Does having business experience dictate whether you will be a good POTUS?

[John Connor]

So, you've got nothing. That's fine, I guess. You're free to make choices solely on emotion instead of using your brain to think critically.

No, I got plenty, but I know all to well that if I post it I will derail my thread. So I won't. I just made a jest and that's all.

Stalin was one of the most successful leaders in history (and one of the bloodiest, of course). He took the Soviet Union from basket case to superpower in less than a generation, defeating the Germans enroute. Stalin absolutely had the skills of leadership and knew how to run a country. Since you mention metrics, maybe you should define "success".

I'll go ahead and just answer your question with a question. Do you think the measure of one man's success is murder and work camps?

Go ahead and clearly define each point to ensure everyone is on the same page.

HAHAHA! Why would I need to define simple words?

Why post articles from all these websites? Why not spell out your own opinions and not rely on the Internet, media which in a lot of cases is bullshit.

 

[soundforbjt]

It tells me that Fortune 100 CEO's like the system the way it's rigged. They fear a change with a Trump presidency and that's because they're intelligent enough to understand the changes he's based his candidacy on. What they do know is that a Hillary presidency will mean their rackets, their tax-breaks, their influence will experience little change. They like that.

What's truly interesting is to see Dem voters who have no qualms about berating big business so fully embrace a candidate that they know will continue the status quo when it comes to big business. It's an interesting window into the minds of people who believe they can think so well but in reality, can't. You say you want change but will vote to keep it the same.

But hey, maybe this time, should Hillary win, poverty will be dealt with. Ha, just kidding. Why would the Dem's want to put themselves out of business?

Perhaps you can point to one of Trump's economic positions that would "scare" one of these CEOs...is it the lower tax rates, less regulations?

 

[John Connor]

wow, you can clearly convince yourself of anything, no matter how crazy it is.

you just suggested that if Trump was elected, it would be bad for American businesses and that somehow Trump will be against his own self interests as a Billionaire business person and that he will help the poor.

interesting window into your mind of ignorance and insanity.

Only time will tell whether you're right or wrong.

 

[John Connor]

Perhaps you can point to one of Trump's economic positions that would "scare" one of these CEOs...is it the lower tax rates, less regulations?

So is it the threat of high taxes?

 

[pauldun170]

HAHAHA! Why would I need to define simple words?

Why post articles from all these websites? Why not spell out your own opinions and not rely on the Internet, media which in a lot of cases is bullshit.

Experience

 

[John Connor]

Experience

..comes with the previous job.

 

[nakedfrog]

No, it does not.

(answering the question in the thread title)

 

[fskimospy]

I'll go ahead and just answer your question with a question. Do you think the measure of one man's success is murder and work camps?

HAHAHA! Why would I need to define simple words?

Why post articles from all these websites? Why not spell out your own opinions and not rely on the Internet, media which in a lot of cases is bullshit.

You just clearly showed why you need to define 'simple words'. Stalin took a country on its knees and turned it into a global superpower. That could easily be viewed as success. While doing that he also starved, enslaved, and murdered large portions of his population. That could easily be viewed as failure. Until you operationalize what you mean by success you're basically just bullshitting.

 

[alien42]

So is it the threat of high taxes?

wait what? are you suggesting that Trump, a Republican, is running on a platform of higher taxes?

 

[John Connor]

You just clearly showed why you need to define 'simple words'. Stalin took a country on its knees and turned it into a global superpower. That could easily be viewed as success. While doing that he also starved, enslaved, and murdered large portions of his population. That could easily be viewed as failure. Until you operationalize what you mean by success you're basically just bullshitting.

No, I'm not bullshiting! Think about what you're saying. You're saying success is by virtue of murder and slave labor. Well by your logic Obama should generate employment with said murder and death camps!

 

[brycejones]

No, I got plenty, but I know all to well that if I post it I will derail my thread. So I won't. I just made a jest and that's all.

Typical Connor, run away from evidence supporting his BS. Keep on keeping skippy!

 

[John Connor]

wait what? are you suggesting that Trump, a Republican, is running on a platform of higher taxes?

Read between the lines man...

 

[John Connor]

Typical Connor, run away from evidence supporting his BS. Keep on keeping skippy!

What?

 

[fskimospy]

No, I'm not bullshiting! Think about what you're saying. You're saying success is by virtue of murder and slave labor. Well by your logic Obama should generate employment with said murder and death camps!

I'm not saying success is anything, I'm pointing out to you why you need to clarify the terms under discussion. What is success to YOU?

 

[brycejones]

What?

