Final-Fan said:
My answer would be this: for all the wealth Trump has amassed, his actual power is tiny compared to that of the President of the United States. If he is this crooked as a businessman, how can you imagine he will not be incredibly corrupt when put into the most powerful office on the planet? It's not uncertain in my view. If Trump's corruption is small scale it is because despite being a billionaire he is operating at small scale compared to the United States government. What he is asking you to do is to let him run the bigtime show, when you already know he's spent his time running the sideshow picking customers' pockets.
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." ~Abraham Lincoln
Secondly, add to that the fact that Clinton actually knows how to run the country and deal with foreign powers, while Trump does not. And he refuses to learn, as is shown by the debate.
Thirdly, I believe Trump operates on this business mindset: Any publicity is good publicity, because you don't have to win over everybody and you don't even have to win over the majority of people. You only have to win over enough people to keep your business going. So if you cast a wide enough net, even a smaller percentage will do. I believe that's why he's spent his whole life tending to his public image. It's why he is obsessed with being on the winning side and never admits to losing in the past, present, or future, regardless of evidence. This apparently works for his businesses on average (remembering that he's gone bankrupt several times), but it's not a good way to approach the operation of a government that is supposed to work for the whole population. And I think the way it affects his thinking is very dangerous, because if you can never admit to losing, it's hard to admit you have to change course.
Two key quotes from a NY Times article:
Mr. Trump, for his part, sought to blame everything but himself. During an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, he charged that the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, had become overly aggressive with him — although he inaccurately said that Mr. Holt had questioned him over a 1973 federal discrimination lawsuit against Mr. Trump’s company. (Mrs. Clinton had raised the lawsuit question.) He also suggested that his performance was related to a faulty mike — even though he was perfectly audible during the telecast — and that he may have been the victim of sabotage.
The team had primed Mr. Trump to look for roughly a dozen key phrases and expressions Mrs. Clinton uses when she is uncertain or uncomfortable, but he did not seem to pay attention during the practice sessions, one aide said, and failed to home in on her vulnerabilities during the debate.
He apparently doesn't want to study and/or isn't good at it, and these are TERRIFYING qualities for a presidential candidate to have, especially one who is not already familiar with how the government works. There is a podcast episode by a guy named Sam Harris that I think illuminates this point well. I will quote a significant section of what he said in a separate post due to its size, and I really recommend you read the post fully. If you'd like, I do encourage you to listen to the whole thing and see if it convinces you of anything you didn't already know about Trump.
"There's too much evidence that he knows nothing about the world, and that he does not care that he knows nothing about it. He's just winging it. He gives the overwhelming impression of being a con man."
|
But you mostly talked about topics very far away from the comparison base you talked about. I mean, ecology is a very important matter, but not relevant in the matter. What you are saying is that Trump does not have the scale and immorality (from my perspective regarding public servant mission) because he did not have the power yet. But that would make him at most as bad, not worst. And it's not even sure that scam and all translate into corruption. Some can steal their company, not there family, Wall Street is not betting on him.
About not knowing the world, and that's again an other subject, I'm not sure if that matters as much as being willing to do something or anything outside what the very companies and countries that created the problems decides. I mean, look at Putin he is certainly not the best economist and nicest person in town, but he understood quite quickly that by breaking the oligarchy owning the petrol and converting petroleum industry into state owned companies, he could easily fuel 2 decades of growth, improve average revenue and rebuild the military. The only reasons that prevented the previous presidents to do so was corruption, ideology, and legal concerns. Unfair competition (self-regulation, tax, unfair competitors) for economy, unending ISIS problem (bad relationship with Russia and obsession against Assad, free pass to Saudi Arabia) are some of the biggest problems. It could be just as simple as having a little bit of common sense and not do more of the same.
