After the farce of an impeachment, Trump will win & go down as the greatest President ever.

MayCaesar

Trump is the very embodiment of partisan identity politics...

Will he win? At this point, almost certainly. Will he go down as the greatest president? Highly doubtful.

Greatest presidents arise in periods of rapid significant change; these are the periods people react to the most. George Washington is considered a great president, because he won the Independence War and led the first presidential administration. Abraham Lincoln (perhaps undeservedly) is considered a great president, because he won the Civil War and abolished slavery country-wide. John Kennedy is considered a great president, because he became a landmark in the civil rights movement and in the space race. Ronald Reagan is considered a great president, because his actions allegedly ended the Cold War.

It is possible in theory that Trump will make it big in history books, but I suspect he will be much like Gerald Ford: a guy who came in and did something, but did not leave a lasting impression.

I think the only real chance Trump has to make it is if the peace brokered by him between the two Koreas leads to reunification in the nearest future. That would, indeed, be an accomplishment on a global scale worthy high praise, regardless of how much he would actually be responsible for it. But what are the chances of that happening?

Grafix

@We_are_accountable - You wrote in your OP ...

Both Parties did not want Trump, yet he was able to fight and win the Presidency. He is his own man and what America desperately needed. A leader and a work horse.

So true and is the reason Pres. Trump has already been targeted in seven assassination attempts.  No other President has had to risk his life to the same degree that this President has had to and for what reason?  The reason is purely and solely because he is going after the corrupt elitists, the crony-capitalist, globalist cartels, who have controlled Presidents and policy for decades. The Democrat Party has sold out to these criminals in exchange for donor class funding.  Reagan was the last independent President who implemented policy independently of them and he too was an assassination target, but survived his shooting.  It is why President Trump has his own personal security team in addition to that provided by the State.  He does not want to end up like Kennedy or Reagan, i.e., being shot at.  His team frisk everyone and de-bug everything, including AirForce One Pilot and all.

Another President in our lifetime was also similarly targeted by exactly the same powers that be, who pull their wires of control and that was JFK.  Kennedy had introduced his greenback, a currency issued by the people, by the State and not by the private cartels of the Federal Reserve, so they shot him.  They know if they lose control of the issuance of the currency, then they lose control of the government.  Those who deny there is a Deep State are fools.  James Comey even publicly admitted that there was, just as these knowledgeable and well-informed leaders have in the past.  We can only close our ears and eyes for so long ... 

      

   



Trump said on the campaign trail that he would put the dollar back on the gold standard.  He tried three times to replace the Chair of The Fed with appointees who shared his views on that and what did the Democrats do?  Block each nominee, not with a single viable objection, instead they used lowbrow, gutter, pub-brawling slander to block all three.  The same way they tried to block Kavanaugh's appointment, inventing dirt, filth,sex, fabrications, lies and distortions.  All three of the candidates for the Fed Chair each said, sorry Mr. President, although I'm innocent of these scurrilous lies, I don't want to put my family through the public wringer, so they walked away.

Tell me this is how democracy works.  Yeah right. Today's Democrats are not the Party of JFK.  If they can't win on solid and reasonable grounds, they climb into the gutter and bully everyone with made up filth, tar them with invented stench, plastering innocent people with scurrilous defamation and libel all over the front pages of their scandalously bought-and-paid-for media puppets, using tactics lower than a blood-sucking tick on a testicle.

AlofRI

Madness has taken over the GNP.

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

Gerald Ford? Are you serious? He became President because of Nixon's impeachment, and could not even defeat Jimmy Carter in the following election.

Trump is taking on all the problems that former Presdents refused to take on. They were issues neither party would compromise on, but Trump took them on.

Illegal immigration...
China trade deal...
Stopping tax payer funding to Planned Parenthood because of their abortion trade...
Lowering Corporate tax rates to become competitive with the rest of the world, bringing jobs back to our nation...
Formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and stated that the American embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem...
Cut many job killing regulations never touched by other Presidents...
Helped to make America energy independent so that we can try to wipe our hands of never ending involvement in Arad nations...

When Trump takes on an issue, he is not just giving it lip service. He takes it on like a true leader, and finds out what it takes to actually get the job done. This comes from his business experience and a work horse mentality.
He truly does know how to get things done, and has no fear of what his opponents might try to do to him. He was impeached because he refused to bow to pressure from fake news and corrupt Democrat obstructionists.

I believe he will go down as the greatest President because he is not beholden to the swamp and powers to be. He does not fear reprisal from the Left because he is not a career politician worrying about his next election.

We_are_accountable

@Grafix

Well said......

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

What you personally like about Trump does not in any way define what the history will remember him for. I understand that you worship him like a god, but history books do not judge leaders based on how much they were worshipped at their time.

Greatest president? Greater than Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln? That is some tough competition, my friend. Obama, for that matter, is much more likely to make it to the top of the historical rankings for irrelevant things such as becoming the first black president and getting a Nobel prize. History does not remember what the person specifically did; history remembers major events, and these two certainly qualify.

The first female president is also quite likely to be remembered well, regardless of what she actually does as president. Trump? Well, he is the first billionaire to become president of the US, so that might count for something - but, considering how quickly the quality of life in the US grows, in a few decades being a billionaire likely will not even be seen as something special.

