What makes Trump a serious candidate, and why the rest are scared of him..

I dont think Trump is 100 per cent serious he is working some sort of angle but if he can act as some sort of enema to the Republican party so it selects a half decent candidate his piss and wind will of been worth tolerating..

a reply to: scattergun

There is no such thing as a serious candidate when the politics the office is based on are a complete joke.

The US presidency office is based on a premise of fraud. The people don't consent to the government they have today, making it an invalid system. Government is only valid when you have consent of the governed. So unless Trump is going to ask me if I have his permission to take my resources so his buddies in the US Army can keep killing thousands of civilians because someone on the other side of the globe threatened to throw a rock at a US Army tank, I'm not seeing Trump being in the office changing anything.

Consent means a written signed contract by two consenting parties with negotiating power. When we have individually signed on, then we are in a legitimate government system.

The only vote that really counts is a vote with your feet, where you pick up and move entirely.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Trump is always talking about having good business ethics, staying within the law. Sometimes people in business do some messed up things to others even though it might be legal, and I'm sure Trump has done a few things in his days, but NOT the deranged things that Obama has already done and wants to keep doing to the American people.

Look up Trumps use of bankruptcy filings. It's the epitome of poor business ethics.

originally posted by: FlySolo
When will people realize the POTUS has NO control over anything other than personal and Micky Mouse crap bread and circuses? The real backroom dealings go far beyond any president.

I have said as much before.

We could put Jesus in Office and he would be demonized in the Media by the ones that truly own Washington DC.
And that would be Big Banking and Big Business.

It goes without saying that Big Business main priority is profits to the owners and shareholders.
It also goes without saying that Politicians main priority should be the best interests of this Nation.

There is a conflict of interest when the majority of politicians come from Big Corporations to "serve" the nation, and then have a cushy job waiting for them afterwards.

A small sampling of the corruption:

www.opensecrets.org...

The Revolving Door in Washington DC

37 out of 40 Goldman Sachs lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
86 out of 114 General Electric lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
53 out of 61 Citigroup Inc lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
118 out of 141 Comcast Corp lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
59 out of 69 JPMorgan Chase & Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
39 out of 48 Koch Industries lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs

86 out of 116 Boeing Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
53 out of 68 Raytheon Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
33 out of 49 Northrop Grumman lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
22 out of 30 Monsanto Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
77 out of 103 Wal-Mart Stores lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
71 out of 97 AT&T Inc lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs

a reply to: jacobe001

How do we fix that revolving door? As much as we would like it to be so and despite their claims. Presidents are not experts on every facet of the world. When the executive branch needs to consult on matters of fiscal policy who should they go to? Typically they go to the established members of that field which means high level management in the large banks and investment firms. Should we want them to go to people with fewer qualifications? The same is true of Congress, most of them are Lawyers they are not MBA's.

Remember what happened to the Soviets when they killed all of the skilled labor and let the layman run various sectors? They killed the watch makers and no one could tell time. They killed the farmers and millions died from famine. It's good to consult experts to decide policy.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: jacobe001

How do we fix that revolving door? As much as we would like it to be so and despite their claims. Presidents are not experts on every facet of the world. When the executive branch needs to consult on matters of fiscal policy who should they go to? Typically they go to the established members of that field which means high level management in the large banks and investment firms. Should we want them to go to people with fewer qualifications? The same is true of Congress, most of them are Lawyers they are not MBA's.

Remember what happened to the Soviets when they killed all of the skilled labor and let the layman run various sectors? They killed the watch makers and no one could tell time. They killed the farmers and millions died from famine. It's good to consult experts to decide policy.

I have heard this argument before and sorry it does not fly.
You can get skilled experts from small companies as well.
The majority of legislation is written by the Too Big To Fail Corporations and Banks

If they need consultation on various matters, then a pool of experts from small, medium and big business can convene together and thresh it out, rather than the ones with the most lobbying money. That sounds more like competition based capitalism doing it this way rather than the collaboration involved between the Big Guys.

Look at the Libor Rate Scandal as an example when the Big Guys call the shots

Letting the Biggest with the most money to bribe write policy is retarded with the corrupt nature of man. That is not Capitalism but Fascism.

Until he files, there will be speculation. He has to file and then it will prove he is serious.

originally posted by: jacobe001
I have heard this argument before and sorry it does not fly.
You can get skilled experts from small companies as well.
The majority of legislation is written by the Too Big To Fail Corporations and Banks

How is that any different from a small business person writing the legislation to benefit himself? If the business is a small business, what evidence do you have that the person you're taking on as a consultant is really good at their job? Large corporations at least provide some degree of transparency and proof that you aren't just colluding with friends. What if the small businessman who is writing the legislation is just some old college buddy or the family member of someone you owe a favor to?