese to work for unbelievably terrible wages, with working conditions that are often squalid and dangerous. It's not about the people, it's about the profit, and that's where capitalism strikes a very dark chord.

 

"Capitalism improves economy, while socialism disproves it." First of all, "disprove" means to prove something wrong - you need to fix your words. And what was that thing called the "Great Depression"? Or how about Greece's economic crisis? Or the less-than-admirable economy in the very capitalist United States right now? Meanwhile, we have very socialist Scandinavian countries whose economies are by far the most stable in the world. Germany also has many socialist-leaning economic policies, and it is one of the most powerful economies in the world. Instead of doing a read-and-repeat with Fox News and Glenn Beck, you might try reading things and learning about the world so you can actually see how socialism, capitalism, etc. work in other countries.

 

Socialism doesn't take away the money of working people. While tax rates are indeed higher, you forget that tax dollars are largely returned to the populace in the form of many services and benefits (unfortunately that isn't the case in places like the US, where the politicians prefer to temporarily shut down the government rather than provide money for healthcare). In the Scandinavian countries, tax rates are high, but at the same time everyone has free healthcare, free education (and very good quality education, I might add), and many other benefits. Not to mention that the Scandinavian countries also rate the highest in the world for citizen happiness, which should tell you something about whether they mind having their money "taken away" as you suggest. As for people not being able to afford businesses..... maybe you should look up a Google image of a street in Stockholm, and have a look at the many private businesses lining the streets.

 

"If you look at the socialist and communist countries in the world, they are extremely corrupt, disorganized, and less civil rights." I can't even laugh at this one, it's too sad. You are correct that communist countries don't fare well - but socialism is a very different economic stance, with very different results. If you look at the socialist nations of the globe, namely Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany (not entirely socialist, but very left-wing), etc., you will find that socialist countries have the best qualities in almost every way. They have the best civil rights, almost nonexistent levels of corruption, they are highly, highly organized and stable, their economies are prosperous, their education rates are twofold those of the US, healthcare is far better, the GDP per capita is far higher, citizen happiness is higher, crime rates are lower (and repeat offense rates are far lower as well).... the list goes on, and on, and on. You clearly have basically no knowledge of any country other than the US, and I get the sense that your knowledge of the US isn't too impressive either. I'm not trying to point fingers, but it is very important that you learn about things, and know about them, before you denounce certain policies and come up with "facts".

 

When you have money anything can happen, because people want money, what happens when you take the hope of prosperity away from them? the don't work, riot, and use the black market to make their income. With capitalism, you have the option to make money legally and prosper more. 

Oh yes, Scandinavia is just in complete chaos thanks to its high tax rates... wrong. Unemployment rates are considerably lower in Scandinavia than in the US (or any other capitalist country for that matter), not to mention that wages are higher. I won't even go onto the subject of the black market, because that is basically irrelevant to everything. The black market isn't a common source of income anywhere.

 

When the borders are open to illegals, people will smuggle drugs, cause crimes, etc etc. but not all people will do that. True. Fine. But the best way to stop smuggling is (what Trump proposed) to build a wall. All along the border. And to see what other immigration policies that help people cross legally.

I don't think Donald Trump is interested in any immigration policies that "help people cross legally." People come into the US illegally because they're so impoverished they don't have the money to afford legal migration. If the borders are open, you are correct that some people that come across will be criminals and smugglers. But there's something called "compassion", because the vast majority of the people coming across the border are impoverished families looking for employment and a new lifestyle. And while some of the immigrants commit crimes, their rates are no higher than inner-city communities and plenty of other populations that are perfectly acceptable in the US.

 

And for the record, building a wall probably won't solve much either - there will always be other ways of getting into the country, just like the boatloads of illegal refugees from Cuba and Haiti.

[Braunsberg]

And news just in, folks, Donald Trump is up the river now.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trump-attacks-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured-120317.html

[Lan]

Thee thing about Capitalism, if you want to achieve and grow, you WILL. The economy will help you immensely. Capitalism improves economy, while socialism disproves it. 

 

You dont understand how socialism works do you? Capitalism does not magically hand you success. It operates on the idea that the nations trade and industry is owned and operated by private owners for their own personal profit. The way it plays out in reality, is that you basically turn the nations economy into a massive pyramid scheme. 

