The Donald brings it

[jb]

No links as it is a phone interview on a morning show, but you'll see it soon.

He breaks it all down so plain and without all the cultural warrior bull crap.

[FUDU]

Lil hint as to wtf.....

Wot
Economy
Politics in general

[GodHatesClevelandSport]

How many times has that idiot gone bankrupt?

[Fire Marshall Bill]

In Vegas the word is... "He's no Steve Wynn"

[FUDU]

What JB is talking about: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/

[leadpipe]

Like him or not, it would be fantastic if he ran, for the simple fact he'd force the other candidates to cut through the bullshit on certain topics.

Polticos want politics, the American people are sick of political nonsense.

[jfiling]

Like him or not, it would be fantastic if he ran, for the simple fact he'd force the other candidates to cut through the bullshit on certain topics.

Polticos want politics, the American people are sick of political nonsense.

Exactly. I've noticed how Ross Perot in 1992 scared both parties enough to actually create budget surpluses for the first time (I think) in my lifetime.

[leadpipe]

Like him or not, it would be fantastic if he ran, for the simple fact he'd force the other candidates to cut through the bullshit on certain topics.

Polticos want politics, the American people are sick of political nonsense.

Exactly. I've noticed how Ross Perot in 1992 scared both parties enough to actually create budget surpluses for the first time (I think) in my lifetime.

And what happened to Perot (In laymens terms, both parties feeling threatened enough to pool their resources and media clout to dismiss him as some sort of "quack") will eventually happen to the Donald - and truth be told, he's an easier target, but again, not before he can open some eyes by putting shit on the table THAT MATTERS TO THE AVERAGE JOE.

Perot hit home with how important the deficit was, and the fact that the generation at the time was going to be the first to leave their children in worse shape than they. Politicians weren't broaching the deficit topic, even though it was, by far, the most important topic in regards to affecting Americans everyday lives. Perot forced them to. Similiar things would happen with Trump.

By far, my finest vote for a President ever was Ross Perot. And while I'd have to say I'm eons away from voting for Trump, the fact that he'd force these f'ers to come proper on shit I care about would be fantastic.

[Erie Warrior]

I think Bloomberg would do a similar thing, and be a viable candidate. I'd take Trump over Palin.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I'd take a claw hammer to the face over Palin.

Fixxxed

[swerb]

I'd vote for The Donald over the majority of the rumored candidates, save maybe Newt or Whackphisto's boy Romney.

We need a business man in the White House. You can't teach a lot of the ingrained qualities that make people successful. You can teach people how to play the political game. While he has no realistic chance, The Donald would be a freaking breath of fresh air.

Couple good Donald quotes ...

"Experience taught me a few things. One is to listen to your gut, no matter how good something sounds on paper. The second is that you're generally better off sticking with what you know. And the third is that sometimes your best investments are the ones you don't make."

"I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it's time America was run like a business."

"One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don't go into government."

"Part of being a winner is knowing when enough is enough. Sometimes you have to give up the fight and walk away, and move on to something that's more productive."

[noles1]

Personally, working in the business world and seeing/knowing the things that I do, I am always incredibly skeptical of the "business men would run the gov't better". That's just my viewpoint but I have seen and read enough from these high-level executives to be incredibly concered to have them running the country.

I tremble to think what some of these high-level business individuals are capable of with more far-reaching power.

That said, not saying all these lawyers are any better. Truthfully, I do not know who the ideal background is to run the country but I kind of feel like I know who shouldn't and that just so happens to be exactly who seems to be running it on both sides of the aisle.

[leadpipe]

Personally, working in the business world and seeing/knowing the things that I do, I am always incredibly skeptical of the "business men would run the gov't better". That's just my viewpoint but I have seen and read enough from these high-level executives to be incredibly concered to have them running the country.

I tremble to think what some of these high-level business individuals are capable of with more far-reaching power.

That said, not saying all these lawyers are any better. Truthfully, I do not know who the ideal background is to run the country but I kind of feel like I know who shouldn't and that just so happens to be exactly who seems to be running it on both sides of the aisle.

It's not so much as "business men would run the gov't better" as much as the country would benefit greatly if it were run more like a business.

Succesful businesses have some traits that the country could use. It's elected officials that tell you govermment can't be run like a business. I can see why. In businees, people are held accountable. In Washington, nobody is held accountable. In business, you are judged by results, in politics you're judged on your ability to get re-elected. Man, with the re-election rates in congress you would expect them to be running the most successful enterprise in the world.

Goverment spending is more than a quarter of our gross national product. And it's bought us little.

We wouldn't be choosing business over something that's working.

[noles1]

Well my counter to that would be there is degrees to "successful" and "accountability" in that theory.

I think if we have learned anything over the past decade it is that while we catch some of the criminal activity we certainly do not catch nearly enough and one's view of successful could be the another's view of unneccessary bottom-line chasing and outsourcing.

I understand the philosophy and your point though just from my own eyes and ears am considerably leery of its practicality.