PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: acrogimp on March 13, 2016, 09:16:07 AM
-
Just a collection of articles from a pro-Trump point of view. You read, you decide.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/22/20-reasons-donald-trump-2016/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/15/the-10-most-important-reasons-trump-would-make-a-great-president/
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/trump-run-president-GOP/2014/12/01/id/610346/
'Gimp
-
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
-
Please. He's an embarrassment to our nation. The fact that so many people are backing him is embarrassing.
As for "He speaks for us little people.", that's laughable. He'd exploit anyone for a dime. And crush anyone he could if they disagreed with him.
-
Please. He's an embarrassment to our nation. The fact that so many people are backing him is embarrassing.
As for "He speaks for us little people.", that's laughable. He'd exploit anyone for a dime. And crush anyone he could if they disagreed with him.
similar to another thread.... substitute "hillary" for "trump" and we'd have the same situation....
-
Please. He's an embarrassment to our nation. The fact that so many people are backing him is embarrassing.
As for "He speaks for us little people.", that's laughable. He'd exploit anyone for a dime. And crush anyone he could if they disagreed with him.
Since you said "he" I guess you are not talking about Hillary, but you could be talking about Obama
On second thought, I could see how you could confus Hillary for a he, if you consider her testosterone level.
-
similar to another thread.... substitute "hillary" for "trump" and we'd have the same situation....
I see you beat me to it.
-
Not to fear, the GOP is working hard to derail his nomination, then get rid of Cruz shortly there after. At the convention the GOP will present the Republicans with a "suitable" choice, and they will be instructed to coalesce around the "nominee".
And everyone will witness the end of the GOP.
Stay tuned.
-
Please. He's an embarrassment to our nation. The fact that so many people are backing him is embarrassing.
As for "He speaks for us little people.", that's laughable. He'd exploit anyone for a dime. And crush anyone he could if they disagreed with him.
Substantive and well-reasoned, thanks. ::)
'Gimp
-
Let me dumb it down for those who don't understand. He's a blowhard who is like a child - he'll say anything to get attention. The fact that so many other kids on the playground have made him popular is beyond belief.
In his defense, I think when he first started out he never thought he'd gain traction. He'll be another Perot, and there will be some reason he won't be able to either continue the race or to serve if elected.
Normally I'd say it's not possible for him to reach the Whitehouse, but I've seen it happen far too many times to even be surprised by now.
Our nation is chock full of idiots carrying voter ID cards.
-
Let me dumb it down for those who don't understand. He's a blowhard who is like a child - he'll say anything to get attention. The fact that so many other kids on the playground have made him popular is beyond belief.
In his defense, I think when he first started out he never thought he'd gain traction. He'll be another Perot, and there will be some reason he won't be able to either continue the race or to serve if elected.
Normally I'd say it's not possible for him to reach the Whitehouse, but I've seen it happen far too many times to even be surprised by now.
Our nation is chock full of idiots carrying voter ID cards.
Wow, thanks G, the disdain you have for your fellow man rarely disappoints. :o
'Gimp
-
Let me dumb it down for those who don't understand. He's a blowhard who is like a child - he'll say anything to get attention. The fact that so many other kids on the playground have made him popular is beyond belief.
In his defense, I think when he first started out he never thought he'd gain traction. He'll be another Perot, and there will be some reason he won't be able to either continue the race or to serve if elected.
Normally I'd say it's not possible for him to reach the Whitehouse, but I've seen it happen far too many times to even be surprised by now.
Our nation is chock full of idiots carrying voter ID cards.
Mark the date. March 14, 2016. Nddons agrees with gerhardt. ;)
-
Mark the date. March 14, 2016. Nddons agrees with gerhardt. ;)
Isn't this one of the signs of the apocalypse?
'Gimp
-
Isn't this one of the signs of the apocalypse?
'Gimp
I'd gather whatever tinfoil you may have lying around. ;)
-
Let me dumb it down for those who don't understand. He's a blowhard who is like a child - he'll say anything to get attention. The fact that so many other kids on the playground have made him popular is beyond belief.
In his defense, I think when he first started out he never thought he'd gain traction. He'll be another Perot, and there will be some reason he won't be able to either continue the race or to serve if elected.
Normally I'd say it's not possible for him to reach the Whitehouse, but I've seen it happen far too many times to even be surprised by now.
Our nation is chock full of idiots carrying voter ID cards.
I can appreciate your point of view and concerns, that's why we have elections.
However, demonizing the voters is wrong on so many counts. Perhaps we should go back and restrict women and blacks from voting while we are at it? How about property owners only? How about poll taxes?
Our culture lives by 60 second sound bites and a 24/7 news cycle always looking for the exclusive or to top ratings. As one gentleman at the cancelled Trump rally in Chicago said "I just wanted to hear him speak so I could make my mind up. I don't want to rely on selected sound bites."
That gentleman was spot on. Right now we have moveon.org planning on trying to shut down many RNC candidates as possible and cut out free speech, which is a travesty.
Pick the candidate of your choosing (R, D or I), go listen and make a decision. When your time comes go in the booth and make the choice.
-
As for "He speaks for us little people.", that's laughable. He'd exploit anyone for a dime. And crush anyone he could if they disagreed with him.
You can say that for all of the contenders.
-
The cries of "don't demonize voters" is hilarious, considering that's a regular past-time in here. Hell, we even have consistent calls for passing tests before being allowed to vote! Keeps the stupid people out, donchaknow? So I'd say lay off Gerhardt, though that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with his sentiment.
I try quite hard to remember that folks with wildly different views than I, who make decisions that I can't possibly fathom and that I believe are detrimental to the Republic, are still fellow Americans with the same rights I have.
-
You can say that for all of the contenders.
But only one GOP candidate has evidence of doing so, such as trying to have the local government take a woman's home via eminent domain to make room for a limo parking lot for his casino.
-
But only one GOP candidate has evidence of doing so, such as trying to have the local government take a woman's home via eminent domain to make room for a limo parking lot for his casino.
1) I don't know the whole story on this, only the anecdote.
2) That wouldn't be the only time it's ever happened in a city revitalization. I'll bet if anything he made a very generous offer on a dump.
-
1) I don't know the whole story on this, only the anecdote.
2) That wouldn't be the only time it's ever happened in a city revitalization. I'll bet if anything he made a very generous offer on a dump.
It's all out there. The woman lived in the house for 30 years.
The "dump" argument is also the one I heard Trump use this past fall.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen
-
Don't care if it's a dump or not.
