Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 150 of 723
  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    None of this actually addresses the question of whether he's fit to be president. He might have an IQ of 200 but if all he does is watch Fox News, tweet, and eat cheeseburgers he's prolly not right for the job.
    Fortunately that's not all he does.
  2. #77
    Golfing doesn't count as work.
  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Golfing doesn't count as work.
    He also fucks porn stars
  4. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    He also fucks porn stars
    I doubt he'll ever be fucking his wife again though.
  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I doubt he'll ever be fucking his wife again though.
    More for me

    God she is delicious to look at.
  6. #81
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Says the guy who eschews the dictionary definition of "intelligence" so he can slice and dice it however is necessary in order for his ramblings to make sense.
    OK
    Intelligence has been defined in many different ways including as one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are you 'sharing ideas'?
    Words are symbols for ideas, and by typing and posting words, I am sharing ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I must have missed it. All I see is you pissing on what was a fine exchange of ideas.
    I know, man. You see what you want to see, and nothing more.

    You can't imagine that the reason your statement was even being argued with was because you said something you don't actually believe in the first place, but you're too stubborn, conceited, and entitled look at anything you've said and reflect upon the fact that maybe you chose not the best word to communicate your idea.

    Adorable.
  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Golfing doesn't count as work.
    It counts as exercise though, which he isn't getting enough of.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It counts as exercise though, which he isn't getting enough of.
    Touche.

    It's important that he be fit so he can tweet what he sees on Fox News.
  9. #84
    And we don't want him having a heart attack while banging porn stars, do we?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #85
    Whether he's "fit for office" is an interesting question. I propose we put this question to public debate, perhaps in the form of an election?

    Because, I do believe, that's what elections are... public votes to decide who is "fit for office".

    Sorry poop, it's not you who gets to decide. It's the American voters, and they decided.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #86
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Whether he's "fit for office" is an interesting question. I propose we put this question to public debate, perhaps in the form of an election?

    Because, I do believe, that's what elections are... public votes to decide who is "fit for office".

    Sorry poop, it's not you who gets to decide. It's the American voters electoral college, and they decided.
    FYP
  12. #87
    Ok yeah let's go down that rabbit hole.

    Did the EC make a decision that contradicted the public demand?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok yeah let's go down that rabbit hole.

    Did the EC make a decision that contradicted the public demand?
    Don't play that monkey game. It's impossible. No matter what you say, or how right you are, he'll just come back with "That's not what I'm talking about, you're so stupid for thinking that, nyah"
  14. #89
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok yeah let's go down that rabbit hole.

    Did the EC make a decision that contradicted the public demand?
    I said the electoral college is not the American voters. Nothing more.

    It depends on what you mean by "public demand." It's common in recent elections for the popular vote to go one way, but the EC to go the other, but that's not clearly a contradiction, due to zoning and other oddities of the American representative system.
  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I said the electoral college is not the American voters. Nothing more.
    WHY?
  16. #91
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    WHY?
    lol

    Why is 538 people not 323 million people?

    Adorable.
  17. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    lol

    Why is 538 people not 323 million people?

    Adorable.
    No dummy. WHY bring it up?

    Unless you are hopelessly stupid, you know exactly what Ong meant. You know that your hair-splitting distinction adds nothing to the conversation. So......WHY?????
  18. #93
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Why does saying incorrect things undermine an argument?
  19. #94
    You guys should just start your own thread where you can insult each other and the rest of us don't have to watch.

    Ya, Ong, I know who gets to vote and I'm not one of them. But, winning an election doesn't de facto make someone fit for office.

    Checkmate.
  20. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Ya, Ong, I know who gets to vote and I'm not one of them. But, winning an election doesn't de facto make someone fit for office. .
    Yes it does
  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    You guys should just start your own thread where you can insult each other and the rest of us don't have to watch.

    Ya, Ong, I know who gets to vote and I'm not one of them. But, winning an election doesn't de facto make someone fit for office.

    Checkmate.
    That's the bishop, not the queen. And you're in check, so you can't even move your bishop. Jeez it's like playing chess with a cat.

    Winning an election de facto makes someone fit for office because that what the election was basically deciding... who the public felt was fit for office. What does that term mean if it's not "he or she whom the public deem most appropriate for the job"? Ah, I know what meaning you're using... the "in my opinion" one.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  22. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That's the bishop, not the queen. And you're in check, so you can't even move your bishop. Jeez it's like playing chess with a cat.
    The cat is outplaying you ainec.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Winning an election de facto makes someone fit for office because that what the election was basically deciding... who the public felt was fit for office.
    Begging the question.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What does that term mean if it's not "he or she whom the public deem most appropriate for the job"? Ah, I know what meaning you're using... the "in my opinion" one.
    "Fit for office" and "elected" aren't synonymous. There's where you're going wrong.