AlofRI

John Trump is the dumbest, most undeserving occupier of the White House there has ever been. He will be rated the lowest (hopefully), that we will EVER have. If it is ever actually checked he will be found to have the lowest IQ of anyone to hold the office. It will likely never be known as he is just intelligent enough to keep from having it checked. The ma …. individual … can't even SPELL!

I think we will find that one or two very smart college students came out with NO DEBT because they were well paid for doing his papers! That is the only explanation for his "degree" …. if he even HAS one! He is at middle school level, and that's where he will stay.

45 will be (If he doesn't become King), moved to 46, 47, 48, etc. in Presidential ratings as time goes by …. IF we survive him. 

Happy_Killbot

There is no doubt in my mind that future historians will point to Trump as a Critical turning point in the US democracy. They will show that this is where populism finally exceeded the population's desires for freedom and allowed the US people to vote for the demagoguery that stood for exactly the opposite of what the US was founded on, while the people stupidly believed that he was on their side.

Trump will be the point at which the US started to decline, as it already has. China already exceeds the US in virtually every way, and this has all occurred within the last 4 years.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Your post would have been true if replacing Trump with the Democrat Party.

Our world started declining when this Leftist Big Brother fanaticism took hold. Progressive thought police are the autoritarians in this world. Progressive

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable ;
Remember the other day when I asked what you would do if you found evidence that proves your theory wrong, but you refused to answer my question?

Well here is the evidence, read em' and weep:


Notice how most democratic candidates are moved up and to the right of where you would think. Why don't you go ahead and take this test and show me where you lie?
https://politicalcompass.org/test

Here is my results:


Why not go ahead and show me yours?

AlofRI

As long as he "goes down" you can call him anything YOU want. It likely wont agree with my assessment, or the assessment of the majority of American historians.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

LOL, do you actully think showing graphs created by Left leaning groups, means ANYTHING?

I have the intelligence to not follow the words of people with agendas. I see life through my own eyes, and can easily see the Political correct autoritarians in this nation.

Who was it that forced Gay marriage on ALL States? AUTHROITARIAN LEFT!

Who is trying to force all Public schools to change their history books to embrace LGBT indoctriantion? AUTHROITARIAN LEFT!

Who is trying to force Public schools to allow so called Transgender boys into our daughter's sports? AUTHROITARIAN LEFT!


Tell me what Trump is trying to force into our schools?

John_C_87

@We_are_accountable ;

Trump is not my President, he is an executive officer, duly elected officer in the executive branch of government, there simply are no presidential candidates running for that office. or had there been upon his entry into office. None of his campaign promises nor any of the other candidates' promises form a united state towards constitutional union. The pledges only are united with the action of the executive office.

All men are created equal by there creator. The cause that tacts as our creator without prejudice is the ability of President of the United States. A man who sits for the future of all men before a united state of Consitution. Without prejudice, a woman can be placed in this position with the goal of Presadera. A woman who sits for the future of all women before a united state of Consitution.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable

PACE NEWS LTD is registered in New Zealand. They are as far removed from US political bias as you can get.

You got it all backwards anyways. The government doesn't force anything, gay marriage is a removal of a restriction, so it is the opposite of what a government does. A government can only take away rights, such as the right to marry whoever you please.

Are you going to take the test to see how you rank, or are you afraid to find out the truth?

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable
By refusing to allow or even consider differing opinion, you become the embodiment of authoritarian theory, which simply put is to control the public discourse by controlling the narrative, which is exactly what Trump does every time he says the news he disagrees with is fake.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@We_are_accountable

PACE NEWS LTD is registered in New Zealand. They are as far removed from US political bias as you can get.

You got it all backwards anyways. The government doesn't force anything, gay marriage is a removal of a restriction, so it is the opposite of what a government does. A government can only take away rights, such as the right to marry whoever you please.

Are you going to take the test to see how you rank, or are you afraid to find out the truth?

Doesn't matter, that test is garbage.  There isn't enough room above Trump for 0bama, who was far more authoritarian.  If you believe those results, they peg you as a liberal activist.  It puts me as a liberal authoritarian conservative progressive.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Thanks for admitting what I knew to be true. Trump is NOT forcing an authoritarian Government on our State's and public schools.

Gay marriage was forced on many many States that did not want it. The people in those States did not want it!
The reason it happened was because a Liberal President appointed activist Justices who used their power to FORCE their authoritarian ideology on all States. Obama cheer leaded Gay marriage after supposedly being against it. Obama tried to forced every public school to change their bathroom policies to embrace Transgender activist agendas.

That is a FORCED removal of restrictions. What would you call it if a Government forced every State to remove restrictions on non discrimination laws? How would you like it if Government removed restrictions on anti racism policy? You would call Trnump an evil authoritarian monster if he removed those restrictions, but when it comes to removing the people's right's to protect their marriage laws between a man and woman, you twist it to being ok.

I can not debate blind hypocrisy. You live in a world of insecurity and are blinded to this Left wing authoritarian take over because you agree with it.
You are fine with authoritarians when they think like you.

