Would you give your kids to Trump?

[Trumptonium1]

everything for daddy trump

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You have a new kid. Donald Trump wants your kid (he would like to be a good father).

So let’s say, the law allows you to give your newborn kid to Donald Trump. The Donald would become the legal father under the law (and the sole recognized guardian).

He’s rich as a Lannister, President of a powerful nation, and has powerful allies in all sectors of society. Clearly, he can provide the kid with far more economic resources and social opportunities. In strict material terms, he can offer the kid a “better” future.

However, he might not necessarily be the best moral guide. Furthermore, he would be very busy as President. And having said this, there’s the obvious con that you won’t see your kid again.

Having said this, please discuss:

1. Would you give your kid to the Donald? Why or why not?
2. Objectively speaking, if you truly loved your kid and wanted the best for them... should you give them to Trump?

I believe that after a great deal of deliberation, I would be forced to conclude that giving to Trump is the way to go.

Love means giving the kid d the best shot they have to be “successful” in life. And sometimes, that means going with different parents.

I mean think about it. He’s a president, he’s rich as a Lannister, he’s got allies everywhere. The kid will go to very high places with him. I must let go.

Have you been watching Game of Thrones again?

[Salandriagado]

Erm, no, a lot against Trump's parenting skills, but I want to actually raise my own child.

His children seemed to turn out ok.

You have an extremely low standard for "OK".

[Deltanium]

I will not as I am not against the guy, but, I want to see my kid again

[Salandriagado]

I'm not giving my kids to anyone, because they're mine, if I've done something to have them taken away it's either because it's really bad or really unfortunate. Say, for instance, my kids get taken because I'm a shit father who can't actually care for them; I probably deserve it. But if me and my wife are hospitalized and my kids have to go with someone, then so be it.

So it’s about what you can/can’t have and not really about what is best for the infant?

Being raised by a narcissist is not in any way in anybody's best interests.

That’s a little unfair to say in my opinion.

Perhaps, but I feel I have the means to give that child a good life, with a good moral upbringing. Not all kids like being in the spotlight, being the child of the POTUS automatically brings a ton of publicity. There’s also the possibility of being spoiled or naive as a result, which is never good. The president also, understandably, doesn’t have much time for family bonding, and a child of theirs could easily feel neglected by their father’s absence.

Would you (you personally) rather be spoiled and naive but have the benefit of a Trump upbringing... or instead be raised by a regular run of the mill parent who promises a good moral education?

The latter.

>Trump
>loving

hold on while i laugh my way out of this thread

Says in the op

It’s an operational premise, you gotta run with it

I find it hilarious too that many posters on this forum could parent at all but I don’t make a loud show out of it

Trump is fundamentally incapable of being a loving anything. He's infinitely too self-obsessed. So if you're asking "if Trump was abducted by aliens and replaced by a changeling that was nothing like him at all, would I trust that changeling with my child?" then the answer is "it depends on the changeling".

"Giving" my kid to Trump? Uhh no, definitely not, if that means reliquishing any and all parental responsibilities and rights. But if there was a way to make Trump a 'godfather' or something, with him providing some financial support or funding for higher education, or getting him or her internships and other opportunities, then of course it would be stupid not to grasp those opportunities for your children. But "giving" your children to someone else is out of the question (unless you cannot afford to take care of them and have no choice but to give up for adoption), your kid is going to grow up with the thought that their own parent didn't want them, think about the impact of that on their psychological well-being and self-esteem

Far outweighed by the power of Trump’s god like resources (top schools, top line contacts, more gold then you can spend in a lifetime)

Not in the slightest. None of that buys happiness. Ever.

[Purgatio]

Sure, we can discuss how to solve the rigid social immobility in America today, but that's a completely separate debate. All I'm saying is under current economic and social conditions, if you come from a lower-income and middle-class family, giving your kid to Trump is completely rational because its difficult to see how children raised in such households will have adequate opportunities to succeed and advance otherwise

Sure, they'll have opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have, but at what cost?

