Right. All these people hating on Trump aren't actually bothered by his behaviour, they just want an excuse to be screeching banshees.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Printable View
Right. All these people hating on Trump aren't actually bothered by his behaviour, they just want an excuse to be screeching banshees.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
No you don't screech, I'll give you that. Your noise isn't intolerable.
But you're on the side of the banshees.
The right has it's share of nuts too. That doesn't make you one.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah, they pretty much are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
OppositeQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yes he was. Then he failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you're suggesting that only he who is free of sin may hold elected office, you need to get woke.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
This is super fucking cool.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
*I feel like it's important to keep saying that I'm not claiming what is true, but offering plausible scenarios that leave doubt*Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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?
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).Quote:
then Trump went a step further than 50 in asserting that his relevant experience made him uniquely qualified to close such loopholes!
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.
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
^You're a better man than I boost, tremendous amounts of restrain, patience and coherent thought demonstrated ITT.
One's a boring fat fuck. The other is a funny fat fuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
The only question that needs to be asked is... is it legal? y/nQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.Quote:
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 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.
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 boost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
OMFG. Here you are shouting from the rooftops about how we need more data points. Then you get one and you're like "naaah"Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
No. I'm not. All reasonable estimates say the same thing....he's filthy fucking rich.Quote:
But let's pretend that first sentence doesn't exist-- you're not concerned with discrepancies like this?
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?Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
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.
He doesn't need to claim anything. He owns buildings worth billions. That's not even debatable. Hence, he's a billionaire.Quote:
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
Flying around in a $100M jet with your name on it helps too.
Don't be cowardly. I even used your own words when I attributed that claim to you. Own it.Quote:
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
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.Quote:
I am asserting that the best supported position on the matter is one of agnostic skepticism
thought by whom?? You keep saying this so you can cling to your precious agnosticism. It's kinda pathetic.Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
You're right, 3.5 billion is an impressive number, but it's not even a number we can be sure of.
"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"
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.Quote:
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,
Who cares?Quote:
I'm pointing out that his finances are not transparent,
btw, what does 'bluehair' mean on pansy-ball island? 'cause here in winner-town I think it means something else.
Means nothing in particular. In the context we're using it, it means the same as screeching banshee.
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.
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...
https://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/u...1117scream.jpg
She's the original screechiug banshee, this is the first person I assigned that phrase to. Indeed, she's a BHT.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Put more simply, explain how your logic does not include Bernie Madoff and Al Capone in the "fit for office" subset of the population.
"fit for office"
There's that phrase again.
What does it mean to you boost?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
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.
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'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
Boost, you are forever my boy for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Trump is noise, Mueller is quality. No overlap.
<3
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Good luck
Wut??Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
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????
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
*sigh*....be smarter.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Ok, Trump's probably isn't any different, what's your point??Quote:
Resumes are regularly embellished, but within reason
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.Quote:
To safe guard against rampant over the top embellishment which would render all resumes useless, employers do some level of follow up.
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 othermindlessagnostic drones
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.Quote:
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.
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?
I can't believe this isn't clear to youQuote:
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.
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".
Aren't you guys bored of this yet?
Kinda.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Wanna play marbles?
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
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Executive skill is one thing that applies to both jobs. So is intelligence.Quote:
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,
Are you saying that "most people" agree that Trump sucks at business??Quote:
even if most people seem to agree you suck at the other thing.
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.Quote:
Boost's argument is we can't be so sure Trump is even good at business.
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.Quote:
Banana rejects that argument because Trump seems to be very wealthy.
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.
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.Quote:
Ong thinks fitness for office is defined as how many people voted for you.
You act like it's even possible that someone without the skills to be President could ever accomplish that.
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.Quote:
Ong also thinks annoying people on the left get too much airtime.
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.Quote:
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).
Answer this Poop: If the Meuller investigation is not a sham....why hasn't Manafort flipped?
In before Mojo de-rails this thread by lecturing you on how umpteenth isn't a word.Quote:
Edit: I almost forgot: at some point along the way, Banana and Mojo got into their umpteenth poo-flinging contest.
Best odds are on Susan RiceQuote:
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).
Typical liberal maneuver. The russia storyline isn't playing out like you liked....so let's shut down the conversationQuote:
/thread
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.
Typical right-winger maneuver. Make assumptions about others' motives...then react to those assumptions no matter how contrived our evidence for them might be.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Typical idiot maneuver. Assume I'm a right winger because I reject your extreme leftismQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's not an assumption, it's an obvious reality.Quote:
Make assumptions about others' motives...then react to those assumptions no matter how contrived our evidence for them might be.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
After this is all said and done, so many people are going to say they knew there was nothing on Trump.
Agnostic?? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Can you say what facts, evidence, or even subjective observations you are using to keep an open mind toward the possibility of collusion?
Untrue. The bolded is especially erroneous.Quote:
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.
First of all, why are you not agnostic as to Meuller's investigative abilities? Why is his resume given so much credibility by you??
Moving on, out of 17 attorneys on Mueller's team, do you know how many are registered republicans?? Zero! The only suspected republican on the team is Mueller himself. He was a registered repub when he was appointed FBI director in 2001, but his current party affiliation is curiously unknown. 10 of Mueller's attorneys have made donations to democratic campaigns.
We've seen 50,000 texts from Page and Strozk, investigators on Mueller's team, that show an overwhelming bias against Trump.
Where are you getting "even handed"????
Why would that be a tough pill to swallow? Are you saying you WANT to find out that Trump made a deal with Putin? You would actually be glad to find out that the election process was so easily corrupted? You would be unhappy if you were to find out that the election was conducted fairly, honestly, and justly??Quote:
If he is exonerated, I can honestly say it will be a tough pill to swallow, but I don't have a choice
Do you really hate Trump so much that you would enjoy seeing America's faith in government catastrophically shaken just to see him resign?
Why do you have this opinion of him? What facts, logic, or even subjective observations are you using to be so non-agnostic about Mueller's biases??Quote:
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.
Mueller's life is fairly well documented, and with little controversy. If you want to open up Mueller's credentials to speculation, but insist Trump's are air tight, well, I'm not interested in a discussion that isn't being had in good faith.
