US Presidential Candidates

PeterZ wrote:

Daryl wrote:I'm coming to the opinion that Trump's winning may end up a good thing for all, as long as he doesn't start WW3 or do too much permanent damage.
There is actually some merit in breaking up the career politician's cabal and their dynasties. There is also the inevitable realisation coming that the complex situation facing the "deplorables" won't be solved by simple solutions from a billionaire.
The exercise mantra of "What doesn't kill you is good for you" comes to mind.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/possible-voter-fraud-detroit-problems-60-percent-precincts/

Ayup, too many precincts are entrenched one party rule election fraud cesspools of corruption. Detroit is not unique and the fraud is not only the province of Democrats. There are however fewer Republican one party rule precincts. That Trump managed to win the Republican nomination argues for less thorough Republican establishment domination of its controlled precincts.

I would love to see the FBI civil rights division investigate election and voter fraud across the country.

That would be great. You are of course not talking about in person voter fraud I hope... the ONLY kind of voter fraud Republicans ever pass laws against or talk about despite it being effectively non existent as a thin cover for deliberate voter disenfranchisement efforts?

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus ... raud.0.png

I am not so sure Clinton's popular vote advantage stands up.

The idea that there were over 2.5 MILLION fraudulent votes cast in this election is absurd in the extreme.

A less engaged US is not the problem. A commander in chief who always expects to get his own way is a problem, as are similar people in China for whom losing face is very important.
I'm not sure that some appreciate the cultural differences. I used to be involved in serious international contract negotiations. A US executive caught out in a blatant lie or con would just shrug and suggest we move on to the next stage, an Asian executive would be shamed and withdraw or resign. It is vital to the Chinese leadership that they be seen to be right.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/possible-voter-fraud-detroit-problems-60-percent-precincts/

Ayup, too many precincts are entrenched one party rule election fraud cesspools of corruption. Detroit is not unique and the fraud is not only the province of Democrats. There are however fewer Republican one party rule precincts. That Trump managed to win the Republican nomination argues for less thorough Republican establishment domination of its controlled precincts.

I would love to see the FBI civil rights division investigate election and voter fraud across the country.

That would be great. You are of course not talking about in person voter fraud I hope... the ONLY kind of voter fraud Republicans ever pass laws against or talk about despite it being effectively non existent as a thin cover for deliberate voter disenfranchisement efforts?

https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus ... raud.0.png

I am not so sure Clinton's popular vote advantage stands up.

The idea that there were over 2.5 MILLION fraudulent votes cast in this election is absurd in the extreme.

The article highlights irregularities in the precincts that have a discrepancy of upwards of 50 in person voters, but the sealed packet for that precinct holds 306 ballots. 60% of Detroit's precincts had such discrepancies. That is either serious election fraud or serious negligence. No way that sort of widespread problems will occur unless there are systemic problems. Not just in who votes but how the ballots are kept and tabulated. That's either voter fraud or criminal negligence in training the election staff.

Your assertion that election fraud is rare has just received a gut punch. Refusing that accept there are serious problems in our election process is becoming clinically delusional.

Daryl wrote:A less engaged US is not the problem. A commander in chief who always expects to get his own way is a problem, as are similar people in China for whom losing face is very important.
I'm not sure that some appreciate the cultural differences. I used to be involved in serious international contract negotiations. A US executive caught out in a blatant lie or con would just shrug and suggest we move on to the next stage, an Asian executive would be shamed and withdraw or resign. It is vital to the Chinese leadership that they be seen to be right.

One doesn't grow rich negotiating for real estate, building internationally and managing those international properties without picking up some knowledge of foreign cultures. That doesn't mean he will be a smooth operator, only that his rough edges won't start WWIII. Besides, he simply cannot be worse than what has transpired in the past 8 years.

Ah Peter. As has been stated before, Trump would have been much wealthier if he hadn't messed around in real estate, if he'd just left well enough alone and played blue chip stocks.

As for wealthy, well we don't really know do we. We do know how ever that he has owes a fuckton of money on damn near every property he owns.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:Ah Peter. As has been stated before, Trump would have been much wealthier if he hadn't messed around in real estate, if he'd just left well enough alone and played blue chip stocks.

As for wealthy, well we don't really know do we. We do know how ever that he has owes a fuckton of money on damn near every property he owns.



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Those making that claim are all so wealthy, then? It's so easy to take a few million and turn it into billions that any lottery winner should be on the road to billions. Not.

That's the nature of debt, you know. People take out mortgages all the time. Real estate investors borrow to buy cash generating assets and let the cash being generated pay for the borrowed funds. Investment property works this way. Real estate development and property management does as well. Besides, creating that business employs way more people than sitting back and letting folks like Bernie Madoff manage your money. No, not all money managers are crooked, but not all people are comfortable as passive investors in businesses they are only partially familiar with. And if Trump failed in some ventures, so what? Failing means you tried and have one fewer way to fail if you learn from your mistakes.

This particular jab at Trump is plain silly. There are other things that he deserves jabs for.

Failed in most ventures.
He would literally be worth twice what he is now, and with no debt.

How will trade negotiations go with China with one of his buildings having a Billion dollar morgage against it with Bank of China.

The US prosecution of Deutchbank with him owing them 650 mill I think it was.

I wonder how much debt he has to Alfa-Bank, you know that Russian bank that is owned by one of Putin's friends that the Trump organisation got caught communicating with clandestinely.


If any one of those, and god knows how many morgaged properties, gets it's loan called in, his entire empire will collapse.
At least one of those multi million dollar debts is personal to him, IE: No limited liability to hide behind. And the financial institution it's with is up for sale.



Of course people tend to splurge. I sure as hell did. Pissed many a dollar against a wall or from the top of a fountain. Or bridge for that matter.
It takes true determination to make real money.
Not just being lucky enough to inherit it and not completely blow it. Or be enough of a conniving prick to stick the debt to someone else when you do blow it which is actually what Trump did.

BTW, it's not a jab a Trump. It's a jab and idiots who think he's such a good business man.
He's not. He's a good con man.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

The idea that there were over 2.5 MILLION fraudulent votes cast in this election is absurd in the extreme.

Correction, the idea that there were over 2.5M MORE fradulent votes cast in favour of the democrats than the republicans in this election is absurd in the extreme.

The democrats have definitely not been the bigger cheaters ever since electronic voting machines became common.

Back to cultural differences. When a businessman in Australia has gone bankrupt, it is a newspaper scandal if he goes into business again, and monumental if he goes bankrupt again. We see it as immoral wasting other people's money and not paying people money owed.
Someone like Trump having had four bankruptcies (technical or not) would never get elected here. I'm not sure but remember reading somewhere that a bankrupt can't legally hold office.

Daryl wrote:Back to cultural differences. When a businessman in Australia has gone bankrupt, it is a newspaper scandal if he goes into business again, and monumental if he goes bankrupt again. We see it as immoral wasting other people's money and not paying people money owed.
Someone like Trump having had four bankruptcies (technical or not) would never get elected here. I'm not sure but remember reading somewhere that a bankrupt can't legally hold office.

Bankruptcy is normal business practice here. What the financial journals look at is relative bankruptcies. Does a person have more bankruptcies than normal for his/her businesses and his/her wealth level. Most but not all of the money people (financial reporters not political ones) consider Trump's 4 bankruptcies as normal for someone with his wealth level in the types of businesses he owns.

Something similar is at play in the medical industry. Obstetricians are among the most sued of medical professions. Any time a baby is born with a defect it's Act of Doctor not Act of God, these days. So it's actually gotten to the point where obstetricians have a 100% chance of being sued in their career and they are judged by relative number of lawsuits. Something like 2-4 over a career is typical, above that is reason for concern (or the doctor does a large amount of high risk pregnancies). Age is also a factor. A 35 year old doctor sued 4 times is a bigger concern than a 65 year old doctor sued 4 times (i.e. higher lawsuit to years of practice ratio).