The Trump/Republican Primary/General Election Megathread

[IndyDave1776]

Paul wins the internet 2016!

 

[jamil]

For me to call someone a liar is making a judgment of a person who is created in God's image and is a sin.

To call a statement a lie is fine.

That's fine. A liar is simply a person who is deceptive. In my world view, I have no moral prohibition on identifying deceptive people. Hillary Clinton is a liar. Donald Trump is a liar.

 

[KG1]

That's fine. A liar is simply a person who is deceptive. In my world view, I have no moral prohibition on identifying deceptive people. Hillary Clinton is a liar. Donald Trump is a liar.

.gov is a liar.

 

[T.Lex]

Basically, this NY Times article describes Trump as a relatively wealthy guy with a credit card. Why Trump won't self fund his campaign: He can't. He's not liquid

In Maze of Trump’s Empire, Unknown Ties and $650 Million in Debt

Why does this matter?

It matters for the same reason people would like to know how much HRC made from Wall Street speeches. For the same reason Cruz's wife was pilloried (and him, too, basically) for a possible low-term loan.

Transparency about the finances of POTUS is very important for an informed electorate. People - even candidates - are allowed to have financial constraints. Everyone does. But, we need to know about them to decide whether we are comfortable with them.

If you read the article (I'll assume you did), it is very well researched. Most importantly, some of the transactions are not even problematic, if they are disclosed. Rich people often have a very small stake in something, with a personal indemnification so they aren't on the hook if something goes wrong.

The bigger issue, though, is that Trump and some of his biggest investments, appear to be in relatively deep with banks and financiers. In some ways, they could have him by the short hairs. At the very least, when combined with his reticence to use a blind trust, it opens the door for him to use the office of POTUS for his own benefit, while he is POTUS.

If people are ok with that now, then fine. But, we should know about it, because some of us aren't comfortable with it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think I could agree with this. The hardest of the hardcore were probably molded by the Breitbart/Coulter/Alt-right... it's just how things work these days. But the largest part of his base is more than likely the ones that his sorts of speeches appeal to... and the policies he claims to push. Just the average voter hearing a message that sounds good.


Trump voters not who you think they are - most never heard of Breitbart, Coulter, or alt right

 

[nate77]

Do nevertrumpers agree?

Socialist Hillary: Breitbart Has ?No Right to Exist? | www.independentsentinel.com

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Do nevertrumpers agree?

Socialist Hillary: Breitbart Has ?No Right to Exist? | www.independentsentinel.com

Again with the "nevertrumper" stuff. Cute.

As a criticizer of Trump... no, I wouldn't agree with such an absurd statement. Bad journalism has a right to exist like any other journalist outlet. But you already knew that.

 

[T.Lex]

Do nevertrumpers agree?

Socialist Hillary: Breitbart Has ?No Right to Exist? | www.independentsentinel.com

Agree with what?

The article does it's own hop-skip-and-a-jump to a conclusion. The email said HRC respects that conservative media has a role and a right to exist. It then said Brietbart is a different breed. I agree with both of those assertions.

The article then makes the jump that the HRC campaign is implying Breitbart doesn't have the right to exist because it is a "different breed." The HRC email didn't say that.

The only way to "deduce" that is by confirmation bias.

Breitbart has the same right to exist that HuffPo does. They are 2 branches of the same foul-smelling tree.

 

[nate77]

Serious question, where is person supposed to go to get news that isn't radically anti-Trump, besides these "different breed" alternate media websites?

American journalism is collapsing before our eyes | New York Post

 

[nate77]

Agree with what?

The article does it's own hop-skip-and-a-jump to a conclusion. The email said HRC respects that conservative media has a role and a right to exist. It then said Brietbart is a different breed. I agree with both of those assertions.

The article then makes the jump that the HRC campaign is implying Breitbart doesn't have the right to exist because it is a "different breed." The HRC email didn't say that.

The only way to "deduce" that is by confirmation bias.

Breitbart has the same right to exist that HuffPo does. They are 2 branches of the same foul-smelling tree.

They arent gent going to come right out and say it, with a paper trail, but it is implied.
?No Right to Exist? Clinton Campaign Vows to Shut Down News Site That Opposes Her - USAPoliticsNow

 

[T.Lex]

Serious question, where is person supposed to go to get news that isn't radically anti-Trump, besides these "different breed" alternate media websites?

American journalism is collapsing before our eyes | New York Post

It depends on how attenuated your anti-Trump-meter is.

I'm guessing yours is pretty hard to get past.

They arent gent going to come right out and say it, with a paper trail, but it is implied.
?No Right to Exist? Clinton Campaign Vows to Shut Down News Site That Opposes Her - USAPoliticsNow

To be intellectually honest, doesn't that cut both ways? I mean, clearly, Trump implies the same thing with his anti-defamation positions.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Regarding immigration

Trump's new immigration plan is to do exactly what Obama has been doing but "perhaps" with "more energy"

 

[Alpo]

That's mighty white of him.

 

[KLB]

It matters for the same reason people would like to know how much HRC made from Wall Street speeches. For the same reason Cruz's wife was pilloried (and him, too, basically) for a possible low-term loan.

Transparency about the finances of POTUS is very important for an informed electorate. People - even candidates - are allowed to have financial constraints. Everyone does. But, we need to know about them to decide whether we are comfortable with them.

If you read the article (I'll assume you did), it is very well researched. Most importantly, some of the transactions are not even problematic, if they are disclosed. Rich people often have a very small stake in something, with a personal indemnification so they aren't on the hook if something goes wrong.

The bigger issue, though, is that Trump and some of his biggest investments, appear to be in relatively deep with banks and financiers. In some ways, they could have him by the short hairs. At the very least, when combined with his reticence to use a blind trust, it opens the door for him to use the office of POTUS for his own benefit, while he is POTUS.

If people are ok with that now, then fine. But, we should know about it, because some of us aren't comfortable with it.

I already thought the bold is pretty much a given.

I do not see the leap towards anyone having him by the short hairs for these loans though. Is the assertion that he cannot pay the payments? Or that somehow the lenders can suddenly make the loan due and hold that over him?

Debt is how big business runs, and that is even more true for real estate. So I am still at, why does it matter? The article didn't shine a light on anything that changes my mind or opinion of Trump.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Samuel L Jackson had some words on Trump/Pence going to Louisiana and handing out play-doh for kids.

Trump & Pence in La, passing out much needed supplies to victims of Flood. Where would Play Doh be on the list?!

https://twitter.com/SamuelLJackson/status/767055117820399616

I like Jon Gabriel's response to Sam. Short, and right to the point.

What did Obama and Hillary bring?

https://twitter.com/exjon/status/767512019859714048

 

[bwframe]

Samuel L Jackson had some words on Trump/Pence going to Louisiana and handing out play-doh for kids.



https://twitter.com/SamuelLJackson/status/767055117820399616

I like Jon Gabriel's response to Sam. Short, and right to the point.



https://twitter.com/exjon/status/767512019859714048

A man I used to be a big fan of and have a lot of respect for. I can't even watch a movie with him in it now. Can't place his face as a movie character, just a vile POS liberal.

 

[T.Lex]

I already thought the bold is pretty much a given.

A given for Trump or all POTUS candidates?

I do not see the leap towards anyone having him by the short hairs for these loans though. Is the assertion that he cannot pay the payments? Or that somehow the lenders can suddenly make the loan due and hold that over him?

Well, a couple things:
1) As POTUS, the assumption is that he will not be able to run his companies. While his children appear quite capable, they have also had problems that daddy-Trump bailed them out of. If he is not able to do that, there is doubt as to whether the companies will succeed.

2) The loan documents remain confidential, I assume. But, "key man" provisions are quite common. I would not be surprised if some number of the loans require Trump's direct participation. His inability to do that could easily be a default of those debts.

3) It also relates to his primary claim to qualification for POTUS: personal success. If he isn't worth "billions" as he claims, then how much other stuff should we doubt?

Debt is how big business runs, and that is even more true for real estate. So I am still at, why does it matter? The article didn't shine a light on anything that changes my mind or opinion of Trump.

First, you are exactly right, particularly about RE investing. It is highly leveraged.

Second, if you haven't noticed, our nation has a debt problem. We are already highly leveraged.

Trump knows how to use debt to create things. He is less experienced in actually getting rid of debt. Except by selling things. Unless we nationalize certain markets/businesses, we can't operate like that as a sovereign.

 

[JettaKnight]

A man I used to be a big fan of and have a lot of respect for. I can't even watch a movie with him in it now. Can't place his face as a movie character, just a vile POS liberal.

That's kind of sad. To live a live where you probably hate over 50% of your fellow Americans just because they fall to the left of you on the political spectrum...

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's kind of sad. To live a live where you probably hate over 50% of your fellow Americans just because they fall to the left of you on the political spectrum...

That comment doesn't even imply a political leaning. He just criticized money spent on play dough, rather than essentials. But somehow that makes him a "vile POS liberal." Do people even look up words nowadays? "Vile?"
Geez.

 

[nate77]

That's kind of sad. To live a live where you probably hate over 50% of your fellow Americans just because they fall to the left of you on the political spectrum...

So you have no problem shoveling piles of cash to actors like Matt Damon, and Leonardo DiCaprio who want to take your second amendment rights?