I would disagree with the above; Adams hasn't really supported Trump from the start, but rather, theorized on why Trump's tactics of perception, emotion and, effectively, sales, would lead him to be successful in the primary (which ended up being bang on), and ultimately the generals. Of course he has a big ego, he's been successful in life so far and has now been given a massive audience through this campaign.
So far, his theories in these areas have proven to be quite accurate, given Trump's success defies most conventional logic and expectations. It isn't about facts, policies, or scandals (I mean the man insulted John McCain and POWs in his first month campaigning), but rather how you manage voters emotions.
Once you stop looking at it through the lens of facts and policies, and more through emotions, the results to date start to make a whole lot more sense.
It might explain Trump's relative success, but it certainly doesn't "make sense" that these are the grounds that the election should be fought on.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Polls won't reflect that bad run for Trump until later in the week. If anything it won't hurt him much in national polls, but more in state polls. His lead in Ohio has been pretty safe for a while, so be interesting to see if this run of stories hurts him there. In theory it should, but we'll see.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
- Trump proudly doesn't pay taxes
- Trump's foundation appears to be a fraud
- Trump craps on veterans
And the meter barely quivers.
(30,000 emails!)
Clinton has a 4 point lead instead of a 1 point lead. If you consider 80% of the electorate isn't up for grabs it means 10-15 percent of available votes changed as a result of the debates.
The way the poll were timed this week was also to give maximum exposure to the debates so you had a lot of Tuesday to Friday time periods. So the polls towards the end of this week should better factor in the period between trumps Midnight twitter fest and the weekend.
But lots of Americans (and seemingly everyone I interact with here in Okie land) have convinced themselves that Hilary is a very bad candidate and that Trump is the breath of fresh air that this country needs. It just leaves me speechless as I see Trump as the epitome of what is wrong with the country and Clinton as someone that while flawed has at least tried to make the country a better place over the last several decades.
I also have the misfortune of trying to talk politics in Okie land. And it's clear that race of the current president and gender of the one who want to be successor is a big factor even if they don't want to admit it outright. The other issue is that it is the heart of bible thumping territory that believes they have a right to tell people what to do in their personal lives. So the GOP platform lines up with that. It's the wrong side of history but it is what it is.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
- Trump proudly doesn't pay taxes
- Trump's foundation appears to be a fraud
- Trump craps on veterans
And the meter barely quivers.
(30,000 emails!)
I guess I'll keep playing team Trump. Happy to be the punching bag here.
Taxes: He had a $1B loss, these losses carry forward. Just like you and I and everyone else does with their taxes. Somehow framing it the way the media and Dems are makes it a ghastly negative. Heck, even Clinton had losses on her returns she carried forward/back (the horror!).
Foundation: I'm not familiar enough with this.
Crapping on veterans: Which statement are you talking about? The one where he said we need to do more with PTSD, and then the media took some liberty with the exact grammar of how he put it and made it out to be a huge negative?
Spoiler!
But again, there is a reason the needle barely moves, people on both sides are already set in their ways, and the people that need convincing aren't being swayed by fact/policies/or scandal much.
I guess I'll keep playing team Trump. Happy to be the punching bag here.
Taxes: He had a $1B loss, these losses carry forward. Just like you and I and everyone else does with their taxes. Somehow framing it the way the media and Dems are makes it a ghastly negative. Heck, even Clinton had losses on her returns she carried forward/back (the horror!).
Foundation: I'm not familiar enough with this.
Crapping on veterans: Which statement are you talking about? The one where he said we need to do more with PTSD, and then the media took some liberty with the exact grammar of how he put it and made it out to be a huge negative?
Spoiler!
But again, there is a reason the needle barely moves, people on both sides are already set in their ways, and the people that need convincing aren't being swayed by fact/policies/or scandal much.
There's been a dozen or more posts about this in this and the other thread. So if you don't know about it, it's because you're choosing to not know about it. It's been widely reported by multiple sources...everyone except Breitbart and Drudge pretty much have had at least a story on it.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I guess I'll keep playing team Trump. Happy to be the punching bag here.
Taxes: He had a $1B loss, these losses carry forward. Just like you and I and everyone else does with their taxes. Somehow framing it the way the media and Dems are makes it a ghastly negative. Heck, even Clinton had losses on her returns she carried forward/back (the horror!).
Foundation: I'm not familiar enough with this.
Crapping on veterans: Which statement are you talking about? The one where he said we need to do more with PTSD, and then the media took some liberty with the exact grammar of how he put it and made it out to be a huge negative?
Spoiler!
But again, there is a reason the needle barely moves, people on both sides are already set in their ways, and the people that need convincing aren't being swayed by fact/policies/or scandal much.
This link is relevant to the bolded. The foundation and his taxes are sort of intertwined. Use your accounting prowess to put two and two together.
I don't really see anything all that damning. Again, are they trying to frame that taking advantage of deductions and carry forwards as evil? Sure some of the income and donations to the foundation on Trumps behalf might have some question marks around it, but until I see something like he was stealing charitable donations, or taking candy from babies, I wouldn't be shocked. Maximizing your deductions, losses to apply, and other tax strategies are anything any wealthy person with half a brain does.
Presenting it in a way that sounds scary to the uninformed is hardly good journalism.
Rather than arguing over what a cartoonist thinks, you can just listen to him and he explains his views.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
I don't really see anything all that damning. Again, are they trying to frame that taking advantage of deductions and carry forwards as evil? Sure some of the income and donations to the foundation on Trumps behalf might have some question marks around it, but until I see something like he was stealing charitable donations, or taking candy from babies, I wouldn't be shocked. Maximizing your deductions, losses to apply, and other tax strategies are anything any wealthy person with half a brain does.
Presenting it in a way that sounds scary to the uninformed is hardly good journalism.
If your threshold is "taking candy from a baby", I suppose no one can prove Trump's foundation of wrong doing.
I guess I'll keep playing team Trump. Happy to be the punching bag here.
Taxes: He had a $1B loss, these losses carry forward. Just like you and I and everyone else does with their taxes. Somehow framing it the way the media and Dems are makes it a ghastly negative. Heck, even Clinton had losses on her returns she carried forward/back (the horror!).
Foundation: I'm not familiar enough with this.
Crapping on veterans: Which statement are you talking about? The one where he said we need to do more with PTSD, and then the media took some liberty with the exact grammar of how he put it and made it out to be a huge negative?
Spoiler!
But again, there is a reason the needle barely moves, people on both sides are already set in their ways, and the people that need convincing aren't being swayed by fact/policies/or scandal much.
Taxes: he's a bit too proud
Foundation: Trump Foundation can no longer raise money in NY
Crapping on Vets: I agree the media blew it out of proportion
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Rather than arguing over what a cartoonist thinks, you can just listen to him and he explains his views.
I hadn't seen this before, thanks. For detractors, just watch the first 2 minutes and it sums up his thoughts at a high level on persuasion and how both 2 candidates are terrible.
I guess I'll keep playing team Trump. Happy to be the punching bag here.
Taxes: He had a $1B loss, these losses carry forward. Just like you and I and everyone else does with their taxes. Somehow framing it the way the media and Dems are makes it a ghastly negative. Heck, even Clinton had losses on her returns she carried forward/back (the horror!).
Foundation: I'm not familiar enough with this.
Crapping on veterans: Which statement are you talking about? The one where he said we need to do more with PTSD, and then the media took some liberty with the exact grammar of how he put it and made it out to be a huge negative?
But again, there is a reason the needle barely moves, people on both sides are already set in their ways, and the people that need convincing aren't being swayed by fact/policies/or scandal much.
Clinton isn't running on being a business genius though, Trump claims to be a multi billionaire and business expert, that's his only claim to being fit for the job, he has no other, yet the one thing we know is he has had multiple bankruptcies and on the one semi recent tax return we've seen he has tanked his company into the ground and taken a vast loss. It also shows clearly he actually made around 3 million that year, that's a pretty good income for a hockey coach or the like but it isn't billionaire territory by any means.
We also know from this that he believes that there is no morality in making money, that no matter who he screws over as long as he makes money then he's doing the right thing, if this is his moral baseline (if you can call it moral!) then why would we think he'd put the US ahead of his interests if he was elected? Why would he change a tax code that benefits him? why wouldn't he just take huge payments from any foreign power to do their biding?
By his own incredibly limited standards for being fit for the role of president the tax return disqualifies him from the job.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 10-04-2016 at 10:42 AM.
Changed the tags again because seriously, no more Dilbert please. I get that people like Ducay think he's an absolutely genius, but please start your own thread about how awesome he is. Most of us have found him to be an annoying, pompous ass for the last few months. It's basically trolling at this point and nothing more.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Can you direct me to links where the Trump foundation has benefited someone other than Trump?
I understand the perspective and sounds like there is some evidence on the whole legal fees thing, but then I step back and I ask "Why?". Why would someone with billions in net worth, millions and millions of cash on hand, risk any sort of bad publicity or scandal over a few hundred thousand in legal fees?
If there is no logical reason, and it doesn't really make much business or personal sense, then to me, I would imagine it is either a mix up on the billing side, payment side, or maybe he really did use their funds to pay for it. Who knows, but for Trump and the foundation he has funded, it is chump change.
Scandal for scandal's sake, much like his taxes and the email thing with Hillary.
Either way, regardless of what I think, the voters don't see it as a big deal, except those that already weren't going to vote for him.
I understand the perspective and sounds like there is some evidence on the whole legal fees thing, but then I step back and I ask "Why?". Why would someone with billions in net worth, millions and millions of cash on hand, risk any sort of bad publicity or scandal over a few hundred thousand in legal fees?.
Because he's an arrogant moron. End of discussion. Seriously read up more on the Foundation story from upcoming Pulitzer winner David Fahrenthold. It's all there, it's detailed and well researched. Also your description of Trump here sounds very much like a Trump supporter. I'm not calling you one, but many people are saying...
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
