Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 559463 times)

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2150 on: June 21, 2016, 12:15:59 PM »
I know a lot of people dont agree but consider the plan language of the ACA, "established by a state", that is very plain language but the courts ignored it because it is popular and would be too controversial to overturn. read the rest of the bill and realized it was a typo because the rest of the bill clearly and consistently displays the overall intent of the legislation to provide tax credits for plans purchased on any exchange.

FTFY
a typo is when a word is misspelled, not a phrase that changes the entire enforcement of a law. fwiw, they thought all states would adopt it, not "put a gun to their heads" (the words of CJ Roberts). the Supreme Court made that decision for convenience not jurisprudence, just like the no fly list thing will go.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2151 on: June 21, 2016, 12:52:24 PM »
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.

as an example:
Quote
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess

Everyone has a temperament.  What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"?  As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess.  Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton.  Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess.  If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2152 on: June 21, 2016, 02:36:13 PM »
I know a lot of people dont agree but consider the plan language of the ACA, "established by a state", that is very plain language but the courts ignored it because it is popular and would be too controversial to overturn. read the rest of the bill and realized it was a typo because the rest of the bill clearly and consistently displays the overall intent of the legislation to provide tax credits for plans purchased on any exchange.

FTFY
a typo is when a word is misspelled, not a phrase that changes the entire enforcement of a law. fwiw, they thought all states would adopt it, not "put a gun to their heads" (the words of CJ Roberts). the Supreme Court made that decision for convenience not jurisprudence, just like the no fly list thing will go.

You're talking about different issues now. Roberts used that phrase in regards to Medicaid expansion (a case heard 3 years prior). Kennedy asked about it in oral arguments for King (the established by the states language issue), but it wasn't used in the decision. The 'gun to the head' idea is different--that ALL existing Medicaid would be taken away if the states refused to expand. But in King the question was whether Congress intended to provide a new benefit only to certain states vs all states--no gun.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2153 on: June 21, 2016, 02:37:48 PM »
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.

as an example:
Quote
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess

Everyone has a temperament.  What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"?  As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess.  Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton.  Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess.  If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.

"A mess" is one of his crutch phrases. Things are "a mess", "huge", "tremendous" "fantastic", "top", "beautiful", "big", etc.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2154 on: June 21, 2016, 03:56:38 PM »
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?

As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.

Helps him out a lot.  It could be seen as a "common sense" solution to the problem.  I have a feeling his base doesn't really care about rights to suspected terrorists, and probably have a very hard time imagining themselves or any "real American" on the list.  This just feeds the islamophobic, gun waving, (White) America first, build a wall and kick em out political bonfire he's got going.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1377
  • Location: Denver
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2155 on: June 21, 2016, 07:02:54 PM »
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?

As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.

Helps him out a lot.  It could be seen as a "common sense" solution to the problem.  I have a feeling his base doesn't really care about rights to suspected terrorists, and probably have a very hard time imagining themselves or any "real American" on the list. 

This. Diehard Trump supporters care about one right. The right to due process (for anyone with dark skin or foreign born or suspected of "something") is not one of them. America loving Americans, would neverrrrr be on such a list, therefore no rights are being violated.
Refinanced $35,000 Parent PLUS loan with Earnest | 7.65% to 4.65%. | $200 bonus: http://goo.gl/dCbBZy

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2156 on: June 21, 2016, 08:12:35 PM »
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?

As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.

Helps him out a lot.  It could be seen as a "common sense" solution to the problem.  I have a feeling his base doesn't really care about rights to suspected terrorists, and probably have a very hard time imagining themselves or any "real American" on the list. 

This. Diehard Trump supporters care about one right. The right to due process (for anyone with dark skin or foreign born or suspected of "something") is not one of them. America loving Americans, would neverrrrr be on such a list, therefore no rights are being violated.

Trumps a moron for saying this.  If he would have agreed with Cornyn it wouldn't have been quite as bad, but what the hell.  I was hoping he might actually respect the constitution and bill or rights.

I spoke to a delegate for our state today and told him he needed to get on board the stop trump train.

With regard to the dark skin comment, Democrats are the one's pushing the most draconian versions of this law.  Feinstein and Obama could care less about rights. 

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2157 on: June 22, 2016, 05:51:59 AM »
I've been talking to my conservative friends, none of them could care, they all want this. They just think it will be the terrorist. I am working on them though. "So you are OK with not being able to speak your mind?" "I agree, they should also take away their right to vote, just like a felon[sarcasm]." They will still vote for trump but it would be good to see some of enthusiasm lost, and supposing he wins, to see them still be vigilante.

cube.37

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2158 on: June 22, 2016, 09:17:38 AM »
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.

as an example:
Quote
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess

Everyone has a temperament.  What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"?  As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess.  Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton.  Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess.  If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.

Not a fan of trump, but in this case, can't we just say that "according to new book" is just the modifier for her temperament? For example, couldn't I say: Cats are trainable and their paws, according to recent scientific papers, do have sharp claws. I'm not saying that the papers have sharp claws.

He is missing a "the" or "a" but I'd do the same if I used twitter. My understanding of twitter is that you can pretty much cut down punctuation in the same way you would when taking notes.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2016, 09:20:34 AM by cube.37 »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2159 on: June 22, 2016, 10:00:31 AM »
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.

as an example:
Quote
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess

Everyone has a temperament.  What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"?  As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess.  Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton.  Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess.  If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.

