Whoa. How do you know it’s "they’re and not “their?”
The difference is enormous.
[/quote]
That is a pretty good point.
The previous two sentences give us good reason to believe that he’s contracting “they are” in a repetitive sequence: “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” Furthermore, “their rapists” as a standalone sentence would not make a whole lot of sense (not that Donald was making a whole lot of sense to begin with). It could be argued that we can’t know whether or not he meant “[these people who are coming over are] their [i.e., Mexico’s] rapists,” but this would not change the idiotic implication that I’ve been talking about, which is that the immigrants are, plainly, rapists. Minus of course some good ones, who, as Donald would tell us, probably exist.
As an aside, this impulse to praise and admire a silver-spoon-suckling inheritor of his rich daddy’s real estate empire who still, somehow, ended up a reality-TV D-lister – it’s pathetic in the literal sense of the term.[/quote]
Let’s get it right.
Actors get paid plenty of bucks to …well just act. I never said any of them were bright. However, I bet many are. But. that’s another topic.[/quote]
And Donald Trump made the vast majority of his money by buying property, paying people to build on it/make it nicer, and then selling/renting the property. If you have the money to do it, it isn’t terribly complicated, and it isn’t terribly impressive.
But wait, you say: Donald has to choose good investments over bad ones in order to be successful. Indeed, and Matt Damon has to choose good scripts over bad ones in order to be successful. I guess that means that Matt Damon is a political genius. Who knew?
The point being not that one is equivalent to the other, but that neither is an impressive intellectual feat. In other words: You do know that there are actual smart people in the world, right? You do know that you don’t have to dilute the term by tossing it at a gaudy, endlessly-laughed-at dunce who, despite having been born into daddy’s riches (and therefore having his choice of paths in life), still somehow ended up on Celebrity fucking Apprentice?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
A lot words and no substance ZEB.[/quote]
Says the man who responds to my lengthy post with not one bit of substance. Did you think that if you accused me of no substance that would give you cover for the lack of substance in this post?
Your response here demonstrates that you are not all that proud of your original diatribe. I can’t say that I blame you for that. But you should not have started it to begin with.
Good word it pays to watch O’Reilly. He loves that word for some reason. But it would have been more impressive if you actually had a defense for my retort.
Yet, you are very light on specifics. Once again, I answered each of your points completely and even gave fairly good examples of why you were totally off base. Instead of coming back with a legitimate retort (or an apology as anyone can have a bad day) you choose the cowards way out. Sit back send a short post attacking me personally (again) and basically saying “nuh uh I’m still right”. that not only loses you the debate but my respect as well. If you are going to attack someone you should be prepared to carry it through or admit you were wrong to begin with. Instead you are running away while tossing insults. I’m almost embarrassed for you.
No, I do remember you. But, remembering that we shared similar positions does not give you free rein to interfere with a debate and attempt to chastise me. You stepped over the line Aragorn. If you can admit that you will be a better man.
Again, I answered each of your charges to a fine point. That you choose to abandon your argument and simply comeback at me with a brief post once again with no point other than to personally attack me exposes you for being wrong as well as lazy!
And Donald Trump made the vast majority of his money by buying property, paying people to build on it/make it nicer, and then selling/renting the property. If you have the money to do it, it isn’t terribly complicated, and it isn’t terribly impressive.[/quote]
Says the man who has never done it. I noticed something a long time ago. Most things that cause people to make a great deal of money are quite easy. Easy that is until you try to replicate their success. All he did was purchase property. Tell me, have you ever been involved in an expensive property negotiation? No? Okay, have you ever been involved in negotiating with contractors to erect a sizable structure? No? How about actually being in charge of a huge building that needs tenants? No?
Well, none of it is easy and all of it takes intelligence, perseverance, and plenty of negotiating skill.
Yes, there are genuinely smart people. Those with very high IQ scores. One good example of this is Jimmy Carter who has an IQ of 156 I believe. He was also a former submarine commander and Governor and all around really bright guy (you know where I’m going with this). Yet, he was one of the worst modern day Presidents (Obama toppled him from the number one position). How come his High IQ didn’t help him?
Then along comes Ronald Reagan who attended a state school I believe. They called him an idiot a doddering old fool. Yet, he accomplished more and is considered by (non biased) historians to be one of the better modern day Presidents. That smh should have given you a clue that it takes more than super intelligence to be a good President. Naturally, intelligence is important. But there are other things as well. Sometimes they are intangible unable to be measured. One example is people skills. Reagan had an abundance of those. And of course there are other things as well. But disqualifying someone because you think they are “gaudy” is nonsense. And I already explained to you that while Trump inherited 20 or 30 million from his father he built it into a roughly 8 billion dollar fortune. You may think that’s easy but as I have explained above. It’s always easy until you actually try to do it.
Look, he’s not my first or even 15th choice for President. But, give the man his due. He has plenty of skills as I have pointed out and while you think he plays the fool he continues to succeed. And that is something that I have prayed Obama would do but he seems to just continue to make one wrong decision after another. Could it be because he’s never had a job in the real world?
And Donald Trump made the vast majority of his money by buying property, paying people to build on it/make it nicer, and then selling/renting the property. If you have the money to do it, it isn’t terribly complicated, and it isn’t terribly impressive.[/quote]
Says the man who has never done it.[/quote]
I haven’t won the lottery either, but I’m going to go ahead and let you know here and now that it isn’t all that impressive, and neither is the investment of daddy’s money. You are of course free to be impressed – though, like I said, it’s a little pathetic. Then again, what is laudable is relative to the lauder’s own abilities and limitations. The dandelion is floored by the speed and agility of the slug.
[quote]
I noticed something a long time ago. Most things that cause people to make a great deal of money are quite easy. Easy that is until you try to replicate their success.[/quote]
You’re right: it’s very, very hard to try to replicate the inheritance of a rich parent’s millions of dollars and real estate empire. Similarly, I have spent the last decade trying to be born with LeBron James’ height and wingspan, but I just can’t get it done. Perhaps someday. Do wish me luck.
[quote]
All he did was purchase property.[/quote]
*With money and an investment apparatus (including well-educated employees) that were given to him by his parents. Get it right, please.
And Donald Trump made the vast majority of his money by buying property, paying people to build on it/make it nicer, and then selling/renting the property. If you have the money to do it, it isn’t terribly complicated, and it isn’t terribly impressive.
Says the man who has never done it.
I haven’t won the lottery either, but I’m going to go ahead and let you know here and now that it isn’t all that impressive,[/quote]
Well, I can partially agree with you. Winning the lottery is not impressive. Any idiot with a few bucks can purchase a ticket and then it’s just a matter of luck. However, building a very large financial empire IS impressive, or should be even to those who are not impressed with money. The reason being that (as I have repeatedly said) it takes a wide set of skills to earn such a vast fortune. Don’t get me wrong as I’ve said no one has to be impressed. The enormity of doing such a thing does not have to impress you or anyone else. But, nonetheless it’s very, very difficult to do. And that is proven by the number of people who have actually done it. How many billionaires are there in the US? I really don’t know but I would guess maybe 500 or so. It is a rarity for a reason. Plenty of unique skills needed to do so.
So whether you are or are not interested in building wealth you should still be impressed by those who have done so. Just as I have no intention of ever running for public office I am still impressed by those really great candidates who can get millions of people to vote for them.
I’m not quite sure you are following me on this one. I will try it one more time. I think Trump inherited around 20 to 30 million. That’s a lot of money for certain. But, it is a far cry from building that amount into an 8 billion dollar financial empire. And yes I am impressed with what he has done. As I said billionaires are rare because it’s very difficult to become one. That you are not at least a bit impressed with his achievement means that you either have no respect for money, or you hate Trump so much for his outlandish personality that you have decided to take away his impressive achievement because you dislike him so.
[quote]
I noticed something a long time ago. Most things that cause people to make a great deal of money are quite easy. Easy that is until you try to replicate their success.
You’re right: it’s very, very hard to try to replicate the inheritance of a rich parent’s millions of dollars and real estate empire.[/quote]
LOL come on smh as I have explained he only inherited a small portion of his current vast financial empire. You can love him or hate him but be fair.
Not a fair comparison as you know. (for the 5th time) Trump inherited 20 to 30 million and turned it into 8 billion or so. Give him credit where it is due.
I have it right.
Let’s take a closer look at this shall we?
How many millions go into one billion?
Answer: one thousand million equal one billion.
Again, Trump inherited around 20 to 30 million. That is about 2.5% of one billion. He is now worth about 8 billion!
Let’s look at it from a different perspective. If someone gave you (or anyone) 2.5% of one million dollars, which is $25,000, do you think it would be easy to turn it into 8 million dollars? Plenty of people inherit 25-k how many of them turn it into 8 million dollars? Not many, practically no one. Why? Because it’s very difficult to do so.
And so it is with what Trump has achieved.
If you don’t want to give him credit for being a legitimate Presidential candidate, fine. But not giving him credit for building a vast fortune is just unfair and wrong minded.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I live in Northern VA, which is a hub of illegal immigration, and I can assure you that many of them ARE rapists[/quote]
So: A guy on the internet, who is neither a politician nor a public figure, and who is not seeking high office (or, for that matter, office of any sort), and who never kowtows to anything PC, makes an anecdotal (i.e., weak by definition) argument without supplying one number or datum…and still manages to get it infinitely more right than did the presidential candidate in front of the entire nation.
Which is to say, again, that Donald Trump is a buffoon and an imbecile. He said something wrong (i.e., incorrect, i.e., not factually accurate) and stupid. He is a clown. That’s what the thesis was; that’s why this matters. He is trying to inflate his own ego/profile at the GOP’s expense and a bunch of the worst and dullest base voters appear to be poised to lend a helping hand. Do you really need it spelled out here? Do you understand how important Latinos are going to be in 2016, particularly if the GOP candidate is running against a woman? Do you understand that when HRC is happy, something is not going well for you politically? “Recently, a Republican candidate for president described immigrants as drug dealers, rapists and criminals.” That’s the line she’s been using. It’s a fucking gift on a silver platter. One wonders how many more she has coming.[/quote]
Bush appears to be navigating the issue of Immigration infinitely better than others. He evens speaks fluent Spanish while on the stump.
This doesn’t have a damn thing to do with Bush being more “PC”…he just possesses more knowledge than ignorance on the subject.
Mufasa[/quote]
Actually Mufasa some think that Bush being able to speak fluent Spanish will go a long way in getting him the Spanish vote. While I on the other hand think that someone like Marco Rubio would be a better choice to gain that particular voting block.
What are your thoughts?
[/quote]
Rubio will never get the nomination because Latinos will not vote for him. A Latino against immigration and he is Cuban.
[/quote]
Latinos still voted Dem in the 1988 Presidential election, just 2 years after the Reagan Amnesty passed.
Even in the 2012 election, the Latino vote according to income was more telling than immigration.
Among Latino voters whose total family income is below $50,000, 82% voted for Obama while 17% voted for Romney. Among Latino voters with family incomes of $50,000 or more, 59% voted for Obama while 39% voted for Romney.
The evidence suggesting the Latino vote is based on immigration is not very strong compared to income.
Basically Trump stated some facts that go against the liberal narrative, said liberals get all butt hurt, and are now calling Trump some horrible person for stating objective facts.
It’s also ironically hilarious the way the left calls everyone against illegal immigration a racist, even though they are the ones assuming all illegals have brown skin, but it’s everyone else that’s a racist bigot.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
This is an interesting read, agree with her or not:
When Romney lost in 2012, I remember the hand ringing about Republicans would never win another election unless they pass amnesty. Well 2014 proved that to be wrong, when the majority of the country was against Obama’s Executive Amnesty, and Republicans won the Senate and extended their majority in the House, as well as winning a few gubernatorial elections in blue states.
This actress is speaking from the activist manual, not as someone who is unbiased examining real data.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
Basically Trump stated some facts that go against the liberal narrative, said liberals get all butt hurt, and are now calling Trump some horrible person for stating objective facts.
It’s also ironically hilarious the way the left calls everyone against illegal immigration a racist, even though they are the ones assuming all illegals have brown skin, but it’s everyone else that’s a racist bigot. [/quote]
The problem as I see it is that he went beyond just contradicting a standard liberal narrative. Just like some candidates did preceding the 2012 with “foot in the mouth” comments about women, although well-intended, I think Trump committed a similar error.
He infused two topics unnecessarily: illegal immigration, and a sweeping generalization that Mexico is â??sending people that have lots of problems, and theyâ??re bringing those problems with us…theyâ??re bringing drugs. Theyâ??re bringing crime. Theyâ??re rapists,â?? he said, "And some, I assume, are good people.â??
We certainly need to be focusing attention on illegal immigration and how it’s a strain on the country’s resources if left unfettered. However, with the second statement, he made a sweeping generalization that might not be backed up by any hard data. He’s quick to later add that “some, I assume, are good people,” but the initial statement can certainly be interpreted to be a big slam against anyone here who’s Latino, i.e., they are criminals, drug abusers and/or rapists.
Is some of that true, quite certainly so, but is it any more problematic than any other ethnic or racial subgroup? He should have just stuck to discussing the problem of illegal immigration, without broad sweeping generalizations, unless we have hard data that illustrates that, without a doubt, America is also facing a coterminous violent crime epidemic that is directly tied to Latino immigrants’ proffering drug abuse and raping citizens. That type of inflammatory rhetoric, absent hard data from FBI crime statistics, is naturally going to completely overshadow his token “some, I assume, are good people” remark. I agree completely that illegal immigration is a grave concern, but I don’t believe that 80% of them are violent criminals.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
Basically Trump stated some facts that go against the liberal narrative, said liberals get all butt hurt, and are now calling Trump some horrible person for stating objective facts.
[/quote]
It’s objective fact to state “They’re rapists” of a people of a particular country?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[Another towering heap of nothing.]
[/quote]
Alright, I’ll drop the reductive sarcasm and play this straight for you, even though you don’t deserve it, given the fact that you’ve chosen to simply ignore the original point of contention on which you got beat like a drum yesterday (I don’t blame you, though: I rarely do this, but I must admit that that post of mine – the one in which I gave you the benefit of the doubt and reproduced for you the substantive argument you’d been curiously ignoring – was not one I’d want to have to respond to either).
So, playing it straight vis-a-vis Trump’s “impressive” wealth:
– No, it isn’t all that impressive or surprising when a guy who is born really rich gets really, very, filthy rich. The easiest way to make money is to have money with which to make more money. This is even easier if one is handed not only the money with which to begin but also an organizational apparatus built for investment. I haven’t the first idea what you do for the living, but if it’s got something to do with business, you should be aware that it’s the assembly of the machine that takes the most guts/effort/thought. Once the machine is running, things become much easier. You should be further aware of the fact that a guy who owns/“runs” something is not necessarily responsible for any of the thing’s particular successes. How many people involved with Trump’s businesses are smarter than he? Could you count them on one hand? On two? On ten?
– Yes, he had to have made good investments in order to gt richer over the years. No, this doesn’t necessarily make him particularly smart, for reasons given in the foregoing paragraph. Again, there are actual smart people on this planet. People who design the vessels by which the ISS gets supplied, people who design economic models by which to arrange and interpret millions of lines of data, people who were born in New York to English-speaking parents but who can read the Iliad or Torah in its original language. Using your dad’s millions to buy and then sell shit – this does not compare. Sorry.
– There is apparently some controversy regarding both Trump’s current net worth and the size of his inheritance. Let’s say he inherited $30 million, which appears to be a reasonable-to-low estimate. Being as he is a bloviating dunce, he apparently overestimates his net worth by an enormous margin. Let’s split the difference between Forbes’ estimate and Trump’s own claim, putting him at 6 billion.
So, 30 million, inherited in 1976, is equivalent to ~125 million today, which means that Trump has enriched himself by a factor of 48. My father inherited nothing – literally nothing. In fact, he joined the army exactly because he had nothing and no one. Then he got out, got a PhD, yadda yadda. Now, he’s very well off. He has enriched himself by far, far more than a mere factor of 48. And guess what? He thinks that Donald Trump is a laughable idiot. By your very own (idiotic) logic, my father’s opinion is worth more than Trump’s, because my father enriched himself to a much greater degree than old Donald ever did. So, even by your own dim lights, you’re up shit’s creek.
I did that math quickly, so, if I’ve made an error, somebody please feel free to correct me.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
Basically Trump stated some facts that go against the liberal narrative, said liberals get all butt hurt, and are now calling Trump some horrible person for stating objective facts.
[/quote]
It’s objective fact to state “They’re rapists” of a people of a particular country?[/quote]
*of the immigrants from a particular country.
And yes, it’s objective fact, but only if you assume the correct position. Wear something comfortable and apply lubricant to your head and neck. Lie on your back, put your knees over your shoulders, and insert your entire head and upper torso into your asshole. Ask a partner for help if necessary.
In other words, all this “he said factz he’s teh straight talker” talk is utter – utter – nonsense.
In other words, “They’re bringing their rapists.”
[/quote]
I’m sure he would have tried to make this point if that’s what he meant. Seems very unlikely either way. I just listened to it again. He pauses before he says “they’re rapists,” and each of the two preceding sentences began with the contraction “they’re.” Furthermore, the next sentence implicitly completes the sequence of “they’re”:
They’re bringing drugs.
They’re bringing crime.
They’re rapists.
And some, I assume, are (i.e. They’re) good people.
There is definitely no indication that the third sentence deviates from this pattern, and every indication that it doesn’t.