If it's my land, it's my land. I cannot forsee any circumstance where it is appropriate for the state to take someone's land to sell to another private party. If you need to build a highway or something like that for public use, then fine, I can see that, but not for the private profit of another private party. Want someone's land, offer them more money. If they don't sell at any price, tough shit.
-
Trump is living proof of the double edged sword that is Democracy. Anyone can be elected to high office.
-
It's all out there. The woman lived in the house for 30 years.
The "dump" argument is also the one I heard Trump use this past fall.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen
She should have taken the $1,000,000.
-
Trump is living proof of the double edged sword that is Democracy. Anyone can be elected to high office.
No shit.
(https://epluribusunumdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/barack-obama-appeared-on-between-two-ferns-and-it-was-amazing.jpg)
-
She should have taken the $1,000,000.
Should she be forced to do so?
-
Don't care if it's a dump or not.
If it's my land, it's my land. I cannot forsee any circumstance where it is appropriate for the state to take someone's land to sell to another private party. If you need to build a highway or something like that for public use, then fine, I can see that, but not for the private profit of another private party. Want someone's land, offer them more money. If they don't sell at any price, tough shit.
It's your land until you don't pay the property tax bill.
-
It's your land until you don't pay the property tax bill.
Yep. "Ownership" of any land anywhere is only granted to you by whoever has enough force to control that land. If you have the means to defend and expel the federal government, then it is your land beyond dispute. Otherwise, it is your land only if they say it is. It's like this everywhere in the world and has been ever since land "ownership" became a concept.
-
It's your land until you don't pay the property tax bill.
Owner never missed a payment.
-
Yep. "Ownership" of any land anywhere is only granted to you by whoever has enough force to control that land. If you have the means to defend and expel the federal government, then it is your land beyond dispute. Otherwise, it is your land only if they say it is. It's like this everywhere in the world and has been ever since land "ownership" became a concept.
hmmmm, I wonder how that approach could be applied to the so-called right to life...
-
hmmmm, I wonder how that approach could be applied to the so-called right to life...
Of what right to life do you speak?
-
Of what right to life do you speak?
just one of those pesky constitutional rights...
-
just one of those pesky constitutional rights...
Ok, just was unsure where you were going, but I think I get it now.
-
Owner never missed a payment.
Never said they did.
-
hmmmm, I wonder how that approach could be applied to the so-called right to life...
No such animal. If the government wants you dead, you're dead.
-
The most overarching hysterical irony of this election cycle is after deriding Obama for having too little experience in government and public affairs extolling Trump, who has none at all.
-
The most overarching hysterical irony of this election cycle is after deriding Obama for having too little experience in government and public affairs extolling Trump, who has none at all.
otoh - look at all the experience the corrupt doormat has.
-
The most overarching hysterical irony of this election cycle is after deriding Obama for having too little experience in government and public affairs extolling Trump, who has none at all.
Obama had zero experience in anything, except for "community organizing" and hanging out with radicals. He never actually worked for a living and he never ran a company and made a payroll. He was, and still is all hype.
The most inexperienced amateur to hold the office. And to date, the worse.
-
The most overarching hysterical irony of this election cycle is after deriding Obama for having too little experience in government and public affairs extolling Trump, who has none at all.
The problem wasn't that Obama had too little experience in government. He had no practical experience at anything.
And government experience is not all that high a priority for me. We have had many many very experienced government types. That is probably a big part of the reason we have so many problems today.
Trump has had much more real world experience than most government types. Some good, some bad, but he has had a lot of it.
-
Obama had zero experience in anything, except for "community organizing" and hanging out with radicals. He never actually worked for a living and he never ran a company and made a payroll. He was, and still is all hype.
The most inexperienced amateur to hold the office. And to date, the worse.
Trump inherited a crapload of money and made himself into a celebrity a la Paris Hilton. He did manage to hoodwink lots of investors and invent too big to fail. Trump Casinos only went to bankruptcy court five times. Managed to bankrupt lots of local companies that did business with him. I can see why he won't release his tax records. I can only imagine the bombshells.
-
I can only imagine the bombshells.
Bombshells to one is normal operations to most people in business. There are people who think the fact that he takes any tax deduction would be a "bombshell"...
-
Trump inherited a crapload of money and made himself into a celebrity a la Paris Hilton. He did manage to hoodwink lots of investors and invent too big to fail. Trump Casinos only went to bankruptcy court five times. Managed to bankrupt lots of local companies that did business with him. I can see why he won't release his tax records. I can only imagine the bombshells.
And you are conveniently leaving out all of his successful business enterprises. In the world of business not everyone is a Apple, GE, MS, etc.
And back to Obama. Please tell us his history of employment. Please tell us at what point in his career he hired employees, made a payroll, provided benefits or even ran a company budget.
And how about his government service? Other than a lackluster Ill state senator or a pathetic US senator, what did he accomplish?
-
And you are conveniently leaving out all of his successful business enterprises. In the world of business not everyone is a Apple, GE, MS, etc.
Please tell me all about them. And tell me how much he made vs. how much he inherited. Oh, that's right, you can't. You don't have any access to anything other than his ramblings because he's the only presidential candidate in recent history to not release tax returns.
-
Please tell me all about them. And tell me how much he made vs. how much he inherited. Oh, that's right, you can't. You don't have any access to anything other than his ramblings because he's the only presidential candidate in recent history to not release tax returns.
Thou shalt not question the ramblings of the Orange God-King!
-
Why is Trump's financial status so important while you liberals give Hillary a pass on all the money she has accumulated ILLEGALLY. Did Trump take donations from enemy foreign countries and banks to undermine America?
-
Please tell me all about them. And tell me how much he made vs. how much he inherited. Oh, that's right, you can't. You don't have any access to anything other than his ramblings because he's the only presidential candidate in recent history to not release tax returns.
The Trump Organization has 515 subsidiaries. Are you trying to imply that all of that was inherited and that Donald Trump was not responsible for any growth of the organization?
It's not difficult to spend a bit of time researching the various business subsidiaries and see the numbers on them, but that would detract from your liberal mindset and talking points.
So back to your two heroes, Obama and Clinton. Tell us about Obama's involvement in private industry that makes him knowledgeable on how a business works? Which companies did Obama oversee, produce a budget, hire people and make a payroll for? Or even, other than being a "community organizer", what has he actually done outside of politics? What, you say he wrote 2 books about himself? Gee, forensic analyst have determined he didn't even write those books himself but used a ghost writer instead (a guy named Bill Ayers, but that's another story). Oh, you say Obama taught constitutional law and said he was a law professor. But the University of Chicago said he was only a lecturer and was never a professor.
