a reply to: Gemwolf
Wait, we're in the Mud Pit? So we are... please forgive me.
Libtard, Repugnican, Democrap....
I feel better now.
I've seen this argument being used very often in defense of Trump. "He's new to it." Was it Paul Ryan that said this as well? Yes, that's true.
But so was every other president in the history of time. One might argue that he's new to politics. Yes and no. The business world is pretty much the
same as politics.
Yes, Paul Ryan said it, among others.
In many ways, you are right: there are many parallels between the business world and the political world. But there are also differences. That honesty
about the profit factor is a huge one. In business, it is rare for someone to put personal ideologies above profit; their job and livelihood depend on
profit. But in politics, it takes more than money to keep one's job. It takes votes, and while money can make it easier to appeal to enough people to
get elected, money cannot guarantee victory. There's always someone on the other side with a damaging message. Witness the huge differential between
Trump's and Hillary's spending in the 2016 election, or Ossoff's loss in the recent Georgia special election. Both times, the one who spent the most
lost. In politics, ideology is as important to one's livelihood as profit.
That means that in politics, one must bring more to the table than the ability to profit. Indeed, in the crazy political climate we in the US are
having to endure, oftentimes there is no possible way to work a deal because one has the wrong letter next to their name. The healthcare fiasco is a
good example of that: despite calls for bipartisan input, the Democrats have openly stated they will not participate, simply because they want nothing
done to fix the problems with Obamacare.
The backstabbing as well is new to Trump. Whereas such happens in the business world, it is typically done for profit motives. In politics, it can
happen just because of party affiliation. The degree of damage that can be done is also greater; instead of losing a few million bucks, one can be
completely destroyed in politics. Look at Newt Gingrich... he did nothing deserving of a trial even, but was indicted by an attorney for tax evasion.
The charges were so flimsy that they were never pursued, but just the indictment was sufficient to remove him from office.
So yes, he's having to learn a lot of new ropes. Those are new dynamics for Trump.
Fair enough. I'll put it in a way you'll understand.
Given n ≥ 3 let a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n ∈ Z satisfy three conditions:
(i) a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n are pairwise coprime
(ii) a 1 + a 2 + . . . + a n = 0
(iii) no proper subsum of a 1 , a 2 , . . . , a n equals 0
You have created an interesting premise... what is the argument?
The difference between you and Trump is you said...
A part of this also goes back to the argument I made above. Trump has had so many things (pun intended) that he has said come back in a twisted
reincarnation to bite him, I expect he is self-censoring, trying to strike a balance between open and full communication and giving his detractors
Example: during one of the Presidential debates, Trump told Hillary "If I were President, you'd be in jail." After his election to office, he decided
to not push for further investigation into her *ahem* questionable practices. That decision was probably based on an analysis of the time and money
such an investigation would require compared to the immediate benefit to the nation. But the same people who were horrified that he would make such a
'threat' then turned it around and began exclaiming how Trump had gone back on a campaign promise!
Another one: Trump tweeted that Comey "had better hope there were no tapes of the meeting" between them. He never stated there were tapes, yet
immediately there were calls to have the nonexistent tapes subpoenaed, and to investigate why Trump was wiretapping his own office. We now know it was
a carefully worded bluff designed to limit Comey's willingness to lie... there were no tapes.
Is it any wonder that the man is self-censoring?
You might expect Trump to get the job done. However he still has to be presidential. He has the perfect opportunity to convince the opposition
that he is the right man for the job. He want to convince the good ol' Americans that they should pick him for a second term. Running your mouth and
burning bridges as far as you go is NOT helping your case and in the end it hinders the actual job. If he spent less time picking fights with the
media, White House staff, the general public, etc., etc. he will actually have time for the job he needs to do and be able to play golf without
Technically he is being 'Presidential.' Since he is the President, whatever he does is by definition Presidential.
If you mean he conducts himself differently from previous Presidents, then I agree with you. However, I will repeat what I said earlier: doing things
the way recent Presidents have done them has not worked out well. Perhaps a change is needed.
Trump has paid great respect to many leaders, and it has worked out well IMO. Jordan is providing temporary shelter and protection for Syrian
refugees. China has adjusted their stance toward North Korea. Mexico is ready to renegotiate NAFTA. The Queen has invited Trump to Buckingham Palace.
Saudi Arabia rolled out the red carpet for him on his recent Mideastern visit, and now has established an Arabice coalition against Qatar for
supporting terrorism. Trump has made friends internationally among those nations who are willing to be friends. For those nations whose only desire is
to use the US as a money tree while demonstrating behavior antithetical to American values, we don't need friends like that. We need their respect,
yes, but respect does not come from acting weak.