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

"Forced removal of restrictions", huh?

I personally would love anti-discrimination laws to be abolished; they actually are anti-business laws in practice. That said, even if actual anti-discrimination laws were needed to prevent discrimination from happening, ban on gay marriages is the exact opposite of that, as it exactly enforces discrimination against homosexual couples. Legalising homosexual marriages is an anti-discrimination policy, hence it would make sense for someone who is against discrimination to support it along with other anti-discrimination policies.

You still have not realised, buddy, that prescribing people positions they do not hold does not magically make them hold them.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable MayCaesar hit the nail on the head here. You can not have a forced removal of a restriction, and in this case it makes no sense. I still did not say any of the things you claim I said, and I am still waiting on you to take the test and show me your results.

You claim I live in insecurity and left authoritarian take over, meanwhile supporting one of the most authoritarian presidents to date. I think it is you who live in insecurity, and you are projecting your own feelings on to me. Some famous person likes to say that fact's don't care about your feelings, but you have yet to provide any evidence that Trump isn't a dirty authoritarian, as I have.

Evidence > feelings.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta

And what evidence do you have that these tests are garbage?

They would still show a relative stance on all policies held by each person, so why should they not be valid when comparing individuals?

Maybe you would like something more complex?
http://filteries.com/politics

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I do have to agree though that the suggested political compass is pretty terrible; unfortunately, it is the most commonly used one. It is terrible in both the suggested individuals' placements and in the categorisation of the spectrum (linked by @CYDharta).

Sanders is not libertarian by any stretch of imagination; Trump is not authoritarian on the overall scale and certainly not near the top of the compass (considering the existence of people like Kim Jung Un or Bashar al-Assad); Buttigieg is not far to the right (I live in the city he used to be a mayor of; his actions here had little to do with free markets); Kasich is certainly not authoritarian; etc.

Fascism is not on the extreme top-right; Mussolini had little regard for free markets and designed his economy by the medieval trade guilds' system, which is mercantilism, not capitalism. On the extreme top-right would be something like Pinochet's Chile or Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, where people have few political freedoms, but economy is largely open.
"Totalitarianism" being on the top-left makes little sense, as everything at the extreme top is totalitarian.
"Anarchism" can be of many types, and separating "anarchism" from, say, "anarcho-capitalism" is a classification error. For that matter, what is "ultra-anarchism" and how does it differ from "anarchism", considering that "anarchism" is just lack of state?
How does "activism" even find its way to the political spectrum? "Activism" is a means of inducing desirable change; it does not say anything about what that change is.
"Conservatism" and "progressivism" refer to being open to major changes in the society and can be both right and left, both libertarian and authoritarian.
And so on and so on.

According to this compass:
- Trump is a fascist (he, of course is not).
- Kasich is a fundamentalist (he is not).
- Warren is a liberal (she is not).
- Biden is a conservative (he advocates for quite massive changes in the system, so he cannot be).
- Yang is ultra-capitalist (he is a hardcore statist, actually).

The compass does seem to place me correctly (I am actually anarcho-capitalist, and that is where it puts me), but, given how many inconsistencies there are, I will attribute it to chance.

There are much better compasses out there. The best (the only one worth taking?) quiz I have seen is this one:

https://8values.github.io/

It contains 4 axes and is much more descriptive, and the questions asked actually correspond to these axes. It still has issues and many questions can be interpreted in different ways, but, overall, it gives you a decent idea of where your values are on the overall scale.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

You gave me NOTHING AS ALWAYS! I saked for examples of trump forcing his will on the American people, as the Democrats are doing with their LGBT base, and you gave me nothing!

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

Another hypocrite who has no problem when Big brother Government forces their LGBT extremism on the public, forcing every State to do away with common sense marriage laws, common sense bathroom policies, boys in girl's sports, history books being transformed, Transgenders talking to our kindergartners, etc.

YOU ARE TOTALLY BRAINWASHED BY THIS LGBT BIG BROTHER EXTREMISM!

MayCaesar

@We_are_accountable

You are welcome to explain how anyone forces anyone into anything with regards to the LGBT rights; I have asked you this many times, and you could never provide a single example. Everything you mentioned was voluntary.

I do have a problem with some related things such as affirmative action, but the fact is that in the US only private organizations sometimes choose to enact related policies, which is their right, however much I disagree with them exercising it.

You do not understand the difference between the government forcing people into something and people voluntarily choosing that something. It is not my fault that this is the case.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I think the one linked by @CYDdharta is slightly inaccurate because of scale. Fascism is definitely at the top in terms of it being very authoritarian, but it is hard to place on this graph because it doesn't consider the cultural axis, or rather combines the economic and cultural axis into one. I agree that technically fascism can have economic left and right components, or more accurately it would be floating on that axis, meaning it could fall anywhere across it, but culturally it is right. Where progressivism is is where  neoliberalism should be, and statism and authoritarainism shouldn't be separate. The problem is, if trump was on this graph he would still fall somewhere around conservatism and traditionalism. As for Sanders, because the graph generated is based on past policy and voting, it is difficult for him to be as far left as he should be, since by necessity he would have to vote in line with party policies which are on the whole moved up and to the right.