What about Obama's time in the legislature? You know, where the majority of his votes were "present" and he never introduced any legislation? No accomplishments either. And then we have his lackluster time in the US Senate, again a huge nothing, nothing notable.
Now let's get to Hillary Clinton, as Obama said was the "most qualified to be president". Let's see, here we have a lawyer who got fired from the watergate committee for ethics, then goes on to be First Lady with Bill Clinton where she proclaimed that she was a "co-president" in his administration although no position ever existed. Her Hillary Care flopped big time, she was embroiled in multiple scandals and we even got to watch her husband get impeached. Then she carpetbags herself to NY to get a Senate seat only to do as her protege Obama and accomplish nothing. Oh wait, she did vote to support the Iraq invasion to the joy of the liberals. Then we watched her failed presidential bid in 08 in which she excoriated Obama at every turn labeling him as incompetent (talk about kettle calling the pot black) only to worm herself in as Secretary of State, a job in which she failed miserably and accelerated the destabilation of the Middle East. Not to mention sacrificing American lives to protect her political agenda.
And she has made history, not by being the first woman to gain her parties nomination for president, but for being under investigation for criminal conduct while running for the office of president. Now that is quite the achievement.
-
Trump inherited a crapload of money and made himself into a celebrity a la Paris Hilton. He did manage to hoodwink lots of investors and invent too big to fail. Trump Casinos only went to bankruptcy court five times. Managed to bankrupt lots of local companies that did business with him. I can see why he won't release his tax records. I can only imagine the bombshells.
Your bullshit is in high gear.
The extremes you can go to to excuse behavior by a progressive but attack anyone else is pathetic.
When attacking Donald Trump who actually did things to give cover for the Muslim-in-Chief / Community Organizer is so sad that it does mark you as an out of touch academic without much in the way of credentials to back yup your screed.
-
Please tell me all about them. And tell me how much he made vs. how much he inherited. Oh, that's right, you can't. You don't have any access to anything other than his ramblings because he's the only presidential candidate in recent history to not release tax returns.
Your jealousy meter is pegged today.
Question: How come progressives are so jealous of other people's possessions, wealth and opportunities?
Answer: Because whining and demanding other people fund their lifestyle is better than earning their own way for many progressives.
-
Not in any way jealous. I just think that he's selling a false narrative. The only business dealings I've seen have been out and out disasters. He claims to have made lots of money (which he might have) but he sold all his investors up the river. The only thing I've seen him do successfully is the reality TV thing. But I wouldn't vote for Paris Hilton, so I see no reason to vote for Trump. Heck, at least Hilton has a good head on her shoulders.
But please, tell me about all these business successes. Shouldn't be too difficult.
-
I just think that he's selling a false narrative.
Yet you support Obama and Hillary????
-
Yet you support Obama and Hillary? ???
Let's just note here that refusing to hit your knees and service the Orange God-King is defined by you as supporting Obama and Hillary.
-
I kind of got lost in this thread. It's titled "Reasons to Vote for Trump", what are they again? The only solid one I can remember is "...because Hillary!"
-
I kind of got lost in this thread. It's titled "Reasons to Vote for Trump", what are they again? The only solid one I can remember is "...because Hillary!"
I like that he is a capitalist, and not a Marxist like Hillary, Bernie, Obama, etc. I like his position on job creation, and foreign markets, and trade. I like his position on immigration, and actually knowing who we are letting in to this country. We do not currently have borders, so we are not a country, but just a territory with free stuff for illegals, and Syrians. I like his position on the 2A, and NOT blaming the legally owned gun, but blaming the criminals who commit the crimes.
-
I like that he is a capitalist, and not a Marxist like Hillary, Bernie, Obama, etc. I like his position on job creation, and foreign markets, and trade. I like his position on immigration, and actually knowing who we are letting in to this country. We do not currently have borders, so we are not a country, but just a territory with free stuff for illegals, and Syrians. I like his position on the 2A, and NOT blaming the legally owned gun, but blaming the criminals who commit the crimes.
Agreed.
-
I like that he is a capitalist, and not a Marxist like Hillary, Bernie, Obama, etc. I like his position on job creation, and foreign markets, and trade. I like his position on immigration, and actually knowing who we are letting in to this country. We do not currently have borders, so we are not a country, but just a territory with free stuff for illegals, and Syrians. I like his position on the 2A, and NOT blaming the legally owned gun, but blaming the criminals who commit the crimes.
I don't really care for his policies on trade and keeping businesses in the U.S. I was a little surprised by his stances on that because he is a businessman.
He's come out strong for the Second Amendment after the Orlando shooting but he hasn't always been strong on it, including after Sandy Hook. I think he'll only get stronger on Second Amendment, whether that's because he's locked into it as a platform issue or because he actually believes it, I'm not sure.
I agree that he's been consistently strong on immigration and even though his position may need a little polishing, I generally like it.
-
I don't really care for his policies on trade and keeping businesses in the U.S. I was a little surprised by his stances on that because he is a businessman.
I think Trump realizes that to retain, and create GOOD jobs in the U.S. we need to create a better environment for business. That means better tax, and regulatory policy. I don't think he is really a protectionist, but wants to negotiate better trade deals for the U.S. We've really given away the candy store the past 25 years or so.
-
I think Trump realizes that to retain, and create GOOD jobs in the U.S. we need to create a better environment for business. That means better tax, and regulatory policy. I don't think he is really a protectionist, but wants to negotiate better trade deals for the U.S. We've really given away the candy store the past 25 years or so.
He's made statements in the past of trying to prevent companies from opening factories in other countries, like Ford is doing in Mexico. I would hope you're correct that he'll change the business environment to make it where businesses want to stay and choose to stay, rather than attempting to force them to stay by imposing higher tariffs and what not. That cost will only be passed onto the consumer.
-
He's made statements in the past of trying to prevent companies from opening factories in other countries, like Ford is doing in Mexico. I would hope you're correct that he'll change the business environment to make it where businesses want to stay and choose to stay, rather than attempting to force them to stay by imposing higher tariffs and what not. That cost will only be passed onto the consumer.
Totally agree. Trump went to Wharton, and I believe has a grasp if basic economics. Protectionism was tried in the past, and only created shortages, very high prices, and economic mayhem.