    Have you ever heard of a guy named Nixon? He was judged fit for office by the electors, turned out he wasn't.
  23. #98
    Yeah well "fit for office" is not a legal phrase that I'm aware of, so if it doesn't mean "in my opinion" then it can only mean "in the public's opinion".

    In Nixon's case, the public were wrong. If you want to argue the public are wrong with Trump too, fine.

    But that is your opinion, not the public's. The only way we find out the public's opinion is by holding an election.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah well "fit for office" is not a legal phrase that I'm aware of, so if it doesn't mean "in my opinion" then it can only mean "in the public's opinion".

    In Nixon's case, the public were wrong. If you want to argue the public are wrong with Trump too, fine.

    But that is your opinion, not the public's. The only way we find out the public's opinion is by holding an election.
    So I express an opinion and you tell me it's wrong and the reason it's wrong is because it's not shared by an electoral college majority of the US. That's almost as good as proving me right.
  25. #100
    I didn't say you were wrong, I just took issue with your "fit for office" comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    None of this actually addresses the question of whether he's fit to be president. He might have an IQ of 200 but if all he does is watch Fox News, tweet, and eat cheeseburgers he's prolly not right for the job.
    That's what you actually said. Who are you, indeed who are we, to decide if he's fit to be president? The American people already decided he is. Is he being impeached, or the subject of a criminal investigation? Not that I'm aware of. So there's no formal action ongoing that puts into question his "fitness" for the job.

    Only the opinions of people who have nothing better to do than hate on his every action.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Only the opinions of people who have nothing better to do than hate on his every action.
    Right. All these people hating on Trump aren't actually bothered by his behaviour, they just want an excuse to be screeching banshees.
  27. #102
    You said it.

    Actually the truth is closer to "get sucked into identity politics", rather than "want an excuse to be screeching banshees". Noone wants to be a banshee, as demonstrated by the fact that you took offence to being called one.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You said it.

    Actually the truth is closer to "get sucked into identity politics", rather than "want an excuse to be screeching banshees". Noone wants to be a banshee, as demonstrated by the fact that you took offence to being called one.
    That's because I'm not screeching, I'm simply pointing out the man's numerous flaws. And it's got nothing to do with what part of the political spectrum I identify with. I would hardly say I'm a fan of most republican politicians, but I do at least find most of them tolerable.
  29. #104
    No you don't screech, I'll give you that. Your noise isn't intolerable.

    But you're on the side of the banshees.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #105
    The right has it's share of nuts too. That doesn't make you one.
  31. #106
    The right has a lot of nuts. But they're not making incessant noise. If they were, I'd probably shy away from them.

    The people I consider "screeching banshees" are those morons who were screaming into the sky in "defiance". That perfectly illustrates what the left has become. Scoail justice warriors, feminists, professional victims, with their blue hair and their gender non conformity, stamping their feet in petulance because Trump is a nasty man who won't let nice immigrants into the country.

    Sure the guy has flaws. Don't you? I certainly do. You want a flawless man in charge of America? Good luck with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The right has a lot of nuts. But they're not making incessant noise. If they were, I'd probably shy away from them.
    Of course they are. You're just choosing to tune into the nuts who you abhor listening to for some reason. You could easily avoid having to listen to any screeching banshees just as easily as I can avoid listening to right wing nuts. I don't watch Alex Jones (except for the occasional comedic value), so why do you watch blue-haired transwhatevers?
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    "Fit for office" and "elected" aren't synonymous.
    Yeah, they pretty much are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    There's where you're going wrong.
    Opposite

    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Have you ever heard of a guy named Nixon? He was judged fit for office by the electors, turned out he wasn't.
    Yes he was. Then he failed.

    If you're suggesting that only he who is free of sin may hold elected office, you need to get woke.
  34. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So let me get this right...
    If Trump's business makes a profit, it's an illusion, even though tax laws absolutely disincentivise non-existent profit.
    otoh, if his companies make a loss, it's either bad business practise or he's fiddling the books for tax reasons.
    Banana touched on this, and now you. It's a very good point. Where it breaks down is that you guys are lumping two things together. There is the public understanding of Trumps wealth (whether it is accurate or not, he benefits from appearing to be rich) and there is the facts of what his tax returns say, which dictate how much he pays in taxes. Unfortunately we only have the former, and so we are left to speculate.

    This distinction was fabulously flaunted by 50 Cent a few years back. This is a genius level hybridization of marketing and legal maneuvering. Of course he knew he would get pulled into court, he manipulated a judge into being an unwitting participant in this publicity stunt. Further, he openly admits to it being fake cash while winking at his audience, letting them assume that he outsmarted a judge.

    I mean, this may have been inspiration to Trump. He essentially made the exact same play, asserting that he is so smart that he gamed the system with his billion dollar write off, recoloring the loss as a shrewd business move for his audience, and then Trump went a step further than 50 in asserting that his relevant experience made him uniquely qualified to close such loopholes!

