So this N. Korea stuff was just a sale campaign for US military equipment

Edit - seems we are back on familiar ground

Maybe Kim's getting a kickback from Trump for stirring up the sh*tstorm and pulling in the sales?

I don't think it really matters just as long as he keeps "winning". Which includes the posturing against NK.

It's a well-publicized fact that if Trump's inheritance had been invested in the stock market and left alone (in an index tracker), he would have made more money than he has from his businesses. That tells me that Trump is a below-average businessman.

Furthermore, he is renowned for screwing his suppliers and contractors, and has no concept of loyalty (have a look at the revolving door at the White House in these first eight months of his administration). Another indicator of a poor businessman.

He's not an utter imbecile; just a poorly educated, borderline illiterate, mentally unstable, poor businessman who has none of the qualities or capabilities to run the United States.

Trump was indeed lucky (or picked his moment well) to run against Hillary Clinton, the least electable Democrat possible. Winning a popularity contest against the least popular person in the room by delivering lie after insult after unkeepable promise doesn't make Trump smart or clever.

Hurricane Irma now Category 5 as forecast. It was churning Tuesday morning in the Atlantic, heading west with maximum sustained winds of 180 mph -- well above the 157 mph threshold for a Category 5.

Let us hope it turns away from Florida.

Types of Damage Due to Hurricane Winds
Category 5; Catastrophic damage will occur: A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse.
Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed.
Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

US stock markets down 1% at the moment just 4 days later, dangerous business boasting about stock markets.
Better stick to boasting about things that are not so volatile

... or about things that he's actually achieved. As I posted some time earlier in this thread, the stock market has followed a straight line up for something like 8 years now. Nothing whatsoever to do with Trump -- but the 1% fall is to do with him and if he doesn't pull his head in, or get impeached, or die, the steam will very likely run out of the bull (to mix a couple of metaphors).

Seems like democracy is dead in USA. All power is handed over to Trump and his cronies. The people have no power more.

And he loves the dreamers and kids also

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RPrnK_VpeE

That's an utterly retarded conclusion. You have been watching too much CNN and Young Turks. A lot of businesses and industries have lower returns than the S&P 500 such as steel, paper, construction, etc., just to name a few. Still, these companies generate a lot of jobs and pay a ton of taxes.

He graduated from the UPenn, one of the best universities there is. I don't think it is nowhere near to "illiterate".

The only part of your post that I agree.

Indeed, there is no more an independent congress or supreme court.

You missed out 6 times bankrupt, draft dodging, narcissist.

Trump chose to operate in a poor performing industry sector and this makes him a good business man?

Clinton could probably have defeated somebody like Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush. That's probably the type of low octane candidate she was expecting to run against.

So there was minimalist thinking going on here. Rather than run the best candiadte they had, the Dems were thinking, ket's pick a candidate who is just about good enough to beat the other candidate, who was also picked for being similarly mediocre.

They weren't expacting somebody like Trump to turn up. Serves them right for being so cynical.

She still won the popular vote by the widest margin of any losing presidential candidate so she did not do so badly (and Trump lost the popular vote by the widest margin of any winning President); of course, she did not win the electoral college.
Source

Meanwhile this month it looks like instead of getting ObamaCare repeal, a tax-reform package or an infrastructure bill, Trump is expected to receive a debt-limit increase (including some small Harvey relief) tacked onto another massive spending bill that leaves out his proposed border wall.

Source

Exactly, this just reinforces my statement. To almost win is a minimalist move.


I wonder if there's any correlation between the two facts?

Hmm.

Those calculations I've seen are moronic simpleton's cases that, for instance, ignore taxes and trading costs. No such thing as low-cost funds or brokers 40 years ago so only direct holdings doable, which meant capital gains taxes fell due whenever he would have had to sell due to index changes (apparently 10-15% of the SP500 stocks drop out each year).

Comparing stock market performance to real estate to determine whether he's a good RE investor means one uses an apples-to-oranges comparison based on hindsight. A fair one would compare his performance to that of a NYC real estate's fund post-tax performance, preferably of one that invests in the same RE sectors though that's probably impossible.
"It's nothing personal, man, just business".

I'd agree that morals should play a role in business, too. But this is here, the WH is there.
DT holds a Bachelor of Science in economics and anthropology from Wharton (Ivy League). Not exactly genius material I guess but far from what you'd call poorly educated either. Is it possibel to get that degree as an illiterate? I doubt it.
He's a narcisstic and callous opportunistic liar, perhaps habitual. But if you check on how often the US turned not just their backs but altogether against former allies you may might realise that makes him quite a good fit.

Like most you brush aside the fact he had to win the GOP nomination first by besting 16 competitors. Plus, he didn't chose to run against HC, HC simply happened to be the DNC candidate. Had Sanders beat her despite all her rigging of the electorate votes, Trump would have had to run against him. Would you then have said "DT was lucky he didn't have to run against HC"?

Winning the election doesn't happen out of luck only or mostly. Of course luck never hurts but it's useless unless certain preconditions have been met. Look up Cambridge Analytica for example.

Or had Joe Biden run ...

That. And then - you have those with degrees who can never win presidential elections. Or those with many degrees who try and fail. The same vein that gives zero credit to DT, dillusionally gives zero credit to Brexit vote, etc. To keep sticking one's head in the sand to pop it out and demand degrees or some far fetched untangible standards of political know-how..I mean, it is all fine and dandy, until another "surprise" happens. These votes that people have hard time accepting, are far from surprising. But degrees should make one know it, no? How come degrees and political experience and an advantage and priviledge in her hubby did not help Hillary. Because to argue to say DT is a nincompoop sans degrees, gets irrelevant. Just shows that voters may not care for degrees nor do they care for those who arrogantly link degrees to automatic quality work. That's all.

That anthropology bit is interesting. I wonder if it will inspire somebody, it is a cool field to investigate.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

"Like most you brush aside the fact he had to win the GOP nomination first by besting 16 competitors." Very true, he did a great job during his campaign but the title of this thread is "Will Trump be a Good President?".

So far he has been a lame duck President; not creating or signing any major new legislation. Of course he has time. He has three and a half more years of his first term.