Certainly not a price worth paying, if you ask me.

If you come from a household that cannot afford to send your child for higher education or university, you cannot afford to support your child while he gets an internship at a prominent company, and you cannot afford to help your child pay rent in a big city where the bulk of job opportunities are opening up, then your child is going to have a very very hard time climbing up the socio-economic ladder, or becoming successful later in life. That's the sad and unfortunate reality of social immobility. If you ask me, that's not the life anyone should want for their children.

If you don't have the resources to do the aforementioned things, its completely logical to want your child to be taken care of by someone who can, so that he will have the capabilities to be competitive in the modern economy. If you love your child, that's what you should want for him or her.

Now, I agree with everyone that, conversely, if you are able to pay for the aforementioned things, there is really no point in giving up your child to Trump just so he can have a glitzy 'ultra-rich' lifestyle in the Trump family. Your child will be able to succeed later in life based on your own resources at your disposal, since you are well-off enough to support him in all those important things I mentioned. So, in that limited context, it wouldn't be worth the emotional and psychological trauma of giving your child to another family like Trump, but only in that context and in that context alone.

[The Huskar Social Union]

No fucking chance, if i had kids i would raise them myself. Definitely would not hand them off to that fucking wanker.

[Askraya]

Are little brothers ok as well?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sure, they'll have opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have, but at what cost?

Certainly not a price worth paying, if you ask me.

If you come from a household that cannot afford to send your child for higher education or university, you cannot afford to support your child while he gets an internship at a prominent company, and you cannot afford to help your child pay rent in a big city where the bulk of job opportunities are opening up, then your child is going to have a very very hard time climbing up the socio-economic ladder, or becoming successful later in life. That's the sad and unfortunate reality of social immobility. If you ask me, that's not the life anyone should want for their children.

If you don't have the resources to do the aforementioned things, its completely logical to want your child to be taken care of by someone who can, so that he will have the capabilities to be competitive in the modern economy. If you love your child, that's what you should want for him or her.

Now, I agree with everyone that, conversely, if you are able to pay for the aforementioned things, there is really no point in giving up your child to Trump just so he can have a glitzy 'ultra-rich' lifestyle in the Trump family. Your child will be able to succeed later in life based on your own resources at your disposal, since you are well-off enough to support him in all those important things I mentioned. So, in that limited context, it wouldn't be worth the emotional and psychological trauma of giving your child to another family like Trump, but only in that context and in that context alone.

The problem is that you're thinking extreme upward social mobility is something desireable and good.

I don't find extreme upward social mobility a big deal, though I do find progressive social mobility good to instill in a child, even if I don't have the means of giving them everything in life. However, I don't believe my children should be 50000x better than me, only a little bit of change is enough from generation to generation. If they can get there more power to them, but I personally wouldn't give my child to a rich person I don't know just because of an opportunity that may or may not pan out with such a stratospheric rise in wealth as opposed to steady and constant improvement in family lots from generation to generation.

America is the only place where I have seen the mentality of "people can become rich in a single lifetime" without it panning out most of the time in the long run.

[Ethel mermania]

Maybe at 18 when the tuition bill is due.

[Infected Mushroom]

You have a new kid. Donald Trump wants your kid (he would like to be a good father).

So let’s say, the law allows you to give your newborn kid to Donald Trump. The Donald would become the legal father under the law (and the sole recognized guardian).

He’s rich as a Lannister, President of a powerful nation, and has powerful allies in all sectors of society. Clearly, he can provide the kid with far more economic resources and social opportunities. In strict material terms, he can offer the kid a “better” future.

However, he might not necessarily be the best moral guide. Furthermore, he would be very busy as President. And having said this, there’s the obvious con that you won’t see your kid again.

Having said this, please discuss:

1. Would you give your kid to the Donald? Why or why not?
2. Objectively speaking, if you truly loved your kid and wanted the best for them... should you give them to Trump?

I believe that after a great deal of deliberation, I would be forced to conclude that giving to Trump is the way to go.

Love means giving the kid d the best shot they have to be “successful” in life. And sometimes, that means going with different parents.

I mean think about it. He’s a president, he’s rich as a Lannister, he’s got allies everywhere. The kid will go to very high places with him. I must let go.

Have you been watching Game of Thrones again?

No I’ve been mostly watching FIFA and playing League. Why?

[Cekoviu]

Um, no. He doesn't appear to care about Barron and is a horrible role model, even if they would live in luxury. Living with everything you want is a recipe for becoming spoiled anyway.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

1. Fuck no, I wouldn't give my kids to someone who splits migrant families, tries to deny millions of Americans health insurance and starts trsde wars at the expense of everyone
2. I don't even want kids
3. I'm not even American

[Ifreann]

I'd sooner have my child raised by wolves.

...He’s rich as a Lannister...

An apt comparison, as the Lannisters are not really rich at all.

---

Lolno, that's just... just beyond stupid. By all measurable and immeasurable quantities.



l m a o



I'm certain your kid would experience no moral, social, or even political repercussions from such a hilariously stupid decision whatsoever.

If he’s raised by a loving father, one with tons of money and influence, I don’t see why he wouldn’t be better off

Trump probably isn't a rich as he would like people to believe, and certainly isn't as influential as you might imagine. His political allies struggle to work with him and he may not finish his first term as President. Once he's out of office, which will be in only a few years at most, his influence will shrivel up to nothing.

[Cekoviu]

Once he's out of office, which will be in only a few years at most, his influence will shrivel up to nothing.

Except for still being a god to T_Ders, who I'm pretty sure can be counted on one hand at this point. And he'll probably go to each inauguration until he dies.

[Purpelia]

Um, no. He doesn't appear to care about Barron and is a horrible role model, even if they would live in luxury. Living with everything you want is a recipe for becoming spoiled anyway.

Out of curiosity just why is that a bad thing in this situation? You seem to make it sound like that which is why I ask. Because I genuinely do not see it.

I can understand why people would feel being a spoiled amoral narcissistic brat who refuses to ever grow up is a bad compilation of traits to have as one of us mere mortals. Acting like that tends to put us in debts and make it difficult to even earn money and advance in life to begin with. But if you were super rich that changes the game entirely.

If you newer have to worry about money AND you can surround your self with attendants who are paid enough to tolerate your behavior and "friends" who will do so for hope of usury than there is no logical reason not to do so. Why would you restrain your self from indulging in orgiastic displays of opulence and every single pleasure physical or spiritual alike conceivable whilst giving zero shits about everything and anything other than your self if you knew that there are no down sides or risks? Why would you not become a complete monster? If anything, exercising any restraint at all at that point is just pointlessly wasting your life by rejecting pleasure for the sake of... what exactly I don't know.


It sounds to me honestly like a sour grapes argument. We can't have these pleasures and therefore we want those that can to willingly give them up for our benefit.

[Ifreann]

Once he's out of office, which will be in only a few years at most, his influence will shrivel up to nothing.

Except for still being a god to T_Ders, who I'm pretty sure can be counted on one hand at this point. And he'll probably go to each inauguration until he dies.

"Mine was bigger", he'll mumble to himself throughout the event.

[Greater Cesnica]

Except for still being a god to T_Ders, who I'm pretty sure can be counted on one hand at this point. And he'll probably go to each inauguration until he dies.

"Mine was bigger", he'll mumble to himself throughout the event.

[Purgatio]

If you come from a household that cannot afford to send your child for higher education or university, you cannot afford to support your child while he gets an internship at a prominent company, and you cannot afford to help your child pay rent in a big city where the bulk of job opportunities are opening up, then your child is going to have a very very hard time climbing up the socio-economic ladder, or becoming successful later in life. That's the sad and unfortunate reality of social immobility. If you ask me, that's not the life anyone should want for their children.

If you don't have the resources to do the aforementioned things, its completely logical to want your child to be taken care of by someone who can, so that he will have the capabilities to be competitive in the modern economy. If you love your child, that's what you should want for him or her.