-
Totally agree. Trump went to Wharton, and I believe has a grasp if basic economics. Protectionism was tried in the past, and only created shortages, very high prices, and economic mayhem.
Isn't Trump advocating protectionism?
-
I agree that he's been consistently strong on immigration and even though his position may need a little polishing, I generally like it.
Except when he imports cheap foreign labour to work on his projects that is.
-
Except when he imports cheap foreign labour to work on his projects that is.
If he brings them in legally then it's a non issue, right? Though I do seem to remember a report that Trump allegedly used illegal immigrants to build part of Trump Tower. In fairness, it likely wasn't him that allowed it but rather a contractor that employed them. Either way the optics are bad.
-
If he brings them in legally then it's a non issue, right? Though I do seem to remember a report that Trump allegedly used illegal immigrants to build part of Trump Tower. In fairness, it likely wasn't him that allowed it but rather a contractor that employed them. Either way the optics are bad.
Even if legally...he farmed out American jobs to foreigners.
Just like his Muslim ban won't impact his friends.
He supports touchback-amnesty.
He's supported the assault-weapons ban.
He basically has no actual principles.
-
The Trump Organization has 515 subsidiaries. Are you trying to imply that all of that was inherited and that Donald Trump was not responsible for any growth of the organization?
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/354/252/1dd.jpg)
-
Not in any way jealous. I just think that he's selling a false narrative. The only business dealings I've seen have been out and out disasters. He claims to have made lots of money (which he might have) but he sold all his investors up the river. The only thing I've seen him do successfully is the reality TV thing. But I wouldn't vote for Paris Hilton, so I see no reason to vote for Trump. Heck, at least Hilton has a good head on her shoulders.
But please, tell me about all these business successes. Shouldn't be too difficult.
Did you read his book "The Art of the Deal"?
-
I like that he is a capitalist, and not a Marxist like Hillary, Bernie, Obama, etc. I like his position on job creation, and foreign markets, and trade. I like his position on immigration, and actually knowing who we are letting in to this country. We do not currently have borders, so we are not a country, but just a territory with free stuff for illegals, and Syrians. I like his position on the 2A, and NOT blaming the legally owned gun, but blaming the criminals who commit the crimes.
Our borders only exist for honest citizens.
-
Isn't Trump advocating protectionism?
Where did you get that idea, MSNBC?
Trump advocates leveling the trade playing field and having countries under our military and diplomatic protection pay for that benefit.
-
If he brings them in legally then it's a non issue, right? Though I do seem to remember a report that Trump allegedly used illegal immigrants to build part of Trump Tower. In fairness, it likely wasn't him that allowed it but rather a contractor that employed them. Either way the optics are bad.
It's only a non issue if Trump doesn't believe it when he talks about foreign workers taking American jobs. He hired mostly foreign workers at Mar A Lago and other clubs.
-
Where did you get that idea, MSNBC?
Trump advocates leveling the trade playing field and having countries under our military and diplomatic protection pay for that benefit.
No. Trumps own words actually. He sounds like a 21st Century Herbert Hoover.
He wants to modernize the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff scheme and calls for tariffs as high as 35%. That's protectionism.
He would "prohibit" American companies such as Ford from building plants in Mexico. That's protectionism.
Etc.
-
No. Trumps own words actually. He sounds like a 21st Century Herbert Hoover.
He wants to modernize the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff scheme and calls for tariffs as high as 35%. That's protectionism.
He would "prohibit" American companies such as Ford from building plants in Mexico. That's protectionism.
Etc.
Obviously, if you're quoting the Orange One, you're a shill for Hillary!
-
Did you read his book "The Art of the Deal"?
No. I prefer nonfiction.
-
Trump, on ISIS and the internet:
We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.
-
Trump, on ISIS and the internet:
Here's the link for those interested:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_56679803e4b009377b22f001
I've said before that Trump has issues with the First Amendment (among others) and he's been given a free pass by some people on this board. When you take away one of the most fundamental cornerstones of our country then it becomes too easy to take away others, including the Second Amendment. The answer to speech you don't like isn't less speech, it's more speech.
-
Trump, on ISIS and the internet:
Oh my God.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160614/3c41a84da9088649436246fdc67c7ee8.jpg)
-
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160614/e4447fab0cebcdcd33f094acf7574d34.jpg)
-
No. I prefer nonfiction.
The results are all verifiable.
-
The results are all verifiable.
How, exactly? His holdings are mostly private and not subject to SEC oversight. There are no tax documents to inspect. Even his net worth is subject to conjecture.
-
How, exactly? His holdings are mostly private and not subject to SEC oversight. There are no tax documents to inspect. Even his net worth is subject to conjecture.
This is all true.
-
How, exactly? His holdings are mostly private and not subject to SEC oversight. There are no tax documents to inspect. Even his net worth is subject to conjecture.
He built buildings and he built businesses. You deny this?
-
He built buildings and he built businesses. You deny this?
He didn't build that! Somebody else did that!
-
He built buildings and he built businesses. You deny this?
The only buildings he built for which I've seen any accounting were the casinos in Atlantic city. And in fact he stiffed most of the guys who did the building for him in bankruptcy. Drove most of them out of business.
-
The only buildings he built for which I've seen any accounting were the casinos in Atlantic city. And in fact he stiffed most of the guys who did the building for him in bankruptcy. Drove most of them out of business.
I guess this website is a hoax then by liberal standards: http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/
I find it amazing liberals attack Trump's wealth, which was created by capitalism that creates jobs for thousands and contributes to the US tax base, but in turn they don't acknowledge Hillary Clinton's wealth ($200+million) that was created by the Clinton Foundation which provides but for a very few and derives it's money from companies and countries intent on buying influence.
The liberals also won't acknowledge that if the Clinton Foundation gets a donation of $1 million say for Haitian Relief that approximately 6% of that money goes for relief while the 94% goes to the Clinton Foundation for "administrative fees". So for the math challenged that means $60,000 to Haitian Relief and $940,000 to the Clintons.
And speaking of the Clinton Foundation, isn't it amazing that Hillary says she is a proponent of women's rights while accepting millions of dollars from countries that openly deny women's rights? And those countries also take a dim view of gays as well, even going as far as having them sentenced to death.
-
I guess this website is a hoax then by liberal standards: http://www.trump.com/real-estate-portfolio/
How many of these are out and out owned by Turmp and not the banks? I don't know, and neither do you.
I find it amazing liberals attack Trump's wealth, which was created by capitalism that creates jobs for thousands and contributes to the US tax base, but in turn they don't acknowledge Hillary Clinton's wealth ($200+million) that was created by the Clinton Foundation which provides but for a very few and derives it's money from companies and countries intent on buying influence.
Trump's wealth was largely inherited. The only business dealings that I know anything about were out and out disasters. The only thing I know that Trump did successfully was become a reality TV star. I'm not saying he didn't do good things, or even that he's rich or not. All I'm saying is I don't know and neither do you. You have only his say so, not a very good thing to rely on for someone running for the leader of the free world.
The liberals also won't acknowledge that if the Clinton Foundation gets a donation of $1 million say for Haitian Relief that approximately 6% of that money goes for relief while the 94% goes to the Clinton Foundation for "administrative fees". So for the math challenged that means $60,000 to Haitian Relief and $940,000 to the Clintons.
I won't deny that the Clinton foundation is a truly rotten charity. That's why I don't donate to it.
And speaking of the Clinton Foundation, isn't it amazing that Hillary says she is a proponent of women's rights while accepting millions of dollars from countries that openly deny women's rights? And those countries also take a dim view of gays as well, even going as far as having them sentenced to death.
I think the appearance of impropriety is breathtaking. The difference is I don't have to depend on Hillary's word for it. There is a very clear record of public service that I can examine for myself. No such thing for Trump, just his say so, much of which is very clearly bombast.
-
How many of these are out and out owned by Turmp and not the banks? I don't know, and neither do you.
Trump's wealth was largely inherited. The only business dealings that I know anything about were out and out disasters. The only thing I know that Trump did successfully was become a reality TV star. I'm not saying he didn't do good things, or even that he's rich or not. All I'm saying is I don't know and neither do you. You have only his say so, not a very good thing to rely on for someone running for the leader of the free world.
I won't deny that the Clinton foundation is a truly rotten charity. That's why I don't donate to it.
I think the appearance of impropriety is breathtaking. The difference is I don't have to depend on Hillary's word for it. There is a very clear record of public service that I can examine for myself. No such thing for Trump, just his say so, much of which is very clearly bombast.
The point is that Trump runs numerous businesses and has been successful to some degree at the very least since they aren't all closed and he's not living on the streets.
Clinton, aside from receiving money from foreign countries for influence, is also under criminal investigation. She has a clear record of public service, you at correct on that, but it's not a very good record. Whatever failings you may find with Trump, how do you think it's appropriate for someone who is being investigated for mishandling classified information to be running for the highest office in the country, which will have daily access to the most sensitive information? Tie that in with the influence she sold to foreign countries and you have a potentially very dangerous situation. I just don't see how that's defensible, and I have yet to see one Hillary supporter, be it here or on the news or wherever, defend it. They can't, because it's inexcusable.
-
The point is that Trump runs numerous businesses and has been successful to some degree at the very least since they aren't all closed and he's not living on the streets.
Pretty low bar for a guy who inherited tens of millions of dollars.
Clinton, aside from receiving money from foreign countries for influence, is also under criminal investigation.
Actually, no she isn't.
She has a clear record of public service, you at correct on that, but it's not a very good record.
Says you. I disagree. The difference is there's a record to be seen, unlike Trump.
Whatever failings you may find with Trump, how do you think it's appropriate for someone who is being investigated for mishandling classified information to be running for the highest office in the country, which will have daily access to the most sensitive information?
While I won't defend her out and out arrogance for using her own E-mail server instead of Govco's, it isn't like she gave the barbarians keys to the gate.
Tie that in with the influence she sold to foreign countries and you have a potentially very dangerous situation. I just don't see how that's defensible, and I have yet to see one Hillary supporter, be it here or on the news or wherever, defend it. They can't, because it's inexcusable.
She created the appearance impropriety to be certain. What really ticks me off about it is she should have known better. The devil is in the details. You have no idea who's paid Trump off, or who he's worked deal with. You have his word and nothing else. I'd rather a bad record than no record.
-
How many of these are out and out owned by Turmp and not the banks? I don't know, and neither do you.
So you are totally clueless about the business world, and it shows. Do you understand in a business the differences between owning property and leveraging property? Has it ever occurred to you that in some instances it's better not to outright own a property but to mortgage or lease it?
Business is about cash flow. There are multitudes of different reasons to own or lease property in business, all which is obviously way above your head.
Trying to make a claim of whether Trump owns, leases or has a mortgage on properties as to how well his business is doing is idiotic, at best. You're grasping at straws.
Trump's wealth was largely inherited. The only business dealings that I know anything about were out and out disasters. The only thing I know that Trump did successfully was become a reality TV star. I'm not saying he didn't do good things, or even that he's rich or not. All I'm saying is I don't know and neither do you.
So what does it matter if he inherited part of his fortune? His family has run successful businesses for years, again employing thousands and contributing to the tax rolls. Please tell us how that is a bad thing for this country? Mr. Trump has made payrolls, made budgets and has been a leader of a company that employs thousands and has kept that company profitable without relying on government handouts.
You have only his say so, not a very good thing to rely on for someone running for the leader of the free world.
And you are supporting a woman who is a known liar and cheat who constantly uses deception. Look at the trail of scandals behind her and her husband. This woman has accomplished nothing in her professional life except to enrich herself with a foundation that is beyond corruption. In the public sector she has no accomplishments but has a string of failures all contributed to her.
I won't deny that the Clinton foundation is a truly rotten charity. That's why I don't donate to it.
But you are OK with it? And you are OK with the ties it has created to terrorist countries?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/saudi-arabia-has-funded-20-hillarys-presidential-campaign-saudi-crown-prince-claims
Really?
I think the appearance of impropriety is breathtaking. The difference is I don't have to depend on Hillary's word for it. There is a very clear record of public service that I can examine for myself. No such thing for Trump, just his say so, much of which is very clearly bombast.
Trump has been in the public eye for 30+ years and so has his business. You just refuse to acknowledge it because the information disagrees with the liberal talking points.
-
Pretty low bar for a guy who inherited tens of millions of dollars.
I'm aware you have your head all the way up your ass being in academia, but that statement is so laughable. You clearly don't understand money or business.
Actually, no she isn't.
Yes she is. Denying it won't make it go away.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314
Says you. I disagree. The difference is there's a record to be seen, unlike Trump.
While I won't defend her out and out arrogance for using her own E-mail server instead of Govco's, it isn't like she gave the barbarians keys to the gate.
She violated Federal law and several Federal regulations. She has always believed she is above the law. Many people in government have had their careers ended for doing less.
She created the appearance impropriety to be certain. What really ticks me off about it is she should have known better. The devil is in the details. You have no idea who's paid Trump off, or who he's worked deal with. You have his word and nothing else. I'd rather a bad record than no record.
Wow, now that is one idiotic statement. Unbelievable.
-
How many of these are out and out owned by Turmp and not the banks? I don't know, and neither do you.
Trump's wealth was largely inherited. The only business dealings that I know anything about were out and out disasters. The only thing I know that Trump did successfully was become a reality TV star. I'm not saying he didn't do good things, or even that he's rich or not. All I'm saying is I don't know and neither do you. You have only his say so, not a very good thing to rely on for someone running for the leader of the free world.
Willful ignorance. Stop watching Chrissy Matthews and Madcow. Trump took whatever inheritance he had and multiplied it. He did his own development in Manhattan.
BTW, the Obama birth certificate thing was on Obama's say-so only during the election cycle. How did he get admitted and pay for Harvard based on his sketchy academic history? Did you question any of that?
-
So you are totally clueless about the business world, and it shows. Do you understand in a business the differences between owning property and leveraging property?
No he's another clueless ivory-towered academic like Obama.
-
So you are totally clueless about the business world, and it shows. Do you understand in a business the differences between owning property and leveraging property? Has it ever occurred to you that in some instances it's better not to outright own a property but to mortgage or lease it?
Of course. But then don't keep it secret and tell me how rich or successful you are. It could just as easily turn out that they own nothing and are leveraged out the hilt. And you don't know. All you have is the say so of a proven braggart.
Trying to make a claim of whether Trump owns, leases or has a mortgage on properties as to how well his business is doing is idiotic, at best. You're grasping at straws.
Claiming he's some sort of huge business success when you don't know the first thing about his finances seems a bit clueless to me.
So what does it matter if he inherited part of his fortune? His family has run successful businesses for years, again employing thousands and contributing to the tax rolls. Please tell us how that is a bad thing for this country? Mr. Trump has made payrolls, made budgets and has been a leader of a company that employs thousands and has kept that company profitable without relying on government handouts.
A far easier thing to do when you inherit a fortune, than when you have to build yourself up from nothing like Obama. You keep claiming he's some sort of business genius. Someone can start with a fortune and end with a fortune without being any such.
And you are supporting a woman who is a known liar and cheat who constantly uses deception. Look at the trail of scandals behind her and her husband. This woman has accomplished nothing in her professional life except to enrich herself with a foundation that is beyond corruption. In the public sector she has no accomplishments but has a string of failures all contributed to her.
Actually, she has an amazing record of accomplishment as a public servant, but I doubt you want to hear any of it, which is fine. The point is she has a record, unlike Trump.
But you are OK with it? And you are OK with the ties it has created to terrorist countries?
The only terrorist country of which I am aware is ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever they're calling it these days.
Trump has been in the public eye for 30+ years and so has his business. You just refuse to acknowledge it because the information disagrees with the liberal talking points.
Trump has zero record of public service. Zilch, nada, zero. It like hiring a guy to run your company who's never been in business. Its like hiring a guy to build rockets who doesn't even know Physics. Its like hiring a guy to do brain surgery who hasn't even been to medical school.
-
Of course. But then don't keep it secret and tell me how rich or successful you are. It could just as easily turn out that they own nothing and are leveraged out the hilt. And you don't know. All you have is the say so of a proven braggart.
You are tilting at windmills and trying to deflect.
Claiming he's some sort of huge business success when you don't know the first thing about his finances seems a bit clueless to me.
If you knew how to use the internet much of that information is out there.
A far easier thing to do when you inherit a fortune, than when you have to build yourself up from nothing like Obama. You keep claiming he's some sort of business genius. Someone can start with a fortune and end with a fortune without being any such.
So let's discuss Obama's fortune. Where did he get his millions from? What did he do to earn it? Are you referiing to the two books he supposedly wrote? Are you saying he's now worth $5million from just the sales of two books?
And while we are on Obama, how does a dope smoking cocaine using average student get to Columbia and Harvard? Who paid for his education? How did he get admitted?
Actually, she has an amazing record of accomplishment as a public servant, but I doubt you want to hear any of it, which is fine. The point is she has a record, unlike Trump.
Yea, amazing is not the word. She has destabilized Libya, she has helped with the rise of ISIS, she has had a hand in the disasters of Syria, etc, etc. She has been a total failure as a Secretary of State. But please, point out to me here achievements as Secretary. And while you are at it, point out the legislation that she wrote or cosponsored in the Senate and got it passed.
Please, point out all of these "achievements" that the rest of the world has missed.
The only terrorist country of which I am aware is ISIS, or ISIL, or whatever they're calling it these days.
ISIS is not a country.
Trump has zero record of public service. Zilch, nada, zero. It like hiring a guy to run your company who's never been in business. Its like hiring a guy to build rockets who doesn't even know Physics. Its like hiring a guy to do brain surgery who hasn't even been to medical school.
Hillary has no record of ever working in the Private sector or in business. She has never made a payroll, she has never hired employees, she has never even put forth an operating budget. She knows absolutely nothing about how a business operates, and business is the heart and soul of our economy. She is all for more taxes and regulation on business, which in turn only hinders business which affects employment and taxes. She has even spoken out on how she will bankrupt companies she disagrees with.
Hillary is a failed Lawyer. She was First Lady through an administration full of scandal and corruption. Her time as a carpetbagger in the Senate saw no accomplishments. Her term as Secretary of State was disastrous to US foreign policy and has made the world a more dangerous place. Her criminal activity in relation to her mishandling of emails and sensitive information has given her the distinction of being the first presidential candidate to run for that office while under a criminal investigation.
But give her credit. She is good at taking money to peddle influence and run her corrupt Clinton Foundation.
-
Pretty low bar for a guy who inherited tens of millions of dollars.
Actually, no she isn't.
Says you. I disagree. The difference is there's a record to be seen, unlike Trump.
While I won't defend her out and out arrogance for using her own E-mail server instead of Govco's, it isn't like she gave the barbarians keys to the gate.
She created the appearance impropriety to be certain. What really ticks me off about it is she should have known better. The devil is in the details. You have no idea who's paid Trump off, or who he's worked deal with. You have his word and nothing else. I'd rather a bad record than no record.