Not a fan of trump, but in this case, can't we just say that "according to new book" is just the modifier for her temperament? For example, couldn't I say: Cats are trainable and their paws, according to recent scientific papers, do have sharp claws. I'm not saying that the papers have sharp claws.

He is missing a "the" or "a" but I'd do the same if I used twitter. My understanding of twitter is that you can pretty much cut down punctuation in the same way you would when taking notes.
I suppose, but having a "temperament that is a mess" is enigmatic at best. Temperament is defined as "a person's nature, particularly as it relates to their behavior."  If I described myself as having a messy temperament, does that mean I am disorganized? scatterbrained? unstable?  I honestly have no idea what this means (other than just to be a generic insult as forummm suggested).
In a sense my criticism of many of Trump's tweets are that they are too vague. I wouldn;t be surprised if he intends them to be so (Trump seems to love make such broadly vague statements in general).

It's also annoying that he says "new book" but he doesn't say what book or who published it. If someone quotes a book or a study I like to read what that book/study actually said; often their findings are taken out of context if not completely misquoted. This is the equivalent of arguing with someone who says "everybody knows that" or "it's true, look it up, there have been studies." Once again there's no way to know what he's actually referring to, but it gives the suggestion of being bad for Clinton.

As for punctiation on twitter - I understand omitting punctuation to save characters/time, but Trump often seems to over-punctuate, but still manages to leave out the most critical marks. Admittedly this is a small annoyance.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2160 on: June 22, 2016, 10:03:15 AM »
Meanwhile in Tennessee, Rick Tyler is really running with a riff on Trump's slogan and campaign style in his own campaign:
http://newschannel9.com/news/local/congressional-candidates-controversial-billboard-has-polk-county-abuzz

Or, as Tyler put it:
Quote
For these reasons we are confident that a widespread and creative billboard advertising game plan could go a long way toward making the Rick Tyler For Congress candidacy both viable and a force to be reckoned with. Clearly we are in uncharted waters, in that there has never been a candidacy like this in modern political history. Of great significance, as well, is the reality of the Trump phenomenon and the manner in which he has loosened up the overall spectrum of political discourse.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2161 on: June 22, 2016, 10:10:20 AM »
I am actually starting to think there might be a legit move by the GOP to dump Donald at the convention. I scoffed at this idea a month ago, but I'm not so sure now.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2162 on: June 22, 2016, 10:11:46 AM »
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.

as an example:
Quote
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess

Everyone has a temperament.  What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"?  As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess.  Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton.  Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess.  If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.

Not a fan of trump, but in this case, can't we just say that "according to new book" is just the modifier for her temperament? For example, couldn't I say: Cats are trainable and their paws, according to recent scientific papers, do have sharp claws. I'm not saying that the papers have sharp claws.

He is missing a "the" or "a" but I'd do the same if I used twitter. My understanding of twitter is that you can pretty much cut down punctuation in the same way you would when taking notes.
I suppose, but having a "temperament that is a mess" is enigmatic at best. Temperament is defined as "a person's nature, particularly as it relates to their behavior."  If I described myself as having a messy temperament, does that mean I am disorganized? scatterbrained? unstable?  I honestly have no idea what this means (other than just to be a generic insult as forummm suggested).
In a sense my criticism of many of Trump's tweets are that they are too vague. I wouldn;t be surprised if he intends them to be so (Trump seems to love make such broadly vague statements in general).

It's also annoying that he says "new book" but he doesn't say what book or who published it. If someone quotes a book or a study I like to read what that book/study actually said; often their findings are taken out of context if not completely misquoted. This is the equivalent of arguing with someone who says "everybody knows that" or "it's true, look it up, there have been studies." Once again there's no way to know what he's actually referring to, but it gives the suggestion of being bad for Clinton.

As for punctiation on twitter - I understand omitting punctuation to save characters/time, but Trump often seems to over-punctuate, but still manages to leave out the most critical marks. Admittedly this is a small annoyance.

The new book is a supposed tell all from a Secret Service Agent stationed in the white house during the Clinton years.  He talks about how bad Hillary was and all the affairs he "walked in" on involving Bill.  Will sell like hotcakes amongst a certain crowd inclined to believe everything written against the Clintons.  It is telling though that the Retired Secret Service Agents Association which almost never comments on anything issued a comment calling the book mostly false.  Pretty much the only thing that was true is the author was an agent....but he was a uniformed agent, not on the presidential detail and likely was never within 20 feet of the president at any time and never had access to the areas he supposedly "walked in on".

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1586
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2163 on: June 22, 2016, 10:14:06 AM »
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.

as an example:
Quote
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess

Everyone has a temperament.  What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"?  As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess.  Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton.  Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess.  If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.

Not a fan of trump, but in this case, can't we just say that "according to new book" is just the modifier for her temperament? For example, couldn't I say: Cats are trainable and their paws, according to recent scientific papers, do have sharp claws. I'm not saying that the papers have sharp claws.

He is missing a "the" or "a" but I'd do the same if I used twitter. My understanding of twitter is that you can pretty much cut down punctuation in the same way you would when taking notes.
I suppose, but having a "temperament that is a mess" is enigmatic at best. Temperament is defined as "a person's nature, particularly as it relates to their behavior."  If I described myself as having a messy temperament, does that mean I am disorganized? scatterbrained? unstable?  I honestly have no idea what this means (other than just to be a generic insult as forummm suggested).
In a sense my criticism of many of Trump's tweets are that they are too vague. I wouldn;t be surprised if he intends them to be so (Trump seems to love make such broadly vague statements in general).