Sorry that was poorly written.

As usual you've chickened out from providing evidence to support your statements.

 

[John Connor]

What is success to YOU?

In terms of business. The ability to lead a company toward a goal/goals by generating a profit.

This encompasses expertise in knowing how to manage, how to lead, how to grow, and do I dare say "succeed?"

The federal government is like a company. Both require leadership and management abilities to be successful. And I'll add a little common sense goes a long way.

 

[fskimospy]

In terms of business. The ability to lead a company toward a goal/goals by generating a profit.

This encompasses expertise in knowing how to manage, how to lead, how to grow, and do I dare say "succeed?"

The federal government is like a company. Both require leadership and management abilities to be successful. And I'll add a little common sense goes a long way.

Got it, so you define success as making money. Thank you! The goal of government is not to make a profit however, so what do you think success looks like for government?

 

[John Connor]

You don't know what the Treasury is charged with? You don't know what the IRS is?

But the end game is the same. A successful business owner will have leadership traits in meeting end goals and managing the company. So... if you're running on a platform that promises lower taxes, chances are you're going to meet that goal.

 

[Brainonska511]

You don't know what the Treasury is charged with? You don't know what the IRS is?

Do you? Because it seems like you don't.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Do you? Because it seems like you don't.

don't fret over conner, he didn't waist time with no fancy book learnin' after high school.

 

[zinfamous]

I like how Trump really has managed to convince his supporters that he actually has a plan, that he even has a foundation of thought beyond the empty and various platitudes that he has espoused.

 

[zinfamous]

You don't know what the Treasury is charged with? You don't know what the IRS is?

But the end game is the same. A successful business owner will have leadership traits in meeting end goals and managing the company. So... if you're running on a platform that promises lower taxes, chances are you're going to meet that goal.

Again, the important part is that the US--or any country--is NOT a company. It is nothing like a company. It is the people that think countries are companies that are the most corrupt, most destructive, most threatening to the concept of democracy.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It tells me that Fortune 100 CEO's like the system the way it's rigged. They fear a change with a Trump presidency and that's because they're intelligent enough to understand the changes he's based his candidacy on. What they do know is that a Hillary presidency will mean their rackets, their tax-breaks, their influence will experience little change. They like that.

What's truly interesting is to see Dem voters who have no qualms about berating big business so fully embrace a candidate that they know will continue the status quo when it comes to big business. It's an interesting window into the minds of people who believe they can think so well but in reality, can't. You say you want change but will vote to keep it the same.

But hey, maybe this time, should Hillary win, poverty will be dealt with. Ha, just kidding. Why would the Dem's want to put themselves out of business?

Do you think all big business is bad? I mean, this isn't just Wall Street. In that link the CEO of FedEx is revealed to having been a supporter of Romney, Jeb, and Kasich, and specifically cites Trump's trade policy as a reason why he won't support him. To me it's kind of mindblowing to see Republicans/conservatives jump from celebrators of free-market capitalism to die-hard protectionists, but maybe this is just a phase that will die if Trump loses.

 

[ivwshane]

So these there points are bullshit?

1) Fiscal responsibility.

2) Leadership.

3) Successfulness.

Fiscal responsibility? You do realize that it's Congress that controls the purse right?

Leadership? That's rather vague and can mean different things to different people. For what I think leadership means I think it's a desirable trait.

Successfulness? What does that even mean? I don't think a guy who has run many cons and who hasn't been caught is the kind of success a president needs.

So you got 1 out of 3 that aren't bullshit!

 

[Triloby]

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: The U.S. Government is one hell of a complex bureaucracy. It is structured and ran like one on purpose. Do you really honestly think that enacting simple business tactics into a complex and inefficient system is going to make things any better? The U.S. government is essentially designed to do things that any private business or organization would never ever consider doing in their lifetimes. For example: space exploration is something most private enterprises will not throw away their money on, unless the risks and rewards have been fully quantified. But a bureaucracy that is willing to throw money on being on the front line of space exploration is entirely possible. NASA, as of right now, is the only organization who's willing to go to Mars, because no private organization is willing to spend that much money on such a thing. Likewise, the amount of money and support our military gets is only possible because of our government. Do you think any private organization is willing to spend the billions and trillions of dollars necessary to keep our beast of a military alive? Now you can argue about how much funding our military deserves overall, but that's not the point of this argument.

Being a successful businessman or a neurosurgeon does not automatically mean that you will be a good president, because bureaucracy works very differently from such professions. As crazy and as inefficient as a bureaucracy is, it is also for the exact same reasons why it manages to even work in the first place.