Trump

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 07:05

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 03:28
I'm jumping ahead. The only reason to get Trump to make statements under oath is to get him on a perjury charge. I don't think it would go over well here if they tried it. It might break twitter.
- under what other circumstances could he possibly commit perjury?
- he lies constantly and openly in public office - surely it would just confirm what we already know
- why should it be any different if he lies under oath - he lies all the time, every day..
- he also constantly breaches the emoluments code of ethics every day, as well as colludes with foreign countries to undermine Democracy
- he's totally compromised financially and he's also utterly incompetent in matters of governance..

- all you can say is that he's a successful businessman, but that's only because he gets away with breaking the rules..
- his twitter comments plainly show that he brazenly commits obstruction of justice daily, and obviously intends to continue doing so..
- his entire family currently walks in a snowstorm blizzard of dubious legality - he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever..

- any so-called personal hatred of Trump has nothing to do with it - these are facts borne out by the testimony of Michael Cohen (and others..)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSUAXUfHcsw

- of course, you are entitled to your opinion - but don't you sometimes feel that you are flying through some pretty heavy flak..?? :sceptic:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 8. Dec 18, 20:54

Mightysword wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 06:25
...See, maybe I'm weird in this regard, but I don't see why that works for other people. When I see or hear something reasonable, I don't insistingly fact-check it. But when I do, then my fact-checking mechanism gets trigger. The stronger I feel about something, the more I inclined to doubt it. And this work both way: I don't compulsively believe in an "good" number, neither I impulsively reject a "bad" number either. For example:

- If I hear someone saying "Trump is nowhere a good businessman he claims to be, he's average at best or just a little above average" I would incline to agree and that's that. Even though I have been listing Trump's achievements, I'm also aware of his other short coming. But when I see something like this:
Bishop149 wrote:
Tue, 4. Dec 18, 22:21
As I alluded to earlier he would be richer than he is today if he had simply taken the money his dad left him, invested it in the stockmarket (in the safest possible way) and then buggered off to spend his life playing golf.
Zero business acumen required, by applying his he has made himself poorer . . . . and has only avoided complete personal bankruptcy thanks to the grace and favor of the government.
It make me go: huh, really? Let's investigate to see if that is true, because it sounds too ridiculous to be true. After the investigation, not only I conclude the statement are entirely not true, it also makes me realize I actually have not given Trump enough credits before. So it back fire.
I didn't say it works... It's just something that people tend to do. :) It's kind of like asking someone to loan you $500 and then, when refused, asking them for $20... They may not believe the person is a Saint, but surely if everyone is calling them one then there must be something good about them, right?
...Am I like ... the only one with this kind of psy-profile? :doh:
Of course not. :) In hindsight, that election was one of the worst in terms of a worthy candidate being put forth. What happened? The Republicans freaked-the-heck-out when Hillary's campaign appeared to be practically unopposed. There was no way that Bernie Sanders was going to win the nomination - He was too Left for the Democrats and, in my opinion, was drinking a bit too much of his own Kool Aid being buoyed by a core support group of mostly younger people, who don't tend to vote despite their enthusiasm. (It reminded me a lot of Ron Paul's campaign bid.)

We ended up with a candidate that had a base reminiscent of the Tea Party, with enthusiastic popular support from a large base, but a bit of an ephemeral agenda. "Ephemeral" because he said a lot of stuff, but a lot of it either didn't make sense or couldn't realistically be accomplished. But, it always raised the spectre of "A Great Enemy" to fight.

Much like you, I try to fact-check everything that sounds... fishy. But, I'm not a professional Political Science guy who follows all the campaigns and knows the stories of all the people involved. I can't as easily detect when something is "fishy." Neither can most people. And, all those little fishy things that aren't quite true that get pushed out the door to the voting public? They add up. They keep piling on top of each other until they form the basis of an opinion.
...So again ... tell me where's the difference? :gruebel:
Well, who said there's a difference? I simply offered the qualifier of "most people." That includes politicians and elected officials, since most of them are people too. :)
Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:34
...I want you look at this image.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ty.svg.png

Tell me with a straight face that Russia did that.
I know it's not directed at me, but - What do you think achieved that?

Was it that these people voted for Trump because he is a natural loadstone that attracts the support of people? Or, did something help draw that support to him? He had a "campaign," right? There was marketing and "getting the message out" and "cast your vote for Trump if you want your problems solved" and all that, right? And, of course, there was the constant demonizing of Hillary, too, influencing the "swing vote." If it had been any other candidate, the after action report would be the same. So, it wasn't purely due to some "Trump Factor" and marketing, social media, other media coverage, certainly, without a doubt, had a strong influence.

It's worth noting that Hillary won the Popular Vote. So, would it be fair to dare you to opine upon that with a straight face? :) More people voted for Hillary than Trump. That means that Hillary won, right? ... :D

I don't know wtf I would have felt if Hillary had won. I was certainly not in favor of her candidacy. But, she did win the popular vote, so if you maintain that Trump's victory "means something" then what does her unheralded "victory" mean?

From what I recall of the testimony of the heads of various Intelligence agencies before Congress, Russia's meddling did not have a "signficant" impact on the election, according to their statements. But, it had some sort of effect, somewhere.

Edit-Add: Related to "extremes" discussed above:

Clearly, this is an "extreme" article. It's in a decently well-known rag "The Atlantic." And, it's extreme, seemingly with no reason for why it's covering the topic:

Presidential Emergency Powers - What could Trump do if he declared a National Emergency.

Basically, if Trump declared a "National Emergency" then a host of dictatorial powers come into play. This is the stuff of nightmares for those who worry about Trump... And, that's probably exactly why they created the article. :) So, will this "extreme" idea be picked up by others and given broader exposure? Is it "too extreme" for other agencies to address? We'll see. And, who knows, maybe Trump would do it just because he can? And, then what? :)

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Re: Trump

Post by BugMeister » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 09:53

- surely he cannot unilaterally declare a National Emergency, he can only make an offer of advice.. :sceptic:
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Morkonan » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 18:35

BugMeister wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 09:53
- surely he cannot unilaterally declare a National Emergency, he can only make an offer of advice.. :sceptic:
No. He could declare a National Emergency because someone didn't bring him a Coke first thing in the morning... BUT, he would then have to submit some specifics to Congress along with exactly what's going on and what powers he is claiming in response to whatever Emergency is being claimed and Congress could tell him to go get stuffed. :)

But, he could do it on his own, no problem. He'd have to deal with the political and possible criminal consequences, though. Invoking "Emergency Powers" for his own personal gain would be... "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" doesn't even begin to cover the criminal charges involved in exercising such power for one's own benefit. This is the sort of declaration that happened after 9/11.

Interesting note: Ongoing National Emergencies Still in Force

PS - This is the sort of terrifying and inflammatory thing that militant Democrat Mothers tell their liberal children at night... "You go to sleep, now, or President Trump will declare a National Emergency!" ;)

Would he? It would be like him shoving a fork into an electrical outlet with his tongue... The backlash would probably end up with him in prison.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 18:56

Morkonan wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 18:35
PS - This is the sort of terrifying and inflammatory thing that militant Democrat Mothers tell their liberal children at night... "You go to sleep, now, or President Trump will declare a National Emergency!" ;)

Would he? It would be like him shoving a fork into an electrical outlet with his tongue... The backlash would probably end up with him in prison.
Remember 2 years ago when Trump first got into the office, there was this hysteria talk (participated by many around the internet, including in this thread) about Trump and the nuclear button? I found that hilarious then, I'll probably find this just as hilarious now. :wink:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 19:49

Mightysword says:
Remember 2 years ago when Trump first got into the office, there was this hysteria talk (participated by many around the internet, including in this thread) about Trump and the nuclear button? I found that hilarious then, I'll probably find this just as hilarious now.
Yeah, "hilarious". Trump's massive impulse control problems aside you can put your bets down he's just going to let the laws apply to him, but my bet is he'll do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING to keep in POWER. Power is the key here. We've been shown time and time again, time after time exactly what Trump thinks of any and all limits to his power(s) as president. Don't even dare ask me to cite examples as they could start with the "Muslum Ban" and stretch across his tinure. He rails almost daily at our legal establishments, diregards our intelligence establishments and who does he NOT send diatribes against? Oligarchs and Dictators. He cries out for our legal entities to crush his political enemies and spouts his ire at them when they don't.

So yes, if he's certain the law is closing in on him you can be dead certain he'll pull out all the stop and if that means declairing a "National Emergency" (Even if he has to create one) then he'll do it.

I'm not jauniced or hisyerical, just experienced. I was in Peru in 1992 when it's president declared such a National Emergency when the walls were closing in on him and desolved congress and took total power. With less real justification than Trump has to do so here and now. The first thing he did after jailing his opponents and shutting down the media was kicking the US Armed Forces out of the country. (Which truth be told was just fine with us).

So don't be so quick to say such talk of Trump making a grab for total power as being "hilarious". You might find out it's gallows humor.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 21:18

Morkonan wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 20:54
Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:34
...I want you look at this image.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ty.svg.png

Tell me with a straight face that Russia did that.
I know it's not directed at me, but - What do you think achieved that?
...
It's worth noting that Hillary won the Popular Vote. So, would it be fair to dare you to opine upon that with a straight face? :) More people voted for Hillary than Trump. That means that Hillary won, right? ... :D

I don't know wtf I would have felt if Hillary had won. I was certainly not in favor of her candidacy. But, she did win the popular vote, so if you maintain that Trump's victory "means something" then what does her unheralded "victory" mean?

I know you weren't directing that question at me, but I'll offer my take on this anyway: the map is relevant and important, perhaps even more so than the popular vote. And the reason for it is very simple: the US is a federation. I understand why people might think otherwise, and it's not just about the election, but also policy making (like healthcare/education) to constitution matter (like check and balance). But I have always said that in those discussion, most people under-appreciate the fact that the US is a federation, and a big one at that. Here is a reciprocal question for you: what if the election was decided simply on majority, and that map looks the same? You still gonna ask the same question, just from a different perspective. Yes, Hilary won 2mil more votes, but one can also argue that we are a Federal of 50 states, and 20 of that went to Hilary with the other 30 went to Trump. Which margin is more important? Depending on who you ask. The point is, being a federal of 50 states, spanning the size of entire Europe with a very diverse population concentration as well as living conditions, the balancing of power have far more variables in it than just a simple majority.

A good counter example is to look at the EC, whenever it faces a crisis, people lament that the original EC plan is a fail vision of a United States of Europe (to some people's chagrin I'm sure :P). It's set up supposedly to treat all member states equally ... but is it? Look at the Greek crisis for example, it's pretty clear from my point the decision making process were very centralized, and whether you want it or not, a functional federal system can not have power concentrated in just a few places.

I'm not saying this in regard of which system is better, I'm just saying they're different, and thus what considered to be conventional wisdom from one does not mean it'll make sense for other. :)
Last edited by Mightysword on Sun, 9. Dec 18, 21:41, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 21:27

Hank001 wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 19:49
Mightysword says:
Remember 2 years ago when Trump first got into the office, there was this hysteria talk (participated by many around the internet, including in this thread) about Trump and the nuclear button? I found that hilarious then, I'll probably find this just as hilarious now.
Yeah, "hilarious". Trump's massive impulse control problems aside you can put your bets down he's just going to let the laws apply to him,
...
So don't be so quick to say such talk of Trump making a grab for total power as being "hilarious". You might find out it's gallows humor.
I'm not talking generally Hank, I'm being very specific. Two years ago I found the hysteria of Trump will impulsively launch a nuclear attack at someone because he simply has a bad day and there is nothing can stop him! pretty hilarious, and after 2 years, I see nothing that have made both the talk any less hysterical or the situation itself any less hilarious. I find it the case of people use these extreme argument as the tip of the spear/or trojan horse to open a passage into people mind, and use that opening to deliver a slew of more general/generic attacks, kinda exactly what you just did. And well, I don't know if you had read my last few posts, but I'm not keen on extreme arguments, and sometime they even backfire. I certainly did see quite a few crazies in that nuclear hysteria 2 years ago, and Trump wasn't among them. Ironic too, fear mongering is something people levies against Trump ... yet do the same people take a look at what they're doing themselves? :sceptic:

As Mork summed it up:
Morkonan wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 18:35
PS - This is the sort of terrifying and inflammatory thing that militant Democrat Mothers tell their liberal children at night... "You go to sleep, now, or President Trump will declare a National Emergency!" ;)

There is this thing about living in the shadow of your own fear, don't do it, it's rather unhealthy. Another benefit of staying in the middle is you tend not to do that to yourself. ;)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 21:50

Mightysword whistles in the dark:
There is this thing about living in the shadow of your own fear, don't do it, it's rather unhealthy. Another benefit of staying in the middle is you tend not to do that to yourself.
And there's crossing your finger's and hoping you're faith in Trump's famed moderation, self control and respect for his office is going to win the day. In case you don't get who "Person Number One" is refering to in indictments, then it's our "Dear Leader" and though he probably... Probably won't launch a nuke or two on liberal enclaves like Los Angeles, it's because he knows the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. Not "Mafia Don" and wouldn't retarget or turn their keys. What the great fear should be is that we have a criminal in office as the President of the United States. That the crimes involve the gaining of this office and what Trump IS capable of doing to keep his grasp on power. Excuse me for pointing out that the extremes involved there are far, far from "hyterical" or "hilarious" or paranoid fantasies or anything but should be seen as logical possibilities given whom we're talking about or what he is capable of.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 22:08

Hank001 wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 21:50
And there's crossing your finger's and hoping you're faith in Trump's famed moderation, self control and respect for his office is going to win the day.
Well, worked for 2 years so far. There is another 2 years to go so we'll see. But even if you disagree with me, I think we would both pray that I am right at the end, no? ;)

Although a minor correction there: it's not really my faith in Trump being moderated, it is my faith in our system is robust enough that one potentially crazy person can screw it up for everyone, even if that one person is the president. And note, I said 'potentially' crazy, since I don't see Trump as being crazy, not yet anyway. In fact, if I am to call Trump crazy now, I figure I will have to find a stronger word to describe the many people who currently oppose him. :sceptic:
Probably won't launch a nuke or two on liberal enclaves like Los Angeles, it's because he knows the military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution.
In another words ... you now admit that nuclear talk 2 years ago were indeed just ... hysteria? :D

Where does this new found faith of yours in the military come from? Because I'm damn sure it wasn't there 2 years ago. After all it was ME who said even if Trump is crazy enough to order a launch for some random reasons, it's not like the sane people in the military will simply obey it (legal or illegally), and you guys were having NONE of it. ;)

As for the rest of your post, like I said I'm talking about a specific case, not in general. I prefer to stay focus instead of just dragging on random things and mutates one things to the next so that in 2 or 3 posts, I wouldn't even be sure what we're even talking about. :P
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 22:36

Mightysword asks:
Where does this new found faith of yours in the military come from? Because I'm damn sure it wasn't there 2 years ago. After all it was ME who said even if Trump is crazy enough to order a launch for some random reasons, it's not like the sane people in the military will simply obey it (legal or illegally), and you guys were having NONE of it. ;)
Guess that comes from the USAF ID card in my pocket, the fact I'm drawing a pension and because I was not and never will be discharged. I was on active duty for twenty years and passed to the Retired Reserve and am enitiled to legally put my rank before my name and USAF (Retired) afterward and am still entitled to wear the uniform. So THAT is where my faith in the US military comes from. I AM one even "on the beach" at half pay. So where does your stunning insights on military come from? Besides vocalized via bilabial fricatives? :D
As for the rest of your post, like I said I'm talking about a specific case, not in general. I prefer to stay focus instead of just dragging on random things and mutates one things to the next so that in 2 or 3 posts, I wouldn't even be sure what we're even talking about. :P
I'd guess that might be a bit fuzzy to someone who desires to sic: [stay focus]. All in all the situation being discussed is a particularly nasty bunch of rats are being herded into a corner and what the King Rat is apt to do to extracate them out of that situation.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 22:49

Hank001 wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 22:36
Guess that comes from the USAF ID card in my pocket, the fact I'm drawing a pension and because I was not and never will be discharged. I was on active duty for twenty years and passed to the Retired Reserve and am enitiled to legally put my rank before my name and USAF (Retired) afterward and am still entitled to wear the uniform. So THAT is where my faith in the US military comes from. I AM one even "on the beach" at half pay. So where does your stunning insights on military come from? Besides vocalized via bilabial fricatives? :D
Not sure what you are trying to imply here, or you actually missed what I said:

- I have always had faith in the military in the matter. That's the whole reason why I didn't join in the hysteria people immerse in 2 years ago. Like I said, even if Trump is crazy, it's not like the military gonna just obey him like robots.
- I'm not questioning your faith, I'm asking the faith you're showing here now, where were that faith 2 years ago when you indulged yourself in that hysteria. The point here being you're not saying anything different than what I had said before, you only say it 2 years later than I did. Being a man of uniform you probably always have that faith, if you want to claim yours is bigger than mine I'm sure you're totally right. I don't intend to challenge you about having it, I'm only just asking where did you put that faith 2 years ago?

I think you're somehow treating this as a competition, which is it not, but it can be if you misread what I said ... which I think happens quite often. :D

Goodness is inside all of us, sometime we just forgot we have them. :)

Oh, and for your particular question where does your stunning insights on military come from? While I'm pretty sure this is not an honest question rather just a snide comment delivering in bath faith, but I'll answer it anyway: my faith in the military does not come from any great insight of the military. It simply comes from the basic understanding of a honest citizen with common sense, believing that our military will not simply follow a destructive order without good reason. So tell me, oh man of the uniform, is such faith ... misplaced? :wink:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 23:10

Mightysword sidestepped:
Not sure what you are trying to imply here, or you actually missed what I said:
Nice try:
Where does this new found faith of yours in the military come from?
And I cleared that point up.

So back on topic. (Which I'm not sure but that might not suit your intent here)

On the "Cornered Rat":

This would make the world tremble says Carl Bernstein

And this is how the White House is REALLY dealing with Saudi Arabia:

Kushner gives advice to Saudi Crown Prince

If attemping to keep the debate focused on Donald J. Trump and my feelings on his fitness for office make some think I'm drifting far afield then just look at what the title of the thread is. (For heaven sake do I REALLY have to point that out?) :roll:
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by Mightysword » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 23:28

Hank001 wrote:
Sun, 9. Dec 18, 23:10
So back on topic. (Which I'm not sure but that might not suit your intent here)

...

If attemping to keep the debate focused on Donald J. Trump and my feelings on his fitness for office make some think I'm drifting far afield then just look at what the title of the thread is. (For heaven sake do I REALLY have to point that out?) :roll:
Seeing you're the one who started it (you quoted after me first, all I do so far is responding to you), I guess it's only appropriate for you to steer it away a the end. There is no need to play the hot potatoes game of responsibility when you want to switch the topic just to make a show. You know you do it for a reason, I certainly can see it, as I figure most people can as well even if it's not in displayed. ;)

Anyway Hanks, I had told you before we don't have to agree with each other, and we can decide just simply ignoring each others altogether (like I'm already doing with a certain other poster), after all there are plenty of others to talk to in this thread. So whenever we choose to engage in an argument, it's strictly voluntarily. As such even if we don't agree, we should at least try to keep it in good faith. It's not the first time I had asked you of this, but I hope it will be the last. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Re: Trump

Post by Hank001 » Sun, 9. Dec 18, 23:52

Mightsword says:
Anyway [Hanks], I had told you before we don't have to agree with each other, and we can decide just simply ignoring each [others] altogether (like I'm already doing with a certain other poster), after all there are plenty of others to talk to in this thread. So whenever we choose to engage in an argument, it's strictly voluntarily. As such even if we don't agree, we should at least try to keep it in good faith. It's not the first time I had asked you of this, but I hope it will be the last. :)
Well I blew a blood vessel at "keep it in good faith". You figure it out). But I'll back out at this point and let you get back to business. I'm not getting paid to put up with it.

One last "parting shot" here at the Topic is that in case anybody lost count of how many inside the Trump camp had Russian contacts, this just came out in the Washington Post. (Which will probably have Trump back on his "emeny of the people" jag again) :rant:

Russians interacted with at least 14 Trump associates during campaign
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
esd
Posts: 17962
Joined: Tue, 2. Sep 03, 05:57
x3tc

Re: Trump

Post by esd » Mon, 10. Dec 18, 00:55

Well this thread's gotten personal again, so I'm locking it. I might unlock it tomorrow, or another mod might, or it might just stay locked. At the very least it's getting a time-out, because it was only the last page that I posted this:
esd wrote:
Sat, 8. Dec 18, 04:31
I am quite willing to pull the plug on this thread if people don't stay on their best behavior.
esd's Guides: X² Loops - X³ MORTs

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51744
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Trump

Post by CBJ » Mon, 10. Dec 18, 10:10

Unlocked again after a few hours of cool-down time. Formal warnings and/or bans will be on the cards for anyone else who fails to heed moderator warnings.

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Mon, 10. Dec 18, 11:49

Ok this will be my last contribution to this particular over long discussion, I think its clear we aren't going to find common ground.
Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 21:37
I'm not ignoring them, I'm diminishing them because of the narrative you were pushing are giving the wrong impression.
- The Trump's bailout package was negotiated with his debtors (a.k.a the banks), it was not a government bailout similar to the like we saw in the last depression that were given to GM motor and Morgan, which come out of the tax's payer dollar. Unless you have a personal skate, I don't see why you would be grumbling?
GM and Morgan are single corporations, Trump is an individual with interests in multiple entities.
Economically these are two VERY different things.
All I have stated is simple historical fact, just go look it up. Trump's bankruptcy was unique (at the time*) and was thus granted an unique solution.
Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 7. Dec 18, 21:37
Yes, Trump was given that because he was too big to fall, and I see simply this as shared liabilities between business partners. In the end, after a few years everyone involved ended up better than they would have if Trump was simply let go under. I don't know about you, that's the definition of good business decision. And if you think this is only exclusive to people like Trump, think again:
It probably was a good decision (for the people involved), it was however NOT Trumps decision which is the point.
At no point that I see you're making a point as a objective and reasonable economist, or even attempt to.
Ok cool, I'm full of sentiment and biased because I don't like capitalist economics (the latter is at least true).
Go and talk to an objective economist about Trump 1970-1990, see what they say.
Hint: They aren't going to agree with you.
But, anyone with a basic knowledge of economy, and willing to spend a little of their time in looking up some facts instead of just blindly following convenience narrative then ... well, let's just say if this person gets her wish of serving in the Budget committee in the house, then may God help us all.
We've already covered this, you are happy with the economy as it is and happy to throw out platitudes such as "Its reality" or "just the way things are" to explain such things.
This has the benefit of being correct in the moment but obviously ignores any potential alternative scenarios, which you would no doubt declare "impossible" from your particular worldview. . . . . right up until the moment they happen. :roll:
This is just the fundamental difference at the root of many of our disagreements here, you are either happy with the status quo and/or think that changing it is impossible. I am, and do, not.
Did you treat what I said as a challenge or competition? Because if so you missed the points, completely. The points are:

- You can not do it, I can not do it, the people who are more qualified then us can not do it, and those who had been trying to do it has been consistently failing for 50-60 years.
No, you misunderstand. I DID do it, I educated myself up until the point were I could at least have a stab at it myself and satisfied myself that the conclusions drawn were at least broadly correct. This much at least was not THAT hard, I did not have to fully understand the stockbroking tricks involved, just enough to be able to apply them within the rules and judge the likelihood of their application is specific circumstances (for which again there are a set of standards to help).
But by all means go do the same, I will warn you however that I at least did not find it an at all enjoyable experience, rather a dull and depressing one.

I was going to leave with the parting suggestion that if you are such a fan of Mr Trump's economic savvy that you go put your money where your mouth is and invest heavily in one of his enterprises.
Then I realised that thanks to his rampant attempts at kleptocracy, this might NOW actually be quite good financial advice . . . . . or maybe this is correct and Trump is failing at this as he does in most things . . . . . a fairly typical Trump business proposition then. Red or Black, 50:50, Get rich or go broke. :roll:

*Worth noting that whilst individuals have lost billions in the time since none have ever been quite like Trump. In every other case the person involved either:
- Was a white collar criminal of such a calibre that they went to prison for a long time.
- So rich that a billion wasn't that big of a deal to them.
- Actually genuinely went bankrupt. . . . the markets having learned the lesson provided them by one Mr Trump.
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Trump

Post by pjknibbs » Mon, 10. Dec 18, 12:18

Bishop149 wrote:
Mon, 10. Dec 18, 11:49
Ok this will be my last contribution to this particular over long discussion, I think its clear we aren't going to find common ground.
I think that was clear approximately 548 pages ago...

Bishop149
Posts: 7232
Joined: Fri, 9. Apr 04, 21:19
x3

Re: Trump

Post by Bishop149 » Mon, 10. Dec 18, 12:20

pjknibbs wrote:
Mon, 10. Dec 18, 12:18
I think that was clear approximately 548 pages ago...
Suckers for punishment aren't we? :roll:
"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

Locked

Return to “Off Topic English”