It's also annoying that he says "new book" but he doesn't say what book or who published it. If someone quotes a book or a study I like to read what that book/study actually said; often their findings are taken out of context if not completely misquoted. This is the equivalent of arguing with someone who says "everybody knows that" or "it's true, look it up, there have been studies." Once again there's no way to know what he's actually referring to, but it gives the suggestion of being bad for Clinton.

As for punctiation on twitter - I understand omitting punctuation to save characters/time, but Trump often seems to over-punctuate, but still manages to leave out the most critical marks. Admittedly this is a small annoyance.

The new book is a supposed tell all from a Secret Service Agent stationed in the white house during the Clinton years.  He talks about how bad Hillary was and all the affairs he "walked in" on involving Bill.  Will sell like hotcakes amongst a certain crowd inclined to believe everything written against the Clintons.  It is telling though that the Retired Secret Service Agents Association which almost never comments on anything issued a comment calling the book mostly false.  Pretty much the only thing that was true is the author was an agent....but he was a uniformed agent, not on the presidential detail and likely was never within 20 feet of the president at any time and never had access to the areas he supposedly "walked in on".

Well, I guess this will be a good chance to see if the Clinton lawyers mentioned above perform as expected.
No, really. I spend a lot of time thinking about rocks.

Vertical Mode

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 479
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boston, MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2164 on: June 22, 2016, 10:18:54 AM »
A criticism of Trump: his tweets are filled with grammatical errors.

as an example:
Quote
Crooked Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to be our president - really bad judgement and a temperament, according to new book, which is a mess

Everyone has a temperament.  What I believe Trump was intending to say was that Clinton's temperament is undesireable for a president.
Also, what exactly does he intent to describe as "a mess"?  As written he's saying that [a] new book is a mess.  Logically we can assume that it was intended to be an insult aimed at Clinton.  Perhaps he intended to say that her temperament was a mess.  If so, what does that mean?
His punctuation is also inconsistent, but I can ignore that given the medium.

"A mess" is one of his crutch phrases. Things are "a mess", "huge", "tremendous" "fantastic", "top", "beautiful", "big", etc.

You forgot "I [verb] the best [noun]", and "total disaster". But yeah, good list ;-)
"That is why you will never be a good detective, Cato. It's so obvious, it cannot POSSIBLY be a trap..."

Link to my Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/trending-vertical-vertical-modes-journal/

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2165 on: June 22, 2016, 10:24:10 AM »
I am actually starting to think there might be a legit move by the GOP to dump Donald at the convention. I scoffed at this idea a month ago, but I'm not so sure now.
Yeah, I'm kind of amazed that it seems to be gaining traction.
If it succeeds I expect it will cause so much chaos and lack of trust in the party that I think Trump's current supporters will stay home or vote for a 3rd party.
If it fails but several dozen pledged delegates do vote against Trump it will serve as "proof" to his supporters that the establishment is corrupt.


Short term I think no good can come from this for the Republican party, but longer-term this may be the best/only way of preserving party values whether it works or not, particularly if Trump continues to suggest things like racial profiling, a ban on Muslims entering the country, deportation of millions etc. etc.

Does the GOP try to throw in the towel for this presidential election in an effort to preserve their platform and their majorit(ies)?  Or do they just let the chips fall where they will and hope the whole house doesn't burn down?
This is one of the more interesting elections in a long time - perhaps even moreso than the Bush/Gore 2000 election.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2166 on: June 22, 2016, 12:12:23 PM »
Short term I think no good can come from this for the Republican party, but longer-term this may be the best/only way of preserving party values whether it works or not, particularly if Trump continues to suggest things like racial profiling, a ban on Muslims entering the country, deportation of millions etc. etc.

I'm curious.  What are you referencing here?  When did Trump talk about racial profiling, and in what context?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2167 on: June 22, 2016, 12:29:14 PM »
Short term I think no good can come from this for the Republican party, but longer-term this may be the best/only way of preserving party values whether it works or not, particularly if Trump continues to suggest things like racial profiling, a ban on Muslims entering the country, deportation of millions etc. etc.

I'm curious.  What are you referencing here?  When did Trump talk about racial profiling, and in what context?

This is what he said on CBC's Face the Nation on Sunday:
Quote
I think profiling is something that were going to have to start thinking about as a country. Other countries do it, you look at Israel and you look at others, they do it and they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads.
(source)

As has often been the case, Trump does not emphatically say we need to profile, rather that it's something we need to 'start thinking about'.  Hence why I was careful to say it was suggested.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7943
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2168 on: June 22, 2016, 01:06:15 PM »
This is what he said on CBC's Face the Nation on Sunday:
Quote
I think profiling is something that were going to have to start thinking about as a country. Other countries do it, you look at Israel and you look at others, they do it and they do it successfully. And I hate the concept of profiling, but we have to start using common sense and we have to use our heads.
(source)

For anyone unfamiliar, google
el al profiling
and read a few links for various perspectives.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2169 on: June 22, 2016, 01:21:41 PM »
I don't remember the news being turned over so often, so quickly in the election.

Trump literally asking for Bernie voters support.