That said, I do think there is an asymmetry here: Firing a law enforcement chief that was investigating your potential wrongdoing should trigger a special counsel. Sadly, because of partisanship, any special counsel that doesn't immediately announce Trump's vindication is going to be smeared by Trump supporters. This would likely have been the same thing for Hilary, had she won and fired an FBI chief that was investigating her, or Obama had this scenario played out-- the left would have smeared their investigators. What this means is that Trump supporters(in the scenario that is actually playing out) are left attacking the functionary of a safety switch in our government, whereby people who are not keen on Trump being president are given the position of defending the robust checks and balances that make our government so great.
You're giving me the power to decide which fork in the road our future history will take-- I am not assuming that power when I say one outcome will be harder to accept.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Also, you only focused on the collusion part. There's also the possibility of obstruction, and there is certainly a motive to obstruct even if innocent of the specific crime of collusion.
I could flip the question on you-- I assume it would be a tough pill for you to swallow if Trump was impeached because of Russiagate. Does that mean that you'd prefer Russia to get away with colluding with candidates seeking elected office in our country and/or that a precedent is set so that any future president can obstruct justice if it suits their interests? No, it would be a tough pill for you to swallow because you don't currently think he is guilty and you'd either have to refuse to accept it or have your worldview shaken the fuck up.
HandwavingQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Nah, I think a ton of people will be in denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But what do you think will happen if the outcome goes the other way?
And while we're speculating-- I think one of the most dangerous outcomes could be Mueller serving up a nothingburger, Dems sweeping both houses and impeaching. I think the chances of this are quite slim, but ho-lee-shit that would be chaos.
It is you who are violating good faith my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
If Mueller's skills as an investigator are air-tight, then how are Trump's skills as an executive open to speculation? What's different about the evidence supporting the two?
Firing Comey does more to suggest Trump's innocence than it does his guilt.Quote:
That said, I do think there is an asymmetry here: Firing a law enforcement chief that was investigating your potential wrongdoing should trigger a special counsel.
If Trump were guilty, why would he fire Comey? Does he think it will stop the investigation? Does he not realize that the optics would be horrendous? What's the upside here? I simply won't believe that Trump is that stupid and reckless. Honestly the idea is insulting to intelligence.
However, if Trump is innocent, then he KNOWS better than anyone, that any investigation would be fruitless. So he sees Comey investigating a fantasy for which there is no evidence. If you are Trump, and you are innocent, then you can say definitively that no evidence exists. So if Comey is investigating....he's either grossly incompetent, or politically biased. Either way, he has to go. Optics be damned.
Stop using words like "smeared". I've cited objective facts about Mueller's team. No one planted 50,000 texts between Page and Strozk showing powerful bias against Trump. No one is smearing Mueller because of that. I'm just asking why that doesn't compel you to be at least agnostic about the 'even-handedness' of the investigation?Quote:
Sadly, because of partisanship, any special counsel that doesn't immediately announce Trump's vindication is going to be smeared by Trump supporters.
Comey was investigating Hillary. He was the devil then. The fact that he's now the left's favorite martyr should demonstrate to you how hypocritical and fraudulent they are.Quote:
This would likely have been the same thing for Hilary, had she won and fired an FBI chief that was investigating her, or Obama had this scenario played out-- the left would have smeared their investigators.
More pollyanna junk. I'm starting to suspect that you're Monkey's alt.Quote:
What this means is that Trump supporters(in the scenario that is actually playing out) are left attacking the functionary of a safety switch in our government, whereby people who are not keen on Trump being president are given the position of defending the robust checks and balances that make our government so great.
If you're just gonna trust every government and law enforcement function to not be biased or corrupted, then it's hard to have a serious debate with you. No one is attacking Mueller's integrity and certainly no one is trying to attack a fair application of due process. So just cool it with the strawmen, ok?
Objective facts cited above appear to show a strong political bias withing the ranks of Mueller's team. It is absolutely fair and correct to ask questions about that. It's not smearing. It's not an attack. It's the JOB of a free press to ask those questions. It's a good thing irony isn't lethal. Because it's insane to me that you have a problem with a press that questions the government while simultaneously playing a violin for our "robust checks and balances".
Obstruction requires intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
If Trump is innocent, and was never trying to cover up a crime, then you're a little thin on motive.
Furthermore.....you'll never prove intent.
Do you really think there's a tweet or a document, or a witness that proves Trump was completely oblivious to the bad job Comey was doing, the fact that public's confidence in Comey was dog crap, and the documented recommendations of a notably non-partisan Assistant Attorney General....and that he ONLY did it to try and stop the Russia investigation....even though even a kindergartener knows that firing Comey wouldn't actually stop the investigation. Jeeeeezus.
That's such a loaded question.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
And that's not a good "flip". The two are not analogous.
You're presenting two options A) Trump is guilty and punished or B) Trump is guilty and not punished.
I'm presenting two options A) Trump is guilty and punished or B) Trump is not guilty and everyone is reassured that despite their best efforts a foreign power did not affect the outcome of the election.
see the difference?
I'm not cherry picking evidence is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
That too.Quote:
Nah, I think a ton of people will be in denial.
I'd become afraid of gravity disappearing and the periodic table turning into a duck.Quote:
But what do you think will happen if the outcome goes the other way?
But if it really did happen, like seriously legit happened, I would laugh so fucking hard because it would mean Trump made the biggest blunder in the history of blunders AND that CNN/Democrats/etc. threw a dart blindfolded off a windy cliff and it landed on the half-inch bullseye two miles down.
At worst, Trump hired Mueller to give the media a goose to chase. At best he hired Mueller (the day after he interviewed him) to give the investigation into Obama administration crimes the kind of credibility it needs. Given that Trump has clearance on everything, his Mueller hire came with eyes wide open.
I think the most absurd part of the collusion story is the scale.
Trump and Clinton spend $80 million dollars on campaign advertising.
The 13 russians indicted by Mueller for meddling spent $41,000
The most absurd part of it? Now that's something to ponder.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Could it be that the story was created by the media under the most suspicious circumstances and used evidence that was later shown fake and with some key opposition hands on it?
Or could it be that there literally is no accusation of crime?
Or could it be that the guy who is supposedly going to take down Trump was hired by Trump for the purpose of "taking down Trump"? That one's a doozy.
Steele dossier!!Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Wait, so you think Trump picked Mueller? So you think that there is no functional check on a president dismissing his investigators?
Man, these movies really have diverged.
Banana,
Obstruction does not require guilt of the underlying crime. This must be so, because justice must be satisfied. There are lots of reasons to try to derail and investigation when you're innocent of the underlying crime.
Did you even read what I wrote?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Obstruction requires INTENT. I never said it requires guilt of an underlying crime.
Intent is extraordinarily difficult to prove, even with guilt of an underlying crime. Without it, proving intent is virtually impossible.
Furthermore, there are already enough known facts to raise 'reasonable doubt' regarding any accusations about Trump's intent.
An obstruction charge, is a complete fantasy.
Also, it wouldn't matter. Despite what CNN's crackpot legal team tells you, a sitting president cannot be criminally charged. Period.
And even if they're right, and a President can be charged....Mueller can't do it. He's bound by the DOJ rules governing special counsel, and those rules say that a sitting president cannot be charged.
Ha, got me!
Yeah, sometimes I just don't have it in me to suffer through your posts. You make some good points though. I guess we can argue our different narratives endlessly, or we can just see how it all plays out.
I get it. Learning is hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
This agnosticism is a major problem in this country.Quote:
I guess we can argue our different narratives endlessly, or we can just see how it all plays out.
It's absolutely not ok to launch an investigation based on a wish by stunned and outraged election losers. It's not ok to piss away millions in taxpayer dollars on a hunch with no evidence. It's not ok for an opposition party to keep demanding answers to unreasonable and unsubstantiated questions just so they can drag out an investigation into the next election season. It's not ok to allow Russia's campaign of "sowing discord" to be so successful while simultaneously expressing outrage over it.
If you care about justice, fairness, factual accounts, fair elections, or common sense, then you should be pretty disappointed, or even outraged, at the futility and absurdity of Mueller's investigation.
Saying "well let's see how it goes", makes you part of the problem.
Trump is the boss of Mueller's boss's boss, and that Mueller was hired the day after Trump interviewed him. Given this and including the nature of the positions, it is extremely likely that Trump wanted Mueller for this position.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Regarding the check, if you're barking up the wrong tree looking for a check then yeah you're not gonna find it. An employee of the chief executive is hardly a check on that executive. There are plenty of other functional checks on the executive. For any check to be functional, it requires evidence of crime in the first place. Which there is not in this case. If there was evidence of crime, the executive branch might be a functional check on the executive even if it's on the personnel's boss.
Banana, your last post is really good, and I think it makes total sense once you accept a handful of things as fact. But that's the problem to all of this, that's why the same audience/different movies analogy is so good-- I think we disagree on some fundamental points, and all the rest of our disagreements follow.
This means that there are a countless points which I think my position is obvious and you think it is absurd, and vice versa. We end up thinking the other is complacent in the downfall of the nation.
It's an ugly place to be. Fascinating, but ugly.
On the bright side, despite all of this, I don't think there is actually any real ill will between us-- certainly not from my side. That's gotta be worth something, right?
See above post.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
they all areQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
You mean facts??Quote:
and I think it makes total sense once you accept a handful of things as fact.
Well somewhere among those different movies is "the right one". I just don't think it's that hard to find if you follow the facts and logic. For example, you seem to believe that Trump fired Comey for nefarious reasons. I wonder what facts and logic you've followed to reach that conclusion.Quote:
But that's the problem to all of this, that's why the same audience/different movies analogy is so good-- I think we disagree on some fundamental points, and all the rest of our disagreements follow.
Let's start with one of the foundational pillars of American justice: Innocent until proven guilty You've completely abandoned that. It's ok to bend the rules sometimes. Like, OJ did it. But you've taken it too far this time. Of many possible explanations, you've laser-focused on the worst one, and ignored all others with no evidenciary basis for doing so.
In order to do that, you need to completely ignore the fact that there is absolutely no plausible scenario where Trump would think that he could squash the Russia investigation by firing Comey. He would surely have known that firing the FBI chief doesn't close active investigations. What logic, or fact, are you using as a basis to ignore this? I can't see how you can consider this and not reject your conclusion.
You also seem to be touting Mueller's "even-handedness". I've asked several times now for you to provide some fact, or logic that makes you believe that. I've cited known, objective facts about members of his team that raise legitimate questions about their ability to be unbiased. Yet you seem to think that challenges to the integrity of that team represent an attempt to undermine checks and balances. in order to reach that conclusion, you have to ignore the objective fact that freedom of the press exists to ensure that those questions will be asked.
Finding "the right movie" isnt that hard. Just ZOOM OUT, take in the whole pictures, and sort things out. If you don't have enough information, remain agnostic. But even then, you usually have enough information to rule out the implausible.
Right. That's what happens when you focus in on "points". ZOOM OUTQuote:
This means that there are a countless points which I think my position is obvious and you think it is absurd, and vice versa.
You've put words in my mouth here. I said you're part of a major problem. You said I'm undermining checks and balances. You don't have to zoom out very much to see "the right movie" here. Your claim of an attack on checks and balances is based on your own perceptions and interpretations. The counter argument, freedom of the press, is something that is explicitly codified into law. Please tell me you see the difference. Please tell me that you understand that challenging the partisan-ship of Mueller's team based on known information is fair and just. Lead investigators on the team exchanged 50,000 texts illustrating not just bias, but animosity, toward Trump. Surely you understand why the public is owed an explanation.Quote:
We end up thinking the other is complacent in the downfall of the nation
Well, you might be comforted to know that zooming out doesn't help. When you see the whole picture, and see what REALLY happened (Obama-Clinton corruption) it's even uglier.Quote:
It's an ugly place to be. Fascinating, but ugly
I don't have any ill will towards anyone here. I have ill will towards insanity, absurdity, ignorance, falsehood, and failings of logic. When I see these things, I call them out. I react, I believe, with commensurate intensity. I exercise restraint with you because I realize that you've simply failed to zoom out, and the positions you hold are symptoms of that. Yours is a problem of missing facts that can be rectified. When Poopadoop refutes medical results administered by a highly respected, experienced, and credentialed professional, that's not a problem that can be solved with education. That's irrational, donkey-brained, bat-shit insanity. And it requires a different response.Quote:
On the bright side, despite all of this, I don't think there is actually any real ill will between us-- certainly not from my side. That's gotta be worth something, right?