Capitalism is often systematically flawed the more extreme it gets. The basic idea is that you have a trickle down effect, where the rich slowly trickle down money back into the economy, down to the lower class. But in practice, rich people don't go out and spend all their earnings to make the effect work. They hoard wealth instead because they aren't out to improve the economy. They are only out to make money.

 

Why, you ask? It takes away peoples hard earned money, and makes people not have the ability to afford a business, or working.

 

People are not supposed to own businesses under socialism. You just don't have an understanding of basic economics. The idea of socialism is bring the means of production under social ownership, whether that be government ownership, co-op ownership, etc. So nobody has any need to own a business because the idea is no longer profit for a particular owner, but profit for everyone through co-op management of the economy.  

 

If you look at the socialist and communist countries in the world, they are extremely corrupt, disorganized, and less civil rights.

 

So are the most conservative nations. That has little to do with left vs right economics.

 

When you have money anything can happen, because people want money, what happens when you take the hope of prosperity away from them? the don't work, riot, and use the black market to make their income. With capitalism, you have the option to make money legally and prosper more. 

 

When the borders are open to illegals, people will smuggle drugs, cause crimes, etc etc. but not all people will do that. True. Fine. But the best way to stop smuggling is (what Trump proposed) to build a wall. All along the border. And to see what other immigration policies that help people cross legally.

 

America has the ability to prosper even more, with bigger military, better economy (even though its twice as better than China's). I believe that hope is here.

 

:facepalm:

This is almost as ignorant and misinformed as listening to Donald Trump speak. No wonder you like him so much.... 

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/is-the-entire-economy-a-ponzi-scheme.html

 

 

Edited July 18, 2015 by Lan

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

Edited July 18, 2015 by Lysandre Mackintosh

[Lan]

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Conservative_vs_Liberal

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Left_Wing_vs_Right_Wing

I always talk in links when IDK what I'm talking about too. 

[WISD0MTREE]

This is why:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLI-eEC5DVc

 

Enjoy. 

Ehh, I doubt that Russia Today is a very good source. I saw an article there a while back that said "If you spend more than 1% of your income on food, then you live in a socially engineered open-air prison." 

 

Indeed, they make lots of important decisions. But even the decisions made directly by the president almost exclusively involve information from officials who have more specific roles. That's why there is a Cabinet, and why leaders in various departments and agencies work with the president on a daily basis.

 

And even putting that aside, although Hillary Clinton has never served in the military, her experience as a federal official more likely than not means that she has familiarity with the armed forces.

 

Good presidents don't have to be military people.

 

As for Bush, precisely - but nothing classifiable as a WMD was discovered in Iraq during the war.

 

Saddam Hussein certainly wasn't a hero, but the aftermath of the war has left Iraq shattered into lots of smaller factions and served as a catalyst for the growth of groups like ISIS. It is quite likely that these effects have resulted in greater bloodshed than Hussein's dictatorship.

 

In any case, the point is, you should not point fingers at Hillary Clinton for not being a military person when the last Republican president ignored the advice of military officials, and started a war that killed thousands of Americans and accomplished very little.

Yes, but like I said, they should have a basic idea. 

 

You would be surprised at the amount of stupidity in people. I was on a flight a few days ago and the person in front of me turned on the reading light. (For those of you who don't know, they have one on/off button.) A few hours into the flight, they wanted to turn it off. It took them so long to figure out how to turn it off. 

 

Good point, but I feel like this president might need it. Think about China claiming more ocean, Russia having fun with Ukraine, ISIS being ISIS, and all the other terrorist groups. While we wouldn't go into a full war with China or Russia, we could end up with a proxy war. Plus, we need to deal with ISIS. 

 

Did I argue against that in this thread? (Hint: Nope)

 

Yep. 

 

Did I defend Bush in this thread? (Hint: Again, nope) All I said was Hillary wasn't a military person. 

[Stannis Baratheon]

The thing about Corporate bankruptcy, sometimes it is much more beneficial to the PERSON. When your corporation is in debt, and you really don't want to pay it back out of your own pocket, you declare it. The business is ruined but you aren't.