Talk of dumping Trump @ the convention.

Trump throwing his total and unequivocal support toward pro lifers, even promising to appoint justices based on their abortion views.

I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2170 on: June 22, 2016, 01:52:47 PM »

I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.

But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?
He's been very pro-choice until he's very pro-life
He's a republican until he's a democrat, until he's a republican (again)
He says that under his administration tax rates for the rich "will go up a little bit" only to say they will go down
He's been against gay marriage, but wants to support the gay community
He promises to smash ISIS with our military but doesn't want to commit our military to fighting in I or S.
He said he wanted a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" before adding all sorts of caveats for athletes, military, friendly countries etc.
He wanted to be around the Clintons and said Hillary would be a great president until he decided they were evil, horrible, crooked people
He heaped praise onto Mit Romney but then decided he was a dimwitted fool.
He called Jeb Bush "bright, tough and principled" before calling him "low energy" and "poor, pathetic"

"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2171 on: June 22, 2016, 05:05:37 PM »
I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.

I'm not sure that's true. He constantly speaks out of both sides of his mouth--even in the same sentence. He's frequently saying one thing and then the next minute (or day) saying the exact opposite. You have no idea what he actually thinks, because he keeps changing his positions. So he is actually out to please everyone on some issues--by holding both (incompatible) positions. And when he's not contradicting himself, he's being vague enough in his responses that you can't really pin him down.

Take the statements about profiling. He both says that he hates it but that we should probably do it. He's against it and for it.

I don't think he has actual positions on most issues. And if he did, I wouldn't have any confidence that he would stick to them. He's even backtracked on the wall and on keeping out Muslims--before reversing himself once again. To paraphrase him--he's a mess.

I don't have any idea what he'll do as president. And I don't think he does either. That's not a good situation to be in. I do have a pretty good idea what Clinton will do. I don't like some of that. But she's predictable.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2172 on: June 22, 2016, 05:26:59 PM »

I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.

But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?


Honestly, when was the last time you can think of that a president actually followed through with a campaign promise, and were you surprised?  I would say that all campaign promises are close to random as to whether or not they will be honored.  Certainly, we have a pretty good idea what Clinton would do as president; but is that what she has said she will do, or simply what you expect her to do?  Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future; in finance, politics, everything.  Trumps great advantage is that he is able to credibly hold either a neutral position, or conflicting positions, on many issues; and that he can still appear as a competent leader.  If he can paint Clinton as being either incompetent, or otherwise corrupt/corruptible, while maintaining the public image as a competent negotiator, he will win.  Period.  And Clinton is weak in this regard, because she is corrupt, as most in her chosen career field are; but her issues are on display right now.  We literally can't know how good a president Trump will be unless we try it, just as we literally can't know how Clinton would handle a domestic or international crisis unless it happens.  We have to make the best guess we can with whatever, quite limited, information we may possess.  So the fact that Trump is a wild card, is to his favor this cycle, and he is very good at appearing to be the good risk.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2173 on: June 23, 2016, 08:07:03 AM »

I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.

But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?


Honestly, when was the last time you can think of that a president actually followed through with a campaign promise, and were you surprised?  I would say that all campaign promises are close to random as to whether or not they will be honored.  Certainly, we have a pretty good idea what Clinton would do as president; but is that what she has said she will do, or simply what you expect her to do?  Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future; in finance, politics, everything.  Trumps great advantage is that he is able to credibly hold either a neutral position, or conflicting positions, on many issues; and that he can still appear as a competent leader.  If he can paint Clinton as being either incompetent, or otherwise corrupt/corruptible, while maintaining the public image as a competent negotiator, he will win.  Period.  And Clinton is weak in this regard, because she is corrupt, as most in her chosen career field are; but her issues are on display right now.  We literally can't know how good a president Trump will be unless we try it, just as we literally can't know how Clinton would handle a domestic or international crisis unless it happens.  We have to make the best guess we can with whatever, quite limited, information we may possess.  So the fact that Trump is a wild card, is to his favor this cycle, and he is very good at appearing to be the good risk.

I am not talking about political promises here, but about his stated views and beliefs. With Trump those change drastically from year to year, and sometimes from day to day. Declaring yourself strongly pro-life after spending a decade plus saying you are pro-choice is a major shift in personal values.  While people will sometimes change their political affiliation as they age, its very rare for someone to go from being a democrat to a republican, back to a democrat before becoming an independent and then switching to being a republican again.

This isn't typical.  Compared to virtually any other candidate, Trump's positions are mind-numbingly vague.  For comparison's sake, one can be relatively certain Cruz wants to drastically shrink the role of the federal g'vt, Graham views expansion of our military as absolutely vital, Clinton is a pro-choice policy wonk, etc. Those are positions they have held and supported for years.

I disagree that "we literally can't know" how most candidates would try to govern. No one would expect Clinton to nominate a deeply conservative pro-life judge to the Supreme Court.  Sanders wouldn't propose tax breaks for the rich or privatize health care.  Kasich would be a fiscal budget hawk and Graham would likely veto any bill that called for reducing the size or strength of our military. That's just a sample, but I don't see any of them shifting their opinions.  Trump on the other seems to have shifted his stance on every major position over the last two decades (and many of them over the last two months).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2174 on: June 23, 2016, 09:06:06 AM »

I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.

But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?


