Is Trump's real agenda to monetize the fringe right wing base?

[Final-Fan]

fatslob-:O said:

Final-Fan said:

1.  True, we agree that he isn't required to do this, but I think it's only reasonable for people to refuse to vote for someone who refuses to disclose that information.  I think if he did it would show he is not as rich as he claims to be. 

2.  You'd think that being filthy rich and having most of your life behind you would make you harder to corrupt, but I think that's not what proves to be the case a lot of the time.  Certainly Trump's history doesn't suggest he would be particularly good at holding firm against pecuniary gain at the expense of others in shady deals.  And I really don't see Trump's level of greed declining when he realizes he's close to death; I'm confident he is set in his ways; if he was going to pivot on that stance he would have done it already, since he's pretty old.  Anyway, I think he would actually prove to be highly corruptible, but probably a different style of corruption than the corruption life-long politicians tend to get into.  If your position is "they are both corrupt but at least Trump isn't the same old kind of corruption—I want some new corruption to see if it's not as bad as the type I expect from Hillary", then while I disagree with your decision I can respect it. 

3.  You still have not explained what reason we have to believe Trump actually intends to do what he has claimed he intends to do, given that you say his word is not his bond until he's signed a contract to that effect.  But if you accept that he may well be lying about anything and everything and he will be corrupt as heck, but a new and possibly less damaging kind of corruption, then it's not an important point. 

4.  His biographer is convinced that his personality is completely unsuited to the office.  He does not have enough attention to detail, and gets bored too quickly; as a result he will not want to go in depth on policy when he is not already familiar with it. 

1. Are you serious ? That guy listed over 400 million in operating income alone! Even if he takes the entire brunt of the corporate tax rate of 35%, he is still making a noticeable fraction of a billion ... 

2. Except Donald Trump has sold and rent real estate to make that money while Clinton made money by selling words ?! Depending on your definition of "corrupt" he hasn't exactly done a lot of flip-flopping compared to Romney so he doesn't really have cognitive dissonance to show that he's corrupt ... 

3. We DON'T know what he WILL do as there's a given amount of uncertainty for the future but that applies for every presidential candidate. At that point, how one decides to vote is down to his/her feelings ... 

4. Umm, Tony Schwartz is not a biographer at all and the book "Trump: The Art of Deal" is also not a biography although it does contain some memoirs plus he appears to be politically motivated too as he describes himself to be a "lifelong liberal" while "giving money to democrats year after year after year" so how can we prove that he DOESN'T have an agenda ? 

1.  I didn't say he was poor, I'm saying he might not be quite as rich as he claims to be.  There is a fairly significant difference between "merely wealthy" and the $10 billion or whatever Trump claims.  Not that income tax returns show net wealth but you get the point:  IIRC he claims most of his wealth by his brand name; how much does that make him?  How much does he actually get from selling "real estate" as you believe? 

2.  Flip-flopping isn't really corruption.  I have no idea what you are thinking with this comment.  And Trump has done plenty of flip-flopping, or rather his claims vary widely (even wildly) and the only reason it wouldn't count as flip-flopping is if his position wasn't seriously held in the first place. 

3.  Even with all the bad reputation many politicians have, "you can't trust them without a literal legally binding contract" is a pretty low bar.  That is the bar your defense of Trump's participation in Trump University sets. 

4.  I stand corrected on Schwartz not being a biographer.  Art of the Deal may not be an autobiography but it certainly does have a lot of autobiographical information as I have been led to believe.  As for his agenda, clearly he does have one, the explicit agenda of he does not think Trump is mentally prepared for the rigors of the office of POTUS.  If you think he would say the same thing about any Republican to try to make them lose the election, I think you need a little more than "he's a liberal" to make a serious claim.  As it is he seems to me like a person who actually knew Donald Trump, closely interacting with him for months, and has a very strong opinion about how well he can do the job.