 

Trump knows how to make money, and he WILL make your people get what they work for. And unless you're disabled, you will go out and get a job and stop relying on the Government and stop taking peoples money that they have worked hard for.

 

Donald Trump is a businessman. He is worth 4 billion yearly. His own economic development is extremely high, what makes you think that he won't make America's better?

 

 

Thee thing about Capitalism, if you want to achieve and grow, you WILL. The economy will help you immensely. Capitalism improves economy, while socialism disproves it. Why, you ask? It takes away peoples hard earned money, and makes people not have the ability to afford a business, or working. If you look at the socialist and communist countries in the world, they are extremely corrupt, disorganized, and less civil rights.

 

When you have money anything can happen, because people want money, what happens when you take the hope of prosperity away from them? the don't work, riot, and use the black market to make their income. With capitalism, you have the option to make money legally and prosper more

One word for you: SCANDINAVIA

[Braunsberg]

Yes, but like I said, they should have a basic idea.

Correct. But I think it is unreasonable to assume Hillary Clinton has no knowledge of the military; her extensive experience and presence in federal politics has given her more than a basic familiarity with necessary policies of national defense. As I said, she may not be military, but she is knowledgeable enough to do the job well, and if she does not know how to deal with something she would know the right officials to turn to, as every president should.

 

You would be surprised at the amount of stupidity in people. I was on a flight a few days ago and the person in front of me turned on the reading light. (For those of you who don't know, they have one on/off button.) A few hours into the flight, they wanted to turn it off. It took them so long to figure out how to turn it off.

You said it, haha. That's the first thing here on which I agree with you in full.

 

 

Good point, but I feel like this president might need it. Think about China claiming more ocean, Russia having fun with Ukraine, ISIS being ISIS, and all the other terrorist groups. While we wouldn't go into a full war with China or Russia, we could end up with a proxy war. Plus, we need to deal with ISIS. 

Any president needs to be attentive of defense policies; it is a piece of political service just like social and economic policies. But once more, for someone to make good defense policies, they don't need to be a veteran or even necessarily a military official; they simply need to be attentive to information and data, and know who to ask for assistance. Based on her past career, I think Hillary Clinton has proven herself very capable of those two things.

 

Did I defend Bush in this thread? (Hint: Again, nope) All I said was Hillary wasn't a military person. 

I didn't say you did; I am only drawing an analogy. My point was that simply because Hillary isn't a military person does not mean she is incapable of handling defense matters; likewise, George Bush, who is a military man, did very poorly in terms of defense policy.

[WISD0MTREE]

Correct. But I think it is unreasonable to assume Hillary Clinton has no knowledge of the military; her extensive experience and presence in federal politics has given her more than a basic familiarity with necessary policies of national defense. As I said, she may not be military, but she is knowledgeable enough to do the job well, and if she does not know how to deal with something she would know the right officials to turn to, as every president should.

 

You said it, haha. That's the first thing here on which I agree with you in full.

 

 

Any president needs to be attentive of defense policies; it is a piece of political service just like social and economic policies. But once more, for someone to make good defense policies, they don't need to be a veteran or even necessarily a military official; they simply need to be attentive to information and data, and know who to ask for assistance. Based on her past career, I think Hillary Clinton has proven herself very capable of those two things.

 

I didn't say you did; I am only drawing an analogy. My point was that simply because Hillary isn't a military person does not mean she is incapable of handling defense matters; likewise, George Bush, who is a military man, did very poorly in terms of defense policy.

Benghazi. 

 

 

Again, Benghazi. 

 

Fair enough. 

[Tali]

Benghazi.

 

 

Again, Benghazi.

 

Fair enough.

Yeah yeah, keep bringing up Benghazi

 

Come up with a different example.

[Adama]

Benghazi. 

 

 

Again, Benghazi. 

 

Fair enough. 

 

BENGHAZI!!

[Ekejen Luish]

Fun fact about Trump: He avoided the draft in the Vietnam War, yet he is able to run for president.

 

Trump is a Chump.

 

 

Donald Trump Chump.

[Saopha Calas Vaduum]

One could argue that dodging the draft was a wise decision.