Although this particular object of Mr. Trump’s disaffection went unnamed, he seemed to be referring to Michael R. Bloomberg. The two have traded barbs for months. In February, Mr. Trump urged Mr. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, to run for president as an independent because he would “beat him.”I'm just seeing that now, and earlier, independently, I'd arrived at the notion that Trump had been talking about Bloomberg, because I saw this tweet of his:
"Little" Michael Bloomberg, who never had the guts to run for president, knows nothing about me. His last term as Mayor was a disaster!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 29, 2016
ADDED: What did Bloomberg say that bugged Trump so much? Here's the full text of his DNC speech. I'll just excerpt:
And most of us who have our names on the door know that we are only as good as our word, but not Donald Trump. Throughout his career, Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits, angry shareholders and contractors who feel cheated, and disillusioned customers who feel ripped off. Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us.Is the "businessman president" that Bloomberg finds appealing Bloomberg himself? You can see why Trump wants to say but I am the businessman who had "the guts" to run for President, unlike you.
I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one!... Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy... I understand the appeal of a businessman president. But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making....
By the way, I think that whether Trump wins or not, this "businessman president" idea is going to last. There are other, younger, businessmen (and women) watching and thinking about whether they should follow on. They've got the billions if they've got the guts. They are seeing how Trump is getting treated. Maybe they'll all be cowed if he's kicked around enough, but I doubt it.
Posts
139 comments:
List of those who believe Trump meant to hit him with his fists.
1) Morons
2) NeverTrump
3) Media (covered this in #1)
eric has it pegged. The cluelessness of the media never fails to astound me.
Isn't this just the street language of NYC ethnics transferred to the national stage?
Is the media, much of which is based in NYC so clueless that they don't know what they're hearing? Or, are they just pretending not to know?
I mean, so far, Trump has kept it a few inches out of the gutter, but give it time.
"Watcho lookin' at? You wan' me to fuck you up, fucka?"
He's saving that one for the debates.
High capacity fist, or, likely, high bit rate rhetoric. The little guy won't know what hit him. Isn't that right, The New York Times?
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/759032603659960320
The best part of the response is reminding people that Bloomberg did not have the guts to run for president. It's a great line because it is precisely true.
Painting Trump as the victim, pretty amazing stuff. Poor Trump, even the Kochs have rejected him.
Top Donald Trump donors tried to set up a meeting between the GOP presidential nominee and Charles Koch in Colorado Springs on Friday, but Koch aides rejected the entreaties, according to two Republicans with knowledge of the outreach.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/kochs-donald-trump-226451#ixzz4FqCpQKUk
Trump is bulletproof. He can say the truth to Hillary and nothing that she says back to him can stick because we all know who she is. He's immune
I do wonder if he has a 'dead man's switch', though. Doing business in NY as he does and Hillary Rotten Clinton being who she is.... well, maybe the Donald offered her something to grease the wheels and she took it. MAD in a political sense.
I would think Mr. Trump would come out the better in that scenario.
Donald, never tell anyone, and I mean anyone, what you plan on doing to someone. Not even your best friends. Just do it, and then never tell anyone. Ever.
Maybe those up and coming businessmen/women hopefuls will have better control of their mouths and tempers.
Re: Bloomberg ~ The truth shall set you free!
Re: Trump ~ he's a pedestrian bully on a good day.
btw, Trump mentions his supposed wealth all the time, Bloomberg, who's at least (10) times richer than Trumo, never does. Most billionaires never/ever talk about their personal wealth.
>
"this "businessman president" idea is going to last."
Bush 43 was a businessman pres w/3 businesses funded by Saudi oil $$$ that all went belly-up.
Indeed, GWB had a Masters Degree in Business Administration.
>
Abraham Lincoln failed in business.
Teddy Roosevelt no business background.
FDR no business background.
Ike no business background.
Dutch no business background.
The Myth of the Businessman-President
I yield back the balance of my time.
That would be an effective way to redistribute wealth, encourage the rich businessmen to run for President, don't give them any money, let them self-finance. We might have to occasionally elect one, to encourage the others.
The rich self-financers do have one big advantage, in that won't have to spend any time raising money, which is something most politicians hate. There's probably be fewer ads, if they have to self finance. Trump has proved you don't have to buy negative attack ads to make negative attacks. Indeed we might be able to get Citizens United overridden, as the incumbent billionaire Presidents would see an advantage.
As for the Democrats, they could turn their nomination process into a national lottery, where the winner gets a billion dollars and a chance to be President.
Watching Bloomberg give that speech how could he possibly think he could win?
C'mon. With Bloomberg worth $46B, you think he built a company like that without pissing off & screwing over lots of people along the way? Or, at least leaving people who felt like they got screwed over?
I'm sorry, things don't work that way. Why doesn't CNN do a casting call for everyone who feels they've been screwed over by Bloomberg & see what comes out of the woodwork.
The media very deliberately views everything 'Trump' in as negative light as possible. By defining Trump as Hitler/Disastrous/Evil, all he need do is present himself as better. Not a high bar.
Maybe up and coming businessmen/women presidential hopefuls will release their taxes, like all other candidates for the presidency do.
Top Donald Trump donors tried to set up a meeting between the GOP presidential nominee and Charles Koch in Colorado Springs on Friday, but Koch aides rejected the entreaties,
Wait, isn't that a good thing? The Left is always telling us that the Koch Brothers are the devil's spawn, & they corrupt everything they touch. Well, Trump has no Koch money backing him, does he?
So, Trump is innocent of that particular sort of political corruption by your very own admission.
The CNN guys are still all just trying to be be true to your school...or your Party Narrative, that is.
Shamelessness has joined forces with lawlessness. Voila! They can say what thou wilt.
Maybe those businessmen/women hopefuls should never speak of themselves in the third person. Illeism, too weird. Maybe they should never suggest that "they alone" can fix things. Too odd. Off putting.
Maybe those businessmen/women hopefuls will be careful to not gush over foreign dictators or ask special favors of them. Not a good idea, makes the voters skittish.
"but Koch aides rejected the entreaties
Koch bros did not make their fortune by throwing their $$$ on losing propositions.
Indeed, they're always looking for ROI ...
>
They probably feel they wasted enough $$$ on the last two presidential elections.
Fool me once ...
"Koch bros did not make their fortune by throwing their $$$ on losing propositions."
They have spent a great deal on losing propositions. McCain, Romney, and it seems quite a lot on several of the 16 primary losers. So, there is that.
@Unknown,
Maybe up and coming businessmen/women presidential hopefuls will release their taxes, like all other candidates for the presidency do.
Tell me, Unknown: do you know the difference between a publicly traded company & a privately held one? Trump, is as far as I know, the first CEO of a privately held for profit company to ever run for president.
It's very easy to establish the worth of someone who owns shares of a publicly traded company. You just look at a stock ticker & multiply by the number of shares someone owns, & voila!
Privately held is a different thing altogether. The stock has only an estimated value because it's never been traded. The assets of the corporation also only have an estimated value based on their original purchase price plus estimated increase on value offset by depreciation (yes, in real estate you can take depreciation on an asset that is increasing in value. The IRS will whack you for the difference when you sell, however).
If Trump releases his tax returns as the CEO of a privately held corporation, he opens himself up to all sorts of counterclaims about the valuation of his holdings. If he estimates high, he's trying to make himself look richer than he really is (a charge already leveled..). If he estimates low, he's trying to hide money from the tax man.
He can't win this, so I understand why he doesn't release his taxes.
Maybe those businessmen/women hopefuls will be careful to not gush over foreign dictators or ask special favors of them. Not a good idea, makes the voters skittish.
Glenn Greenwald: Hillary Clinton Has Embraced Some of the Most Brutal Dictators in the World:
"If you look at Hillary Clinton’s record, not in the 1980s, but far more recently, in the last five to six years, she has embraced and expressed extreme levels of support for some of the world’s most brutal and horrific dictators. She called President Mubarak of Egypt a close personal friend of her family and expressed all kinds of support for him at the time that the government, of which she was a part, was arming and funding him. She did the same with the Saudis. The Clinton Foundation has raised money from some of the worst and most oppressive dictatorships in the Persian Gulf, including the Saudis and the Qataris and the Emirates and the Bahrainis. Hillary Clinton, essentially, her record has been one of embracing and supporting, in all kinds of ways, the world’s worst tyrants."
"They have spent a great deal on losing propositions. McCain, Romney, and it seems quite a lot on several of the 16 primary losers. So, there is that."
Perhaps you missed:
They probably feel they wasted enough $$$ on the last two presidential elections.
Indeed, my previous post was rather long and extremely complicated.
@Lydia,
Your post is just another reason why the HRC campaign has to stop the negative campaigning & start stating the positive arguments for her presidency, if she has any.
I mean, when you look up the phrase tu quoque in the dictionary, you get a picture of Hillary.
Did Clinton encourage those dictators to hack into the RNC's computers to interfere with a US Presidential election?
@Unknown,
Did Clinton encourage those dictators to hack into the RNC's computers to interfere with a US Presidential election?
Neither did Trump.
Oh, & by the way, the Clinton Campaign just admitted it got hacked, too. Wow, I so trust these folks to keep me safe from America's enemies.
Not.
"Indeed, my previous post was rather long and extremely complicated."
Indeed, it was difficult to connect the first and second parts, as they did not match.
So one thing at a time.
In addition, I bet they will put down something substantial to back SOMEONE this year. I suspect there will be Koch money behind Hilary. There may already be some.
Mocking Nanny Bloomberg is easy.
I missed the Bloomberg speech, but this made me want to see what exactly he said (I see now Althouse linked it, too). Here were the choice quotes I noted.
"There are times when I disagree with Hillary Clinton. But let me tell you, whatever our disagreements may be, I've come here to say: We must put them aside for the good of our country. And we must unite around the candidate who can defeat a dangerous demagogue."
"I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one."
"We've heard a lot of talk in this campaign about needing a leader who understands business. I couldn't agree more. I've built a business, and I didn't start it with a million-dollar check from my father."
"Throughout his career, Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies, thousands of lawsuits, angry shareholders and contractors who feel cheated, and disillusioned customers who feel ripped off. Trump says he wants to run the nation like he's run his business. God help us."
"The bottom line is: Trump is a risky, reckless and radical choice and we can't afford to make that choice. Now, I know Hillary Clinton is not flawless. No candidate is. But she is the right choice and the responsible choice in this election."
I, too, wonder which was the one that really got under Trump's skin. I doubt it's the demagogue comment. Trump likes comparisons to dictators. I doubt it's the line about knowing a "con." Trump has often bragged about fooling others. I doubt it's the bankruptcies - Trump has well known explanations for that, and Trump is not at all ashamed about how he as used (abused?) the system or people to be a success.
I bet it's the line about "I didn't start it with a million-dollar check from my father." Trump hates people knowing that all of his early success was due to Daddy's money and connections.
With respect to other businessmen running for office, Bloomberg himself is the obvious example of how a person can successfully run. Duh. The idea that Trump's candidacy tells us anything meaningful about how business people are treated when running for office is daft. What I hope Trump's candidacy teaches people is that making joking threats of violence in response to political speech is not without consequence.
Quartz: “Wealthy Muslims Helped Donald Trump Build His Empire,” Including Via Deals With Saudis And Qataris. A December 7 Quartz article detailed “some of the more prominent deals and partnerships with Muslim individuals, governments, and companies that have buoyed the Trump brand over the years.” These business ventures involve Qatar Airways, which has had a “‘corporate campus’ in the Trump Tower … since at least 2008;” two Saudi princes who live in Trump Tower; Saudi Prince Alwaleed, who took “majority control of New York’s Plaza hotel, [which gave] Trump ‘more breathing room with bank creditors’” and purchased Trump’s $18 million yacht; the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; and Trump Home partnerships in “Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” Quartz later reported that regional retailer Lifestyle stopped selling Trump Home products in its stores in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries following Trump’s anti-Muslim comments. [Quartz, 12/7/15; 12/9/15]
CBS News: “Trump Has Been Partnering With Arab Investors For Years” And Is “Actively Looking” At Business Opportunities In “Abu Dhabi, Qatar And Saudi Arabia.” CBS News reported that there is a “Trump Tower complex in Baku, Azerbaijan, and a resort under construction in Bali, Indonesia, to be managed as a Trump-branded property.” The article also quoted Ivanka Trump saying “that in addition to Dubai, the Trump Organization was actively looking ‘at multiple business opportunities’ in Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.” [CBS News, 12/9/15]
"With respect to other businessmen running for office, Bloomberg himself is the obvious example of how a person can successfully run."
Indeed, he successfully ran, by propitiating the owners of the NY press, his good friends.
Bloombergs was an alliance of the corporatists. This works quite nicely in NYC, which is an industry town for that lot.
But the rest of this country ...