    Public displays of wealth/income (accurate or otherwise) are advantageous if you're playing certain angles, and they can be maintained while paying taxes based on another (accurate or otherwise) level of wealth/income.
    He's a billionaire who became POTUS. He's either a ridiculously successful businessman or a ridiculously successful criminal. His haters really can't give him credit, even where its due, can they?
    Why are you guys stuck on these false dichotomies? All of the alternatives to his apparent success being due to his astute business acumen are not criminal. Also, I do give him props, just like I am in awe of the accomplishments of all sorts of people whose actions I think are deserving of condemnation. Look in the first part of this post. I am giving team Trump props.
  35. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I think what Boost might be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Trump could just be running good.

    Which, well, might be true. One of the main misunderstandings that people have with statistics and probability that Nassim Taleb discusses is that when there are not sufficient data points, the distribution and probabilities of events are not well understood. If the game is poker, where millions of hands are played by the top guys, well that might be enough data points and it probably can be said that the successful ones aren't just running good. Yet when it comes to the extreme ends of business or political success, it might be a different ballgame. There might not be that many data points. Though I don't know even the right way to conceptualize this situation in the first place. It's possible there are a ton of data points and that a Trumpian result is normal. I don't know.
    This is part of what I'm saying. But it's important to note that this applies to many scenarios. So, his run good could be in business, it could be in influence, it could be legal, etc. Of course there is overlap here, but the point in making the distinctions is that where his run good is should be expected to paint a very different picture with regards to who he is and how we can expect him to act.

    The problem is, as I'm sure you'd concur, Trump appears to be uniquely Trumpian. Why I say "appears" is because other Trumpian actors are likely scattered in the distribution, making them not appear at all Trumpian. Because these actors are so hard to pinpoint, we are left with only Trump's own data points.

    My whole point is that I think it's understandable to lean one way or another with regards to this, but with the data we have on Trump being a business success, I think straying far from agnosticism, particularly in the direction of the affirmative (ooh, look, there's my bias!) is an unsupportable position.
  36. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Could be relevant.

    https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/964137671886065664



    I'm not sure what to make of this. I'll have to think about it some.
    This is super fucking cool.
  37. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I probably agree. Lifetime business success across many fields is probably dynamic enough that ain't nobody who makes it runs good.

    If we say "what does it take to become a billionaire?" or "what does it take to become the president?", those distributions are probably fat-tailed. But the situation we're dealing with is far more dynamic and complex than those questions.
    I actually think sustained run good is more likely in business than poker. The difference in business is that at a certain point you have a self replenishing bankroll through diversification into passive income streams. Compounding passive income streams is the fact that if you are really big enough, you actually can become too big to fail for your creditors.

    As for success across multiple industries-- One, I'd point to the failures across multiple industries, but two, and more importantly, apparent success in one industry is likely to greatly decrease the barriers of entry into other industries. The one industry I feel confident in saying Trump has been successful is that of branding, and it's also the industry whose goods have the most intangible and untethered valuations. On top of that, a brand who's branding is that of business success is going to have the most ease slipping in and out of industries.
  38. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I realise it's not as obvious as poker, and I understand that poker is actually a pretty good metaphor for business in some aspects. But luck in poker is governed purely by probability, and we can calculate that. In business, where's the luck? Being given a million by Daddy? That's just like a poker player learning how to play at the macros instead of micros. You still better start winning soon.
    *I feel like it's important to keep saying that I'm not claiming what is true, but offering plausible scenarios that leave doubt*

    If you show up playing the live macros, don't play like a huge donk, but are ultimately a losing player, the poker community may not know you're a losing player for a very long time if you have a big enough bankroll. You may even get staked into bigger games/higher variance formats (omaha, tournaments, etc). Whether these staking agreements are public or private they further confound the issue. Either pros think you're worth backing, or you simply appear to be sustaining play at a high level to a greater extent-- both ostensibly supporting the thesis that you're a successful poker player.
  39. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    There is the public understanding of Trumps wealth (whether it is accurate or not, he benefits from appearing to be rich) and there is the facts of what his tax returns say, which dictate how much he pays in taxes. Unfortunately we only have the former, and so we are left to speculate.
    Actually we aren't. All it takes is a cursory understanding of bookkeeping to realize that you can't fake the long term prosperity that Trump has enjoyed. Insolvency is a bitch.

    In any event. Trump filed financial disclosures when he ran for President that say his net worth is 10 billion. Forbes says it's 3.5 billion. It really doesn't matter who's right. He's filthy fucking rich. Are you really telling me that $3.5 billion "isn't that impressive". So I really don't know why you're insisting that its still possible that the guy is a charlatan just because you don't understand corporate finance.

    Your claim is that Trumps public projections overstate his wealth, and that his tax returns would show the real story, and end "speculation.

    The tax returns won't be accurate either. They'll understate his wealth for sure. So I'm not sure why think that seeing those tax returns would settle anything.