Honestly, when was the last time you can think of that a president actually followed through with a campaign promise, and were you surprised?  I would say that all campaign promises are close to random as to whether or not they will be honored.  Certainly, we have a pretty good idea what Clinton would do as president; but is that what she has said she will do, or simply what you expect her to do?  Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future; in finance, politics, everything.  Trumps great advantage is that he is able to credibly hold either a neutral position, or conflicting positions, on many issues; and that he can still appear as a competent leader.  If he can paint Clinton as being either incompetent, or otherwise corrupt/corruptible, while maintaining the public image as a competent negotiator, he will win.  Period.  And Clinton is weak in this regard, because she is corrupt, as most in her chosen career field are; but her issues are on display right now.  We literally can't know how good a president Trump will be unless we try it, just as we literally can't know how Clinton would handle a domestic or international crisis unless it happens.  We have to make the best guess we can with whatever, quite limited, information we may possess.  So the fact that Trump is a wild card, is to his favor this cycle, and he is very good at appearing to be the good risk.

I am not talking about political promises here, but about his stated views and beliefs. With Trump those change drastically from year to year, and sometimes from day to day. Declaring yourself strongly pro-life after spending a decade plus saying you are pro-choice is a major shift in personal values.  While people will sometimes change their political affiliation as they age, its very rare for someone to go from being a democrat to a republican, back to a democrat before becoming an independent and then switching to being a republican again.

This isn't typical. 
Okay, Trump is not typical.  I'll give you that.  And I was a Green, then a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Libertarian, registered again as a Republican so that I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and now I am a Libertarian again.  I didn't quite fit into either of the major parties, and could waffle back and forth simply because I didn't know what a libertarian was yet, there are many people that can find common ground with both sides, that's just not common for a candidate running for POTUS.  Ironically, I was a delegate to the Ky state convention for both the major parties.  They both suck, but the Democrats are not democratic at all. 

Quote
I disagree that "we literally can't know" how most candidates would try to govern. No one would expect Clinton to nominate a deeply conservative pro-life judge to the Supreme Court.  Sanders wouldn't propose tax breaks for the rich or privatize health care.  Kasich would be a fiscal budget hawk and Graham would likely veto any bill that called for reducing the size or strength of our military. That's just a sample, but I don't see any of them shifting their opinions.  Trump on the other seems to have shifted his stance on every major position over the last two decades (and many of them over the last two months).

Let me clarify.  You are correct that we can predict certain things about a particular person, because of their history & personality.  What we cannot predict is what kind of crisises they will encounter during their presidency, so we can't predict which one would be the ideal choice for the next 4 years.  Graham might be a better choice over Kasich, if international geo-politcs continue to deteriorate. (BTW, the past couple of years has started to ring similar to the decade leading into World War 1, as far as retoric is concerned, so I'm starting to agree with his position, even as a lib)  Sanders might be a better choice if the next 4-8 years were about to be a 90's like economic boom, but Kasich might be the better choice if we have a Japanese style "lost decade" without military threats.  I cannot think of any future that Clinton would be the ideal POTUS, but there might be one.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10689
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2175 on: June 23, 2016, 09:23:23 AM »

I think he's a nut, but damn it is refreshing to see and hear a person running for office that offers up his views without qualifications, weaselwords or escape hatches. A welcome change from the meally mouthed office holders out to please everyone.

But how can we know what Trump's views are when he contradicts his own views so frequently?


Honestly, when was the last time you can think of that a president actually followed through with a campaign promise, and were you surprised?  I would say that all campaign promises are close to random as to whether or not they will be honored.  Certainly, we have a pretty good idea what Clinton would do as president; but is that what she has said she will do, or simply what you expect her to do?  Humans are notoriously bad at predicting the future; in finance, politics, everything.  Trumps great advantage is that he is able to credibly hold either a neutral position, or conflicting positions, on many issues; and that he can still appear as a competent leader.  If he can paint Clinton as being either incompetent, or otherwise corrupt/corruptible, while maintaining the public image as a competent negotiator, he will win.  Period.  And Clinton is weak in this regard, because she is corrupt, as most in her chosen career field are; but her issues are on display right now.  We literally can't know how good a president Trump will be unless we try it, just as we literally can't know how Clinton would handle a domestic or international crisis unless it happens.  We have to make the best guess we can with whatever, quite limited, information we may possess.  So the fact that Trump is a wild card, is to his favor this cycle, and he is very good at appearing to be the good risk.

I am not talking about political promises here, but about his stated views and beliefs. With Trump those change drastically from year to year, and sometimes from day to day. Declaring yourself strongly pro-life after spending a decade plus saying you are pro-choice is a major shift in personal values.  While people will sometimes change their political affiliation as they age, its very rare for someone to go from being a democrat to a republican, back to a democrat before becoming an independent and then switching to being a republican again.

This isn't typical. 
Okay, Trump is not typical.  I'll give you that.  And I was a Green, then a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Libertarian, registered again as a Republican so that I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and now I am a Libertarian again.  I didn't quite fit into either of the major parties, and could waffle back and forth simply because I didn't know what a libertarian was yet, there are many people that can find common ground with both sides, that's just not common for a candidate running for POTUS.  Ironically, I was a delegate to the Ky state convention for both the major parties.  They both suck, but the Democrats are not democratic at all. 