What I see from your postings is a self centered, whining, progressive, who isn't wealthy so he hates those who are. Your hypocrisy is outstanding for it's blindness and breathtaking ignorance but truly describes the heart of your disaffection for those who earn their wealth instead of those who gain it illegally like Hilary Clinton.
I guess as long as Hilary is on the right side of abortion she can steal, lie, cheat and still you will demand that she be held to an entirely different standard because of the letter after her name.
-
Actually, she has an amazing record of accomplishment as a public servant, but I doubt you want to hear any of it, which is fine. The point is she has a record, unlike Trump.
LMAO. How many bills did she bring forward and get passed during her term as a carpetbagger Senator "from" NY?
How many jobs did she save/bring to the depressed Central New York region as she promised?
-
What I see from your postings is a self centered, whining, progressive, who isn't wealthy so he hates those who are. Your hypocrisy is outstanding for it's blindness and breathtaking ignorance but truly describes the heart of your disaffection for those who earn their wealth instead of those who gain it illegally like Hilary Clinton.
I guess as long as Hilary is on the right side of abortion she can steal, lie, cheat and still you will demand that she be held to an entirely different standard because of the letter after her name.
You left out "owner of a really bitching M20-C"
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/nations-clinton-bashes-for-terrorism-gave-big-bucks-to-clinton-foundation/
Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton harshly criticized three countries for directly funding terrorists who are actively seeking to attack the United States and Western Europe. The governments of this trio of nations have contributed between $16 million and $40 million to the Clinton Foundation.
-
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/hillarys-huge-libya-disaster-16600
Prior to the February 17, 2011, “Day of Rage,” Libya had a national budget surplus of 8.7 percent of GDP in 2010, with oil production at 1.8 million barrels per day, on track to reach its goal of 3 million barrels per day. Currently, oil production has decreased by over 80 percent. Following the revolution, the Libyan economy contracted by an estimated 41.8 percent, with a national deficit of 17.1 percent GDP in 2011.
Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/nations-clinton-bashes-for-terrorism-gave-big-bucks-to-clinton-foundation/
She has to say this for appearance purposes. I'm sure that the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis all understand how the game works. She'll criticize them in public and then accept their money and give them influence in private.
-
She has to say this for appearance purposes. I'm sure that the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis all understand how the game works. She'll criticize them in public and then accept their money and give them influence in private.
Same with the Wall Street types and Goldman Sachs. She'll bash them publicly and take their money privately.
-
Same with the Wall Street types and Goldman Sachs. She'll bash them publicly and take their money privately.
Multiple, multiple millions from the corps she demonizes as the 1%. Also foreign money during her tenure as Sec of State. All for influence. She is even corrupt for a politician.
-
And the hits keep coming! Trump parts ways with his campaign manager. Bad move, or too little too late?
-
And the hits keep coming! Trump parts ways with his campaign manager. Bad move, or too little too late?
Different guy needed for different job. He got Trump the win on the nomination, now it's up to new guy to kick Hill's cottage cheese ass.
-
Different guy needed for different job. He got Trump the win on the nomination, now it's up to new guy to kick Hill's cottage cheese ass.
Manafort is an excellent choice.
-
And the hits keep coming! Trump parts ways with his campaign manager. Bad move, or too little too late?
The only question is what took him so long.
-
The most overarching hysterical irony of this election cycle is after deriding Obama for having too little experience in government and public affairs extolling Trump, who has none at all.
I guess it must be a result of living within the hot house of academia that makes you so blind to reality. The decades of pretending to be right at all costs must make you insensitive to anything that remotely looks true.
IF you wish to deride Trump for lacking political experience, you must make a case that his business experience counts for nothing. The reality of that claim is negated when one examines the resume of the current occupant of 1600 Penn Ave.
He had ZERO experience doing anything at all and you folks fell down and worshipped his brilliance and deity.
Trump may be a lot of things but inexperienced is not one of them.
Nearly Eight years in and counting Obama still can't find his way to single actual truth.
As for the beast, her exemplary record of failure at everything except political corruption makes her uniquely qualitide in the eyes of academis because you fols seem to be uniquely unqualified at much besides whining and complaining.
-
IF you wish to deride Trump for lacking political experience, you must make a case that his business experience counts for nothing.
I make exactly that case. Running a family business and running a government are very different tasks. Having faith that Trump can run the Executive is like having faith that I can do abdominal surgery on a beloved family member. I know the theory, and I've done them in mice. Does that make me qualified to operate on people? Would you trust me?
The reality of that claim is negated when one examines the resume of the current occupant of 1600 Penn Ave.
Except that talking about him is perfectly useless. That ship has sailed.
Trump may be a lot of things but inexperienced is not one of them.
Tell me about all his experience at public service. It is quite different from experience at business. My old man ran a business for decades. I know lots and lots of business owners. I doubt I'd vote for many of them, certainly not based on their business records. I might based on their bright ideas, but most of Trump's ideas range from unlikely to fantasy.
-
I make exactly that case. Running a family business and running a government are very different tasks. Having faith that Trump can run the Executive is like having faith that I can do abdominal surgery on a beloved family member. I know the theory, and I've done them in mice. Does that make me qualified to operate on people? Would you trust me?
I wouldn't trust you to perform the surgery. And I wouldn't trust a student just accepted to medical school either.
But it doesn't matter because your analogy is deeply flawed.
I guess in the safe protected world of academia you don't understand the similarities between business and politics.
-
I make exactly that case. Running a family business and running a government are very different tasks. Having faith that Trump can run the Executive is like having faith that I can do abdominal surgery on a beloved family member. I know the theory, and I've done them in mice. Does that make me qualified to operate on people? Would you trust me?
.
.
.
I couldn't get past your first sentence. Are you now equating the creation and running of Trump's Worldwide enterprise to "running a family business"?
No, it's not "Presidential" experience, but name ONE President that had Presidential experience when he first took the job.
Trump's experience "trumps" Obama's experience, any day of the week.
-
What relevance does being a Community Organizer have to being President?
-
Except that talking about him is perfectly useless. That ship has sailed.
Except it's not. Obama had no real world experience doing much of anything prior to running for office. He didn't have a lot of public service for that matter, either. He was a first term U.S. Senator when he ran. If you hold public service as being a large factor in determining one's viability for the office, then President Obama doesn't even meet your standards.