    Forbes says he's worth 3.5 billion. If a babbling idiot who's unstable, unhealthy, and unintelligent can do that, even with a $200 million dollar head start, what does that say about the rest of us?

    then Trump went a step further than 50 in asserting that his relevant experience made him uniquely qualified to close such loopholes!
    I live in a state with no personal income tax, but it does have a business profits tax. Can you solve this one? If you own a company that is profitable, you just give yourself a huge bonus at the end of the year. The company breaks even, and thus pays no tax. And you withdraw your profits tax free. And if you don't want to actually pull the cash out of the business, you can lend the money back to the company, and pay yourself interest (taxed as capital gains, not income).

    One prominent and successful CEO who most definitely exploited this loophole many many many times became Governor in the 90's and subsequently closed that loophole.
  40. #115
    Forbes is not the floor of Trump net worth estimates, nor are their net worth estimations thought to be particularly accurate. But let's pretend that first sentence doesn't exist-- you're not concerned with discrepancies like this? You're basing a large part of your assessment of who Trump is on this figure, and you don't think it's important that there is no reasonable consensus on what it actually is?

    You're right, seeing his tax returns would not settle anything, but it would be one more data point, and a significant one at that. I can publicly claim to be a billionaire with essentially no consequences and essentially no way for you to discredit my claim. Claiming false things on my tax returns carries much greater consequences

    Btw, I get that it's easier to argue against the position you want me to have, but that's not my position. I did not claim what you have attributed to me. I am asserting that the best supported position on the matter is one of agnostic skepticism. Pointing out the weak foundation your claim is built on is not the same as claiming its opposite.

    Again, Forbes' calculation is not thought to be reliable, especially when it comes to individuals who have much of their net worth in privately held businesses. You're right, 3.5 billion is an impressive number, but it's not even a number we can be sure of. And again, my claim is not that he is "only" worth 500 million, or 10 million, or 5 billion-- my claim is that straying any distance from agnosticism is an unsupportable position.

    My point in mentioning how Trump turned his exploits of tax loopholes into a political plus was giving props. Lemons to lemonade.

    This is a great example of something I think you all too readily do-- you get triggered by a string of words and then it's off to the races. Read it in context-- I'm not making a moral judgement here, I'm pointing out that his finances are not transparent, it's intentional, it's admirably clever, and he's playing both sides of it-- something that was claimed upthread couldn't be done. The point of the 50 cent anecdote is that it's extremely clever, but onlookers that aren't his audience are reasonably going to be left agnostic as to his actual wealth
  41. #116
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    ^You're a better man than I boost, tremendous amounts of restrain, patience and coherent thought demonstrated ITT.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  42. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I don't watch Alex Jones (except for the occasional comedic value), so why do you watch blue-haired transwhatevers?
    One's a boring fat fuck. The other is a funny fat fuck.

    The truthful answer to that is I don't go out of my way to watch blue haired transwhatevers. I became aware of these twats thanks to PJW's youtube channel. Furthermore, which do you suppose is getting more mainstream coverage? Alex Jones waffling on in his croaky voice? Or anti-Trump morons being morons?

    You're only going to watch Alex Jones if you choose to, or if someone you choose to watch refers to him.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by boost
    He essentially made the exact same play
    The only question that needs to be asked is... is it legal? y/n

    Public displays of wealth/income (accurate or otherwise) are advantageous if you're playing certain angles, and they can be maintained while paying taxes based on another (accurate or otherwise) level of wealth/income.
    Ok so you're arguing maybe he is broke and is just fooling people into thinking he's rich? Fine. If that's what he's doing, then he's STILL a successful businessman (or criminal) because he'd EASILY be able to raise capital (legally or otherwise) to finance a business venture. Even before he got the top job in the country.

    Ok we can dispute how wealthy he is, but there's no disputing how successful he is. He's the most successful man on the planet as far as I can tell. Well, except Kim Jong Un of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    If you show up playing the live macros, don't play like a huge donk, but are ultimately a losing player, the poker community may not know you're a losing player for a very long time if you have a big enough bankroll.
    Would you not expect to improve? If I fired up £1m of funds and started playing the big boys, losing slowly enough to appear skilled enough to play at these stakes, do you suppose I stay at the same slightly losing level for my career? Or is it more likely that I'm actually going to learn something by playing at this level? I've already proved I'm not completely out of my depth.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  45. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    One's a boring fat fuck. The other is a funny fat fuck.

    The truthful answer to that is I don't go out of my way to watch blue haired transwhatevers. I became aware of these twats thanks to PJW's youtube channel. Furthermore, which do you suppose is getting more mainstream coverage? Alex Jones waffling on in his croaky voice? Or anti-Trump morons being morons?

    You're only going to watch Alex Jones if you choose to, or if someone you choose to watch refers to him.
    So your argument is that I can avoid AJ but not blue-haired transwhatevers. Bullshit. I avoid both. It's not like every time I turn on the BBC it's showing the latter group marching and screeching. And even if it is, I can just change the channel.

    I've actually seen more of AJ than I have of BHTs. So the argument that they're all over the MSM is just false.
  46. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Forbes is not the floor of Trump net worth estimates, nor are their net worth estimations thought to be particularly accurate.
    OMFG. Here you are shouting from the rooftops about how we need more data points. Then you get one and you're like "naaah"

    But let's pretend that first sentence doesn't exist-- you're not concerned with discrepancies like this?
    No. I'm not. All reasonable estimates say the same thing....he's filthy fucking rich.

    You're basing a large part of your assessment of who Trump is on this figure, and you don't think it's important that there is no reasonable consensus on what it actually is?
    There is a reasonable consensus...he's filthy fucking rich. Trump's businesses have earned him a level of wealth only enjoyed by about a zillionth of the population. I can't believe you think it's worth debating, or even wondering, whether he's in the top zillionth percentile, or the top jillionth percentile. Who fucking cares? Would being worth 5 billion, or 10 billion really make a difference in your assessment of Trump's abilities, intelligence, executive skills, or fitness for office?

    You're right, seeing his tax returns would not settle anything, but it would be one more data point, and a significant one at that.
    You know, in one post you say "without tax returns we have to speculate". Then when someone points out the obvious fact that tax returns aren't any more accurate than Trump's election financial disclosures. Now you're saying how it's important to have one more data point. But Forbes doesn't count, seemingly for no other reason than it's inconvenient to your agnosticism.

    Bloomberg estimates Trump's net worth between 3 and 4.5 Billion. There's another data point.

    We know which buildings are Trump's, that's a matter of public record. And real estate values are primarily market driven, regardless of what financial statements say. So a very objective data point would be that Trump's real estate holdings, just within NYC, are worth 1.6 billion.

    I can publicly claim to be a billionaire with essentially no consequences and essentially no way for you to discredit my claim. Claiming false things on my tax returns carries much greater consequences
    He doesn't need to claim anything. He owns buildings worth billions. That's not even debatable. Hence, he's a billionaire.

    Flying around in a $100M jet with your name on it helps too.

    Btw, I get that it's easier to argue against the position you want me to have, but that's not my position. I did not claim what you have attributed to me
    Don't be cowardly. I even used your own words when I attributed that claim to you. Own it.

    I am asserting that the best supported position on the matter is one of agnostic skepticism
    And I'm asserting that that's not what you've been asserting, and your own words prove it. But since we're talking about it, what you just said there is wholly ignorant.

    Again, Forbes' calculation is not thought to be reliable, especially when it comes to individuals who have much of their net worth in privately held businesses.
    thought by whom?? You keep saying this so you can cling to your precious agnosticism. It's kinda pathetic.

    You're right, 3.5 billion is an impressive number, but it's not even a number we can be sure of.
    How far off do you think it could possibly be?? Furthermore, why do you even care what the number is. The question that started all this was whether or not Trump's success is indicative of his intelligence and executive skills. And for some reason, your position seems to be as follows:

    "Well I don't even know if he's successful or not. He says he is, but he could be lying. Forbes says he is, but they could be lying. Bloomberg says he is, but they could be lying. He was the star of a very successful network television show, but maybe he did that for free. He has wildly expensive cars, opulent houses, and a jet with his name on it....but maybe someone gave him those things. Or maybe he stole them. And maybe his lifestyle is funded through debt. Maybe banks want to loan him money because he's so good looking. And maybe the banks don't bother to check his financial records to make sure they are profitable and generating positive cash flow....like they do with EVERY OTHER BORROWER. Oh and even though its an objective fact that he is a billionaire just based on his NYC real-estate holdings...let's not talk about that because it fucks up my stubborn agnostic viewpoint"

    This is a great example of something I think you all too readily do-- you get triggered by a string of words and then it's off to the races. Read it in context-- I'm not making a moral judgement here,
    I never said you made a moral judgement. I'm saying that the morality of it is irrelevant. Even if the Trump empire is one big pyramid scheme...that would ALSO demonstrate extremely high intelligence and business acumen. I'm not even sure why you want to argue about Trump's net worth. The question was whether or not his success is indicative of intelligence. If you want to be agnostic about whether or not he's actually got any money, go ahead. But you're a retard if you deny that he'd have to be pretty fucking smart either way.

    I'm pointing out that his finances are not transparent,
    Who cares?
  47. #122
    btw, what does 'bluehair' mean on pansy-ball island? 'cause here in winner-town I think it means something else.
  48. #123
    Means nothing in particular. In the context we're using it, it means the same as screeching banshee.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  49. #124
    Well here it's a mostly out-dated term that was once used to describe vain old women. Back in the old days if a woman dyed her hair too often, it would show a blue-ish tint.