Regardless, the graph should still be reasonably accurate for the two axis provided.

If the 4 axis isn't enough, you can always have the 9 axis,
https://9axes.github.io/
(which pegs me as a fanatic progressive, although that has nothing to do with progressive ideology and everything to do with science)

Or you can try and have some actual semblance of society and use the political simulator:
http://filteries.com/politics

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable ;

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

You gave me NOTHING AS ALWAYS! I saked for examples of trump forcing his will on the American people, as the Democrats are doing with their LGBT base, and you gave me nothing!

There is that $21.6 billion dollar project that can be defeated with a ladder... Lets start with that.

No one is forcing anyone to be LGBTQ, they already are that way and we are just allowing them to be themselves.

Are you going to take the test, or any of the others suggested by others?

AlofRI

!. He is building a wall over 70% of the people don't want or agree with.

2. He is pushing Nationalism and Racism and authoritarianism onto people who don't want it.

3. He is destroying our legal system and pushing it to the FAR right where most people don't want it.

4. He is forcing gun deregulation onto people who don't want it … over 70% of Americans, including over 60% of the NRA!

5. He is fracturing friendships with our allies all over the world, while promoting fascism … al over the world!

I could go on, "accountable", but, you're not listening, anyway, so WTH. 

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Im not sure you can take that one source and claim it to be the end all be all.  Looking at where some people stand it seems biased.  For one it thinks nearly everyone leans to the right.  There are people all the way to the right while hardly any leaning ro the left.  Bernie is basically pure socialist and he barely crosses the line while warren still leads to the right.

MichaelElpers

@AlofRI. Citation please.  And its about time someone got on our allies they entered an agreement that they werent sticking to, and then get mad when we call them out on it.

Dont know where you get racism from...he seems pretty proud that he has lowered minority unemployment to the lowest in history.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers I have yet to see a single article, source, or document describing Trump as anything but authoritarian. Just looking at the cult-like following he has, or the way he berates the media, the way he seems to respect dictators, or his overt drive for power should be sufficient proof of his authoritarian values.

How do you know the graph is biased? What if the country on the whole has shifted up and to the right?

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

It is important not to confuse authoritarianism with popularity. Trump is a master marketer and managed to create a personality cult out of himself - however, authoritarianism in particular implies some form of exerting strong control over the people, and that is not at all what Trump is doing. The whole personality cult is completely voluntarily, and the guy actually routinely meets those who criticise him and engages them in a debate, however awkwardly he does so. That is not something authoritarians do. Look at Putin for comparison; he will never have a debate with someone who criticises him routinely.

Trump is more authoritarian than most other Republican major figures, based on his actions, but on the overall scale he is quite liberal, especially if we compare him to the majority of Democrats who seem to want to control everything at this point.

I do not see him respecting dictators; he is just a soft-talker when it comes to foreign negotiations. One day he will praise some dictator in a personal meeting, and next day he will call him "rocket man". He just has a very volatile language, strongly shifting based on the contest. He is an extreme opportunist and will almost always say whatever is convenient at the moment, not what he actually thinks.

I bear no love for Trump, but it is important to be objective. Whatever the media allied with the opposition to Trump might say, Trump does not really qualify to be an authoritarian in any substantial way. He is a sleezy snake, which is a different thing.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Authoritarianism is about control, I agree, but I disagree that it implies having control.

Authoritarian theory is about centralization of power and decision making, it doesn't mean that control has to be exhibited over the people, in fact in a perfectly run authoritarian state, people do give up autonomy for their leaders willingly. For example, every time Trump calls something he doesn't like "fake news" he is exercising authoritarianism without the authority to actually be statist. This is because control of the media is a cornerstone of authoritarianism, control the narrative control the people. You don't need to force people to pay taxes if they believe they will go to something worthwhile, so as long as people believe that you can do as you please.

I have never seen Trump debate anyone he disagrees with, usually he just makes fun of them on Twitter, except Putin who he has sung praises for, and quite often at that.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/

I don't think he is ever hiding what he actually think, I am convinced that when he says something, he means it, and when it changes a day and a half later, it was a legitimate change. I don't think he has any character whatsoever, and I would challenge anyone to show me some examples showing him having any character or integrity consistently.

When I say Trump is Authoritarian, that is as close to objective truth, as we can get. Everything Trump does he does for self enrichment, for his own power and control. Those who have authoritarian values give him much more support:

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I agree, but I am not sure that Trump is after controlling the media or anything else. In fact, in a way, he thrives on negative publicity; media criticising him is to his advantage, and he has little incentive to take control over anything.

Trump debated some of his worst opponents on the election stage, and nowadays he routinely gives interviews to journalists asking very harsh questions. Compare it to actual authoritarians - Putin, Jinping, Maduro, Erdogan - who are only interviewed by carefully selected journalists with carefully selected questions. The only time they ever have to deal with face-to-face criticism is on international events, and you can see just how unused they are to being criticised by their reactions to inconvenient questions.
Trump is anything but thin-skinned; not only does he withstand criticism tall, but he thrives in it. He can be a bit of a sensitive boy sometimes, but it seems to be just an act. He always fires back, and the more fire you throw at him, the more you will get hit back.
He has been in the real-estate business, one of the harshest business fields in existence, for decades and has achieved quite a bit of success there. You get hardened after experiences such as this, no matter who you used to be before.

Maybe he means what he says, or maybe he does not. Either way, he does not seem to have a consistent stance on anything, other than, "I need to do whatever gets me the most amount of money and publicity in the current situation".

Trump does appeal to people with authoritarian mindsets, it is true. But that in itself does not necessarily make him authoritarian. Many authoritarians like anti-authoritarian ideas; I am an active participant of a couple of anarcho-capitalist subs on reddit, and we get quite a few authoritarians there who interpret our ideas quite differently from us.

The only authoritarian behavior I have ever seen in Trump is silencing inconvenient journalists on some of his events, and, I suppose, him mocking and calling names his opponents might also qualify. Which is why I say that, as far as Republicans go, he is fairly authoritarian. But on the overall scale, in the modern world, or even on the modern US scale? I would not say so.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I think the compromise here is to notice that Trump is completely incompetent.

What separates him from the others you list is organization, experience, and consistency.

Think about all the Trump supporters you have talked to, on both this site and IRL. It is as if they are living in a separate reality, where everything on TV is a lie, everything Trump says is truth, and immigrants are all murderous drug dealing rapists. That is propaganda at work, that is authoritarianism at work, and it is an ingrained part of human psychology.

When people want to decide something, they don't think about what would actually be best for them, they look to their leaders. This is why we will never be free as long as we are limited by our own neurobiology. It is why when smart people have good ideas no one moves, but when a popular person has any idea, everyone moves. We are inherently hierarchical. So when someone comes along and starts spewing all the not so thought out that they were already half considering, people bend to that individual's will, without regards to the consequences.

That is how authoritarianism happens. People don't sit down and think critically about it, people rarely have ideas and thoughts leading them in that direction, it is a product of human nature.

There are many other things Trump has done that are authoritarian, such as firing career bureaucrats that are not loyal to him or who go against him in any way. This has been done under the slogan "drain the swamp" But I think that people have forgotten that this was supposed to be about placing term limits on congress, not getting rid of the most experienced individuals in Washington.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I am not sure how incompetent he is. He is pretty bad at explaining his actions and he seems to be ignorant on many essential things, but his experience in the business industry might be offsetting it some. It is another matter that he seems to have developed some mental impairment recently, given his lack of ability to speak coherently, and that could interfere with his duties potentially.

Many Trump supporters have very strange views on the world, that is true. I would not relate it to authoritarianism though; he just has very outdated views on many things and he has managed to brand them as what America needs to be "restored" (to what, I can never learn).

I think the real problem with Trump is simplicity of his stated ideas. He really appeals to the lowest common denominator intelligence-wise, which is why you see many former Republicans now siding with Democrats, such as Bloomberg: intelligent people just do not want to be associated with a party endorsing candidates like this. When you listen to Trump explaining his ideas, he really sounds like a 10 year old kid, certainly not like an adult running the strongest country on the planet.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I don't think that Trump is as competent a business man as many make him out to be. I think that since he inherited most of his wealth, it was just enough that he was able to afford the resources he needed to maintain a high degree of wealth.

There is very low social mobility in the US. Those at the top tend to stay there, even if they don't deserve it. When you have that much wealth, it is just as hard to get to the bottom as it is to get to the top. That being said, a truly competent businessman would be able to grow his net worth significantly. If we compare Trump to "mini Mike" we can see a clear disparity between the two:



I would certainly agree that Trump appeals to the American public just a little too much. I hate it when otherwise traditional conservatives treat Trump like a god, when I don't think he has the slightest idea what the conservative movement is about. In recent years, there has been a very strong authoritarian draw, which can be traced to 911. This single event is the driving factor that has lead people to accept more authority and centralized power over individual autonomy and decentralization. The last three presidents were undoubtedly some of the most authoritarian in US history, and although they can't hold a candle to true dictators and monarchs in terms of actual power, I think it is clear that the underlying values are there, and it is only a matter of time until someone can figure out how to dissolve the remaining barriers. Liberalism in the US is in decline, that long term trend doesn't need Trump to be evident, but he is quite the number of data points on that graph. whoever comes after him will only be more powerful.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Large-scale real estate business is extremely competitive, and the fact that Trump has managed to maintain a consistent, slowly increasing, wealth is a huge success. Sure, Bloomberg is a far better businessman, but Bloomberg is one of the few best businessmen in the world, and considering everything below his level a failure would be unreasonable.
As far as I know, Trump already had a successful business running when he inherited his father's assets.
His business culture is quite shady, and he is known for backstabbing his partners all the time. But business ethics do not equate business effectiveness, albeit they quite strongly correlate in general.

If you listen to Trump's interviews where he is asked for a business or marketing advice, he actually gives very practical and useful tips. Just do not ask him about anything else.

3 out of 4 millionaires in the US are self-made; I would not call it "low mobility". Those at the top too lose their fortunes all the time; Mike Tyson, for example, blew his $300 million fortune in just a few years. I think people underestimate just how volatile wealth is. If you do not have skills on maintaining and growing wealth, then you will lose it, albeit, obviously, starting out with billions of dollars will give you many years of having fun before the consequences of your habits catch up with you.

Which is why most rich people raise their kids to be very responsible and self-sufficient. Look, again, at Trump's family; all of them have their own things running. Ivanka Trump is just a rising star and a nearly impeccable negotiator. If Trump dies tomorrow and all of his wealth magically disappears, his family will be fine. Same goes for Bloomberg. Same goes for the several millionaire families I have personally befriended. Same goes for virtually any rich person and family of note.
Being rich has more to do with your mindset and ability to confront and beat your inner demons than with external circumstances. Take any billionaire and drop him/her onto a new country where they have no connections, no assets, nothing, and block their access to their current assets - and in a few years they will be a billionaire again (a good example is the Russian social network creator Pavel Durov, who was stripped of everything by the Russian government, relocated to UAE and had a new international hit designed and billions dollars earned almost instantly). Similarly, take most people at the bottom of the economical ladder and give them $100b - I can almost guarantee that in 20 years they will be dead or homeless.

There are many reasons to criticise Trump for... But his business success is not one of them. You do not stay within the top-1000 richest people on Earth for decades without some massive business skills.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

You are fake news! I have told you a thousand times that I am not talking about people living as they choose, I'm talking about LGBT groups conditioning our children in public schools. You NEVER address the facts of what I'm talking about. YOU ARE FAKE NEWS!

This is the fake news drivel you say with every debate... "No one is forcing anyone to be LGBTQ, they already are that way and we are just allowing them to be themselves."

WHAT ON EARTH DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THESE ACTIVISTS INDOCTRINATING OUR CHILDREN?
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH FORCING EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL TO ALLOW BOYS IN GIRL'S SPORTS?
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH TRANSFORMING OUR HISTORY BOOKS TO GIVE SPECIAL MENTION TO LGBT GROUPS?

TIME TO IGNORE YOU FAKE NEWS!

We_are_accountable

@AlofRI

LOL, what a bunch of Left wing rhetoric. You've got NOTHING as any thinking person knows. Fools hate Trump for nothing more than being Conservative and standing up to this authoritarian Big Brother Left.

You are correct about one thing, I do not listen to your non stop hateful rhetoric towards Trump. You are fake news.

Ignore me because I will ignore you. But you won't. You hate the truth being spoken and will demonize anyone stating that truth.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Comparing Trump to other billionaires shows that while he may not be a failure, he doesn't even come close to what a lot of the other billionaires have achieved. On average, he is doing worse than he should be doing, which indicates something he is doing just isn't working, and I suppose pointing to his shady business dealings and his preclusivity to fire those who are anything but the most loyal is tempting.

while it is true that 3 out of 4 millionaires are self made, this tells you nothing about social mobility. Suppose there were only 4 millionaires in a country with half a billion people.That would be very low social mobility. What is important is how likely it is that someone will change socioeconomic status in their lifetime. In the US, it doesn't happen as much as one may think, especially for the wealthy.

Inter-generational Elasticity (IGE) is the extent to which parental income influences their children's economic potential. This number has been previously calculated to be around 0.4, or 40% of parent's income differences show up in their children, but this number has risen to 0.52 for men and 0.47 for women.

About two-thirds of the parental income difference shows up in the children's income in an upper class family. Compare this with 50 percent for middle class families. This data shows a sort of "glass floor" That prevents the wealthy from moving down, and makes it harder for lower class to move up.


The point is that it is more likely that Trump stayed where he is than it is that he went down. If you took Trump and his personality and dropped him into a middle class setting, I give it a year before he ends up dead or in prison. Thus we can attribute a large portion of his success to his environment. I completely agree that Trump and his family are going to be self sufficient, but that is more or less what I am arguing is responsible for his success, not his competence. Meritocracy is dead.

I have just one question to ask, that hopefully can open this up a little more.

Suppose every business decision Trump made was completely at random, however the people around him were all competent enough to suggest reasonable courses of action. What if anything would look different in his finances and business career?

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable

You want to debate "Is happy_Killbot fake news?"

I don't think you know what I am even talking about most of the time. I totally understand what you are trying to say about LGBTQ but I have yet to see any evidence of why:

1. It is happening to the extent that you claim
2. Showing this to children has any kind of negative influence on them
3. It is an actual problem in any way that isn't tied to your subjective opinion

I really wish you would actually debate. Anyways, there are tons of good topics to discuss, I would suggest "Is there anything that makes humans inherently special?" If the above proposal isn't something you are willing and ready to defend.

Furthermore, I would suggest these rules:

Rules: This debate will consist of three rounds. The first round will be to propose a thesis of ones position on this question and to provide any evidence in support of that position. The second round will be to cross examine the opponent's position, and to provide any counter evidence or demonstrate how it is in fallacy. The final round will be a rebuttal to the cross examination, to demonstrate any misconceptions, correct any errors, and answer questions in the cross examination.

1. This debate will consist of three rounds of 24 hours each.
   
2. The first round will be to propose a thesis of ones' position on this question and to provide any evidence and constructive arguments in support of that position.
   
3. The second round will be to cross examine the opponent's position by asking any fair, clear questions relevant to the debate. No new constructive arguments are to be provided during this time.
   
4. The final round will be a rebuttal to the cross examination, to answer the questions asked and if necessary correct any misconceptions or errors in the cross examination. No new constructive arguments are to be provided during this time.
   
5. Each person participating in the debate must advocate for their position for the duration of the debate and must advocate for everything provided by that position.
6. Any fallacies in the opponents argument must be clearly stated and the type of fallacy must be demonstrated.
7. There should be no harassing or name calling.
8. External evidence can be provided from any links, published papers, graphic images, or quotes from relevant authorities.
9. video evidence such as youTube or Vimeo may not have a duration longer than 20% of the round time (6:00 for a 30 minute round time)
10. Any deviation from the procedure provided in steps 1-4 or failing to follow the rules in steps 5-10 will result in a forfeit of the debate.

These are the rules and format I propose. If you agree to these terms, we can move ahead with selecting a time at which we will both be available, otherwise please make your recommendations.

JGXdebatePRO

Amusing, all of you saying ridiculous things about how Trump is what America needs. Official webpages such as Politifact stated that 30 percent of Trumps remarks are false. He has shown contempt for a South Korean film winning an Oscar an has shown all around that he is a dodgy figure.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

But billionaires are already the elite of the elite. Saying that Trump is not doing too well compared to other billionaires is like saying that some stock trader is not doing too well compared to Goldman Sachs, or that some chess player is not doing too well compared to other grandmasters.

Of course poor people do not always become rich; most poor people, like I said, are poor because of their mindset and actions. Those who employ the right mindset and take massive action generally succeed in this economy, while those who have it all an start taking irrational actions generally fail. It is not a hard rule, but it is the patter I have noticed, although it is hard to back up with statistics, since people's mindsets are not really quantifiable.

I am pretty sure that, with Trump's marketing skills, if you took all of his wealth away from him, he would be up there again in no time. The reason he stays there and does not move up even higher is because of competition; but if he had everything taken away from him and found himself in the middle class, he would roll through that level of competition with ease and move up quickly.

If every Trump's business decision was completely random, then he would be a homeless guy in a few days. Imagine just what you are suggesting... "Completely random". There is a lot of randomness involved here.
"Donald, do you want to invest all of your wealth into this homeless guy, on the condition that, once he multiplies this wealth by a factor of 10, he will give 20% of it to you back?"
"Hmm, let me flip a coin to decide."
No one is going to stay rich for long with such an approach.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar What exactly would happen to Trump if he suddenly switched bodies with an average middle class Joe is purely speculative, but my opinion that he wouldn't do very well is based on the observation that his personality, skills, and intellect are not far removed from that of your standard run of the mill grumpy Uncle who could never catch a break, and maybe owns a corner laundromat or small sandwich shop. If we dropped him in suburbia, no doubt he would be back up on top because he would never have really lost anything, but if we transplanted all his skills, knowledge and thoughts into a random middle class person, I just don't think he would do very well without the support net he has enjoyed most of his life. Anyways, this is all speculative so there isn't really any saying what would happen either way.

When I say that his business decisions would be random, I don't mean he gets to decide, I mean the people around him, his employees make suggestions that they think would be a good idea, and then Trump decides at random. This is more or less what already happens in most businesses, although the CEO might be slightly more predictable. The point I am trying to make is that his estate is more or less already run automatically, and the choices he makes are largely superficial. None of his employees would approach him with the opportunity to invest in a homeless man, (unless they really sucked at their job) but maybe some would come in with bad investments, but the vast majority of them would be shot down before the possibility even got to his desk.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot ;

In business what often matters is not your general skills and intellect (I will refrain from commenting on his personality, given how subjective it is), but your ability to focus, to take a leap of faith in the face of danger, to negotiate a deal which your gut is telling you you cannot get, and so on. Trump also does have outstanding skills and experience in a few fields he is focusing on; his general intelligence might be lacking, but that is not the determining factor.

Automated businesses can run for a while in a non-competitive field, but not in something like high-level real estate business, when innovations occur almost every week. Those who just let their businesses run on their own, without going out of their way to implement innovations and to make new large deals, go out of business fairly quickly.
Trump is also aggressively expanding his businesses overseas, including some pretty corrupt countries. In those countries personal touch is essential, and failure to negotiate well in person can have drastic consequences (just look at Browder's story, who had billions invested in Russia and ended up losing it all, when he accidentally entered a minor political conflict with Putin).

Being a CEO, especially in a very competitive field, is hard. You hear a lot of CEOs say that they sleep 4-5 hours a day, because they simply do not have time for more. In this regard, I imagine that the president's job is like a vacation for Donald.

Granted, he seems to have outsourced a lot of it to his relatives, who are very savvy and can easily make better decisions than him. Then again, he is over 70 years old; you can only have such insane lifestyle for so long before it catches up with you.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta

And what evidence do you have that these tests are garbage?

They would still show a relative stance on all policies held by each person, so why should they not be valid when comparing individuals?

Maybe you would like something more complex?
http://filteries.com/politics

Do you consider yourself a liberal activist? 

