• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Economist: Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest - excerpt:
The guy is a born 'n bred businessman, and has been since birth - the son of German immigrants. (A hardy stock.)

He will not be able to keep his hands off the business and his kids are too young to run them alone. Managing America from the Oval Office and running Trump enterprises are equally occupying positions. Aside from his "Gotta Be Top-Gun" mentality, it is difficult to imagine why, with his business empire on shaky ground, he took on the presidency as well.

Something has gotta give - and it will ...





 
There will be some unhappy people, whether some of them will be in the Trump family IDK.

The law seems to be on Trumps side.
 
Paul Krugman, . . .
Click to expand...

This is a clue that whatever you're reading belongs in a tabloid. Krugman is the hackiest of hacks.
 

It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.
 

What? His oldest 2 sons are 38 and 32 and have been in the Trump business thier whole lives, how are they too young?
 
I cancelled a subscription to The Economist I've had for 30 years just because of their mis-reporting and lying about Trump, which is exactly the same lies being peddled by the media here. I expected better of their editors, but obviously their standards have fallen through the floor along with the rest of the media's slide downhill into tabloid trash.
 
joG said:
It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.
Click to expand...

Why not just accept the obvious, and live with the fact that Hillary and Trump, the DNC and RNC, all are indeed representative of what the public has become? They are results of the public wants, not the causes.
 
Oberon said:
Why not just accept the obvious, and live with the fact that Hillary and Trump, the DNC and RNC, all are indeed representative of what the public has become? They are results of the public wants, not the causes.
Click to expand...

True for Trump, not true for Clinton.
 
joG said:
It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.
Click to expand...

This election was specific. It was the first-time a woman was in the running for first-place, which had to happen sooner or later. And the manner in which she was manhandled - particularly by Comey - is unacceptable. (I'm still asking why Dubya never went on trial for his Administration's use of the RNC's email-system.)

Politics as macho hardball ruthlessly diminishes the nation as a whole. Of course, for some, all that matters is hardball "winning".

And THAT is precisely the problem. Nobody won. The majority of the vote went to Hillary, and in just about any advanced country in the world that suffices.

Only in America it does not. We are beset by two political factors that are antiquated - the first being the electoral-college that serves no purpose whatsoever in a true democracy (since only the popular vote matters), and gerrymandering (which dates from 1812) that carves voting districts to favor one or the other of two parties.

The US is a country wedded to dynamic technological change but anchored by an election-reporting system that was bygone already in the 19th century (with the advent of a national electromagnetic telegraph in the 1850s).

That's one too many husbands ...
 
joG said:
It seems to me a simple and intractable dilemma for democracy. Who can legitimately be elected? Each societal group has its specific problematic.
Click to expand...

The majority of the popular vote always wins, in most democracies.

But not ours ...
 
We don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and it is by no means proven that Hillary won the popular vote, for a variety of reasons, including many states not having the slightest interest in voters proving they are eligible or even citizens, so that isn't an argument, it's a fantasy wish.
 
KevinKohler said:
True for Trump, not true for Clinton.
Click to expand...

It's true for any nominee in an election here, no matter what the office, dog catcher to President.
 
Oberon said:
It's true for any nominee in an election here, no matter what the office, dog catcher to President.
Click to expand...

Not true for those that lose elections, is what I mean.
 
Bob N said:
Clinton's popular vote lead passes the 2 million mark And if I may ask, which states do you suspect and why?
Click to expand...

New York, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Florida, and any other state where Democrats control the state and/or large city governments therein, including some cities here in Texas. Why? Why do Democrats oppose Voter ID laws anywhere?

And we can deduct several millions of votes from the hillary totals due to fraud.
 
Oberon said:
New York, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Oregon, Florida, and any other state where Democrats control the state and/or large city governments therein, including some cities here in Texas. Why?
Click to expand...
Well I do not totally agree with your train of thought. But lets discuss some of what you say which I can question. The states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida went for Trump. (Ohio 52.1%; Pennsylvania 48.8%; Florida 49.1%.) Really. I think that you're giving the state and locals more credit than they deserve. Those figures are not in disregard by no means. (LINK)

Oberon said:
Why do Democrats oppose Voter ID laws anywhere?
Click to expand...
I seriously suspect it to be the same reason that the GOP wants to close down registration centers and polling places early in sectors they control. Power. Something, is it not? I have no problem showing ID to the poll worker. If it was up to me voters in all states should be able to vote as early as two months before an election with no lines because there are plenty of access points to vote right up until November 8th. :shrug:


Oberon said:
And we can deduct several millions of votes from the hillary totals due to fraud.
Click to expand...
Go right ahead. Just as long as the other side gets them subtracted too if they are found to be fraudulent. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Oberon said:
Why not just accept the obvious, and live with the fact that Hillary and Trump, the DNC and RNC, all are indeed representative of what the public has become? They are results of the public wants, not the causes.
Click to expand...

what?
 

You seem to have a grasp of political, sociological and economic models of decision making, what they imply, their interaction or their advantages vs disadvantages for different groups, over time or for stability that is as thick as a leaf.
 
RUBBISH SLOGANIZING


Babble, babble, babble.

The vote was counted and all that matters is those who voted, presuming the votes counted where honest and without external interference. You don't like the supposed facts of the matter, that's too bad. Let's see what investigators find, and if there was no finagling or interference then so much the better for our voting-system. Which is ancient and creaky.

America's "democracy" is typical of American business - it has been manhandled in such a way to influence political opinion by means of the BoobTube that eats most of the budget of an electoral campaign. The problem is, I suggest, that Americans are affected greatly by the publicity.

What's important is a politician's "platform" - meaning, what they "stand" for in terms of political outlook or thinking on matters. And, as regards the matter of "platforms" - in the context of this last election - I gave Hillary an "A" and Trump a "D-".

Trump was all over the place and his "Make America Great Again" was just rubbish BoobTube sloganizing. The hard-part boyz-'n-girlz is in contending with intractable problems and finding solutions that do not suit everybody but solve nonetheless problems. (The biggest of which at the moment in America is both Income & Wealth Disparity!)

Because, instead of thinking, people actually believe the soap-powder boobtube merchandizing of candidates - who all "wash whiter than white!"

Stoopid is as stoopid does. (Forrest Gump)
 

The only thing the MSM got wrong was relying on wrong polls, and as a result, they did not investigate certain things as much as they would have.

Since 95% of the polls were wrong, the MSM can be exonnerated on that account. They are not pollsters.

That said, they are idiots not to doublecheck things. This does not make them tabloid trash. All the other facts they reported were TRUE, and their opinions flowing from the concatenation of those facts, were entirely reasonable.




They just would not have spent as much time in bashing trump if they had realised the election was so close/she was losing, in the battleground states. They would have spent more time investigating why Trump's message was working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…