Quote
I disagree that "we literally can't know" how most candidates would try to govern. No one would expect Clinton to nominate a deeply conservative pro-life judge to the Supreme Court.  Sanders wouldn't propose tax breaks for the rich or privatize health care.  Kasich would be a fiscal budget hawk and Graham would likely veto any bill that called for reducing the size or strength of our military. That's just a sample, but I don't see any of them shifting their opinions.  Trump on the other seems to have shifted his stance on every major position over the last two decades (and many of them over the last two months).

Let me clarify.  You are correct that we can predict certain things about a particular person, because of their history & personality.  What we cannot predict is what kind of crisises they will encounter during their presidency, so we can't predict which one would be the ideal choice for the next 4 years.  Graham might be a better choice over Kasich, if international geo-politcs continue to deteriorate. (BTW, the past couple of years has started to ring similar to the decade leading into World War 1, as far as retoric is concerned, so I'm starting to agree with his position, even as a lib)  Sanders might be a better choice if the next 4-8 years were about to be a 90's like economic boom, but Kasich might be the better choice if we have a Japanese style "lost decade" without military threats.  I cannot think of any future that Clinton would be the ideal POTUS, but there might be one.

In which future is Trump the ideal president?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2176 on: June 23, 2016, 09:28:52 AM »

In which future is Trump the ideal president?

Sorry.  I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one.  Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?  It does make an interesting choice between Trump & Clinton.

Again, we don't know what the future holds.  We will all vote based upon insufficient information.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2177 on: June 23, 2016, 09:36:56 AM »

In which future is Trump the ideal president?

Sorry.  I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one.  Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?

First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing. And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2178 on: June 23, 2016, 12:11:19 PM »

Again, we don't know what the future holds.  We will all vote based upon insufficient information.

Thanks for clarifying - that really helped.  If switching political affiliation was the only thing Trump has switched on it wouldn't concern me - several people in high-level positions have changed parties. But his publicly stated views have changed on virtually every major topic; socially, economically and militarily.

It's true that we don't know what the future holds, and that humans have been rather poor at predicting future economic conditions. The next president will certainly face at least one black swan. However, it's ludicrous to say that since the future is unknowable we shouldn't bother trying to choose our leaders based on the most likely scenario.  That's akin to the argument people make about early retirement being impossible because no one can predict their future needs and no WR is ever safe. We might not be able to predict what the stock market will do any particular week several years in advance, but if we consider longer time-spans (e.g. multiple years) things are a lot more predictable. Likewise, we don't know where the next mass shooting will be, but I'm reasonably certain the next president will have to deal with several. We can't know when the next recession will hit or which sector(s) will take it the hardest, but we can be reasonably certain it will be within the next two terms. Statistically there will be a large natural disaster domestically and a foreign humanitarian crisis during the next four years. At least one of our allies will become entangled war. There will be a vacancy or three in the Supreme Court.  Dozens of federal appointees will be made every year. We can be fairly certain that particular countries will remain hostile to the US and that the Cubs won't win the world series.

We can (and I believe that we should) choose our next president based on a combination of how they will address each of those likely scenarios, as well as their ability to adapt to completely unanticipated events.
I
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2179 on: June 23, 2016, 12:25:39 PM »

In which future is Trump the ideal president?

Sorry.  I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one.  Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?

First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.
Yes, exactly.  And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay.  Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit.  However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved.  We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief.  That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon.  He is definitely not a policy wonk.

Quote


 And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.

I think you underestimate Trump, and overestimate the skills of our past negotiators.    The man has roughly 500 buildings around the world, either owned or with his name on it.  He has dealt with foreign governments before.  He also is the master of debt; he really has made a fortune out of managing debt, or discharging it.  He likely knows better than most anyone else in government the risks of too much debt.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2180 on: June 23, 2016, 12:49:58 PM »

In which future is Trump the ideal president?

Sorry.  I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one.  Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?

First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.
Yes, exactly.  And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay.  Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit.  However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved.  We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief.  That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon.  He is definitely not a policy wonk.

Quote


 And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.

I think you underestimate Trump, and overestimate the skills of our past negotiators.    The man has roughly 500 buildings around the world, either owned or with his name on it.  He has dealt with foreign governments before.  He also is the master of debt; he really has made a fortune out of managing debt, or discharging it.  He likely knows better than most anyone else in government the risks of too much debt.

Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed. He's made his fortune by 1) inheriting the equivalent of several billion dollars, and 2) getting paid to put his name on things that he has no role in managing.

Look at how terribly managed his campaign is. He didn't know you needed a ground game in Iowa until after the election, and after he'd been campaigning for a year. Unbelievably incompetent. He hasn't raised any money. I have strong doubts that he has the cash available to donate to his campaign to be able to compete effectively against Clinton. He doesn't have staff. He doesn't have a ground game going in swing states. He let Cruz win many more delegates than he earned in the voting because Cruz hired better people. Trump has no idea what he's doing. He chooses people based on their merits? He hires women based on their appearance. His press secretary doesn't have any experience other than being a former model.

The only reason Trump is doing well is because of 1) being very good at marketing, and 2) everyone he's run against sucks. Other than Trump, Clinton is the most hated nominee ever--and he's probably going to lose to her. In the primary he ran against a grab bag of milquetoast loathsome hacks. Jeb still thought Iraq was a good idea. Rand vacated his principles and decided that maybe spending a crapload on the military was a great idea after all. Carson looked like he was asleep all the time and had some of the most crazy weird lies. Fiorina was a massive business failure. Cruz just makes your skin crawl. Kasich was shockingly boring.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2181 on: June 23, 2016, 01:01:43 PM »
We can (and I believe that we should) choose our next president based on a combination of how they will address each of those likely scenarios, as well as their ability to adapt to completely unanticipated events.