@Unknown,
Wow! The campaign really is bankrupt when it comes to talking points, isn't it? All you can do is post shit on Trump & hope it sticks. Which it won't, because it's you posting it, and you've never let a little thing like the truth get in the way of your job.
You know, pm317, in one or two posts the other night, did more for Hillary's standing here that all the crap you trolls have posted since the Invasion began. Look & learn, clowns.
BuzzFeed: “Donald Trump Sought Investment Partnerships With Muammar al-Qaddafi And The Libyan Regime.” A BuzzFeed investigation posted on June 7 found that “Donald Trump sought investment partnerships with Muammar al-Qaddafi and the Libyan regime,” revealing that Trump “rented his Westchester estate to the dictator, tried to set up a face-to-face meeting, and took the Libyan ambassador golfing.” BuzzFeed reported that Trump “saw possibilities in a partnership with the Libyan Investment Authority, which invests profits from Libya’s lucrative oil industry” and that he ultimately sought “to gain access to Qaddafi, who was in a position to release billions in investment capital.” [BuzzFeed, 6/7/16]
Politico: Paul Manafort Worked Extensively For Philippines Dictator Ferdinand Marcos And Other International Dictators. A June 10 investigation by Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel found that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort worked extensively with Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos, advising him on “electoral strategy” and “tamping down concerns about the Marcos regime’s human rights record, theft of public resources, and ultimately their perpetration of a massive vote-rigging effort to try to stay in power in the Philippines’ 1986 presidential election.” The investigation noted that Manafort’s business dealings with Marcos made other associations with “controversial foreign leaders and businessmen, including Zaire President Mobutu Sese Seko, Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska, Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych and France’s Eduard Balladur, among others,” “look like middle school civics classes.” [Politico, 6/10/16]
BuzzFeed: Manafort’s “Ties To Allies Of Russian President Vladimir Putin” Raises Concerns About Trump “Receiving Classified [CIA] Security Briefings.” A May 6 BuzzFeed investigation looked into Manafort’s previous business dealings “working for pro-Russian forces in Ukraine” and “doing complex deals for an oligarch with close ties to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin,” and it quoted several national security experts saying that Manafort’s ties “raise special concerns.” The investigation noted that “Manafort may be best known for managing the 2010 campaign of Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian politician whose ouster as president prompted a Russian invasion of the country” and says that he also managed “tens of millions of dollars for Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch denied entry to the U.S. reportedly for ties to organized crime.” [BuzzFeed, 5/6/16]
Bloomberg settled an overtime suit brought by employees earlier this year. If he had the guts to run he wouldn't be able to withstand the scrutiny. And he lost the Big Gulp lawsuit which was his dumb idea when he was mayor. He should reimburse NYC for the litigation.
I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one!
You mean, like a Democrat pretending to be a Republican to become mayor on the coattails of Guiliani?
@Unknown
Oh, bold it now. That'll make all the difference.
You know, I'm suspecting we may be dealing with an AI bot instead of a human being. Then again, with the Hillaryites, it may be difficult to tell the difference even in person.
I'm not interested in convincing anyone to vote for Clinton. I do think that businessmen/women might learn from Trump's mistakes and do a far better job than he's done as Presidential hopefuls. I also enjoy injecting information that runs contrary to the accepted narrative of a majority conservative comment section of a popular blog.
@unknown
I'm not interested in convincing anyone to vote for Clinton.
Suuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre. That ranks up there with:
"The check's in the mail."
"I promise not to come in your mouth."
"It's so beeeeeeeeeeeeeeg".
as one of the most common lies of all time.
Maybe Bloomberg knows all the stuff I posted and maybe he's trying to tell Americans what a con artist Trump is and to give some thought to who or what they want as Chief Executive of the most powerful country on earth. It's the Presidency, not the Miss Universe Pageant. Maybe Bloomberg actually cares about the welfare of this country and doesn't think Trump is a safe choice.
Trump runs his mouth telling everyone how he wants to "hit" those who insult him at the Democratic convention. How the hell will he be able to deal with foreign leaders who slight him? Will he tell the world how he is going to "hit them hard!"? No one wondering or worrying about his thin skin and big mouth?
well everyone can make a mistake,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/mayor-bloomberg-office-inviting-imam-linked-1993-wtc-bombing-city-hall-mistake-article-1.419217
or two,
http://nypost.com/2010/05/29/bloomberg-defends-ground-zero-mosque-as-freedom-of-faith-issue/
or even three:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4222/incoming-nyc-mayor-taps-pro-censorship-imam-for
Yeah. Maybe.
Unknown and Bloomberg are hot on the trail of those who would dare partake of a large drink.
Thank goodness.
Hey, you know one place you don't have to worry about people drinking large drink?
The latest leftist people's paradise of Venezuela.
Of course it's easy to avoid large sugary drinks when there isn't food available, the lefties in government put the military in charge of foid production and distribution, and move on to the inevitable endgame for all leftist governments: forced labor!
Every city a Detroit! Every nation a Venezuela!
maybe one shouldn't speculate till facts are in, or in his case, ever,
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brent-baker/2010/05/03/cbs-features-ny-mayor-bloomberg-speculating-bomber-was-mad-about
Well unklown, maybe he will tell us to 'punch back twice as hard' and then bow subserviently to the other world leaders.
Or maybe not.
Those are some deep thoughts.
Do you ever get tired of playing devil's advocate? Especially in the service of such conventional thinking? A businessman president? Wow, that's original. Republicans have been trying that one since the 1930s at least. (Alf Landon). And Herbert Hoover before him. The great wonderful Herbert Hoover. And then there was George W. Bush.
Very original insights there.
The sensible question however, is if your man Donald is bashing Mike Bloomberg over not running for president, why didn't Trump ever at least run for mayor, first? The answer is obvious. New Yorkers know him. But Kansans (or whomever - Wisconsonians. Take your pick) will apparently believe anything.
Thanks for getting the flock to believe, Reverend Althouse.
Drago,
I personally do not care if you want to partake in a Big Gulp. That doesn't concern me at all. Cul sec!
The reason biznessmen tend to make shitty presidents or not even run is obvious. Businesses are run like miniature tyrannical operations in America. The kind of fascist nonsense that you can get away with dong to your employees or co-workers is much greater than you could ever get away with doing to the American people as a public servant.
