Trump Dump / War Train vol 2

[HereticBD]

Well that does it, I guess. It's all over. As we speak, Trump is being denounced as the Republican candidate and being led out of the RNC in handcuffs.


Oh' wait, no. Nobody cares.

 

[chardog]

Cliffs? I never watch videos. Also you're using the but but but obama argument.

you asked for proof, and it's like 1 minute long.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words. Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’-just words. ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country’ — just words. ‘I have a dream’ — just words,”
- Patrick Deval

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words, just speeches,”
- Obama

The argument is that if obama is still electable, and he was the one plagiarizing the speech, why is melania even an issue? The media is making a mountain of a molehill, and it's simply propaganda at this point.

- Trump 2016 Make America Great

 

[ehtheist]

Did he really tweet this?

"Melania didn't plagiarize her speech from Michelle Obama. It's called sampling. All the kids do it. The blacks know what I'm talking about."

This is a fake account... Right? I don't even know with this goon.

 

[HereticBD]

Did he really tweet this?

"Melania didn't plagiarize her speech from Michelle Obama. It's called sampling. All the kids do it. The blacks know what I'm talking about."

This is a fake account... Right? I don't even know with this goon.

If it isn't a fake, even I couldn't defend that one.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

you asked for proof, and it's like 1 minute long.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal’ — just words. Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’-just words. ‘Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country’ — just words. ‘I have a dream’ — just words,”
- Patrick Deval

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words, just speeches,”
- Obama

The argument is that if obama is still electable, and he was the one plagiarizing the speech, why is melania even an issue? The media is making a mountain of a molehill, and it's simply propaganda at this point.

- Trump 2016 Make America Great

I watched the video after all because it wasn't long.

Looks like Patrick defended Obama and encouraged him to use those lines.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/07/19/melania-trump-obama-patrick/

#nevertrump

 

[Contra-dictator]

What you mean bro?

Just yanking your chain. Implying you literally don't know about integrity. No harm or malice intended, bro.

 

[ehtheist]

If it isn't a fake, even I couldn't defend that one.

Holy shit... The Republicans have managed to find a candidate that is going to make me vote for that dishonest hag. Or independent... What the hell.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Just yanking your chain. Implying you literally don't know about integrity. No harm or malice intended, bro.

 

[chardog]

If it isn't a fake, even I couldn't defend that one.

it's fake, the name is realDonaldTromp

it's a sad attempt at cloning someone, but I'm sure you can make money off of that sorta thing

Holy shit... The Republicans have managed to find a candidate that is going to make me vote for that dishonest hag. Or independent... What the hell.

it's fake

 

[chardog]

I watched the video after all because it wasn't long.

Looks like Patrick defended Obama and encouraged him to use those lines.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2016/07/19/melania-trump-obama-patrick/

#nevertrump

like I said, you wont change your mind despite the facts.

EVEN IF Patrick allowed/encouraged Obama to use the speech, you still gotta give credit where it's due rather than passing it as your own. Of course libs like yourself have selective memory and excuses when it serves you.

obama could be bed buddies with patrick, plagiarism is plagiarism. You copy a test from your best buddy at school vs worst enemy, you still gonna fail that test.

on the bright side, you have been honored the award of Mental Gymnastics just like bostonmagazine.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

like I said, you wont change your mind despite the facts.

EVEN IF Patrick allowed/encouraged Obama to use the speech, you still gotta give credit where it's due rather than passing it as your own. Of course libs like yourself have selective memory and excuses when it serves you.

obama could be bed buddies with patrick, plagiarism is plagiarism. You copy a test from your best buddy at school vs worst enemy, you still gonna fail that test.

on the bright side, you have been honored the award of Mental Gymnastics just like bostonmagazine.

It's not really plagerism if you're given permission to use it. Also Ms Trump isn't exactly on the same team as Ms Obama vs Obama and Patrick. How is Trump going to talk so much shit about Obama then his wife steals Ms Obamas words? Maybe Ms Trump is secretly really an Obama fan .

 

[chardog]

It's not really plagerism if you're given permission to use it. Also Ms Trump isn't exactly on the same team as Ms Obama vs Obama and Patrick. How is Trump going to talk so much shit about Obama then his wife steals Ms Obamas words? Maybe Ms Trump is secretly really an Obama fan .

So if I'm in my speech class and I repeated the same speech from a prior student, the professor has no right to accuse plagiarism because prior student gave me permission?

pla·gia·rism
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.


take someone else's work - check
passing them off as one's own - check

 

[Madmick]

The Presidency Isn’t a Real-Estate Deal
by Allen J. Pomerantz

This is an editorial that appeared in The Wall Street Journal last month, and I actually stored the physical copy of the newspaper that day because I loved it so much, and because I have been so fatigued by his supporters playing down his absolute lack of political experience as if his business history gives him more relevant experience compared to even a junior senator like Marco Rubio. The man who wrote it is a lawyer who has brokered many massive business deals as part of corporate real-estate teams. Click his name above if you're curious to know more.

I think the plagiarism scandal is boring. I saw the paper sitting on my desk, jolting my memory, and a quick Google revealed the article has been freed for full viewing digitally when it wasn't immediately after publication (odd reversal of what's usual). It's an uncannily economical six-point takedown of any attempt to defend Trump's appalling lack of experience, and why he is so ill-equipped to be relied upon for the most important office in the world:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presidency-isnt-a-real-estate-deal-1465943560

Donald Trump claims that his business experience will help him Make America Great Again. His detractors point to failed ventures such as Trump University and Trump Steaks to suggest that his business success is vastly overrated. This debate misses the bigger point: Business isn’t politics.

Even if Mr. Trump’s success is as significant as he claims, his skills don’t necessarily translate into the Oval Office. I have been a real-estate lawyer for 48 years and have represented some of the business’s most successful people in some of its largest deals—including the 72-member bank group that held approximately $4 billion of Mr. Trump’s debt in the early 1990s. I believe the skills that make a successful real-estate entrepreneur would produce an unsuccessful president. Here are six reasons why:

1. Businessmen can always walk away from a deal. If a real-estate developer doesn’t trust a potential partner, he can find another interested party. In Mr. Trump’s line of work a different deal is almost always possible. The opposite is often true at the White House. The president cannot simply walk away from China if he does not like Xi Jinping.

What experience does Mr. Trump have in negotiating when the consequences of no deal are potentially devastating? Failed talks with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Russia or North Korea are not the same thing as an unsuccessful real-estate deal.

2. Companies usually can fire at will. In business, any employee or contractor who does not share the company’s vision, goals or methods will soon be replaced by one who does. Not so in politics. A President Trump would have to work with 535 members of Congress whom he cannot fire. Many will want him to fail. Some may have their eyes on his job.

Mr. Trump has not shown any skill at dealing with people who disagree with him—nor any desire to learn how. Instead, he has mocked and belittled anyone who has challenged him. See: “Little Marco,” “Lyin’ Ted” and “Crooked Hillary.” What would President Trump do if German Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced sharp disagreement with his international agenda? Could he restrain himself from personally attacking an American ally?

3. Executives are autocrats. Real estate is heavily regulated, but developers are not. Pretty much anyone can buy whatever he wants, as long as he has the money. It is inconceivable that Mr. Trump’s business decisions at Trump Enterprises could be overruled. Presidents, in contrast, are tightly constrained by laws, rules and regulations. Even if the White House’s actions appear to be in compliance with the law, courts may disagree.

Mr. Trump does not seem to understand the limits of presidential power. Take his pledge to make Mexico pay for a border wall. The candidate has suggested that he would recoup the cost of the wall by imposing a tariff on imports from Mexico. But such a tariff would have to be passed by Congress, and it would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Trump has also suggested that he would confiscate remittances to Mexico, which would require court action and proof of a criminal act. The courts would not support him.

4. In business there are rarely fact checkers. Sellers can say close to anything they want during a real-estate negotiation, which is almost always conducted in private. Those representations are eventually put in writing, and the buyer is responsible for verification. Most contracts specifically state that the parties cannot rely on anything said beforehand. If a significant misrepresentation is found, the buyer can abandon the deal. If the falsehood is found only after the agreement is completed, it is usually too bad for the buyer.

Does this sound like Mr. Trump’s campaign? How often has he said things that turn out to be untrue? Many are startled by the ease with which he does this. After participating in hundreds of real-estate deals, I’m not surprised. But words matter on the world stage. Can we take the chance that Mr. Trump, once elected, will be able to change his sales pitch? He has yet to show a willingness to even try.

5. A common ploy in business is to create anxiety. Take a loan restructuring, something Mr. Trump has great experience with. If negotiations stall, the borrower might simply stop paying, forcing the lender to contemplate a lengthy foreclosure. The proceedings might take years, all the while the lender isn’t getting paid and the borrower controls the asset. Suddenly cutting a deal doesn’t look so bad.

Sound familiar? Mr. Trump suggested that if he didn’t get the Republican nomination there might be riots or he might run a third-party campaign. He was presenting an outcome that party leaders wanted desperately to avoid—and he knew it. Well played, but does that kind of threat work in international affairs? Incorrectly calling a businessman’s bluff, at worst, ends the deal. What if the businessman has his finger on the nuclear button?

6. A business always has bankruptcy as an option. If a real-estate deal needs to be modified, the developer can threaten or actually file chapter 11—something Mr. Trump has done repeatedly with his casinos. This tactic has been successful, benefiting Mr. Trump at the expense of others. But it would be enormously destructive if employed regarding American financial obligations.

Mr. Trump has already threatened to renegotiate America’s debt, and to print more money to pay it. Markets have so far not taken this seriously, but the idea of a U.S. default or dilution of obligations will be hard to shrug off with Mr. Trump sitting in the Oval Office.

***
It is an axiom that people continue to do whatever made them successful. Mr. Trump promises to approach the presidency the same way he does any business deal. But a profitable record of buying real estate and licensing his name does not mean that he will be an able leader of the free world.

Mr. Pomerantz is senior counsel at the international law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Hack reporters is more like it. Prolly broke, driving to work in a crappy Prius, writing about how a billionaire doesn't know how to accumulate wealth. That 2nd one is for sure, she's a freelancer and I couldn't find any other work from her.

Their article is a non story and worthless. Anyone who listens to financial advice from these nobodies deserves what happens to them.

Great movie reference though.

Hack reporters is more like it. Prolly broke, driving to work in a crappy Prius, writing about how a billionaire doesn't know how to accumulate wealth. That 2nd one is for sure, she's a freelancer and I couldn't find any other work from her.

Their article is a non story and worthless. Anyone who listens to financial advice from these nobodies deserves what happens to them.

Great movie reference though.

Wonderful generalizations. Much easier than finding out what reality is to see if your ideas have any substance. #trump2016

 

[Deleted member 429137]

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned: The guy who ghost wrote The Art of the Deal doesn't think Trump would be a good President.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

Trump is threatening to sue him for millions. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...eatens-the-ghostwriter-of-the-art-of-the-deal


No wonder he wants make it easier to sue for libel.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

that's like saying I profit hugely from overpriced health care (I do), so I couldnt possibly support UHC(I do).

really silly reasoning. We live in a capitalistic society, you'de be a fool if you did your best to be poor. Hell, I'm profiting due to the banking crisis, does it mean I support repealing of glass steagal done by bill clinton? I must be some pandering dude that's not running for office.......

If generating profit has literally been your only motive until this election, it means we can't trust you to diminish your income as we can trust someone who hasn't hugely benefited financially from the problematic situation. Literally common sense 101.

 

[chardog]

If generating profit has literally been your only motive until this election, it means we can't trust you to diminish your income as we can trust someone who hasn't hugely benefited financially from the problematic situation. Literally common sense 101.

Common sense isn't all that common.

You just stated a case that rich liberals cannot possibly hold a liberal point of view.

Michael Moore must be a conservative since he's a millionaire.

Common sense bro

 

[Deleted member 429137]

Common sense isn't all that common.

You just stated a case that rich liberals cannot possibly hold a liberal point of view.

Michael Moore must be a conservative since he's a millionaire.

Common sense bro

If a rich liberal had spent their entire career profiting from shitty legislation then, they, too, would not be that trustworthy on the issue.

A liberal and / or a conservative who have never benefited from the shitty legislation, and especially if they have campaigned against it, would obviously be more trustworthy in dismantling it since it would not directly affect their income.

Thank you for not using your brain when typing posts. You should be a treat.

 

[Deleted member 429137]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/opinion/what-republicans-really-think-about-trump.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/opinion/what-republicans-really-think-about-trump.html?_r=0
What Republican leaders really think about Trump.

 

[chardog]

If a rich liberal had spent their entire career profiting from shitty legislation then, they, too, would not be that trustworthy on the issue.

A liberal and / or a conservative who have never benefited from the shitty legislation, and especially if they have campaigned against it, would obviously be more trustworthy in dismantling it since it would not directly affect their income.

Thank you for not using your brain when typing posts. You should be a treat.

Well, so much for common sense if you've got to explain it to me.

So please give your common sense assessment on this:

Bill Clinton repealed Glass Steagal
Banks profited, caused housing crash
Hilary profits from banks
Hilary says Bill in charge of economy