Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[wufwugy]

Interesting to note that if Sessions is investigating Obama administration crimes (he is), it's an example of checks on executive power.

[BananaStand]

I'm only gonna do this one more time. You've gone off the rails to the point where you're either being deliberately stubborn, or monumentally stupid. Either way, continuing to argue with you will be fruitless.

Yes, 1 of the 4 points was maybe slightly off. That does not a ridiculous caricature make. In yours or Trump's case it'd make for an exceptionally accurate comment.

It's really not a question of scoring. On the 3 of 4 points where you believe you scored...you didn't. That's because you described my positions as fanatical. That's completely inaccurate. I've cited Trumps massive wealth and widely regarded success as evidence of his competence. If you show me video footage of Trump robbing banks, or a credible psychological test that concludes his IQ is 60, then I will stand corrected. In the meantime, if you want to change my mind, you're going to have to show me a FACT that's more compelling than a massive fortune, the respect of his peers, and a successful political ascension in the midst of incredible adversarial scrutiny.

I've noticed you have trouble with word definitions every time it's convenient to your case.

The dictionary and I are on the same side here. I'd like to know why you presume to redefine words every time its convenient to your case.

Have you looked at his cabinet? (a joke)

Are you making a joke? If so, it's not funny. Or are you saying that his cabinet members are a joke? If so, you've left the realm of adult conversation. Bye.

Wouldn't anyone then be the smartest in that position? (not a joke)

Yes. I've told this story before, but maybe you haven't heard it. The Chicago Tribune once called Henry Ford "ignorant", and Ford sued for slander. In court, the Tribune's lawyer asked Ford a bunch of trivia questions that Ford couldn't answer. Finally Ford used the same "i can push a button" argument that I did. He won.....and was awarded compensatory damages of six cents.

No, I didn't. I listed things that might convince me on those issues, as of now I'm undecided as should any sane person be based on the available evidence, which is basically all sketchy, anecdotal or hearsay.

The value of his real-estate portfolio is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. His title, President of the United States, is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. So I really don't know how you can be undecided regarding Trump's level of success, or his political talents.

I have no idea if he's competent as a politician,

He is. You can disagree with him on policy. You can criticize him for decisions that you think are wrong. You can ask questions and demand answers. You can challenge those answers. You can hold him accountable for mistakes, or failures. And you SHOULD do all of these things. But what you should not do, is question his competency. You can't BE president, without being fit for the job. You can't get there. Look how many tremendously qualified people have tried and failed.

Looks to me like it could be any of his campaign rallies.

Speculate for me then....why was the crowd so enthusiastic? When Trump was running campaign rallies, this particular crowd rejected him. CPAC is the base of the republican base. It's the people that wanna suck Mitt Romney's jock strap. They've rejected Trump's campaign rally rhetoric. So logically....that should tell you that the content of this speech is alot more substantial than campaign rally rhetoric.

My point was that people supporting Trump are more deeply invested in their beliefs, they have more to lose by being proven wrong than those who are against him.

False. In fact the opposite is true. Trump is pretty much an experiment. He's unique in significant ways. If it doesn't work out, conservatives can just go back to their Jeb Bush-types and hold their own. On the other hand, democrats have bet everything on Trump being a failure. They are counting on resignation or impeachment. They lost this election because they had no message. That hasn't changed. The only message they seem to have is "Trump is a _______-ist"

You're insistence to not budging one inch and mustering all your energy to ridicule anyone who might in any way question the foundations your beliefs are built on top of IMO demonstrates I'm correct.

I am completely open to budging an inch. Possibly even a foot. Or a mile. I've presented the reasons that support my current position. If I am to budge, then I need to something more compelling than what I already have. Convince me? You haven't even attempted to debate any of these issues. You just want to ridicule me for having confidence in the authenticity of my perceptions.

You must think labeling all differing opinions as echo chamber talk must feel convincing to you. It's rare to see that kind of pathos supporting anyone, don't you at all think it's peculiar you're so offended if someone ridicules your supreme leader?

if it's not echo-chamber talk, then what else could it be? Your opinions ignore known truths. Furthermore, your description of my "pathos" is entirely erroneous. Supreme leader??? I'm not delusional. If you want to ridicule Trump....fine. Jokes are funny, as long as their jokes. But you're not joking. You really believe it's possible that the man is stupid, broke, and likely a traitor. The basis of your political thought process....is a joke.

If you want to criticize Trump on policy....go ahead. That's cool. Even I don't think the guy has ALL the answers. I'd say his response to the school shooting issue has been pretty terrible.

You've left the realm of sanity if you think I worship Trump like some kind of cult leader.

Donald Trump's self-described net worth was $200 million in 1982. If he invested that money in the S&P 500, he'd be worth about $8.3 billion today. He claims his net worth is $8.7 billion

.
Your math is completely wrong. I did the math for Boost a while back. If you started with 200 million, earned 10% per year, and only paid capital gains taxes, you would have about 4 point something billion after 40 years. You've calculated double that number in 36 years. Not possible.

The S&P 500 didn't make 10%. And Trump probably paid some non-zero amount of business profits and personal income tax (much higher rate than capital gains). Oh, and I'm also pretty sure that Trump spent some money over the last 40 years. Fast food isn't free.

So ignore Trump for a minute and ask an objective 3rd party. Ask two even. Forbes or Bloomberg both estimate Trump's net worth around 4 billion. To reach that number, with a $200 million head start, you have to far exceed the market. And you have to do it consistently, over the long term. How can an ignoramus do that?

I don't claim he's not a successful businessman, I just don't have the rock hard unquestioning faith that he is as you do.

Who says it's unquestioning?? Trump says he's rich. I checked and it turns out that other, independent firms who specialize in estimate the wealth of private businessmen agree that Trump is filthy fucking rich.

I haven't done any appraisals myself, but I tend to believe reports of easily verifiable information. So if it's reported that Trump is the registered owner of billions of dollars in real estate, I believe it. The next logical question is "how could a man accumulate such a portfolio of assets?" The answer is pretty flattering for Trump.

What I don't call it is anything resembling an aptitude test, or an exam on political history, foreign and domestic policy or economics.

Easily the most ignorant thing you've said in this thread. And that's saying something.

You mean you think he was doing just fine, you don't know that

I know, for a fact, he owns billions of dollars of tangible assets. He's really not worried where his next steak is coming from.

You know absolutely nothing about his financial situation, his motivations, his aspirations, whether he actually wanted to be the president, does he see himself as aging and about to retire, none of that. You just have a base assumption that he's filthy rich, and everything else follows. And don't get me wrong, you absolutely have the right to do that, and I'm not really even criticizing you, just observing and being mildly amused.

It's just occurred to me that you live in a place where its entirely possible that you've never interacted with a highly successful capitalist.

That's possible, but it's also possible that he either isn't doing that well financially, or that he definitely still has motivation to gain more wealth and might see running or being the POTUS as also a lucrative deal. And again, these are not my opinions, we possibly will never find out what the real deal is, but only one of us is 100% convinced at the moment.

I'm not 100% convinced of anything. I just heavily heavily heavily discount the absurd. If it comes out some day that Trump wrote "Dear Diary, today I decided I could pay less taxes if I just became President and changed the law" then we can come back to this thread and I'll stand corrected. In the meantime, I'm gonna take YOUR advice and embrace Occam's razor.

Trump became president for the same reason all 44 of his predecessors did. Personal ambition and patriotism.

Lol. I had no problem believing people in both the photos were genuine. Isn't it fascinating to you how you without hesitation completely dismiss one of them while having no qualms about the other? Aren't you curious what makes you react like that to two random photos off the net?

First of all, 'complete dismissal' is a gross mischaracterization of my reaction.

One picture looks strange to me. Where I come from, five people walking around in shirts saying "let's get rid of the negros" would not be surrounded by enthusiastic, smiling, cheering people. Maybe I just don't get the south. That's entirely possible. Some fucked up shit goes on down there. On the other hand, the picture I posted is stuff that I've seen with my own eyeballs.

So no, I'm not curious what makes me react like that. I think I have a very good understanding of why I had differing reactions, and I've just explained it. That's the kind of thought process a person has when they aren't blinded by unquestioning faith.

Nowadays being racist doesn't just mean you're KKK,

Fuck this game. You don't get to play with the definition of words. Racist implies hatred and animus. Not "grumpy grandpa" stuff. That's why being labeled a racist is one of the worst things that can happen to a politician or celebrity. Weaponizing that is wrong wrong wrong.

When those protesters carry signs demanding the removal of a politician for racist ideology, they're not being honest. They're not outraged about "grumpy grandpa" stuff. But Trump isn't guilty of anything worse. So what's with the signs??

See....this is the kind of thought process you have when you don't approach things with unquestioning faith.

