Essentially Trump is replacing lawyer politicians with highly successful businessmen

a reply to: matafuchs

Ok... First off, why am I researching YOUR claims? Hint: I make a point of refusing to do that. If you are too lazy to research and post evidence of your claims yourself then I just dismiss your claim. Easy enough. Second off, what does this claim have to do with Mnuchin's integrity which is what I was questioning to begin with?

First off I thought you would find it interesting. Oh well. It is not laziness. I was stating a fact. I did not tell you to research anything. This is what I said...

Did you also know that Trump 'sued' him after two failed projects financed by Mnuchin?

They are businessmen. Not politicians. It is also a broad stroke to say anyone who worked at Goldman is a crook. It is like saying all police are bad.Look into the person and there is nothing but a man who has made a lot of money and knows how to.

It is not like he is unknown to Trump followers. He was the chairman of his finance committee.

a reply to: matafuchs

Sure there COULD be honorable people who worked at Goldman Sachs, but come on! Given their history and involvement with the 2008 crash, why even give any of them a chance? Conservatives like yourself write liberals off for FAR less.

What is the one thing every highly successful non-lawyer business man relies heavily on? Lawyers...

This will add another layer of government into play, because those businessmen have no knowledge of federal fiscal law, government contracting, etc...

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Xeven

Lawmakers and lawyers go hand in hand. You literally have one profession that decides and writes the rules, while the other profession learns and applies them. So it makes sense to choose lawyers to help craft new laws, since they may know the existing laws better than the lawmakers themselves.

I prefer to have smart intelligent and successful business leaders framing and forming the laws and hire lawyers to write them.

You mean like letting another top Goldman Sachs executive frame & form our laws? You know the architect of the 2008 TARP Wall Street bailouts was the previous Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson, right? He "intelligently" and "successfully" shifted the liability of the most toxic Wall Street assets onto the taxpayers, while also getting taxpayers to bail out the very firms that caused the crisis in the first place.

But I guess that's what you all want since it's smart business for corporations to shift their expenses onto taxpayers through subsidies, grants, tax breaks, and other methods. Ironically, that business tactic is called "lemon socialism" and is based on the concept of "privatizing profits and socializing losses" (HERE).

And I can only wonder about the next wave of oil wars we'll have now that our Secretary of State may be a literal oil baron. It's as if people here have never studied the "Great Game", the "New Great Game", or even the history of the oil industry in the Middle East. I guess people thought Trump was bluffing when he said he'd bomb the ___ out of ISIS's strongholds (which are legally Syrian and Iraqi sovereign land) and then send in the oil companies to take the oil (which is legally Syrian and Iraqi oil). At least we can assume ExxonMobil will be one of them. Now who do you think will be protecting ExxonMobil & those other oil companies while they steal Syrian and Iraqi oil?

Actually, it doesn't even matter anymore. I sure won't be fighting in any upcoming oil wars & my extended family is working to divest from the markets while they're still high. All that really matters now is that my loved ones get through this upcoming freakshow intact.

ETA: And how could I forget one of the most glaring examples of businessmen shaping the laws while their lawyers write them: the "enhanced interrogation techniques" shaped by businessmen Bush and Cheney and written by John Yoo. Then again, Trump said he'd bring back waterboarding a lot more, so I guess it's safe to say you're ok with that too?

originally posted by: Xeven
a reply to: luthier

We are 20 Trillion in debt. It took Obama 9 trillion in additional debt to fake the economy as being good. It is a time for businessmen. You do not hire a welder to do surgery do you?

And what do you think Trump will do?

www.forbes.com - Trump Tax Plan Would Add Trillions To Debt; Clinton Plan Would Trim Deficits, Hike Taxes On Wealthy...

These revenue estimates use traditional budget scoring and exclude macroeconomic effects (dynamic scoring) and changes in interest costs. With added interest, the Trump plan would add about $7.2 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Because Clinton’s tax plan would reduce interest costs, it would trim the debt by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years (though her spending proposals would likely soak up much of that revenue). TPC will soon release dynamic scores of both plans, which it produces in collaboration with the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

Trumps plan will add 5.3 trillion to the debut versus current policy over 10 years:
blogs.wsj.com - Donald Trump Would Boost Debt More Than Hillary Clinton, Report Says...

Trump has no plan to drastically cut federal spending. That's what he'd need to do. Or he'd need to somehow find millions of new taxpayers--they do not exist. He's Obama on steroids when it comes to the debt!

Even though I knew it'd never work nationally because of opposition, Gary Johnson DID reduce taxes and state government when he was governor. This is one of hte reasons I voted for him. He walked the talk. Trump is talk. Both democrats and republicans are big government and will do nothing.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did not say I like Goldman Sachs but it would be ignorant and prejudice to simply write him off because he did. His father did also. I am also not a conservative either, sorry, so that is not the reason.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Those are articles written by the media who also said Trump raped and molested dozens of women...where are they now the election is over?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did not say I like Goldman Sachs but it would be ignorant and prejudice to simply write him off because he did. His father did also. I am also not a conservative either, sorry, so that is not the reason.

Uh huh... That's why Hillary's connections to Goldman Sachs were constantly a sticking point to people during the election, but this guy who was closer to the corporation than she was should somehow be given the benefit of the doubt. Be careful your partisan bias is showing, regardless of whatever you say your political leanings are.

a reply to: Metallicus

I am very excited to have high-functioning business oriented people in charge for a change. Before all we had was politicians and city planners.

The Issue I have with that is, that we have always had business oriented people in charge.

its not like our politicians went around looking for things to make our lives better. They were given drafts and orders by business oriented people that controlled the lobbying and re-election funds , which in turn controlled the gov't.
So we always had business oriented people in charge .

My concern is if Trump is really hiring insiders to help him clean the swamp because of their intimidate knowledge or is he making his own swamp?

Time will tell , but from my End I know had Hillary been elected I wouldn't even be entertaining the thought of possibly draining the swamp.

However, I don't really have much faith beyond .00001% chance on him draining the swamp, but will be more than happy to be proved wrong.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The problem with that line of reasoning is that they only know the theory of what they are writing rules for. They have no practical experience of the systems themselves in most cases.

Like it or not; believe it or not; having actual experience of what you are trying to write rules for actually gives you some real insight into how the rules you are proposing will impact what you are regulating. Theory is not enough to replace practical experience.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No if anything I wanted the content. She was paid to talk about how she could 'help' if she was helped to get elected. Therefore she can be bought and paid for.

a reply to: matafuchs

... bought and paid for by people like Steve Mnuchin. There I finished your sentence for you.

It truly is bizarre how Trump supporters cannot be critical of the man. It's like you guys are DESPERATELY trying to convince yourselves you made a good choice instead of actually being objective and skeptical of government like you are supposed to be.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

bought and paid for by people like Donald Trump. If you think his donation to her did not have a back door deal you are deluded. The fact is that I saw two choices this election. Someone who can be bought and someone who cannot. In politics I like those who cannot be bought.

Think local politics. I have been involved in local politics for decades.There are honest politicians but most fall in the following categories...

1. Person with money cannot be bought but maybe gives contracts to friends. He is still in charge. No favors. Just business and everyone wins. Go back to business or workforce.

2. Person without is 'bribed' and later owe favors. Spends money on those who helped. Never in charge. Usually detriment to taxpayers. Eventually become lobbyists.

Trump is not rewarding those who helped him. He is choosing who he wants based on his own thoughts and advice. I have not seen a pick yet I am upset with although trolling Romney was awesome...

I really don't get you trump supporters. I mean, i know we don't all agree on issues most of the time, but one thing i thought we ALL shared on this site is the knowledge that our government lies to us and that big oil, big banks, financial institutions liek Goldman etc are f*cking evil. I thought this was embedded in the roots of this forum.

And yet here you are actually HAPPY that someone from GS is on Trump team. WTF is wrong with you?

Goldman Sachs and others like them are the cause of the global misery in 2008. Succesful businessmen Op? Are you dense? Or blind? They are "successful" because the take their pants off, kneel down and take a big steammng dump on you, your mothers, your friends, me and 99% of the world. You KNOW this, btu somehow your love for your candidate has totally fogged your brain

These people got to where they are by being willing to look at us as if we are ants.

I'm actually deeply shocked at your backing of his choices. Seriously...what the hell is wrong with you guys? Open your f*cking eyes. This isn't even about Hilary Vs Trump anymore. These are BAD people he has surrounded himself with.


What im not suprised at in the slightest is your staggering hypocrisy as we all know you would have ripped Hillarys head off had she picked these guys, had she got in. Staggering hypocrisy. But that's not the important thing here....you need to open your eyes. The members on this site like to claim they are better informed than the general public or are no so easily fooled..well, im sorry to say yo are just the same as every tom dick and harry if you cant see that this is in no way, shape or form draining the swamp.

Why is it that people think the 1% are all evil? People have to make money somewhere. Are there those who take more advantage than others. Yes. Just like every field there are good and bad people.

When you drain a swamp you do not remove all of the wildlife. You remove the problems so the swamp can then flourish and thrive again.

One of this first actions was to tell those who was joining his team they could not then leave and lobby.

www.politico.com...

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team on Wednesday announced that it will require incoming officials to terminate their lobbying registrations, and agree not to lobby again for five years after leaving the administration.

reasons CEO's with no political experience are not the best choice for political office....
1...you cannot fire poor, old, or disabled people from the American population, you need to take care of their basic needs, or ramp up production of caskets.
2...the president and his cabinet of "leaders" do not control the determination of funding
3...the bureaucrats who make this country run smoothly for everyone (including businesses) know the "fine print details" of governing.
4...states constitutionally are granted a lot of autonomy for regulatory and monetary policies, not easily changed by one political party that is currently in charge of the federal government.

a reply to: matafuchs

Trump is not rewarding those who helped him. He is choosing who he wants based on his own thoughts and advice. I have not seen a pick yet I am upset with although trolling Romney was awesome...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Well enjoy your Hope & Change.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Xeven

Lawmakers and lawyers go hand in hand. You literally have one profession that decides and writes the rules, while the other profession learns and applies them. So it makes sense to choose lawyers to help craft new laws, since they may know the existing laws better than the lawmakers themselves.

Reality check: On one hand you have (Had - lol) lawmakers introduce laws requested by certain influential groups/people (think the likes of sorros) and then on the other hand you have lawyer politicians abuse the hell out of them using their knowledge of the law system.

originally posted by: Udntknowjack
a reply to: 3daysgone

The post I replied to literally had no substance to it lol the irony

Says the person who posted this:

Are you serious? lol that's the best you can come up with, huh?

"They are real people!"

This is just pathetic

Shortly above that.