Hypothetically, what would convince you that Trump isn't a benevolent 3d-chess playing genius business god? Indictment? Tax returns? IQ test result? Admission on his death bed?
See, I get the feeling nothing would. You NEED to believe, or your world would break. And yes, there are surely symptoms of the same on the "other" side, but no, it isn't exactly the same. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and a claim that somebody, anybody, is a benevolent 3d-chess playing genius business god, especially while talking, acting and having the background of allegations as he does, definitely qualifies as extraordinary.
The problem for the pro-Trump side of the debate is, that he can certainly be a successful businessman with above average intellect, and all the criticisms against him can still be valid. On the other hand, to believe all his moves are part of a grand scheme, where he's quietly puppet-mastering everything behind the facade knowing wtf he's doing, requires him to be all that. Occam's razor, folks.
What would convince me then? Evidence. Not anecdotal, not circular logic, the hard kind. Let's hear him, just once or twice say something smart unscripted, surely he must be capable of that. Lay out his plans or opinions regarding some issue, that clearly demonstrates deep understanding. Show his tax records for the past years, if he's been steadily successful I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not think he's in it just as a publicity stunt to boost his businesses.
Oh and a bit more on-topic, the investigation, no matter how it ends up, is likely not gonna convince a lot of people one way or the other. If he's found guilty of obstruction or meddling, I'm sure it's just because the deep state together with Obama and the moon nazis framed him. If nothing is found, Mueller must have been coerced by Putin or maybe even working for him.
Trump definitely qualifies as extraordinary.
Is Trump doing anything to stop Russian interference in the midterms? Is he punishing Russia in any way for its interference in 2016?
All i remember him saying last year was he asked Putin about it and Putin said he didn't do it, and Trump seemed happy with that.
You're putting words in my mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
You WISH this was true.Quote:
See, I get the feeling nothing would. You NEED to believe, or your world would break
Right, the claims against Trump lack credibility in the form of evidence.Quote:
And yes, there are surely symptoms of the same on the "other" side, but no, it isn't exactly the same.
A presidential candidate striking a clandestine arrangement with a foreign power to subvert the interests of the United States for something as trivial as hacked emials...is an EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM. Where's the proof?Quote:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof,
Again, you're attributing statements to me that I've never made. You've chosen an ridiculous, caricaturized version of my position in order to attack it as ridiculous.Quote:
and a claim that somebody, anybody, is a benevolent 3d-chess playing genius business god, especially while talking, acting and having the background of allegations as he does, definitely qualifies as extraordinary.
Are you high?? He can't be successful with above average intellect, AND be a "babbling idiot"Quote:
The problem for the pro-Trump side of the debate is, that he can certainly be a successful businessman with above average intellect, and all the criticisms against him can still be valid.
Do you have a quote? A link? A citation? Anything to suggest that this is the belief I've expressed??Quote:
On the other hand, to believe all his moves are part of a grand scheme, where he's quietly puppet-mastering everything behind the facade knowing wtf he's doing, requires him to be all that.
Ironic and hypocritical.Quote:
What would convince me then? Evidence. Not anecdotal, not circular logic, the hard kind.
Did you see him at CPAC?Quote:
Let's hear him, just once or twice say something smart unscripted, surely he must be capable of that.
Has he not done this? Do you really feel like you don't know Trump's position on some key policy issue??Quote:
Lay out his plans or opinions regarding some issue, that clearly demonstrates deep understanding.
You've accused me, falsely, of being un-convincable and incapable of having a negative opinion of Trump. The same logic applies to his detractors and his tax returns. There is no plausible way where Trump could release tax returns, even perfectly legal ones, and not be shit on. Rachel Maddow can demonstrate this for you.Quote:
Show his tax records for the past years, if he's been steadily successful
at least that's sensible. The notion that a man who is already a wildly successful billionaire would endure the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President, just to give himself a little tax break, is insaneQuote:
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and not think he's in it just as a publicity stunt to boost his businesses.
Why does he have to do anything? Congress passed tough sanctions with veto-proof majorities. All Trump had to do was sign it. Easy game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The left will tell you how tough Obama was on Russia after he passed sanctions and expelled 35 diplomats in response to the revelations of election meddling. But what they won't tell you is how empty and feckless that move was. We're not about to end diplomatic relations with Russia, so those 35 people will just be replaced with absolutely no assurance that they're any better than the people before.
Trump approved arms sales to Ukraine, and has launched cruise missile attacks against Russia's ally.
These moves aren't necessarily in response to election meddling, but it clearly shows that Trump and Putin aren't friends.
It makes claims of collusion laughable. If Russia sought favorable treatment, they got FUCKED. If they actually sought to "sow discord", as every investigative body has concluded, then the longer this goes on, the more successful they've been.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought that's ok since you keep doing it yourself. In what way does that mischaracterize your position?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No I don't, why would I.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I believe that's the point of the investigation this thread is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Which part do you think is ridiculous? That he is benevolent? That he plays "3D chess", as in manipulates his adversaries and the public by anticipating their moves and being constantly a step ahead? That he is exceptionally intelligent? That he is exceptionally successful in business? I thought those were exactly your position.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No I am not. Are you retarded?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not gonna start going through your posts to tell you what you've said. If you're saying you don't think he knows wtf he's doing, the way he's portraying himself isn't just a facade and he doesn't have a clear plan, I'll apologize and agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ironic definitely, but I don't see any hypocrisy on my part.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No. Was it unscripted/unrehearsed? Is that the only instance you can point at from his life of 70 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, he hasn't. Having a position doesn't equal deep understanding, in fact most of his positions, at least on the surface, demonstrate a lack of understanding to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I was talking about what would convince me, Maddow or anyone else is not relevant. I also acknowledged right from the start, that the same symptoms can be seen on anti-Trumps. But, I went further and said these aren't 1:1 comparable, since one stance requires a more extraordinary premise to be possible. And I do hate reiterating myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You do see the circular logic here which presupposes that he was already swimming in money and had no incentive to get more? I don't know of many millionaires or billionaires who come to suddenly think ok that's it, I don't need to amass any more wealth, so even if he truly were a net billionaire that wouldn't mean he doesn't have an incentive to acquire more. All of the information seems to point that his campaign and his presidency have been very lucrative for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://www.economist.com/news/busin...ump-monetising
So what do you think then, he's enduring the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President, just to selflessly MAGA? Perfectly befitting of his character, right? Is that what you keep repeating in bed at night to be able to sleep? You see, If I turn out to be wrong about Trump I'll shrug my shoulders and go hmmh, how about that? If on the other you're wrong, maaaan. That's gonna leave a mark.