Fair enough.  Since our primary choice is between Clinton & Trump, which would you think would have the greater ability to "adapt to completely unanticipated events"?  The policy wonk who has/is running on the premise that her presidency would be an "improved" version of Obama's 3 term; or a silver spoon billionaire, son of a millionaire, who has so far survived & profited through 5 business cycles?

If I had to choose between those two, and had to make a choice (I don't & wont) I would choose Trump on this issue alone.  In the military, we all knew that our leadership was making decisions based upon very little information, but we also knew that indecision was more likely to result in a negative outcome for all of us collectively, and each of us individually, than simply a bad decision.  The POTUS is, arguably, the most well informed person in the world, regarding geo-political issues.  Given the exact same data sets, as large as possible, but still incomplete during a crisis; I can imagine Trump confidently making an executive decision and owning the results.  I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.  It is for crisis that the office of president even exists, because a crisis cannot be managed by committee.  Our world seems to be full of crisis these days.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2182 on: June 23, 2016, 01:07:41 PM »

In which future is Trump the ideal president?

Sorry.  I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one.  Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?

First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.
Yes, exactly.  And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay.  Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit.  However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved.  We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief.  That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon.  He is definitely not a policy wonk.

Quote


 And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.

I think you underestimate Trump, and overestimate the skills of our past negotiators.    The man has roughly 500 buildings around the world, either owned or with his name on it.  He has dealt with foreign governments before.  He also is the master of debt; he really has made a fortune out of managing debt, or discharging it.  He likely knows better than most anyone else in government the risks of too much debt.

Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.

I'm going to stop you right here.  I believe that the exact number of failures was 5.  As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500.  That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity.  Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period.  If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning.  Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10689
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2183 on: June 23, 2016, 01:16:42 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2184 on: June 23, 2016, 01:18:01 PM »

In which future is Trump the ideal president?

Sorry.  I'm just sitting here, and I can't think of one.  Complete renegotiation of treaties & trade pacts, maybe?

First of all, presidents don't get that involved in negotiation of treaties and trade pacts. That's a terrible use of their time. And the issues involved are so complex that you have to have people who do it full time to have any hope of a good outcome. Think lots of lawyers and wonks from many different countries going back and forth in rooms for months on end debating the tariff structure for each of the hundreds of different categories of clothing.
Yes, exactly.  And if Trump has any business skill at all that translates well to the office of POTUS, it is the ability to choose employees based upon their merits, and without any political debts to repay.  Clinton has already demonstrated that a donor can get appointed to a high level government position without merit.  However, it is the Executive Branch that negotiates, so if Trump wanted to be involved, he could be involved.  We have had president negotiate directly in the past, that is one of the qualifications of a good president, as an ambassador in chief.  That is literally one of the major qualities that Trump is depending upon.  He is definitely not a policy wonk.

Quote


 And if Trump did get very involved, he would be a disaster at this. He has no idea about any of the complexities of these policies. He's a very surface-level, simple-minded guy in a lot of ways. There are so many ways to get screwed on trade deals, and he would blunder into many of them.

I think you underestimate Trump, and overestimate the skills of our past negotiators.    The man has roughly 500 buildings around the world, either owned or with his name on it.  He has dealt with foreign governments before.  He also is the master of debt; he really has made a fortune out of managing debt, or discharging it.  He likely knows better than most anyone else in government the risks of too much debt.

Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.

I'm going to stop you right here.  I believe that the exact number of failures was 5.  As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500.  That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity.  Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period.  If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning.  Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.
I don't know if it's reasonable to describe each time he lends his name out as a successful venture. It's also a safe bet that he has had some buildings not work out for him. You can't tell his before market failure ratio.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2185 on: June 23, 2016, 01:29:30 PM »
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.

I'm going to stop you right here.  I believe that the exact number of failures was 5.  As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500.  That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity.  Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period.  If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning.  Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.

He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2186 on: June 23, 2016, 01:33:43 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2187 on: June 23, 2016, 01:35:09 PM »
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.

I'm going to stop you right here.  I believe that the exact number of failures was 5.  As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500.  That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity.  Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period.  If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning.  Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.

He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.

Fine.  He has business interests in roughly 500 properties.  Does that legal distinction alter my argument?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2188 on: June 23, 2016, 01:35:32 PM »
Trump sucks at managing. He's excellent at marketing his brand. When he managed his projects many failed.

I'm going to stop you right here.  I believe that the exact number of failures was 5.  As I already mentioned, the current number of properties (he is primarily a real estate mogul) owned by Trump's businesses, directly or indirectly, is about 500.  That would make it a 1% failure rate over 30+ years of activity.  Not only is that not bad, that is actually better than the best class of home mortgages over the same time period.  If you really think that is a bad average, please explain your reasoning.  Keep in mind, Apple has admitted that their before-market failure rate on new projects exceeds 50%.

He does not own 500 properties. He licenses his name to other developers and they put his name on the project and pay him $20 million (or whatever) in cash but he has no role or ownership in the project. Show me your source that he *owns* 500 properties.

I'm not a Trump fan, but he is the head of huge empire.  If he's a bad manager, what does that make Hillary Clinton?  She was a senator (substantially less management than a governor or President) and Secretary of state. 

As secretary of State she presided over a failed policy in Libya and created this email disaster for herself.  Not exactly my idea of a successful manager.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2189 on: June 23, 2016, 01:36:45 PM »

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.

Actually, this was true for a great many presidents.  John Adams being another fine example.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2190 on: June 23, 2016, 01:38:48 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2191 on: June 23, 2016, 01:44:19 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.

That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission.  Clinton did little regarding that event.  Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi.  If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?".  I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1284
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2192 on: June 23, 2016, 01:44:56 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.

The Bin Laden decision was made by President Obama and performed by Navy Seals.  While she participated in the decision, it wasn't hers to make.  Unless this is like Bosnia, she wasn't under fire during the raid either.

She championed the Libya policy which has strengthened ISIS.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1025
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2193 on: June 23, 2016, 01:46:34 PM »
Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.

No, he most certainly isn't.  But I would say rather that it's much worse than not being dependent on the advice of others.  So far, based on how he's run his campaign, it looks as though he REFUSES to take the advice of others because he thinks he knows everything already.  This is a serious character flaw.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2194 on: June 23, 2016, 01:50:59 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.

That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission.  Clinton did little regarding that event.  Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi.  If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?".  I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2195 on: June 23, 2016, 01:56:56 PM »
Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.

No, he most certainly isn't.  But I would say rather that it's much worse than not being dependent on the advice of others.  So far, based on how he's run his campaign, it looks as though he REFUSES to take the advice of others because he thinks he knows everything already.  This is a serious character flaw.

Yes, but both those general attributes are both qualities & flaws, depending upon the situation.  Seeking Bill Clinton's advice on most issues is a fine attribute, most of the time.  My point is, what if there is a crisis and & Bill isn't available?  Is Hillary really as confident in herself as the image that she projects?  Maybe, maybe not.  But I don't think that there is any doubt that Trump is as confident as his image.  Once again, we have come full circle in my argument.  The ideal president for any particular time cannot be predicted in advance, mostly because the nature of the 'black swan' events cannot be predicted, by definition.  So if the general consensus is that such 'black swan' events are on the rise in our current era, who do you choose between our two major choices?  I think they will both suck, on many domestic issues; so for me, that is a push. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2196 on: June 23, 2016, 02:00:20 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.

That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission.  Clinton did little regarding that event.  Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi.  If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?".  I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.

You literally just described a decision by committee.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7697
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2197 on: June 23, 2016, 02:14:27 PM »
Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi.  If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?".  I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.

Seriously?  Benghazi?  Maybe this is another one of those Rorschach tests, but when I think of Clinton and the Benghazi attack all that really comes to mind is a congressional hearing that didn't amount to a hill of beans.  we were attacked.  It was bad. Clinton bungled the initial media reports but near as I can tell that was about it.

Personally what I most remember about Clinton's time as SoS was the raid on Bin Laden, and in particular this photo
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2198 on: June 23, 2016, 02:15:59 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.

That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission.  Clinton did little regarding that event.  Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi.  If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?".  I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.

You literally just described a decision by committee.
A committee of 4. Do you think she was the only person pushing for the Libya intervention?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2199 on: June 23, 2016, 03:26:51 PM »
I can also imagine Clinton being largely indecisive in the face of a real crisis, requiring the advice of her husband on a great many issues.

Wow.

Did the little woman have to run to her big strong man often while she was the secretary of state?  Or do you just believe that the secretary of state is a position where one never has to deal with crisis?

If she sought out advice from anyone during her tenure as SoS, it didn't work out when there was an actual crisis.  And her performance during that crisis is what I'm basing my judgement upon.  If she was unwilling to consider her husband's advice when available (she has already implied that she has the best advisor available in her own bedroom), then I would be even less likely to vote for her, due to her history on how she handled her definitive crisis as SoS.  Try not to fall into that thought pattern.  You know damn well that Bill Clinton is quite the asset.  This is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a woman, it's about Hillary Clinton.

Also, it was an open secret during the Clinton administration that Hillary was as much an advisor to her husband as his official cabinet ever was.  I wasn't ever making the point that seeking advice from trusted people wasn't wise, but that she (just like Bill was) is overly dependent upon such a management style for a crisis.  Trump most certainly is not dependent upon the advice of others.  He is less likely to falter by a late action or general indecision, should speed of action ever be the most important quality.
The central crisis of her tenure as SoS was the Bin Laden raid, which was a success.

That was not a crisis, but a well planned military mission.  Clinton did little regarding that event.  Clinton's defining crisis as SoS was Bengazi.  If you don't believe that is true, go do a street poll and ask "What event do you remember from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State?".  I'd be willing to wager that "Bengazi" is a much higher resulting answer than "assassination of Bin Laden" or some such.
Clinton was one of four people who were documented to have input into the decision to go forward with the raid. Of them, the joint chiefs were split, Biden pushed for more time, and Clinton was in favor. If she had been opposed, and if the raid hadn't happened, that would be a disaster.

You literally just described a decision by committee.
A committee of 4. Do you think she was the only person pushing for the Libya intervention?

No, of course not.  But she was the one person most directly in command over ambassadors & embassies.  Again, Bengazi is the defining crisis, not the decisions debated at length before choosing war over peace.  You can spin all you like, but it is true.