[BananaStand]

Good point. This whole argument that he can't be corrupt because he's already so rich and doesn't need any more money is quite possibly the most retarded thing I've heard in a while, even in this thread. It's like saying you expect everyone to just stop trying to amass wealth once they reach a saturation point. Like it's never occurred to you (banana) that the thing he finds rewarding isn't having the money it's making more and more of it.

How the fuck is running for president a practical way to amass wealth. Tax breaks? Fuck off. The guy has amassed BILLIONS without holding office. He would be much better off to just keep doing what he's doing.

Furthermore, he's already announced his re-election campaign. That means he intends to put his profit-making endeavors on hold for 8 years. He's 71 fucking years old. And according to you, he's a big mac away from cardiac arrest. What percentage of his remaining life is 8 years!! How does that logic even work? How does a person give up their job for more than half their remaining life and somehow make MORE money???

[BananaStand]

What Ong is trying to say, is that when a protest is full of shit, it undermines the institution of protesting.

The civil rights movement was a protest that mattered. People paid attention and it brought about real profound change. That's because there was a real injustice that was palpable.

Now we have people taking to the streets wailing "we can't believe we lost!!". Throw in fraudulent incendiary accusations of racism, fascism, and sexism and it's hard not to roll my eyes and change the channel every time I hear the phrase "Protesters gathered today...."

[Poopadoop]

How the fuck is running for president a practical way to amass wealth. Tax breaks? Fuck off. The guy has amassed BILLIONS without holding office. He would be much better off to just keep doing what he's doing.

Furthermore, he's already announced his re-election campaign. That means he intends to put his profit-making endeavors on hold for 8 years. He's 71 fucking years old. And according to you, he's a big mac away from cardiac arrest. What percentage of his remaining life is 8 years!! How does that logic even work? How does a person give up their job for more than half their remaining life and somehow make MORE money???

Are you really this dumb? You don't see how someone could profit from the office of the president apart from giving themselves a tax break? You think that's the limit of corruption?

And why do you insist he's given up his other business ventures? Did you really buy that press conference charade where they showed mounds of blank pages as proof he was divesting his interests? Every time he and his staff go to Mar a Lago, he personally profits from it. Every time a foreign diplomat stays in his hotel, he profits. Where is the evidence he's given up making money as a businessman?

But I guess we're meant to believe that being a corrupt businessman makes him an honest president. And then you wonder why people accuse you of being a kool-aid drinker.

[CoccoBill]

I'm only gonna do this one more time. You've gone off the rails to the point where you're either being deliberately stubborn, or monumentally stupid. Either way, continuing to argue with you will be fruitless.

Read again my original post. My point was all along to point out Trump supporters are more invested in their beliefs. If they turn out to be wrong, they may have voted for a bigoted corrupt charlatan. If Trump's opposers turn out to be wrong, they have to face the humiliation of being wrong but things are actually ok. See the difference? The fact that for several hundred lines now you've been trying to switch this into just me being biased and not seeing the greatness of his ways are to me proof of my point.

The value of his real-estate portfolio is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. His title, President of the United States, is not sketchy, anecdotal, or hearsay. So I really don't know how you can be undecided regarding Trump's level of success, or his political talents.

Again, this isn't about my level of decidedness, it's about yours. So what is the value of his real-estate portfolio and how much debt does he and the companies have? Surely you know the exact numbers since you're so convinced.

Speculate for me then....why was the crowd so enthusiastic? When Trump was running campaign rallies, this particular crowd rejected him. CPAC is the base of the republican base. It's the people that wanna suck Mitt Romney's jock strap. They've rejected Trump's campaign rally rhetoric. So logically....that should tell you that the content of this speech is alot more substantial than campaign rally rhetoric.

Nice but sadly unsuccessful attempt to again divert the conversation. You were asked which parts in it showed signs of intelligence, though I already decided to drop this issue, since we clearly differ on the definition of intelligence.

False. In fact the opposite is true. Trump is pretty much an experiment. He's unique in significant ways. If it doesn't work out, conservatives can just go back to their Jeb Bush-types and hold their own. On the other hand, democrats have bet everything on Trump being a failure. They are counting on resignation or impeachment. They lost this election because they had no message. That hasn't changed. The only message they seem to have is "Trump is a _______-ist"

Why are you switching the context to being about republican and democrat politicians, when we were talking about voters? You would not be trying to deliberately divert the topic, would you?

I am completely open to budging an inch. Possibly even a foot. Or a mile. I've presented the reasons that support my current position. If I am to budge, then I need to something more compelling than what I already have. Convince me? You haven't even attempted to debate any of these issues. You just want to ridicule me for having confidence in the authenticity of my perceptions.

You may be, it just doesn't look like that to me. And no I haven't tried to debate on the issues other than point out places where your supposed titanium alloy evidences have been less than airtight. It truly hasn't been about ridicule though, sorry if it has seemed that way. At least on a conscious level I've been doing this bona fide.

if it's not echo-chamber talk, then what else could it be? Your opinions ignore known truths. Furthermore, your description of my "pathos" is entirely erroneous. Supreme leader??? I'm not delusional. If you want to ridicule Trump....fine. Jokes are funny, as long as their jokes. But you're not joking. You really believe it's possible that the man is stupid, broke, and likely a traitor. The basis of your political thought process....is a joke.

Yes, this is where our opinions differ. I don't have a deep emotional or economic investment in Trump, so I can perhaps more freely entertain all possible options, not only the ones that cement my beliefs. You refuse to think it's possible he could have gotten this far by accident, fluke or questionable means, I get that. Meanwhile, for an outside observer, his continuous gaffes, the accusations of meddling and obstruction, the language he uses, the accusations of pretty much everyone round him calling him an idiot and on and on, while not being damning and convincing evidence, should at least make one wonder what the real deal is. If the only thought entering someone's mind in face of all that is that they are all 100% fake news, my diagnosis is a mild case of delusional LALALALAICANTHEARYOU and I'd prescribe one pill of healthy skepticism twice a day.

Your math is completely wrong. I did the math for Boost a while back. If you started with 200 million, earned 10% per year, and only paid capital gains taxes, you would have about 4 point something billion after 40 years. You've calculated double that number in 36 years. Not possible.

The S&P 500 didn't make 10%. And Trump probably paid some non-zero amount of business profits and personal income tax (much higher rate than capital gains). Oh, and I'm also pretty sure that Trump spent some money over the last 40 years. Fast food isn't free.

So ignore Trump for a minute and ask an objective 3rd party. Ask two even. Forbes or Bloomberg both estimate Trump's net worth around 4 billion. To reach that number, with a $200 million head start, you have to far exceed the market. And you have to do it consistently, over the long term. How can an ignoramus do that?

I think you may have forgotten to adjust for inflation.

https://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963...ump-index-fund
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...trump-s-wealth

Who says it's unquestioning?? Trump says he's rich. I checked and it turns out that other, independent firms who specialize in estimate the wealth of private businessmen agree that Trump is filthy fucking rich.

Did these independent firms also estimate his debts? There is no doubt his name is on some pretty expensive buildings on prime estate, but how much does he actually own them, how much are they leveraged, what is his net worth? We don't know do we. Bloomberg seems to estimate it's close to $3bn, which certainly isn't bad if true. Personally I'm not as convinced though that I'd base my whole world view on that.

Easily the most ignorant thing you've said in this thread. And that's saying something.

Wow, thanks! If my most ignorant view has been that running a political campaign bares little resemblance to an aptitude test or an exam, I feel I'm doing pretty well.

I know, for a fact, he owns billions of dollars of tangible assets. He's really not worried where his next steak is coming from.

See but you don't know whether his debts exceed his holdings. You do realize it's possible to own something and still be up to your eyes in debt?

It's just occurred to me that you live in a place where its entirely possible that you've never interacted with a highly successful capitalist.

Oh an ad hominem? How would that fact, even if true, change anything about what we are talking about? What would those interactions be and what's the definition of a highly successful capitalist?

Trump became president for the same reason all 44 of his predecessors did. Personal ambition and patriotism.

And what has his personal ambitions for the past decades been?

Fuck this game. You don't get to play with the definition of words.

It isn't your privilege alone, deal with it.

Racist implies hatred and animus.

This is how long it took for you to start changing definitions again.

Oxford dictionary: A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
Cambrisge dictionary: someone who believes that other races are not as good as their own and therefore treats them unfairly
Merriam-Webster: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Wikipedia: the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity

None of the definitions require hatred or animus.

Not "grumpy grandpa" stuff. That's why being labeled a racist is one of the worst things that can happen to a politician or celebrity. Weaponizing that is wrong wrong wrong.

Fuck this game. You don't get to play with the definition of words.

When those protesters carry signs demanding the removal of a politician for racist ideology, they're not being honest. They're not outraged about "grumpy grandpa" stuff. But Trump isn't guilty of anything worse. So what's with the signs??

How is it that you always know what everyone is thinking.

[OngBonga]

They're protesting against Trump, not the process that elected him.

You really don't understand how nonsensical this is, do you?

[Poopadoop]

You really don't understand how nonsensical this is, do you?

Ok Ong, they're not protesting Trump. They're actually anarchists who want to overthrow democracy. Probably paid by Soros to be there.

You win.

[OngBonga]

You've missed the point once again.

"Protesting Trump."

Stop and think what this actually means.

banana was right... "when a protest is full of shit, it undermines the institution of protesting".

I am saying these people are morons because they are making a mockery of one civil liberty (the right to protest), while at the same time effectively demonstrating against another (democracy), while all the time thinking they have morality on their side.

You want to protest against an individual, fine, go right ahead. But somehwere in the world, someone is putting their life on the line to actually protest against something important, rather than expressing their dislike for a single fucking person.

[OngBonga]

The nonsensical nature of this entire "protest" is exposed by cocco's "expressing their opinions" and poop's "protesting Trump".

This is the kind of protest that should be celebrated? Fuck that. Bunch of fucking morons, the lot of them. Protest something that matters, and do it because you demand change. Then you'll have my respect, even if I disagree.

[BananaStand]

My point was all along to point out Trump supporters are more invested in their beliefs. If they turn out to be wrong, they may have voted for a bigoted corrupt charlatan.

There is a mountian of objective evidence to suggest that this is an infintisimally small possibility. So small that those of us who deal with realism and practicality can write it off as a complete fantasy. I'm ready anytime you want to discuss any of that objective evidence. But I understand if you don't want to because it eviscerates your position. You're completely ignorant, and you know it. You're just hopelessly trying to disguise it as fanatical agnosticism.

If Trump's opposers turn out to be wrong, they have to face the humiliation of being wrong but things are actually ok. See the difference?

They have turned out to be wrong. Do you think things are ok now?

So what is the value of his real-estate portfolio

do your own research. I've posted on this recently, or just use your google machine. Just his assets within the city of New York are worth 1.6 billion. Just in NYC

and how much debt does he and the companies have? Surely you know the exact numbers since you're so convinced.

No I don't know the exact numbers. I don't need to. I have an accounting degree, a masters in business administration, and 20 years experience in corporate finance. I can be virtually certain that he doesn't have more debt than can be serviced by his business operations. Banks check that shit before and DURING a loan term.

You were asked which parts in it showed signs of intelligence

The part where he won over an intelligent crowd that used to hate his guts.

Why are you switching the context to being about republican and democrat politicians, when we were talking about voters?

Voters don't have political affiliations?????

You may be, it just doesn't look like that to me. And no I haven't tried to debate on the issues other than point out places where your supposed titanium alloy evidences have been less than airtight.

No, you've cited situations where your ignorance makes you agnostic.

Yes, this is where our opinions differ. I don't have a deep emotional or economic investment in Trump, so I can perhaps more freely entertain all possible options, not only the ones that cement my beliefs

.
Do you think it's possible that Trump made his fortune by illegally trafficking pterodactyls?? Are you entertaining that option as well?

You refuse to think it's possible he could have gotten this far by accident

Do you even get how much money a billion dollars is??

questionable means,

I never said this is impossible, but mountains of objective evidence suggest otherwise to the point where it's practical, reasonable, and sensible to discount the possibility to the point where it's not even worth discussing, or even mentioning unless and until some credible evidence is made known.

It's clear to me that you think this stuff because you just don't understand corporate finance. Trump has 500+ companies, that means auditors are looking at his books, probably 2000+ times per year, every year, for the last half century. If Trump was up to no good, he would literally have to be the premier mastermind of the last two millennium. I guess that's possible. It's odd that you think this is a possibility while also strongly advocating the possibility that Trump is a simpleton.

I get that. Meanwhile, for an outside observer, his continuous gaffes

I don't think he commits any more gaffes than any other politician. Are you keeping score? What logical basis are you using to ignore the non-gaffes?

the accusations of meddling and obstruction

Made up by democrats. Literally. That accusation was made by Christopher Steele, who is a known partisan, was fired from the FBI for misconduct, is on record making heavily anti-trump statements, and was paid by Hillary Clinton. Why in the world do you think his accusation is credible?

, the language he uses

,
That's one of the main reasons he got elected. Do you not get that???

the accusations of pretty much everyone round him calling him an idiot

"pretty much everyone"??? There you go again with your desperate juvenile arguments. "duh, everything". PFFFFFFFFT

Everyone who's left the white house or the Trump campaign has had nothing but glowing things to say about their time serving the Commander in Chief.

I think you may have forgotten to adjust for inflation.

Inflation is not part of this equation. Again, you misunderstand finance and you're trying to get educated by vox. Big mistake. Even the vox article though admits that Trump could only get there the easy way if he didn't pay management fees, didn't pay taxes, and never withdrew a cent. That's OBVIOUSLY not possible. You can't buy buildings, planes, and super model wives that way.

So...again...it's clear that Trump has outperformed the market, significantly, and consistently.

Did these independent firms also estimate his debts?

Yes. I can't read the bloomberg article you linked because it's behind a paywall. But the headline says that they reached their assessment based on his 92 page financial disclosures, which include debt.

There is no doubt his name is on some pretty expensive buildings on prime estate, but how much does he actually own them

Either 100% or enough that he can service his debts. That's no small accomplishment.

what is his net worth? We don't know do we.

Does it matter? Do you really doubt he's a billionaire? Isn't that enough?

Bloomberg seems to estimate it's close to $3bn, which certainly isn't bad if true. Personally I'm not as convinced though that I'd base my whole world view on that.

Why do you doubt Bloomberg? Forbes says its 4 billion. Do you doubt them? How much corroboration do you actually need?

Wow, thanks! If my most ignorant view has been that running a political campaign bares little resemblance to an aptitude test or an exam, I feel I'm doing pretty well.

I'm not sure how elections work in your shithole country, but here in America you're required to answer questions, declare your policy, and demonstrate an understanding of the issues in debates. Everything you say, every position you take, every sentiment you communicate is scrutinized more than the Zapruder film. You really wouldn't equate that to an aptitude test? You think it's all smooth-talk?? ARE YOU HIGH???

See but you don't know whether his debts exceed his holdings

YES I DO!! Yet again, just because you have no idea how corporate finance works, doesn't mean that you can fill in the blanks with sensational figments of your imagination. There is no plausible way he could accumulate that much debt.

And what has his personal ambitions for the past decades been?

Success

None of the definitions require hatred or animus.

For fucks sake....go look up hatred and animus.

[BananaStand]

Are you really this dumb? You don't see how someone could profit from the office of the president apart from giving themselves a tax break? You think that's the limit of corruption?

Anything else would be a sensational and incendiary accusation based on absolutely partisan conjecture. If you're entertaining this as a real possibility, and using it to color your opinion of Trump then go right ahead. But there is a term for that. It's called being an ass-hole.

And why do you insist he's given up his other business ventures?

There aren't enough hours in the day to be president, AND run a multi-billion dollar empire. He's almost never alone. There's a camera in his face 18 hours a day. Every email and phone call he makes is seen and heard by a dozen different people. The guy can't have a phone call with the Mexican president without it leaking all over the press 30 minutes later. If the guy was making a habit of doing Trump business on the people's time....we'd know about it.

Every time he and his staff go to Mar a Lago, he personally profits from it. Every time a foreign diplomat stays in his hotel, he profits. Where is the evidence he's given up making money as a businessman?

This presumes that those hotel rooms would otherwise be unsold. That's a totally erroneous presumption.

EDIT: You might not know this but American hotels have something called "the government rate". Anyone affiliated in any way with government operations has access to this privilege. I once worked for a private company that was a contractor for the department of defense. My employee ID had a bunch of fine print on it, some of which allowed me access to this privilege. A $135/night room costs $80 with the government rate. It doesn't even matter if I'm travelling for business or pleasure. Just show the card, get the discount.

I'm positive that everyone in Trump's entourage has one of these cards.

It's amazing to me that you want to impugn Trump's corporate savvy while simultaneously your own business acumen has led you to believe that a hotel can make more money, by selling the same room, to different people, at a lower price.

[MadMojoMonkey]

"There is a mountian of objective evidence to suggest that this is an infintisimally small possibility. So small that those of us who deal with realism and practicality can write it off as a complete fantasy."

Unlikely things happen. Royal flushes are dealt from a random selection of 5 cards from a standard deck of 52. It is impractical to play poker in such a way that you assume your opponents have a royal flush. It is naive to assert that no one will ever have a royal flush.

[BananaStand]

"There is a mountian of objective evidence to suggest that this is an infintisimally small possibility. So small that those of us who deal with realism and practicality can write it off as a complete fantasy."

Unlikely things happen. Royal flushes are dealt from a random selection of 5 cards from a standard deck of 52. It is impractical to play poker in such a way that you assume your opponents have a royal flush. It is naive to assert that no one will ever have a royal flush.

Right. So now do the math.

