DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Your predictions on imminent US action against North Korea? What do you think?

Here is what CHS said:


I took that as to mean he was worth $3.5 billion but it was a bit unclear to me as well. I'm not all that worried about the exact number-- a billion here or there doesn't change my point much either way.

You are Wrong!

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

how am i wrong?

i know what the minimum qualifications are.

but even you said that trump being a billionaire and running a successful business is one of the reasons you voted for him.

as a matter of fact, you used that combined with obama's lack of business experience as a reason.

so you, and a whole bunch of other people on this board, used that as a qualifier.

^^ that's a fact. so i'm asking why is running a business important when it comes to running government?

People can decide for themselves what qualifies someone to be President, within the confines of what 40 posted above.

How would you compare being a successful businessman compared to an unsuccessful Secretary of State? One is more relevant than the other, but I value good judgement more than most others do.

I sorta read your post wrong, I was Wrong!

and last time i checked, i can question why someone would use specific qualifiers and how it relates.



depends. depends on what we consider to be a successful businessmen, and what we consider to be an successful or unsuccessful SoS.

good judgement is also a trap criteria, as i consider multiple flops in other ventures, massive debt owed to banks, and questionable ties to foreign businesses and/or governments as not good judgement.

because the way i see it is this: he hit on real estate, which he didn't even start btw, but has more flops than success.

is it really good judgement that if you have 3-4 flops for every 1 hit? or is it 5-6 flops for every 1?

but then i look at hillary, who has more hits than misses, as well as experience in the very organization she's wanting to run for.

"good judgement" is very vague, and has too much room for disaster-like decisions.

you're good don't worry about it.

but yea bro, that's all i'm asking. if you're using his one massive hit as a qualifier, then why can't his many flops be used as a disqualifier in your same criteria?

Because there is a lot more to being President than business success and being a nice guy. He has more than one massive hit in his life.
His qualifications go far beyond being rich and successful.

He is exactly what this Country needs right now, a new set of balls!

He has a lot more hits than you are giving him credit for. See: http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/

I know you want to visit one of those properties!

Also the number of flops probably matters less than you think. A lot of times flops don't cost nearly as much money as the successes make you money. I think most successful business owners have more flops than successes? It is certainly true of the business owners I know-- even the successful ones. Or maybe I should say, especially the successful ones.

you lost me.

you didn't really say what he's qualified on when it comes to president.

"new set of balls" is pretty vague and odd.

so i literally said his hit is real estate, and yet you're giving me a list of his real estate hits as being proof that somehow he has multiple hits? even though those are in....guess what? real estate.

ummm...... i'll give you another opportunity to try again.

why should one hit matter more than many flops? you can't tell me that one should matter, but the other shouldn't. as far as i'm concerned, they matter equally.

and the business owners you know didn't run for president.

- TV star
- Became President, beating an all-star lineup of career politicians in the process

so being a successful TV star is a good qualifier?

I'm voting for Kim and Kanye in 2020 then. they are worth a lot of money, and have way more success on TV than trump does.

Clearly he has done very well for himself in a variety of fields. One of his weaknesses (some would say strengths) was that he had no direct political experience. This is not news to anybody.

I do think the business side does have quite a bit of relevance, especially being in an executive capacity. Being involved in something is a whole lot different than being the decision-maker.

I don't think it does.

I think civil service is vastly different from running a business, especially since the ethics and way people operate is different.

Operating to make a profit and operating to serve the people isn't the same. People constantly talk about wanting the government to be efficient like a business, even though government is not a business.

And yet here we are, a bunch of citizens who should've known better now having to learn a very obvious lesson the hard way.

There are some differences, absolutely. A good argument could be made that many politicians use their clout to enrich themselves at the expense of those who voted them in, but that's another story.

Also, speak for yourself-- I'm still very glad Trump won even if there have been some rough stretches along the way.

Even conservatives who are not a big fan of Trump can take solace in the fact that he made an exceptionally good Supreme Court pick who (hopefully) will last far beyond Trump's presidency.

Maybe Trump will get to pick a couple more as well.

Actually I speak for the majority who didn't vote for him.

Picking a conservative judge doesn't negate all the screw up and blatant lies he's told all the way.

But I forget that I just finished arguing with someone who thinks his one hit in real estate that he didn't even start himself trumps his numerous flops.

I can tell you right now that the majority of Americans do NOT want Trump to pick more SCJs. He may very well get to do it, but having a conservative imbalance on the court is not going to help the country right the ship. The court should be close to balanced. It works better that way.

That's a pretty hard thing to know. All I will say is us Americans elected Trump knowing that he would probably get to pick multiple SCJs.

I'll give you that. But when you speak of US americans, you need to acknowledge that Trumps support is a minority not a majority.

I acknowledge that is accurate, but I don't think it should be expected that bring it up every time I bring up Trump's victory. Clinton got 48% of the vote. Trump got 46%. Trump won the electoral vote, which is how the Presidency has always been decided. We can all take from that what we want to I suppose.

In that case we need to vote for a 35 year old. Both Donald and Hillary got old saggy ones.

I'm a minority now WOOHOO
Come on Donald appoint two more who are against abortion

I would have little issue with the reversal of abortion laws as they don't and won't affect me. But all those fighting so hard to take away the woman's choice to decide better be there for all the abandon kids, the financial pony up, and the trauma those kids suffer for the hell they go through in the system... But nah, y'all fight for their life then turn your backs on them as soon as they are born then complain about them their entire adolescent lives.

I don't have religious convictions telling me it's evil to have an abortion. But if somebody can INSURE that the unwanted don't end up in the streets or being abused/mistreated/molested by those charged with their care, then I'm with you I guess.

However if your not going to give a crap after they are born, then your the problem not abortion.

Who turns their backs on them?

What other presidents have shown their net worth? Other Presidents have shown their taxes, which tells you what their income was for any given year.. but it has nothing to do with net worth.

It's as good a qualification as anything else. Being a successful businessman is about hiring the right people, putting them in a position to succeed, giving them the authority to do their job, looking at the big picture, and making the difficult decisions when they have to be made... which is essentially what a President does.


Sure, flops against successes should be considered.. as long as you consider that the business he is in flops are fairly common.. it's a very risky business..

Being good at real estate doesn't necessarily = being good at President... but then neither does anything else.


As soon as you turn 35, assuming you meet the other requirements, you are qualified to run the country... all you have to do is convince enough other people that you are qualified. And aren't you the guy who was lobbying that we should do away with the age requirement because you thought folks as young as 25 should be allowed to run because they were more current and would have fresh ideas?

i really don't care about the age requirement. so they can do away with it or not, i don't care.

but i do find it funny that you can get a license at 16, join the army at 17, vote at 18, drink at 21, but can't run for president until you're 35.

so i'm responsible enough to determine if i want to die for my country or not, but not old enough to run the same country?

that's my beef with the age requirement, but regardless, it's something kinda pointless to argue about.

again, because someone is good at business doesn't make them qualified to run a country.

hiring the right people in order to turn a profit is once again completely different than hiring the right people to serve the public.

we already have a problem with bought off politicians. electing straight up businessmen is dangerous as all hell, and we are ALREADY seeing the consequences of that.

that's a good point that the business he flopped in is a common occurrence....which kind of proves my point in the discussion i had with Haus about "good judgement".

but that's just me, though.i guess i'm the minority when it comes to not wanting to hire profit-based people in a non-profit organization such as our government, and many agencies under it.

3.5 billion is a lot to us commoners. However it's hardly a dent in the social strata that Donald Trump is in. Not to mention he's had over 50 years to acquire this wealth and already had 100's of millions available to him as a child. That's really not that impressive.

Donald Trumps net worth goes up and down with the real estate market... He has fallen from about 120 on the Forbes list to about 156 through no fault of his own, other than the value of real estate in NY has slipped...

When you live in a country of 320 million people and only 150 people in that country have a greater net worth than you, that's pretty impressive... no matter how much you want to diminish it. A lot of kids start with rich parents and never end up growing what they are given into more, Trump did that.

Where are all the god fearing anti-abortion activist when these kids grow up in foster care as ward's of the state? Do you think that life is a quality life? Do you have any idea what unwanted kids often go through? Not to mention what young, unintentional mom's have to go through?

If your dog or your horse was doomed to an existence of pure suffering, you wouldn't hesitate to end their life. Now I'm not comparing children to animals to justify abortion, I bring it up because it's not considered horrible but compassionate.

I'm like you in thinking all life is precious, but just because I feel that way doesn't give me the right to tell others they have to ruin their lives with and unwanted pregnancy or the right to forcibly bring life into a cruel world all the while knowing I won't be involved or responsible for the suffering to come.

There are good reasons for abortion. There are bad reasons. No amount of moral conviction gives anyone the right to determine what others should do when faced with this situation. No amount. A woman's right to choose is by far the best part of the current law.

So if anti-abortion people want to really make a difference, they should focus on the quality of life provided for the unwanted kids we already have and providing better options for women considering abortion should they decide not to do it.

So I'm saying you (as in those with your point of view) are not there beyond stopping the abortion.

50 million of them are now dead because of you and your kind.

I am willing to bet if you took a poll of them they would unanimously say they would rather have been sent to foster care.

No they were never born, big difference.

Also aborted fetuses aren't anti-abortion. They're actually pro-abortion.

It is a big difference.. it is also one of the big sticking points in the argument... because if I get into a car accident that's my fault and a pregnant woman loses her unborn baby.. I'm charged as if it WAS alive.. I'm charged as if I killed it and it is dead because of me...

So we don't treat unborn babies the same.... we treat them based on whether the mother WANTS it to be alive or not.. and I have trouble reconciling that.

It's my body it's my choice,
To murder baby girls and boys,
If we found Microbes on Mars this morn,
They'd call it life while they kill the unborn.
But speaking strictly Scientifically,
If cells can reproduce it's alive,
and that's no lie.
Don't you dare disturb the sound,
of Snowflakes.

While I certainly stand for the rights of the unborn, I also feel if that's your belief, you can't help defund public education, cut the food stamp program and medicaid.

If you're going to force poor people to have children, you should help support those children. If not, you're not really pro life, your pro birth.

Who's forcing anyone to have kids? That choice should be made well before sex, wouldn't you agree?

You know what cancer is, right?

Wait.......did you just compare cancer cells to the cells of an unborn baby?