Printable View
What are genuinly stupid intentions, I don't really see them, I would say most Trump says makes perfect sense. If he runs the country like a good manager with the right people at the right places he could be a really good president. He isn't all that political I like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The key word is IF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Sure but I would give him the chance. Clinton is a politician through and through, Trump is not he's obviously new to this Clinton absolutily destroyed him yesterday, pretty painful to watch really, Trump is obviously not in the same lague as the highly prepared Drllary, she was really good she fits her role as a glove. It's going to be interesting how this turns out. Drillary has the advantage of being female and women don't like Trump (not that I blame them for that I wouldn't like him either)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
But doesn't he have a history of being a bad manager and putting the wrong people in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Just look at his business boast from last night...he completed his building project 2 years ahead of schedule?
So was that the announced schedule to open in 2016, late 2015, the end of 2015, mid 2016, Autumn 2016?
Or was it the partial opening a year behind schedule he was on about, partial opening because they still haven't finished building it.
Well one thing in Trumps favour, he certainly lies like a politician.
The thing is, if he gets the job that is the sort of person he is going to have to deal with. If a politicain as bad as Clinton can easily destrioy him how on earth will he not get slaughtered when dealing with other politicians and diplomats.Quote:
Sure but I would give him the chance. Clinton is a politician through and through, Trump is not he's obviously new to this Clinton absolutily destroyed him yesterday, pretty painful to watch really, Trump is obviously not in the same lague as the highly prepared Drllary, she was really good.
By outsourcing, he will have to assemble a good crew because there are obviously things he just can't do himself. Just getting the best people regardless of affiliation. Trump has no ideoligy to cater, that's a plus imhoQuote:
Originally Posted by Legs
Are Trump's best people better than Hillary's best people? Such a strange, borderline-irrelevant position to take.
Clinton DOES have to cater people, she exists at the grace of lobbyists, mi casa su casaQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What do you mean by "people", then? Executive staff? Those aren't the lobbyists themselves, and will themselves be vulnerable to lobbies in the usual way, whether they are picked by Clinton or by Trump.
She will no doubt have competent people, but Clinton is a product of politics, Trump is not. I see that as a major plus, he's an ousider who doesn't have to answer to anyone. Maybe he will be a total disaster but he is basicly untied to lobbyists; banks, wallstreet arms-industry etc. That is of course not fully true, but a whole lot more
So Trump's strong card is that he is pointless. Might as well have a cardboard cut out in his place. At least a cardboard cut out won't actively do anything stupid. All your positive points listed above would apply equally to said cardboard cut out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I've watched the first 45 minutes of the debate. Trump's answers sound like what you would get if you take a statement of 5 minutes long, condense it into a two-sentence Tl;DR version and then spread that two-sentence version out over the same 5 minutes again. Clinton's performance was good but not extraordinary IMO.
Not sure wether I'm going to watch the rest of that train wreck...it's not pretty, but fascinating to watch anyway.
Clinton did a solid, and clearly well prepped, job. I loathe the policy set she represents, but cannot fault her for this performance. She came over as poised and engaging as I have ever seen from her.
Trump was lackluster, and not glib enough "off the cuff" to create a sense that he was genuine whereas she was contrived. She was, of course, but he did not take advantage of it.
The next question is how effectively he tackles the learning curve he is facing by debate #2.
Well yes, said cardbox would have less negative onesQuote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Best people ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If he hired the best people maybe his htel would have been finished on schedule, or even on one of the revised schedules , but then best people wouldn't be someone choosing the drapery who had managed to get as some "high quality" trump fabrics outsourced from China which left them open to potential lawsuits as it was firehazard.
Luckily the evil federal government spotted the substandard material didn't meet its silly burdomsome regulations in time and got the whole lot recalled and scrapped.
But hey he knows how to pick the best staff regardless of affiliation....unless of course someone affiliated wants the job right.
I think he did well in the first 20 minutes or so but fell to bits when they reached gun control, I'm actually finding it hard to keep watching after the 40 minute mark, really is dumb vs evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Calling her names would actually have been an improvment, and bodyslamming would probably be the best thing he could do, with how fragile clinton is he'd likely end up killing her and force america to start the election over.Quote:
No one thinks he won except horserace journalists. Worst debate performance I've ever seen, and short of calling Hillary the B or C word or body slamming her, the worst that could possibly be given.
My first though seeing your post: Why is Gilrandir posting MTW unit animations in the Backroom. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Much the same was said about W. His "people" then promptly ran the country into the ground pursuing their own agendas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Hillary clearly did better in the debate, but she also failed to come across as someone who gives a damn about other people (something her husband was a master at). Trump's trolling was polite at least, but he repeated himself several times and didn't have any real comebacks. Overall, it was definitely more entertaining than the Falcons/Saints MNF game. ~:rolleyes:
Don't know anything about any hotel I must have missed that. What's important (I think) is that he said not everybody will be pleased with his choices. That sounds to me that some republicans will not be happy with his choices and there might as well be democrats holding key positions and that he can't please everyone. There are more than enough really bright and able people if you don't care about party-politics all too much. That's how I took it anyway, a healthy way to look at things if so imhoQuote:
Originally Posted by Legs
Make of it what you will; sums up the whole debate for me:
https://youtu.be/Q5FPTPkeomA
Frag, you mentioned that Trump has no connections with Wall Street and that he's not part of the establishment - he has connections with every major bank, having had the banks to lend him for his businesses, and Carl Icahn, a very known Wall Street investor, is a Trump backer/supporter.
He clearly does not have the same connections as Hillary does because of the nature of the work they do, and given that he is not dealing with banks on a daily basis, but he has relatively strong Wall Street connections.
Just pointing that out as a bit of info, nothing more.
NY Times article - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/bu...kers.html?_r=0
At the end of the day, Trump is a billionaire businessman who has the same interests as the billionaires who lobby politicians to get what they want. Electing Trump is just cutting out the middleman.
Of course he does, but his contacts aren't nearly as shady, Hillary is as hawkish as they comeQuote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
So is it a problem with Hillary, or with her "contacts"?Quote:
Of course he does, but his contacts aren't nearly as shady, Hillary is as hawkish as they come
Both of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Then what do "contacts" have to do with anything? The good guys have the good ones and the bad guys have the bad ones. Straightforward enough.
Very straightforward indeed, Trump is an outsider in their inner circle that simply cannot be controlled because he simply doesn't need them. Clinton on the other hand is the company-poodle of some very dubious people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Not the other way around?Quote:
Clinton on the other hand is the company-poodle of some very dubious people.
Goes both ways I guess. Most important is that Trump is an outsider in a very much closed circuitQuote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Hawkish?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Trump wants to invade and occupy about 30 countries and wants to order the US to commit war crimes to do so.
He sounds pretty much as Hawkish as its possible to be.
???Quote:
Originally Posted by Legs
He wants to invade and occupy Russia, in order to remodel it and make it a more profitable venture for Vladimir Putin.
???