Stay tuned, we'll get to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
So the baseless and insulting accusations that you've leveled would be credible.Quote:
No I don't, why would I.
Why does the investigation exist?Quote:
I believe that's the point of the investigation this thread is about.
Now we'll answer your first question about how you've mis-characterized my statements.Quote:
Which part do you think is ridiculous?
That's not a word I've ever used. But sure, I'd say Trump means well.Quote:
That he is benevolent?
More words in my mouth. You won't find any of my posts using the phrase "3D-chess". You wont' find me claiming that Trump's gaffes are really strategic plays in disguise.Quote:
That he plays "3D chess", as in manipulates his adversaries and the public by anticipating their moves and being constantly a step ahead?
Yes, and those positions are supported by facts.Quote:
That he is exceptionally intelligent? That he is exceptionally successful in business? I thought those were exactly your position.
The position that you seem to have ridiculously attributed to me is one of constant, blind, unthinking Trump-apologism. You seem to be claiming that I will blindly accept any Trump policy (which is demonstrably untrue), or that I will confirmation-bias myself into believing everything he does is genius (also patently false).
I think most of Trump's policies are good. I think Trump has extremely potent executive skills. I believe he possesses incredible intellect; assuming we define intellect correctly as simply "the ability to acquire skills and knowledge". I see that some people here insist on slicing and dicing that definition into "business intelligence" and "political intelligence" and umpteen other categories just so they can cherry pick which kinds of intelligence are important. Just because I think that's a totally retarded thought process, doesn't mean that I espouse the extreme opposite thinking of worshiping Trump as some kind of infallible genius.
It's one or the other. You say that someone who you admit is intelligent can be validly criticized for being unintelligent. That's either the misguided ramblings of a drug-induced stupor. Or I'm retarded for not understanding how a lifetime of demonstrated success doesn't prove that you're successful.Quote:
No I am not. Are you retarded?
I think he knows wtf he is doing. I'm basing that opinion on his lifetime of business success, his incredible campaign victory, and a year+ of favorable results as this country's Chief Executive. If you would like to claim that he doesn't know wtf he's doing, feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.Quote:
I'm not gonna start going through your posts to tell you what you've said. If you're saying you don't think he knows wtf he's doing, the way he's portraying himself isn't just a facade and he doesn't have a clear plan, I'll apologize and agree.
I don't think he's portraying himself disingenuously. I don't believe he's even capable of creating a facade. I believe he expresses his true opinions, and doesn't apologize for them. His statements and behavior reflect his beliefs. There are exceptions. For example, I believe he's pandering when he says he's pro-life. But that's hardly enough describe his character as "a facade". If you would like to claim that he's a complete phony, then feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.
And I do think he has a clear plan. He wants low taxes. He wants America-first trade policies. He wants a wall. He wants tough stances on Iran and NoKo. He wants to stop terrorists. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. The guy talks into cameras and tweets constantly. Are you really saying you don't know his positions on key policy issues? If you would like to claim that he hasn't been clear on a particular issue or initiative, then feel free to provide some facts, evidence, or solid logic to support that claim.
Really? You claimed that you are only convinced of things through evidence. Yet every one of your positions seems to eschew known facts. What do you think hypocrisy means?Quote:
Ironic definitely, but I don't see any hypocrisy on my part.
Of course it's not the only instance. That's just the best example from the last few days. And alot of it was unscripted. Honestly dude, you gotta understand that CNN is NEVER EVER EVER going to come on and say "President Trump gave a very coherent and charismatic speech today". But that doesn't mean that he's actually never been coherent and charismatic.Quote:
No. Was it unscripted/unrehearsed? Is that the only instance you can point at from his life of 70 years?
More vague claims totally unsubstantiated with evidence, logic, or even an anecdote. Cmon man. What you really mean to say here is that you disagree with Trump on these issues. Step out of your own echo chamber and maybe you'll realize that people with different opinions ALSO understand issues.Quote:
No, he hasn't. Having a position doesn't equal deep understanding, in fact most of his positions, at least on the surface, demonstrate a lack of understanding to me.
Maddow has Trump's tax return. She put it on TV. It shows that he made money, and that he paid taxes. Why are you not convinced?Quote:
I was talking about what would convince me, Maddow or anyone else is not relevant.
Jesus man...what happened to 'occam's razor'??Quote:
I also acknowledged right from the start, that the same symptoms can be seen on anti-Trumps. But, I went further and said these aren't 1:1 comparable, since one stance requires a more extraordinary premise to be possible. And I do hate reiterating myself.
A successful business man becoming successful in politics is a MORE extraordinary premise than an incompetent, corrupt, uninformed, racist, sexist, xenophobic, fascist being successful at anything??? Is that really what you're saying here? I'll ask again. ARE YOU HIGH??
You're definitely high. Do you really think that Trump doesn't have umpteen better ways to make money than by becoming President??Quote:
You do see the circular logic here which presupposes that he was already swimming in money and had no incentive to get more?
