Author Topic: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate  (Read 587120 times)

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2100 on: June 17, 2016, 04:28:34 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2101 on: June 17, 2016, 05:03:10 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.

Mac_MacGyver

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2102 on: June 17, 2016, 05:06:06 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I know one is a warmonger and the other I have no information on. You probably missed the part about rhetoric and words vs. actions because you were doing your best to come up with a passive-aggressive retort. Here is a web site you may enjoy, it may help with your reading and comprehension https://www.hookedonphonics.com/.

« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 05:17:31 PM by Mac_MacGyver »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2103 on: June 17, 2016, 05:09:52 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I know one is a warmonger and the other I have no information on. You probably missed the part about rhetoric and words vs. actions because you were doing your best to come up with a passive-aggressive retort. Here is a web site you may enjoy, it may help with your reading and comprehension https://www.hookedonphonics.com/.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

Mac_MacGyver

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2104 on: June 17, 2016, 05:14:19 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.

I dont think either of our views of the other candidate is going to change. I can insert Hillary in each example and the results are the same minus Atlantic City because she has not been in business. Hillary changes her positions routinely, left people out to dry etc. Oh well.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2105 on: June 17, 2016, 05:21:06 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.

I dont think either of our views of the other candidate is going to change. I can insert Hillary in each example and the results are the same minus Atlantic City because she has not been in business. Hillary changes her positions routinely, left people out to dry etc. Oh well.

Leaving Clinton v Trump aside for a moment, what is your take on Trump's business record and treatment of investors? Honestly curious.

Mac_MacGyver

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 119
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2106 on: June 17, 2016, 05:27:22 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.

I dont think either of our views of the other candidate is going to change. I can insert Hillary in each example and the results are the same minus Atlantic City because she has not been in business. Hillary changes her positions routinely, left people out to dry etc. Oh well.

Leaving Clinton v Trump aside for a moment, what is your take on Trump's business record and treatment of investors? Honestly curious.

He has made some people rich and others poor. I personally think he is probably a real jerk, to cite the Atlantic City info from earlier, i recall he had the city use eminent domain on some old woman that I believe 20/20 did a story on back in the early 90's. I think he is a scoundrel and uses the law to his own ends. And yet he is still the lesser of two evils.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 05:38:31 PM by Mac_MacGyver »

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2107 on: June 17, 2016, 05:53:23 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I know one is a warmonger and the other I have no information on. You probably missed the part about rhetoric and words vs. actions because you were doing your best to come up with a passive-aggressive retort. Here is a web site you may enjoy, it may help with your reading and comprehension https://www.hookedonphonics.com/.
Trump has given you tons of information, he has his policies laid out clearly. Here is a summary of his plan,

1. He wants a trade reform with China, which I think will hurt both the United States and China's economies
2. His tax plan will reduce the highest tax bracket to 25%, and reduce corporate tax to a maximum of 15%. He also wants to let companies repatriate their corporate cash to the U.S. for a mere 10% tax rate and end the deferral of taxes on corporate income earned abroad. I think with this plan, we might get a decent bump from the repatriation of funds to the U.S. initially, but after that we will not be able to have enough tax revenue to sustain, and the debt we currently have will look small in comparison to how high it would go. We would probably have to make a big change quickly to try and recover/fix this horrible mistake, and it probably wouldn't go over well.
3. He wants to build a monstrous wall and claims Mexico will pay for it, I think it would be a horrible idea to get Mexico to pay for this wall(assuming they even would), their economy would take a huge hit and it would directly effect the United States economy. Trump also wants to triple the number of ICE officers. He also wants to deport over 11 million people living in the United States. All of the ways he plans on deporting them will be very expensive and hurt the U.S. Economy more. His entire immigration plan will be VERY expensive.

He wants to greatly increase spending while dramatically decreasing tax revenue and causing trade issues with China. I think this would destroy the US economy. So fuck that Trump guy, I'm voting Gary Johnson.

Lets add that Trump wants free trade, but is going to force companies to stay in the US, wants to deport millions of people, wants to ban muslims from entering the company, kill terrorists families, and he's an egotistical idiot. Makes for a shitty person, horrible president and someone who I'm disgusted has any support.

Edit: Statistically Trump supporters are less educated than the average American, so you're more likely to need that website.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 06:01:01 PM by Jeremy E. »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2108 on: June 17, 2016, 06:04:00 PM »
People get on trump for what he says but overlook the important matter of looking at what Hillary has done. Actions speak louder than words and a world of Hillary looks like a rebirth of the Bush NeoCon foreign policy. No thanks.

It's difficult to judge Trump on what he's done since he has never held political office.  That's why people judge him based on what he says he'll do.  What has he said that makes you think his foreign policy decisions would be better than Clinton's?

True, Trump has never held political office but his message is for the consumption of a domestic audience which is what is lost in all the arguing. He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line. Hillary on the other hand has never been introduced to a conflict she didn't want the United States involved in and to personally profit from. Based on her actions as secretary of state (rise of ISIS, Libya, Taliban resurgence) and her voting record in the senate (Iraq War)  I think she is nothing but a Neocon warmonger. Furthermore, her foreign policy seems to have been personal enrichment via the Clinton Foundation. I don't think she is trustworthy as a politician but even worse I dont think she is trustworthy as a person.
You think Trump wouldn't be a warmonger? He has said he thinks we need to double the size of the military, I'm sure the reasoning for this is because he's a pacifist so good call.
I think his record of business dealings is not actually all that good. Look at his Atlantic City dealings, which were largely a disaster. He has a long history of real estate deals in which he leaves other people out to dry when the projects fail. Is that a person who is trustworthy as a person? I won't argue that either of the presumptive nominees is a perfect angel, but when it comes to personal integrity and accountability, I'd say Clinton is far ahead of Trump. People seem to think he's a straight shooter, when what he is really doing is just saying what he needs to to get support. It is all bullshit. If you track his positions on things like climate change and the Iraq war, his position shifts with the breeze.

I dont think either of our views of the other candidate is going to change. I can insert Hillary in each example and the results are the same minus Atlantic City because she has not been in business. Hillary changes her positions routinely, left people out to dry etc. Oh well.

Leaving Clinton v Trump aside for a moment, what is your take on Trump's business record and treatment of investors? Honestly curious.

He has made some people rich and others poor. I personally think he is probably a real jerk, to cite the Atlantic City info from earlier, i recall he had the city use eminent domain on some old woman that I believe 20/20 did a story on back in the early 90's. I think he is a scoundrel and uses the law to his own ends. And yet he is still the lesser of two evils.

That's not how it happened, and Trump devoted an entire chapter to that debacle in his book, The Art of the Deal.  Granted, it's a one sided presentation of the events, but the facts are still facts.  Trump did not initiate that use of eminent domain, and actually did try to accommodate that woman, within his constraints as a CEO whose primary legal responsibility is to make his investors profit.  Incidentally, that book is a good read in order to better understand what Trump is doing in his campaign, as he has not changed a bit.  A lot of the over-the-top statements he makes in public (such as the southern border wall) are 'anchors' not intended to be taken as an ultimatum, but as the start of a negotiation.  When he eventually softens his position, the public will view that as more reasonable, which makes Trump look more reasonable even if he still ends up at the same place that he could have started at and refused to budge.  He recently already started to soften his 'ban on Muslim immigration' stance from all Muslims to "from certain places, you know the ones".  We will continue to get these softer, more nuanced positions as the campaign rolls on.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2109 on: June 17, 2016, 06:30:04 PM »
That's not how it happened, and Trump devoted an entire chapter to that debacle in his book, The Art of the Deal.  Granted, it's a one sided presentation of the events, but the facts are still facts.  Trump did not initiate that use of eminent domain, and actually did try to accommodate that woman, within his constraints as a CEO whose primary legal responsibility is to make his investors profit.  Incidentally, that book is a good read in order to better understand what Trump is doing in his campaign, as he has not changed a bit.  A lot of the over-the-top statements he makes in public (such as the southern border wall) are 'anchors' not intended to be taken as an ultimatum, but as the start of a negotiation.  When he eventually softens his position, the public will view that as more reasonable, which makes Trump look more reasonable even if he still ends up at the same place that he could have started at and refused to budge.  He recently already started to soften his 'ban on Muslim immigration' stance from all Muslims to "from certain places, you know the ones".  We will continue to get these softer, more nuanced positions as the campaign rolls on.

This is likely correct, and it makes me sad that people are falling for his tricks (and even worse that people are supporting the awful, awful things that he is saying).

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2110 on: June 17, 2016, 06:53:04 PM »
That's not how it happened, and Trump devoted an entire chapter to that debacle in his book, The Art of the Deal.  Granted, it's a one sided presentation of the events, but the facts are still facts.  Trump did not initiate that use of eminent domain, and actually did try to accommodate that woman, within his constraints as a CEO whose primary legal responsibility is to make his investors profit.  Incidentally, that book is a good read in order to better understand what Trump is doing in his campaign, as he has not changed a bit.  A lot of the over-the-top statements he makes in public (such as the southern border wall) are 'anchors' not intended to be taken as an ultimatum, but as the start of a negotiation.  When he eventually softens his position, the public will view that as more reasonable, which makes Trump look more reasonable even if he still ends up at the same place that he could have started at and refused to budge.  He recently already started to soften his 'ban on Muslim immigration' stance from all Muslims to "from certain places, you know the ones".  We will continue to get these softer, more nuanced positions as the campaign rolls on.

This is likely correct, and it makes me sad that people are falling for his tricks (and even worse that people are supporting the awful, awful things that he is saying).

In order to defend yourself from these tricks, first you must be able to see the trick, and even that isn't entirely effective at dissipating the effect.  The truth is, none of us are good at choosing a "good president", we don't really even know what that would mean.  There is too much that is hidden from the public about the nature of the job for the public to actually make a rational decision; and we would still want a different kind of president if we knew in advance if our major challenges over the next 4 years would be domestic or foreign.  So we do what we can, and rationalize the uncertainty away.  In the end, the vast majority of us make decisions on an emotional level, and then decide later why.  Trump knows how this works intuitively, he's been doing it all his adult life.  Rare is the individual that has met Don Trump, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.  His 'gruff' charm is well known, and that opens the listener up to consider his opinions with less opposition, so when he softens his positions, the public is willing to consider them more because he has already moved the Overton window in his direction.  This is a long game, and Clinton is still learning the new rules.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2111 on: June 18, 2016, 01:14:57 PM »
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.

Does he though? I think he owns a golf course in Scotland. And I say "think" because it's hard to know what he actually owns vs just charges big bucks to have his name on. I wouldn't really put that in the same category as doing business with China where the relationship is complicated. Trump doesn't actually make things anymore. He just licences his name to be on stuff. He's actually an incredibly awful businessman. He's just a very good marketer. His whole image is invented BS. He sucks at actually developing properties or managing things. Those projects he owns and runs tend to take on too much debt, spend too much money, don't turn a profit, etc. He enriches himself by taking cash out of them and putting it in his pocket while letting vendors, small businesses, stockholders, and bond owners take big losses.

I don't actually think he does business with a lot of countries. Some products that have his name on them (like his clothing line which he had for awhile) may be made in other countries, but he doesn't have anything to do with that operation--just his name on it.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2112 on: June 19, 2016, 05:11:37 PM »
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.

Does he though? I think he owns a golf course in Scotland. And I say "think" because it's hard to know what he actually owns vs just charges big bucks to have his name on. I wouldn't really put that in the same category as doing business with China where the relationship is complicated. Trump doesn't actually make things anymore. He just licences his name to be on stuff. He's actually an incredibly awful businessman. He's just a very good marketer. His whole image is invented BS. He sucks at actually developing properties or managing things. Those projects he owns and runs tend to take on too much debt, spend too much money, don't turn a profit, etc. He enriches himself by taking cash out of them and putting it in his pocket while letting vendors, small businesses, stockholders, and bond owners take big losses.

I don't actually think he does business with a lot of countries. Some products that have his name on them (like his clothing line which he had for awhile) may be made in other countries, but he doesn't have anything to do with that operation--just his name on it.

I suspect he hasn't been nearly as successful as a businessman as he claims.  Seeing his tax returns would go a long way towards making a more informed decision about how much he has earned and lost over the years.  I'm doubtful he'll ever release them.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2113 on: June 19, 2016, 06:36:44 PM »
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.

Does he though? I think he owns a golf course in Scotland. And I say "think" because it's hard to know what he actually owns vs just charges big bucks to have his name on. I wouldn't really put that in the same category as doing business with China where the relationship is complicated. Trump doesn't actually make things anymore. He just licences his name to be on stuff. He's actually an incredibly awful businessman. He's just a very good marketer. His whole image is invented BS. He sucks at actually developing properties or managing things. Those projects he owns and runs tend to take on too much debt, spend too much money, don't turn a profit, etc. He enriches himself by taking cash out of them and putting it in his pocket while letting vendors, small businesses, stockholders, and bond owners take big losses.

I don't actually think he does business with a lot of countries. Some products that have his name on them (like his clothing line which he had for awhile) may be made in other countries, but he doesn't have anything to do with that operation--just his name on it.

I suspect he hasn't been nearly as successful as a businessman as he claims.  Seeing his tax returns would go a long way towards making a more informed decision about how much he has earned and lost over the years.  I'm doubtful he'll ever release them.

I'm pretty sure he won't release them. It would likely ruin him. His entire brand is that he's rich and a successful businessman. It's entirely possible that he's not a billionaire. He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year. Either he's cheating on his taxes, playing some kind of money hiding shenanigans, or just not as rich as he claims.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/06/07/donald-trump-still-receiving-tax-break-meant-for-homeowners-making-under-500000-a-year/#15ac0192ac17

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2114 on: June 19, 2016, 10:05:44 PM »
He actually does deal with a lot of countries in his business endeavors which would indicate that he is probably pretty pragmatic as it is his money being put on the line.

Does he though? I think he owns a golf course in Scotland. And I say "think" because it's hard to know what he actually owns vs just charges big bucks to have his name on. I wouldn't really put that in the same category as doing business with China where the relationship is complicated. Trump doesn't actually make things anymore. He just licences his name to be on stuff. He's actually an incredibly awful businessman. He's just a very good marketer. His whole image is invented BS. He sucks at actually developing properties or managing things. Those projects he owns and runs tend to take on too much debt, spend too much money, don't turn a profit, etc. He enriches himself by taking cash out of them and putting it in his pocket while letting vendors, small businesses, stockholders, and bond owners take big losses.

I don't actually think he does business with a lot of countries. Some products that have his name on them (like his clothing line which he had for awhile) may be made in other countries, but he doesn't have anything to do with that operation--just his name on it.

I suspect he hasn't been nearly as successful as a businessman as he claims.  Seeing his tax returns would go a long way towards making a more informed decision about how much he has earned and lost over the years.  I'm doubtful he'll ever release them.

I'm pretty sure he won't release them. It would likely ruin him. His entire brand is that he's rich and a successful businessman. It's entirely possible that he's not a billionaire. He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year. Either he's cheating on his taxes, playing some kind of money hiding shenanigans, or just not as rich as he claims.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/06/07/donald-trump-still-receiving-tax-break-meant-for-homeowners-making-under-500000-a-year/#15ac0192ac17
[/quote

Income does not equate to net worth, but that would imply that either his investments on billions of dollars suck, or he has some serious income tax deductions.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8585
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2115 on: June 20, 2016, 12:00:49 AM »
He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year.

Rather than "he...claims" it seems "the city credited him with" is more accurate, based on the actual property tax bill shown in the original article.

Should I ever be so afflicted with a $200,000 property tax bill, I can imagine not checking the qualifications for the $300 credit the city put on my bill.

This type of story runs the risk that the general public will think "crying wolf again" whenever someone criticizes Trump.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2116 on: June 20, 2016, 05:33:01 AM »

Income does not equate to net worth, but that would imply that either his investments on billions of dollars suck, or he has some serious income tax deductions.

He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year.

Rather than "he...claims" it seems "the city credited him with" is more accurate, based on the actual property tax bill shown in the original article.

Should I ever be so afflicted with a $200,000 property tax bill, I can imagine not checking the qualifications for the $300 credit the city put on my bill.

This type of story runs the risk that the general public will think "crying wolf again" whenever someone criticizes Trump.

This is all true, and what makes it all facinating to me.  Trump's entire "brand" is that he's a wildly successful businessman, and last year he first claimed that his net worth last June was $8.7B, and then in his filling disclosure report to the Federal Election Committee he stated that his net worth was "in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS [emphasis Trump's]" and that he had "he had an income of $362 million in 2014, not including dividends, interest, capital gains, rent and royalties. And he said that he had made $213 million during his 14 seasons hosting NBC‘s “The Apprentice.” (source)

If he indeed earned an average $15.1MM per year for "The Apprentice" and annual income in excess of $300MM before dividends, etc. it questions how much red-ink there is on the other side of the ledger.  For comparison, the SP500 returned 14.04% with dividends in 2014.  Are his annual net gains across all his investments over the $100MM mark or closer to $1M?
If he's far less successful than he indicates that challenges the cornerstone of his entire campaign; that he's a 'wildly successful' businessman who's made his money 'the old fashioned way' and could get the 'best deals' for our country.


golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2117 on: June 20, 2016, 08:04:19 AM »
Quote
Rare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.

This is true of almost anyone, including HRC.  People who have met her and worked for her say she is warm and personable.  Because so many people are suffering from "Election derangement syndrome", they view whoever they don't like as the devil and the person they support as a hero, partly because they wrap their identity up inside of a candidate (or the dislike of one).  But when you pull back, most people are just well....people.  They might have particular qualities that might make them potentially worse or better as presidents, but honestly that is really hard to judge. 

Quote
In order to defend yourself from these tricks, first you must be able to see the trick, and even that isn't entirely effective at dissipating the effect.  The truth is, none of us are good at choosing a "good president", we don't really even know what that would mean.  There is too much that is hidden from the public about the nature of the job for the public to actually make a rational decision; and we would still want a different kind of president if we knew in advance if our major challenges over the next 4 years would be domestic or foreign.  So we do what we can, and rationalize the uncertainty away.  In the end, the vast majority of us make decisions on an emotional level, and then decide later why.

This might be one of the first things I have agreed with you on wholeheartedly.  People make many decisions at an emotional level, with their lizard brain first, then use their higher reasoning functions to rationalize.  I usually know I am thinking the most critically when I actually feel uncomfortable with the notions inside my head, and I am slowly becoming skeptical of embracing ideas that make me feel satisfied or just bolster my initial instincts.   

Breaking news, Trump just fired his campaign manager.   

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2118 on: June 20, 2016, 08:17:52 AM »

Breaking news, Trump just fired his campaign manager.

wow (!)
Normally moves like this are made when a campaign is in serious trouble (for example, when they have lost a number of primary states in a row) and the end is near.  There are 140+ days before the general election...
I wonder who Trump will get to replace him.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 846
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2119 on: June 20, 2016, 08:27:57 AM »

Breaking news, Trump just fired his campaign manager.

wow (!)
Normally moves like this are made when a campaign is in serious trouble (for example, when they have lost a number of primary states in a row) and the end is near.  There are 140+ days before the general election...
I wonder who Trump will get to replace him.

He probably thinks he doesn't need one.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2120 on: June 20, 2016, 08:33:48 AM »

Breaking news, Trump just fired his campaign manager.

wow (!)
Normally moves like this are made when a campaign is in serious trouble (for example, when they have lost a number of primary states in a row) and the end is near.  There are 140+ days before the general election...
I wonder who Trump will get to replace him.
Presumably Paul  Manafort. He and Lewandowski have been openly fighting for control of the campaign for months.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2121 on: June 20, 2016, 09:37:56 AM »
He still claims a tax break available only to people making <$500k per year.

Rather than "he...claims" it seems "the city credited him with" is more accurate, based on the actual property tax bill shown in the original article.

Should I ever be so afflicted with a $200,000 property tax bill, I can imagine not checking the qualifications for the $300 credit the city put on my bill.

This type of story runs the risk that the general public will think "crying wolf again" whenever someone criticizes Trump.

Maybe. But recipients had to provide an SSN to apply for the credit. And the state verifies who is eligible and provides that list to the city. So it could be that in at least one year he reported <$500k in income to the state. I'm sure he has ways to hide/deduct much (or all?) of whatever income he gets. I wouldn't be surprised if he could get his taxable under that threshold.

Quote
The city's Finance Department said it checks with New York state tax authorities every year to make sure applicants for the STAR benefit have income under $500,000. A spokesman for the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said STAR recipients had to provide a social security number in 2013 as part of statewide registration program.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2122 on: June 20, 2016, 09:38:29 AM »
Maybe it was John Miller or John Barron that earned the tax break.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2123 on: June 20, 2016, 09:44:10 AM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2124 on: June 20, 2016, 09:54:10 AM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2125 on: June 20, 2016, 10:09:12 AM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.

see...??!  This is exactly why I'd like to see a decade or so of his tax returns.  It would help separate the intangible value of his 'brand' with how much money he's earned every year from a variety of sources.  There are so many things that have "Trump" stamped onto them it's been extremely hard for financial sleuths to distinguish what Trump actually owns (liabilities) and what he's just sold his name to in exchange for a share of the profits (assets) or a simple licensing fee.

I'm certain that he can shelter a lot of his gains by claiming depreciation.  I'm skeptical that many of his 'investments' are earning returns at all, and may actually be loosing boatloads of cash each month.

As a parallel - there's a phenomenon in the restaurant industry of celebrity-chefs owning high-end restaurants to further their 'brand'. Ironically, these restaurants very often wind up loosing money because the overhead is so high.  This forces the chef to open up satellite restaurants that are cannibalized to keep the flagship open and solvent.  Eventually the entire operation can collapse under too much debt.
I suspect Trump may have a lot of similar properties where he's actively loosing money but needs to keep them open and shiny in order to prevent damage to his overall image/brand.  Of course this is all speculation based on the ramblings of some stranger on the internet, but the NY Time's story on Trump's casino expansion in the 1990s is worth a read.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2126 on: June 20, 2016, 10:31:06 AM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his estimated 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, and is also able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2127 on: June 20, 2016, 10:41:09 AM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.

see...??!  This is exactly why I'd like to see a decade or so of his tax returns.  It would help separate the intangible value of his 'brand' with how much money he's earned every year from a variety of sources.  There are so many things that have "Trump" stamped onto them it's been extremely hard for financial sleuths to distinguish what Trump actually owns (liabilities) and what he's just sold his name to in exchange for a share of the profits (assets) or a simple licensing fee.

I'm certain that he can shelter a lot of his gains by claiming depreciation.  I'm skeptical that many of his 'investments' are earning returns at all, and may actually be loosing boatloads of cash each month.

As a parallel - there's a phenomenon in the restaurant industry of celebrity-chefs owning high-end restaurants to further their 'brand'. Ironically, these restaurants very often wind up loosing money because the overhead is so high.  This forces the chef to open up satellite restaurants that are cannibalized to keep the flagship open and solvent.  Eventually the entire operation can collapse under too much debt.
I suspect Trump may have a lot of similar properties where he's actively loosing money but needs to keep them open and shiny in order to prevent damage to his overall image/brand.  Of course this is all speculation based on the ramblings of some stranger on the internet, but the NY Time's story on Trump's casino expansion in the 1990s is worth a read.
Would his personal taxes show all of the financials from each of his companies? I have a feeling it wouldn't but I don't know much about corporate taxes

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2128 on: June 20, 2016, 11:13:03 AM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his estimated claimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, and is also claims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.

Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2129 on: June 20, 2016, 11:40:56 AM »

Would his personal taxes show all of the financials from each of his companies? I have a feeling it wouldn't but I don't know much about corporate taxes

On your taxes you have to show income as well as gains/loses from any investments.   It would show how much he's earning from each of his private companies and what percentage of the business he controls. This will include rental income from his various tenants. Trump is almost certainly listing depreciation from his real-estate holdings, which would go a long way in determining what he owns vs what he has just leased his name to.

In sum, sort of a detailed public audit, his tax returns are the only reliable way of knowing how Trump has done over the last decade+ as a businessman.

Also to add to the question of whether he has "beat the SP500".
However, unless we can agree whether he's worth closer to $100MM or $10B it's impossible to answer.  Even Forbes admits it's $4.5B is highly uncertain and includes that perceived value of his brand.  He might be worth more, or he might not even be a billionaire.  All we can do is speculate.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2130 on: June 20, 2016, 11:48:49 AM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his estimated claimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, and is also claims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.

Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/2/9248963/donald-trump-index-fund

This assumes Donald only got $40 million as of 1974. There are other reasons to believe that he got much more than that, including times his dad bailed him out of projects or loaned him money.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2131 on: June 20, 2016, 11:50:37 AM »
Just wait until the election/his presidency is over and he starts his new media outlet - "Trump Media".  Then he will be worth 10B or more. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2132 on: June 20, 2016, 11:54:45 AM »
Just wait until the election/his presidency is over and he starts his new media outlet - "Trump Media".  Then he will be worth 10B or more.
What makes you think starting a new media outlet will be so lucrative for Trump?  how much of an increase will that be from his current net worth?  so many questions....

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2133 on: June 20, 2016, 12:19:33 PM »
Quote
Rare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.

This is true of almost anyone, including HRC. 

While I have never met HRC, I have met a great many politicians in my life, due mostly to political activity.  I can say with certainty that this is not my experience.  There are some that great people, and some that give me the creeps.  I can't really explain it, but those that have given me the creeps have all turned out to be real pieces of work in the long run.  One was sent to prison for corruption.  Another turned out to be cheating on his wife.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2134 on: June 20, 2016, 12:26:13 PM »
Quote
Rare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.

This is true of almost anyone, including HRC. 

While I have never met HRC, I have met a great many politicians in my life, due mostly to political activity.  I can say with certainty that this is not my experience.  There are some that great people, and some that give me the creeps.  I can't really explain it, but those that have given me the creeps have all turned out to be real pieces of work in the long run.  One was sent to prison for corruption.  Another turned out to be cheating on his wife.
Was the latter Trump?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2135 on: June 20, 2016, 12:37:05 PM »
Quote
Rare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.

This is true of almost anyone, including HRC. 

While I have never met HRC, I have met a great many politicians in my life, due mostly to political activity.  I can say with certainty that this is not my experience.  There are some that great people, and some that give me the creeps.  I can't really explain it, but those that have given me the creeps have all turned out to be real pieces of work in the long run.  One was sent to prison for corruption.  Another turned out to be cheating on his wife.
Was the latter Trump?

No, they were all politicians in Kentucky. 

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2136 on: June 20, 2016, 12:50:02 PM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his estimated claimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, and is also claims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.

Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.
He claims to be at like 10 billion, I'm speaking of estimations by Forbes, estimating his net worth at 4 billion, and Bloomberg, estimating his net worth at 2.9 billion

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2137 on: June 20, 2016, 12:50:52 PM »
Quote
Rare is the individual that has met Don Drumpf, actually talked to the man, and later stated that they did not come away from the encounter with a better opinion about him than before they met him.

This is true of almost anyone, including HRC. 

While I have never met HRC, I have met a great many politicians in my life, due mostly to political activity.  I can say with certainty that this is not my experience.  There are some that great people, and some that give me the creeps.  I can't really explain it, but those that have given me the creeps have all turned out to be real pieces of work in the long run.  One was sent to prison for corruption.  Another turned out to be cheating on his wife.
Was the latter Trump?

No, they were all politicians in Kentucky.
I suspect that there is a whole spectrum of how likeable/honest politicians are. I have to admit that Obama cast pretty huge shade on Clinton in 2008 when he said that she was "likeable enough". Talk about damning with faint praise!

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1522
  • Location: MA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2138 on: June 20, 2016, 01:11:17 PM »
I agree that some people can give you a visceral negative vibe from the start, my point was that most people who don't have that negative first reaction and get to know and work with certain candidates usually have a positive opinion of them.  From a distance, I personally get a really negative vibe from Trump, but my guess is that if I spent a little time with him, it's likely that I would find out he is an okay dude.  From all accounts, most people that work with him like him just fine.  When I think back on his Apprentice days, he didn't seem nearly as ominous as he does now.  When I read reports about Clinton, most people that work with her also seem to like her personally. 

There are exceptions of politicians that somehow succeed despite the obvious lack of likeability - Ted Cruz comes to mind, but those are few and far between. 

Quote
What makes you think starting a new media outlet will be so lucrative for Drumpf?  how much of an increase will that be from his current net worth?  so many questions....

It seems pretty obvious to me.  He has a built in audience of millions of people he can now count on to follow his every word.  Advertisers know he has an audience ready to go - primary voters = viewers.  If he loses, he will still win big financially.  This election is a win/win for his brand.   His brand IS his primary net worth and it will only grow from here on in. 

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 36
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2139 on: June 20, 2016, 01:19:43 PM »
Clinton seems like type of person that keeps a legal team ready to silence anyone that has an opportunity to voice an unfavorable opinion about her. She probably makes everyone she comes in contact with sign a Non-disclosure Agreement before she lets her walls down.

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2140 on: June 20, 2016, 01:33:10 PM »
Clinton seems like type of person that keeps a legal team ready to silence anyone that has an opportunity to voice an unfavorable opinion about her. She probably makes everyone she comes in contact with sign a Non-disclosure Agreement before she lets her walls down.
Given Trump's habit of threatening lawsuits against people who say things about him that he doesn't like ( coupled with his desire to loosen libel laws) it sounds like they line up pretty evenly on that score (although Trump rarely follows through with his threats).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2141 on: June 20, 2016, 02:12:56 PM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his estimated claimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, and is also claims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.

Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.
He claims to be at like 10 billion, I'm speaking of estimations by Forbes, estimating his net worth at 4 billion, and Bloomberg, estimating his net worth at 2.9 billion

Here's the conundrum - if you read the actual Forbes article it details how difficult has been to get solid numbers.  Most of what they use is based on data that Trump and his aids gave Forbes directly (often with lofty valuations that Forbes then reduced based on their own formulas).  What Forbes and others have a very hard time verifying with personal wealth and privately held companies are liabilities.  In the most recent assessment Trump even showed Forbes the revenue from Trump Tower but folded over the bottom so they couldn't see the net gain/loss.  The article details how proactive Trump is at trying to 'goose' his numbers (often increasing them  by 3-4x what Forbes thinks they are actually worth).

There's so much guesswork at play that I honestly think his true NW could be anywhere between $100MM and $10B.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2142 on: June 20, 2016, 02:41:42 PM »
Clinton seems like type of person that keeps a legal team ready to silence anyone that has an opportunity to voice an unfavorable opinion about her. She probably makes everyone she comes in contact with sign a Non-disclosure Agreement before she lets her walls down.

That legal team must not be very good.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2143 on: June 20, 2016, 03:20:46 PM »
... Wait a second. So: Trump is claiming over $10 billion in worth and he's only clearing $380 million a year? That's less than the 4% rule.

Am I missing something about ability to get a return on a large portfolio, or would he have been better off just parking it in Vanguard instead of being a wildly successful businessman?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/22/f-e-c-releases-donald-trumps-financial-disclosure-statement/

They have already reported that if he had just invested the money his father gave him an index fund matching the total market, he would be richer than he claims he is now.  His net worth that claims is entirely based on his perceived value of the "Trump" name and entirely divorced from the reality of his actual assets.
Assuming he put all of it in the S&P 500 and didn't spend anything at all, then it would be at about 2.3 billion, less than his estimated claimed 3-4 billion net worth. Lets add that he is one of the least mustachian people in the world, and is also claims to be able to support that lifestyle. So he's not doing so bad according to what he has said. I still think he's an asshole that would make a shitty president and as president would hurt the U.S. severely though.

Unless you have citations for those claims, it's probably better this way.
He claims to be at like 10 billion, I'm speaking of estimations by Forbes, estimating his net worth at 4 billion, and Bloomberg, estimating his net worth at 2.9 billion

Here's the conundrum - if you read the actual Forbes article it details how difficult has been to get solid numbers.  Most of what they use is based on data that Trump and his aids gave Forbes directly (often with lofty valuations that Forbes then reduced based on their own formulas).  What Forbes and others have a very hard time verifying with personal wealth and privately held companies are liabilities.  In the most recent assessment Trump even showed Forbes the revenue from Trump Tower but folded over the bottom so they couldn't see the net gain/loss.  The article details how proactive Trump is at trying to 'goose' his numbers (often increasing them  by 3-4x what Forbes thinks they are actually worth).

There's so much guesswork at play that I honestly think his true NW could be anywhere between $100MM and $10B.
I'm not sure what $100MM is, $100 million million? that would be $1 trillion, I don't think that's possible, maybe $100MM means $1 Billion or $100 Million? Which would make more sense.
I'd guess, that if you put some value to his "brand", his net worth is probably around $3 Billion

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8465
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2144 on: June 20, 2016, 03:43:18 PM »
I'm not sure what $100MM is, $100 million million? that would be $1 trillion, I don't think that's possible, maybe $100MM means $1 Billion or $100 Million? Which would make more sense.
I'd guess, that if you put some value to his "brand", his net worth is probably around $3 Billion

"MM" is a commonly used abbreviation for millions in accounting.  k is currently used for 'thousands', although at one time 'm' was used for thousands (from the latin:"mille" for thousand).  That caused a lot of problems with people misunderstanding whether the notation "$1m" stood for "one thousand dollars" or "one million dollars".
Some people also choose to write "mn" for $million or "mm [lowercase]" although the latter can be confused with the metric abbreviation for  millimeters if there isn't much context. 

That's why I choose to represent $1,000 = $1k and $1,000,000 = $1MM.
 

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2145 on: June 21, 2016, 11:29:46 AM »
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?

As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2146 on: June 21, 2016, 11:35:38 AM »
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?

As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
Or, in a pivot to the general, this may be a calculated stance to help him seem moderate. It will also be cast as a way to seem tough on supposed terrorists (despite the problems with due process on a specifically constitutionally protected right; this use of the no-fly list would be highly problematic and would require significantly more transparency than currently allowed or it would be destroyed in the courts).

thd7t

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2147 on: June 21, 2016, 11:37:09 AM »
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?

As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
I don't think it impacts either of them. Because the Senate is hashing this out, both candidates are insulated from it some. Voters on either side of the issue are already pretty firm in their positions.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1405
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2148 on: June 21, 2016, 11:44:35 AM »
Does anyone think Trump's support of the no firearm purchases for those on the no fly list will help or hinder him in the general. There is a small(ish) contingent of people who are strongly opposed to this. Obviously it is supported by a majority of americans however it could suppress voter turnout among his supporters in key states. thoughts?

As for clinton, any way this goes only helps her. No one really thought of her as a supporter of gun rights before, so no change. But for trump I think this puts him in a difficult situation and it behooves clinton to lean on this issue, a way for clinton gain some ground in "i'll keep you safe" arena.
Or, in a pivot to the general, this may be a calculated stance to help him seem moderate. It will also be cast as a way to seem tough on supposed terrorists (despite the problems with due process on a specifically constitutionally protected right; this use of the no-fly list would be highly problematic and would require significantly more transparency than currently allowed or it would be destroyed in the courts).

I agree there is a world of difference between not being allowed on an airplane(in which case all those flying and the airline company will not want anyone to fly who is a risk) and not being granted a constitutional right(S&W has very little liability with what someone does with their product, etc). That being said, as popular as this is and not just being some fringe thing a government department instituted, I highly doubt a court would overturn it. I know a lot of people dont agree but consider the plan language of the ACA, "established by a state", that is very plain language but the courts ignored it because it is popular and would be too controversial to overturn. Same thing with the no fly list.

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7360
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate
« Reply #2149 on: June 21, 2016, 12:05:54 PM »
I know a lot of people dont agree but consider the plan language of the ACA, "established by a state", that is very plain language but the courts ignored it because it is popular and would be too controversial to overturn. read the rest of the bill and realized it was a typo because the rest of the bill clearly and consistently displays the overall intent of the legislation to provide tax credits for plans purchased on any exchange.

FTFY