But Republicans never seem to make this connection. I wonder why. (Actually, no I don't).
but he does, along with salt content, smoking et al, this is why his electoral success was going to be 'more selective' now a terrorist turning timesquare into a slaughterhouse, that was an oversight, mind you mayor bane, has reversed every meager crime control and the place is reverting to 'death wish' and 'the warriors territory,
practicing category error, hoover was a progressive, who believed in more government intervention, the rfc was like w's tarp, and about as effective,
"Businesses are run like miniature tyrannical operations in America. The kind of fascist nonsense that you can get away with dong to your employees or co-workers is much greater than you could ever get away with doing to the American people as a public servant. "
You have not dealt much with regulatory agencies. Or the IRS. Or the TSA. Or Immigration.
my outlook on Bloomberg has always been formed by his early beginnings... I still thing of him as the Bloomberg terminal guy, which came about in the one of the earlier huge wall street booms... pretty much the same boom when donald trump was popularising wearing yellow ties... but, as you know, there is a big difference between making money on wall street and making money in ny real estate.... therefore, I think the rub lies there.... real estate being the much harder, grittier, nuts and bolts, blood and guts way to make your money, and wall street being the "the easy way." But both were hugely successful and the timeline fits the rise... and I would say that bloomberg had the political headstart, where his money provided the pedestal for his politics and visibility.. I could imagine trump being jealous even of that... "he was first..." And also he was extreme... maybe trump hated that combo as well.... I think there is more than enough grit in the mill for trump on this one and also I would say trump is very much a "last laugh" guy... hmmmm just so we can keep the conversation elevated here... I'll throw in a little Shakespeare... from Henry II:
I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness.
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wondered at
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wished-for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So, when this loose behaviour I throw off
And pay the debt I never promisèd,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I’ll so offend to make offence a skill,
Redeeming time when men think least I will.
(I.ii.173–195)
"The kind of fascist nonsense that you can get away with.."
Or a large city school district.
....practicing category error, hoover was a progressive...
Anyway, point being that Hoover was a failed president. Maybe if he actually had the character to inspire the American people like his successor did then he wouldn't have failed. FDR cared about the American people, and it showed. Didn't Hoover wall himself into the White House? He certainly didn't go around on speaking tours or conduct fireside chats. Maybe that was his bad luck to have the Depression begin during his term - in which I suppose you'd prevent us from blaming the cause (not the continuation) on Silent Cal's very progressive totally over-regulated 1920s bubble economy. Oh wait, that wouldn't make sense. I'm being sarcastic again. Anything to avoid making sense, I guess. Just trying to relate the mindset of my fellow conservatives who seem to love presiding over the lead-ups to economic crashes and the crashes themselves, but sure love to complain about how the successors who are rightly allowed by the people to oust them are not resolving them fast enough. Oh, if only we could continue the policies that got us into these messes. When will the American people ever learn? How come they never reward us for the failures that happen on our watch and give us the leeway to continue tinkering around with the things we fucked up, and by continuing the same policies that led up to our fucking them up. So unfair!
You have not dealt much with regulatory agencies. Or the IRS. Or the TSA. Or Immigration.
Any other laws you wanted to break? And complain about the existence of agencies empowered to enforce them?
Waaaah. Flying airplanes is a natural right. Written into the constitution and everything. Immigrating to America is a natural right. Etc.
there are always cyclical7 downturns, but what made that one different from 1920 or 1907?
FDR cared about the American people, and it showed.
What FDR cared about most was preserving Capitalism, which was very much at risk during the Depression.
"who seem to love presiding over the lead-ups to economic crashes and the crashes themselves"
Business cycle, crashes happen. They are self regulating if you let them be. There were many crashes prior that worked themselves out. Hoover AND Roosevelt mishandled it, I think in a political panic. Big problem for them I think, more than anything, the newly extensive mass media that made it seem more urgent that something be done.
that seems an unwarranted inference, one might say he didn't 'let a crisis go to waste' his advisors were heavily influenced by the dirigiste influences of the fascists and the communists, which involved state control of industry, if not out right nationalizations,
"Any other laws you wanted to break?"
No, not really. I am 100% into COMPLIANCE these days. Thats what everyone is investing in.
Perhaps you may want to ask where all these things to comply with come from, how democratic is this process - or how whimsical the decision making behind them.
There is something appealing, especially at this juncture, about the idea of "businessman president." I think much of the electorate is tired—and I certainly am—of the endless parade of political scientist and lawyers that have held the Oval Office and led us to disaster over the last several decades. Truman was, famously, a haberdasher. Let's grow beyond the idea that we need a technocratic elite to endlessly parse the Constitution and legislation and return to the basic idea that the electorate ourselves should be able to understand the plain meaning of the documents, and our elected representatives should, dare I say, represent us and our understanding of those documents.
This is not to say Trump is that candidate. On the contrary, I see him very much as a transitional figure, albeit an important one. He reflects a recognition that, if we are going to play endless games of interpretation and what-can-you-get-away-with, we need a sharp guy who knows how those games are played at the helm. The critics who say Trump and Clinton are cut from the same bolt of cloth are correct. The only difference—and the only difference American voters increasingly are coming to see as mattering—is whose ox gets gored. Maybe this will lead to a return to plain laws plainly read (yes, I know this is already an idealization—I'm speaking relatively). Otherwise I suspect this election cycle is simply the beginning of the new normal, where the only question is which populist strongperson ends up on top, who gets to write the executive orders, who gets to put their brand of "the Constitution says what I want it to mean" judges on the Supreme Court, who gets to ignore the Senate, etc.
"The only difference—and the only difference American voters increasingly are coming to see as mattering—is whose ox gets gored. "
This is the inevitable result of the government having become so large and intrusive that control of it becomes so important. The stakes are extreme and its a zero-sum game.
well no, red queen, was a student of alinsky, almost from the beginning, supported the panthers in the rackley case, I don't think trump has strong ideological convictions in the same way, even he operated in a necessarily democratic urban environment,
Rhythm and Balls said..."The reason biznessmen tend to make shitty presidents or not even run is obvious. Businesses are run like miniature tyrannical operations in America. The kind of fascist nonsense that you can get away with dong to your employees or co-workers is much greater than you could ever get away with doing to the American people as a public servant. "
*********************
How many "biznessmen" have to power to see to it that their political enemies are sent to prison? Or ruined through bogus tax audits and selective application of "regulations", with no ability to defend against the predations of the administrative state, which does not give a shit about the Bill of Rights????
R&B has obviously never worked in the private sector---or possibly in any sector at all.
@YH: "Is the media, much of which is based in NYC so clueless that they don't know what they're hearing? Or, are they just pretending not to know?" Still thinkin' about that one.