Are you kidding me? This happens ALL THE TIME. One obvious example is that lottery winners inevitably stop playing the lottery after they win. A more practical example is when people refuse to invest in growth because they are averse to the risk. I once worked for a small company, owned by a millionaire, who told me point blank "this is it. I'm not growing the company any more. It makes enough money for me to be happy, and I'm not taking any extra risks with expansion." He decided he'd been 'successful enough'. So it's totally plausible that a 70 year old billionaire just doesn't' see the need to invest in new real-estate, or start new ventures, in order to support his lifestyle. At some point you can't spend the incremental money you make. So the incentive is lost.Quote:
I don't know of many millionaires or billionaires who come to suddenly think ok that's it, I don't need to amass any more wealth
This is pure insanity. As I said, Trump has umpteen better ways to make money. He didn't have to become president just to sell a few more hotel rooms. Jeeeeeezus.Quote:
, so even if he truly were a net billionaire that wouldn't mean he doesn't have an incentive to acquire more. All of the information seems to point that his campaign and his presidency have been very lucrative for him.
I wouldn't call it 'selfless'. I think he's a patriot. I think he believes that he has all the skills and ideas necessary to be a strong leader for the country. But like anyone who ascends to that position, personal ambition has a lot do with it too.Quote:
So what do you think then, he's enduring the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President, just to selflessly MAGA?
Again, you seem to have marked me as some kind of out of control Trump fan-boy who recites brainwashing mantras in his sleep. I don't know where you got that idea. Yes I support Trump alot on these boards, but I'm quite sure that I've explained what evidence, facts, and logic I am using to reach those positions. If the evidence, facts, or logic changes, then so will my position.Quote:
Perfectly befitting of his character, right? Is that what you keep repeating in bed at night to be able to sleep? You see, If I turn out to be wrong about Trump I'll shrug my shoulders and go hmmh, how about that? If on the other you're wrong, maaaan. That's gonna leave a mark.
What I will not do is espouse a position, or even remain agnostic in a way that defies the known, objectively true facts.
My reaction to being wrong would be similar to yours. I truly do not understand how you have possibly mistaken me as someone who would lose their minds at an unfavorable political outcome. But just so you're educated for the future....this is what those people look like:
https://www.mercurynews.com/wp-conte...4292.jpg?w=525
Can't be bothered to sit through his whole schtick at CPAC. Just looks like more of his old campaign demagoguery to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLr8Vic1mas
Not sure how 'coherent' that is. Though I'll grant he's charismatic I don't see that as necessarily a virtue for a president.
There's plenty of examples of him being completely incoherent if not off his rocker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXVaIMERRbU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pxyMjSV6vg
There's gotta be about 100 other examples out there, it's not like it's hard to find them.
Almost forgot my favourite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULu9UCXDThA
What a fucking idiot.
blooper reels are hardly definitive.
Find some reels where he's speaking intelligently so we can compare.
Right, you just like the blooper reel because that's the only thing that's allowed inside your liberal echo chamberQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Wrong. But I'm actually glad liberals think this. Keep thinking it.Quote:
Just looks like more of his old campaign demagoguery to me.
CPAC is for the conservative conservatives. It's the wing of the party that likes to lick Mitt Romney's balls. Trump was deemed "too controversial" for this event in 2016. Now he fucking owns these people. That should scare the boogers out of any democrat planning to run in 2020.
Here on planet earth, charisma is almost always a requisite for leadership.Quote:
Not sure how 'coherent' that is. Though I'll grant he's charismatic I don't see that as necessarily a virtue for a president.
Why? You wont watch. You'll just say something like...Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Can't be bothered to sit through his whole schtick at CPAC.
1/4Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ok, 1/4Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
3/4. So 3 of the 4 key elements I said were spot on, where is the ridiculous caricature you were talking about a second ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Fine, so I guess you're only 75% a blind, unthinking Trump-apologist.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This may be news to you, but there are numerous different modalities of intelligence. Emotional intelligence (inter and intrapersonal), for example, is the one that has a high correlation with business success.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Speaking of putting words in mouths, wanna point where I say that?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Everything he says and how he acts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I agree, including the exceptions. Exceptions though kinda nullify the rule, not make it. I don't think he's knowingly dumbing down his vocabulary or presenting himself as goofy or aloof, I trust that to be largely his real persona. He's probably no more phony than most career politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
This is why it's so frustrating talking to you. You do 2 things in every conversation, assume what opinions everyone else holds, and spit your paci out of the pram complaining how others do that to you. But please, go ahead, what are my positions?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not looking for CNN's opinion on what is charismatic or coherent, I'm asking you where he has said something that shows he's intelligent, where it's not a speech written by someone else. For the most successful businessman who's been winning in everything for decades, it shouldn't be that hard, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You asked if I haven't seen convincing policy plans from him, which I haven't. Now you want me to show proof for my opinions? I do disagree with him with many of his policies, but that's beside the point. You forget or do not realize that most of his policies or political stances have zero effect on me on a practical level. I'm not invested in them, or against them. I'm not the one shitting my pants about them coming for my guns or my job or stealing my taxes. If "holy shit, that stupid douche is actually being voted in by a bunch of stupid douches, lol they're so screwed" is an echo chamber, then yeah, I guess I'm in it. Or could be that you're in one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Maddow released his form 1040 (his personal taxes, nothing to do with his companies) from 2005. That alone does not tell anything, why on earth should I be convinced?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No I'm not, and I'll ask you again, are you retarded?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sociopathic tendencies are vastly over-represented in executive positions in business, there would be nothing extraordinary about that. Likely his largest business successes have been being born into a rich family and carrying on the family real estate business. Being elected the POTUS carries no formal requirements, he doesn't need to have a certain level of education or experience, doesn't need to pass an entrance exam or aptitude test, all he needs to do is be charismatic and strike the right chords in a large enough part of the population. He managed to do that largely due to timing, since a lot of poor white folks were disenchanted due to the 2008 recession, manufacturing jobs being either eliminated or outsourced, a black guy being the president, LGBTQetc and women's rights being front and center in the discourse. The seeds of what happened were really sown by the tea party movement.