    Remember that scene in goodfellas where the wives are all hanging out doing girly shit to each other's hair and face. Those broads would be called "bluehairs"

    I believe the fact that Marge Simpson has blue hair is not an accident.
  50. #125
    I see. I think I used the phrase "blue haired gender non conforming", poop rephrased it to the improved "blue haired transwhatever", and from there it's now BHT. I don't even know why I said blue hair, the screeching banshee I had in mind had nasty ginger eyebrows.

    Here's the bitch...



    She's the original screechiug banshee, this is the first person I assigned that phrase to. Indeed, she's a BHT.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post

    Even if the Trump empire is one big pyramid scheme...that would ALSO demonstrate extremely high intelligence and business acumen.
    Pablo Escobar was clearly intelligent and had a great sense for business. The caveats tied to those accolades are an issue when the accolades are being used to suggest he's fit for political office.

    I'm not even sure why you want to argue about Trump's net worth. The question was whether or not his success is indicative of intelligence.
    His net worth is repeatedly paraded by him, and his supporters (you amongst them) as the principle piece of evidence in support of the claim that he is a successful businessman.

    If you want to be agnostic about whether or not he's actually got any money, go ahead. But you're a retard if you deny that he'd have to be pretty fucking smart either way.
    I actually think I've made a decent case for how Trump could find himself where he is without possessing an all too impressive intellect-- but that's fine, I can concede that point and take you up on your challenge of my chromosome count-- in your dichotomy which results in him being smart one way or another, which way it is is relevant to how fit he is to serve as president. If, as you suggested he may be, a mega Bernie Madoff, you've got an uphill battle when you assert he'd still be fit for office.

    Put more simply, explain how your logic does not include Bernie Madoff and Al Capone in the "fit for office" subset of the population.
  52. #127
    "fit for office"

    There's that phrase again.

    What does it mean to you boost?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #128
    Pablo Escobar was elected to the Colombian congress, and therefore also fit for office apparently.
  54. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Pablo Escobar was elected to the Colombian congress, and therefore also fit for office apparently.
    Then yes, he was, because the Colombian electorate decided he was. Just because you, and for what it's worth, I, believe that he wasn't fit for office, doesn't mean we're "right". What did he do while in office? He built schools and football fields. So, perhaps we're wrong.

    What does "fit for office" mean? Noone has answered that yet. You know why? Because it's subjective, and any answer will expose the subjective nature of the question.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #130
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,504
    Location
    Finding my game
    Hey I got an idea. Let's take some random undefined anecdote and start arguing about not it's meaning but it's subjective application. That ought to be fun.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  56. #131
    Well yeah, because people throw that term about like it should mean the same to everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well yeah, because people throw that term about like it should mean the same to everyone.
    You're the only one I've ever heard argue that fit for office is synonymous with 'elected'. To most people, it means 'capable of performing their duties and willing to do so'
  58. #133
    Ong, instead of formulating a definition that fully encompasses what I mean by "fit for office", instead I'd like to ask you what you think the purpose is of parading around Trump's supposed business success, or for that matter any politician's accomplishments?

    If these claims aren't meant to bolster the notion that the politician is a good fit for the office they seek, I can't figure out what purpose they serve.
  59. #134
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    You know it's true. And wuf, I know you're going to try to turn the analogy in favor of Trump with some sort of diatribe about how reality TV has done much more to shape blah blah blah-- but, you know, come on, lol

    Boost, you are forever my boy for this.

    Trump is noise, Mueller is quality. No overlap.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  60. #135
    <3
  61. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Ong, instead of formulating a definition that fully encompasses what I mean by "fit for office", instead I'd like to ask you what you think the purpose is of parading around Trump's supposed business success, or for that matter any politician's accomplishments
    So the next time you apply for a job, and the hiring manager asks to see your resume, just say "you don't need it, it could be fake, it has nothing to do with my fitness for this position"

    Good luck
  62. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Mueller is quality.
    Wut??

    He's indicted George Popadopoulous for down-playing his relationship with a Russian. No one expected Trump to win, and when he did, Pops had the opportunity of the lifetime. Meuller hauled the guy in and offered him a choice A) Tell us about this fruitless relationship, put the stink of Russia all over you, and sacrifice your career. Or B) Try and lie.

    He's indicted Mike Flynn for making false statements. Though there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest that's bullshit. In fact, it was reported this week that a judge is reviewing Flynn's guilty plea, suspecting he made it to avoid a costly legal defense, or to ease some other legal problems that his Flynn's son is having.

    He's indicted Manafort and Gates for some totally unrelated shit. Gates has plead guilty, which means he's cooperating against Manafort. This means that Manafort is in a gigantic heap of shit, and could use a get out of jail free card more than anything. The most damning allegation in the Steele dossier was that Manafort and Carter Page, speaking for the Trump administration, offered favorable treatment of Russia in exchange for dirt on Hillary. If that happened, Manafort can just say so, and skate. Every day that Manafort fights the indictment means it's less likely that Trump/Russia collusion ever happened.

