Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I didn't say presidency, I said foreign policy, which it has for the most part. Iran continues making threats against Israel and from what I understand, abusing the generous sanctions imposed on it.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
This is a fair point, I'm not sure what he would do. I guess we would need to delve deeper into his business dealings to see if a similar scenario has happened and what his response was.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
You're essentially repeating yourself here because you're saying hilary is more experienced in politics which I haven't argued. Trump has negotiated thousands upon thousands of billion dollar deals and although it's not exactly the same thing, it's similar. If you want to keep harping on the fact that Hilary has SOME experience in this area whereas Trump doesn't, it's not much of a discussion any longer. People also want to mention Trump's 3-4 bankruptcies, yet ignore the thousands and thousands of business deals he's done over his lifetime. If your bankruptcy rate is under 5%, that's impressive. Also, turning 20 million into a billion is even more impression. Give 100 people 20 million dollars, I doubt you find one person that turns that into a billion, so I don't worry too much about his bankruptcies. The only criticism I have is regarding his laissez faire attitude towards some of the businesses that failed.
Instead, I wanted to focus on the way that the experience Trump does have might be a liability. Think about the position of CEO, and the breadth of power given to a corporate leader. There are sweeping changes that a CEO can institute within a very short time. Trump is famous for his catchphrase "you're fired." But Federal employees largely cannot just be fired like that. Similarly, promotions and incentive reward programs are much harder to arrange. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance of corporate life, but I'm at a loss as to how a managerial mindset will help guide the unwieldily boat of our Federal gov't. (I know you also didn't go a corporate route.)
The bottom line here is that a successful corporation requires a certain cutthroat attitude that might not translate well to governing. I don't think Hillary's experience is relevant to this point. Consider this an attack not a comparison.
...
As to your point about the bankruptcies, I guess I'm a little more risk averse here as well. A bankruptcy is a reasonable risk of doing business. But it is pretty callous for a billionaire to solicit buyers without being certain that the project will succeed (link) Also, from my pov the administration of a for-profit university immediately sends up warning bells. Trump University is on its face unethical, and speaks to a mentality of profit at the expense of others.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I'm not sure how this is proof. First of all, I know ezra klein's writing, he's extremely left leaning so this wouldn't be an objective article. Secondly, she appears hated by the Republicans (not Ted Cruz hated but close). She also is hated by Bernie supporters. Honestly, it's clear to me why she's so hated. She's incredibly transparent in her pandering and it's as if she's constantly insulting the intelligence of human beings. I saw this a few months ago:
YouTube video
The Beyonce song came out in Feb 2016.
You can call this pandering if you like, but then I have to ask about Trump's Pandering:
YouTube video
When Trump is asked these kind of fluff questions, he talks about banging his daughter.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
No, but that wasn't my argument and you know that. My argument was given what we already know, I'm willing to take my chances with Trump.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
I'm not too familiar with Pence aside from the RFRA so it would be a pointless discussion. Now is your problem with Pence's alleged bigotry or do you not think he's capable of presiding over domestic and foreign policy?
First, the masses are voting for Trump. They are excited about Trump. For him to immediately offload the bulk of presidential duties to his VP seems like a bait and switch almost as grievous as Trump University. If people wanted Pence to be the republican candidate, they could have drafted him to run. Before the RFRA catastrophe, he was setting himself up for a bid. So it was known that he was interested.
Second, Pence is incredibly unpopular in his home state. My partner lived there until this summer, and works closely with the corporate world of Indianapolis. (He was pretty important in the tech industry.) From what I've heard, even the (fiscal) conservatives weren't happy about Pence's governing. Eventually, the populace was hoping he'd be picked as VP specifically so that he could not run for governor again.
I know you don't want to talk about the RFRA, but there are two important moments from that saga that are critical to understanding how Pence would operate as a Domestic and Foreign policy vice president:
Moment #1: George Stephanopolis grills him on what the bill is about. Go to timestamp 10:00. The previous ten minutes are dancing around the question, and Stephanopolis is clearly frustrated. The question is about whether the RFRA is a protection for 1st amendment rights or an excuse to discriminate. But when pinned by a binary choice, Pence was unable to answer the question one way or another. He in fact doubled down on this kind of evasion even after nine CEOs call for the bill to be amended. His insistence on the matter actually led to about 60M$ in losses for IN overall.
Moment #2: Days after that interview, the Republican Mayor of Indianapolis has a press conference and says "Discrimination is wrong."
These two moments of the RFRA debacle seem very important to our understanding of Pence because they show that he is unwilling to bend to pressure, even when it comes from within his own party. Even when it is aimed at the budget of the state. The RFRA caused several conferences to pull out of Indianapolis, corporations to cease travel to the state, and several of the biggest employers threatened or began withdrawals from the state. It makes me wonder how much pressure he's willing to withstand while on the national stage? the international stage?
(This is only one issue, but it is illustrative of his behavior in a crisis. It's also a step in a long campaign of alienating his own party within the state.)
[Your Trump points were cut for further research]
*note: I'd be happy to see any facts about Iran "abusing the generous sanctions imposed on it."
I have 2 friends from Iran who say that the sanctions were pretty rough, and that the lifting of the sanctions was viewed as a pretty important reward. So my impression was that they were effective. If you have evidence of your viewpoint, I'd be happy to read it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/assessing-the-iran-nuclear-deal-one-year-after-it-was-reached/2016/07/13/cf3de73a-4828-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html
Also one more point.
Just so long as we're clear that you're voting for the less qualified candidate. I'm fine with that as long as you have the intellectual honesty to say it out loud.
https://np.reddit.com/r/Indiana/comments/4u6qfr/slug/d5ng4e0
ds this gets my endorsement. There's a lot of good things to be said about Indianapolis, but under Pence the State was really struggling.
This is all just in his three years in office. He is reviled across the state, and especially so in Indianapolis. There is (was--now that he's the VP nominee, he can no longer be governor) a bipartisan Pence Must Go campaign to get rid of him, and there are literally billboards and yard signs plastered all over the city. Pence is, by virtually all objective measures, one of the worst governors in recent Indiana history, at least in terms of working for the benefit of the state. He has basically focused on far-right Christian social conservative interests to the clear detriment of all else, most importantly the current and future well-being of the state's reputation and economy.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
In the interest of not clouding this thread up, my next response will be in full. I did however find it interesting that you're bringing up my preference for a less qualified candidate where I'm sure you would have voted for Obama in 2008.
Without sugarcoating it, my sense is that Trump isn't qualified in the first place, and that Pence would be a disaster if he get as much power as Trump has promised.
With Obama, his experience in the government that meant we were comparing two people with different degrees of experience. Trump is like a divide by zero error.