Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
Lying effectively and gaming a system effectively, Husar, are not signs of intellectual shortcomings but, as Monty alluded to using Comey's quotation, moral and ethical shortcomings.

I am unwavering in my assessment of Trump as an asshat, I merely refuse to fall down the "I think he is an asshat so everything he is and has ever done must be evil, all of his ideas must be stupid, all of his supposed successes must have been faked, etc." rabbithole. It is akin to Stalin lifting Trotsky out of all the photos in order to make a fabrication real and far too much of here's what I think so now let's interpret everything based on my view is a "given." Look at each action and effort item by item and credit what is done well and damn what is done poorly. There are more than enough of the latter in my opinion.

Trump should be assessed on what he does in the office and how well he does it. Reviews, so far, are mixed at best.

I have supported the GOP with few exceptions since the 1970s. I have to actively consider voting for whatever yahoo the Dems put up -- who will likely be a big government is the only way crazy, given the current polarization in our politics -- to keep the asshat from demeaning the office further. Galling.
You're wrong about my point and you're also not answering my question anywhere as Monty also pointed out.
My point is not that lying makes him stupid, but that him gaining his welath via lies does not make him a great manager, it says more about the failure of others to check his statements. I don't count gaming the system as a great management skill just like being able to type god mode into a console does not make you the best shooter player deserving of the ESL top prize for whatever league.

His statements, the logic he displays in public and most other indicators do not make me think he is particularly clever. Maybe not stupid either, but certainly not clever. Yet you state you believe him to be a great businessman and a great dealmaker. So I ask you to name some examples where he managed a business very well or made a great deal, before he became president.

If your only argument in favor of him being a great dealmaker is "let's wait and see what he still does as president", you're also doing the cumquad hoc propter somethingorother by claiming he already is a great dealmaker before you know of even a single great deal he made.

Just name two or three concrete examples of great deals he made before he was elected president. There have to be some, or the claim is simply empty.