Really? Links for that? Everything I see says he is no business marvel ... quite the opposite.
Yes. From both an author and a periodical that has been strongly #NeverTrump since the first.
Of all the criticisms you could lob at Trump, this is a weirdly weak one.1 Basically, the man took a $40 million kernel and, while spending lavishly enough to surround himself with all the gold-plated bathroom fixtures his heart desired, managed to do a 26 percent better job growing his fortune than if he had quietly left it to grow in stocks without selling a single share or spending a single dividend check for 41 years. I'd say that's pretty good. How many actual money managers could brag they'd done the same with their clients' cash?
Of course, Trump is not strictly an investor. Throughout his career he has been a real estate developer and manager, a builder of golf courses, a casino magnate, a reality TV host, a celebrity who slaps his name on assorted buildings for a fee, a hawker of power ties, and much more. This cuts against the idea that he is merely a glorified trust-fund kid: Rather than sit on his wealth while someone else saw to its care, he decided to jump into a number of highly entertaining, risky, and at times ill-advised business ventures, which have collectively turned him into an international celebrity. He took risks with the money he was given, and they seem to have paid off over time, both financially and personally. Meanwhile, Trump runs a company with thousands of employees. Whatever wealth he has created for himself, the total value that his company has created over the years is probably far greater.
Finally, it's a little strange to criticize someone who isn't a money manager for failing to trounce the stock market's returns. The S&P 500 is not a benchmark index for real estate conglomerates. You could argue Trump has done worse than some his fellow developers, but that's a different issue.
So his presidential qualifications are he has run failing business off a huge inherited nest egg, and has not passed ANY policy, good or bad, and not helped any larger segment of the nation in anyway. Got it.
Sorry, but the number and value of the properties he controls was not simply being handed a portfolio by his father and sitting on it. Most of his properties and development (and wealth) came long after he took over the Trump Organization.
Hillary is a descendant of the Scranton Lace Company founder (among other enterprises), and I'd rather somebody who earns millions on golf outings and developing properties, than somebody who makes several times the average US household income to give a speech to Goldman-Sachs employees.
I would choose a different analogy in that scope: "Trump is no MLK." That is to say, I agree Trump isn't the origination point of the conflict, but he sure isn't doing anything to help unify people and solve it. He is fanning the flames for his own gain.
Hillary is not the solution, she is the disastrous economic and foreign policy status quo.
Yes, he built a multi-billion dollar enterprise based on nonsense, and controls tangible, measureable wealth like Doral, Mar-a-Lago, Briarcliff, various Trump Towers, etc.
Whereas the alternative didn't either directly orchestrate, or vote for policies that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc. Remember until a few months ago, the focus was on removing Assad and dealing with ISIS later - it was only the Russian intervention and pushback by the Syrian Army that changed the narrative.
Hillary works for the House of Saud, just like Bush did.
There is one singular person that is getting people to hate, on both sides of the equation, and it is very much Trump's doing. Idiotic and dangerous.
By that logic, White Plantation owners aren't the point of origin for all the problems brought by the legacy of slavery and resulting race relations.
I say blame the neoliberal Open Borders advocates, who promised nothing but increased wealth and happiness for all, with extra unicorns and butterflies, if only we opened the door to everybody at all times. Just like the promised Free Trade would create jobs based on serving "a billion new customers" and creating "High Tech Jobs of the Future". The job creation quality in the 60s, 70s and 80s blows away post 2000 job creation, half of those years under Obama - the vast majority being below living wage no benefit buttwiper dead end jobs.
Mexican youths, mostly as an excuse to skip School, protest against Trump's accusations they are violent by breaking things and throwing shit, injuring people while waving the Mexican flag.
BTW, the Turks in Germany also claim the country would grind to a halt without them. This is because back in the era of Bismarck and earlier, everybody knows that Turks industrialized Germany and created all the technology and such.
There should a law that the National Guard can never be deployed outside US Territory, or at least if the US is not at war with a nation state. It's the National Guard, not the International Guard or the NATO Reserve.
And polls don't measure who is actually going to vote. The population might prefer somebody by 7%, but then 9% of them don't show up.
Trump has already surpassed Romney by hundreds of thousands of votes, and he's on track to surpass the number of Primary Voters for George Bush and create an all-time record for Republican Primary Votes.
The Democrats, on the other hand, are way down in primary participation over past Presidential Elections, even though Bernie voters seem to be jazzed.
In 2008, many voters went ape for Obama with enthusiasm. In 2016, nobody is going to go apeshit over Hillary.
Not if the contract has strong job security provisions.
A union contract that doesn't allow companies to move overseas - no way. Even if that was a thing, contracts expire and a company would simply announce the move before the contract expiration date, and use that as leverage to either lower wages or simply move and the union will like it or lump it.
I believe that unionization is a much better answer as it will raise salaries without drastic across the board price increases that destroy purchase power (as tariffs would do). In some cases, it simply makes no sense to implement tariffs as certain countries are simply better at manufacturing electronics, etc and the consumer should not be forced to pay unjustifiably higher prices to buy the goods or to buy inferior domestic products.
And then the companies will just move overseas.
Tariffs are a tax penalty on those who choose voluntarily to consume foreign made items instead of buying from US Companies who employ American Workers.
If you don't want to pay the Tariff, buy American. A nation of 330+M people that invented the entire mass consumption of consumer goods from appliances to clothing concept should provide plenty of choices.
The Chinese are not "better" at manufacturing electronics, Companies backed by the full weight of Neoliberals in the US Government (that allows companies to deduct moving expenses for going to China from the USA the same as if they moved from one side of the state to the other) transferred about 50 years of technology to China. Other US concerns the Chinese brought out and packed up and shipped to China.
Hillary "Only" lies 28% of the time. Also, does not differentiate between strategic lying and deliberate flip-flopping, and exaggerating the conditions around problems.
For example, using hyperbole to describe Mexican gangs operating in the US, and flat out lying about how you had no conditions to leave a Presidential Nomination Race, when you had a balls-to-the-wall negotiation over debts and probably what appointments you would get.
Hillary is terrified she can't Bribe Bernie to drop out, and that the Progressive wing of the Democrats ends up being a force at the Convention. Hillary does not want to be shackled by the Democratic Base, only to use them in the general election without promising them one damn thing.