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar What is good for a business isn't always what is best for a country, because there is a lot more at stake than just money. Politics is a completely different animal, so to speak.

I am not so convinced that Trump does have any outstanding skills, except maybe manipulation and causing chaos. His book, the art of the deal, wasn't even written by him, basically at all according to the ghost writer Tony Schwarts. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
This implies that he doesn't have any of these skills and is just bluffing. The fact that he has outsourced much of the negotiation to his friends and family is yet more evidence that his success is built on hopes and dreams, propped up only by his ego.

I am not trying to say that Trump does nothing, in fact Trump does sleep only 5 hours a day like so many other billionaires, even in the White house, which isn't exactly a cake walk even for a billionaire already used to that lifestyle. What I am trying to say is that the consequence of many of those decisions should be much more stable once you pass a certain critical threshold, such that you have to either intentionally try or just be very unlucky to fail.

On average more billionaires are made than lost a year, and most billionaires die rich rather than losing status. Trump's steady state wealth isn't much of an accomplishment, the changes just look like a lot because of the higher stakes and numbers involved. A 1% change of $1,000 is $10. A 1% of $4,000,000,000 is $4,000,000.



If you divided you investment portfolio proportionally across 50-100 randomly chosen stocks, you can expect a ROI similar to the index. Trump's net worth is very comparable to the index, so much so that I would not be surprised to find out that his wealth is closely tied to it.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot ;

I do not think it is possible to have billions of dollars and maintain them, while also running an international real estate corporation, by just bluffing. As for outsourcing, it is also a skill: you need to know what to outsource and how and cannot just outsource everything and hope for the best.
Trump's business results speak for themselves, and while questioning the details of his accomplishments is fine, trying to just say that all his accomplishments are a product of luck and manipulation would be dishonest. For that matter, manipulation is also a skill, as is choosing from the opportunities you are presented with.

Small and steady growth is an accomplishment. As is fast and volatile growth. It depends on what works best for the individual, and different individuals are comfortable with different business plans. Trump seems to take a lot of small risks, that together accumulate into a steady, albeit slow, gain. There are also people like Cardone, who take huge risks and are masters of navigating the consequences, allowing them to grow their wealth quickly, but also have a chance to lose a lot of money to just one mistake. Then there are people like Bill Gates who mostly play it safe, but due to the abundance of their ideas they manage to assure rapid gain nonetheless.

Finding what works best for you in life is an art, and the guy in question found what works for him very well. I only have respect for such people from this standpoint. Perhaps Trump could have invested all of his money into index funds and gain as much... I do not know. It would be a boring strategy in any case and would not make him a star known throughout the world. Net worth is just one of the components of success, and having a lot of partners and publicity is extremely valuable as well: Trump has a lot of partners he can always ask for help, and a lot of things he gets to do he does not have to pay a dime for, as other people do it for him willingly.

Net worth is not everything. Consider Nick Vujicic whose net worth is merely $500,000, merely in the upper-middle class range - yet look at the lifestyle he enjoys... You do not need a huge net worth when you get everything you want for free just because of who you are. This is something you cannot get by just investing money in stocks.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I think you may have missed the point I was making about the index. If you play the markets at random, your portfolio increase should be about the same as the index, which is such an obvious statement it shouldn't need to be said, on account of all the index is is just a combination of many individual stocks, meaning if you have enough diversity, you will in essence be investing in the index.

The point is that if you make your decisions at random, you should do about what the index does, which very closely resemble's Trump's own accomplishment, and anything above that can be attributed to access to resources and assets that return a regular yield.

So to answer the question I asked a while ago, if Trump made his business decisions at random, statistically everything would look the same. Trump got to where he was because circumstances got him to where he was. Luck drives everything.

We can pretend like there is any control, it is very tempting to do so, but at the end of the day what we think is control is going to be the product of circumstances outside of ourselves, we are all products of nature, infinitesimal parts of the universe. We came into being without consent, exist in it without consent, and even our most intimate of thoughts and actions are not caused by us, but rather are caused by underlying physics.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Well, first of all, index funds with decent growth are not composed of random stocks, but on selections of stocks. Investing into random stock will give you some steady growth, but it will be below what you should expect from index funds.
As for business decisions, they being random is quite different from investing in stocks being random, as there is a much bigger variety of decisions available. Your competitors are not just making random decisions either, so if you do, you will be outcompeted; not the case on the stock market, where competition exists in a fairly indirect sense, and you might not even encounter it, unless you are playing at the top of the game and pulling out sums that affect the market significantly.

Luck is a part of the equation, but not a very major part. Everyone is lucky some times and unlucky other times. What separates a successful person from an unsuccessful one is how good they are at using their luck; everyone gets a lot of great opportunities in life, but not everyone realises how great they are and uses them.

Look at any successful person; no one is doing anything that you would not be able to do. Everyone does the same set of basic actions: speak, type, walk, etc. It is not like there are people among us that have some supernatural abilities. What is different is how good we are at spotting the opportunities in our environment and using them to our advantage. Everyone can speak, for example, but some can speak in a way that makes banks give them huge loans that they can then multiply, while others cannot speak even in a way that gets them a bowl of soup when they are starving.