In an odd way, they are clueless though: take the reaction to Trump's recent presser, where he calls them out for being Hill shills, suggests that Putin release the emails he's got, sneering that he's sure the media would love it -- and what do those clueless bastards do? they start circulating the Trump-loves-Putin and Trump-threatens-national-security memes (over Hillary's "personal" emails, no less, the existence and insecurity of which bothered exactly no Dem). It's all calculated prog propaganda, of course, amplifying DNC talking points and so on, but at the same time cluelessly transparent in the sheer stupidity of their shilling.
Truman was before my time but, from what I have read, he had integrity and common sense. And, do you think that legislation written by non-lawyers will be understandable to us common folk? That might be interesting, mightn't it?
mockturtle said...
FDR cared about the American people, and it showed.
What FDR cared about most was preserving Capitalism, which was very much at risk during the Depression.
**************
What bullshit! FDR and his brain trust were great admirers of Mussolini.
To get your mind right, go read Amity Shlaes' "The Forgotten Man," to learn how the Roosevelt administration took many steps to introduce socialist programs to America, and how he tried to thwart the Supreme Court from smacking them down..
NRA, WPA, CCC....
Sebastian, it is difficult to know: clueless or disingenuous? Megyn Kelly last night said, regarding Trump's Russia/emails statement, that she didn't think he was joking [!]. As a group, TV 'journalists' are not terribly bright, although they certainly think they are.
A businessman may not have the necessary skill set to run the country. But, neither do people like Obama and Hillary, who have spent their lives bellying up to the public trough, and don't have the faintest idea what makes a business work. I guess ideal would be a military/business/ executive politician resume.
Bloomberg has no natural political home. He ticks off people on both sides, with his stop and frisk and push for charter schools, and his gun grabbing nanny statism. Smart businessman though.
"clueless or disingenuous?"
Neither. Propagandists. They have a party line, and they push it. It is coordinated.
This is an organization.
The British press is very different and NOT coordinated. The difference is notable.
NRA, WPA, CCC....
These programs were not implemented to introduce socialism but, as most historians would agree, to stem the unrest, riots and socialistic sentiments that were rising at that time. I'm not being critical. Quite the contrary, he did what was necessary and many of the work projects are those we still enjoy today. Unfortunately, his farm price supports are still being used and keep the big farmers rich and shut out the small ones--but that's another issue.
Business cycle, crashes happen.
Oh yeah. ESPECIALLY before the New Deal. Depressions galore. Just the way buwayaha puta wants it. Let's hear it America for buwaya putt's economic plan for America. Make CRASHES HAPPEN MORE OFTEN!
You are simply put the most self-defeating troll who's ever commented on anything I've said. Except for that equally illogical digression fiend jr395923984u2347. There's something about you that just loves injecting completely irrelevant and wrong points into everything I say. Who made you that way? What do you have against just making sense?
R&B has obviously never worked in the private sector---or possibly in any sector at all.
Right.
What's your yearly income?
besides the overall control schemes like the national recovery administration, if fdr had not cooperated with the nye committee, which generated the wave of isolationism, one staffer on that committee, was future soviet spy alger hiss, if he hadn't castigated business like he did in the 1936 election, had he pushed for a rearmament plan, as ultimately happened too late, how might things have turned out,
Other businessmen won't get kicked around like Trump. They only need to run as Democrats.
Blogger Unknown said...
I'm not interested in convincing anyone to vote for Clinton.
Just kidding guys!
Guys?
there were downturns, but there hadn't a global one like this since 1893, which touched off severe unrest, the way of anarchists that grew with the canal scandal in France, which claimed lives there, here and in spain, consult Tuchman's Proud Tower for details,
"Depressions galore."
Yes indeed. The business cycle was a phenomenon much analyzed prior. There were many depressions. The world economy still managed to grow rapidly. Expand, crash, expand again beyond the previous limits, crash, and so on.
US policies arguably (and well-argued by many) prevented a recovery from 1929-30, creating a lost decade - see Japan recently, with a lost quarter-century. Most of the rest of the world HAD recovered. The US was a huge laggard.
Economic history is interesting, and worthwhile, for perspective.
There were many depressions.
So you're pro-depression? I guess this would explain the conservative antipathy (often seen here) for FDR and the New Deal.
Modern economic policy has aimed to prevent depressions. The Great Depression was a calamity. If you think this is a mistake then maybe you should say so and why because I'm under the impression that most people agree with policies that will prevent depressions. So if you think that's wrong maybe you should speak up because it could help me understand one more crazy irrational thing about the hyper-conservative partisan American psyche that seems to be so much more influential than it should be.
"consult Tuchman's Proud Tower for details,"
Indeed, so did 1929. It brought much worse than 1893, indirectly, but it lit the fuses -
- Nazis
- Japanese crazies
- Spains Republic (downfall of Primo de Rivera)
- etc. - the fallout was quite extensive.
The problem wasn't that there was a crash, but what would be done about it.
"Modern economic policy has aimed to prevent depressions."
Yes. It is I think somewhat like suppressing a natural cycle. It just makes the coming collapse bigger. That, or it suppresses recoveries, leaving us with effectively no growth.
Yes. It is I think somewhat like suppressing a natural cycle. It just makes the coming collapse bigger. That, or it suppresses recoveries, leaving us with effectively no growth.
You must have a more dramatic disposition than you let on.
Following up on Sydney's comment:
Doomberg labelled Trump a con.
This from the guy who started as a Republican.
Switched to be a Democrat.
Switched to be a Independent.
Speaks at the Democrat convention.
Wait until the Green party gets some momentum (sarc alert).
Eric the Trump sycophant's conversation with his mom:
Ma, why don't you believe me that Mr.Trump is a good man?! Don't you love your little Eric anymore? I tell you and tell you how he is going to bring all the jobs back from China and I won't have to live in your basement anymore, but you just look at me with sad eyes and shake your head.
"You must have a more dramatic disposition than you let on."
I have, actually.
I teach the new fellows, for instance, that engineering has three patron saints -
Murphy,
Rube Goldberg,
The Princess Cassandra
We must be Greek Princesses, accurately predicting disaster.
Ugh, #51 Third rate.
Unknown said...
Did Clinton encourage those dictators to hack into the RNC's computers to interfere with a US Presidential election?
7/29/16, 6:22 PM
Yes. Thanks for asking.
Something about the previous post fits in here rather inconspicuously.
"... it suppresses recoveries, leaving us with effectively no growth." Yup.
