Trump has no real base of power within the Republican party. Those Republicans who accept appointments to his administration are not going to commit political suicide by joining him in something insane. The fbi, military, etc will not follow illegal unconstitutional orders. Trump will be left to rant and yell all alone. He won't be heading a corporation where he effectively has absolute control, he can not get his way as he is used to. Politics in the US doesn't work that way. The US government is designed to prevent such things. Yes the Republican Congress would probably love to impeach him and get one of their own, Pence, into the office. White House security will escort Trump to the door if need be. A coup, a civil war, by who? Most of his voters don't like him, they just hate Hillary more. Some Bernie voters at the Dem Convention are being interviewed and saying they'd rather have Trump and four years of gridlock. This election is truly about two disliked candidates and people voting for the one they dislike the least. Whoever wins there will be no mandate and likely gridlock.
Congress controls the money for the war. No funding for the war and there is no war.
Nope. Congress can eliminate the budget for the military, but doesn't approve $10M on an attack on one city, and $10B for an invasion of another. Most of the military funding is unallocated. Congress is the only one that can vote for war. Before Vietnam, that meant that no action on foreign soil (act of war) could take place without permission of Congress. Going to war was Congress's power. Controlling the military in that war was the President's.
The President can do something like Grenada or Panama on his own. However he can't do something without Congress like either Gulf War that takes immense amounts of money and months of preparation.
It also explains why a Sanders voter would willingly switch to become a Trump voter
Bernie will cave in and endorse Hillary so he is not ostracized in Congress and given no committee appointments and otherwise made irrelevant.
Bernie voters will largely be good little Democrats loyal to the party and vote for Hillary. And they wonder why they are ignored. When a voter is loyal to a party they are irrelevant, the party already has their vote and need not appease them.
Bernie voters enjoy the few symbolic lines you get in a meaningless party platform that no one ever honors, symbolic lines just like every other forgotten group got in previous party platforms.
So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.
Slow the story for a few days and it doesn't disrupt the news coverage of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. The goal is not necessarily to bury the info, sometime a delay is helpful.
You assume a modest lifestyle. Knowing he had such a bankroll and spending $1M more a year than his income would explain turning $150M into $100M over 50 years. You can not demonstrate business failure by accumulated wealth.
I don't care if his results are due to irresponsible business decisions or an extravagant, indulgent lifestyle. Neither of those are traits I want in a politician with the keys to my tax dollars. You keep making this argument that he might be the great businessman...
No, I keep arguing that no one has shown evidence he is a bad businessman. I argue that wealth is not a metric to judge business success by. Are his bankruptcies more than a few failures out of dozens of projects? Are his ROI numbers terrible? Still patiently waiting...
If you want to say his lifestyle is wasteful, fine, I have no problem with that. Just don't conflate that with being a business failure. Those are two very different thing.
Likewise if you want to argue he is a bully, a narcissist, fine, no problem. But again, those are also very different things from a business failure.
Like the relaxing of home loan standards that began under the Clinton administration, at their encouragement to help underdeveloped communities, that led in part to the banking crisis? Like the current economy that after how many years under Obama still needs massive stimulus and near zero interest rates to barely limp along?
Sooo.... its a good thing republican administrations saw the collapse coming and made such smart decisions and have great policy ideas to prevent and fix recessions? I'm not endorsing Hillary but lets not pretend the last couple republican administrations knew what they were doing.
Who said they did? I was merely countering the false meme of Clinton prosperity and good economic governance.
No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins. The US government is actually designed to handle situations like this. There are three separate but equal branches of government that can stalemate the others.
Oh, really? "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
Thank you for proving my point. The losing side complied and the ruling established the law of the land.
"Worcester v. Georgia... It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States... The court ruled that the individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs... The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed, and Georgia complied after several months."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
DNC chairperson Wasserman-Shultz will be reward for her loyalty and service once Hillary gets into office.
Still think Hillary will get into office? Think again. It's getting less and less likely by the day now.
Yes, Bernie primary voters will be good little Democrats and now vote for Hillary. Sealing their fate as irrelevant, as all people loyal to a political party are since their party already has their vote and doesn't need to do anything to keep it.
Clinton era prosperity was real. It's in the history books. Trying to disclaim it at this point is petty. There isn't much else to add other than you're wrong. Want to argue? Go grab a time machine and have at it.
"The dot-com bubble was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000... The collapse of the bubble took place during 1999–2001." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nasdaq showing the fake stock market prosperity collapsing at the end of the Clinton administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is your history, there is the fake prosperity.
You are missing the point. Congress funded those operations AFTER the fact, when the military was already committed.
Actually I understand the point very well, the military is not truly committed until Congress authorizes the funding. A large scale military operation like either Gulf War invasion needs special funding, take many months to organize. Without such funding the military can be recalled. Things beyond Grenada and Panama sized operations can not be done without Congress.
Here is the restriction I think you are trying to reference (since you can't bother to look up information to back up your opinion):
Actually I am quite familiar with it. You simply misunderstand what I am saying.
The supreme court has little to no effect on military operations.
*You* mentioned the Japanese internment, that is absolutely a military operation the Court could stop. You erroneously blamed that internment on Roosevelt. The truth is that Roosevelt and the Congresses of 1941-45 and the Supreme Courts of 1941-45 and Truman were all responsible for that. Congress or the Court could have stopped it.
Read up on history kid, your ideological beliefs (however much I wish they were true) do not mirror reality.
Please take your own advice and work on the reading comprehension while you are at it.
This is not reflective of history when you consider executive orders.
" as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). "...
And Congress voted to fund each and every one of those. Again, Congress can stop a military action by not funding it. That is exactly the check and balance built into the Constitution.
"Executive Orders:
In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order."
And that is why we have a third branch of government, the Supreme Court, to say no. As it did with some of Obama's recently. Oh, and Congress had to fund each of your examples to keep them going. The President can start an action but only Congress can maintain it by funding it.
Statements about his wealth prove no such thing. What did he invest? What was the return? That fact that he only has $100M left at age 70 may simply indicate an excessive indulgent lifestyle where his spending exceeds income. With a friggin airliner with his name on it that is a possibility.
Earlier, you argued that his income was low because he had held onto assets and not sold them.
No I argued that income does not demonstrate wealth. That wealth includes assets not being sold. Please go re-read.
Now you say that he has spent his money.
No, I say that excessive spending can result in a decline in wealth, not necessarily failed business investments. Please go re-read.
Guess what, to spend the money on yourself, it has to be declared as income first.
Wasn't it, 50'ish years ago when he inherited it?
Please, be internally consistent in your arguments.
Um, what would you consider to be a qualification?
Having been a chief executive, say a governor, would be a good meaningful bit of experience.
I mean, it seems like a good answer would be "Six years as secretary of state,
Four not six, but more importantly its not having the job title its actually performing well in the role. She did not.
plus eight more years of meeting world leaders as First Lady
Meeting in a social context, before being taken to go visit a school, hospital, etc with the other world leader's wife for fluff PR photos; while Bill and the other real leaders went off to make deals and solve problems without her.
and then another six years as a U.S. Senator."
Actually eight, but that was part time work. She spent a lot of that Senate time positioning and running for the Presidency. And again we have the issue of having the title but not excelling at the job
Your response is "Nah, that's not experience....." So what is?
More than holding a job title, making good decision and being successful in implementing one's goals. She failed on that metric, making things worse during her tenure.
The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in some way that isn't obvious due to "timing".
Worse, actually. If he'd put the money into an S&P 500 index fund he'd be much wealthier today.
Assuming he spent his money modestly. An extravagant lifestyle that exceeds income by $1M a year for 50 years would turn $150M into $100M. And by "overspending" at that rate its hard to argue it was a "bad" lifestyle choice, only spending 1/3 of an inheritance on the lifestyle. And then there is a divorce or three.
If you want to judge business success and not lifestyle choices you need to show what he invested and what his returns were.
>All of that said, if Trump had merely cashed out his portion of his father's inheritance in the mid-1970s and invested it in index funds, he'd have more money today.
You assume a modest lifestyle. Knowing he had such a bankroll and spending $1M more a year than his income would explain turning $150M into $100M over 50 years. You can not demonstrate business failure by accumulated wealth. Such wealth is largely a factor of 50'ish years of lifestyle choices, not necessarily business decision. To show business success/failure you need to know what he invested and what his return was.
Wow, that's tough to envision. An obstructionist Congress. That differs from the current version how exactly?
It would be a bipartisan effort.
I'm not viewing this as a positive experience.
No one is claiming a Trump administration would be, merely that he won't be able to get "stupid" things through Congress. He has no loyal base to count on. It will be four years of embarrassing statement from the White House and little more. Not the rise of some sort of dictatorship.
They didn't find him a cushy job, he had to go in business for himself after being kicked out from the White House for doing their dirty work.
The Clinton were already out of the White House when he cofounded his company. This company had various other former government workers. Likely their Clinton contacts help(ed) their client list and contract portfolio. It was typical cashing in on government experience and contacts. He stole and destroyed the Millenial attack reports during this timeframe and was reward with work from Hillary as soon as her campaign began.
My guess would be that Putin thinks Trump will fuck up the US more than Clinton will. A fucked up US is weaker on the world stage, and thus Russia appears stronger.
A Trump administration would have the most obstructionist Congress in US history, it would be bipartisan obstructionism. He has no loyal base among the Republican congressional body to get anything "stupid" through. A Trump administration would be four years of embarrassing statements with little to no legislation getting done.
As someone who has worked for many, many years at a european university (part-time) I'm strongly sceptical about the ability of university staff to do this exact kind of work well. Not to mention the grad students, who will likely be assigned the actual work. Also, it hardly seems like something universities should really do.
The TrueCrypt audit suggests otherwise, portions were done by professors and grad students. And my experience in grad school long ago suggest otherwise as well. You do realize the occasional grad student actually has an interest in how things work, in poking and proving a system, considers computer security a good area to do their research in? Some of us actually even had some experience beyond homework assignments.
Some jobs have variable workloads, deal with it. And I would be careful with the word "bloat" not knowing how large the team is. For example, having two or three analysts in an organization of this size is hardly bloat.
If they have a security team of such a size I doubt their normal work has any massive downtime. Your suggested pro-bono work is just bureaucratic creep. There are governmental agencies far better qualified to do any such work than the EU Commission and Parliament.
No, if Trump wins, so will the most radical far-right candidates for Congress--consider the kind of angry ignoramuses voting for Trump, if enough of them turn out to elect him, whom do you think they will vote for in all the congressional races?
The incumbent, as usual. So no, your scenario won't happen.
What I am saying is that there is no real evidence he is a bad businessman. He may be, but if its just a few bankruptcies over dozens of projects that is not evidence, nor is spending 1/3 of an inheritance over 50 years. I'm open to the idea but all that seems to be offered is political BS.
If you want to argue he makes poor lifestyle choices, fine. I see a lot of wasteful excess in my opinion too, then again I don't have that sort of money and maybe if I did I'd spend in excess too. Maybe most people would. I learned to fly a Cessna when I was younger, that was not necessary, it was a personal indulgence. If a $150M got dropped on me maybe I would have went for something bigger, not sure if I'd put my name on it though. On second thought, not bigger, a WW2 Mustang. Yeah, I'd probably do that. Or maybe an F4U Corsair. Wait, $150M, both. Oh hell, lets add the P-38 Lightning. Have I spent $50M yet?
Can you name one disgraced supporter of the Clintons that has been rewarded
"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01
Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them." http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Lets try to divorce this concept from the "Trump" name, that may cloud judgment. Want a better example of business failure, the pro athlete that is broke 5 to 10 years after they retire. Not the ex-athlete that still has $100M of $150M left, especially the ex-athlete at 70 years of age. For the later case you need to know what their goal was.
An athlete stops working.
No, they change sources of income. They begin their own investment/business plans once they retire, analogous to beginning one's own investment/business plans once one receives an inheritance, wins the lottery, etc.
Trump claims to have made millions last year. Troy Aikman is still making money. He has his name on some dealerships (no idea if he owns them, or just licenses his name, but I suspect he owns them). He works on commentating and such. At best, Trump spends more than he makes.
And that is a lifestyle choice not a business failure.
At worst, he loses much, and lies to us about it. We can't tell which lie he's telling, and how big the lie is, because he's the first candidate in a long time to not release is tax records.
OK, we're fairly close. I also keep open the option that he makes money but does so in a politically incorrect way. The tax returns somehow indicating he employed suppliers known to use child labor to make neckties, shirts, etc.
Again, is there any evidence that his bankruptcies are not just a few failed projects out of dozens?
Nope. It's just more proof of his lies. He's a man of his word, unless he owes you money and sues the government to keep you from collecting. That's the piece the Trump-worshippers seem to miss. Bankruptcy is suing the government for protection from people you are breaking your promise to. From someone who has claimed his word is good. Many times.
Bankruptcies are failures of a plan, like the Russian reset, leading from behind in Libya, Syria in numerous ways, etc. Failures of career business people end up in court, failure of career politicians don't. Yet failures are failures.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump has no real base of power within the Republican party. Those Republicans who accept appointments to his administration are not going to commit political suicide by joining him in something insane. The fbi, military, etc will not follow illegal unconstitutional orders. Trump will be left to rant and yell all alone. He won't be heading a corporation where he effectively has absolute control, he can not get his way as he is used to. Politics in the US doesn't work that way. The US government is designed to prevent such things. Yes the Republican Congress would probably love to impeach him and get one of their own, Pence, into the office. White House security will escort Trump to the door if need be. A coup, a civil war, by who? Most of his voters don't like him, they just hate Hillary more. Some Bernie voters at the Dem Convention are being interviewed and saying they'd rather have Trump and four years of gridlock. This election is truly about two disliked candidates and people voting for the one they dislike the least. Whoever wins there will be no mandate and likely gridlock.
Congress controls the money for the war. No funding for the war and there is no war.
Nope. Congress can eliminate the budget for the military, but doesn't approve $10M on an attack on one city, and $10B for an invasion of another. Most of the military funding is unallocated. Congress is the only one that can vote for war. Before Vietnam, that meant that no action on foreign soil (act of war) could take place without permission of Congress. Going to war was Congress's power. Controlling the military in that war was the President's.
The President can do something like Grenada or Panama on his own. However he can't do something without Congress like either Gulf War that takes immense amounts of money and months of preparation.
It also explains why a Sanders voter would willingly switch to become a Trump voter
Bernie will cave in and endorse Hillary so he is not ostracized in Congress and given no committee appointments and otherwise made irrelevant.
Bernie voters will largely be good little Democrats loyal to the party and vote for Hillary. And they wonder why they are ignored. When a voter is loyal to a party they are irrelevant, the party already has their vote and need not appease them.
Bernie voters enjoy the few symbolic lines you get in a meaningless party platform that no one ever honors, symbolic lines just like every other forgotten group got in previous party platforms.
So your theory is that FB understands nothing about social networks and has never heard of the Streisand Effect.
Slow the story for a few days and it doesn't disrupt the news coverage of the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. The goal is not necessarily to bury the info, sometime a delay is helpful.
You assume a modest lifestyle. Knowing he had such a bankroll and spending $1M more a year than his income would explain turning $150M into $100M over 50 years. You can not demonstrate business failure by accumulated wealth.
I don't care if his results are due to irresponsible business decisions or an extravagant, indulgent lifestyle. Neither of those are traits I want in a politician with the keys to my tax dollars. You keep making this argument that he might be the great businessman ...
No, I keep arguing that no one has shown evidence he is a bad businessman. I argue that wealth is not a metric to judge business success by. Are his bankruptcies more than a few failures out of dozens of projects? Are his ROI numbers terrible? Still patiently waiting ...
If you want to say his lifestyle is wasteful, fine, I have no problem with that. Just don't conflate that with being a business failure. Those are two very different thing.
Likewise if you want to argue he is a bully, a narcissist, fine, no problem. But again, those are also very different things from a business failure.
Like the relaxing of home loan standards that began under the Clinton administration, at their encouragement to help underdeveloped communities, that led in part to the banking crisis? Like the current economy that after how many years under Obama still needs massive stimulus and near zero interest rates to barely limp along?
Sooo.... its a good thing republican administrations saw the collapse coming and made such smart decisions and have great policy ideas to prevent and fix recessions? I'm not endorsing Hillary but lets not pretend the last couple republican administrations knew what they were doing.
Who said they did? I was merely countering the false meme of Clinton prosperity and good economic governance.
No one will be ruled by Trump even if he wins. The US government is actually designed to handle situations like this. There are three separate but equal branches of government that can stalemate the others.
Oh, really? "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
Thank you for proving my point. The losing side complied and the ruling established the law of the land.
... It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States ... The court ruled that the individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs ... The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed, and Georgia complied after several months."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Worcester v. Georgia
DNC chairperson Wasserman-Shultz will be reward for her loyalty and service once Hillary gets into office.
Still think Hillary will get into office? Think again. It's getting less and less likely by the day now.
Yes, Bernie primary voters will be good little Democrats and now vote for Hillary. Sealing their fate as irrelevant, as all people loyal to a political party are since their party already has their vote and doesn't need to do anything to keep it.
Clinton era prosperity was real. It's in the history books. Trying to disclaim it at this point is petty. There isn't much else to add other than you're wrong. Want to argue? Go grab a time machine and have at it.
"The dot-com bubble was a historic speculative bubble covering roughly 1997–2000 ... The collapse of the bubble took place during 1999–2001."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Nasdaq showing the fake stock market prosperity collapsing at the end of the Clinton administration:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is your history, there is the fake prosperity.
You are missing the point. Congress funded those operations AFTER the fact, when the military was already committed.
Actually I understand the point very well, the military is not truly committed until Congress authorizes the funding. A large scale military operation like either Gulf War invasion needs special funding, take many months to organize. Without such funding the military can be recalled. Things beyond Grenada and Panama sized operations can not be done without Congress.
Here is the restriction I think you are trying to reference (since you can't bother to look up information to back up your opinion):
Actually I am quite familiar with it. You simply misunderstand what I am saying.
The supreme court has little to no effect on military operations.
*You* mentioned the Japanese internment, that is absolutely a military operation the Court could stop. You erroneously blamed that internment on Roosevelt. The truth is that Roosevelt and the Congresses of 1941-45 and the Supreme Courts of 1941-45 and Truman were all responsible for that. Congress or the Court could have stopped it.
Read up on history kid, your ideological beliefs (however much I wish they were true) do not mirror reality.
Please take your own advice and work on the reading comprehension while you are at it.
This is not reflective of history when you consider executive orders. " as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration (ex. Vietnam, Korea). " ...
And Congress voted to fund each and every one of those. Again, Congress can stop a military action by not funding it. That is exactly the check and balance built into the Constitution.
"Executive Orders: In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order."
And that is why we have a third branch of government, the Supreme Court, to say no. As it did with some of Obama's recently. Oh, and Congress had to fund each of your examples to keep them going. The President can start an action but only Congress can maintain it by funding it.
Earlier, you argued that his income was low because he had held onto assets and not sold them.
No I argued that income does not demonstrate wealth. That wealth includes assets not being sold. Please go re-read.
Now you say that he has spent his money.
No, I say that excessive spending can result in a decline in wealth, not necessarily failed business investments. Please go re-read.
Guess what, to spend the money on yourself, it has to be declared as income first.
Wasn't it, 50'ish years ago when he inherited it?
Please, be internally consistent in your arguments.
Good advice, try practicing it yourself.
Um, what would you consider to be a qualification?
Having been a chief executive, say a governor, would be a good meaningful bit of experience.
I mean, it seems like a good answer would be "Six years as secretary of state,
Four not six, but more importantly its not having the job title its actually performing well in the role. She did not.
plus eight more years of meeting world leaders as First Lady
Meeting in a social context, before being taken to go visit a school, hospital, etc with the other world leader's wife for fluff PR photos; while Bill and the other real leaders went off to make deals and solve problems without her.
and then another six years as a U.S. Senator."
Actually eight, but that was part time work. She spent a lot of that Senate time positioning and running for the Presidency. And again we have the issue of having the title but not excelling at the job
Your response is "Nah, that's not experience....." So what is?
More than holding a job title, making good decision and being successful in implementing one's goals. She failed on that metric, making things worse during her tenure.
The man was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he bought some buildings and his overall investments were no better than if he had randomly bought and sold them. He didn't beat the market in some way that isn't obvious due to "timing".
Worse, actually. If he'd put the money into an S&P 500 index fund he'd be much wealthier today.
Assuming he spent his money modestly. An extravagant lifestyle that exceeds income by $1M a year for 50 years would turn $150M into $100M. And by "overspending" at that rate its hard to argue it was a "bad" lifestyle choice, only spending 1/3 of an inheritance on the lifestyle. And then there is a divorce or three.
If you want to judge business success and not lifestyle choices you need to show what he invested and what his returns were.
I don't think you understand what it means to be "rewarded".
He was working as a foreign policy adviser on her 2008 campaign. What do you imagine would have happened had she won?
That's so cute, you have both of them sleeping together at 3 am...
Its actually her narrative not mine.
>All of that said, if Trump had merely cashed out his portion of his father's inheritance in the mid-1970s and invested it in index funds, he'd have more money today.
You assume a modest lifestyle. Knowing he had such a bankroll and spending $1M more a year than his income would explain turning $150M into $100M over 50 years. You can not demonstrate business failure by accumulated wealth. Such wealth is largely a factor of 50'ish years of lifestyle choices, not necessarily business decision. To show business success/failure you need to know what he invested and what his return was.
Wow, that's tough to envision. An obstructionist Congress. That differs from the current version how exactly?
It would be a bipartisan effort.
I'm not viewing this as a positive experience.
No one is claiming a Trump administration would be, merely that he won't be able to get "stupid" things through Congress. He has no loyal base to count on. It will be four years of embarrassing statement from the White House and little more. Not the rise of some sort of dictatorship.
They didn't find him a cushy job, he had to go in business for himself after being kicked out from the White House for doing their dirty work.
The Clinton were already out of the White House when he cofounded his company. This company had various other former government workers. Likely their Clinton contacts help(ed) their client list and contract portfolio. It was typical cashing in on government experience and contacts. He stole and destroyed the Millenial attack reports during this timeframe and was reward with work from Hillary as soon as her campaign began.
My guess would be that Putin thinks Trump will fuck up the US more than Clinton will. A fucked up US is weaker on the world stage, and thus Russia appears stronger.
A Trump administration would have the most obstructionist Congress in US history, it would be bipartisan obstructionism. He has no loyal base among the Republican congressional body to get anything "stupid" through. A Trump administration would be four years of embarrassing statements with little to no legislation getting done.
As someone who has worked for many, many years at a european university (part-time) I'm strongly sceptical about the ability of university staff to do this exact kind of work well. Not to mention the grad students, who will likely be assigned the actual work. Also, it hardly seems like something universities should really do.
The TrueCrypt audit suggests otherwise, portions were done by professors and grad students. And my experience in grad school long ago suggest otherwise as well. You do realize the occasional grad student actually has an interest in how things work, in poking and proving a system, considers computer security a good area to do their research in? Some of us actually even had some experience beyond homework assignments.
Some jobs have variable workloads, deal with it. And I would be careful with the word "bloat" not knowing how large the team is. For example, having two or three analysts in an organization of this size is hardly bloat.
If they have a security team of such a size I doubt their normal work has any massive downtime. Your suggested pro-bono work is just bureaucratic creep. There are governmental agencies far better qualified to do any such work than the EU Commission and Parliament.
No, if Trump wins, so will the most radical far-right candidates for Congress--consider the kind of angry ignoramuses voting for Trump, if enough of them turn out to elect him, whom do you think they will vote for in all the congressional races?
The incumbent, as usual. So no, your scenario won't happen.
What I am saying is that there is no real evidence he is a bad businessman. He may be, but if its just a few bankruptcies over dozens of projects that is not evidence, nor is spending 1/3 of an inheritance over 50 years. I'm open to the idea but all that seems to be offered is political BS.
If you want to argue he makes poor lifestyle choices, fine. I see a lot of wasteful excess in my opinion too, then again I don't have that sort of money and maybe if I did I'd spend in excess too. Maybe most people would. I learned to fly a Cessna when I was younger, that was not necessary, it was a personal indulgence. If a $150M got dropped on me maybe I would have went for something bigger, not sure if I'd put my name on it though. On second thought, not bigger, a WW2 Mustang. Yeah, I'd probably do that. Or maybe an F4U Corsair. Wait, $150M, both. Oh hell, lets add the P-38 Lightning. Have I spent $50M yet?
Can you name one disgraced supporter of the Clintons that has been rewarded
"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism ... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Lets try to divorce this concept from the "Trump" name, that may cloud judgment. Want a better example of business failure, the pro athlete that is broke 5 to 10 years after they retire. Not the ex-athlete that still has $100M of $150M left, especially the ex-athlete at 70 years of age. For the later case you need to know what their goal was.
An athlete stops working.
No, they change sources of income. They begin their own investment/business plans once they retire, analogous to beginning one's own investment/business plans once one receives an inheritance, wins the lottery, etc.
Trump claims to have made millions last year. Troy Aikman is still making money. He has his name on some dealerships (no idea if he owns them, or just licenses his name, but I suspect he owns them). He works on commentating and such. At best, Trump spends more than he makes.
And that is a lifestyle choice not a business failure.
At worst, he loses much, and lies to us about it. We can't tell which lie he's telling, and how big the lie is, because he's the first candidate in a long time to not release is tax records.
OK, we're fairly close. I also keep open the option that he makes money but does so in a politically incorrect way. The tax returns somehow indicating he employed suppliers known to use child labor to make neckties, shirts, etc.
Again, is there any evidence that his bankruptcies are not just a few failed projects out of dozens?
Nope. It's just more proof of his lies. He's a man of his word, unless he owes you money and sues the government to keep you from collecting. That's the piece the Trump-worshippers seem to miss. Bankruptcy is suing the government for protection from people you are breaking your promise to. From someone who has claimed his word is good. Many times.
Bankruptcies are failures of a plan, like the Russian reset, leading from behind in Libya, Syria in numerous ways, etc. Failures of career business people end up in court, failure of career politicians don't. Yet failures are failures.