Usually there is exactly one combination of cards that your opponent can have to make a royal flush. If the board is 8h Tc Jc Th Ac, then the only royal flush he could have is exactly KcQc. Once you introduce even one more possible hand, the odds of a royal flush drop to 50%. But it's possible your opponent has 79, Q9, AA, JJ or KQ. That's 54 combinations of hands. >98% of them are not royal flushes. If he has 88, AJ, or a non-zero bluff frequency, then the chances of a royal get even smaller.

So if you're sitting there with TT, are you really gonna go into the tank and be agnostic about whether or not the guy has a royal flush? Of course not, you can objectively calculate that it's a tiny percentage of his possible holdings. So it's practical, profitable, and CORRECT to ignore that possibility and just live with the results if it happens. Snap call. Fist pump.

The exact same situation exists with regards to Trump. He has a range of really good hands, but only one of them is corruption, insolvency, and treason. Snap call, fist pump.

[CoccoBill]

There is a mountian of objective evidence to suggest that this is an infintisimally small possibility. So small that those of us who deal with realism and practicality can write it off as a complete fantasy. I'm ready anytime you want to discuss any of that objective evidence. But I understand if you don't want to because it eviscerates your position. You're completely ignorant, and you know it. You're just hopelessly trying to disguise it as fanatical agnosticism.

Let's for the sake of the argument say that I'm completely enclosed in an echo chamber, in total denial of all observable facts in the universe and overall a pretty useless human being. Now, how does this change the fact that Trump supporters have more to lose in their beliefs compared to Trump opposers? There is no mountain of objective evidence, there's just suggestive information with murky details, and a whole shitload of speculation. Yet, you're absolutely convinced that you're 100% correct and everyone even entertaining any opposing views must be idiots or brainwashed.

No I don't know the exact numbers. I don't need to. I have an accounting degree, a masters in business administration, and 20 years experience in corporate finance. I can be virtually certain that he doesn't have more debt than can be serviced by his business operations.

Wow an appeal to authority, good for you! You seem to have expanded your mind-reading skills to include corporate finance. Impressive.

Banks check that shit before and DURING a loan term.

Which is the reason no one's ever heard of credit defaults.

The part where he won over an intelligent crowd that used to hate his guts.

Look at you grasping at straws.

Voters don't have political affiliations?????

Of course they do, but that doesn't make them politicians. Stop deflecting.

No, you've cited situations where your ignorance makes you agnostic.

I'm not the one rigidly holding a position one way or the other, you can stop making it sound like that's the case already.

Do you think it's possible that Trump made his fortune by illegally trafficking pterodactyls?? Are you entertaining that option as well?

I don't think it's impossible, I just see no reason to think that's the case. If there were public records, statements, news articles or other suggestions that it might be the case, I might think it should be looked into. You clearly wouldn't since you know Trump isn't into that shit.

Do you even get how much money a billion dollars is??

I never said this is impossible, but mountains of objective evidence suggest otherwise to the point where it's practical, reasonable, and sensible to discount the possibility to the point where it's not even worth discussing, or even mentioning unless and until some credible evidence is made known.

We have come to notice that's your opinion, yes.

It's clear to me that you think this stuff because you just don't understand corporate finance. Trump has 500+ companies, that means auditors are looking at his books, probably 2000+ times per year, every year, for the last half century. If Trump was up to no good, he would literally have to be the premier mastermind of the last two millennium. I guess that's possible. It's odd that you think this is a possibility while also strongly advocating the possibility that Trump is a simpleton.

Hyperbole and false premise. Did your business school teach you that auditors look at corporate finances to find out if they're making enough profits to claim their owner is a billionaire, and call the press if they don't? Stop trolling with these inane suggestions.

I don't think he commits any more gaffes than any other politician. Are you keeping score? What logical basis are you using to ignore the non-gaffes?

I'm sure you don't. What are these non-gaffes I'm ignoring? Why are you still trying to divert this discussion to being about my opinions, which I still haven't even for the most part stated? Desperation?

Made up by democrats. Literally. That accusation was made by Christopher Steele, who is a known partisan, was fired from the FBI for misconduct, is on record making heavily anti-trump statements, and was paid by Hillary Clinton. Why in the world do you think his accusation is credible?

You think they're made up, you have absolutely no way of knowing for sure, no matter how much you claim you have a mountain of objective evidence. And stop putting words in my mouth, I have never said that. In my personal opinion, with all the other information and allegations it's worth investigating. I'm not gonna be surprised though if you think Benghazi, emailgate, pizzagate and reptilian theories are worth investigating instead, without a hint of irony.

That's one of the main reasons he got elected. Do you not get that???

Yes, like I said he is charismatic and knows how to rile up people. As you've so many times reminded us, he's a reality TV superstar who's always been famous for his demeanor. He's also goofy, aloof and a virtual late night comedy material pandora's box.

"pretty much everyone"??? There you go again with your desperate juvenile arguments. "duh, everything". PFFFFFFFFT

Everyone who's left the white house or the Trump campaign has had nothing but glowing things to say about their time serving the Commander in Chief.

Pruitt, Tillerson, Mnuchin, Priebus, Gary Cohn, McMaster, Bannon. His peers outside his administration Rupert Murdoch, Tom Barrack, those FBI agents. And of course a bit over 50% of Americans and pretty much the whole rest of the planet. I bet you'd struggle to find that many disparaging comments even about Bush jr. Obviously they're not proof nor even bananamountains of evidence, and should not be taken at face value, but immediately dismissing all of these comments with PFFFFFFFFT implies head in sand.

Inflation is not part of this equation. Again, you misunderstand finance and you're trying to get educated by vox. Big mistake. Even the vox article though admits that Trump could only get there the easy way if he didn't pay management fees, didn't pay taxes, and never withdrew a cent. That's OBVIOUSLY not possible. You can't buy buildings, planes, and super model wives that way.

Where did you get your business diploma exactly? FYI I have a business degree also, just appealing to your own authority sadly isn't enough. All of those calculations must and actually do take into account inflation, since it changes the value of currency. If you're done with your hand-waving, now that we've established that according to the very sources you deemed reliable (Bloomberg and Forbes) he would be roughly where he is now just by having invested in the S&P500, let's all wait and see how that changes your world view. Not at all? Didn't think so.

Yes. I can't read the bloomberg article you linked because it's behind a paywall. But the headline says that they reached their assessment based on his 92 page financial disclosures, which include debt.

Bloomberg estimates his net worth in 2015 was $2.9bn. They also estimate his projected worth in 2016 to be pretty much the same, had he just invested all of his money in the early 80's. This is data from the parties you asked for, laying doubt on the absolutely rock solid belief you have he's one of the greatest businessmen ever.

Either 100% or enough that he can service his debts. That's no small accomplishment.

So anything between say 100% and 0%, give or take? What makes you think he's not just renting out his brand, owning a minority share, or being up to his eyeballs in debt? I mean other than blind faith, your business degree and clairvoyance skills?

Does it matter? Do you really doubt he's a billionaire? Isn't that enough?

Why do you doubt Bloomberg? Forbes says its 4 billion. Do you doubt them? How much corroboration do you actually need?

Again trying to strawman this to be about my opinions, which I haven't stated, cute. I don't doubt Bloomberg, but they themselves are pretty open that it's just their estimation without actual proof, a notch better than a wild guess.

I'm not sure how elections work in your shithole country

Brilliant argumentation again.

Everything you say, every position you take, every sentiment you communicate is scrutinized more than the Zapruder film. You really wouldn't equate that to an aptitude test? You think it's all smooth-talk?? ARE YOU HIGH???

Do you know what aptitude tests and exams measure? It isn't the ability to appear convincing in public, or the ability to slander and ridicule your opponents, nor even empty rhetoric to fire up your base. Your campaigns nowadays seem to be more about identity politics and discrediting the opposition than about policy or substance.

YES I DO!!

No you don't.

Success

And he just now decided no more, now I'll dedicate my life for bettering the world, happily taking on all this public scrutiny, media rollercoaster, accusations, fake news etc, just cause he's such a great guy? No skepticism, even a tiny bit?

For fucks sake....go look up hatred and animus.

Yey, another game of Change The Meaning! These are my favorite.

[OngBonga]

Do you think it's possible that Trump made his fortune by illegally trafficking pterodactyls??

I don't think it's impossible

As you were...

[OngBonga]

26.3% of Americans voted for Trump

And of course a bit over 50% of Americans

Magic.

[BananaStand]

Now, how does this change the fact that Trump supporters have more to lose in their beliefs compared to Trump opposers?

This is not a fact. that's your opinion. And it's based on the erroneous and wishful premise that people like me's heads will explode if we find out some bad news about Trump. As I said, if Trump is proven to be a corrupt, treasonous, charlatan then republicans can just fall back on the Jeb Bushes, Mitt Romneys, and John McCains of the world. Those guys can say "see I told you so", and republicans will be fine.

Look at the left now. Do they seem "fine" to you??