Are you really that stupid? Who wouldn't want to be the one who decides the rules of the game? He can both leverage massively favorable foreign deals in his position and directly cut his own taxes. Like wtf would be the umpteen better ways? You didn't read the Economist article I linked, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lottery winners aren't businessmen most of the time, I'd wager. I would have used maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as examples, but the undeniable point is, that the vast majority of businesses never decide they have enough money. Your claim was that because he's successful he wouldn't have incentive to gain more, which is demonstrably and obviously utter rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
There there, wipe the foam off your cheeks so we can continue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I would characterize him as the exact opposite of selfless.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But that's the thing, most of what I've seen have been anecdotal evidence, questionable facts and circular logic, which require the viewer to be watching the same movie for them to make sense. What is abundantly clear though, is that you have zero intention or will to learn anything or challenge your base beliefs in any way, since all critique or opposing views just end up being spat on and ridiculed. If I were looking for that I'd go to places where stupid people go.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I have a hard time believing that just based on the amount of caps in all of your posts on these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Yeah it'd be much better if they looked like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uQMp3kbFpNc/maxresdefault.jpg
On a serious note about your photo, what's wrong with them? Hell I wish there was an issue that got young people here out on the streets, at least they give a shit.
This is like two people arguing about which are better... dogs or cats.
One argues that cats are better, because dogs are disgusting. They eat their own shit and bark at their own farts. The other argues that despite these faults, dogs are better because they are practical and good companions, while cats are useless and aloof.
Of course, dogs are better and anyone who argues for cats is a cunt. But as far as the cat cunt is concerned, he or she (usually she) is correct, because it's subjective and you're always right when you're talking about your own fucking opinion.
You know what's wrong with this site these days? banana is owning everyone he argues with. People either get butthurt, or refuse to acknowledge when he's right, which is usually (but not always).
This is desperate, petty, and is everything that's wrong with political debate these days. If you acknowledge Trump's success, you're an apologist. We're back to "literally Hitler". Why does anyone need to apologise for Trump? Because he's goofy and he doesn't have quite the grasp of language that spoon has?Quote:
Originally Posted by cocco
If he ends up interning a load of foreigners and gassing them, then yeah people will need to start apologising for supporting him. Until then, he's just unorthadox. That's not a crime.
Nothing, if they are protesting against living in a democracy. Fair play to them if they're prepared to get off their asses and fight for a system in which they can pick and choose who their president is regardless of the outcome of an election.Quote:
On a serious note about your photo, what's wrong with them? Hell I wish there was an issue that got young people here out on the streets, at least they give a shit.
I just want to be clear I'm not calling anyone in this thread a cunt.
Not unless you like cats more than dogs.
That wasn't a thinly veiled "left vs right" analogy, not directly. I just genuinely think there's something wrong with people who prefer cats to dogs.
No, actually I'd say "Holy shit he actually made sense for once."Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But you won't show it 'cause it doesn't exist. The clips from CPAC or (insert any other time he's gone off prompter) are all the same repeated catch phrases from his campaign. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not intelligent discourse, it's rabble rousing.
I explained that in vivid detail. If you're going to choose to ignore certain information that doesn't fit your argument....well then I can see why you're wrong so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
A completely baseless and incendiary accusation. Does that make you feel better to say that? Do you feel like a big boy now?Quote:
Fine, so I guess you're only 75% a blind, unthinking Trump-apologist.
It's not news to me. What also shouldn't be news is that i flat out refuse to go down that rabbit hole. I'm defining intelligence as "the ability to acquire skills and knowledge". In that regard, Trump has an extremely high aptitude. There's no plausible way he could be where he is, if he didn't possess an extremely high level of intelligence.Quote:
This may be news to you, but there are numerous different modalities of intelligence. Emotional intelligence (inter and intrapersonal), for example, is the one that has a high correlation with business success.
Furthermore, he can push a button on his desk and, within seconds, have a dozen experts on any subject ready to educate him on anything he could ever need or want to know. In that context, he's the smartest person on the planet.
Right hereQuote:
Speaking of putting words in mouths, wanna point where I say that?
SeeQuote:
The problem for the pro-Trump side of the debate is, that he can certainly be a successful businessman with above average intellect, and all the criticisms against him can still be valid.
That's a pathetic dodge. You're accusing an extraordinarily successful person who currently holds the highest office on earth of "not knowing what he's doing". When asked to substantiate that argument in even the slightest way, your answer is "duh, everything". Let me know when you want to have an adult conversation.Quote:
Everything he says and how he acts.
I don't believe I've made any assumptions. I've responded to your own words in explicit detail.Quote:
This is why it's so frustrating talking to you. You do 2 things in every conversation, assume what opinions everyone else holds, and spit your paci out of the pram complaining how others do that to you.
You summed it up pretty well in the last paragraph of post #173. You believe that Trump is incompetent as a politician, lacks understanding of the issues, communicates poorly, and that his communication skills demonstrate below average cognition. You believe all this despite his status as the living icon of business success and his rising to a political office that's only ever been held by 45 men in the entirety of history. And when challenged on WHY you think this...your response thus far has been "duh everything". And you've defended this position by denigrating and disparaging any other opposing view as symptomatic of being a blind, unthinking, Trump-apologist.Quote:
But please, go ahead, what are my positions?
Again, his CPAC speech from just this week is a prime example of exactly what you're looking for. It's been mentioned a half dozen times now, and you're still acting like the question hasn't been answered.Quote:
I'm not looking for CNN's opinion on what is charismatic or coherent, I'm asking you where he has said something that shows he's intelligent, where it's not a speech written by someone else. For the most successful businessman who's been winning in everything for decades, it shouldn't be that hard, right?
Incorrect. You just disagree with his policy plans, so you find them unconvincing. This is symptomatic of someone who is stuck in an echo chamber.Quote:
You asked if I haven't seen convincing policy plans from him, which I haven't.
No, that pretty much IS your point. And if you were just honest about that, it would be harder to criticize you. Instead you've decided that anyone who disagrees with you is an unthinking, blind, Trump fan-boy.Quote:
Now you want me to show proof for my opinions? I do disagree with him with many of his policies, but that's beside the point
The fact that your thinking starts with the premise that he's "a stupid douche" pretty much PROVES the existence of your echo chamber.Quote:
If "holy shit, that stupid douche is actually being voted in by a bunch of stupid douches, lol they're so screwed" is an echo chamber, then yeah, I guess I'm in it.
You're not even paying attention. You just hear what you want to hear.Quote:
Maddow released his form 1040 (his personal taxes, nothing to do with his companies) from 2005. That alone does not tell anything, why on earth should I be convinced?
Two pages of a tax return should not convince you of much. Though, in the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, it's pretty compelling. More importantly though, the reaction to those two pages should convince you that there is absolutely ZERO upside for Trump to release his tax return. He has absolutely nothing to gain. So criticizing Trump for not releasing his returns, is a demonstration of ignorance.
So why are we talking about it? It feels like you're equating sociopathy with corruption, ignorance, racism, sexism, and all that other stuff I listed. That's just wrong.Quote:
Sociopathic tendencies are vastly over-represented in executive positions in business, there would be nothing extraordinary about that.
Dude.....even the most generous estimates of Trump's 'head start' are no higher than $200 million. He's currently worth 20x to 50x that. The rate of return he would have to earn in order to achieve even the most conservative estimates of his net worth is absolutely phenomenal. Your claim is absurd. The math simply doesn't work.Quote:
Likely his largest business successes have been being born into a rich family and carrying on the family real estate business.
this is yet another example of you discounting Trump's abilities, in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, just to feed your own echo chamber. Snap out of it!!
Are you kidding me?? What do you call having every media outlet in the known universe crawl up your ass for a year and half during a presidential campaign?? YOu make it sound like he just filled out a form and kept his fingers crossed.Quote:
Being elected the POTUS carries no formal requirements, he doesn't need to have a certain level of education or experience, doesn't need to pass an entrance exam or aptitude test,
Huh? You do realize that 17 other people ran at the exact same time, on the exact same platform of lowering taxes, fixing healthcare, and killing terrorists. Right?Quote:
all he needs to do is be charismatic and strike the right chords in a large enough part of the population. He managed to do that largely due to timing
I'll cut you some slack on this next one because you're stuck way out there in some shit-hole country that doesn't matter. So maybe you're not keeping your finger on the pulse of american culture. I'm just gonna fix your post here.....
There, that's better.Quote:
since a lot ofpoor white folksovertaxed and socially vilified middle class citizens were disenchanted due tothe 2008 recession, manufacturing jobs being either eliminated or outsourced, a black guy being the president, LGBTQetc and women's rights being front and center in the discourseProgressive policies that stifled the economy and divided our culture.
because he was doing just fine, better even, with the old rules. There's maybe a .0000000367% chance I could buy into this line of thinking if Trump was like....45 years old. But he's not. He's not going to live very long after he's President. Why try and fuck with the game if you're never going to get to play again??Quote:
Are you really that stupid? Who wouldn't want to be the one who decides the rules of the game?
No, my claim was that his personal motivation is diminished by the fact that he has no practical way to enjoy further gains other than the satisfaction of the achievement itself. If someone is extraordinarily driven, and reaches that point, they diversify and seek new challenges in other arenas.....like politics.Quote:
Lottery winners aren't businessmen most of the time, I'd wager. I would have used maybe Bill Gates and Warren Buffett as examples, but the undeniable point is, that the vast majority of businesses never decide they have enough money. Your claim was that because he's successful he wouldn't have incentive to gain more, which is demonstrably and obviously utter rubbish.
So you're not denying that your position is that Trump went to all the trouble, stress, and triple-digit million dollar expense just so he could sell hotel rooms to secret service agents and foreign entourages.Quote:
There there, wipe the foam off your cheeks so we can continue.
How many charitable foundations are named after you Sir?Quote:
I would characterize him as the exact opposite of selfless.
I feel like I've cited extensive facts that are NOT questionable or anecdotal. If you dont' understand them, just ask, and I'll be glad to clarify.Quote:
But that's the thing, most of what I've seen have been anecdotal evidence, questionable facts and circular logic, which require the viewer to be watching the same movie for them to make sense.
No, this is an assumption your making based on a majority of instances. I've explained many times now how I formulate my positions, and whenever I've stated a position, I've been extremely verbose in explaining the facts and logic that support that position. Challenges to those facts come in the form of preachy agnosticism, petty ridicule, and shrugs of "duh...everything"Quote:
What is abundantly clear though, is that you have zero intention or will to learn anything or challenge your base beliefs in any way, since all critique or opposing views just end up being spat on and ridiculed.
Like Finland?Quote:
If I were looking for that I'd go to places where stupid people go.
Well, if it ever comes out that Trump is not really rich, not really successful, and not really smart, I guess you'll see. Until then you can believe what you want. In the meantime, I'll hang out here in reality where the man OBVIOUSLY has his shit together.Quote:
I have a hard time believing that just based on the amount of caps in all of your posts on these issues.
Probably a doctored photo, possibly a joke in poor taste, or maybe even democrats in disguise. Even if it is authentic, I don't believe this photo represents even a slim minority of Trump supporters. However, the photo that I posted most definitely represents a large majority of Trump detractors.Quote:
Yeah it'd be much better if they looked like this:
They're fraudulent. Either that, or ignorant. Possibly both. I say that because the word "racist" is something they are co-opting for shock value and to morally blackmail the other side. I don't believe that any of Trump's policies seek to denigrate or oppress any ethnic group. The examples that have been cited require some logical somersaults. Like the travel-pause that singled out a half dozen notably dangerous countries. To conclude a racist motivation here, you have to do logical somersaults to convince yourself that something that only affects <10% of the muslim population is an attack on ALL muslims. You'd have to ignore the national security concerns cited by virtually every international intelligence agency at our disposal. And you'd have to WANT to believe that Trump is just an evil, islam-hating, racist, xenophobic piece of shit.Quote:
On a serious note about your photo, what's wrong with them?
I would never deny someone's right to protest. However, the folks in the picture I posted are not protesting. They're simply expressing rage with irrational behavior. It's not the same thing.
Failed analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
ALL pet owners are certifiably insane.
Well when he was on the campaign trail, repeating those catch phrases, CPAC wanted nothing to do with him. Now he literally OWNS that crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He must be doing more than repeating catch phrases.
How do I make this my signature?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It was also a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're not seriously saying that people shouldn't be allowed to protest? 26.3% of Americans voted for Trump, should that mean for 4 years no one who disagrees with him should be allowed to say anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga