AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Hillary's not even left-wing. Probably centre-right if anything.
Trump's not a good candidate, but I am 100% on the Trump train at this point. The media bias for Hillary and the ridiculous rhetoric being pushed by many on the left has become unbearable.
The Following User Says Thank You to Schultzie For This Useful Post:
Trump's not a good candidate, but I am 100% on the Trump train at this point. The media bias for Hillary and the ridiculous rhetoric being pushed by many on the left has become unbearable.
Media bias?
Half of the material against Trump is pulled straight off of his own twitter account.
He was a loser long before he considered running for President, and he's still a loser today.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
Media bias?
Half of the material against Trump is pulled straight off of his own twitter account.
He was a loser long before he considered running for President, and he's still a loser today.
I think disliking him or even hating him is justifiable, but I don't know that I'd agree loser is a name that fits. He has built or acquired dozens of top tier properties, and however many times he's had companies go bankrupt, he's understood how to get paid on the front-end to keep living the way he wants.
He's dishonest for sure, and depending on how you view his business practices you could argue he's a genius or a failure, but if the measure of failure includes riding several bankruptcies all the way to the Republican nomination for President, you have to be in awe.
I'm developing the view that Donald Trump is a mirror, not of anyone in particular but as a whole he reveals aspects of American capitalism and society. Even when he shows his ugly side we can see that sometimes truth and morals do not matter as much as we would like to think they do, he still maintains this great amount of support.
He will lose, but he will also get votes measured in the 100's of millions--- that is astonishing.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
Hillary has abused the law and set her fund up in Canada to disguise donors and generous non accountable withdrawals.
Hmm? Source please? Isn't the Clinton foundation set up in NYC?
(Also, HER fund? It's Bill's fund primarily. He set it up and does most the fundraising.)
And what hidden generous withdrawals? And if they're non-accountable, how do you know about them?
Plus again, the Clinton foundation has been looked into many times, and no problems have been found with the way they use money. If something had been found, we'd never hear the end of it.
Quote:
The whole microphone issue, whatever it was has been admitted.Yet mainstream media just continues to hammer the "ridiculousness" of him claiming it to be so. Can't we just except the microphone was ####ed and put him at a disadvantage and it is known because the debate auditors have admitted this?
Everyone who cared heard the debate, and that's why they're saying it's a ridiculous claim. Trumps incoherent rambling and ranting doesn't magically start to make sense if you change the mic.
Quote:
Then we move on to the claim that many people that work for him are unpaid. It's very common in the industry Trump is in
It's not a "claim", it's a fact he admits himself. Really kind of hard to see much spin here. It is what it is and people hate this behavior for a reason. Just because he can get away with it legally doesn't make it okay.
Btw, is every defense of Trump like something a 10-year old would say? "they started it", "everyone else is doing it". Just because he can technically get away with all the crap he does doesn't mean he'd make a good president.
I mean, he's not even a good con man, because he keeps getting caught and couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag. In fact the opposite is true, he constantly keeps making things worse for himself.
Quote:
Is he a good business man? I don't know.
As was already discussed during the primary phase, based on what's publicly known about his fortune, if he had simply put all the money into funds that saw average winnings, he'd be far ahead financially compared to where he's now. That makes him at best below average businessman. How much below average is really the only question.
Trump's not a good candidate, but I am 100% on the Trump train at this point. The media bias for Hillary and the ridiculous rhetoric being pushed by many on the left has become unbearable.
I am very moderate in my political views, but I would vote Trump just to spite a handful of posters in this thread. Holy cow, what a boring discussion.
I read/heard somewhere that in the previous however many years, there's been 1 billion votes cast and only a difference of 5 million between the two. Statistically a coin flip between two choices.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Media bias?
Half of the material against Trump is pulled straight off of his own twitter account.
While I agree with Delgar that Trump is not a loser in any traditional sense of the word, this point can't be emphasized enough. One of the biggest reasons Trump gets piled on so much is because he keeps bringing up all his failures, over and over and over. He's admitted pretty much everything he's been accused of, and then doubled down on them with continous public rants. And then gone to deny ever saying things he clearly publicly said.
There's just very little need to spin anything against him or make stuff up, and that's all on him.
Even Fox news started literally laughing out loud at the way he just keeps digging his own holes. He's just the easiest target ever for the media. That's why they treat him the way they do. Nothing to do with "establishment".
And now some people are raising his complete inability to get any respect from the media and the fact that he's universally loathed as a reason to vote for him. I'm sorry but that to me sounds like a pathetic excuse. I don't buy for a second that it's anything but a desperate attempt to rationalize voting for a candidate you just want to vote for no matter what.
It's quite telling that so many firmly historically conservative newspapers have taken a stand against him. I think far too little is talked about this, because it's one of the things that I think speaks the loudest about Trump. What ever you may think about the media, they're people who literally follow the elections for a living.
Just think about it for a second. The US is possibly more polarized between the two parties than it has ever been in it's history. And yet THIS is the time when conservative newspapers with 100+ years of never supporting a liberal are endorsing a Democrat. Not even a popular democrat, but one of the least liked democratic candidates in history. It's an amazingly extreme situation.
The other group of conservatives who are very unusually taking a stand against Trump? Other politicians. Or in other words, the other group besides media who follow elections professionally.
Oh, and for the "media bias". The times that Trump has done worst in the polls are
1) after the conventions
2) after the debate.
Common factor: lots of people getting a good, long, unedited look of Trump.
Trump is his own worst advocate. It's not the media.
The fact that Trump will get so many votes doesn't say much about Trump. It just proves the claim that the candidates and all the campaigning can only move the vote a few percentage points anymore.
Literally any conservative candidate would get about the same votes as Trump.
(And no, another Republican candidate wouldn't make a huge difference, because the partisanship goes both ways.)
So Trump saying he pays no tax make him "smart" is really him saying he sucks at business.
Hard to believe one can lose that much money on a hotel/casino. Took a look at some of the financial statements for Wynn Resorts tonight to compare and Wynn Resorts have gross margins of 38% and EDITD margins of nearly 25%. They had about $4 billion in revenue last year and about $650M in operating profit. So it appears Trump's boasts about his business acumen is just another lie (should be readily apparent but I know so many people -- including family members -- who believe Trump is a great businessman).
Last edited by snootchiebootchies; 10-02-2016 at 01:11 AM.
Hmm? Source please? Isn't the Clinton foundation set up in NYC?
(Also, HER fund? It's Bill's fund primarily. He set it up and does most the fundraising.)
And what hidden generous withdrawals? And if they're non-accountable, how do you know about them?
Plus again, the Clinton foundation has been looked into many times, and no problems have been found with the way they use money. If something had been found, we'd never hear the end of it.
The point is this family including Bill came into power with less then a net worth of a million and are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That doesn't come from speeches. Public service to wealth. It's coming to light that money laundering was occurring in Canada based on our laws.
I think I pointed out my question about wealth and tax evasion within the law to public service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Everyone who cared heard the debate, and that's why they're saying it's a ridiculous claim. Trumps incoherent rambling and ranting doesn't magically start to make sense if you change the mic.
It's not a "claim", it's a fact he admits himself. Really kind of hard to see much spin here. It is what it is and people hate this behavior for a reason. Just because he can get away with it legally doesn't make it okay.
Btw, is every defense of Trump like something a 10-year old would say? "they started it", "everyone else is doing it". Just because he can technically get away with all the crap he does doesn't mean he'd make a good president.
I mean, he's not even a good con man, because he keeps getting caught and couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag. In fact the opposite is true, he constantly keeps making things worse for himself.
I wasn't arguing his performance in the debate. Simply that the microphone had problems and his claim wasn't bunk; painted as such by the media. This was later refuted by the debate people in charge of this. The owners of mainstream media has been trying to formatively change the minds of the viewer base to their will. My question is who is conning the masses? This is the first time they have been outed to this degree. This is potentially even more relevant than this election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
As was already discussed during the primary phase, based on what's publicly known about his fortune, if he had simply put all the money into funds that saw average winnings, he'd be far ahead financially compared to where he's now. That makes him at best below average businessman. How much below average is really the only question.
Typical trump vitriol. We don't know. I am tempted to say that somebody who builds and creates things is of far more value then funds and goldman sachs returns and their duping of the society at large for the very few. While he is a below average businessman, please I don't want to defend him, that wall street has perverted and become one of the biggest cons on the planet usurping it's initial design which is to fund and reward people who invest in industry and business. Not micro trade, electro trade, pass laws forcing people to dump their retirement funds into 401k and RRSP.
What America needs is a leader focused on the people, the betterment of the country and is not beholden to corporations who seem to run the place. I don't think either of these candidates bring what is so badly needed.
Public service to wealth. It's coming to light that money laundering was occurring in Canada based on our laws.
You're basically taking REALLY vague but admittedly suspicious looking newsreports from generally more than a year ago that have lead to nothing and declaring that yes, absolutely every suspicion raised is 100% true, despite no real evidence.
Quote:
The point is this family including Bill came into power with less then a net worth of a million and are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That doesn't come from speeches.
Bill is estimated to be worth about $80-100M depending on the source. and Hillary about $30M. "Hundreds of millions" is widely inaccurate. There is also plenty of information available on where that money came from, if you're interested. Here's a pretty simple breakdown, for example.
I wasn't arguing his performance in the debate. Simply that the microphone had problems and his claim wasn't bunk; painted as such by the media.
Again, people could hear him just fine. That to me makes the issue bunk. You're free to disagree, but that's just your opinion.
Quote:
This was later refuted by the debate people in charge of this. The owners of mainstream media has been trying to formatively change the minds of the viewer base to their will. My question is who is conning the masses? This is the first time they have been outed to this degree. This is potentially even more relevant than this election.
This is tinfoil hat territory. There is no grand conspiracy. The media is having a field day with Trump because he's such an easy target. Plus because he treats journalists with contempt and that pisses them off personally.
Quote:
While he is a below average businessman, please I don't want to defend him,
Then don't.
Quote:
wall street has perverted and become one of the biggest cons on the planet usurping it's initial design which is to fund and reward people who invest in industry and business. Not micro trade, electro trade, pass laws forcing people to dump their retirement funds into 401k and RRSP.
What America needs is a leader focused on the people, the betterment of the country and is not beholden to corporations who seem to run the place. I don't think either of these candidates bring what is so badly needed.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, Trump pretty much personifies and glorifies everything that's wrong with Wall Street. He has no shame about conning others, avoiding taxes and using money to influence the system to his benefit. He relishes all of those things, and he doesn't speak about fixing them either. He wants to "fix" Washington. Those to me are very strong signs that more Wall Street shenanigans is exactly what he'd bring as a president.
Clinton on the other hand would be a low-variance president. She's very unlikely to make things worse, because she's unlikely to change anything.
Change for changes sake often leads to things that are worse than people could have imagined in their frustration with the status quo.
Scott Alexander at Slate Star Codex (just a blog, but an excellent one) just wrote about a lot of this stuff. It's well worth reading. I would in general really strongly recommend reading his stuff for people who like to think of themselves on the side of logic, facts and reason. I don't always agree with him (he clearly has more more conservative principles than me) but what ever the topic, he always makes interesting points.
Actually I'd like to quote Slate Star Codex (from the post linked above) on the specific topic of voting for Trump because of the dislike of leftist rhetorics.
Quote:
When I talk to Trump supporters, it’s not usually about doubting climate change, or thinking Trump will take the conservative movement in the right direction, or even immigration. It’s about the feeling that a group of arrogant, intolerant, sanctimonious elites have seized control of a lot of national culture and are using it mostly to spread falsehood and belittle anybody different than them. And Trump is both uniquely separate from these elites and uniquely repugnant to them – which makes him look pretty good to everyone else.
This is definitely true. Please vote Hillary anyway.
Aside from the fact that getting back at annoying people isn’t worth eroding the foundations of civil society – do you really think a Trump election is going to hurt these people at all? Make them question anything? “Oh, 51% of the American people disagree with me, I guess that means I’ve got a lot of self-reflecting to do.” Of course not. A Trump election would just confirm for them exactly what they already believe – that the average American is a stupid racist who needs to be kept as far away from public life as possible. If Trump gets elected, sure, the editorial pages will be full of howls of despair the next day, but underneath the howls will be quiet satisfaction that the world is exactly the way they believed it to be.
Quote:
If the next generation is radicalized by Trump being a bad president, they’re not just going to lean left. They’re going to lean regressive, totalitarian, super-social-justice left.
Everyone has already constructed the narrative: Trump is the anti-PC, anti-social-justice candidate. If he wins, he’s going to be the anti-PC, anti-social-justice President. And he will fail. First of all, because he doesn’t really show much sign of knowing what he’s doing. Second of all, because all presidents fail in a sense – 80% of Americans consistently believe the country is headed the wrong direction and the president is the natural fall guy for this trend. And third of all, because even if by some miracle Trump avoids the first two failure modes, the media will say he failed and people will believe them. And when the anti-PC, anti-social-justice President fails, the reaction will be a giant “we told you so” from the social justice movement, and a giant shift of all the disillusioned young people right into their fold.
Trump is all set to be the biggest gift to the social justice movement in history. They thrive on claims of persecution, claims that they’re the ones fighting a stupid hateful regressive culture that controls everything. And people think that bringing their straw man to life and putting him in the Oval Office is going to help?
I especially like this bit.
Quote:
If you’re a Jew fighting anti-Semitism, the absolute minimum you can do is not actually kill Christian children and use their blood to make matzah. Likewise, if you are a principled classical liberal fighting the social justice movement’s attempt to smear anyone who disagrees with them as an overprivileged clueless hateful Neanderthal, the absolute minimum you can do is not actually be an overprivileged clueless hateful Neanderthal. Opinions on Trump range all the way from “he is definitely an overprivileged clueless hateful Neanderthal” to “he is remarkably and uniquely bad at not appearing to be an overprivileged clueless hateful Neanderthal”. In any case, having him as the public face of anti-social-justice for the next four years would be a godsend for them and a disaster for everyone else.
You're basically taking REALLY vague but admittedly suspicious looking newsreports from generally more than a year ago that have lead to nothing and declaring that yes, absolutely every suspicion raised is 100% true, despite no real evidence.
Many of the stories including the recent one by CBC news are not able to be searched or trending on search engines. At this point you are PRO HILLARY, and unable to discuss key factors. These are very recent findings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Bill is estimated to be worth about $80-100M depending on the source. and Hillary about $30M. "Hundreds of millions" is widely inaccurate. There is also plenty of information available on where that money came from, if you're interested. Here's a pretty simple breakdown, for example.
So I am off by your estimates of 70 million. Money like that just isn't earned from speeches and being president. It's earned by favours and backward behind scenes business at the cost of the electorate. It is not explaining the mass accumulation of wealth by this family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
Again, people could hear him just fine. That to me makes the issue bunk. You're free to disagree, but that's just your opinion.
Not my opinion, his opinion which turned out to be correct. He said he had to yell to be heard. He said his microphone was borked. Again, his performance is separate of an admitted fault in the microphone. He simply said there was an error in the microphone.
Media said no fault. Then they admitted there was fault. The debate controllers admitted fault. That is my point which you refuse to accept. You are irrational and ostriching.
Ultimately each individual will make their choice. I'm not arguing about who will win but the fact of the demonstration of what we have seen in this election to date from the mainstream media in order to alter the individual choice.
You clearly have made your choice and can't see/hear/rationalize things that have nothing to do with him being elected or not. The system itself and its massive flaws that have been exposed. So you aren't open to debate.
Last edited by calgarywinning; 10-02-2016 at 02:29 AM.
Actually I'd like to quote Slate Star Codex (from the post linked above) on the specific topic of voting for Trump because of the dislike of leftist rhetorics.
Not my estimates, but nice try. Also, "hundreds of million" is hundreds of millions off. Not even a good try.
Quote:
Money like that just isn't earned from speeches and being president.
Clintons have made $150M on public speaking and $50M on book sales. Just those two things easily account for their combined current personal wealth. Add in their salaries, pensions and investments, and you're talking much more than $200M in income.
Let me repeat that. $200M in publicly recorded income, $100M in personal wealth. I fail to see the mystery here.
Quote:
Not my opinion, his opinion which turned out to be correct. He said he had to yell to be heard.
Again, who cares? Just because you have an opinion and he has an opinion does not mean everyone else is wrong. Again, this all happened live on TV. Your opinion and his opinion are not special, we can all be our own judges.
Quote:
Media said no fault.
You're just making up stuff here. "The media" said a ton of different things about the mic even before the debate ended.
