The other turned $150M into $100M while living an indulgent life making it to age 70. Do you think the later ex-athlete a business failure?
A business failure? Yes. Absolutely.
Successful at life? Also yes. Absolutely.
If you want to tell me Trump has led a pretty fantastic life, sure, I won't argue that. But don't tell me he's a great *businessman*. He's pretty mediocre at business, at best.
Again, you can't judge business success by wealth itself, only by ROI. What amounts did he invest, what returns did he get. If the later athlete made $4M from investments but spent $5M on lifestyle he still made $4M but lost $1M each year. That's not a business failure.
It isn't about fearing Clinton, it is about the insane mess Trump will create of the west if Trump wins, from NATO Chaos to trade wars it has the potential to play big time into Russia's favour or at least be an amusing thing to watch if you aren't tied at the crotch to the west.
Congress can stop any of those things. And IF Trump wins we will likely have the most obstructionist do nothing Congress ever. Not only will Democrats oppose anything silly but many Republicans will probably join in since Trump is fairly well hated among the Republican establishment. He effectively has little to no base of support in Congress. It'll just be 4 years of embarrassing speeches.
One year's annual income is not one's wealth. Wealth includes other years.
Yeah, except that he claimed that exemption for multiple years.
Again, meaningless. If he sells only $450K of assets in each of those years he would still qualify. Does that tell is anything about assets. People are taxed on gains, not the value of assets held.
Do you realize how meaningless that statement is? Of course a real estate investment tracked the market, do you think maybe the timing of an entry and an exit might be relevant?
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".
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.
Does he exaggerate his wealth, probably, but you haven't really shown us any real data on that subject.
Wow, you really are blind to any evidence that he isn't what he says he is, aren't you? How about the fact that he hasn't published his tax returns? Clearly, he is hiding something and I doubt that it is that he is wealthier than he makes out.
Hey if you are going to argue he is a narcissist
Dude, I am not a Trump supporter. I am however someone who expects both parties to lie about each other and the media to get the story wrong and the internet to be flush with incomplete data. Again, if you want to claim he is a business failure you need more than statements about his wealth. You need info on what he invested and what his returns were (ROI). You need to indicate what percentage of his projects went bankrupt, what percentage of his investments did they represent, etc (a few high risk projects in a portfolio are not unreasonable if they represent a small percentage of overall investments). That fact that he has less money than 50 years ago, that a few project went bankrupt, doesn't proven he is a bad businessman. He may be, but the preceding is not evidence of it.
Again, try to think of this in a less emotional context. As I mentioned to others lets go with pro athletes. One if flat broke 5 to 10 years after retirement. One has $100M of $150M left at age 70. Is the later a bad businessman or did spending exceed income? And is only having $100M left at age 70 a bad thing if you had a lot of fun in those 50 years?
Really, how much success do you want to attribute to a businessman who trailed the market by THAT much?
Wealth doesn't indicate success. Show us his ROI. A person can be quite successful and still spend more than they made due to an excessive indulgent lifestyle. A friggin airliner with your name on it may suggest such a lifestyle. Another poster said he turned $150M into $100M. Well if he led a super indulgent lifestyle from age 20-something to age 70 and still has $100M left he might know what he is doing.
As I suggested to another poster, divorce this concept from "Trump". Think anonymous pro athletes. One is broke 5-10 years after retirement. The other turned $150M into $100M while living an indulgent life making it to age 70. Do you think the later ex-athlete a business failure? What good is getting a 3X market return by age 70 if you had no fun, just a big number on a bank account?
More data needed on the "business failure" claim. Maybe he is, but a few failed projects over dozens is not evidence. And neither is only having $100M at age 70.
You do know why he didn't publicize his tax returns, right? His estimated inheritance was $150M in 2016 dollars, and his estimated wealth is $100M in 2016 dollars. He's managed to lose more than $1M a year. That's how he runs businesses, into the ground.
You assume he's not spending millions on a excessive indulgent lifestyle beyond his income. You know, like having your own friggin airliner. Earn 4 and spend 5 and that's a loss of 1 each year, yet in such a scenario someone still made 4. He may be from the school of "you can't take it with you". Or to quote my graduate microeconomics professor, the most efficient lifestyle is to die unexpectedly of natural causes in old age as your are spending your last dollar.
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.
Again, is there any evidence that his bankruptcies are not just a few failed projects out of dozens?
Lying about his wealth is a pretty meaningless debate. What billionaire doesn't, their "wealth" is how they measure "success". Do you think Bill Clinton is measuring the success of the Clinton Foundation any differently? OK, maybe getting Hillary into the White House, his "debt" paid and her off his back may be a measure of his success too.
No, it's not. He ran a casino into the ground. A casino? Otherwise known as a license to print money.
Only casinos in areas people like to visit. Atlantic City turned out not to be so, and it wasn't just him. Again, are we talking about more than a few projects out of dozens.
Did you miss how he claimed a tax exemption that is only available to people whose income is less than $500k. His "wealth" is smoke and mirrors.
One year's annual income is not one's wealth. Wealth includes other years. Wealth includes assets you own but have not sold yet. Does he exaggerate his wealth, probably, but you haven't really shown us any real data on that subject.
His business skills are mediocre (his investments in Manhattan basically tracked the market),
Do you realize how meaningless that statement is? Of course a real estate investment tracked the market, do you think maybe the timing of an entry and an exit might be relevant? IF, and I don't know one way or the other but you seem not to either, he timed it well then that is an indication of business skill. You know, like those handful of CEOs who pay very close attention to various macroeconomic indicators and slow hiring when they say a bear market may be coming and start hiring in the depths of a bear market when those indicators start saying a bull market may be coming. If one can time things better than random guesses that is a business skill. Get back to us with your analysis of his timing, thanks for your research in advance.
No, everything Trump does is aimed at benefiting him personally...
Hey if you are going to argue he is a narcissist I'm not one to argue against that, but what major party presidential candidate is not? The last one may have been Jimmy Carter, and he wasn't very good at the job. He is however an excellent human being and great role model outside of the political realm. Maybe that's related to his presidential shortcomings?
Meanwhile, Clinton has paid her dues in government...
If Hillary paid any dues it was to her husband not the government. She was a part-time Senator and a part-time Presidential candidate and then a full-time Presidential candidate. She was a Senator to get something, anything, on her resume that might sound Presidential material. Until the Senate her only experience was riding Bill's coat tails and supporting him at every turn. After the part-time Senate gig she got a full-time Secretary of State gig as a consolation prize, she wasn't really qualified and her performance shows it.
So she has Senator and Secretary of State titles on her resume, and on balance little to no positive results from either brief role. So what is her qualification other than decades of loyalty to Bill, the most influential person in the party machine?
She got the position because she essentially came in second during the democratic primaries, not because of a conspiracy.
No, the Secretary of State position is not reserved for the runner up. And it usually goes to someone with actually foreign policy experience. Clinton got it for one reason, the machinery of the Democratic party was basically still loyal to Bill and by extension her. Obama was 2008's "Bernie", the insurgent candidate, he happened to do a little better than Bernie. Obama needed to heal the hard feelings and Secretary of State would look so much better on Hillary's resume than Senator. That bought the loyalty of the Clinton machine.
Congress is only able to vote a declaration of war up or down; the President is the one who decides to go to war, or not.
That is so wrong. Congress controls the money for the war. No funding for the war and there is no war. The President only gets to suggest spending, Congress has to actually write the spending bill.
he wants a closer working relationship between the US and Russia
So does Hillary, remember her big "reset" on our relationship with Russia?
he thinks NATO is a "bad deal" for the USA
And treaties have to be ratified by Congress.
he might disregard the key part of the NATO covenant pledging assistance to a member that has been attacked by an external foe, i.e. the Baltic States by Russia
Sort of like the assurances the Ukraine got regarding its territorial integrity from the US in exchange for giving up its nukes?
So to say that the POTUS is just a figurehead is nonsense. Look what Bush and Cheney did in Iraq in 2003.
Wrong again, recall that Hillary and the rest of Congress gave them the authority and funding for the war.
I think that is political BS. IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.
... and while Trump is busy making a mess of the US economy...
Compared to the Clinton era prosperity which was the smoke and mirrors of the Internet Bubble, which began bursting as Bill was leaving office? 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? I'm not endorsing Trump or anything but lets not pretend the last couple Democratic administrations knew what they were doing.
One of the checks is the parties themselves and he has completely overwhelmed one of those (and the more organized one nonetheless).
Parties were never part of the plan and have no governmental authority. That said, he has not overwhelmed the party, he convinced enough voters to become the party nominee. Party members elected to Congress are not obligated to vote his way. Normally the candidate is favored by the party establishment and any non-compliant Congressperson would face some sort of internal discipline, lack of committee assignments, etc. However given how Trump is hated by the establishment such internal discipline is not likely. And if he suggests something "stupid" even more so. Trump will not get anything the mainstream firmly opposes.
The power of the president is a mix of hard and soft power. So if local police do what he says (or mayors tell them to) then he can control local police.
There is no such power. Governors are elected and exercise power independently of the President. Mayors too with respect to both the Governor and President. Police, military, etc swear an oath to the Constitution not the elected leaders. They swear only to obey lawful Constitutional orders from their lawful commanding officers and the President is not a lawful commander of the police.
The Republicans have shown that legislators (at least about half of Republicans) are principally concerned about getting elected and so he need only win an election to show that he can flex some might vs them.
No. Winning a national election is nothing at all like winning a local election. Republican members of Congress won't necessarily face any blowback for ignoring Trump, especially if Trump asked for something "stupid". Keep in mind that nearly all incumbents get re-elected. People generally hate Congress but for some reason think their Congressperson is OK.
No president has done that in a long time, but the court relies (almost) entirely on the executive to carry out its orders.
The police and military are quite good about complying with decisions of the Supreme Court. Again, Trump will get ignored if he tries to ignore a ruling in any substantial way. Again, police and military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional not the President.
I'm not saying it is likely, but I wouldn't completely rule it out.
I think monumentally stupid things can be ruled out. Only the normal day-to-day stupidity of politicians will prevail, and that will occur regardless of who holds the office. A divided do nothing government, that might work out well.
Its not partisan when the establishment of both major parties hate a particular person. We call that bipartisan, cooperative.
And partisanship that obstructs politicians from doing things is hardly a problem given the politicians of recent decades that are more about good intentions and meaning well rather than actual good outcomes... a government that governs least and all that.
If they wanted to do something useful the European Commission would fund some top ranked Universities within the EU to do the audit.
And why do you think it is better? You don't think the assigned IT department employees are competent?
Universities may not be better at this job. It is not research, it is an audit. An audit is a tedious process where you check that the security best practices are followed, that the code follows some standards, that only safe crypto is used, etc
Do you know what research is? It is often a tedious process of going through lots of information to check all the details and to spot errors/inconsistencies/surprises.
The goal is not to find new ways to attack the code, rather it is to make sure that the code isn't vulnerable to existing attacks. A university can tell you that the lock you are using and that everyone thought was unbreakable may be cracked in 2 years. An auditor will tell you that the window is opened.
Speaking as someone who did security research while at the University, you are ill-informed.
Then you are a fool and you deserve to be ruled by Putin / Trump.
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. IF Trump is elected the Democrats in Congress will oppose any dumb ideas and given the Republican establishment's hatred and anger they will find many Republicans to join in opposition. The Democrats call today's Congress obstructionist, it will be nothing compared to a Congress after a Trump victory.
Only fools believe Trump will get anything he wants. You are just swallowing the political pablum.
Hillary has already thrown Wasserman-Shultz under the bus,...
Bull. DNC chairperson Kaine was reward for his long standing loyalty and service to the Clinton's with the VP nomination. DNC chairperson Wasserman-Shultz will be reward for her loyalty and service once Hillary gets into office. Maybe Wasserman-Shultz can be Secretary of State. It seems to be handed out for political reasons anyway, no actual foreign policy experience required it seems.
Bernie supporters get some meaningless words in the party platform. Clinton supporters get positions of power.
Putin has every reason to prefer a buffoon like Trump over Clinton.
Why would Putin fear Clinton? He has beaten her repeatedly in the arena of foreign policy. What was her foreign policy experience prior to becoming secretary of state? She accompanied Bill on some trips and visited hospital and schools with the other wives while the Bill and the other actual players met elsewhere and discussed the issues and problems of the day?
I'm not trying to be sexist, women are perfectly capable at doing the job be it SOS or POTUS, but this particular person's experience was PR fluff stuff not actual foreign policy. When that crisis happened on the other side of the world and the phone rang at 3am she answered the phone and passed it to Bill saying "its for you".
She was made Secretary of State in 2008 for one and only one reason. To get the Clinton political machine behind Obama, to bind her future to his. This "machine" still controlled the Democratic party, and still does to this day as we saw with Sanders. To offer her something credible for her resume for her next attempt at the office of POTUS as a consolation promise. She was not selected because of her foreign policy experience, there was none, and her performance indicates on the job training didn't help her much.
She really is in the same league as Trump with respect to foreign policy, neither to be feared by the Russians.
The EU has to rely on Keepass and Apache for their IT infrastructure. They should be doing these audits anyway. The only news is that the EU taxpayers get back the results to the people paying for them whilst other governments give them for free them on to their corporate buddies to sell back to the taxpayers with margin.
And if the EU simply funded EU University security researchers to do the audit that would not benefit EU citizens? Benefit EU citizens in more ways than simply having the audit performed? This is merely about growing staff and fiefdom, typical bureaucracy.
Looks like they want to keep a strong IT capable of doing effective security audits for them on demand, but the workload is not constant.
And University researchers are unavailable, unwilling to answer the occasional call?
You do something "pro bono", actually useful for you and your society.
Supporting your EU universities and sponsoring research for professors and students does not benefit society?
At the same time you keep the team funded, ready for when you need them more.
So the internal team is bloated and short on work, but the department/fiefdom must be preserved?
And, most importantly - you keep them busy doing their actual job, the best form of training there is.
What makes you think any of this is related to the IT staff's day-to-day work, is within the staff's field of expertise, etc? The person who connects the EUMP's printer to the wifi network may not be the best capable person to analyze malware. All IT jobs/tasks are not equivalent.
"Have you tried turning it off and then back on again?";-)
Slashdot Mirror
Congress doesn't have to write the spending bill, they just have to pass it. The bill could come from anywhere, and often does.
The Constitution says spending bill must originate in the House or Representatives. The President can only make suggestions.
The other turned $150M into $100M while living an indulgent life making it to age 70. Do you think the later ex-athlete a business failure?
A business failure? Yes. Absolutely. Successful at life? Also yes. Absolutely.
If you want to tell me Trump has led a pretty fantastic life, sure, I won't argue that. But don't tell me he's a great *businessman*. He's pretty mediocre at business, at best.
Again, you can't judge business success by wealth itself, only by ROI. What amounts did he invest, what returns did he get. If the later athlete made $4M from investments but spent $5M on lifestyle he still made $4M but lost $1M each year. That's not a business failure.
Why would Putin fear Clinton?
It isn't about fearing Clinton, it is about the insane mess Trump will create of the west if Trump wins, from NATO Chaos to trade wars it has the potential to play big time into Russia's favour or at least be an amusing thing to watch if you aren't tied at the crotch to the west.
Congress can stop any of those things. And IF Trump wins we will likely have the most obstructionist do nothing Congress ever. Not only will Democrats oppose anything silly but many Republicans will probably join in since Trump is fairly well hated among the Republican establishment. He effectively has little to no base of support in Congress. It'll just be 4 years of embarrassing speeches.
Yeah, except that he claimed that exemption for multiple years.
Again, meaningless. If he sells only $450K of assets in each of those years he would still qualify. Does that tell is anything about assets. People are taxed on gains, not the value of assets held.
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".
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.
Wow, you really are blind to any evidence that he isn't what he says he is, aren't you? How about the fact that he hasn't published his tax returns? Clearly, he is hiding something and I doubt that it is that he is wealthier than he makes out.
Dude, I am not a Trump supporter. I am however someone who expects both parties to lie about each other and the media to get the story wrong and the internet to be flush with incomplete data. Again, if you want to claim he is a business failure you need more than statements about his wealth. You need info on what he invested and what his returns were (ROI). You need to indicate what percentage of his projects went bankrupt, what percentage of his investments did they represent, etc (a few high risk projects in a portfolio are not unreasonable if they represent a small percentage of overall investments). That fact that he has less money than 50 years ago, that a few project went bankrupt, doesn't proven he is a bad businessman. He may be, but the preceding is not evidence of it.
Again, try to think of this in a less emotional context. As I mentioned to others lets go with pro athletes. One if flat broke 5 to 10 years after retirement. One has $100M of $150M left at age 70. Is the later a bad businessman or did spending exceed income? And is only having $100M left at age 70 a bad thing if you had a lot of fun in those 50 years?
Really, how much success do you want to attribute to a businessman who trailed the market by THAT much?
Wealth doesn't indicate success. Show us his ROI. A person can be quite successful and still spend more than they made due to an excessive indulgent lifestyle. A friggin airliner with your name on it may suggest such a lifestyle. Another poster said he turned $150M into $100M. Well if he led a super indulgent lifestyle from age 20-something to age 70 and still has $100M left he might know what he is doing.
As I suggested to another poster, divorce this concept from "Trump". Think anonymous pro athletes. One is broke 5-10 years after retirement. The other turned $150M into $100M while living an indulgent life making it to age 70. Do you think the later ex-athlete a business failure? What good is getting a 3X market return by age 70 if you had no fun, just a big number on a bank account?
More data needed on the "business failure" claim. Maybe he is, but a few failed projects over dozens is not evidence. And neither is only having $100M at age 70.
You do know why he didn't publicize his tax returns, right? His estimated inheritance was $150M in 2016 dollars, and his estimated wealth is $100M in 2016 dollars. He's managed to lose more than $1M a year. That's how he runs businesses, into the ground.
You assume he's not spending millions on a excessive indulgent lifestyle beyond his income. You know, like having your own friggin airliner. Earn 4 and spend 5 and that's a loss of 1 each year, yet in such a scenario someone still made 4. He may be from the school of "you can't take it with you". Or to quote my graduate microeconomics professor, the most efficient lifestyle is to die unexpectedly of natural causes in old age as your are spending your last dollar.
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.
Again, is there any evidence that his bankruptcies are not just a few failed projects out of dozens?
Lying about his wealth is a pretty meaningless debate. What billionaire doesn't, their "wealth" is how they measure "success". Do you think Bill Clinton is measuring the success of the Clinton Foundation any differently? OK, maybe getting Hillary into the White House, his "debt" paid and her off his back may be a measure of his success too.
No, it's not. He ran a casino into the ground. A casino? Otherwise known as a license to print money.
Only casinos in areas people like to visit. Atlantic City turned out not to be so, and it wasn't just him. Again, are we talking about more than a few projects out of dozens.
Did you miss how he claimed a tax exemption that is only available to people whose income is less than $500k. His "wealth" is smoke and mirrors.
One year's annual income is not one's wealth. Wealth includes other years. Wealth includes assets you own but have not sold yet. Does he exaggerate his wealth, probably, but you haven't really shown us any real data on that subject.
His business skills are mediocre (his investments in Manhattan basically tracked the market),
Do you realize how meaningless that statement is? Of course a real estate investment tracked the market, do you think maybe the timing of an entry and an exit might be relevant? IF, and I don't know one way or the other but you seem not to either, he timed it well then that is an indication of business skill. You know, like those handful of CEOs who pay very close attention to various macroeconomic indicators and slow hiring when they say a bear market may be coming and start hiring in the depths of a bear market when those indicators start saying a bull market may be coming. If one can time things better than random guesses that is a business skill. Get back to us with your analysis of his timing, thanks for your research in advance.
No, everything Trump does is aimed at benefiting him personally ...
Hey if you are going to argue he is a narcissist I'm not one to argue against that, but what major party presidential candidate is not? The last one may have been Jimmy Carter, and he wasn't very good at the job. He is however an excellent human being and great role model outside of the political realm. Maybe that's related to his presidential shortcomings?
you mean Monica answered the phone
No, Hillary answered those 3am phone calls. Monica answered the 3pm phone calls.
Meanwhile, Clinton has paid her dues in government ...
If Hillary paid any dues it was to her husband not the government. She was a part-time Senator and a part-time Presidential candidate and then a full-time Presidential candidate. She was a Senator to get something, anything, on her resume that might sound Presidential material. Until the Senate her only experience was riding Bill's coat tails and supporting him at every turn. After the part-time Senate gig she got a full-time Secretary of State gig as a consolation prize, she wasn't really qualified and her performance shows it.
So she has Senator and Secretary of State titles on her resume, and on balance little to no positive results from either brief role. So what is her qualification other than decades of loyalty to Bill, the most influential person in the party machine?
She got the position because she essentially came in second during the democratic primaries, not because of a conspiracy.
No, the Secretary of State position is not reserved for the runner up. And it usually goes to someone with actually foreign policy experience. Clinton got it for one reason, the machinery of the Democratic party was basically still loyal to Bill and by extension her. Obama was 2008's "Bernie", the insurgent candidate, he happened to do a little better than Bernie. Obama needed to heal the hard feelings and Secretary of State would look so much better on Hillary's resume than Senator. That bought the loyalty of the Clinton machine.
Congress is only able to vote a declaration of war up or down; the President is the one who decides to go to war, or not.
That is so wrong. Congress controls the money for the war. No funding for the war and there is no war. The President only gets to suggest spending, Congress has to actually write the spending bill.
he wants a closer working relationship between the US and Russia
So does Hillary, remember her big "reset" on our relationship with Russia?
he thinks NATO is a "bad deal" for the USA
And treaties have to be ratified by Congress.
he might disregard the key part of the NATO covenant pledging assistance to a member that has been attacked by an external foe, i.e. the Baltic States by Russia
Sort of like the assurances the Ukraine got regarding its territorial integrity from the US in exchange for giving up its nukes?
So to say that the POTUS is just a figurehead is nonsense. Look what Bush and Cheney did in Iraq in 2003.
Wrong again, recall that Hillary and the rest of Congress gave them the authority and funding for the war.
Trump can't even run a business.
I think that is political BS. IF I understand things correctly each project is usually a different corporation. Different investors for different projects, one failed project won't impact other projects, a failure doesn't impact anyone personally, etc. Basically look up all the reasons you want an S-Corp or LLC rather than a sole proprietorship for your own business. I think his bankruptcies are several of these projects failing. If only several projects failed out of dozens he's doing pretty well.
... and while Trump is busy making a mess of the US economy ...
Compared to the Clinton era prosperity which was the smoke and mirrors of the Internet Bubble, which began bursting as Bill was leaving office? 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? I'm not endorsing Trump or anything but lets not pretend the last couple Democratic administrations knew what they were doing.
One of the checks is the parties themselves and he has completely overwhelmed one of those (and the more organized one nonetheless).
Parties were never part of the plan and have no governmental authority. That said, he has not overwhelmed the party, he convinced enough voters to become the party nominee. Party members elected to Congress are not obligated to vote his way. Normally the candidate is favored by the party establishment and any non-compliant Congressperson would face some sort of internal discipline, lack of committee assignments, etc. However given how Trump is hated by the establishment such internal discipline is not likely. And if he suggests something "stupid" even more so. Trump will not get anything the mainstream firmly opposes.
The power of the president is a mix of hard and soft power. So if local police do what he says (or mayors tell them to) then he can control local police.
There is no such power. Governors are elected and exercise power independently of the President. Mayors too with respect to both the Governor and President. Police, military, etc swear an oath to the Constitution not the elected leaders. They swear only to obey lawful Constitutional orders from their lawful commanding officers and the President is not a lawful commander of the police.
The Republicans have shown that legislators (at least about half of Republicans) are principally concerned about getting elected and so he need only win an election to show that he can flex some might vs them.
No. Winning a national election is nothing at all like winning a local election. Republican members of Congress won't necessarily face any blowback for ignoring Trump, especially if Trump asked for something "stupid". Keep in mind that nearly all incumbents get re-elected. People generally hate Congress but for some reason think their Congressperson is OK.
No president has done that in a long time, but the court relies (almost) entirely on the executive to carry out its orders.
The police and military are quite good about complying with decisions of the Supreme Court. Again, Trump will get ignored if he tries to ignore a ruling in any substantial way. Again, police and military take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the Office of the President, and the Supreme Court decides what is Constitutional not the President.
I'm not saying it is likely, but I wouldn't completely rule it out.
I think monumentally stupid things can be ruled out. Only the normal day-to-day stupidity of politicians will prevail, and that will occur regardless of who holds the office. A divided do nothing government, that might work out well.
Its not partisan when the establishment of both major parties hate a particular person. We call that bipartisan, cooperative.
... a government that governs least and all that.
And partisanship that obstructs politicians from doing things is hardly a problem given the politicians of recent decades that are more about good intentions and meaning well rather than actual good outcomes
He doesn't have to fear Clinton, he merely has to prefer Trump.
Why would he not prefer the person he already has a track record of beating? Unpredictable sounds more risky than known loser.
If they wanted to do something useful the European Commission would fund some top ranked Universities within the EU to do the audit.
And why do you think it is better? You don't think the assigned IT department employees are competent? Universities may not be better at this job. It is not research, it is an audit. An audit is a tedious process where you check that the security best practices are followed, that the code follows some standards, that only safe crypto is used, etc
Do you know what research is? It is often a tedious process of going through lots of information to check all the details and to spot errors/inconsistencies/surprises.
The goal is not to find new ways to attack the code, rather it is to make sure that the code isn't vulnerable to existing attacks. A university can tell you that the lock you are using and that everyone thought was unbreakable may be cracked in 2 years. An auditor will tell you that the window is opened.
Speaking as someone who did security research while at the University, you are ill-informed.
Then you are a fool and you deserve to be ruled by Putin / Trump.
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. IF Trump is elected the Democrats in Congress will oppose any dumb ideas and given the Republican establishment's hatred and anger they will find many Republicans to join in opposition. The Democrats call today's Congress obstructionist, it will be nothing compared to a Congress after a Trump victory.
Only fools believe Trump will get anything he wants. You are just swallowing the political pablum.
The "loss" here is that her campaign is essentially claiming that Russia would rather deal with Trump than Hillary.
Why? Putin beat her over and over when she was Secretary of State.
but I'm not sure the Dems can win the political game of crazy.
When Julian Assange is part of the great Republican conspiracy to "get" the Clintons I think the Dems are a bit crazy too.
Hillary has already thrown Wasserman-Shultz under the bus, ...
Bull. DNC chairperson Kaine was reward for his long standing loyalty and service to the Clinton's with the VP nomination. DNC chairperson Wasserman-Shultz will be reward for her loyalty and service once Hillary gets into office. Maybe Wasserman-Shultz can be Secretary of State. It seems to be handed out for political reasons anyway, no actual foreign policy experience required it seems.
Bernie supporters get some meaningless words in the party platform. Clinton supporters get positions of power.
Putin has every reason to prefer a buffoon like Trump over Clinton.
Why would Putin fear Clinton? He has beaten her repeatedly in the arena of foreign policy. What was her foreign policy experience prior to becoming secretary of state? She accompanied Bill on some trips and visited hospital and schools with the other wives while the Bill and the other actual players met elsewhere and discussed the issues and problems of the day?
I'm not trying to be sexist, women are perfectly capable at doing the job be it SOS or POTUS, but this particular person's experience was PR fluff stuff not actual foreign policy. When that crisis happened on the other side of the world and the phone rang at 3am she answered the phone and passed it to Bill saying "its for you".
She was made Secretary of State in 2008 for one and only one reason. To get the Clinton political machine behind Obama, to bind her future to his. This "machine" still controlled the Democratic party, and still does to this day as we saw with Sanders. To offer her something credible for her resume for her next attempt at the office of POTUS as a consolation promise. She was not selected because of her foreign policy experience, there was none, and her performance indicates on the job training didn't help her much.
She really is in the same league as Trump with respect to foreign policy, neither to be feared by the Russians.
A bunch of petty, unethical DNC employees (which is highly shitty, no question) still pales compared to a Manchurian candidate.
Given the Clinton's history of illegal political financial support from China it may be best not to mention Manchuria.
... analyze malware ...
"analyze malware and their software's vulnerability and exploitability to it" I should have written.
The EU has to rely on Keepass and Apache for their IT infrastructure. They should be doing these audits anyway. The only news is that the EU taxpayers get back the results to the people paying for them whilst other governments give them for free them on to their corporate buddies to sell back to the taxpayers with margin.
And if the EU simply funded EU University security researchers to do the audit that would not benefit EU citizens? Benefit EU citizens in more ways than simply having the audit performed? This is merely about growing staff and fiefdom, typical bureaucracy.
Looks like they want to keep a strong IT capable of doing effective security audits for them on demand, but the workload is not constant.
And University researchers are unavailable, unwilling to answer the occasional call?
You do something "pro bono", actually useful for you and your society.
Supporting your EU universities and sponsoring research for professors and students does not benefit society?
At the same time you keep the team funded, ready for when you need them more.
So the internal team is bloated and short on work, but the department/fiefdom must be preserved?
And, most importantly - you keep them busy doing their actual job, the best form of training there is.
What makes you think any of this is related to the IT staff's day-to-day work, is within the staff's field of expertise, etc? The person who connects the EUMP's printer to the wifi network may not be the best capable person to analyze malware. All IT jobs/tasks are not equivalent.
;-)
"Have you tried turning it off and then back on again?"