Three Consecutive Quarters of Weak GDP
The last three quarters are 0.9%, 0.8%, 1.2%.
https://mishtalk.com/2016/07/29/2nd-quarter-real-gdp-1-2-1st-quarter-revised-lower-to-0-8-bloomberg-spins-this-mess-positive/
Because "modern economic policy" for the last 7+ years has been SO successful that it's brought us ~/< 1% GDP growth. And note: that 1.2% comes during the prime tax refund period, during which consumer spending tends to rise.
How much more of this "modern economic policy" can we endure?
How "Trump is bring treated."
No matter how stupid and vulgar and unethical Trump is in his words and conduct, Althouse still buys into the freak's persecution complex.
Althouse is emotionally controlled by Trump to the same extent as a Trump University student.
Sad!
Progressive economic policy presumes an ability to centrally manage populations over generations. It is predisposed to cause catastrophic misalignments when perturbations in the system accumulate. The first attempt to compensate is through implementation of smoothing functions (e.g. welfare, entitlements). The second attempt is the implementation of redistribution schemes including: capital, labor, democratic leverage (i.e. political viability). This is typically followed by creative destruction with massive loss of life and treasure. Modern implementations have further embraced debt solutions while managing debasement of domestic and foreign capital and labor. The resumption of abortion rites (e.g. selective-child) coincides with female chauvinism, but along with [class] diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) enables redistribution schemes and increases taxable labor necessary to sustain progressive economic policy.
That said, the smoothing functions are notable since they are compatible with the reconciliation of moral imperatives. The question is if they should be centrally managed or overseen (e.g. audited). The welfare function is useful to overcome catastrophic failures with the goal of near-term rehabilitation, or to provide extended and long-term care in the case of premature abdication (e.g. abortion rites) and permanent incapacitation (e.g. Terri Schiavo which was also a case of spousal abdication), respectively. In order to control progressive corruption, welfare functions must moderate incentives to managers, providers, recipients, and abdicators.
The unanswered question is: how should we reconcile moral and natural imperatives?
The current solutions are inadequate and regressive, tainted with the consequences of ulterior motives.
I think that whether Trump wins or not, this "businessman president" idea is going to last.
@Althouse, I respectfully disagree. A successful businessman has to make many decisions along the way, and not all of them benefit all employees. Sometimes you have to restructure and that often means layoffs. Did you not see what happened when Mitt Romney's firm, Bain, laid deadwood off? Mitt Romney, Job Killer!!!
What Donald Trump has done is demonstrate for Republican candidates how to defuse the media when they play their little "gotcha" games. You counterattack, you expose what they are trying to do, you set out to humiliate that clowns. That's why he's the nominee and not someone too nice for the job (think Rubio).
The proper approach, to some of the moral imperatives anyway, is the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, that is the control at the lowest feasible level. This fits with the American idea of a devolution of powers, federalism.
Much of the ulterior motive comes from the temptations of power. If there is little centralized power there is little scope for ambition.
Like anything to do with reality and humanity, there is no way to get to perfection. The tragic sense of life is the only honest one. Read Unamuno.
Buwaya, what is the difference between 'buwaya' and 'buwaya puti'?
Just my humble opinion, but I think what likely irked Trump most about Bloomberg's comments is the level Bloomberg stooped to, and his tortured twisting of normal business facts into red meat to throw at the useful idiots in the audience, all to in order to defend and promote Hillary, and deflect some of the negative news about her/the DNC by bashing Trump. For example, Bloomberg knows damn well corporate bankruptcies happen routinely, and his, as do most, businesses factor that into their business plans. I guess in short, he lied and prostituted himself, and that's what disgusted Trump to the core.
Bloomberg's integrity (?) and his dumbing down on subjects he obviously knows much more about all point to a deal with Hillary. She must have promised him something very big--either 100's of billions of govt grants and contracts, and/or a sweet position in the admin. Could be he's even mixed up somehow in the Clinton Foundation scandals and the Clinton's coerced him into such a shameless speech.
For all I despise about Bloomberg, I was embarrassed for him during that speech.
Puti is "white" in Tagalog, buwaya is "crocodile"
Schoolboy nickname.
I have a different account when using my phone, like now. Hanging out on the couch at home watching stuff with wife.
"is the level Bloomberg stooped to"
Bloomberg telling the truth notwithstanding, nobody can stoop any lower than Trump re: shit slinging.
Presidential politics ain't beanbag!
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
>
btw, all you Trump lackeys, please tell Trump Tim Kaine was not the governor of NJ.
Trump truly is a fucking idiot!
Buyawa, beautifully put.
Shiloh, whatev.
When writes about business it's a laugh riot.
"When writes about business it's a laugh riot."
Indeed !@#$%^&*
Buwaya puti wrote:
If there is little centralized power there is little scope for ambition.
And there is an important difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives do not want ambitious people to go into politics and government. Liberals want ambitious people to go into politics and government. People expect their local government to be utilitarian. it should fix roads, take care of security, bury the garbage, etc. When politics begins to attract ambitious people, local governments expand their reach. They establish an office of civil rights. They hire expensive artists to design water fountains. They build sports stadiums and monorails.
The monorail the county of Honolulu is building covers a fraction of the area voters approved, and will cost about $7,000 per resident of the county to build. To make the numbers look better, they both overestimated the ridership, and eliminated restroom facilities at the stations. If there is an Earthquake, the system shuts down. Better hope there is no tsunami.
"btw, all you Trump lackeys, please tell Trump Tim Kaine was not the governor of NJ"
That was hilarious.
Blogger Unknown said...
"btw, all you Trump lackeys, please tell Trump Tim Kaine was not the governor of NJ"
That was hilarious.
7/29/16, 10:32 PM
Indeed. As was Obama's assertion that there are 57 states.
Or when he said he saw dead veterans.
Or when Retarded Joe said Americans watched FDR on TV in 1929.
Or when Hillary barked like a dog:
http://www.insideedition.com/headlines/15311-hillary-clinton-barks-like-a-dog-in-donald-trumps-new-ad
Actually, that was just her mating call to Shiloh.
I was listening to Trump's speech when he misspoke about Kaine's state but corrected himself. He obviously knows who the governor of NJ is!
Is there any evidence that Trump has actually ever hit anyone?
More important, has any "journalist" (I must put put quotes around the word these days) ever asked Trump if he has actually ever hit anyone?
That VP cool choice, Kim Taine, seems like a really nice guy to me. Did you say he is from Virginia or West Virginia? He is just like Red Skelton, but Red was from Indiana...but that is Pence, not Taine.