Now, I agree with everyone that, conversely, if you are able to pay for the aforementioned things, there is really no point in giving up your child to Trump just so he can have a glitzy 'ultra-rich' lifestyle in the Trump family. Your child will be able to succeed later in life based on your own resources at your disposal, since you are well-off enough to support him in all those important things I mentioned. So, in that limited context, it wouldn't be worth the emotional and psychological trauma of giving your child to another family like Trump, but only in that context and in that context alone.

The problem is that you're thinking extreme upward social mobility is something desireable and good.

I don't find extreme upward social mobility a big deal, though I do find progressive social mobility good to instill in a child, even if I don't have the means of giving them everything in life. However, I don't believe my children should be 50000x better than me, only a little bit of change is enough from generation to generation. If they can get there more power to them, but I personally wouldn't give my child to a rich person I don't know just because of an opportunity that may or may not pan out with such a stratospheric rise in wealth as opposed to steady and constant improvement in family lots from generation to generation.

America is the only place where I have seen the mentality of "people can become rich in a single lifetime" without it panning out most of the time in the long run.

The sad thing is I'm not talking about "extreme upward" social mobility, I'm talking about basic social mobility. Remember, we are living in very different economic conditions, under our parents' generation (I'm assuming you're a Millennial like me? Most people on NS are) a college education was generally something that was 'nice to have', but not essential to find a good-paying job. Things aren't the same anymore. With economic globalisation, blue-collar manufacturing jobs which often don't require college degrees are declining, and the manufacturing jobs which remain suffer from global wage repression. Most of the new jobs being created are in emerging sectors like information technology and other tertiary industries, these are jobs which generally require college degrees. This is why Bill Gates, a college dropout, once said that the US will need more college graduates because of changing economic conditions (http://time.com/3908338/bill-gates-college-grads/), and as it stands the US will eventually suffer from a shortage of college graduates if the proportion of Americans going to college doesn't improve. Moreover, because of economic globalisation and the effect of comparative advantages as discussed above, unlike in our parents' generation a disproportionate bulk of new jobs are created in cities (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/08/15/american-cities-adding-most-jobs/87657900/), so if you want to be competitive in the emerging US job market, you need to be able to rent an apartment in a big city, which as anyone living in New York City and Los Angeles can attest to, isn't going to be cheap.

So all the things I mentioned above (being able to pay for university tuition fees, supporting your child through an unpaid internship, helping him or her pay rent to live in a big city), these are not 'nice to have' privileges anymore. In the emerging US economy that will come in the next few decades, these are virtual necessities to be competitive. So no, I'm not talking about 'extreme upward' social mobility. I'm talking about regular, moderate social mobility, your child having a decent opportunity to get a good job, live a comfortable life, in colloquial terms, to be 'well-to-do'. I'm in no way talking about your child becoming some big shot CEO. My argument isn't that you should give your child to Trump so he or she can live the high life like the Koch brothers or the Murdochs or the Kardashians. My argument is that, if you cannot afford to pay for the essential things which I listed earlier (university tuition fees, supporting your child through an unpaid internship, subsidising your child's rent in a big city where jobs are opening up), then it is actually logical to take up the OP's proposal and give your child to a family who will be able to pay for those things and give him the rudimentary basics he will need to be competitive in the emerging US economy. If you can already pay for those things, then the OP's proposal doesn't make sense for you, but otherwise its a logical trade-off in the unfortunate state of increasingly-rigid social immobility in the US today (and most industrialised countries, for that matter).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is that you're thinking extreme upward social mobility is something desireable and good.

I don't find extreme upward social mobility a big deal, though I do find progressive social mobility good to instill in a child, even if I don't have the means of giving them everything in life. However, I don't believe my children should be 50000x better than me, only a little bit of change is enough from generation to generation. If they can get there more power to them, but I personally wouldn't give my child to a rich person I don't know just because of an opportunity that may or may not pan out with such a stratospheric rise in wealth as opposed to steady and constant improvement in family lots from generation to generation.

America is the only place where I have seen the mentality of "people can become rich in a single lifetime" without it panning out most of the time in the long run.

The sad thing is I'm not talking about "extreme upward" social mobility, I'm talking about basic social mobility. Remember, we are living in very different economic conditions, under our parents' generation (I'm assuming you're a Millennial like me? Most people on NS are) a college education was generally something that was 'nice to have', but not essential to find a good-paying job. Things aren't the same anymore. With economic globalisation, blue-collar manufacturing jobs which often don't require college degrees are declining, and the manufacturing jobs which remain suffer from global wage repression. Most of the new jobs being created are in emerging sectors like information technology and other tertiary industries, these are jobs which generally require college degrees. This is why Bill Gates, a college dropout, once said that the US will need more college graduates because of changing economic conditions (http://time.com/3908338/bill-gates-college-grads/), and as it stands the US will eventually suffer from a shortage of college graduates if the proportion of Americans going to college doesn't improve. Moreover, because of economic globalisation and the effect of comparative advantages as discussed above, unlike in our parents' generation a disproportionate bulk of new jobs are created in cities (https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/08/15/american-cities-adding-most-jobs/87657900/), so if you want to be competitive in the emerging US job market, you need to be able to rent an apartment in a big city, which as anyone living in New York City and Los Angeles can attest to, isn't going to be cheap.

So all the things I mentioned above (being able to pay for university tuition fees, supporting your child through an unpaid internship, helping him or her pay rent to live in a big city), these are not 'nice to have' privileges anymore. In the emerging US economy that will come in the next few decades, these are virtual necessities to be competitive. So no, I'm not talking about 'extreme upward' social mobility. I'm talking about regular, moderate social mobility, your child having a decent opportunity to get a good job, live a comfortable life, in colloquial terms, to be 'well-to-do'. I'm in no way talking about your child becoming some big shot CEO. My argument isn't that you should give your child to Trump so he or she can live the high life like the Koch brothers or the Murdochs or the Kardashians. My argument is that, if you cannot afford to pay for the essential things which I listed earlier (university tuition fees, supporting your child through an unpaid internship, subsidising your child's rent in a big city where jobs are opening up), then it is actually logical to take up the OP's proposal and give your child to a family who will be able to pay for those things and give him the rudimentary basics he will need to be competitive in the emerging US economy. If you can already pay for those things, then the OP's proposal doesn't make sense for you, but otherwise its a logical trade-off in the unfortunate state of increasingly-rigid social immobility in the US today (and most industrialised countries, for that matter).

Ah, I see what you mean now. I thought you were talking about extreme upward mobility, my bad.

Under the current system where information is being valued more than trades yes, you would be correct. Though there are still ways to make money as a tradesman, it's not as great anymore in comparison to engaging in the data economy. So you are right that to advance upward in mobility you need all these things.

Yes, I am a millennial like yourself, and the IT equivalent of a tradesman to boot (I only have IT Certifications, not a college degree in computer science, so for all intents and purposes I am at an equivalent level in the field as a tradesman would be).

Also, yes, when you put it like that it makes a lot of sense to give your child to Trump, though there is still a chance for our children to be perhaps the last generation to be able to move upward without having to have a 4 year college degree to do so. So there is still that argument, but I can't deny the fact that the social immobility in the US is a problem, as you have mentioned.

[Terra Novae Libero]

No, because material wealth alone isn’t sufficient for a good life. Maybe I would if my hypothetical kid would starve ot something under my care, but otherwise no.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So this is funny to me because I have to adopt
So I’d go through the lengthy adoption process, finally have a child in my arms, then give it to someone else to take care of

[Infected Mushroom]

It’s become abundantly clear to me that people are more interested in keeping their kids then in truly giving their kids the best possible future and greatest chance to be important/successful.

Your arguments betray that you are aware trump has more to offer than you and yet...

