Reminds me of when Ross Perot ran back in the '90's. I'm thinking that we are in serious need of someone who knows how to make money, rather than how to spend it, to try to fix this country. So the question for the poll is, I guess: Would you vote for Donald Trump if the only opponent were Obama?
I would.|||He's always struck me as someone who likes to make money for himself at any cost, I mean if I understand the situation correctly, he tried to make it so that anytime someone said "You're fired" he would get money, maybe only on tv shows or something? Idk, but that's plain dumb and dirty.
If I thought he was actually going to try and make the US money instead of himself, I might have to think a little harder on the subject, but it would still be a tough call.|||I have to be cautious with my words here because I do not want to offend, but.. absolutely not. The man is a pompous *** who isn't even that good of a business man. He's made so many terrible decisions and investments, has so many failed businesses. The only reason he has as much money as he does is because of sketchy business practices (ie. declaring bankruptcy multiple times).
Even the "He's good at making money" argument doesn't make sense.
Also, he's a dick. I do hope he runs, though, because I have faith that he'd lose in a landslide.
EDIT: Oh, also, I have read he doesn't even know how much money he has. In interviews, he'll say he's worth billions, but Forbes will list him at far less. So, either he's that much of a tard or he's a liar (or both!).|||Quote:
I have to be cautious with my words here because I do not want to offend, but.. absolutely not.
Who would you worry about offending? Not me, I hope.
I would vote for him if his only opponent were Obama. That is far from saying I think he's the best possible candidate for president.
As for his money, well...however he managed to end up with it, it's a whole lot more than I've got. He must have made some smart moves.|||I would not.|||This is among the worst ideas that I have ever heard. Trump is a birther and a tea partier, a petty celebrity and... you know what, if "rich=good" is all you've found yourself on the subject I think I'll just hope you put as little effort into actual voting.
If the only qualification one needs for becoming president is making money, then surely Bill Gates should be higher on the list then Trump. At least once he made his boatloads of money he turned it to actually doing good for other people. I think I'd trust him at least to do what he thought was right, whereas I'd trust Trump to try to make more money.
Of course, picking a president for his money-making skills in general would be phenomenally stupid. Hire people who are good at money management to run individual agencies, if that's what's important, or even to write the budget. But - as much as I'm loathe to admit it - the actual job of president is probably best left to a politician.|||I definitely would not vote for him, but I desperately hope he runs. The comedy reactions to a Trump ticket would be incredible.
As to your point about making money, I understand where you're coming from but I wonder if it applies. Business and government make money in different ways, and they handle that money differently once they get there. I'm not sure if the skills are transferable or if Trump is the person I'd want testing that theory out.|||Forget someone who can make money. Let's vote for someone who has the innate ability to insult through forum opinions. Boo for people sounding like jerks when commenting on others proposals. ("Well, you could be an IDIOT and vote for him, if you think money is everything for Pres. credentials, but that would be STOOPID...") C'mon now.
I foresee Trump running with a mediocre Republican candidate, which equals an automatic Obama win. So, yeah... a lot like Perot. I'd rather Trump stay out of this, despite the guy knowing a lot about economics. He's also kinda polarizing and easy to lampoon. (And also not a leftie, which means he won't fare well in popular news/SNL) Maybe as a VP.
I'd prefer a decent Republican runner, though, rather than a split that gives Obama an easy pass.|||Quote:
Forget someone who can make money. Let's vote for someone who has the innate ability to insult through forum opinions. Boo for people sounding like jerks when commenting on others proposals. ("Well, you could be an IDIOT and vote for him, if you think money is everything for Pres. credentials, but that would be STOOPID...") C'mon now.
Appreciate this, since my goal here was truly not to get opinions on how I'm stupid. I already know those opinions, from posters who really don't know me for shyte, which I find amusing more than anything.
I put down one reason it might be prudent to put someone in office who has a handle on money, since money--or the lack thereof, or the mismanagement thereof--is the whole and only reason for our country's economic crisis. Our government, the staff we hired to oversee our economy among other things, has over the past few presidential terms consistently driven it into the ground through horrific spending and laws compelling loan companies to give money to people who couldn't possibly ever pay it back. They are firmly entrenched in their positions, which have become all about being re-elected and no longer about working for the country. Obama, I'm sorry to say, is flapping his arms around doing absolutely nothing, and obviously is helpless to alleviate the situation, which worsens by the day.
Given the opportunity to replace the current hopeless president* with someone entirely different, would you actually elect to keep the current failure in office? The poll seems to indicate that.
*I do realize that the state of our economy is not the fault of the president, and that no single man can fix it. People expect Obama to pull instant cures and jobs out of his...ears..., which of course is impossible. The economic crash is an avalanche gaining speed and mass, that will take a whole country to fix. It could very well be that nobody who is elected president can repair this.|||I love ya MV.
You owe me a meal now now according to Scottish law.
-Art
No comments:
Post a Comment