I better stick to the Presidential Race.
oh klem, he's a virginian, has a harvard sheepskin so his idiocy is certified, served in the peace corps in honduras, his spanish wasn't anything to right home about,
YoungHegelian said...You know, pm317, in one or two posts the other night, did more for Hillary's standing here that all the crap you trolls have posted since the Invasion began.
--
Absolutely. She provided my favorite crystallization of so many Hil fans' inner driver.
It's high time. She wants it.
Rhythm and Balls said...
There were many depressions.
So you're pro-depression? I guess this would explain the conservative antipathy (often seen here) for FDR and the New Deal.
R&B,
You're better than this.
Post today by pregnant 30 something who hated Hil with a passion while Bernie ran:
The hormones are strong with me but I have to admit that I do get choked up thinking about the first female president...And man, I love the thought of my son never knowing a USA without a female president. It makes my heart happy."
Let's party like it's 2008!
It's high time. She wants it.
one backed by saudi princes, russian oligarches, oligarchs stripping haiti to the ground, susan b anthony would be proud, sarc,
The hormones are strong with me but I have to admit that I do get choked up thinking about the first female president...And man, I love the thought of my son never knowing a USA without a female president. It makes my heart happy.
Reminds me of a conversation a had a while back with a female coworker who told me: "she might not matter to you but it means something."
Tell me again, Inga, that Hillary is not running on "vote for me because I'm a woman."
Blogger traditionalguy said...
Did you say he is from Virginia or West Virginia? He is just like Red Skelton, but Red was from Indiana...
Skelton was a hillbilly-American. Incredibly patriotic, but he seemed to believe the federal government in cahoots with Castro. Or Castro was in cahoots with the feds. Or the Russian commies were plotting against both the feds AND Castro.
Unk,
How frigid and rigid you are.
"I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one!"
Bloomberg is 10X richer than Trump, didn't start his business with $1m+ from Daddy and ran New York City as Mayor for 12 years.
Trump is a nobody compared to folks like Bloomberg.
Every bank in the America has refused to lend Trump money.
Trump gets money for his business from Russian oligarchs.
Trumpkins:
This is your All-American Hero. Good luck with that. You have been conned. As you put an X against Trump on Nov 8 you will know in your heart that you have been conned.
So... Trump fantasizes about bopping someone... and folks think that Trump might actually bop someone... or that he might develop the habit of bopping people-- foreign dignitaries, prime ministers, people of color, acquaintances.
Flashback 20 years ago and vaunted gay playwright Larry Kramer is lauded for his fantasy of chainsawing Barabar Bush's head off... and years later, British filmmakers make lefty porn where GWB is killed.
Hmmm... I guess it's changed somewhere along the way that fantasizing is cathartic... and now it's indicative of a dark, mean streak that might lead to "pushing the button." Yeah... and Ronald "Ray Gun" was too unstable to have the nuclear codes.
What a load of, as Creepy Uncle Joe Biden would say, "malarkey."
Any other laws you wanted to break? And complain about the existence of agencies empowered to enforce them?
Colleges are largely eradicating male students due process rights due to demands from the Dept of Education. What law was passed to enable this?
The government has many bureaucrats who need to justify their existence. So they pass increasingly onerous regulations with increasingly less reason for them.
Oh yeah. ESPECIALLY before the New Deal. Depressions galore. Just the way buwayaha puta wants it. Let's hear it America for buwaya putt's economic plan for America. Make CRASHES HAPPEN MORE OFTEN!
You cannot avoid crashes. The more you try to "fix" them, the longer they last. People often forget that Harding came into office and suffered a rather serious Depression in 1921. He cut back government spending and it was over in less than 2 years. The suffering was far less than what was dealt with during the Depression, where Hoover and Roosevelt extended it for years and it took eradicating Europe to end it. That is not a formula that one can rely on for success.
Modern economic policy has aimed to prevent depressions.
But the only "fix" they have now for them is to pump up a new bubble. Would you argue that we've actually REALLY recovered from 2008? If our interest rates were anywhere near historic norms, are annual deficits would be more mind-boggling than they are now. That hurt because it took a real estate bubble to overcome the economic catastrophe that started in 2000. All the Feds can generate now are bubbles. No real prosperity.
We tried Keynesian theory and it never worked. Because the government will never cut back spending during the "good" times.
Didn't President Truman write a letter to a critic threatening to punch him for saying his daughter's recital was bad?
So after Perot in 1992 and 1996, Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, Herman Cain in 2012, and Carly Fiorina in 2016, and countless Senate candidates and dozens of presidential trial balloons by would-be politicians from the private sector...Ann Althouse thinks that Trump's success will spawn businessman candidates in the future.
Althouse...on the cutting edge of political analysis.
"So after Perot in 1992 and 1996, Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, Herman Cain in 2012, and Carly Fiorina in 2016, and countless Senate candidates and dozens of presidential trial balloons by would-be politicians from the private sector...Ann Althouse thinks that Trump's success will spawn businessman candidates in the future."
Yeah, because Trump is showing how you win when you do it.
Not too bright, are you? About as bright as the Hillary boot lickers who constantly accuse Trump of smacking the nuclear button and launching missiles all over the place. It's almost like they haven't heard of the Two-Man Rule, or something.
"How Trump is being treated"
Genuine laugh out loud.
"I was listening to Trump's speech when he misspoke about Kaine's state but corrected himself. He obviously knows who the governor of NJ is!"
No, someone in the audience er one of his handlers corrected him or he would have continued being a fool unabated. And he was talking past tense re: the governor of NJ ie Tom Kean who was his buddy when Trump owned the NJ Generals, who btw, went belly-up along w/the USFL largely because of Trump!
>
"So after Perot in 1992 and 1996, Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, Herman Cain in 2012, and Carly Fiorina in 2016, and countless Senate candidates and dozens of presidential trial balloons by would-be politicians from the private sector...Ann Althouse thinks that Trump's success will spawn businessman candidates in the future.
Althouse...on the cutting edge of political analysis."
Althouse is soooo blinded w/her current infatuation w/Trump she can't see the forest for the trees.
Bless her whittle heart!
No, someone in the audience er one of his handlers corrected him or he would have continued being a fool unabated. And he was talking past tense re: the governor of NJ ie Tom Kean who was his buddy when Trump owned the NJ Generals, who btw, went belly-up along w/the USFL largely because of Trump!
Yeah, the USFL didn't lose money at all until Trump was involved. Just a money-making machine.
You know, like the World League. Or the later WLAF. Or the XFL. Competing with the NFL in football has always been so easy and wildly profitable...