You come up with strange rationalizations:

“My parents offered me less than trump and I turned out alright” (a truly loving parent wouldn’t settle for “alright” or “fine” with their kids, they would want the Best... and trump has more)

“Trump can’t love my kid to the extent I can” (yet this is a premise of the op. So in this either betrays a lack of reading comprehension or an unwillingness to actually roll with the op dilemma because MAYBE the right solution involves the unconventional Avenue of parting with your kids... it’s like your minds just shut off at this possibility)

...

To me this says most of us aren’t actually fit to be parents. You don’t want what is actually best for them. Youre ruled by possessiveness and self delusion. You’d rather give your child LESS so long as you get to keep them; you tell yourself it’s Fine and Alright. You settle for mediocrity because you don’t want to admit Trump might be more successful and able than you as a parent, that he might have more to offer a kid.

Sometime Love means letting go. It means letting a child go. It means taking a bit of a blow to your ego too. I know it’s difficult to admit someone else, when they love your kid as much as you do, has more to offer.

I made the transition. I know you can too. That is if you think critically instead of sticking to traditional dogma.

[Internationalist Bastard]

It’s become abundantly clear to me that people are more interested in keeping their kids then in truly giving their kids the best possible future and greatest chance to be important/successful.

Your arguments betray that you are aware trump has more to offer than you and yet...

You come up with strange rationalizations:

“My parents offered me less than trump and I turned out alright” (a truly loving parent wouldn’t settle for “alright” or “fine” with their kids, they would want the Best... and trump has more)

“Trump can’t love my kid to the extent I can” (yet this is a premise of the op. So in this either betrays a lack of reading comprehension or an unwillingness to actually roll with the op dilemma because MAYBE the right solution involves the unconventional Avenue of parting with your kids... it’s like your minds just shut off at this possibility)

...

To me this says most of us aren’t actually fit to be parents. You don’t want what is actually best for them. Youre ruled by possessiveness and self delusion. You’d rather give your child LESS so long as you get to keep them; you tell yourself it’s Fine and Alright. You settle for mediocrity because you don’t want to admit Trump might be more successful and able than you as a parent, that he might have more to offer a kid.

Sometime Love means letting go. It means letting a child go. It means taking a bit of a blow to your ego too. I know it’s difficult to admit someone else, when they love your kid as much as you do, has more to offer.

I made the transition. I know you can too. That is if you think critically instead of sticking to traditional dogma.

You also forget you used Donald Trump. A mn who is generally unliked and is currently accused of cheating on his wife and locking children in cages

[Cekoviu]

Um, no. He doesn't appear to care about Barron and is a horrible role model, even if they would live in luxury. Living with everything you want is a recipe for becoming spoiled anyway.

Out of curiosity just why is that a bad thing in this situation? You seem to make it sound like that which is why I ask. Because I genuinely do not see it.

I can understand why people would feel being a spoiled amoral narcissistic brat who refuses to ever grow up is a bad compilation of traits to have as one of us mere mortals. Acting like that tends to put us in debts and make it difficult to even earn money and advance in life to begin with. But if you were super rich that changes the game entirely.

If you newer have to worry about money AND you can surround your self with attendants who are paid enough to tolerate your behavior and "friends" who will do so for hope of usury than there is no logical reason not to do so. Why would you restrain your self from indulging in orgiastic displays of opulence and every single pleasure physical or spiritual alike conceivable whilst giving zero shits about everything and anything other than your self if you knew that there are no down sides or risks? Why would you not become a complete monster? If anything, exercising any restraint at all at that point is just pointlessly wasting your life by rejecting pleasure for the sake of... what exactly I don't know.


It sounds to me honestly like a sour grapes argument. We can't have these pleasures and therefore we want those that can to willingly give them up for our benefit.

Luxury does not really provide more joy than a comfortable but frugal middle-class life iirc, and I would be able to provide that for my hypothetical children. And fake friendships are probably less fulfilling than real ones, but I've never been rich enough to be in that situation, so I can't be sure.
I also feel that I would be able to provide a more caring, supportive home for my hypothetical children than Donald Trump would, and his age makes it so they would have to deal with the sadness of their father dying at a younger age than most children do.