I suppose what bothers me about your “objective” remarks is their similarity to the European Way of thinking. There is an old saying in France. “When will we ever learn? America always wins because when they are presented with a problem and a possible solution, Americans always say, ‘Sounds like it could work. Let’s try it.’ The French always look for all the reasons why it won’t work before they come to the conclusion it will work. By that time, it is too late.”
As an example, your worry about him preparing answers for questions which will come later....when the boxing gloves come off. Do you think Trump ever started a project....any project, without thinking about it, turning it over in his mind, and finding solutions to what he foresaw as possible drawbacks? Some people see the completed project before they drive the first nail. Trump is one of those rare individuals. He has what it takes because he can show the proof of his efforts. There is not a single other person in this race who can show a track record within a mile of Trump’s. Within a hundred miles of Trump’s!
We do not need another politician at this point in our history, we need someone who will put America’s Economy on a sound footing. Nothing else matters. Throughout history, the winners have always destroyed the economy of the losers. The One World Order (Communism) has been destroying our economy for scores of years and we keep electing greedy politicians who only care about their own pockets and furthering their idealism.
I am a positive person by nature. Negativism annoys me! Negativism never wins!
[[I suppose what bothers me about your “objective†remarks is their similarity to the European Way of thinking.]]
There’s nothing European about it - simple observation of past process of folks running for office suffices to come up with objective analysis- this isn’t negative- this is simply reality-
[[The French always look for all the reasons why it won’t work before they come to the conclusion it will work. By that time, it is too late.â€]]
that’s a much different issue than a pundit giving opinion- there’s nothing to ‘do’ just opinions about what could happen -thats’ the difference
[[As an example, your worry about him preparing answers for questions which will come later....when the boxing gloves come off.]]
Again, it’s not a worry, nor is it a fact- it’s simply something that could happen given his lack of political experience on a national level-
[[We do not need another politician at this point in our history, we need someone who will put America’s Economy on a sound footing.]]
Which is what Reagan and Bush did- By using proven methods of capitalism and tax breaks etc- Trump isn’t the only one running capable of a winning formula- (I’m not arguing against him being a good financial genius’s, just stating this country was doing pretty well I n the past under proven formula and showing that Trump isn’t only one capable of helping build up an economy)
[[I am a positive person by nature. Negativism annoys me!]]
There’s nothing negative about looking at both sides of the issue- and really, a good business person does exactly that- they don’t just dive in willy nilly with a ‘positive attitude’ thinking ‘it’ll all work out In the end because I’ve got positive attitude’-
[[The French always look for all the reasons why it won’t work before they come to the conclusion it will work. By that time, it is too late]]
An just for the record, smart companies pay experts huge bucks to do just that- look at all angles so they can prepare the best possible course of action- the most lucrative- many companies rely heavily on experts who’s job it is to look at all angles positive and negative-
But again- I’m not beign negative about anything- as I’ve explained- I’m not wishing for his failure, nor am I hoping anyone else wins- I’m simply stating a well known fact that later, towards the election period, people will begin demanding more specifics, and if he doesn’t provide them they will be rightfully suspicious and won’t simply take his word for it that he can get things done when he’s doesn’t say how- it will seem to them too much like nancy Pelosi saying ‘we just have to pass it to see what’s in it’ (Obviously people were very skeptical, and rightly so, of her statement because she refused to say what was in it- and please- I’m NOT comparing trump to her- I’m simply stating what pundits are saying could happen in trump doesn’t get specific, people will be ‘cautious’ even leery of him if he doesn’t explain things better- People are reserving judgment for now because he hasn’t given them much In the way of specifics- He generalizes too much right now “I’m gonna do this that and the other thing- believe me” without saying how- Now, in a previous post, I stated that could be his strategy for now, holding his cards close to vest- and that’s fine for now but I think we get closer and closer to election time, you will begin seeing people demanding more- and if they don’t get it, they will look elsewhere-
This country has seen many early leaders fade I nthe end because they didn’t have the answers- specifics that the voters demand
Havign said that- this is a different tiem in history- people are simply just really really fed up with Washington- perhaps like never before- fed up with having opur constitutional rights violated (president coming on tonight to do another gun grabbing speech)- and Trump’s business experience and lack of political insider-ness, and generalizations when speaking may just be enough to carry the day for him- and if so, more power to him- But it’s not beign negative to suggest that candidates sometimes fade because they don’t have specifics but rather simple observation of past candidates and their runs for office-
We know the media is going to be absolutely brutal to him when it comes down to debates between him and Hillary- a brutality like he’s likely not had to face yet- He’ll likely handle it fine- but again, the media is not going to let him get away with generalizations like ‘believe me, I will’ during that period
you seem to be determined to brand my remarks as negative when I’ve shown that that isn’t the case- but whatever-