There is no wild-card here

[TitanTiger 20,509]

From a friend on Facebook.

Quote

I don't understand the argument that we know for sure how terrible HIllary is, but Trump is a wild card. How is he a wild card? 

 

Can you imagine saying, "Trump was in a tight spot, but he did the right thing!" 
or "Trump could have taken the low road, but he chose not to!" 
or "They were really pushing his buttons, but he behaved responsibly anyway!" 
or "Trump certainly showed courage and integrity there!" 
or "Trump explained something I never understood before!" 
or "This is a complex issue, but he really seems to comprehend it well!" 
or "It wasn't the popular thing to do, but Trump did it because it was right!" 
or "Trump sacrificed his own self-interest for the common good!" 
or "Trump promised to do something, and with hard work and persistence, he followed through!" 
or "I would love for my child in the military to be under his steady and rational command!"

 

He's done nothing but show us exactly who he is and how he acts. Yes, we already know who Hillary is. Yes, we already know who Trump is.

 

There is no wild card here.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

I certainly do not disagree. It just depends on how we choose to look at things. Maybe it is all about results:

 

Was Mrs. Clinton a better than average first lady?

Was Mrs. Clinton a better than average senator?

Was Mrs. Clinton a better than average secretary of state?

Is Trump a better than average businessman?

[TexasTiger 12,992]

22 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I certainly do not disagree. It just depends on how we choose to look at things. Maybe it is all about results:

 

Was Mrs. Clinton a better than average first lady?

Was Mrs. Clinton a better than average senator?

Was Mrs. Clinton a better than average secretary of state?

Is Trump a better than average businessman?

Trump is not respected in the business world. HRC was a well-respected Senator.

 

Would you want your child to act like Trump? If Trump were your Dad, would you be embarrassed? Would you want him as a business partner?

[Grumps 3,704]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump is not respected in the business world. HRC was a well-respected Senator.

That's fair. I still prefer results to respect for my leaders, though.

[TexasTiger 12,992]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

That's fair. I still prefer results to respect for my leaders, though.

Bankruptcies?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/

[homersapien 11,423]

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

That's fair. I still prefer results to respect for my leaders, though.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-wealth-myth_us_57b09a63e4b007c36e4f1bff?section=&

 

Republicans Got Totally Scammed By Donald Trump’s Creation Myth

WASHINGTON ― For the past year, Donald Trump has been selling himself to Republican voters and party leaders as a master developer, casino mogul, airline executive and all-around brilliant businessman.

What they didn’t hear much about, though, was his single greatest talent: master self-promoter.

Now, with the general election just three months away, they are learning they may have been sold a bill of goods. That Trump was actually a so-so developer. That hiscasinos failed and pushed him to the edge of personal bankruptcy. That his airline was a money-losing vanity project that he eventually lost when he missed loan payments. That his business acumen, far from brilliant, is now fodder for millions of dollars’ worth of negative TV ads.

“He is, as someone said, the hobo’s idea of a billionaire,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida political consultant who is now working for independent candidate Evan McMullin. “I’ve had donors say: ‘I’m a billionaire. Trump’s a clown with a credit card.’”

Trump is the master of creating a perception that he is successful, when he has used aggressive lawsuits and multiple bankruptcies in attempts to mask huge failures,” said Texas Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak.

For his part, Trump continues to insist he’s worth more than $10 billion, despite outside reviews that calculate his net worth at less than half that. A National Journal analysis of his finances found that he would have been far richer if, when he took control of his father’s empire in 1974, he had instead taken his share and merely put it into a stock market index fund.

Read the rest at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-wealth-myth_us_57b09a63e4b007c36e4f1bff?section=&

[Auburn85 432]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump is not respected in the business world. HRC was a well-respected Senator.

 

Would you want your child to act like Trump? If Trump were your Dad, would you be embarrassed? Would you want him as a business partner?

I certainly would not go to Trump's next wedding if I was invited.

[Grumps 3,704]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Bankruptcies?

Trump has MANY faults and I think he is a HORRIBLE candidate. I agree with the poster who says the we have the choice between Trump's character and Mrs. Clinton's honesty. We lose either way. I will likely vote for Trump's character. Either way, I am quite confident that Trump will win Alabama and Mrs. Clinton will win the presidency.

[AUUSN 823]

National ad buy that has played every night during the Olympics. Brutal.

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

I find it interesting that many here find the ad to be effective. Trump's goal as a business owner has almost nothing to do with doing what is best for the country. If he can help his business and its investors by making neckties overseas then it would be unethical not to do it. As POTUS, his goal should be to do what is best for the country. Can people not see the difference or are they just refusing to see it?

 

It's a similarly silly argument for me to say that Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary and then complaining about the tax laws. Just because he thinks they are unfair is not a reason to penalize himself by paying more than he is required to pay.

[homersapien 11,423]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I find it interesting that many here find the ad to be effective. Trump's goal as a business owner has almost nothing to do with doing what is best for the country. If he can help his business and its investors by making neckties overseas then it would be unethical not to do it. As POTUS, his goal should be to do what is best for the country. Can people not see the difference or are they just refusing to see it?

 

It's a similarly silly argument for me to say that Warren Buffett is a hypocrite for paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary and then complaining about the tax laws. Just because he thinks they are unfair is not a reason to penalize himself by paying more than he is required to pay.

 

That's a tortured analogy.  There is no legal requirement specifying Trump should maximize his profit by outsourcing work overseas that could be otherwise done here.    

 

You either believe that such outsourcing is bad for the country or not.  If you believe it is, why would you deliberately do something that is bad for the country just because it's marginally more profitable and you can?  That doesn't sound very patriotic to me.  

 

Soros on the other hand paid, what was he was legally required to pay in taxes.  We don't know how else he spent his money, but he obviously has voluntarily spent a great deal on what he feels would improve the country, in addition to speaking out about the inequality of the tax rate.  

 

Trump is simply pandering to people who think foreign trade has hurt them personally.

[Mims44 1,885]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-wealth-myth_us_57b09a63e4b007c36e4f1bff?section=&

 

Republicans Got Totally Scammed By Donald Trump’s Creation Myth

WASHINGTON ― For the past year, Donald Trump has been selling himself to Republican voters and party leaders as a master developer, casino mogul, airline executive and all-around brilliant businessman.

What they didn’t hear much about, though, was his single greatest talent: master self-promoter.

Now, with the general election just three months away, they are learning they may have been sold a bill of goods. That Trump was actually a so-so developer. That hiscasinos failed and pushed him to the edge of personal bankruptcy. That his airline was a money-losing vanity project that he eventually lost when he missed loan payments. That his business acumen, far from brilliant, is now fodder for millions of dollars’ worth of negative TV ads.

“He is, as someone said, the hobo’s idea of a billionaire,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida political consultant who is now working for independent candidate Evan McMullin. “I’ve had donors say: ‘I’m a billionaire. Trump’s a clown with a credit card.’”

Trump is the master of creating a perception that he is successful, when he has used aggressive lawsuits and multiple bankruptcies in attempts to mask huge failures,” said Texas Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak.

For his part, Trump continues to insist he’s worth more than $10 billion, despite outside reviews that calculate his net worth at less than half that. A National Journal analysis of his finances found that he would have been far richer if, when he took control of his father’s empire in 1974, he had instead taken his share and merely put it into a stock market index fund.

Read the rest at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-wealth-myth_us_57b09a63e4b007c36e4f1bff?section=&

 

Dangit Homer, That made me want to read more, but it's not a free article

[homersapien 11,423]

13 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

 

Dangit Homer, That made me want to read more, but it's not a free article

 

Yeah, that's unfortunate.  

 

 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,509]

15 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

 

Dangit Homer, That made me want to read more, but it's not a free article

 

The whole thing shows up for me, and I don't subscribe to HuffPo.

[homersapien 11,423]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

The whole thing shows up for me, and I don't subscribe to HuffPo.

 

I think he's referring specifically to the index fund analysis which came from the  National Journal analysis link.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

Ah.

[homersapien 11,423]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

The whole thing shows up for me, and I don't subscribe to HuffPo.

 

I think he's referring specifically to the index fund analysis which came from the  National Journal analysis link.

 

The "background color" formatting hid it.

[TheBlueVue 177]

16 hours ago, Grumps said:

Trump has MANY faults and I think he is a HORRIBLE candidate. I agree with the poster who says the we have the choice between Trump's character and Mrs. Clinton's honesty. We lose either way. I will likely vote for Trump's character. Either way, I am quite confident that Trump will win Alabama and Mrs. Clinton will win the presidency.

I'm with you 100%. I too fully expect Clinton to win given Trump's tendency to be his own worst enemy which is amplified many fold by a media that isn't even trying to hide its biases anymore.  Despite not expecting it, I'll definitely have a s$%t eatin grin on my face if he pulls off what appears to be unthinkable at the moment. The republican party deserves Donald Trump. and frankly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if it doesn't survive this election

[TitanTiger 20,509]

10 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

I'm with you 100%. I too fully expect Clinton to win given Trump's tendency to be his own worst enemy which is amplified many fold by a media that isn't even trying to hide its biases anymore.  Despite not expecting it, I'll definitely have a s$%t eatin grin on my face if he pulls off what appears to be unthinkable at the moment. The republican party deserves Donald Trump. and frankly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if it doesn't survive this election

 

Megaphone Mouth doesn't need amplification.  

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

 

Megaphone Mouth doesn't need amplification.  

Your complete and total disdain for DJT is well documented and I have no problem with it but if think media bias hasn't ascended to virtual cheerleading at this point you either aren't being honest or you have no problem with a media that has clearly chosen sides. What seems ironic at best is many, like you, who have difficulty seeing beyond their unmitigated hatred for the guy seemingly have no problem, at all, with a morally bankrupt criminal who has proven many times over her primary interests are her selfish politics of personal enrichment and to hell with everything else. She's a common criminal.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

8 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Your complete and total disdain for DJT is well documented and I have no problem with it but if think media bias hasn't ascended to virtual cheerleading at this point you either aren't being honest or you have no problem with a media that has clearly chosen sides. What seems ironic at best is many, like you, who have difficulty seeing beyond their unmitigated hatred for the guy seemingly have no problem, at all, with a morally bankrupt criminal who has proven many times over her primary interests are her selfish politics of personal enrichment and to hell with everything else. She's a common criminal.

 

Maybe they're like the rest of us who see through the snake oil salespitch and see a charlatan and a lunatic that shouldn't be anywhere near the Oval Office, no matter what Hillary's deficiencies are.  It would be wonderful if we could get rid of them both and start over, but this is the hand we're dealt.  But the media could give bland reports of what he says on a week to week basis and it would do all the damage needed to torpedo his candidacy all by itself.  

[AuburnNTexas 7,167]

The media taking sides hurts everybody. Peoples trust of the media is approaching the same levels of their respect for Congress. Titan is probably right that if they were even handed Trump would still continue his foot and the mouth disease and still lose. But by taking sides and people on both sides not objecting the fifth Estate has lost all credibility. Media is damaging itself and hurting us as we can't believe what we hear or read as instead of being journalists they have become cheerleaders.

 

Political opinion in this country is like a pendulum if swings from side to side sooner or later it will swing the other way.  What happens when it swings to the conservative side as it will at some point.

 

A perfect example is the use of executive orders. The Constitution was written to have three sets of power Legislative, Executive and Judicial.  Over the last half century Presidents on both sides of the aisle have slowly eroded the power of the legislative using Executive orders to overturn written Law. In the case of Obama the media has applauded it and luckily with a split decision  on the Supreme court Obama's ruling on immigration was overturned. If there had been one more Liberal judge it would have stayed.  If Hillary wins she will appoint a Liberal Judge it is her right.  She will continue with Obama's policy and this time she will win. I actually agree with what Obama was trying to do but I am scared the Supreme court will allow him or Hillary to do it or in the future a conservative President.

 

The problem is once Executive edict has been given precedent over written law any President even a Donald Trump type could implement what ever they want. Once precedent is set it is almost impossible to change it. At that point if the media rails against it so what nobody believes them anymore.

 

I don't care what side of the political spectrum you are on we need the media to be honest when reporting the news.

 

I hate my choices I will probably vote for Johnson the Libertarian candidate that will probably help Hillary which will disgust me but voting for Donald would also disgust me.  I have no problem with people attacking Trump he is his own worst enemy. You can vote for Hillary or for Trump because you think one is the lessor of two evils but please have enough intellectual honesty to realize either one you vote for is a scumbag please don't try and tell me about Hillary's virtues as she has none.

[TitanTiger 20,509]

At what point does the press have the freedom to point out the bleeding obvious though?  They've talked about Hillary's scandals and weaknesses.  I've seen it, plenty of times.  But "even handed" doesn't mean you have to give both candidates equal seriousness in your coverage if one is acting like a crazy person.  At some point, when one is behaving like  a rodeo clown on meth, you can't even feign that you have two equally serious candidates anymore.

 

If the reporter is interviewing two people and one puts up preposterous ideas and the other offers something that - even if you disagree philosophically - at least is within the realm of reasonable thought, they are not obligated to treat both ideas with the same seriousness and consideration.  That's the myth of 'balanced coverage' that some people have.

[Guest NC1406]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

That's a tortured analogy.  There is no legal requirement specifying Trump should maximize his profit by outsourcing work overseas that could be otherwise done here.    

 

You either believe that such outsourcing is bad for the country or not.  If you believe it is, why would you deliberately do something that is bad for the country just because it's marginally more profitable and you can?  That doesn't sound very patriotic to me.  

 

Soros on the other hand paid, what was he was legally required to pay in taxes.  We don't know how else he spent his money, but he obviously has voluntarily spent a great deal on what he feels would improve the country, in addition to speaking out about the inequality of the tax rate.  

 

Trump is simply pandering to people who think foreign trade has hurt them personally.

Soros attacked the currency of our largest ally. Patriotic?  Grow up. They did it for profit.