Trump-li-ness

The point is that in just a few years, an aggressive and charismatic leader was able to great things for his country.

The problem with Hitler (aside from the obvious) is that he didn't have anyone to keep him in check when his ideas starting getting dangerous.

 

Here's a few examples of the things "an aggressive and charismatic leader" was able to do for his country:

• not allowing certain people to have certain jobs.
• not allowing certain people to attend school,
• forcing certain people to resign from the army,
• not allowing people to marry who they wanted.
• banning certain people from cinemas, theaters, and sports facilities.
• creating zones that only certain people was allowed to enter.
• forcing certain people to have certain names.

Also I think that while speaking of Hitler and the great things he did, you should also look at how is country looked after his reign. It didn't look all that nice.

 

Here's something else that an aggressive and charismatic leader was able to do.
Seriously, who looks at Trump and goes "This man is like Hitler, so he'll be a great president"?

 

His ideas were never anything other than dangerous, that's the whole point I was trying to make.

It's a moot point though; the Germany Hitler took control of in 1933 was in a much worse state than the US is now. As previously mentioned, most of the economic recovery Hitler was able to achieve came from ceasing to repay the heavy financial sanctions placed on Germany after the First World War, and through illegal rearmament programmes. A lot of his successes were superficial anyway; he cut unemployment, true, but that's because he basically forced the unemployed to work for a meagre wage, doing things like building the Autobahns. It all made Germany look successful to the outside world, but it wasn't sustainable.

 

Well, another point that has taken risen:

Just because he says he's going to do certain things, doesn't mean he is actually going to, or will be able to, do them. His motions still has to go past the Senate, etc...before being approved.

 

Good god, point out that a evil man accomplished a few good things and everyone loses their minds.

Anyway.
The facts still stand.
Trump, despite what many people say, is an extremely intelligent and charismatic person.
An idiot wouldn't have been able to turn a million dollars into four billion dollars.
An idiot certainly wouldn't have been able to blow past the obvious candidates and become the Republican frontrunner.

 

That idiot was the obvious candidate from the get-go.
He was a career politician and a legacy candidate.

 

If millions of people hate a person because of their personality, then that person is, by definition, not extremely charismatic.

Well, firstly Trump has gone bankrupt several times, and secondly, business acumen does not equate to political or even general intelligence.

 

Millions more like him because of that exact same personality.

A few of his many companies failed and went bankrupt.
It happens a lot, and is a normal part of doing business.

Business intelligence doesn't necessarily equate to political intelligence, but it does imply the ability to deal with people who are only concerned about their own wants and needs.
As in, every politician ever.

 

While I don't agree with a lot of Trump's views, Ridley has a point here.

 

He didn't accomplish them for everybody. He certainly didn't accomplish them for the Jewish people in Germany, as well as the various groups of disabled, LGBT people or various races that were killed at the time. That doesn't really make them "good things," because the sacrifice and destruction was inherent in the process. Germany's economy swung upwards with fascist wartime production, the sole purpose of which was taking and holding ground to create an empire which would stand for a thousand years.

What you're talking about was Nazism and Fascism, and yes, Nazism was good for the Nazis and Fascism was good for the Fascists. If you happened to be white and German in the context of Nazi Fascist takeovers, it was generally good for you, with the caveat that you weren't allowed to disagree with the government because then you too could be killed. So, really, Hitler didn't "accomplish a few good things," Hitler "accomplished a few good things exclusively for white, non-disabled straight people that at least passively supported a Fascist regime (or people who could pass as such)." That's not a good thing, and that type of thinking stands at the very heart of racism (to say nothing of sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc).

 

Well, right now, all I'm looking foor is smeone who'll do good for Americans.
The rest of the wsolr isn't my concern. Maybe once america's fixed, we can wsorry about everyoe else,

 

Business and politics are both excessively different and extremely closely-related.

That's all I can say.

 

Is this supposed to be a response to my post? Because my post was about how Hitler didn't do right by his country in the sense that he neglected people of color as well as queer, trans and disabled people. You saying that all you're looking for is "someone who'll do right by Americans" in that context has a very strange implication. It borders on insulting. Do you not think that those groups of people exist in America? Do you think Donald Trump will help those people (I'd have to ask how, exactly)? Or are you loosely implying that white people are more American than nonwhite people, and so on and so forth?

Let's take that last one and run with it: American Exceptionalism/Nationalism and core ideas about America's supposed past greatness are always inextricably affiliated with an image of a white, straight, cisgendered male America. We are incapable of "making America great again" because America was never great. Which time is it that people want to go back to, exactly? It still isn't legal for some of my friends to even use the public bathroom that corresponds to their gender, and it's only recently that I gained full marriage rights; whether or not I deserve them or whether companies should be allowed to discriminate against me is frequently debated. It was less than a hundred years ago that white women got the right to vote (women still face many uphill challenges in this country) and it was a little over fifty years ago (the sixties) that people of color were granted protection from the infringement of their voting rights (with interracial marriage being legalized only a couple years later). I firmly believe our country has never been "great." We could potentially get there, but ethnocentrism and every other obnoxiously bigoted ideology that plagues the sociopolitical landscape of America is holding us back. In that sense, Donald Trump is exactly the opposite of what he claims to be, and his supporters don't seem to be a whole lot better. I encourage you to rethink your stance on this election.

 

So here's the beans.

Trump, in a lot of ways, is like Nicholas Cage. Both are genuinely entertaining to watch, and great at acting out the one role they're good at. They also both make fantastically bad decisions on a regular basis. In the case of Ol' Nick, it was signing up for literally every movie deal he's offered. Including the ones that are inherently bad.

Trump, on the other hand, is known for his failed ventures, most famously Trump University.

The thing is, if you have the right contacts, it's very easy to turn one million dollars in to 4 billion. There are literally people whose job it is to do that for you, and if you know the right ones, they will be both honest and very, very good at it. Considering Trump was intimately acquainted with wealth his whole life, and his father obviously had these contacts, it's not very hard to see where the wealth came from. Incidentally, this is the major downfall of most lottery winners. As soon as your name is public, you're going to get a lot of the shadier fund managers come after you, and it's often hard to either find the trustworthy ones, or even refuse.

And re: the Hitler sidenote, it's true. Removing a significant (and coincidentally rich) part of the population and redistributing their wealth across the rest will in fact increase quality of life for that remaining population. Whether you want Trump to take the same approach as the Nationalist Socialist party is up to you.

On to the meat of the matter, people really overestimate the relevance of the president. Fundamentally, due to the structure of the US government, this whole election is a bit of a farce. Because the President is the head of the executive branch of government, and not the legislative, a President can't actually affect things all that much compared to a similarly major shift in congress. Especially in the current climate, where both the Democrat and Republican candidate are largely hated on both sides, the upcoming congressional elections are likely to result in an opposing congress. Which, reasonably, means that the US of A gets four more years of nothing but executive changes with no new laws being passed. Fun for the whole family.

Now, you can actually do a lot with Executive Orders (or whatever the US calls them). For example, Trump could shift funding around and increase the border patrol's budget. Hillary can push for whatever agressive action will win her four more years. The general drill. However, chances are, this ends in a stalemate regardless.

The secret, third option is that we DO get a matching congress and president, however unlikely, and then the real fun begins.

In the case of Hillary, something is bound to happen, but no one knows what. Probably RIP net neutrality or something.

In the case of Trump, you guys get your very own Rob Ford.

In the off chance that Bernie makes it through the primaries, I don't know if he has four more years in him anyways, so I doubt any of the change he proposes is going to go through anyways.

 

Actually, if you want to compare the candidates to anybody, I'd go with Delores Umbridge and Lex Luthor.

@Dilly Star - That wasn't meant to be a response to you. More of a drunken comment on the whole election in general.
Still, I will say this: You are dead wrong about this country never having been great.
True, it's never been perfect, but it has ALWAYS been great.

 

Then why's it not called the GREAT United States of America, hmm?

 

Your Queen smells like old potatoes and cheap tea!