TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!

POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 13 of 170

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 11, 2016 9:49 AM

Quote:
No answer?-SIGNY
Shall we assume you are looking for a reply from Second?-JSF

yes

Quote:
First of all it's END QUOTE not UNQUOTE. To unquote is to remove the quotes. Secondly, if you cannot understand my posts I don't care. And third, it is time for me to go back to not responding to you because as you say, my posts are confusing to you. Therefore you are responding many times to posts you admit to not understanding. GOODBYE - THIRDSTOOGE

Well, I have to admit that JSF isn't the only one confused by your posts. That's why I tend to ignore them.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SECOND

Sunday, June 12, 2016 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
If there was a Republican judge overseeing a case against Hillary's use of a private email server, and he were to release all of the relevant documents BEFORE the final verdict and BEFORE the November elections ... what would YOU think?

No answer?

Shall we assume you are looking for a reply from Second?

If this was a question for me, my answer is that all the documents about Hillary were released before Hillary was even indicted for mishandling government documents. Because of "National Security" you can read the non-classified parts of only 29,444 of Hillary's emails and letters at http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

And when will Trump be releasing his tax returns? After the election will be a little too late.

SECOND

Monday, June 13, 2016 12:19 AM

How Donald Trump made millions running failed casinos in Atlantic City

One way to make a lot of money is founding and managing a successful company. The Trump way is to run a business that stays afloat without being profitable, pay yourself a high salary, and when it eventually goes bankrupt, that’s the investors’ problem.

Donald Trump’s business dealings in Atlantic City illustrate this core point — Trump’s New Jersey casinos were never successful businesses, but they did make a lot of money for Donald Trump personally because he funneled assets out of the enterprises and into his own pockets, exploiting people who are impressed by his name. If you are impressed by Trump's name, please send your money to his campaign.

The pattern started with his very first Atlantic City venture, a partnership with Harrah’s for which he was paid a $24 million construction management fee.

In 1993, Trump Plaza casino sold over $100 million in junk bonds and "more than half of the new money went to pay off Mr. Trump’s unrelated personal loans."

In 1995, the company staged an IPO and then a week later "the new company began using some of the almost $300 million it had raised to clear Mr. Trump’s personal debts."
www.vox.com/2016/6/12/11909176/trump-atlantic-city-business

1KIKI

Monday, June 13, 2016 2:35 AM

If the purpose of running a business is to get rich - and generally that seems to be the case - then Trump succeeded admirably.

Though not as admirably as the too-big-to-fail bankstas who are Clinton's friends - after all they're holding the US government hostage. Because they COULD take down the global economy, again. And the US government, with its bail-in policy and easy money going to the banks (but not citizen borrowers), and its inability to assert meaningful restrictions, is too afraid to touch them.

Maybe THAT'S the problem you have with Trump. He's a penny-ante crook, not a globe-spanning government-controlling banksta behemoth crook.

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

SECOND

Monday, June 13, 2016 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
If the purpose of running a business is to get rich - and generally that seems to be the case - then Trump succeeded admirably.

Though not as admirably as the too-big-to-fail bankstas who are Clinton's friends - after all they're holding the US government hostage. Because they COULD take down the global economy, again. And the US government, with its bail-in policy and easy money going to the banks (but not citizen borrowers), and its inability to assert meaningful restrictions, is too afraid to touch them.

Maybe THAT'S the problem you have with Trump. He's a penny-ante crook, not a globe-spanning government-controlling banksta behemoth crook.

Elizabeth Warren has finally endorsed Hillary Clinton. You should inform Warren of her horrible mistake when the morally superior Trump ought to be getting Warren's endorsement, instead. Nothing could possibly be crooked with Trump since he doesn't even need to publicize any of his income tax returns, unlike Hillary who was forced to release all her returns because of her utterly dishonest reputation. She must be hiding something inside all that paper.
http://qz.com/703540/elizabeth-warren-has-finally-endorsed-hillary-cli
nton/

1KIKI

Monday, June 13, 2016 4:27 AM

"when the morally superior Trump"

strawman, much?

Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

1KIKI

Monday, June 13, 2016 6:09 AM

But since YOU are too dumb to understand your own hypocrisy, let me spell it out.

If you want to throw shade on Mr Trump because of allegations against him - maybe a sense of honesty, fairness and proportion - you DO understand what those mean, don't you? - should compel you to throw equal shade on the too-big-to-fail bankstas for their documented role in bringing down the global economy in late 2007. Which spelled ruin for many ordinary people, and from which people have yet to be made whole. And for which Wall Street has yet to be held accountable.

Hillary's position? IF banks become problematic I'll break them up. (Apparently the need for a bail-in policy doesn't indicate to her that they already ARE a problem.) That $11 MILLION I got for speeches in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015? Doesn't affect my positions. Those speeches I gave to Goldman Sachs that netted me $625,000? You don't need to know what I said. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-hillary-clint
on-speeches-goldman-sachs-edit-0429-jm-20160428-story.html

And YOU seem to think her close ties with banking and financialism, and all its documented malfeasance, is not worth criticizing.

Can you say hypocrite? Sure you can. Just look in the mirror when you do.

https://newrepublic.com/article/129247/hillary-clinton-wants-believe-s
hes-tough-wall-street-shes-not

Back in November, Hillary Clinton responded to criticisms of her Wall Street ties by pointing out that, as a senator from New York who had represented the state before and during 9/11, she was obligated to represent their interests. It was perhaps the most curious notion adduced in the Democratic race up to that point, and the oddity of Clinton’s reasoning did not escape notice. It was the kind of bizarre statement that critics like to linger on, and repurpose for useful attacks. But for Clinton it has turned out to be worse than ammunition, not for what it was but for what it wasn’t: In the end, it simply wasn’t a satisfactory answer. It did not decrease interest in her relationship with Wall Street, or mollify voters concerned about her ability and willingness to handle big banks and the financial industry.
Signal

Her new strategy to downplay her relationship with Goldman Sachs and to win trust for her plans for Wall Street regulation will likely fail, if not backfire.

In the first hour of Thursday night’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire, two questions targeted Clinton’s history with banks. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow pointed out that the “most frequent area of concern” reporters hear from voters leaning toward Sanders is whether Clinton has been “too close to Wall Street.” Maddow asked Clinton if she has been too dismissive of voters’ concerns in that regard, including the $675,000 that Goldman Sachs paid her in speaking fees. A little while later, co-moderator Chuck Todd read a question from a voter who wanted to know if Clinton would release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman. Todd observed that transcription services had been used at those speeches, meaning that transcripts likely do exist.

Clinton, for perhaps the first time in the debate, faltered.

“I will look into it,” she said. “I don’t know the status, but I will look into it... But, I can only repeat what is the fact, that I spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot of different constituents, a lot of different kinds of members about issues that had to do with world affairs...”

It was a marked departure from her former efforts to explain the speaking fees. Gone were the shadows of the twin towers, the uniqueness of her relationship to an important New York industry. Instead Wall Street had become, in Clinton’s parlance, “just one street,” just one industry among many, one problem among many, one stop on the speaking circuit among very many.

The brush-off didn’t quite land. Nor did Clinton’s other defense, aired earlier in the debate: that she simply isn’t moved by large sums of money. “You will not find that I changed a view or a vote because of donati

THGRRI

Monday, June 13, 2016 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
If the purpose of running a business is to get rich - and generally that seems to be the case - then Trump succeeded admirably.

Though not as admirably as the too-big-to-fail bankstas who are Clinton's friends - after all they're holding the US government hostage. Because they COULD take down the global economy, again. And the US government, with its bail-in policy and easy money going to the banks (but not citizen borrowers), and its inability to assert meaningful restrictions, is too afraid to touch them.

Maybe THAT'S the problem you have with Trump. He's a penny-ante crook, not a globe-spanning government-controlling banksta behemoth crook.

Ok 1kiki, explain to SIG why she is wrong about Trump who fits her description of a corporate criminal. Below is an old post of hers.

Friday, February 13, 2009 4:32 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is the ONE TIME when harsh punishment would act as a deterent.

'Cause MOST criminals are so out of control of their own emotions that they're not thinking an hour ahead of time, much less a week or a year.

But corporate criminals???

They weigh the odds. They balance the risk of getting caught and the severity of punishment against the reward of potentially killing people for a higher profit.

If they really thought they'd be strung up by their balls for it their equations would come out a whole lot differently!

"Lynching is too good for 'em!"
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

THGRRI

Monday, June 13, 2016 9:52 PM

Be right back

SIGNYM

Monday, June 13, 2016 9:58 PM

Great, now you're spamming the board, posting the same post in multiple threads. So here is my answer to that, which I posted in the other thread

Quote:
And that is what I like abut Trump.

HE WEIGHS THE ODDS.

So unlike Hillary, who is so mesmerized by her neocon vision of the world that she will bounce in her seat a little, clap her hands, and laugh as she initiates WWIII (Yanno, kind of like she did when she unleashed Armageddon on Libya) Trump will take a much more realistic view of who might actually win, and how much damage he - and the USA- would sustain.

In addition to being somewhat manic (IMHO) Trump is a bully. But like all playground bullies, Trump has a pretty fine ear for anyone who might come along who is stronger than he is. At that point, he will negotiate. Trump is 50/50.

Hillary, OTOH, is a proven loser. She reliably initiates international confrontations that she can't possibly bring to successful conclusion.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60433&mid=1
012085#1012085

Now, since this is a thread about Trump, I'll tell you what I DON'T like about him: I think that he has never confronted either the international banking cartel, nor the CIA-State Dept multi-headed hydra, nor the military-industrial complex. The last person to confront them was JFK (BTW, ALL immigration was illegal under JFK) and look what happened to him.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE