In other news, neither Trump nor Clinton are doing very well among young voters, many of whom lean third-party and are seriously looking at independent candidates. Whether or not this is an immediate problem for the political parties, they're definitely going to have long-term problems if they can't add new people to their voting base...
No it's not. He has to raise himself out of the pit he's been digging with women and minorities. Nixon may have won with the Angry White Male vote, but Trump can't count on that being the victory strategy this far into the 21st century.I don't think he has any options but to get the angry white males out in neigh supernatural numbers. That's not a pit he's dug with women and minorities it's a salt mine.
This jives with Trump picking Bannon, a Breitbart-er, for his campaign. (I'm not saying it's a winning strategy, just that it fits that goal.)
Edit: Now that I think about it... if Trump expects he will lose or is hedging his bets, he may be thinking of a post-Election defeat career as some sort of political pundit/talking head? (Hell, Palin could pull it off; how hard could it be?) Maybe Trump thinks he could team up with Breitbart to outflank Fox News and Limbaugh? Web advertising revenue ain't what it used to be, but I'm sure Trump would enjoy easy money from a percentage of commemorative coin & survival food sales.
|
fortunately she is campaigning, she's just sidestepping the news reports and doing local style campaigning and tv ad blitz (is that the plural of blitz too?).
Wow that's a thin schedule for H Clinton. Including considering where it says public events are only listed a few days in advance. Presumambly she is doing a lot of private fundraisers, or running is taking a toll on her.
Oh obviously he can't win that way, but it might be less embarrassing than continuing to talk.
The only embarasment to trump is losing.
If that.
Any way he wins is justifiable to him. It doesn't matter what he does, if he wins it was part of the game.
He has no shame or morals. He'll happily set the court system to throwing a little old lady out of her house rather than pay her for a property for his limo parking.
...I feel like his dislike of losing is such that he'll start redefining what "winning" means to him. I think somebody mentioned "not winning the election, but coming away with a big media empire and way more money" as one option earlier.
Or he's just waiting for hillary to screw up. He's going to keep throwing stuff at the wall and see if anything sticks. I expect a new insult every news cycle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And our news cycle is about 24 hours...
As much fun as this train wreck of an election is, I'm going to be happy when it's over. XD
You and me both Red. Regardless of who wins (though I am moving if Trump wins) I just want this to be over...
Speaking of actual news, not just political attacks or gaffes, the New York Times did some digging on Trump's holdings in an attempt to ascertain his actual value (and amount of debt). Their conclusion was that he owes a lot more than he noted on some forms, although that's partially because of how those forms were written and partially because a lot of the ownership is obscured. The full report is here.
(Note: The Trump Organization claims that Trump has no personal debt, and the truth is, the use of debt is actually pretty common in industries like real estate. That he has a lot of debt is not, by itself, evidence of poor management ability or a genuine problem, so long as all of the places he's running are reasonably profitable and he can repay the debt on the intended timeline. o wo/ *Trying very hard to avoid bias here* That said, it's still hard to say how much he's actually worth, and the fact that he has somewhat unknown business ties is considered something of a concern for a President.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow that's a thin schedule for H Clinton. Including considering where it says public events are only listed a few days in advance. Presumambly she is doing a lot of private fundraisers, or running is taking a toll on her.
There's a lot more to running a national campaign than giving public speeches and attending parties.
Think of it as running a large corporation with sites and staff in all 50 states, and having to manage all those people and budgets and also continually recruit new workers.
Concern-trolling about her health ("running is taking a toll on her") is simply feeding the rumors that Trump is trying to get started. Obviously running an organization this size and frequently criss-crossing the country means that there are lots of things that she has to do that aren't public events. Staff meetings, marketing meetings, media meetings, get-out-the vote meetings, where to allocate funds and staff.
Of course her public appearances are "thin". She's got a lot more work to do than stand in front of crowds and smile.
She is, after all, the CEO of an incredibly large organization
|
|
Again, it may be private funding meetings or something similar, not health related. But H. Clinton is having far less rallies than President Obama during the same period during 2012. See this website for his schedule. Of course, President Obama wasn't a CEO, just the President of the United States.
I do think comments like she looks tired, or he sounds unhinged are within the bounds of appropriate political commentary. I don't think lay people, or even medical doctors, should pseudo diagnose people they have never examined with alleged physical or mental issues.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note: The Trump Organization claims that Trump has no personal debt, and the truth is, the use of debt is actually pretty common in industries like real estate. That he has a lot of debt is not, by itself, evidence of poor management ability or a genuine problem, so long as all of the places he's running are reasonably profitable and he can repay the debt on the intended timeline.
.... which is one of the reasons that the disclosure forms don't actually ask about debt that isn't yours (for example, debt that your company, but not you, is responsible for). As much as I hate to say a word in his favor, Trump went substantially beyond the legal requirements when he listed his real estate empire's debt on his personal disclosure forms.
To continue, any corporation right now that is NOT loaded with a lot of debt is probably being managed by an idiot. Interest rates are as low as they've ever been (I've seen some graphs on that subject that go back to the 1500s; in one case I think to the Roman Empire), and interest on debts receives a very favorable tax treatment. So it's extremely profitable right now to issue a zillion dollars in bonds (or just take out a bank loan for a zillion dollars) and invest other people's money in something that will turn a profit for the company. Interest rates are so low that you don't need much investment return in order to have something that's actually profitable after you've paid for the leverage.
I don't think anyone would accuse Apple of being a sleazy, fly-by-night corporation, but right now they're carrying like $200 b-for-billion in debt. It's mostly a tax dodge. They borrow money in the US, use that money to to buy things in the US (like their own stocks, thus boosting the return to their investors), and pay off the debt with money from foreign subsidiaries, untouched by US corporate taxes, and then write off the (relatively miniscule) interest charges as a business expense in the United States. The debt they're carrying has little or nothing to do with the value of the business,.... and in fact, probably actually makes it more valuable as the tax savings are greater than the costs of the debt, while letting them do more business development using "other people's money."
(The same thing, by the way, can apply to people. If you know you are going to need to enlarge your garage, interest rates are low enough that this might be a good time to do it, even if you won't need the space for another year or so.)
Interest rates are so ridiculously low for primary residence home mortgages now that it behooves anyone who can scrape together ~9% of the purchase price to do so. In lower-priced housing markets, the percentage will be higher as certain costs are fixed.
Lending standards are loosening again, so be sure that you can legitimately afford the note of your own accord without being house-poor to avoid a repeat of the bubble bursting again.
Rent almost always goes up. Mortgage payments don't except for property taxes.
What's more damning in Trumps case is who holds the debt than the amount held. You can shout Crooked Hillary all you want, but when your corporation owes millions to Goldman Sachs, it sorta surpasses the hundreds of thousands they paid her for a speech. When your corporation owes millions the First Bank of China and you continually vilify China as an economic enemy of the US, that's no better.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's more damning in Trumps case is who holds the debt than the amount held. You can shout Crooked Hillary all you want, but when your corporation owes millions to Goldman Sachs, it sorta surpasses the hundreds of thousands they paid her for a speech. When your corporation owes millions the First Bank of China and you continually vilify China as an economic enemy of the US, that's no better.
I disagree. (With a certain amount of bewilderment, since this is absolute nonsense, frankly.)
Let's pretend, for a moment, that I have a mortgage on my house from the First Bank of Satan and All His Archdevils.
So ^&*&^ing what? How does that possibly give Satan any undue influence over me?
I didn't need to do any favors for Satan to get the mortgage; it was a normal, arm's-length business transaction.
Satan can't threaten to take my house; I have a well-defined payment schedule and as long as I make the payments, I'm legally untouchable. Satan can't even threaten to cut off my credit, because I have the house.
Satan can't tell me what to do, for the same reason.
Furthermore, I can, if push comes to shove, simply refinance with the Bank of the Archangel Michael any time I choose, because debt is fungible.
For some reason, this idea has great currently among the economically ignorant -- OMG, China owns a lot of our debt; this means they control us! No, it simply means that they lent us a lot of money to make our own lives better, on mutually agreed terms, and we now have to fulfill those terms as they were written in the agreement.
You can shout Crooked Hillary all you want, but when your corporation owes millions to Goldman Sachs, it sorta surpasses the hundreds of thousands they paid her for a speech. When your corporation owes millions the First Bank of China and you continually vilify China as an economic enemy of the US, that's no better.
Furthermore, you're making the all-too-common mistake of confusing the company (which is a separate legal person) from Trump himself. Part of the reason for setting up a corporation is specifically protection against something going terribly terrible South, or West, or otherwise in a very uncomfortable direction....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further, Satan doesn't want the house, he wants the payments. Because profit. Lots of it. Even at current interest rates the interest paid over time is somewhere in the vicinity of 100% of the principle loan amount, usually a fair bit more than that. The Bank of Satan wants that steady monthly income for 30 years. They could care less about the home, because maintaining it is not their problem.
It reveals his hypocrisy. If he said, "I've had business dealings with both China and Goldman Sachs and believe that those sort financial deals result in both domestic prosperity and international stability," I'd have absolutely nothing to say, but it seems to me he's just pandering to his audience of choice by bad mouthing his business partners.
Further, Satan doesn't want the house, he wants the payments.
Well, in context, I think people are worried that he wants -- and somehow has obtained -- my soul.
But there's a missing step there. How did he get my soul? I just dug the mortgage documents out of my filing cabinet, and there's not a word about my soul, only about interest rates and duty to maintain and stuff like that.
Basically, we're talking about an Underpants Gnome process.
* Phase 1 : Lend Trump's company lots of money
* Phase 2 : ???
* Phase 3 : Control the world
If I were to guess, people might be worried about repayment - that is, what you're going to do if you can't repay the people you owe and can't find anyone else who's willing to take on your debt and give you a chance. (Probably a lot of individual experience talking there, especially from people who've had personal debt and suffered as a result. They may not always be fully informed about the differences between personal and commercial debt.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It reveals his hypocrisy. If he said, "I've had business dealings with both China and Goldman Sachs and believe that those sort financial deals result in both domestic prosperity and international stability," I'd have absolutely nothing to say, but it seems to me he's just pandering to his audience of choice by bad mouthing his business partners.
So? Not all business partners are sweetness and light personified. I will be more than happy to badmouth Verizon, and even to support substantial reform to the telecommunications industry while still paying them money every month because they're the only game in town in my neighborhood. The fact that I have to use them as a business partner despite their gaping flaws is, in fact, one of the issues that I have.
So I'm willing to go on record as saying "I've had business dealings with Verizon, and believe that those sort of deals result in inequity, hardship, abuse, and a loss of prosperity as well as financial autonomy. Speaking as one of their business partners, I firmly believe that this type of pseudo-partnership should be eliminated, and when I'm elected President, one of the first steps I will take is to use Federal authority to unilaterally rewrite such deals."
Of course, Verizon will probably campaign against me. It's not like China has been campaigning in favor of Trump, have they? [Putin/Russia, on the other hand, seems to be campaigning for Trump and against Clinton, and Trump has acknowledged as much. "Sarcastically," of course.]
If I were to guess, people might be worried about repayment - that is, what you're going to do if you can't repay the people you owe and can't find anyone else who's willing to take on your debt and give you a chance.
And, of course, you've answered your own concern; that's the difference between personal and commercial debt.
(Probably a lot of individual experience talking there, especially from people who've had personal debt and suffered as a result. They may not always be fully informed about the differences between personal and commercial debt.)
If Trump Ice Cream Shoppe goes toes-up -- as, let's face it, a lot of Trump's investments have -- he signs some paperwork and walks away from the wreckage, leaving the Chinese (or whatever sucker partner he roped into this venture) holding a whole bunch of paper, but no money. As Turin pointed out, "Satan doesn't want the house, he wants the payments." The last thing the Chinese need or want are two hundred and fifty failed ice cream shops on leased property and ten thousand gallons of melting Trump branded ice cream.
Ironically, this gives Trump more control over the Chinese than the Chinese have over him. They will probably throw more money at him to prevent him from giving them the ice cream....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To quote the age-old wisdom (that I suspect OQ considered but omitted for brevity): if you owe the bank $1000, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $1 million, that's the bank's problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To quote the age-old wisdom (that I suspect OQ considered but omitted for brevity): if you owe the bank $1000, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $1 million, that's the bank's problem.
Yup. Although nowadays you need to add three zeros to each of those numbers to make it age-new wisdom.
Inflation, you know.
It reveals his hypocrisy. If he said, "I've had business dealings with both China and Goldman Sachs and believe that those sort financial deals result in both domestic prosperity and international stability," I'd have absolutely nothing to say, but it seems to me he's just pandering to his audience of choice by bad mouthing his business partners.So? Not all business partners are sweetness and light personified. I will be more than happy to badmouth Verizon, and even to support substantial reform to the telecommunications industry while still paying them money every month because they're the only game in town in my neighborhood. The fact that I have to use them as a business partner despite their gaping flaws is, in fact, one of the issues that I have.
So I'm willing to go on record as saying "I've had business dealings with Verizon, and believe that those sort of deals result in inequity, hardship, abuse, and a loss of prosperity as well as financial autonomy. Speaking as one of their business partners, I firmly believe that this type of pseudo-partnership should be eliminated, and when I'm elected President, one of the first steps I will take is to use Federal authority to unilaterally rewrite such deals."
Of course, Verizon will probably campaign against me. It's not like China has been campaigning in favor of Trump, have they? [Putin/Russia, on the other hand, seems to be campaigning for Trump and against Clinton, and Trump has acknowledged as much. "Sarcastically," of course.]
Well, Orf, given that you're willing to go on record with an honest evaluation of your phone service provider, I respect your integrity more than I do Trump's. You're assuming I was talking about much, much more than I was when I said the debt holders were more damning than the amount of debt. I mean, I don't think Trump has displayed the maturity required to put US national interests ahead of his own (granted, incorporated) financial interests, but that's a separate issue from his lack of honesty with his voter base.
Again, it may be private funding meetings or something similar, not health related. But H. Clinton is having far less rallies than President Obama during the same period during 2012.
Well yes, because obama gives great inspiring speeches. Hillary sounds like 4th grade teacher talking down to children that she probably doesn't like and definitely doesn't respect. Public speeches are obama's strength, so he did them more often. Making policy, churning out the political machine is hillary's. so that's what she spends more time doing. More diplomacy, less perform oratory.
No it's not. He has to raise himself out of the pit he's been digging with women and minorities. Nixon may have won with the Angry White Male vote, but Trump can't count on that being the victory strategy this far into the 21st century.I don't think he has any options but to get the angry white males out in neigh supernatural numbers. That's not a pit he's dug with women and minorities it's a salt mine.This jives with Trump picking Bannon, a Breitbart-er, for his campaign. (I'm not saying it's a winning strategy, just that it fits that goal.)
Edit: Now that I think about it... if Trump expects he will lose or is hedging his bets, he may be thinking of a post-Election defeat career as some sort of political pundit/talking head? (Hell, Palin could pull it off; how hard could it be?) Maybe Trump thinks he could team up with Breitbart to outflank Fox News and Limbaugh? Web advertising revenue ain't what it used to be, but I'm sure Trump would enjoy easy money from a percentage of commemorative coin & survival food sales.
It's not that implausible. As one opinion writer noted, it would be classic Trump. He's put a T on yet another edifice he had hardly any effort in building. in this case the Republican Party, and he'll leave behind another mess while he uses the publicity he's gained for his ow benefit.
Just about every Republican who's crashed and burned at the Presidential race has managed to capitalise on that loss, Ben Carson is selling books, Mike Huckabee has a pundit show, Sarah Palin has her show and Trump already has had two shows on NBC Universal which despite the big noise it made about firing him, will probably take him back... either that or he'll be added to CBS's All Access stable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's more damning in Trumps case is who holds the debt than the amount held. You can shout Crooked Hillary all you want, but when your corporation owes millions to Goldman Sachs, it sorta surpasses the hundreds of thousands they paid her for a speech. When your corporation owes millions the First Bank of China and you continually vilify China as an economic enemy of the US, that's no better.
What's considerably more damming is the fact that Chris Christie, New Jersey's Head Capo, gave a sweetheart deal on Trump's Atlantic City tax debt, forgiving a 25 million dollar liability for about 5.
What's more damning in Trumps case is who holds the debt than the amount held. You can shout Crooked Hillary all you want, but when your corporation owes millions to Goldman Sachs, it sorta surpasses the hundreds of thousands they paid her for a speech. When your corporation owes millions the First Bank of China and you continually vilify China as an economic enemy of the US, that's no better.What's considerably more damming is the fact that Chris Christie, New Jersey's Head Capo, gave a sweetheart deal on Trump's Atlantic City tax debt, forgiving a 25 million dollar liability for about 5.
Who does that damn, Christie or Trump? He's [Trump has] been running on his ability to get people to agree to outrageous deals..... ("build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it!")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It reveals his hypocrisy. If he said, "I've had business dealings with both China and Goldman Sachs and believe that those sort financial deals result in both domestic prosperity and international stability," I'd have absolutely nothing to say, but it seems to me he's just pandering to his audience of choice by bad mouthing his business partners.So? Not all business partners are sweetness and light personified. I will be more than happy to badmouth Verizon, and even to support substantial reform to the telecommunications industry while still paying them money every month because they're the only game in town in my neighborhood. The fact that I have to use them as a business partner despite their gaping flaws is, in fact, one of the issues that I have.
So I'm willing to go on record as saying "I've had business dealings with Verizon, and believe that those sort of deals result in inequity, hardship, abuse, and a loss of prosperity as well as financial autonomy. Speaking as one of their business partners, I firmly believe that this type of pseudo-partnership should be eliminated, and when I'm elected President, one of the first steps I will take is to use Federal authority to unilaterally rewrite such deals."
Of course, Verizon will probably campaign against me. It's not like China has been campaigning in favor of Trump, have they? [Putin/Russia, on the other hand, seems to be campaigning for Trump and against Clinton, and Trump has acknowledged as much. "Sarcastically," of course.]
I could be wrong, but Hitdice isn't talking about Trump's relationship with these companies. Rather, he's talking about how Trump talks about relationships with these companies.
Trump has latched onto Clinton's relationship with these companies as a way to rally support against her, but he also has a relationship with those companies. Hell, he IS one of those companies.
It's like a person ranting about the evil's of drugs when they're three sheets to the wind and have a manhattan in their hand. It lacks a certain self-awareness that undercuts the point they're trying to make.
Using your Verizon analogy, it's like a shareholder in Verizon complaining about the morality of someone because they once worked for Verizon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Satan can't threaten to take my house; I have a well-defined payment schedule and as long as I make the payments, I'm legally untouchable. Satan can't even threaten to cut off my credit, because I have the house.
[sarcasm]Yes, if there is one thing you can count on about Satan, or Jamie Diamond, or whoever, it is that they obey the law! And I'm sure that if there is a conflict, your lawyers should be an equal match, because everyone knows justice is blind. [/sarcasm] Oh wait, your contract doesn't involve binding arbitration does it?
In almost every form of lending, the lender benefits whether you make the payments, or not. They keep the interest, fees, etc. if you make the payments, and they keep the payments, interest, fees, AND collateral (probably what you are making payments of) if you don't make payments.
To quote the age-old wisdom (that I suspect OQ considered but omitted for brevity): if you owe the bank $1000, that's your problem. If you owe the bank $1 million, that's the bank's problem.
The bailout of 2008 would indicate that it is the tax payers problem, not the bank (the owners of which probably have some offshore tax shelters anyway).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making policy, churning out the political machine is hillary's. so that's what she spends more time doing. More diplomacy, less perform oratory.
So, during her freetime, is Clinton like someone constantly optimizing her NPC builds, class mechanics, and houserules?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making policy, churning out the political machine is hillary's. so that's what she spends more time doing. More diplomacy, less perform oratory.So, during her freetime, is Clinton like someone constantly optimizing her NPC builds, class mechanics, and houserules?
As someone who does constantly tweak their game to make it more solid, I have never felt as violated and dirty as after reading this. I'd rather have parallels to devils. At least devils aren't that evil.
Honestly Trump's business debt is of concern to me simply because he has blown up (fiscally speaking) several companies already.
However for this to be worrisome I would need information on his past debt loads for businesses and more information on the income levels for the businesses he has leveraged now, and how the management of those businesses are acting.
Finally I would need information on how directly involved he is with the leveraged assets/businesses, as his direct involvement seems to indicate trouble for a company.
Michelle Bachmann's recent claim of being one of his foreign policy advisors is of more direct concern for me.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Michelle Bachmann? I remember her! When we had to do reports on news articles in Civics class, I picked one where she said Obama was the literal Antichrist! At first, the teacher thought I was kidding. Good times, gooooooood times...
But the move makes some twisted sense if he's hoping to squeeze out every Breitbart-reader type out there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't Michelle Bachmann the one who first claimed to have been a witch, and then claimed not to have been a witch?
The Trump campaign probably could use some supernatural help, come to think of it...
No, that was Christine O'Donnell from Delaware. Bachmann is from Minnesota.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, that was Christine O'Donnell from Delaware. Bachmann is from Minnesota.Isn't Michelle Bachmann the one who first claimed to have been a witch, and then claimed not to have been a witch?
The Trump campaign probably could use some supernatural help, come to think of it...
to be fair without their arkham nametags they're really hard to tell apart.
Wolf,
Are you suggesting that Bachmann and O'Donnell are actually representatives of the Great Old Ones?!
Wolf,
Are you suggesting that Bachmann and O'Donnell are actually representatives of the Great Old Ones?!
well i meant arkham asylum from batman...
but Arkham IS named after the place in lovecraft, and has more than a little occult connection to some other worlds..
I have more respect for the great old ones cultist screening practices. I mean I know you need some insane people to lead your cults but come on... even mind twisting abominations have STANDARDS
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wolf,
Are you suggesting that Bachmann and O'Donnell are actually representatives of the Great Old Ones?!
*Amused look*
Wolf,
Oh that Arkham. Sorry I've had Strange Aeons on my mind lately.
Yidhra,
Is that a confession?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Life wouldn't be any fun if we had the answer to every question. o wo~ So I'm going to call that one a solid "maybe".
...
Do note, however, that I'm an Outer God - not a mere Great Old One.
No, that was Christine O'Donnell from Delaware. Bachmann is from Minnesota.Isn't Michelle Bachmann the one who first claimed to have been a witch, and then claimed not to have been a witch?
The Trump campaign probably could use some supernatural help, come to think of it...
Today was my first day of classes, evidently she was here shaking hands for a few minutes.
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.