America - The Official Thread

[Johnnypenso]

I didn’t say it did. You just seemed to be making a list and didn’t want you to miss something off it. Especially as having sex with women seemed to be an-overwhelmingly positive trait he has for you.

It's not fashionable or politically correct to say that having hot women flock around you is a positive thing but I'm old school. Your experience may vary. It's only one of many on a long list. Not sure where the "overwhelmingly positive" spin comes from.

Yep, like that one in downtown TO:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...to-but-donald-trump-made-millions-anyway.html

Oh, whoops. Okay, so it went bankrupt, but the stuff inside could've been great.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/lif...t-you-shouldnt-eat-here-ever/article21833277/

Oh.

The bigger they are they harder they fall. To win big sometimes you also fail big. See: Disney, Hershey, Ford etc.

Don't. You shouldn't give credit to a fraud, which is what I think a lot of people are trying to articulate. If you break the rules to become successful, on what metric can you claim success?

He is illegitimate in business
He is illegitimate as president.

I give him credit for what he's achieved. He's never been to jail so if he committed fraud it couldn't have been anything serious. His businesses are legit as is his presidency unless you have proof to the contrary. Saying it doesn't make it so. You don't have to like the guy to see that he's made a lot of dough.

What succes? I think we have a diffrent defenition of succes. Trumps made his deals with dubious people in suspicious and unethical ways. I wouldn't call that succes, I'd call him a conman. And conman aren't succesfull they're criminals.

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore.. Lots of famous and successful people were very creative with the law and their personal relationships. You can dislike how he got there, but denying that he's successful is ludicrous in the extreme.

Nor does it to find the sheer number of business' he's had fail on him (many of which are in permanent court records), his four chapter 11's or that many of the buildings around the world with his name on are branded Trump and nothing more (as in he gets a payment for the use of his name, but did nothing at all towards building them or investing in them).

You seem to be under the mistaken belief that no-one has actually bothered looking into this.

Oddly enough most of this has already been provided in links in this thread and others, so I'm surprised its been missed (or is anything that might be negative 'fake news')

Strawmen, nothing more. IMO you're under the mistaken belief that billionaires put on tool belts and load up the pouches with nails before heading out to the jobsite in the morning. Big men and women fail big. When you're a billionaire and lose $500 million it looks big to a working stiff but it's just numbers on a page to a big wheel like President Trump. The fact that he went through several failures and kept on punching and came out on top again and again speaks to his perserverence and tenacity. It's more of a credit to him actually. An American success story if there ever was one.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I give him credit for what he's achieved. He's never been to jail so if he committed fraud it couldn't have been anything serious. His businesses are legit as is his presidency unless you have proof to the contrary. Saying it doesn't make it so. You don't have to like the guy to see that he's made a lot of dough.

I'm not sure what you mean by proof, but there is a substantial amount of evidence. Do you really think all of the many, many allegations against him are completely frivolous? Because you'd have to believe that in order for you to conclude that he has never done anything that could be considered "serious fraud". Like do you think Trump has always done everything above board? There are a lot of credible sources that point to a no there, even if certain particularly credible allegations of that fraud (John Miller, John Barron, etc) wasn't technically illegal. You really want to give this guy credit?

Again, giving credit to someone who has achieved things through deceit or other unethical ways discredits everything and everyone who tries to operate fairly in society. As long as people giving Trump (and people like him) credit, we will continue to create, perpetuate and reward these kinds of behaviors. So, please stop giving him credit.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm not sure what you mean by proof, but there is a substantial amount of evidence. Do you really think all of the many, many allegations against him are completely frivolous? Because you'd have to believe that in order for you to conclude that he has never done anything that could be considered "serious fraud". Like do you think Trump has always done everything above board? There are a lot of credible sources that point to a no there, even if certain particularly credible allegations of that fraud (John Miller, John Barron, etc) wasn't technically illegal. You really want to give this guy credit?

Again, giving credit to someone who has achieved things through deceit or other unethical ways discredits everything and everyone who tries to operate fairly in society. As long as people giving Trump (and people like him) credit, we will continue to create, perpetuate and reward these kinds of behaviors. So, please stop giving him credit.

You're off on a tangent. As I've already clearly stated, you don't have to like the guy or his methods or him personally, to see that he's been a financial success. He used the system as it was designed. He's not the first guy who rose to the top with unscrupulous methods and won't be the last. I don't have to like his method to acknowledge that he's been successful by just about every definition of the word.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You're off on a tangent. As I've already clearly stated, you don't have to like the guy or his methods or him personally, to see that he's been a financial success. He used the system as it was designed. He's not the first guy who rose to the top with unscrupulous methods and won't be the last. I don't have to like his method to acknowledge that he's been successful by just about every definition of the word.

That is irresponsibly cynical. Do you think the 'system' is purposefully designed to reward these types of abuses?

You can acknowledge that he's rich, without giving him credit for being 'successful.' There is a difference. We gotta start saying "no ****ing way" to this ******** or it will never stop.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That is irresponsibly cynical. Do you think the 'system' is purposefully designed to reward these types of abuses?

You can acknowledge that he's rich, without giving him credit for being 'successful.' There is a difference.

Nothing cynical about it. I didn't say the system was perfect. It is what it is. If you don't like it change it.
Being rich generally is the definition of success, in the U.S. certainly along with most of the western world. Not the only way to be successful but a classic one to be sure. Any way we're down to semantics now.. I already said you don't have to like him or agree with his methods...several times now.

 

[baldgye]

It's only one of many on a long list. Not sure where the "overwhelmingly positive" spin comes from.

The fact you felt you needed to post it at all.
I don’t know what ‘PC’ means.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Nothing cynical about it. I didn't say the system was perfect. It is what it is. If you don't like it change it.
Being rich generally is the definition of success, in the U.S. certainly along with most of the western world. Not the only way to be successful but a classic one to be sure. Any way we're down to semantics now.. I already said you don't have to like him or agree with his methods...several times now.

You don't think it's cynical to say that the system is "designed to be used" with "unscrupulous methods" and at the same time characterizing that behavior as something you don't agree with? That sounds pretty cynical to me.

We might be down to semantics. I still disagree that Trump should be given anything resembling credit...he shouldn't have any form of credit considering the amount of times he has declared bankruptcy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You don't think it's cynical to say that the system is "designed to be used" with "unscrupulous methods" and at the same time characterizing that behavior as something you don't agree with? That sounds pretty cynical to me.

We might be down to semantics. I still disagree that Trump should be given anything resembling credit...he shouldn't have any form of credit considering the amount of times he has declared bankruptcy.

You deliberately misquoted me. I said he used it as it was designed. Meaning, the system is in place, it's imperfect as is any system overly large and complicated in any imperfect system there will always be questionable loopholes and exploits.

 

[winet]

I still disagree that Trump should be given anything resembling credit...he shouldn't have any form of credit considering the amount of times he has declared bankruptcy.

Trump was involved in casinos in Atlantic City of which many declared bankruptcy not to mention when Ah-Bama "saved" GM they declared bankruptcy. He also screwed the bond holders and broke every bankruptcy law known to man .

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You deliberately misquoted me. I said he used it as it was designed. Meaning, the system is in place, it's imperfect as is any system overly large and complicated in any imperfect system there will always be questionable loopholes and exploits.

I don't think so:

"He used the system as it was designed. He's not the first guy who rose to the top with unscrupulous methods"

Anyone could read these two sentences and take away the implication that the system is designed to be used with unscrupulous methods. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but it seemed that way to me.

Trump was involved in casinos in Atlantic City of which many declared bankruptcy not to mention when Ah-Bama "saved" GM they declared bankruptcy. He also screwed the bond holders and broke every bankruptcy law known to man .

Relevance? Oh, you assume I'm a liberal. I see.

 

[huskeR32]

It's not fashionable or politically correct to say that having hot women flock around you is a positive thing but I'm old school.

Saying that "hot women" isn't a good way to measure success doesn't mean somebody is being "politically correct," it probably means they don't view women as objects by which to prop up their self worth.

Portraying people who disagree with you as mindlessly following the herd is tiresome, and a bit ironic, as waving differing viewpoints off as "PC" is about as mindless as it gets.

The fact that he went through several failures and kept on punching and came out on top again and again speaks to his perserverence and tenacity penchant for leaving other people holding the bill.

FTFY

 

[Danoff]

Being rich generally is the definition of success

It depends on what you mean by success. Quite a few rich people commit suicide. Are they still considered successful? Is a wealthy genocidal dictator successful? The notion that a rich person is automatically "a success" is a viewpoint born out of naivety. Many people without fortunes see money as the source of their problems. They have immediate stresses in their lives due to a lack of funds, and think that if those stresses were removed everything would be wonderful. It often turns out not to be the case. Stress levels may go down, but more complicated problems come to the forefront, and they can drive people crazy. People who have little money are often baffled by how people with large fortunes can be depressed. But being famous (which often comes with large fortunes) can actually be counterproductive to your goals.

If we each have our own metrics for success, then the definition of success is probably that someone is happy. I'm not sure Trump is happy. He doesn't seem happy. He doesn't seem happier (to me) than I seem (to me). I'm not sure how much of a success I consider him, but I'd weigh it below a fair number of famous people based on what I know of them.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It depends on what you mean by success. Quite a few rich people commit suicide. Are they still considered successful? Is a wealthy genocidal dictator successful? The notion that a rich person is automatically "a success" is a viewpoint born out of naivety. Many people without fortunes see money as the source of their problems. They have immediate stresses in their lives due to a lack of funds, and think that if those stresses were removed everything would be wonderful. It often turns out not to be the case. Stress levels may go down, but more complicated problems come to the forefront, and they can drive people crazy. People who have little money are often baffled by how people with large fortunes can be depressed. But being famous (which often comes with large fortunes) can actually be counterproductive to your goals.

If we each have our own metrics for success, then the definition of success is probably that someone is happy. I'm not sure Trump is happy. He doesn't seem happy. He doesn't seem happier (to me) than I seem (to me). I'm not sure how much of a success I consider him, but I'd weigh it below a fair number of famous people based on what I know of them.

We have a winning interpretation of objectivism over here.

 

[TenEightyOne]

you don't have to like the guy or his methods or him personally, to see that he's been a financial success.

No. As @Danoff points out it's difficult to apply a strict metric to "success" but I'd say that a man whose deals leave him with less money than if he'd just left it in the bank is not successful in business.

It's not fashionable or politically correct to say that having hot women flock around you is a positive thing but I'm old school.

I think you're missing the point - cheating on your wives says something about your trustworthiness. And yes, that's been true of previous presidents. Being caught explaining how you believe your fame allows you to sexually assault women says something about your deeper character.

I'm pretty sure that whichever school you're from I'm from a different one but I'm not going to argue that being in a position where "hot women flock to you" must be a bad thing, but then you know that's not really what was being said.

 

[photonrider]

It's not fashionable or politically correct to say that having hot women flock around you is a positive thing but I'm old school.

Hot women are flocking around me right now. It is over 30 Celsius at the the moment though.

An American success story if there ever was one.

True. I just finished Wolff's 'Fire and Fury' and it sheds a lot of light on what is happening - easier understood if one was steeped in Americana (as I was) since childhood.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't think so:

"He used the system as it was designed. He's not the first guy who rose to the top with unscrupulous methods"

Anyone could read these two sentences and take away the implication that the system is designed to be used with unscrupulous methods. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but it seemed that way to me.

A misquote is an inaccurate quote. The above is what I actually said but you put it in quotes differently. Hence, misquote.

Saying that "hot women" isn't a good way to measure success doesn't mean somebody is being "politically correct," it probably means they don't view women as objects by which to prop up their self worth.

One doesn't have to view women as objects to use their levels of attraction to successful and/or attractive men as a metric for success. Certainly I never thought of it that way. Attraction is natural. Attraction to powerful men is also natural. Power and money is an aphrodisiac.

It depends on what you mean by success. Quite a few rich people commit suicide. Are they still considered successful? Is a wealthy genocidal dictator successful? The notion that a rich person is automatically "a success" is a viewpoint born out of naivety. Many people without fortunes see money as the source of their problems. They have immediate stresses in their lives due to a lack of funds, and think that if those stresses were removed everything would be wonderful. It often turns out not to be the case. Stress levels may go down, but more complicated problems come to the forefront, and they can drive people crazy. People who have little money are often baffled by how people with large fortunes can be depressed. But being famous (which often comes with large fortunes) can actually be counterproductive to your goals.

If we each have our own metrics for success, then the definition of success is probably that someone is happy. I'm not sure Trump is happy. He doesn't seem happy. He doesn't seem happier (to me) than I seem (to me). I'm not sure how much of a success I consider him, but I'd weigh it below a fair number of famous people based on what I know of them.

Of course, I'm not claiming Trump is anything but a financial, and now a political success. The latter because he won, not as a measure of his performance. I can't even begin to guess at what goes in his head on a daily basis. . When all is said and done though, if I had a choice, I'd rather be rich and depressed instead of poor and depressed.

No. As @Danoff points out it's difficult to apply a strict metric to "success" but I'd say that a man whose deals leave him with less money than if he'd just left it in the bank is not successful in business.

Only from a certain perspective. Risking it all over and over again and coming out with billions in the end is a financial success in my books.

I think you're missing the point - cheating on your wives says something about your trustworthiness. And yes, that's been true of previous presidents. Being caught explaining how you believe your fame allows you to sexually assault women says something about your deeper character.

It's not something that hasn't been said countless times among men of all walks of life. Not you of course or any of the other fine upstanding men and women that come to GTP, but other men and women. Some of them I might know personally. Might have said something similar once or twice while high on Ambien. Or Percosets. Hard to remember.

 

[Imari]

I think all this proves is that you can be a terrible person & still be successful ... as if this was a lesson that needed further demonstration.

That's sort of the thing though, right? If you're still "successful" despite all the above what is "success" actually measuring?

And in terms of people who you would want to be president of your country and publically embody your country's ideals, someone who is "successful" in that particular way seems a poor choice.

I rather think it means some people should perhaps reevaluate what success is. Personally, i dont find walking all over people, screwing over investors and creditors and fingering your nose at laws and regs to find "wealth" to really be success. Maybe its because im quite humanistic in my views and not a ruthless businessman man, but for me, success as at least as much on how you got there as it is being there.

I agree, but you forget that we live in a purely capitalist society where human interaction is not considered, only your ability to make money at the expense of others.

I'm not sure what you mean by proof, but there is a substantial amount of evidence. Do you really think all of the many, many allegations against him are completely frivolous? Because you'd have to believe that in order for you to conclude that he has never done anything that could be considered "serious fraud". Like do you think Trump has always done everything above board? There are a lot of credible sources that point to a no there, even if certain particularly credible allegations of that fraud (John Miller, John Barron, etc) wasn't technically illegal. You really want to give this guy credit?

Again, giving credit to someone who has achieved things through deceit or other unethical ways discredits everything and everyone who tries to operate fairly in society. As long as people giving Trump (and people like him) credit, we will continue to create, perpetuate and reward these kinds of behaviors. So, please stop giving him credit.

The fact that a rich guy wasn't convicted of a crime in the US as evidence that he didn't commit a crime seems pretty laughable as well.

You don't think it's cynical to say that the system is "designed to be used" with "unscrupulous methods" and at the same time characterizing that behavior as something you don't agree with? That sounds pretty cynical to me.

We might be down to semantics. I still disagree that Trump should be given anything resembling credit...he shouldn't have any form of credit considering the amount of times he has declared bankruptcy.

The idea that someone should be deemed a good candidate for high office by violating either the spirit or the word of the law seems insane to me.

Saying that "hot women" isn't a good way to measure success doesn't mean somebody is being "politically correct," it probably means they don't view women as objects by which to prop up their self worth.

This. I mean, you might as well be bragging about how many slaves you own. Slaves are definitely attracted to money and power.

 

[UKMikey]

Trump was involved in casinos in Atlantic City of which many declared bankruptcy

"Many" is a weasel word. It doesn't mean anything substantial. According to the graph I presented earlier the overall trend in Atlantic went upwards while Trump's didn't because unlike them he insisted on borrowing money at a higher interest rate than he could pay back and still be able to make a profit.

He wasn't trying to bail out an automobile company and save jobs like the previous two presidents. He was simply making money for himself at the expense of his shareholders and creditors. The art of the deal.

 

[baldgye]

...money is an aphrodisiac.

One way of putting it!

 

[Scaff]

You deliberately misquoted me. I said he used it as it was designed. Meaning, the system is in place, it's imperfect as is any system overly large and complicated in any imperfect system there will always be questionable loopholes and exploits.

You mean the same system that numerous others performed far better in?

Despite using the system to his advantage Trump performed at roughly the same average as index linked investments, that makes him an average businessman not a successful one.

Trump was involved in casinos in Atlantic City of which many declared bankruptcy

All of which at the time in question were owned by Trump

not to mention when Ah-Bama "saved" GM they declared bankruptcy. He also screwed the bond holders and broke every bankruptcy law known to man .

So chapter 11 is legal when Trump does it (four times), but not when someone you dislike is in power. Trump used the same legal system as GM did (and I'm not aware that Obama has ever need to, so feel free to not mention it again). Not to mention that the first unapproved bail out for GM came from Bush.

One doesn't have to view women as objects to use their levels of attraction to successful and/or attractive men as a metric for success. Certainly I never thought of it that way. Attraction is natural. Attraction to powerful men is also natural. Power and money is an aphrodisiac.

So by that measure Bill Gates isn't successful?

Its a poor measure and I think you actually know that.

Of course, I'm not claiming Trump is anything but a financial, and now a political success.

He's financially average in performance in comparison to the market.

Politically its far to early to say. Getting elected alone is simply the first step, a far better measure is how many of his reforms he gets put in place and what impact they have on the country and its relationship with the wider world, and those are far to early to call.

Only from a certain perspective. Risking it all over and over again and coming out with billions in the end is a financial success in my books.

High risk should come with high reward and Trump only ever achieved that early in his career (and with a mixture of his own and his dad's money - and potentially his dads guidance as he was still alive at that point).

Then came a series of high risk failures, far too many to mention, many of which have been covered here and some are still only just washing out (and the casinos failed so hard that even dads attempts to bail out, something that involved Trump casinos breaking the law to do so, didn't work).

In more recent times he has stuck with the far lower risk option of simply sticking his brand on stuff, rather than investing in it, unless that investment itself is low risk.

End result, his high risk achieved average results in line with index linked investments.

Hell even his first book deal highlights that he often lets his 'gut' feeling override common sense to the detriment of the deal. In 'The Art of the Deal' negotiation the ghost author manage to get
. Which has to rate as one of the finest deals ever, for a ghost writer. Trump wanted a book, and his gut desire to get a book overwrote the best deal he could of got out of that by a massive degree. Ironic really given the books title.

It's not something that hasn't been said countless times among men of all walks of life. Not you of course or any of the other fine upstanding men and women that come to GTP, but other men and women. Some of them I might know personally. Might have said something similar once or twice while high on Ambien. Or Percosets. Hard to remember.

You think 'i was on drugs' or 'I'm powerful and rich' is a valid defence?

Its not, either morally or legally.

 

[Imari]

Its a poor measure and I think you actually know that.

Even if it were a good measure of success, sexual success isn't relevant to a president. There has to be dozens of attributes that you could list that would be desirable in a high level politician before you get to "and I want him to be dynamite with the ladies".

I do find it interesting as well that being a creep can somehow be spun as a positive thing. It's one thing to like the guy despite some of his foibles, that's quite understandable. It's another to make excuses for stuff that was sleazy a hundred years ago.

 

[Scaff]

Even if it were a good measure of success, sexual success isn't relevant to a president. There has to be dozens of attributes that you could list that would be desirable in a high level politician before you get to "and I want him to be dynamite with the ladies".

I do find it interesting as well that being a creep can somehow be spun as a positive thing. It's one thing to like the guy despite some of his foibles, that's quite understandable. It's another to make excuses for stuff that was sleazy a hundred years ago.

Its not that in this case its seems to be even excuses, but it comes across as being presented as a desirable trait to have.

However give the rise of the likes of the Proud Boys and the likes of Nathan Larson standing for congress we are indeed in odd times.

 

[Rallywagon]

Its not that in this case its seems to be even excuses, but it comes across as being presented as a desirable trait to have.

However give the rise of the likes of the Proud Boys and the likes of Nathan Larson standing for congress we are indeed in odd times.

Wow, isnt Vice a left leaning news organization? Weird its founder also founded Proud Boys.

 

[baldgye]

Wow, isnt Vice a left leaning news organization? Weird its founder also founded Proud Boys.

I feel like Vice, like most multi-national news networks, gets called both left and right wing depending on who you ask and about what subject...

 

[Scaff]

Tariffs winning bigly.

 

[Rallywagon]

But he's a success!

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

He's going to blame everything on Wilbur Ross when the economy tanks. Just watch.

 

[Eh Team]

Yay isolationist economic policy.

 

[Scaff]

Doesn't the US have a separation of power between the various branches?

It would seem that Trump and his legal team don't believe that to be the case given the latest leaked letter from his legal team (which Trump managed to tweet about before the news actually broke).

"President Trump's lawyers sent a confidential letter to special counsel Robert Mueller in January, arguing that the president could not have possibly obstructed justice because he has constitutional authority over all federal investigations.

The letter, which was obtained by The New York Times, argues that the Constitution gives Trump the broad authority to, "if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon.""

All of which sounds rather autocratic.

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...r-trumps-lawyers-argued-he-could-not-obstruct

Rudi's also saying that Trump can't be subpoena'd and they will fight it in court if one is issued.

Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ens-to-go-to-court-if-mueller-subpoenas-trump

 

[Dotini]

Doesn't the US have a separation of power between the various branches?

It does, but congress has ceded authority over the last several decades, and the supreme court has not been asked to adjudicate the growing imbalances.