Rpruett said:
JWeinCom said:
It is simply not 100% CEO. To avoid getting into it, I'll just use a simple example, the military. From a business perspective, the military is useless. While it does create jobs, it is a huge drain on the economy. In a business sense it would make sense to cut it out completely. But of course, there is a security issue as well. Social issues are something typically not in the realm of a CEO in the same way, nor is border control. And even economic issues are far different. The government is ultimately (or at least shouldn't be) a money making endeavor. Again there are some skills that crossover, but it's just not the same thing.
On issuesthe, those are really broad statements. A lot of people agree with securing borders, but you need a plan to do that. His idea of forcing Mexico to build a fence is silly. It doesn't account for the changing demographics in immigration (less immigrants are coming from Mexico as opposed to other regions) and the idea of having Mexico build a fence is laughable enough that even right wing pundits like Bill O Reilly have pointed out its stupidity. Replace common core with what exactly? I find that most people opposed to common core are more opposed to what they think Common Core is as opposed to what it actually is (I'm a teacher btw). I'm not a huge fan of common core, but it's hardly the boogeyman people make it out to be. But, what does Trump want to replace it with? Because if we leave it to each school district to decide, we're going to have an educational disaster.
On the subject of flip flopping, see Trumps ideas from his pseudo campaigns from 2000, and see them now. He's been consistent in few things (tariffs for instance), but has switched in many issues from tax reform to abortion and so on.
I'm not a big fan of Hilary. I'm aware of her general positions, but I'm not quite aware of the specifics. I do support the Iran deal she brokered, her stance on abortion and gay rights, raising the minimum wage, stem cell research, and so on. I'm going on the assumption that she's better than Trump, because Trump has showed an utter disregard for any form of research (for exmample him fumbling around when asked where he got his information about immigration during the debate), outright looniness (for example that climate change is a chinese conspiracy... Even IF you don't believe in climate change, the idea that China has that degree of control over the global scientific community to organize a conspiracy is fucking insane), and his stance on social issues. Maybe it's naive to take him at his word on that, but I'm not going to chance voting for someone so backwards on those issues. I'd have to brush up on her a bit more, but I'm more familiar with the republicans since they've gotten a bit more press because of a more competitve race, earlier debates, and so on.
I'm actually pulling for Sanders right now, so I could do a bit of a better job on explaining policies I support. Firstly, his opposition to citizens united, and the plan to introduce a constitutional ammendment.... which of course would be a tough sell in politics, but he may very well be appointing justices to the supreme court, so it's not unfeasible to overturn that. I support the DISCLOSE act, his stance on energy (securing money for clean energy in the stimulus package), the too big to fail act, breaking up big banks, reversing trade agreements (yeah I know Trump does too), expanding stem cell research, and so on.
|
It is simply not 100% CEO. To avoid getting into it, I'll just use a simple example, the military.....
So you're saying that you need to make wise decisions based on the best known information at any given time in a myriad of fields? Which is essentially what a CEO does. The CEO of Google might not be the most knowledgable programmer in the company for example, but he needs to be smart enough to assemble the proper resources to make the best possible decision.
You're saying that all of these aspects are different, then I have to ask....What candidate would ever be qualified to hold the position? Definitely not Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or any of the other GOP leadership.
On issuesthe, those are really broad statements. A lot of people agree with securing borders, but you need a plan to do that. His idea of forcing Mexico to build a fence is silly.
I don't think it's silly. If there are parts of the border that are easily penetrable (Over 300,000 illegal immigrants cross the border annually from what I last read), then it's absolutely viable. We can't have a viable country with loose borders and it's not financially feasible long-term. Most illegal immigrants are coming from the weak Southern border. As for common core? (My Fiance is a teacher as well) It's largely a failure and he would be right to fix it and discuss with Education leaders the best approach. As with anything, there is a multitude of ideas as to what that approach needs to be.
On the subject of flip flopping...
Not saying Trump is better in this regard, simply no different.
I'm not a big fan of Hilary. I'm aware of her general positions.....
The point was, she's been probably even more vague regarding her positions than any other candidate.
I'm actually pulling for Sanders right now
Sanders is essentially a straight-forward socialist. I run a small business (22 employees) and there is no way in hell I'd be able to stay afloat with the 15$ minimum wage he's presented. It shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge of the most important attribute to America and while he thinks he's going to 'stick it to the man!!' it doesn't hurt them nearly like it would hurt small business. I don't mind Sanders, but he's shown that he's not a leader and not someone who is going to win negotiations with some of the more sly rulers around the world.
|
So you're saying that you need to make wise decisions based on the best known information at any given time in a myriad of fields? Which is essentially what a CEO does. The CEO of Google might not be the most knowledgable programmer in the company for example, but he needs to be smart enough to assemble the proper resources to make the best possible decision.
If you want to take the definition that broadly, then you could probably make that applicable to about every professional job. Basically any job is going to involve some level of decision making. Take Bill Bellichick for example. He makes decisions based on information, but despite his dishonesty, I don't think he'd make a good president.
Like I said, there is some overlap, but the decisions a CEO makes are not as broad (generally) and are explictly profit motivated. The issues faced by a president are more complex.
Anyway, this is a skill that Trump is decidedly not showing. When exactly has he shown that he is listening to experts and making the best decisions? When he claims climate control is a chinese hoax? I mean, you could find people, scientists even, who deny climate change, but I don't see any experts who would say it's a chinese conspiracy. When asked for evidence to back up his statement that Mexico was sending criminals over, he stammered for a little while and then claimed he talked to one border control person. His tax plan (admittedly from 2000 since he hasn't proposed one for 2014) was blasted by economists. Even in the same interviews, he gives multiple opinions on issues that, as a candidate for US President, he should be able to answer. In his interview with Bill O' Reilly he gave contradictory responses to whether or not we should send ground troops to fight ISIS. So, even if we were to agree that CEOs as a whole have relevant experience, I don't think Trump has showed that he possesses this skill.
Trump's campaign is basically him boasting about how great he is. He clearly portrays the idea that he is the bestest at everything in the whole world. What indication is there that he's going to logically and unbiasedly synthesize information?
You're saying that all of these aspects are different, then I have to ask....What candidate would ever be qualified to hold the position? Definitely not Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or any of the other GOP leadership.
I think both Hilary and Sanders have better shown the ability to analyze opinions to find ideal solutions. I think that being a Senator, Governor, or Secretary of state would be more relevant experience than CEO. Which isn't to say everyone in those positions would be better than every CEO, but I'd say on average that holds.
I don't think it's silly. If there are parts of the border that are easily penetrable (Over 300,000 illegal immigrants cross the border annually from what I last read), then it's absolutely viable. We can't have a viable country with loose borders and it's not financially feasible long-term. Most illegal immigrants are coming from the weak Southern border. As for common core? (My Fiance is a teacher as well) It's largely a failure and he would be right to fix it and discuss with Education leaders the best approach. As with anything, there is a multitude of ideas as to what that approach needs to be.
Mexican immigration levels have basically been stable for the past decade. Net immigration is about 0. There are more immigrants coming from central America and South East Asia and I don't believe many of them are going over the Mexican border. And while I don't disagree with stronger border control, the idea of having Mexico build a giant fence is silly. I don't believe we have any political grounds to coerce them, and this is a country with economic struggles.
It's not agreed upon that illegal immigrants are actually damaging the economy. Obviously at some level it will become problematic, but there are a lot of businesses that rely on immigrant labor, and it's not clear that there will be enough US citizens willing or able to take the jobs. There are studies that show illegal immigration is beneficial overall (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/trumps-immigration-plan/) although also other studies that disagree. At any rate, the claims Trump makes seem exaggerated at best and dishonest at worst.
Trump's assertion that immigrants are almost all violent criminals (although a few might be good people) is just wrong. Rates of crime among undocumented immigrants are less than the general population when you exclude arrests that are for the illegal immigration itself.
It seems to me that you're saying you agree with border reform in general. Great, me too. I'd wager most people in this country agree as well. But you haven't explained why Trump's plans would work.
As for the common core, it's really just a set of standards. How schools implement it vary pretty wildly. I like the idea in theory. My objection to it is that it is not designed by people actually involved in education. I sort of favor the common core because most people who object to it tend to favor the idea that all education decisions should be made at a state level. This could lead, and has lead in the past, to half assed instruction for minorities, teaching of nonsense like creationism, dangerous programs like abstinence only sex education, and so on.
But back to Trump, all he's done is say "You know that thing that everybody doesn't like?! I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER!" And that's fine, and I have no reason to believe he's being dishonest in that. But he hasn't actually spoke of any real plan regarding education aside from cutting the budget of the department of education. And I don't really know why people would support him with such a lack of any substance in his campaign.
On the subject of flip flopping... Not saying Trump is better in this regard, simply no different.
If he's not better than why support him over Hilary in that regard? Aside from that, I don't know of many issues other than gay marriage and possibly her views on some of Obama's policies when she ran against him that she's changed he opinion on. Trump seems worse in this regard based on what I know (admittedly I'm a bit more aware of him than Hilary.) Sanders has been generally consistent in all of his positions.
Sanders is essentially a straight-forward socialist. I run a small business (22 employees) and there is no way in hell I'd be able to stay afloat with the 15$ minimum wage he's presented. It shows a complete and utter lack of knowledge of the most important attribute to America and while he thinks he's going to 'stick it to the man!!' it doesn't hurt them nearly like it would hurt small business. I don't mind Sanders, but he's shown that he's not a leader and not someone who is going to win negotiations with some of the more sly rulers around the world.
Conversely, there is no way in hell I could live (I live in Brooklyn for reference) on less than 15 dollars an hour. Perhaps there should be some kind of COLA implemented, but something's gotta give in this situation. I'm not quite equipped on this issue to really get into details. Obviously as a business owner and someone who's worked for under 15 dollars an hour for the most of his life, we're going to come at this from different angles.
I'm not sure why you don't think Sanders would be able to negotiate. He's clearly a sharp person and in interviews and in the Senate, he's handled himself well. I honestly think that he'd be taken more seriously than Trump when negotiating with leaders. I don't see Putin being intimidated by Trump, nor do I see Trump being taken seriously on a global scale. I don't think his "listen you motherfuckers" strategy is going to play as well as he thinks.
Currently Online 