There is no mountain of objective evidence, there's just suggestive information with murky details, and a whole shitload of speculation. Yet, you're absolutely convinced that you're 100% correct and everyone even entertaining any opposing views must be idiots or brainwashed.

That's a gross mischaracterization of my position. "absolutely convinced" is inaccurate. I'm firmly set in my position because of the facts and objective evidence that support it. if you have a different position, you must be using different facts and objective evidence. Would you like to state what those are?? Or, you're using conjecture, speculation, and partisan wishing as the basis for your position? If so, you're a fool.

Which is the reason no one's ever heard of credit defaults.

What's your point here? That defaults happen? Of course they do. Thats why banks do audits. If Trump was in default, we'd know. We would absolutely know. If a bank calls your loan and forces you into bankruptcy...your books become public knowledge. That hasn't happened for Trump....so what does that tell you about whether or not he's in default???

Look at you grasping at straws.

Look at you ignoring objective facts that don't support your argument. How convenient.

I'm not the one rigidly holding a position one way or the other, you can stop making it sound like that's the case already.

No, you're rigidly holding a position of skepticism and denigrating anyone who presumes not to be.

I don't think it's impossible,

OMFG, you do know that pterodactyls are extinct right?

Hyperbole and false premise. Did your business school teach you that auditors look at corporate finances to find out if they're making enough profits to claim their owner is a billionaire, and call the press if they don't?

It's not hyperbole or false at all. I'll bet that Trump does in fact get audited in some capacity over 2000 times per year. That's only 4 audits per company, which is completely reasonable. Lenders, Insurance agencies, and tax preparers all get to look at the books. They're there to ensure that Trump's companies are viable going concerns. If they weren't, they would call the loans, forcing bankruptcy, which would be public knowledge.

So follow me here. Of Trump's 513 companies, 4 of them filed for bankruptcy. >>> We have no public knowledge of bankruptcy regarding the other 509 firms. >>> That means, definitively, that they are NOT bankrupt. >>>> That means that they are solvent.

Isn't logic awesome??!!

I'm sure you don't. What are these non-gaffes I'm ignoring?

Let's start with the fact that he became President

You think they're made up, you have absolutely no way of knowing for sure, no matter how much you claim you have a mountain of objective evidence

I thought you said you could be persuaded by evidence. What happened to that??

. And stop putting words in my mouth, I have never said that. In my personal opinion, with all the other information and allegations it's worth investigating

Saying it's "worth investigating" is the same as saying that the allegations have credibility. You also seem to think an allegation of Trump trafficking pterodactyls is also credible. You sound like a very stable genius.

. I'm not gonna be surprised though if you think Benghazi, emailgate, pizzagate and reptilian theories are worth investigating instead, without a hint of irony.

The first two are worth investigating. Cuz...evidence. In the case of Benghazi, the evidence is four dead bodies. Email-gate is a topic for another thread, but basically you'd be ignorant to say that Hillary didn't commit a crime.

Yes, like I said he is charismatic and knows how to rile up people. As you've so many times reminded us, he's a reality TV superstar who's always been famous for his demeanor. He's also goofy, aloof and a virtual late night comedy material pandora's box.

AND HE STILL WON

Pruitt, Tillerson, Mnuchin, Priebus, Gary Cohn, McMaster, Bannon. His peers outside his administration Rupert Murdoch, Tom Barrack, those FBI agents. And of course a bit over 50% of Americans and pretty much the whole rest of the planet.

Not gonna go through that whole list, but many of those people are, and have been, staunch supporters of Trump. And you sound like a fucking idiot when you say stuff like "the whole rest of the planet".

I bet you'd struggle to find that many disparaging comments even about Bush jr

I actually wouldn't.

Where did you get your business diploma exactly? FYI I have a business degree also, just appealing to your own authority sadly isn't enough. All of those calculations must and actually do take into account inflation, since it changes the value of currency.

No fuck face. If you invested $100 in an index fund at 10%, at the end of the year you'd have $110. Period. It doesn't get adjusted for inflation. I can just see you waving your account statement in some banker's face going "where's my inflation adjustment??!!"

If you're done with your hand-waving, now that we've established that according to the very sources you deemed reliable (Bloomberg and Forbes) he would be roughly where he is now just by having invested in the S&P500, let's all wait and see how that changes your world view. Not at all? Didn't think so.

Wrong....he'd be roughly where he is if you assume A) He paid no fees, B) He never withdrew a cent and C) deferred all of his taxes. The Vox article states this CLEARLY. For him to accumulate even the most conservative estimates of his net worth, and still eat, he'd have to significantly outperform the market. Furthermore, we know he DIDN'T invest in the S&P 500. He invested in real estate, where sometimes the returns are higher, but sometimes they are very much not higher. In fact, real estate over the last century has only averaged 1% per year. A TENTH of the S&P 500.

So if he's worth that much....he got there the hard way. What does that tell you about his skills??

Bloomberg estimates his net worth in 2015 was $2.9bn.

I think it's funny that you acknowledge the figure as his "net" worth, while simultaneously asking "I wonder if that could be offset by debt?". Hilarious. Were you absent the day they taught the definition of the word "net" in business school?

What makes you think he's not ..... up to his eyeballs in debt?

I looked up the word "net" in the dictionary.

Do you know what aptitude tests and exams measure? It isn't the ability to appear convincing in public, or the ability to slander and ridicule your opponents, nor even empty rhetoric to fire up your base.

This sounds like the whiny bitching of someone who's disappointed with the election results. You're either being intentionally stubborn, or your hopelessly ignorant about what it actually takes to win a national election for the office of President. Either way, I'm done discussing this point with you.

Your campaigns Democrats nowadays seem to be more about identity politics and discrediting the opposition than about policy or substance, and that's why they lost

Fixed your post, corrections in bold.

And he just now decided no more, now I'll dedicate my life for bettering the world, happily taking on all this public scrutiny, media rollercoaster, accusations, fake news etc, just cause he's such a great guy? No skepticism, even a tiny bit?

Not 'just cause he's a great guy'. Personal ambition and patriotism. I'm sure I've said that multiple times, but you've yet again moved the goalpost just to be a cunt.

[BananaStand]

As you were...

I honestly think he didn't know what pterodactyls are. guessing from context clues I think he assumed it meant some kind of drug.

[Poopadoop]

Anything else would be a sensational and incendiary accusation based on absolutely partisan conjecture. If you're entertaining this as a real possibility, and using it to color your opinion of Trump then go right ahead. But there is a term for that. It's called being an ass-hole.

No, you're the one being sensational by just assuming there's no way he could ever be corrupt, and getting all spazzy at anyone who even dares to suggest its even remotely possible the office could be abused if someone were so inclined.

He's almost never alone. There's a camera in his face 18 hours a day.

Hyperbananalism at its finest.

Every email and phone call he makes is seen and heard by a dozen different people. The guy can't have a phone call with the Mexican president without it leaking all over the press 30 minutes later. If the guy was making a habit of doing Trump business on the people's time....we'd know about it.

So ya if he's mixed up with anything shady his partner in crime is going to leak it. Fuck off.

This presumes that those hotel rooms would otherwise be unsold. That's a totally erroneous presumption.

How do you know?

It's amazing to me that you want to impugn Trump's corporate savvy while simultaneously your own business acumen has led you to believe that a hotel can make more money, by selling the same room, to different people, at a lower price.

Your whole premise is that the hotel is turning away full-price customers to give discount rates to Trump and his entourage. No evidence for that, but it fits your narrative. Typical bananalogic.

[CoccoBill]

I honestly think he didn't know what pterodactyls are. guessing from context clues I think he assumed it meant some kind of drug.

How do you suppose we know they existed?



Are those impossible, like legit 0% possibility, to sell?

[OngBonga]

Trump's son shot a triceratops.

[OngBonga]

Are those impossible, like legit 0% possibility, to sell?

I can't imagine there's a huge market for black market dinosaur carcasses. And if Trump is somehow making money in such a market, well that would only support the idea that he's a brilliant businessman, especially since he's kept such activites quiet while being the most scrutinised president of modern times.

[OngBonga]

I honestly think he didn't know what pterodactyls are. guessing from context clues I think he assumed it meant some kind of drug.

I actually googled "trump pterodactyl" after posting in case you guys were referring to something mental.

[CoccoBill]

This is not a fact. that's your opinion. And it's based on the erroneous and wishful premise that people like me's heads will explode if we find out some bad news about Trump. As I said, if Trump is proven to be a corrupt, treasonous, charlatan then republicans can just fall back on the Jeb Bushes, Mitt Romneys, and John McCains of the world. Those guys can say "see I told you so", and republicans will be fine.

If Trump voters are proven wrong, have they been duped and done themselves and their country a huge disservice? Does this apply to those who didn't vote for him? Are you deliberately trolling and refusing to connect the dots?

What's your point here? That defaults happen? Of course they do. Thats why banks do audits. If Trump was in default, we'd know. We would absolutely know. If a bank calls your loan and forces you into bankruptcy...your books become public knowledge. That hasn't happened for Trump....so what does that tell you about whether or not he's in default???

