There are a lot more billionaires with a lot more billions than Trump. Such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. Arguing that Trump would be a good president because he’s a private sector success and a billionaire is dead wrong. If true, then those three should be better presidents since they’re worth even more. However, their ethical values and their policy positions are what matters. Billionaire liberals don’t help us at all.
So if you’re going to tell me Trump would be a good president, you better be talking about the actual policies he’s going to put in place, not his net worth.
"There are a lot more billionaires with a lot more billions than Trump. Such as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg. Arguing that Trump would be a good president because he’s a private sector success and a billionaire is dead wrong. If true, then those three should be better presidents since they’re worth even more. However, their ethical values and their policy positions are what matters. Billionaire liberals don’t help us at all.So if you’re going to tell me Trump would be a good president, you better be talking about the actual policies he’s going to put in place, not his net worth."
Sort of the Glenn Beck argument and it was perfectly rational, perhaps 20 years ago. He is harping about résumé checklist items but neglecting to consider that his assumption may be wrong, the assumption that such a résumé will generate votes. There is no evidence, despite what Rush believes, that at the Presidential granularity the electorate is or ever was Conservative. That is likely true and critically important at the Congressional, State and local level, but not in the quadrennial popularity contest. In short, Glenn and many others are way off on the basics of the election. But what about Reagan, Glenn Beck will say, he was Conservative? Hang on a sec ...
First of all though, the notion that it is about how many billions he has that would be incorrect for everyone that I have heard. The money *is* a huge asset in that it removes him completely from the category of "beholden" that everyone else is. This is a unique thing ( provided he does not pull a Romney and accept public financing ) and unless I'm mistaken it has not been done before. Only FDR comes to mind as having been rich enough to be immune to being "beholden", and could pay out of his pocket but I believe the laws were far different at the time.
And you are absolutely right that those others you named are stinking filthy rich, but their limited intellect ( yes I do mean Gates too ), and their complete and utter lack of patriotism and indifference to the Constitution immediately rules them out as any sort of possibility to me and I expect many others. Those bazillionaires are not USA citizens in the hearts, not even close, they are citizens of the world first, and foremost. They just chose to call the USA home in order to benefit from that fact financially and for personal security.
That *is* the difference with Trump. Sure he is a hard-ass, ego, alpha-male, showman, these are all true. But he is our hard-ass. He loves his country as much or even more than all the others running. But his real selling point is the exact same one that Reagan had - honesty and sincerity. He has gone out of his way to not be coached and phony. What you see is what you get. This carries a metric ton of weight. When you know what you are gonna get you are usually gonna choose that selection over the mystery choice. I've said it before, the same perfect storm gathered in 1972 and 1984, McGovern and then Mondale. The people chose the known quantity over the threatening mystery radical. This is where Barry Farber is coming from I think.
Contrary to what our party purifers are spouting, Reagan did not win because he was Conservative. He beat Jimmy Carter with just 50.8% of the vote ( a lot of states of course ). His message was promise of Jobs/Economy and Strength/Defense. Both directly addressed the two most pressing issues of the time, the crippled Carter economy and massive inflation and unemployment, and the failing military most recently with the Iran hostages. These are the two issues Trump is wisely coalescing around, and the parallel is strong with the Obama economy and ISIS abroad. Social issues completely took a back seat, they were really tucked away in the trunk, just as they mostly are today with Trump. This seems to bug the "Conservative" peanut gallery like Glenn and others, but where the heck were they to not understand this?
The main unknown, assuming Trump got the nomination, is the opponent. Put someone equivalent to McGovern or Mondale in there and it could be a landslide. Clinton or Sanders would be pretty radical and I suspect relatively easy to beat. Going against the grain I think that Gore, Biden, O'Malley would be harder depending on any scandals that might pop up. It also depends on the demographics which we just don't have firm numbers on. It may be physically impossible to get the (R) across the finish line because the (D) walks in with 250 electoral votes. That is, against a typical (R). Against Trump, all bets are off.
If this is our last relatively fair election ( another amnesty will finish us ) then we might as well make it a spectacular fight. And this one is sure shaping up to be spectacular.
None of those have expressed a desire to run for President.
Arguing that Trump would be a good president because he’s a private sector success and a billionaire is dead wrong.
How about arguing that Trump is a master negotiator and persuader? Would that be dead wrong? Wouldn't such skills serve a President well?
So if you’re going to tell me Trump would be a good president, you better be talking about the actual policies he’s going to put in place, not his net worth.
Ok, so have you read Donald Trump's immigration proposal?
If not, then you should. It's bold, detailed, coherent, and feasible, and puts the American worker first.
I'd love to get your opinion on it.
And I'm sure there will be more policies put forth by Donald Trump.
As for Trump's net worth, it, too is a net positive. Why? One significance of Trump's wealth is that he won't be beholden to any wealthy donors, and thus he will not be subject to their questionable influence.
How's that for starters?