"You know, like the World League. Or the later WLAF. Or the XFL. Competing with the NFL in football has always been so easy and wildly profitable..."
So Trump must have been a super fuckin' idiot! to try, eh. Once again his ego er need to be a national celebrity trumped a very bad business proposition.
Or it wasn't a huge amount of money to buy in one franchise...
Some have said that Bloomberg's speech was very bitter and revealing. I didn't watch it because I don't like Bloomberg though he was a pretty good Mayer of NY, mostly continuing the policies of Rudy Giuliani. He was a lifelong Dem before running for Mayor.
dami, don't you ever get tired of apologizing/rationalizing er turning into a pretzel for Trump? Rhetorical.
So, this very article is why I side more with Trump, than the dems. Because they are such f*cking Liars. I was at my moms house and we were talking about politics. She is a big Hillary suporter. I'm ambivalent on everybody, but leaning toward Trump.
Anyway, she then got a tweet from her friend that said "Trump just threatened to punch Mayor Bloomberg." And she demanded we turn on CNN to watch the story.
Prior to the story coming on they had pundits talking about Hillarys speech the night before. And one of the pundits literally said "Hillary hit Trump hard on many core issues in the speech"
So anyway, the story comes out and he describes how he wants to hit all these people who dinged him yesterday. It is quite clearn that when he says "hit them" he means the exact same thing as the pundit who said "clinton hit him hard". Its a rhetorical phrase that describes "attacking politically. Not a LITERAL hitting of someone.
Trump in the same presser said somethign to the effect of "they tried to hit me hard yesterday, But that's to be expected" So, unless he is describing an incident where the dems literally assaulted him, he is simply using "hit em hard" as a rhetorical device.
And then I go to facebook and the article says how Trump said wanted to hit people. And all the people commenting are saying things about how this disqulaifies him to be president.
We are now going to have a whole group of voters that believe that he is threatening violence against people as opposed to simply asying things rhetorically.
So you have to constantly explain, NO that is not what Trump meant to people that refuse to accept the actual explanation because the media is skewing the reporting of his statements.
The same thing was just done with his SARCASTIC statement about how the hackers should produce the 30,000 emails. CLEARLY he was indicting the media and Hillary by saying hackers are doing a better job getting criminality out in front than the media itself.
But you have democrats who go on tv and say he shoudl be charged with violating the Logan Act. Or say he is telling Russia to hack the DNC. For the love of God, that's not what he said.
"The same thing was just done with his SARCASTIC statement about how the hackers should produce the 30,000 emails."
From one who knows sarcasm, his sarcasm defense was lol funny!
Indeed, the press is turning on Trump. Go figure!
jr565, mothers know best ~ listen to your mother ...
dami, don't you ever get tired of apologizing/rationalizing er turning into a pretzel for Trump? Rhetorical.
Still a Cruz guy. You just have really terrible criticisms.
Indeed, the press is turning on Trump. Go figure!
The press, who run their stories by the DNC before their own editors, are favoring the Democrat. Astonishing!
The ignorance of the accomplishments of Bloomberg are astounding. I didn't like when he and the NY city council have himself a 3rd term, I didn't like his BS on sugar and salt. However, he was a good mayor for 12 years. Look at the creep we have now?
Bloomberg was a force for good. Fighting to a make teachers and principals accountable, shutting failing schools and opening charters was real change for the better. Of course the teacher's union is still strong and has a champion in DBlasio.
Bloomberg also created a company whose research tool is on the desk of everyone in finance and economics. It's a real company not smoke and mirrors like Trump who just licenses his name to things.
Bloomberg, the moment he ran for public office and until he left, made his tax returns public. He also resigned from his company and corporate ties while serving as mayor for $1 a year. I can't see Trump doing that for a second.
Bloomberg has given much of his fortune away and plans to give it away before he dies. Trump doesn't give away his own money. He makes others donate their money to play on his golf course for charity and even that is pathetic.
Bloomberg didn't and won't run for senator, governor or POTUS because he doesn't have to. Trump needs the adulation and needs to tell you his bank account is huuuuge. Bloomberg does not.
Bloomberg tries to make the world better. Trump only cares about Trump. All of his money comes from the Russians. So says Trump Jr. So he's willing to destroy NATO to please his benefactors in the hopes of FINALLY getting his name on something in Moscow which had been a bizarre goal since The 1980s.
He says he knows Putin very well and that Putin told him how much he admires Trump. Now he says they have never met. He says one thing today and another tomorrow and is not accountable for anything yet the main reason I hear for excusing the horrible human that is Trump over Clinton is the Supreme Court. Why do you think he won't change his mind???? He's way to the left of George Bush!
You are disgusted that Bloomberg was a Republican only briefly? So is Trump and do you think if a way to get more famous (which is all this is about for him) and on the only ticket open to him, he wouldn't be to be running as a Democrat? Do you think he wouldn't do it?
Trump has no class. If someone says they don't like him, he makes fun of their looks, he makes fun of their illness, he suggests that being a POW makes you a loser (say what you want about McCain, the man was totrtured and imprisoned for 5 years because he wouldn't be released without the others when he had the chance. Do you think Trump, who has only served himself, would make that sacrifice for others?!), suggests Ted Cruz's father was in on the JFK assassination...what does it take to convince you he is horrible?
Things have sunk so far, I watched the Democrats put on what could have been a carbon copy the 2004 Republican convention last week.
You chose Trump as your nominee. It is your fault. When Hillary wins, it is your fault.
CatherineM ^^^^^ summed it up well, nothing more needs to be said.
Oh wait!
But, but, but Hillary ...
Catherine, Bloomberg's third term, which was essentially illegal, wasn't so hot. But he is the Exemplar of the efficient manager of the nanny state. I don't think there is any area of life where he wouldn't feel justified in compelling you if he thought the cost benefit ratio was in favor of it. That's a problem.
As for whether he was a better businessman than Trump or had fewer advantages, he wasn't exactly a crack baby raised by wolves. Wiki says:
In 1981, Salomon Brothers was bought by Phibro Corporation, and Bloomberg was laid off from the investment bank and given a $10 million severance package.
This is what we call seed capital.
Anyway, Trump cut to the heart of it: if only Bloomberg would just step into the arena and bring that high-powered talent to president this country! Sadly, no. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
"Businessman President" can be translated as, "Person who can read the budget and make decisions based on public cost/benefit, as opposed to a 'politician' who spends other people's money based on party cost/benefits."
I don't expect Trump to make a profit as President. Just closing a few nonperforming divisions of the federal government would be sufficient.
Post a Comment