Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.

What I hoping to do, is start a topic connected to the expected differences in presidential styles, based on occupation. The two candidates running for the President of the USA, have been educated for different career paths. Hillary was a defense lawyer, while Trump is a businessman. What they have been taught and has learned, to optimize the needs of these careers, will impact how they will approach the job as president.

This topic is not about who is good, bad or ugly. Rather let us work under the assumption both Hillary and Trump are both optimized to the needs of their chosen careers. We will also assume both have good intentions, with their visions of the future, based on their career skills. How would each occupation approach the job, and what areas would each occupation excel?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To get started. A lawyer knows the law better than a businessman. A lawyer may treat this knowledge of the law, differently, based on whether they are a prosecutor or a defense lawyer. The former will expect strict conformance to the law by knowing the nuance of law. While the latter may try to go outside the box and/or walk the fence of law, if this helps their client. The businessman is not that skilled at fence walking.

A businessman knows more about the needs of creating value added. For anyone to stay in business in the free market, you need to be able to create wealth, to stay in the black. Lawyers don't typically create value added, for culture, but tend to help prevent loss of value.

In terms of styles, the prosecutor lawyer may try to maintain the rules of the status quo. The defense lawyer may walk the fence defending change with a technicality or twist of law logic. This is good for change but also for justifying lobbyist needs. The businessman is always looking for ways to be more efficient. He is looking for an objectively defined status quo optimized to value added. This approach could impact those whose jobs depend on redundancy. The defense lawyer may get paid to defend the redundancy, since it is not about business optimization, but about using law to minimize loss of value by those displaced.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was trying to stay objective and not descend into bias. The topic is about career paths and their impact on the presidency. There is no right or wrong answer. The fact remains their occupations define their styles. For example, some of the things Hillary has done, such as with her illegal server, required skills in skirting the law. Nothing is happening to her, because of a good legal defense strategy. It is not about right or wrong, but legal technicalities.

Trump is not given the same pass, for little things, because he is not a lawyer, who can deflect this. Businessmen may not have the skills to get away with the same things unless he hires lawyers as his spokesmen to skirt the fence, or set up legal strategy before all planned violations. The occupations impact who the media will see as the easier target to throw sucker shots.

 

In terms of foreign policy, the businessman is looking for value added, like expanding a business. This is why Trump wants to renegotiate trades deals, so his country gets a better value added. A lawyer may not want anything to change or may be hired to prevent change, even if it can add value. The lawyer is more about minimizing the loss of value to those who they see as at risk and to those who hire them.

The problems in the middle east, such as the civil war in Syria, were caused by lawyers; President Obama and Hillary. They were not thinking practical value added, but an ideal, which was being argued through legal arguments. The average person in the middle east does not look that deep, so the nuance of the strategy was ineffective, resulting in loss value for millions of people. Legal may be better for two stable countries, arguing the fine lines of contracts and treaties. But large scale change needs a more practical value added approach. Disrupting countries does not add value so this will be avoided by businessmen.

The rigged system is better served by lawyers, since they can make this all legal, even if not righteous. This is harder for the businessman, since the free market is about competition.

 

You live in such a fantasy world (Fox news?). Obama and Clinton did not cause the Syrian civil war.

 

It seems to me the title of this thread should have been lawyer VS buffoon.

 

Q: How does an attorney sleep? A: First he lies on one side, then he lies on the other.
Q:What do you get when you cross a bad politician with a crooked lawyer? Chelsea Clinton
It was so cold last january I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets.
Q:What do lawyers use for birth control? Their personalities.

One of Clinton's first clients was a 41 year old who raped a 12 year old girl. Using legal tricks, lies and innuendo, Hillary got her client off, and caused the poor little girl 30 years of depression. You just can't find a lawyer with more compassion than that. During an evening of bragging, Clinton, with laughter, accidentally outed the bastard----------now, he's suing her.

 

Bells, you could be right. I may have read what I quoted from a biased source.
Will check later.

 

One could assume you were already biased for not checking in the first place. None of that was referenced anyway.
BATMAN raped me and subsequently sued me. Causing me to switch to MARVEL superheroes for affection. Prove me wrong.

 

And the evidence of that is where? You have no evidence, in no small part because your assertion simply isn't true. And if you had any actual business experience, you would know that to be the case. Businessmen are looking for personal profit whether it comes trough such ambiguous terms like "value add" or not. It makes no difference.

Well, that's what Trump says, but do you really believe it? Trump also has said for years that he wants forced deportation until 2 days ago when he adopted the lawyer's position on deportation. Trump's renegotiated trade deals is just absurd and just as fictitious as Trump's forced deportation plan.

Actually, the current problems in the Middle East were caused by a physician (Assad) and a businessman (Baby Bush) and exacerbated by a former KBG agent (Putin). Unfortunately for you Wellwisher, facts do matter to those outside the "conservative" bubble. Blaming the physician for the disease isn't reasonable to most people. That kind of reasoning only makes sense inside the Republican bubble.

Well, here is the problem with that, businessmen you so love created the "rigged" system. It's their money which created and sustains the "rigged" system you like to complain about but do nothing to fix it. And your businessman, The Donald, has boasted about the "rigged" system and his role in it.

Free markets are all about competition, doesn't mean businessmen are as well. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Businessmen want competitive advantage. They don't want competition (i.e. free markets). They want to make a profit. They really don't care how they do it as long as it doesn't land them in a jail cell.

Now if you knew anything about businesses and businessmen you would or should know the absurdity of your post.

Baby Bush was a "businessman" before entering politics. How well did that work out? He led the nation into 2 wars and botched them both. He spent trillions of dollars on his botched wars and he committed the nation to spend trillions more in coming decades. His ineptitude led to the creation of ISIS. Had he not invaded Iraq under false pretenses, there would be no ISIS. Had he not botched the Iraq invasion there likely would not have been an ISIS. His spending was so profligate his first treasury secretary resigned in protest. His continued deregulation exacerbated the the fiscal crisis of 2007-2009. That's a recent real life example of your businessman ideal POTUS.

This is the man who looked into Putin's eyes and saw a saint. This is the man who was played as a stooge by Putin and allowed Putin to illegally invade, occupy and annex a portion of Georgia without retribution and probably led to Putin's subsequent invasion, occupation and annexation of Ukrainian lands.

Baby Bush, a businessman POTUS, is remembered by historians as one of the nation's worst presidents. Now that may appeal to Republicans inside the Republican bubble, but it doesn't appeal to most Americans or most people.

And then there was Ross Perot, another businessman who decided to run for POTUS. He ran as a 3rd party candidate under a similar platform and he did fairly well for a 3rd party candidate. But then his bad judgement and eccentricities got the best of him. The track record of businessmen as president or attempting to become president is a poor one and that record doesn't support your mythology of the virtuous magical super human businessman. In fact, the record says just the opposite. Contrary to your assertion, it says businessmen make poor presidents.

 

Ok, well, here are 3
"Hillary Clinton claims to be the defender of women’s rights but when you look at her history, well …not so much. We’ve already presented how she treated Juanita Broaddrick who claimed she was raped by her husband, former president Bubba. But lets not forget how she treated a rape victim who was only 12 when she was raped, and just two years older when Hillary Clinton lied about the victim to get the rapist “off” with a light sentence."
“Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out ‘older men’ like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed ‘Hillary D. Rodham’ in compact cursive…”
from:
http://lidblog.com/when-hillary-clinton-put-a-14-year-old-rape-victim-through-hell/
and
"The audio tapes – ... not only did Clinton use a number of technicalities and devious tricks to essentially free Taylor, she did so knowing full well that he was guilty the whole time. In fact, Clinton even went so far as to slander the victim of the case in her effort to get Taylor a lesser charge than the 30 years he was originally facing.[1][2]

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.

Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.
... Clinton went on the warpath against the 12 year-old victim. Goodman writes,

In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.
Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”[5]
It turns out Clinton did not need to attack the girl ...

from:
https://www.intellihub.com/video-hillary-clinton-brags-getting-pedophile-off-hook/

and(from the rape victim)
“I don’t think [Clinton is] for women or girls,” Arkansas native Kathy Shelton told The Daily Mail in a new interview. “I think she’s lying, I think she said anything she can to get in the campaign and win. If she was [an advocate], she wouldn’t have done that to me at 12 years old.”
from:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/sex...r-defending-attacker-and-laughing-about-case/

and(a couple more):
Listen to Hillary Clinton Laugh While Talking About Getting a Suspected Child Rapist Off the Hook
from:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...etting-a-suspected-child-rapist-off-the-hook/

and:
“We’re hired guns,” Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of legal ethics at Chapman University, told theWashington Free Beacon. “We don’t have to believe the client is innocent…our job is to represent the client in the best way we can within the bounds of the law.”
However, Rotunda said, for a lawyer to disclose the results of a client’s polygraph and guilt is a potential violation of attorney-client privilege.
“You can’t do that,” he said. “Unless the client says: ‘You’re free to tell people that you really think I’m a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you’re a really clever lawyer.’”

and:
In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.
Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
(the victim says that Clinton lied)
from:
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

Many sides to the story:
(The truth is like a crystal with a thousand faces-----not one of which reveals the whole truth)
Choose the one that fits our comfort zone.​

 

That's no longer an excuse. You have had plenty of experience with these sources of yours, and are by now fully responsible for your unbelievable - and I mean that technically - gullibility in the face of their latest. They aren't "biased", they are professional liars and manipulators, and you have been victimized many times. This is now willful on your part. You are deliberately cooperating with them, in your own deception.

What you post from those sources is yours. You own it.

Your comfort zone should be further insulated by your little pile of waste there:

Apparently, according to your sources, Clinton is likely to be willing and able to so compromise her sense of decency according to the ethics of her chosen profession that she will do a good job representing, as President, even the kinds of people we saw at T Party events four years ago, or the kinds who have had Limbaugh dialed in all day for twenty years, or W voters impressed by his masculinity, or those who look straight at Donald Trump and would vote for him to be their President because "he says what he really thinks";

the ones who claimed waterboarding wasn't "real torture", and their anti-terrorism interrogators should be able to torture bad people anyway; the ones who brought black monkey dolls with nose bones to anti-Obama rallies; the ones who think public defenders should only represent the innocent, and should help the prosecution punish the guilty.

You know the types. They make decent people cringe, inside, but they are citizens of the United States: they deserve a President who will do the best possible job representing them and their legitimate interests. Right?

 

How come Trump hasn't cashed in all those nasty allegations?

How come CNN doesn't deem it news worthy?

 

Because they are bogus.

 

I really don't know.
Old news maybe?
Did you take the links and read and listen?

Hillary did a good job for taylor.
Kathy Shelton feels that she was victimized once again by Clinton's attack.
Blaming/victimizing the victim seems have been a rather common lawyer tactic in rape trials throughout the 60's and 70's------------true today?
Listening to the tape and recalling her response to gaddafi's death, it seems that Hillary has a tendency to laugh/giggle at impolitic times.

Some of the links I've posted have taken this one tragedy and attempted to lever it into a broader attack on HRC.
Such seems to be the nature of politics?

Perhaps ice has a valid point?
"... Clinton is likely to be willing and able to so compromise her sense of decency according to the ethics of her chosen profession that she will do a good job representing, as President ..."

Perhaps not?

...........................
keep these dates:
Monday Sept 26
Sunday Oct. 09
Wednesday Oct. 19
The debates will air from 9pm to 10:30pm ET

Should be interesting
................
Any thoughts on the Kaine Pence debate?
Will they be more or less likely to attack the opposing presidential candidate?

 

The way Obama and Hillary started the Syrian Civil war was, during the Arab Spring, Obama and Hillary decided to back the brotherhood in their attempt to overthrow Kadafi in Libya. What they should have done was protect Kadafi, during the overthrown, because he was a national leader. Instead they let the mob kill him and dishonor him. Assad in Syria saw the writing on the wall; the mob would be allowed to kill him, next, since the US, Obama and Hillary would not protect him. He had no choice but to fight for his life. Fighting for his life, because of the policies of Obama, is why the ciil war got out of hand.

I heard a news clip where someone asked CNN why they don't target Hillary and they said that Trump keep stepping in it, therefore this distracts the news cycle. FOX news reports both Trumps miscues and Hillary scandals. This means CNN is can't walk and chew gum at the same time; less qualified by their own admission.

 

The topic is not about Hillary or Trump, but lawyers versus businessmen or women. I am working under the assumption that both the lawyer and businessperson are qualified to do the job as president. The training of each profession will make a difference in how they will lead.

For example, there are 70,000 pages in the IRS tax code and maybe about as many pages in the EPA regulatory code. A complex IRS code benefits the lawyer profession, since lawyers are best trained to unravel the maize of regulations, that other lawyers will create. All new laws benefit the legal profession.

Businessmen do not become successful for making any aspect of the process overly complicated. Over complicated means a lot of wasted resources and lower quality control. One can generate the same tax revenue in a simpler way. For example, if you eliminate deductions you can get rid of most of the code. This makes the tax rates honest and not watered down with deductions and exemptions, which need to lawyers to find.

Democrats always pitch tax rates but never address the tax code that allows even the highest tax rates to come down to zero if you have enough lawyers. The Republicans, who are more business minded, tends to preach eliminating deductions to raise tax revenue. This is resisted by Democrats, because it will impact lawyer jobs.

 

Er... Um.. I've not heard about Bill Clinton raping someone as it says on that blog, but I've heard a FOX employee suing the former CEO of FOX for sexual harassment.

Is there some deliberately obtuse shenanigans going on, or what?

[EDIT]

Oh, I do like this comment:

'This is just ONE account. The number of women attacked goes on & on. Not only is Bill Clinton a sex addict, Bill Clinton is a cocaine addict & Hillary his accomplice along with committing OVER 100 MURDERS... '