"Bad with money = Bad president?" - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15081661
Image

I am not going to defend or criticize President Trump in this thread. Please deposit your "I love Trump" or "I hate Trump" posts in another thread.

What I want to attack-unpack in this thread is this notion that, because President Trump did not very well in business, that he is a bad leader. Here is an example of this in the New Yorker:

The New Yorker wrote:Between 1985 and 1994, the Times story says, Trump’s core businesses lost money every single year, and the accumulated losses came to more than a billion dollars.


This idea, that business acumen creates great leader, or that lack of business acumen creates bad leaders, is based on the greed-is-good mantra of North American and European capitalism. The railroad barons, for example, were behind N.A.'s politics in the 19th Century, making money hand over fist (while genociding any First Nations that got in the way, and by employing slave labor from China). Was this a good form of leadership?

Likewise, the fact that Trump was unsuccessful at increasing his fortune means what, exactly?

1. That he wasn't sneaky and underhanded enough?
2. That he put too much value into the company of his friends and associates, and therefore, didn't stab enough people in the back?
3. He was too transparent and sincere to skim money from all his transactions?
4. That his selfishness doesn't always rise to the surface?

Would our commercial media prefer to have a great money-maker in power, like Bezos or Soros? Are these guys the perfect image of leadership? Would they do better by average people? Are they less menally ill because they're incredibly rich and turned a small amount of money into a huge pile?

soundtrack
#15082071
late wrote:The historian McCullough likes to say that the presidency is a test of character.

Which answers your question.

Of course it is. But that's not what I'm trying to debate.

The idea is that "being able to make lots of money" is the test BEFORE you should become president. That Trump turned billions into millions, rather than the other way around, has a lot of media wags running him down as a loser.
Image
BAD AT GETTING RICH= BAD LEADER ?



GOOD AT MAKING MONEY=GOOD LEADER ?
Compare him to someone who managed to build a huge fortune of hoarded cash, like Bill Gates. Bill Gates is convinced that the world has too many people, and that we need to reduce them. He also has a great plan to make important vaccinations mandatory.

If GOOD AT MAKING MONEY=GOOD LEADER, then we will admire someone who wants people to start dying off, who also happens to be waving a mandatory needle around.

So he's a human-hater with a big needle, and his authority is based on his ability to make a huge fortune for himself.

Image
"Let's trust him and make him our leader because... he hoards billions of dollars."
.
#15082147
Trump is bad at certain things and good at certain things. He is an intuitive genius at marketing and building a brand. He is horrible at actually running a company - i.e., actually technically incompetent. The worst aspect of his incompetence is that he doesn't know he's incompetent: he, therefore, is unable to delegate authority to more competent individuals even when it's in his interest to do so. It's isn't the case, as far as I can tell, that Trump's deficiencies as a businessman reflected an excess of conscience, only plain stupidity.

If Trump were a more competent authoritarian, say someone like Viktor Orbán, he'd be riding high. As it stands, he may actually manage to lose to an incredibly bad Democratic candidate (Biden) and that's saying a lot. Trump stumbled into power on the back of one bad Democrat, and may stumble right back out of power to an even worse Democrat.
#15082199
The OP is a strawman. As far as I know nobody says Trump is or must be a bad leader because he was a bad business man, however, he always claims to have been a great one.
#15082204
QatzelOk wrote:Likewise, the fact that Trump was unsuccessful at increasing his fortune means what, exactly?


The only thing it says is that he's a liar, as he likes to claim he is a great business person. The record shows, if anything, he is a great con-man. Then again, I suspect many people believe there's no difference there. :lol: :lol: :lol:
#15082223
Rancid wrote:The record shows, if anything, he is a great con-man.

How does "the record" show that?

Great con-men are able to rake in billions of dollars for themselves.

Great con-men don't lose their fortunes, they create them out of thin air, like Bill Gates did.

And by "thin air," what I mean is "a corrupt system that rewards con-men."
#15082224
QatzelOk wrote:How does "the record" show that?


one exmaple:

His Atlantic city casino ventures. Basically, he bought a shit casino, convinced a bunch of people to invest with him, then he sold out of it before the investors realized it was a bad investment.
#15082227
Rancid wrote:one exmaple:

His Atlantic city casino ventures. Basically, he bought a shit casino, convinced a bunch of people to invest with him, then he sold out of it before the investors realized it was a bad investment.

While "great leaders" like Bill Gates just profited off of the fact that basic infrastructure is still in the hands of greedbag private entities, Trump invested in something that obviously should not be nationalized. How well he did (overall) is a product of his lack of cunning, not proof that he has lots of it.

Do you really want cunning fox leaders?

Image
"Hens are asked to stay inside their cages until the foxes announce that the invisible enemy is gone."
#15082231
QatzelOk wrote:While "great leaders" like Bill Gates just profited off of the fact that basic infrastructure is still in the hands of greedbag private entities

I wouldn't know if Gates is a great leader, but at least he's trying to do some good with his wealth.

QatzelOk wrote:Do you really want cunning fox leaders?


no
#15082234
Rancid wrote:I wouldn't know if Gates is a great leader, but at least he's trying to do some good with his wealth.

He wants to kill of billions, and has proposed a mandatory vaccine.

If this means 'doing good' to you, then I think you would have supported Count Dracula as well.
#15082238
QatzelOk wrote:He wants to kill of billions, and has proposed a mandatory vaccine.

I don't think he intentionally wants to kill billions.

I'm ok with mandatory vaccines. I guess taht means I'm a genocidal maniac.

QatzelOk wrote:If this means 'doing good' to you, then I think you would have supported Count Dracula as well.

Maybe I would have.
#15082632
Rancid wrote:I'm ok with mandatory vaccines. I guess taht means I'm a genocidal maniac.


Maybe I would have (also supported Count Dracula).


Our problem, Rancic, is that we have been brainwashed into associating money-hoarding success with leadership qualities, or visionary qualities.

If Jeffrey Dahmer had been a billionaire, would you have let him "buy you a drink?"
Of course you would have.
And to many of his victims, Jeffrey WAS richer than they were, and thus, impressive for this reason.

Perhaps Trump is a bad leader. Or perhaps he is a good leader. Perhaps he is a good person, or a bad person. But his money-making success has nothing to do with it... is all I'm saying.

And that we have been conditioned to think RICH PERSON=GOOD, POOR PERSON=BAD, is very harmful to us. Dangerous, even.
#15082652
Rancid wrote:
I'm ok with mandatory vaccines. I guess taht means I'm a genocidal maniac.



No, it just means you got the invincible ignorance and you completey lack all capacity for critical thought.

Even if you ignore the statements of the CDC and NIH directors, the findings of the Institute of Medicine, the congressional testimony of one of the most highly respected epidemiologists in the world, the chief of pediatric neurology at Johns Hopkins, the federal government's own expert vaccine court witness, etc. , and even if it was 100% proven that all current vaccines are 100% safe and effective, it would still be just shockingly fucking jackass stupid to be in favor of mandating a pharmaceutical product that has been fully indemnified and completely shielded from any and all civil litigation. That's just one giant perverse incentive that's guaranteed to end in disaster and you would have to be some kind of brain damaged not to understand what a really really really bad idea that is.
#15082752
Sivad wrote:No, it just means you got the invincible ignorance and you completey lack all capacity for critical thought.


I'm so stupid, look at me.

Well, I should rephrase, I don't mean mandatory for absolutely everyone. For healthcare workers, school workers ,etc.

But I'm a stupid dummy face, so what do I know.
#15082892
Rancid wrote:I'm so stupid, look at me.

Well, I should rephrase, I don't mean mandatory for absolutely everyone. For healthcare workers, school workers ,etc.

But I'm a stupid dummy face, so what do I know.



You're just lucky that the public is extremely dense, that's the only reason you people get away with all your retarded bullshit. Your bullshit isn't like super slick, it's just that most people are super dumb.
#15082994
Sivad wrote:You're just lucky that the public is extremely dense, that's the only reason you people get away with all your retarded bullshit. Your bullshit isn't like super slick, it's just that most people are super dumb.


Yes, we people are retarded.
#15083011
Rancid wrote:Yes, we people are retarded.


Well what do call it when someone won't come off an ignorant opinion no matter how much evidence is stacked against it? You got kids and you won't even look at the issue even if it's jeopardizing your own children's health.

You don't care if the director for the National Institutes of Health says vaccines haven't been adequately tested and they could be causing a range of neurological and autoimmune disorders?

It doesn't faze you when the director of the CDC says vaccines do cause autism?

The epidemiologist who developed evidence based medicine says all the epidemiological studies on vaccine safety were woefully underpowered and you're all like "whatever"?

The founder of the Cochrane Review tells you vaccines are a lot less safe than advertised and you just blow it off?

The Institute of Medicine finds that the studies for the safety and efficacy of just about every vaccine on the schedule are either seriously flawed or non-existent but you're just sticking to your guns?

I could do this all day but none of it would put a dent in your mentality because it's just doctrine for you. You're mindlessly committed to this dogma and the only way you would ever come off it is if the high babbitts of official orthodoxy told you to. This is the doctrinaire mindset that thinking people have been vying against since the inception of reason and all the great thinkers down through history have commented on the ridiculous stupidity of it.
Libyan civil war

GNA forces are about to enter Sirte. Operation sta[…]

Am I racist in your opinion?

It could also be because locals simply prefer a n[…]

Trump had every opportunity to respond with empat[…]

This is simply another way of saying that we live[…]