Tell me about all his experience at public service. It is quite different from experience at business. My old man ran a business for decades. I know lots and lots of business owners. I doubt I'd vote for many of them, certainly not based on their business records. I might based on their bright ideas, but most of Trump's ideas range from unlikely to fantasy.
Show me where public service is a requirement to run for President.
-
Manafort is an excellent choice.
Yep, good match for Donnie, lobbyist for despots the world over.
-
Yep, good match for Donnie, lobbyist for despots the world over.
Yeah, but probably not crooked enough for Hillary.
-
I couldn't get past your first sentence. Are you now equating the creation and running of Trump's Worldwide enterprise to "running a family business"?
No, it's not "Presidential" experience, but name ONE President that had Presidential experience when he first took the job.
Trump's experience "trumps" Obama's experience, any day of the week.
Dwight Eisenhower.
-
Dwight Eisenhower.
?
-
?
Would be nice if people actually read history books once in a while.
-
What relevance does being a Community Organizer have to being President?
Apparently more than half of the voters and 95% of the media thought that a long murky history as a job-hopping rabble rouser translates into being an excellent Chief Executive.
-
I make exactly that case. Running a family business and running a government are very different tasks. Having faith that Trump can run the Executive is like having faith that I can do abdominal surgery on a beloved family member. I know the theory, and I've done them in mice. Does that make me qualified to operate on people? Would you trust me?
You CONSTANTLY deride those of us who refuse to drink the MMGW kool-aid. As far as I can tell your education and experience is with genetics, but you seem to think that qualifies you to lecture on global weather patterns and local weather. You have frequently confused temporary unseasonable temperatures with global warming to back up your 'point.'
Yet you attack Donald Trump for having a lifetime of business experience while excusing the layabout, lout who has and has none.
It must be a special mass academic blindness that causes people like you to sit so squarely on both sides of a fence post
-
You CONSTANTLY deride those of us who refuse to drink the MMGW kool-aid. As far as I can tell your education and experience is with genetics, but you seem to think that qualifies you to lecture on global weather patterns and local weather. You have frequently confused temporary unseasonable temperatures with global warming to back up your 'point.'
Actually, I constantly admit that I have tremendous deficits in environmental science, since I am, as you have said, primarily a geneticist. I have however, known quite a few environmental scientists, and understand scientific culture since I am part and parcel of it. Moreover, I have been able to verify some of the claim with my won admittedly feeble skills (specifically some related to ocean acidification).
I know for a fact that the negative characterizations and stereotypes foisted onto climate scientists by conservatives are utterly false because of my own background. I know most of the arguments used by climate science deniers are specious. And mostly I believe the climate scientists because I have eyes.
Yet you attack Donald Trump for having a lifetime of business experience while excusing the layabout, lout who has and has none. It must be a special mass academic blindness that causes people like you to sit so squarely on both sides of a fence post
Trump has based his qualifications for Executive office on his business acumen. I state two things. First, business acumen does not equal leadership acumen. i'm certain we've all had hugely successful superiors that we wanted nowhere near public office.
Second, I truly don't know what his business acumen is, and neither do you. The only ventures to which I've had access were miserable failures. The casinos were a disaster and Trump University is a sham. No one knows his net worth, no one knows just how much he owns or doesn't. All we have is his say so, and says me that just doesn't cut it.
That is his ONLY qualification for public office, unless you think being reality TV star makes him qualified. He has no experience in foreign policy, no experience at crafting legislation, no experience doing anything a POTUS does. I can't imagine any of you hiring a total outsider with no experience whatsoever to run your company. I can't imagine why you seek to hire one to run your country.
-
Actually, I constantly admit that I have tremendous deficits in environmental science, since I am, as you have said, primarily a geneticist. I have however, known quite a few environmental scientists, and understand scientific culture since I am part and parcel of it. Moreover, I have been able to verify some of the claim with my won admittedly feeble skills (specifically some related to ocean acidification).
I know for a fact that the negative characterizations and stereotypes foisted onto climate scientists by conservatives are utterly false because of my own background. I know most of the arguments used by climate science deniers are specious. And mostly I believe the climate scientists because I have eyes.
Trump has based his qualifications for Executive office on his business acumen. I state two things. First, business acumen does not equal leadership acumen. i'm certain we've all had hugely successful superiors that we wanted nowhere near public office.
Second, I truly don't know what his business acumen is, and neither do you. The only ventures to which I've had access were miserable failures. The casinos were a disaster and Trump University is a sham. No one knows his net worth, no one knows just how much he owns or doesn't. All we have is his say so, and says me that just doesn't cut it.
That is his ONLY qualification for public office, unless you think being reality TV star makes him qualified. He has no experience in foreign policy, no experience at crafting legislation, no experience doing anything a POTUS does. I can't imagine any of you hiring a total outsider with no experience whatsoever to run your company. I can't imagine why you seek to hire one to run your country.
I am amazed at your never ending hypocritical blindness.
You supported the lying sack of shit in the white house even though he never did a single thing of note.
You run interference for the lying sack of shit, former secretary of state, who NEVER succeeded at a single thing except living off of the laurels of her husband of convenience.
Then you attack Donald Trump for having business experience, because you hate him for inheriting from his father. Then you pretend not to hate his wealth by dressing it up as more academic hypocrisy to pretend to have your heart in some kind of right place, when all it is is your out of control jealousy at work.
-
I am amazed at your never ending hypocritical blindness.
You supported the lying sack of shit in the white house even though he never did a single thing of note.
Silly me, here I thought we were talking about the Donald. I stand corrected.
You run interference for the lying sack of shit, former secretary of state, who NEVER succeeded at a single thing except living off of the laurels of her husband of convenience.
Former Secretary of State and former Senator. Both positions in the government, both good things for a POTUS candidate's resume.
Then you attack Donald Trump for having business experience, because you hate him for inheriting from his father.
I don't hate the Donald. Heck, I don't even know the Donald. My statements about his inherited fortune went along this very simple line of reasoning:
He's making the case for his presidential run based on his business acumen. Given that his started out insanely rich, and that his financial data is not open to public view it is difficult to address the extent or even existence of his business acumen.
I don't mind that he inherited a fortune. Good for him. But inheriting a fortune does not qualify one for public office.
Then you pretend not to hate his wealth by dressing it up as more academic hypocrisy to pretend to have your heart in some kind of right place, when all it is is your out of control jealousy at work.
If you say so. I'm just evaluating the qualifications of a presidential candidate. But apparently you think any criticism of the one you've anointed must be based in jealousy and rage. Sucks for you.