    As an aside, the other alleged perpetrator, Carter Page, is facing no charges despite the fact that the FBI crawled up his ass for a whole year. 12 months of total surveillance, and Carter Page isn't in cuffs.

    Finally, the Meuller investigation has resulted in 13 other indictments that are merely for show. Those people are all in Russia, and they aren't getting sent here to face trial.

    How's that not noise????
  63. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So the next time you apply for a job, and the hiring manager asks to see your resume, just say "you don't need it, it could be fake, it has nothing to do with my fitness for this position"

    Good luck
    If you follow through with your analogies, you might realize that they don't actually support your case. Resumes are regularly embellished, but within reason. To safe guard against rampant over the top embellishment which would render all resumes useless, employers do some level of follow up.

    The point of me asking Ong (and anyone who cares to answer) what the purpose of touting your accomplishments when being considered for a position is, is to show that you actually do think the phrase "fit for office" has meaning and is relevant to the the topic at hand.

    Now I could be wrong, you guys could be going on about his business success for an unrelated reason, but that's a hard claim to make and have it mesh with the posts made ITT.
    Last edited by boost; 02-26-2018 at 04:16 PM.
  64. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    If you follow through with your analogies, you might realize that they don't actually support your case
    *sigh*....be smarter.

    Resumes are regularly embellished, but within reason
    Ok, Trump's probably isn't any different, what's your point??

    To safe guard against rampant over the top embellishment which would render all resumes useless, employers do some level of follow up.
    Ok, so follow up. Verify his claims of wealth with other entities that track this shit, like Forbes, and Bloomberg. Trump says he owns buildings. That's easily verified. His name is on them. Real estate records clearly show that he owns billions of dollars worth of real estate. Television ratings and book sales are also public information.

    What kind of follow up would you like? Tax returns? Those are just as embellished as his resume, just in the opposite direction. Plus, I find it hard to believe that you'd even have a clue what you're looking at if you did see his tax returns. You'd have to rely on someone like Forbes, or Bloomberg to tell you whether it's good or bad. And since you're convinced that they are lying liars, and won't believe anything they say (unless it's bad, lol)....why should Trump bother show his tax returns?

    You've made it abundantly clear that you wouldn't understand them, and you wouldn't believe any explanation presented to you. So why should anyone try to convince you? Just go vote democrat with the other mindless agnostic drones

    The point of me asking Ong (and anyone who cares to answer) what the purpose of touting your accomplishments when being considered for a position is, is to show that you actually do think the phrase "fit for office" has meaning and is relevant to the the topic at hand.
    No that's not your point. That's never been your point. It might be your point now that your agenda of agnosticism has been shot down as totally absurd.

    But who ever claimed that "fit for office" is an irrelevant notion?? Who are you even arguing against??

    Of course fitness for office matters. However, your arguments for remaining agnostic regarding Trump's fitness are not just uninformed, naive, and stubborn. They are also so vague and empty, that they could be applied to any human being on earth.

    Was Hillary fit for office? How do you know? What accomplishments as a Senator or Secretary of State would you point to? What's on her resume that makes her fit for office?

    Was Bernie fit for office? Was he financially successful? Did he do anything notable as a Senator?

    What about the homeless guy ranting at a fire hydrant about entitlement reform? How do you know he's not a former congressman who once headed a Fortune 100 firm?

    Now I could be wrong, you guys could be going on about his business success for an unrelated reason, but that's a hard claim to make and have it mesh with the posts made ITT.
    I can't believe this isn't clear to you

    Trump is a successful business man. That claim is supported by a mountain of evidence cited ITT. It's also supported by common sense and obvious truths. There is no way that he could be as successful as he is, for as long as he has been, without possessing high intelligence and extraordinary executive skills. Those are prominent pillars in his "fitness for office".
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-26-2018 at 05:05 PM.
  65. #140
    Aren't you guys bored of this yet?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Aren't you guys bored of this yet?
    Kinda.

    Wanna play marbles?
  67. #142
    Boost thinks Mueller is going to fuck Trump up.

    Banana's whole belief in Trump's fitness for office rests on the premise that being good at one thing means you must be good at another thing, even if most people seem to agree you suck at the other thing.

    Boost's argument is we can't be so sure Trump is even good at business.

    Banana rejects that argument because Trump seems to be very wealthy.

    Ong thinks fitness for office is defined as how many people voted for you.

    Ong also thinks annoying people on the left get too much airtime.

    Banana has been watching Fox News again and thinks the Mueller investigation is a sham (I presume that's where he gets the idea, I only get my FN updates second-hand from Trump's tweets).

    Edit: I almost forgot: at some point along the way, Banana and Mojo got into their umpteenth poo-flinging contest.

    Edit 2: Also forgot: Wuf is still waiting for Mueller to lay a surprise indictment on Hillary, Obama, and whoever else Trump doesn't like (possibly Oprah).

    /thread
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 02-26-2018 at 05:43 PM.
  68. #143
    It might not be Mueller and it might not be indictment. But it for sure will be, just as it has been for a while now, revealing of Obama administration crimes.


    If probability could go lower than 0, that's how low the probability that Mueller is going to get Trump on anything meaningful is.
  69. #144
    I'm expecting blizzards over next few days. Could be a couple of feet of snow here by the weekend. I'm stocked up with tea, sugar and milk, bring it on.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  70. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Boost thinks Mueller is going to fuck Trump up.
    How? What evidence could be used to fuck up Trump? What crime or misconduct has Trump committed that Meuller could use to fuck him up?

    Banana's whole belief in Trump's fitness for office rests on the premise that being good at one thing means you must be good at another thing,
    Executive skill is one thing that applies to both jobs. So is intelligence.

    even if most people seem to agree you suck at the other thing.
    Are you saying that "most people" agree that Trump sucks at business??

    Boost's argument is we can't be so sure Trump is even good at business.
    Correct, and it's an argument based on absolutely nothing credible. Every credible and objective source we have to observe Trump's wealth tells us that he's filthy fucking rich.

    Banana rejects that argument because Trump seems to be very wealthy.
    False. I reject that argument because the only way Trump could accumulated the wealth that he has (even if you limit it to known assets like NY real-estate) is if he were completely awash with cash flow. Cash flow comes from two places....profits....or debt. You can't get money from debt unless the lender believes that there will be cash flow (in the form of profits) sufficient to service that debt. Lenders assure themselves of this by doing extensive audits of the company in question.

    LOTS of people have seen Trump's finances. If it were all a house of cards....we'd know by now. At some point in the last 50 years, the cash would have dried up. It hasn't, so the only logical conclusion, is that Trump's business is successful.

    Ong thinks fitness for office is defined as how many people voted for you.
    You know, it's not like he got elected to student council, or county sheriff. He won a national election for President of the United States against another candidate who had the entire media in her camp and was expected to win in a landslide.

    You act like it's even possible that someone without the skills to be President could ever accomplish that.

    Ong also thinks annoying people on the left get too much airtime.
    He's kinda right. I mean, I'm all for free speech, but I also think people should be fired for all the gushing over Kim Jong Un's sister.

    Banana has been watching Fox News again and thinks the Mueller investigation is a sham (I presume that's where he gets the idea, I only get my FN updates second-hand from Trump's tweets).
    i've already explained in great detail -- with facts, not FN talking points -- why the results of the Meuller investigation thus far are completely hollow, meaningless, and an epic waste of taxpayer money.

    Answer this Poop: If the Meuller investigation is not a sham....why hasn't Manafort flipped?

    Edit: I almost forgot: at some point along the way, Banana and Mojo got into their umpteenth poo-flinging contest.
    In before Mojo de-rails this thread by lecturing you on how umpteenth isn't a word.

    Edit 2: Also forgot: Wuf is still waiting for Mueller to lay a surprise indictment on Hillary, Obama, and whoever else Trump doesn't like (possibly Oprah).
    Best odds are on Susan Rice

    /thread
    Typical liberal maneuver. The russia storyline isn't playing out like you liked....so let's shut down the conversation
  71. #146
    The funny thing is that even though we can't *know* that Trump is a great businessman, all of the evidence available about all businessmen strongly suggests that Trump has among the highest probability of being one of the greatest.
  72. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post


    Typical liberal maneuver. The russia storyline isn't playing out like you liked....so let's shut down the conversation
    Typical right-winger maneuver. Make assumptions about others' motives...then react to those assumptions no matter how contrived our evidence for them might be.
  73. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Typical right-winger maneuver.
    Typical idiot maneuver. Assume I'm a right winger because I reject your extreme leftism

    Make assumptions about others' motives...then react to those assumptions no matter how contrived our evidence for them might be.
    It's not an assumption, it's an obvious reality.

    All the "collusion" talking points have been thoroughly debunked at this point. So it's really not surprising that you want to pretend like you haven't been a wailing banshee about Russia now that you've been proven so hopelessly wrong.
  74. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Boost thinks Mueller is going to fuck Trump up.
    I actually don't think this. I think it's possible. I think it's fair to assume that is my stance from the OP, but I'm agnostic about whether Trump actually colluded, and I think both collusion and obstruction cases won't be terribly easy to make.

    Giving Mueller the comparison to the GOAT tv show stems from both my aesthetic read of his investigation as well as the fact that I think he may be the GOAT for the role he's in. And I don't mean that he's the best pick to bring down the president, but that he is the one person that both sides should be able to trust to do a thorough and even handed job.

    If he is exonerated, I can honestly say it will be a tough pill to swallow, but I don't have a choice. I don't have more information that Mueller has/will have. He's as reliable and unbiased a special prosecutor as anyone could have hoped for, and so I defer to his judgement.
  75. #150
    After this is all said and done, so many people are going to say they knew there was nothing on Trump.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •