Donald Trump

ligerdub

Billy86 wrote: »

An out of touch, megalomaniacal, narcissistic, racist billionaire of an old man who only got rich because he inherited daddy's fortune?

http://www.shortlist.com/news/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-mr-burns

He's considerably richer than what he was when he inherited that money (in real terms). This idea that he owes it all to daddy is unfair to the man.

Skylinehead

ligerdub wrote: »

He's considerably richer than what he was when he inherited that money (in real terms). This idea that he owes it all to daddy is unfair to the man.

Until he releases his tax returns we don't even know that.

Billy86

ligerdub wrote: »

He's considerably richer than what he was when he inherited that money (in real terms). This idea that he owes it all to daddy is unfair to the man.

He would have been richer had he done absolutely nothing with it, actually.

https://www.indy100.com/article/it-turns-out-donald-trump-would-actually-be-richer-now-if-hed-done-nothing-since-1974--b1lhFdzt_g

Had the celebrity busi­ness­man and Re­pub­lic­an pres­id­en­tial can­did­ate in­ves­ted his even­tu­al share of his fath­er’s real-es­tate com­pany in­to a mu­tu­al fund of S&P 500 stocks in 1974, it would be worth nearly $3 bil­lion today, thanks to the mar­ket’s per­form­ance over the past four dec­ades.

If he’d in­ves­ted the $200 mil­lion that For­bes magazine determ­ined he was worth in 1982 in­to that in­dex fund, it would have grown to more than $8 bil­lion today.

And that's only going what he (a documented habitual liar) claims his fortune is. An author wrote a book that indicated his true value is only as few hundred million as opposed to a few billion, to which the infamously thin skinned Trump reacted by suing... and lost.

That and tax dodging are why he is so desperate for nobody to see his tax returns to the point of lying about why he won't release them. Well, either that or his alleged donations to paedophile rings which sound outlandish until you remember charges have been pressed against him for raping a child and threatening to murder them if they told. Something which the 'bias media' haven't really been reporting on, like they haven't been reporting much on his upcoming multiple trials for defrauding the American public of millions of dollars.

Penn

ligerdub wrote: »

He's considerably richer than what he was when he inherited that money (in real terms). This idea that he owes it all to daddy is unfair to the man.

It's the epitome of the phrase "born on third base and thinks he hit a home run". Trump would not be nearly as wealthy as he is without the start he was both given and inherited.

It's not unfair to the man. It's the absolute truth.

A Little Pony

Penn wrote: »

ligerdub wrote: »

He's considerably richer than what he was when he inherited that money (in real terms). This idea that he owes it all to daddy is unfair to the man.

It's the epitome of the phrase "born on third base and thinks he hit a home run". Trump would not be nearly as wealthy as he is without the start he was both given and inherited.

It's not unfair to the man. It's the absolute truth.

Who cares if he got money from his dad really.

I think Trump should go on the offensive with Hillary tonight and not play it safe. Attack her and make her uncomfortable. She will not have experienced such tactics in a debate before.

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

Who cares if he got money from his dad really.

His supporters claim his 'successes' in business show he can be a successful president. Yet he was given his wealth, would be richer today had he never even gone into business, and all this without even getting into the fact that he has gone bankrupt to more than the value of his own likely exaggerated worth.

If there is nothing from his political history to show he is qualified, and there is nothing from his business history to show he is qualified, what is there that does show he is qualified and won't completely tank the US economy if in power?

Samaris

A Little Pony wrote: »

Who cares if he got money from his dad really.

I think Trump should go on the offensive with Hillary tonight and not play it safe. Attack her and make her uncomfortable. She will not have experienced such tactics in a debate before.

Is that really a good thing in a potential president though? He can go on the attack and "make someone uncomfortable". I mean, where's the talk of policy? Of having a solid grasp of facts and issues? Where's the actual politics? Or is this really to be a debate where the most offensive idiot wins?

Trent Houseboat

A Little Pony wrote:

I think Trump should go on the offensive with Hillary tonight and not play it safe. Attack her and make her uncomfortable. She will not have experienced such tactics in a debate before.

She has experience of this. Rick Lazio's aggression in their senate debate was deemed to be a massive failure.

ohnonotgmail

A Little Pony wrote: »

Who cares if he got money from his dad really.

I think Trump should go on the offensive with Hillary tonight and not play it safe. Attack her and make her uncomfortable. She will not have experienced such tactics in a debate before.

well he should certainly avoid talking about any of his policies.

A Little Pony

Samaris wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Who cares if he got money from his dad really.

I think Trump should go on the offensive with Hillary tonight and not play it safe. Attack her and make her uncomfortable. She will not have experienced such tactics in a debate before.

Is that really a good thing in a potential president though? He can go on the attack and "make someone uncomfortable". I mean, where's the talk of policy? Of having a solid grasp of facts and issues? Where's the actual politics? Or is this really to be a debate where the most offensive idiot wins?

It is the Establishment v The Outsider. Make sure the anti Hillary and establishment message comes across. Policy in detail is secondary.