I keep forgetting everything needs to be spelled out for you. Defaults happen despite banks monitoring and doing audits. Therefore audits of Trump's companies do not guarantee that they'll never run into financial trouble, or that they haven't or that they're making yuuge profits, Mr Business Degree.

No, you're rigidly holding a position of skepticism and denigrating anyone who presumes not to be.

cynicism
Without solid verifiable facts skepticism is the only reasonable position.

So follow me here. Of Trump's 513 companies, 4 of them filed for bankruptcy. >>> We have no public knowledge of bankruptcy regarding the other 509 firms. >>> That means, definitively, that they are NOT bankrupt. >>>> That means that they are solvent.

Isn't logic awesome??!!

It is. Too bad it doesn't allow for a leap from solvent >>> yuugely profitable.

Let's start with the fact that he became President

Right, so now I'm not aware that he was elected? That because he got elected, he must be smart, competent, successful, not corrupt, not prejudiced, smell good and one of the greatest cellists of all time?

I thought you said you could be persuaded by evidence. What happened to that??

Maybe I've seen as much evidence from you as you've probably seen from me, since there isn't any. Yet only one of us is convinced, which was the whole point of this whole conversation. Now call me names bad boy.


Saying it's "worth investigating" is the same as saying that the allegations have credibility. You also seem to think an allegation of Trump trafficking pterodactyls is also credible. You sound like a very stable genius.

AND HE STILL WON

Despite, or exactly because of?

No fuck face. If you invested $100 in an index fund at 10%, at the end of the year you'd have $110. Period. It doesn't get adjusted for inflation. I can just see you waving your account statement in some banker's face going "where's my inflation adjustment??!!"

Rawwr. You're really fucking bad in this considering you supposedly have a degree. Yes you'll have $110, but it won't be worth $110 in last year's currency value. It'll likely be a per cent or two less. We could leave out the inflation if we were just calculating dollars on his bank account, but we're not doing that. We're comparing the relative appreciation of his real estate and other businesses to stock market index valuations. $100 of 1980 dollars had the same purchasing power as £318.60 2018 dollars.

Wrong....he'd be roughly where he is if you assume A) He paid no fees, B) He never withdrew a cent and C) deferred all of his taxes. The Vox article states this CLEARLY. For him to accumulate even the most conservative estimates of his net worth, he'd have to significantly outperform the market. Furthermore, we know he DIDN'T invest in the S&P 500. He invested in real estate, where sometimes the returns are higher, but sometimes they are very much not higher. In fact, real estate over the last century has only averaged 1% per year. A TENTH of the S&P 500.

Let me explain. This whole thing is to show a person starting with millions can earn billions, just by investing in the index. Any fucking idiot is able to do that. You're now suggesting, that he must be a brilliant businessman since he's beating that? As per the article: "That's not really impressive. Worse, it suggests that his success is almost entirely the result of having inherited money from his father. His own actions might have even cost him money." Now, that may or may not be true, but you gotta have your head really deep up your ass to unequivocally think he must be a business mastermind.

I think it's funny that you acknowledge the figure as his "net" worth, while simultaneously asking "I wonder if that could be offset by debt?". Hilarious. Were you absent the day they taught the definition of the word "net" in business school?

I don't "accept" it as irrefutable fact, I accept it as Bloomberg's estimate. We don't know the truth.

I looked up the word "net" in the dictionary.

Did it say it means Trump's hands are massive?

This sounds like the whiny bitching of someone who's disappointed with the election results. You're either being intentionally stubborn, or your hopelessly ignorant about what it actually takes to win a national election for the office of President. Either way, I'm done discussing this point with you.

I think most of all it takes lots of campaign donations.

Fixed your post, corrections in bold.

Right, because no one ever voted a republican because they happen to be male, or white, or evangelical christian, or libertarian, or...

Not 'just cause he's a great guy'. Personal ambition and patriotism. I'm sure I've said that multiple times, but you've yet again moved the goalpost just to be a cunt.

So he wouldn't endure the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President for financial success, but he's definitely doing it for personal ambition and patriotism.

[Poopadoop]

So he wouldn't endure the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President for financial success, but he's definitely doing it for personal ambition and patriotism.

Yeah he's so patriotic and focused on helping his country that he hired the kids and son-in-law of a very stable genius to work in his administration.

[OngBonga]

The best thing is, he'll win next time by a landslide.

[BananaStand]

The best thing is, he'll win next time by a landslide.

I see pics of Obama circa 2008 and compare them to how he looked when he left office. He has aged alot more than 8 years. Same thing goes for Bush. Being president kicked these guy's asses. Both guys were alot younger and fitter when they took office than Trump is.

I also see a convincing victory for Trump in 2020. But I would bet my house that he won't be president in 2024.

[Poopadoop]

The best thing is, he'll win next time by a landslide.

Way too far off to be making predictions about.

I'm more interested to see how long it takes before his kids get pushed out of the WH. Kushner has already lost his intelligence clearance, Ivanka obviously has no business being there either. Everyone else has been fired or replaced two or three times already, so I think they must be about due for a 'reassignment' too.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You should be applauded for knowing how to toe the line while staying on the unrepproachable side of it.

No fuck face.

This is pushing it.

[Poopadoop]

G'dam. This guy is so free from any form of corruption I can't believe I ever doubted him!

[BananaStand]

If Trump voters are proven wrong, have they been duped and done themselves and their country a huge disservice?

Duped? Not really. The Russia stuff was out well before election day. He didn't show his tax returns. He didn't take an IQ test. He could have. But he didn't. People knew he didn't, and they voted for him anyway. So I don't see how anyone can claim they were fooled if it turns out he's a broke, stupid, russian spy.

Does this apply to those who didn't vote for him? Are you deliberately trolling and refusing to connect the dots?

It is you who is ignoring dots sir. You wanna talk about 'duped'. Let's talk about Democrats. They were all hornswaggled into believing that the primary was honest. As it turns out, Bernie never had a chance. How did they react to being 'duped'?

They got angry at Trump for letting the Russians red-pill them.

Defaults happen despite banks monitoring and doing audits.

Wrong. Defaults happen BECAUSE of banks monitoring and doing audits. They come in and peek at the books some 2000 times a year. And if they every crunch the numbers and don't like the result, it's game over. "Hey Captain Combover...your debt-to-equity ratio sucks. Welcome to default". That's how it happens. They don't just wait until you stop paying your bills.

Therefore audits of Trump's companies do not guarantee that they'll never run into financial trouble,

Do you know what "going concern" means. Without googling it?

or that they haven't

Actually, that is what it means.

Without solid verifiable facts skepticism is the only reasonable position.

There are solid verifiable facts. You just don't like them.

It is. Too bad it doesn't allow for a leap from solvent >>> yuugely profitable.

Logic painted you into a corner and now you move the goalpost. Cute.

That because he got elected, he must be smart, competent, successful, not corrupt, not prejudiced, smell good and one of the greatest cellists of all time?

Winning an election means most of those things, yes. I'm also guessing Trump is more into woodwinds. Maybe jazz clarinet.

Maybe I've seen as much evidence from you as you've probably seen from me, since there isn't any.

Yes there is

Despite, or exactly because of?

Because of.

We could leave out the inflation if we were just calculating dollars on his bank account, but we're not doing that.

Actually, yes. That's exactly what we're doing.

This whole thing is to show a person starting with millions can earn billions, just by investing in the index. Any fucking idiot is able to do that.

Any fucking idiot who lives in a fantasy universe where he doesn't pay taxes, management fees, or need money to live.

You're now suggesting, that he must be a brilliant businessman since he's beating that?

I'm suggesting that above average performance is strong evidence of exceptional skill

I think most of all it takes lots of campaign donations.

Then Clinton should have won 538-0

Right, because no one ever voted a republican because they happen to be male, or white, or evangelical christian, or libertarian, or...

Look dude, if you think problems of identity politics and lack of messaging are equal on both sides...you're fucking bonkers.

So he wouldn't endure the cost, stress, and public scrutiny that comes with being President for financial success, but he's definitely doing it for personal ambition and patriotism.

It seems highly unlikely that he could make more money by being president than he can business-ing for the rest of his life. It doesn't make mathematical sense that he could tread-water on business growth for what is surely at least half of his remaining life, and somehow end up with more money. Selling a few extra rooms at Mar-a-lago, or passing tax cuts that are SURE to be gone if a Democrat ever gets back in office....just doesn't seem like enough incentive.

What does make sense is that he's an exceptionally driven person who probably believes that he has the right policy ideas to drive a prosperous economy. I suspect that's the same reason that Obama, or Reagan, or Chester A Arthur became president.

[BananaStand]

You should be applauded for knowing how to toe the line while staying on the unrepproachable side of it.




This is pushing it.

I'm so glad you're here.

[CoccoBill]

Logic painted you into a corner and now you move the goalpost. Cute.

Oh so your argument was all along that Trump must be a great businessman because his companies are solvent? You have very interesting definitions about stuff.

Because of.

That was unexpected, we agree then. He probably won mainly because he is famous, charismatic and was able to rile up his base.

Actually, yes. That's exactly what we're doing.

No, we're talking about his properties and investments. Or at least I, Bloomberg and Forbes are.

I'm suggesting that above average performance is strong evidence of exceptional skill

If half the businesses in America are run by exceptional people, how are the exceptional? No wait sorry, I better clarify since this might be difficult to comprehend. 50% are doing better than average, 50% worse than average.

Then Clinton should have won 538-0

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/c...e?id=N00023864
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/c...e?id=N00000019

$408M vs $794M, so not really.

[BananaStand]

Oh so your argument was all along that Trump must be a great businessman because his companies are solvent? You have very interesting definitions about stuff.

Well, if we believe what you've presented about Trump being worth $200M in 1982, and couple that with the objective known fact that he currently owns tangible assets worth multiple billions of dollars....then we can conclude that his companies are super-duper ultra deluxe solvent.

That was unexpected, we agree then. He probably won mainly because he is famous, charismatic and was able to rile up his base.

Maybe we don't agree then. Maybe I misunderstood . Trump won because he rhetoric presented a completely different brand of politics. The tweeting, being bombastic, and a desire to dispense with bullshit and get down to business is what propelled him to victory. Drain the fucking swamp.

No, we're talking about his properties and investments. Or at least I, Bloomberg and Forbes are.

Go back to school. The article predicted Trumps final cash balance had he invested $200M in an index fund in 1982 and never touched it. Inflation is not part of this equation. Don't bother responding. You're wrong, and I'm done educating you on this.

If half the businesses in America are run by exceptional people, how are the exceptional? No wait sorry, I better clarify since this might be difficult to comprehend. 50% are doing better than average, 50% worse than average

.
Have half the businesses in America outperformed their sector by 10x?

$408M vs $794M, so not really

These numbers are grotesquely incorrect. By YUUUUUUUUGE amounts.

Do you just believe anything you read? Did it ever occur to you to perhaps look at a second source?? What happened to that healthy skepticism?

Here's one
And another
Get the dictionary out for this one, it uses complicated terms like "half"
This one has pictures

[MadMojoMonkey]

No wait sorry, I better clarify since this might be difficult to comprehend. 50% are doing better than average, 50% worse than average.

That's the median, not the average.
The median and average may or may not coincide, depending on the distribution of the set.

[BananaStand]

That's the median, not the average.
The median and average may or may not coincide, depending on the distribution of the set.

What the fuck would we ever do without you?

[CoccoBill]

LOL desperate much?

My source quoted money raised $400M vs $800M, your sources 600M vs 1200M and 0.9B vs 1.4B. The rest were about money spent, not raised. CLEARLY my numbers are the ones grotesquely incorrect, and all your sources are precisely accurate. Fuck off dude.

[Poopadoop]

Drain the fucking swamp.

Just to be clear, you're talking about how he won right? Not what's been doing since the election obviously.

[BananaStand]

Just to be clear, you're talking about how he won right? Not what's been doing since the election obviously.

Is this your way of saying you're lonely??

Alright baby bird...I'll feed you.

BOTH

[CoccoBill]

That's the median, not the average.
The median and average may or may not coincide, depending on the distribution of the set.

No I meant average, not median. Nothing suggests half the data points on the set have to be on one side of it. S&P500 isn't either though, so this is a moot point. It's some weighed average of components selected by some committee.

[BananaStand]

LOL desperate much?

My source quoted money raised $400M vs $800M, your sources 600M vs 1200M and 0.9B vs 1.4B. The rest were about money spent, not raised. CLEARLY my numbers are the ones grotesquely incorrect, and all your sources are precisely accurate. Fuck off dude.

You claimed that winning an election hinges on money. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to split hairs about whether you meant money raised, or money spent, go ahead. In either category Hillary doubled up on Trump and lost.

[CoccoBill]

You're not dyslexic are you?. Read again, I posted 400M vs 800M money raised. You said these are completely off and posted different numbers showing the same exact ratio. When I point this out, you start yelling about me splitting hairs. Do you have trouble following this discussion?

[BananaStand]

You're not dyslexic are you?

No, I'm not

Read again, I posted 400M vs 800M money raised.

Right. You posted that as SUPPORT for your claim that money is the deciding factor in elections.

You said these are completely off

Which they are....by hundreds of millions of dollars.

and posted different numbers showing the same exact ratio.

Now we're talking about ratios?? Are you dyslexic? Do you have trouble following this discussion? Your numbers are off. By hundreds of millions.

When I point this out, you start yelling about me splitting hairs.

You moved the goalpost. First it was dollars, then when you were proven wrong, you decided ratios were more important. furthermore, I don't see how our agreed-upon ratio supports your argument whatsoever. We seem to have forgotten that because as usual, when you're wrong, you take the conversation way off the rails in hopes that no one will notice the retarded thing you posted earlier.

Do you have trouble following this discussion?

Actually yeah. One minute you said "campaign victories are all about fundraising". Then like three minutes later you say "Hillary raised twice as much as Trump, and lost".

[Poopadoop]

Is this your way of saying you're lonely??

Alright baby bird...I'll feed you.

BOTH

Finally got up your nerve to answer me eh? Have you found any videos of Trump being coherent yet? lol

Ya, both. Right. So hiring your family and friends is a good way to drain the swamp of corruption. Brilliant.

[BananaStand]

Finally got up your nerve to answer me eh?.

It's been like two hours since our last exchange. In that time all you've posted is some video that I haven't watched cause I'm at work and don't have sound on this PC.

You really needed my attention that bad??

Have you found any videos of Trump being coherent yet? lol

Well you said the CPAC video was too long, so how about this

Are there any words in there you need help with??

Ya, both. Right. So hiring your family and friends is a good way to drain the swamp of corruption. Brilliant.

Nepotism is not synonymous with corruption.

[Poopadoop]

Nepotism is not synonymous with corruption.

Right. Just like apple is not synonymous with fruit.

Give it up. You lost.


Try finding me a video where Trump is coherent for two or three minutes straight on a policy issue. Go ahead, I dare you.

Funny thing is when i go on youtube and enter 'Trump coherent' into the search box, all i get are hits on vidoes about how he's NOT coherent.

[BananaStand]

Right. Just like apple is not synonymous with fruit. Give it up. You lost.

Just because two people have the same last name doesn't mean they can't work together without committing a crime.

Try finding me a video where Trump is coherent for two or three minutes straight on a policy issue. Go ahead, I dare you.

I gave you one that was 75 minutes long. Dare complete.

Face it Poop, your liberal brain would explode if you listened to two full minutes of coherent republican policy. That's too much truth and common sense for the average progressive to handle in one sitting.

Funny thing is when i go on youtube and enter 'Trump coherent' into the search box, all i get are hits on vidoes about how he's NOT coherent.

Well I guess that's it then. Google - completely objective neutral non-partisan arbiter - has spoken.

[Poopadoop]

Just because two people have the same last name doesn't mean they can't work together without committing a crime.

Lol, no matter what he does you have an excuse.

Explain what makes Jarvanka qualified in any way to work in the WH. Explain why Ben Carson belongs in HUD. Explain why Trump's personal pilot should be shortlisted for the FAA. And then come back and tell me why hiring family members and cronies is 'draining the swamp'.

I gave you one that was 75 minutes long. Dare complete.

Why would I sit through 75 minutes of Trump lol? All I ask for is something watchable, it only has to be a few minutes tops. If your argument is that the whole 75 minutes was coherent, I already posted the clips showing that to be demonstrably untrue.

[OngBonga]

If I were prez, I'd totally employ my family.

You know why? One word.

Trust.

[BananaStand]

Lol, no matter what he does you have an excuse.

that's not an excuse, it's an objective fact. Lots of family members work together.

Do I think it's great that Trump hired his family? Do I think it's awesome that some 30 people working in the white house can't get security clearances. No. Those are definitively non-awesome things. But am I going to take it to the extreme of presuming corruption?? No. Not without some kind of evidence of wrong-doing.

Alot of establishment republicans, and especially democrats, were turned off by Trump through the campaign and during the transition. There are surely a shitload of exceptionally qualified and talented people who either turned down, or didn't seek jobs with the Trump administration because they thought it would be detrimental to their careers. As a result, he's had to pick people with some not-pristine backgrounds or qualifications. Like WTF is Omarosa doing?? That's why it's simultaneously possible for George Popadopoulous to have a fancy important-sounding title, and still be "a low level nobody". That's why there's been lots of turnover on Trump's staff.

It's not ideal. But it's kind of what you get when you elect a celebrity businessman as president.

Explain what makes Jarvanka qualified in any way to work in the WH. Explain why Ben Carson belongs in HUD. Explain why Trump's personal pilot should be shortlisted for the FAA.

Trump trusts them.

And then come back and tell me why hiring family members and cronies is 'draining the swamp'.

I don't think you get what "draining the swamp" means.

[Poopadoop]

If I were prez, I'd totally employ my family.

You know why? One word.

Trust.

lol. I trust my family too but I wouldn't get my dad the farm equipment salesman to be my dentist.

You know why? Because no matter how much i trust him, he's not fucking qualified.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think you get what "draining the swamp" means.

No I don't, because apparently it means don't hire qualified people to do jobs that you can give to friends and family members who have no ability (or limited ability) to do them.

But hey , maybe it's ok. When Jared solves the Middle East problem I'll be eating crow.

[CoccoBill]

Right. You posted that as SUPPORT for your claim that money is the deciding factor in elections.

For someone who keeps complaining about people twisting his words and misrepresenting his positions, you sure do it an awful lot. Try to keep up:

I said "I think most of all it takes lots of campaign donations.", not "money is the deciding factor" or "campaign victories are all about fundraising". In case you're looking for your dictionary, it means that they are probably the single most important factor, without sufficient funding you won' be running a meaningful campaign, you won't be releasing videos, holding rallies and events, have advertisements, travel across the country, have staff, equipment, research, food, etc. Clearly having more of those is a clear advantage. Hillary and Trump both raising and spending (I don't give af which we're talking about, point remains the same) hundreds of millions, and pretty much all candidates from both parties being in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars would kinda suggest that money is a key issue. Could you point out someone in the past decades who's gotten any kind of significant votes without massive campaign funds? No one has said that it's the only thing that matters, or that whoever spends most will win, you're the only one suggesting that.

Now wipe the foam off your mouth and read it again, I'm sure you can grasp this complex issue if you try.

[BananaStand]

Because no matter how much i trust him, he's not fucking qualified.

What job is Kushner doing that he's not qualified for?? I doubt very much you even know what his day to day job entails. I doubt you know very much at all about Kushner's background and what skills he may have that overlap politics. I'm sure you gonna google it and come back here with a boatload of wiki-facts, but that doesn't mean that the claims you're making now are based on any valid information that you currently have.

I'll be honest, I'm not that deep in the details about Kushner either. I know Trump trusts him. I know he's got alot of knowledge and connections related to China, which would obviously be valuable to Trump. Beyond that, I don't know what to think. If he's charged with some kind of crime, I'll probably have a new position.

As far as Ivanka goes...her job is to go to the Olympics and look pretty. How is she unqualified?

[BananaStand]

Could you point out someone in the past decades who's gotten any kind of significant votes without massive campaign funds?

Donald Trump

I'm sure, you're gonna say that $600M is "massive campaign funds". But it's really not when your opponent has 2x that amount.

[CoccoBill]

Donald Trump

I'm sure, you're gonna say that $600M is "massive campaign funds". But it's really not when your opponent has 2x that amount.

No no 600M is peanuts. What monster would define the 3rd largest ever campaign sum as massive?

[CoccoBill]

You're cute when you're desperate.

[OngBonga]

You know why? Because no matter how much i trust him, he's not fucking qualified.

Just like you're not qualified to judge who's qualified for any given job and who isnt.

[BananaStand]

No no 600M is peanuts. What monster would define the 3rd largest ever campaign sum as massive?

Where does $600M rank among the "largest ever financing disadvantages"?

In other words, what has been the biggest difference in campaign funds between two candidates?

Romney outraised/spent Obama by a few million.
Obama outraised/spent McCain by about 350 million
Bush and Kerry were separated by only about 35 million.

I couldn't find any data for Bush and Gore other than they spent a combined 343 million. So that means if one guy had all the money, and the other guy had $0....its' still only half the deficit that Trump faced.

[Poopadoop]

What job is Kushner doing that he's not qualified for?? I doubt very much you even know what his day to day job entails. I doubt you know very much at all about Kushner's background and what skills he may have that overlap politics. I'm sure you gonna google it and come back here with a boatload of wiki-facts, but that doesn't mean that the claims you're making now are based on any valid information that you currently have.

I'll be honest, I'm not that deep in the details about Kushner either. I know Trump trusts him. I know he's got alot of knowledge and connections related to China, which would obviously be valuable to Trump. Beyond that, I don't know what to think. If he's charged with some kind of crime, I'll probably have a new position.

As far as Ivanka goes...her job is to go to the Olympics and look pretty. How is she unqualified?

Well Trump himself said Jared's jobs include brokering a peace in the Middle East and solving the opiod epidemic. I think there's a few more as well, but you're right it's not really clear. And I'm sure he's absolutely not qualified for those things. And I'm sure he also doesn't belong in those high level meetings he has no clearance for.

Who the fuck knows what Ivanka's job is. The point is she shouldn't be in the WH at all if she doesn't have a clearly defined role there that's she qualified for.

This isn't reality TV, it's the POTUS. You don't just keep people around for window dressing.

[Poopadoop]

Just like you're not qualified to judge who's qualified for any given job and who isnt.

No-one who is qualified thinks they are qualified; it's not just my opinion.

[CoccoBill]

Where does $600M rank among the "largest ever financing disadvantages"?

I think I would describe your thinking as mechanical. I don't care, it's irrelevant to my point. The 2 biggest campaigns won. Of course if any of the other candidates would have been nominated, their totals would likely also be in the hundreds of millions. Why are you stubbornly claiming that money played no part in Trump's win? Are you touching your penis while you're praising him?

[Poopadoop]

Just like you're not qualified to judge who's qualified for any given job and who isnt.

And you're not qualified to say that I'm not qualified. Argument from infinite regress.

Checkmate.

[OngBonga]

And I'm sure he's absolutely not qualified for those things.

He's more qualified than Tony Blair to act as a Middle East diplomat.

[OngBonga]

And you're not qualified to say that I'm not qualified. Argument from infinite regress.

Checkmate.

wp, gg.

Oh wait, I made a valid point while you didn't. I think you're abusing this "checkmate" right.

[Poopadoop]

Just like you're not qualified to judge who's qualified for any given job and who isnt.

Actually to take this seriously, what kind of qualifications would you think a person in charge of Mid East diplomacy should have? What about someone in charge of the completely different job of dealing with an opiod epidemic?

I mean it's easy to say a dentist should have a degree from dental school, a doctor from medical school, etc., but what actually qualifies someone to be a diplomat or deal with an acute drug abuse crisis? Can you offer some suggestions?

[Poopadoop]

He's more qualified than Tony Blair to act as a Middle East diplomat.

He's more qualified than my dog as well. But Trump had more choices than TB, JK, and Chili.

[OngBonga]

Who the fuck knows what Ivanka's job is. The point is she shouldn't be in the WH at all if she doesn't have a clearly defined role there that's she qualified for.

Go on then, have a guess how much her federal salary is?

[Poopadoop]

wp, gg.

Oh wait, I made a valid point while you didn't. I think you're abusing this "checkmate" right.

One argument cannot be valid if the other isn't, that's the beauty of infinite regress. Learn some philosophy. You're already getting a good dose of ad hominem as a failed argument from banana, now it's time to expand your horizons.

[OngBonga]

Actually to take this seriously, what kind of qualifications would you think a person in charge of Mid East diplomacy should have?

I have no idea, I'm not qualified to make that determination either.

[Poopadoop]

Go on then, have a guess how much her federal salary is?

No-one is arguing she has an official job. I just said she doesn't belong in the WH attending meetings. Next his fucking 10 year old kid will be in there cause, you know, trust.

[BananaStand]

Actually to take this seriously, what kind of qualifications would you think a person in charge of Mid East diplomacy should have?

Be Jewish.

What about someone in charge of the completely different job of dealing with an opiod epidemic?

This is a little glib. His job would be to gather information, hold talks, and advise lawmakers, including his fatherinlaw. That's about it. It's not like he has any real power to unilaterally make any kind of policy.

Also, let's not forget that medical studies and professional doctors bear a significant amount of blame for the opioid problem in the first place. So who would you trust to try and solve this problem??

[Poopadoop]

I have no idea, I'm not qualified to make that determination either.

You're being coy. I'm sure you have some idea.

how about here 's a couple of ideas: 1) some experience in diplomacy; maybe working your way up from ambassador to Uruguay or something before you graduate to solving the MidEast; 2) some experience period. Maybe the job would be better in the hands of someone over 40.

That's just two that spring to mind. Even Blair can manage to meet those criteria.

[OngBonga]

No-one is arguing she has an official job. I just said she doesn't belong in the WH attending meetings..

How the fuck would you know? She's his "advisor". She might be fucking brilliant at advising him. For a start, he has absolute trust in her sincerity. She's not a yes man, she won't be afraid to speak her mind to him, and he can trust that she has the right motivation to share her thoughts.

Whether her thoughts are worthy of such a position, neither me nor you could possibly know.

Her salary is zero.