Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
Ulysses Grant had no experience and he was not. By your logic we might as well just elect any ol' body.
1.) He has gone bankrupt multiple times, and shown himself to be competent mostly in being able to trick others into thinking that he is competent (and here we are...)
2.) Business experience ≠ political experience. Everything that he has said about dealing with immigration, Russia and China, and the economy, gives the impression that he is a cretin without the slightest idea what the **** he is talking about.
|
I'm aware of his bankruptcy filings, he knows how to work the system, and has done so to his advantage.
Getting on the Forbes list repeatedly year after year after year, is no easy feat, its reserved for the richest people in the world.
He took the starter money his father gave him and maximized way beyond the profits of his father. He created a financial empire, and took a risk when he was down and out, and bounced back from the brink.
He knows the financial system in and out, and he's friends with some of the most powerful business entrepreneurs on brokers on Wall Street, and despite "all" of this, he chooses to independently fund his own campaign free from lobbyiests and Super Pac's, and has taken an unbelievable hit financially to his empire for deciding to enter into the realm of politics.
As for foreign policy, the things he's says are true and that's why they resonate. You are getting ripped off on your free trade deals from China to Korea to Iraq and onward.
In terms of foreign policy, being in the Senate or a governor is not guarantee your educated on world affairs. I think your last two Presidents have proven that.
Trump was right on Iraq, it will be interesting to see if he's right on Russia getting bogged down in Syria. Either way Trump would kick Putin around like a soccer ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
He was running against John "Today, we are all Georgians" McCain, not Romney. I didn't vote for Obama because I believed in him in any way as a candidate. I voted for him because McCain's warmongering nutbaggery terrified me. I never had any faith in Obama, due to his original candidacy relying almost entirely on a pretty slogan (Yes we can!).
And after he was elected, he continued to interact with Republicans as he had when campaigning (i.e. antagonizing them to whip up the liberal base, rather than make the slightest attempt to actually work with them). I consider that to have showed a lack of governing competence, and had I bothered to vote, I would have voted for Romney, as he had previously shown that he could work with a Democratic legislature to get things done, which shows actual competence, which -- along with a willingness to work with the other side -- is something we desperately need.
|
I remember citing different reasons for you voting Obama, but I would just say that the gridlock in the Senate and House of Representatives
has more to do with the radical wave of tea party candidates that were elected to office and made John Boehner's life a living hell, than Obama's unwillingness to compromise.
The fact that a Republican speaker of the house is virtually pushed out and forced to resign because he's seen to compromise to much with the Democrats is very telling. The fact that prominent Republicans were turning down such a prestigious job, and that Paul Ryan would only take it under certain guarantees is even more telling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Batlord
I haven't been keeping up with the election, but assuming I were using my vote as anything but an excuse to troll the American electoral system, I would vote for anyone, ANYONE, but an idiot like Trump. I actually rather liked the idea of voting for Christie before he showed himself to be a political bully with the whole ****ing-up-traffic-in-retaliation-for-a-political-slight thing. Before then I thought that he might actually be effective in dealing with the Democrats.
The current political climate is so polarized that it is almost pointless to try to accomplish anything, so before we start worrying about pretty much anything else, this country needs to focus on electing leaders who can work together without deadlocking over the most trivial disputes.
|
Fair enough, you don't have to like Trump, or vote for him, his inflammatory nature makes him an easy target. I just happen to think he's a viable candidate, but I like establishment candidates as well, Hillary Clinton (though bought and paid for) would be a good choice, as she would have the whole Clinton team of the 90's backing her. Rubio would be another competent choice.
There are however, only two candidates out there that are independently funding their own campaigns, who are free from the lobbying interests of wall street and special interest groups, unfortunately only one of them has the chance of winning their primary.
At the end of the day, I would just like Americans to look beyond the
left wing, right wing (I'm a liberal/conservative) paradigm bull$hit, and give an outsider a chance.