PopePalpatine

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is the Establishment v The Outsider. Make sure the anti Hillary and establishment message comes across. Policy in detail is secondary.

More like non-existent in Cheeto Jesus's case.

ohnonotgmail

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is the Establishment v The Outsider. Make sure the anti Hillary and establishment message comes across. Policy in detail is secondary.

how very presidential of him.

its laughable to describe trump as an outsider. A man who inherited hundreds of millions from his father.

Samaris

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is the Establishment v The Outsider. Make sure the anti Hillary and establishment message comes across. Policy in detail is secondary.

It really doesn't bother you that policy should be -secondary- in a presidential election debate, falling behind..well, just being a loud arse? It's the president they're going for, not head loudspeaker. I certainly wouldn't be too impressed at a job interview that had nothing to do with experience or ability, just decided on who yells the most, irrespective of it making sense.

wes

Hilary should talk about one of his biggest supporters David Duke and how Donald Trump reuses his propaganda. Make sure to link him to white supremacy as much as possible.

Also, she needs to make him angry, to get him to lash out. Call him a liar, when he lies. Point out the various "business" failures like Trump university, where he screwed people out of there money. Hammer him on how he probably isn't actually a billionaire and if he was he would release his tax returns. What does he have to hide?

Plenty of ammo for Hilary. She should show no mercy, and her aim should be to piss him off as much as possible. Be relentless and merciless and make things very, very personal. Make sure to point how he is a thin skinned, racists, misogynistic, bigoted and childish bully.

stefanovich

wes wrote:

Also, she needs to make him angry, to get him to lash out. Call him a liar, when he lies. Point out the various "business" failures like Trump university, where he screwed people out of there money. Hammer him on how he probably isn't actually a billionaire and if he was he would release his tax returns. What does he have to hide?

Hillary calling anyone else a liar is comical. If she turns it nasty he has an extraordinary arsenal of dirt on her.

Billy86

stefanovich wrote: »

Hillary calling anyone else a liar is comical. If she turns it nasty he has an extraordinary arsenal of dirt on her.

One candidate in this cycle seems to have broken records on most if not all fact checking websites as the most dishonest person to ever run for president. Hint: it's not Clinton. Not Stein nor Johnson, either.

Butters1979

The American people are more polarised than ever on these candidates. I doubt anything that happens in these debates is gonna change anyone's opinion. Even the undecideds are probably just not gonna vote. Two absolutely terrible candidates of which neither would stand a chance against any other past opponents. If they don't like either now they never will. In fact I don't think anyone likes these candidates. They just hate the other one.

Samaris

Butters1979 wrote: »

The American people are more polarised than ever on these candidates. I doubt anything that happens in these debates is gonna change anyone's opinion. Even the undecideds are probably just not gonna vote. Two absolutely terrible candidates of which neither would stand a chance against any other past opponents. If they don't like either now they never will. In fact I don't think anyone likes these candidates. They just hate the other one.

Hey, we agree on something, Butters (I shall mark the calendar. )

ohnonotgmail

Samaris wrote: »

Hey, we agree on something, Butters (I shall mark the calendar. )

I'm sure there is a prophecy somewhere about this. a dark omen indeed.

Butters1979

Samaris wrote: »

Hey, we agree on something, Butters (I shall mark the calendar. )

Ha ha. Don't get used to it Samaris.

Billy86

Samaris wrote: »

Hey, we agree on something, Butters (I shall mark the calendar. )

That makes two of us, I'm completely perplexed!

Also why I reckon the polls are full of sh*t to an extent - and I'm not saying in favour of one candidate or another. But gridlocked polls with no change for months, especially if one candidate is clearly ahead, do not generate clicks, ratings, or as a result profit. Not definite, but I think that was the case in the last two elections also.

Trent Houseboat

wes wrote:

Hilary should talk about one of his biggest supporters David Duke and how Donald Trump reuses his propaganda. Make sure to link him to white supremacy as much as possible. Also, she needs to make him angry, to get him to lash out. Call him a liar, when he lies. Point out the various "business" failures like Trump university, where he screwed people out of there money. Hammer him on how he probably isn't actually a billionaire and if he was he would release his tax returns. What does he have to hide? Plenty of ammo for Hilary. She should show no mercy, and her aim should be to piss him off as much as possible. Be relentless and merciless and make things very, very personal. Make sure to point how he is a thin skinned, racists, misogynistic, bigoted and childish bully.

Clinton was never doing better in the polls than when Trump was digging his own holes. She really needs to let him hang himself. Which he is more than capable of doing during 90 minutes without a commercial break. People don't like her, and if she goes on the offensive people will call her shrill or a bitch. She could probably do some gentle needling(pull him up of his lies, call him Donald) but should stay out of the muck. A lot of people will never like her, she just has to make herself the less dislikeable person on stage.

ligerdub

Billy86 wrote: »

He would have been richer had he done absolutely nothing with it, actually.

https://www.indy100.com/article/it-turns-out-donald-trump-would-actually-be-richer-now-if-hed-done-nothing-since-1974--b1lhFdzt_g


And that's only going what he (a documented habitual liar) claims his fortune is. An author wrote a book that indicated his true value is only as few hundred million as opposed to a few billion, to which the infamously thin skinned Trump reacted by suing... and lost.

That and tax dodging are why he is so desperate for nobody to see his tax returns to the point of lying about why he won't release them. Well, either that or his alleged donations to paedophile rings which sound outlandish until you remember charges have been pressed against him for raping a child and threatening to murder them if they told. Something which the 'bias media' haven't really been reporting on, like they haven't been reporting much on his upcoming multiple trials for defrauding the American public of millions of dollars.

I've heard this one before and I disagree with it for several reasons.

1. Is timing. We've seen a massive market rally built out of thin air for the last 7 years. If you complete the same appraisal of Trump v markets back in 2009 my guess is that Trump would be the victor of that battle. I suspect he may yet return towards parity at some stage. It's funny how people are so keen to look clever with this one when it can be spun to be unfavourable on Trump.

2. The fairness of that comparison. The average investor can't beat the S&P500, in fact the vast majority don't. A much fairer comparison would be to bulk in a diversified portfolio of assets and track that performance. He also has associated running costs of running his lifestyle, are we not to take that into consideration?

3. I never argued that he could have done better. I merely said he is richer in real terms than when he inherited it, considerably so, which he is.

4. "An author said he's only worth a couple of hundred million"....oh well that's that settled then, if "an author" said it...**** sake, brilliant argument that! I'll defer an estimate on this to Forbes magazine, and common sense, that he's worth in the region of $4.5 billion. I mean there are a few sticks to beat him with, calling him out on not being massively wealthy due to commercial activity is not one of them.

You finish with the comments about child rape and donations to paedophile rings. I mean I'm not going to dispute this out of hand, but I suspect that's not true. You're coming off as somebody who just has a serious spite about this guy and you're seeking to validate the harshest voices on Trump from the most random sources as you can find. It's just not a credible argument.

ligerdub

Penn wrote: »

It's the epitome of the phrase "born on third base and thinks he hit a home run". Trump would not be nearly as wealthy as he is without the start he was both given and inherited.

It's not unfair to the man. It's the absolute truth.

Of course not, he inherited a reasonable sum of money. I never claimed otherwise.

What he also did was to turn that money into a much bigger capital sum.

Butters1979

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm sure there is a prophecy somewhere about this. a dark omen indeed.

Don't worry I'm fully aware my point of view isn't shared by everyone. If I didn't like conflicting opinions boards.ie is the last place I'd be.

The truth is as someone who is so opinionated this is the first political election I've followed that I don't know how I'd vote. I hate Clinton. I think she's a war mongering puppet who we wouldn't have heard of if she wasn't the presidents wife once. But then we have Trump. I don't need to explain to anyone the issues here. He's probably the stupidest answer to an important question in history.

If I were American I'd probably just sit at a polling station with my head in my hands sobbing come Election Day.

Samaris

ligerdub wrote: »

You finish with the comments about child rape and donations to paedophile rings. I mean I'm not going to dispute this out of hand, but I suspect that's not true. You're coming off as somebody who just has a serious spite about this guy and you're seeking to validate the harshest voices on Trump from the most random sources as you can find. It's just not a credible argument.

I rather doubt that one too. I mean, I can't possibly say if it's true or not, I just don't think it's likely. But then, people seriously talk about the "Clinton body count" too, as if they're a pair of international assassins. The left-fieldism in this campaign shouldn't be allowed to detract from what they're actually saying. The rest is just uninformed (or very semi-informed) character assassination.

ligerdub

Butters1979 wrote: »

Don't worry I'm fully aware my point of view isn't shared by everyone. If I didn't like conflicting opinions boards.ie is the last place I'd be.

The truth is as someone who is so opinionated this is the first political election I've followed that I don't know how I'd vote. I hate Clinton. I think she's a war mongering puppet who we wouldn't have heard of if she wasn't the presidents wife once. But then we have Trump. I don't need to explain to anyone the issues here. He's probably the stupidest answer to an important question in history.

If I were American I'd probably just sit at a polling station with my head in my hands sobbing come Election Day.

There are two other choices of course.

ohnonotgmail

ligerdub wrote: »

Of course not, he inherited a reasonable sum of money. I never claimed otherwise.

What he also did was to turn that money into a much bigger capital sum.

2-300 million is a little more than reasonable. How much bigger of a capital sum though, once you take away his massive liabilities?

ohnonotgmail

ligerdub wrote: »

There are two other choices of course.

the two other choices are protest votes at best.

Samaris

ligerdub wrote: »

There are two other choices of course.

Unfortunately, there isn't, not in a two-party system. A vote for Stein or Johnson is little more than a protest vote. I won't call it throwing the vote away, because it's important to vote, but it won't mean anything in terms of who actually becomes president.