[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
I HONESTLY believe that the American public is so fucking stupid, and so caught up in celebrity worship, that if Kim Kardashian ever ran for public office, she’d win by a land slide. Seriously.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
I HONESTLY believe that the American public is so fucking stupid, and so caught up in celebrity worship, that if Kim Kardashian ever ran for public office, she’d win by a land slide. Seriously.[/quote]
I’m not sure I would go that far generally, but I would say this: if Kim Kardashian announced she was running for the presidency on the GOP ticket, stepped to a lectern and mumbled out some unspecific boilerplate about “getting back to the constitution”, she would poll no less than second out of the gate.
(Set aside her eligibility or not based on age. I have no idea how old she is, and have no interest in learning.)
I am not exaggerating for effect. I think this would likely happen.
ZEB: Before I wade into the pool of tepid gutter oil that is this last post of yours, I have a sincere question. You’ve shown yourself to have trouble with language at various twists and turns of this rather Anglo-Zanzibari “debate” (most conspicuously, e.g., when you failed to understand the literal meaning of a two-word sentence: but I cleared that up for you, and you ran from it like a mouse before a wild-eyed cat), so allow me to explain that by “sincere” I mean that the question, unlike this prefatory paragraph, is neither mocking nor ironic nor sarcastic nor callous nor put forward in a spirit of self-satisfaction. It is, to put things more simply, a serious question seriously asked, and – though I won’t be holding my breath – it ought to be seriously answered. (On second thought, I might find a way to smuggle in some callous sarcasm. Time will quickly tell.)
The question: Is this, below, a serious quintet of sentences?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Stop right there your Daddy thinks Trump is an idiot and he increased his wealth by a greater factor than 48 so he must be right. Therefore…you agree end of topic. And you say you’re a logical person?
(shaking head) wow every one of your arguments is purely emotional. Just WOW![/quote]
That is, are you pretending not to understand? Or is it instead the case – even after my repeated, explicit invocations of reductio, and even after my use of (admittedly uncharitable) language such as “even by your own dim lights”/“by your very own (idiotic) logic” – that you literally believe me to subscribe to the reasoning laid out in the excerpted quintet?
In other words – and I do wish the dichotomy would present itself in a gentler terminology, but sometimes spades get stubborn about identity – are you dim-witted, or are you dishonest?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
Indeed, and expect to be expected to be impressed with her manifest intelligence, or else accused of jealousy.
smh,
Your least attractive quality in a long list of unattractive qualities is your
pomposity. The oh so predictable attacks on your opponent just not being up to par with your genius usually come at the end of your losing efforts. (when you didn’t even recognize a question mark after a sentence I wrote, accusing me of misquoting you. Yeah…you’re a real genius (eye roll). I’ve been around this site a long time mister P and I’ve watched your ego seep into many of your debates. I’m not a Psychologist but I can only guess you are covering up some pretty massive insecurities. And I highly doubt that this sort of Internet therapy you’ve prescribed yourself is going to help you in any way.
I think this is one of your posts 
“You see my good man you are far beneath me and your grasp on the English language is just, well not up to mine. Therefore, whatever you are saying is automatically wrong and I in my lying and twisting ways am correct. You see even if I am wrong I feel that I am better than you, better than Donald Trump and by gosh if I believed in a God I would certainly be better than that entity as well. The reason being, I am smh!!!”
Okay, back to basics little fella:
We broke the debate down to four points:
I’ll refresh your memory, actually I don’t doubt your memory but if I don’t put them in writing you will try to change them again. It’s what you do when you’re trapped…like a rat.
Point #1.
Your accusation was that Trump succeeded because of all of the smart people around him.
This is my favorite one because you tried to backtrack on it once during our own debate and then again in a separate post:
"smh_23 wrote:
On surrounding oneself with good and experienced people:
When I was 16, I applied for a summer job at an exclusive adventure camp out west.
The manager interviewed me over the phone and then in person.
She called me a week later to tell me that I’d done well, but a guy years older than I, with lots of experience at various similar organizations (and with lots of relevant certifications) had been too good to pass up.
In other words, she decided to surround herself with the best-qualified employees.
This was undoubtedly the right thing to do. It was undoubtedly a good move. And yet there is nothing particularly impressive about it. Or maybe there is, in which case I suggest that he who is impressed should get out more."
Well how about that smh you learned all about this when you were 16? But apparently forgot about it when you used it as a reason Donald Trump is actually not so impressive.
But now you would rather we all forget about that original accusation and just roll with the bullshit you posted above. Yeah, I’m not doing that.
Point #2.
Your ridiculous and unfair comparison of intelligences.
You compared several different intelligences to Trumps and came to the conclusion that you think designers (Of economic models) are far more impressive. Fair enough you are obviously allowed your own opinion. But when I pointed out that there were a fair number of people who could design but only 1,800 billionaires in the entire world your answer was…well there wasn’t one. All I could hear were crickets chirping in the warm summer night.
Point #3.
Your illogical argument comparing your Dads success to Trumps. Negating all of Trumps success because your Dad turned a higher profit, percentage wise, with what he had to work with. And you also threw in the fact that your Dad dislikes Trump.
This is your most entertaining.
And no one misunderstood what you were saying. It might be hard to believe but you are an open book Bub. It was just more of your sloppy logic. It is very self explanatory and I need say nothing else about it.
Finally, you still have no answer for #4 either:
Point #4
I had to school you on the fact that billionaire status is exceptionally rare. There are 7 billion people in the world and only 1,800 of them are billionaires. A very rare group indeed. But instead of giving the man his due, even if he is a big mouth showman you denigrate his achievements. Because you are simply unable to separate your emotion from what we call REALITY. At least that’s been the case up to now.
You are unable to be objectively impressed by another’s achievement because it might be something that YOU are not interested in doing. Does this inability to see someone’s accomplishments as being impressive because YOU are not personally interested also prohibit you from appreciating a great golfer like Tiger Woods? Does it also keep you from applauding great performances from a myriad of different athletes and artists because dog gone it you are just NOT impressed, or maybe your Daddy doesn’t like them.
In short smh you are first rate phony!
Unable to admit when he’s wrong and also apparently unable to objectively appreciate another mans hard work in building a massive fortune of 8 billion dollars while starting only with 25 million.
In short, you need to just go away. I’ve proven my point repeatedly and you’ve proven you have no point other than your own subjective bias judgment.
(oh I know you won’t go away that would take self assessment, good judgment and also some deflating of your gigantic ego)
Kim Kardashian plans to run for mayor of the nearby city of Glendale in 2017. The city is easily 50% Armenian, so she would be a lock if she runs.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not so fast.
“As everybody knows, I never said that all Mexicans crossing the border are rapists. Jeb is mischaracterizing my statements only to inflame.”
~Donald
[/quote]
Probably damage control. He is clarifying an (I would imagine) intentionally vague comment. Also because he apparently didn’t expect the backlash to be quite so big.
And of course he never said all Mexicans are, because he also said that “some, I assume, are good people”.
But that sentence is, in of itself, quite telling. If some are good people, then does he mean that most aren’t?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
I HONESTLY believe that the American public is so fucking stupid, and so caught up in celebrity worship, that if Kim Kardashian ever ran for public office, she’d win by a land slide. Seriously.[/quote]
X2
We already have a glorified american idol contest.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Not so fast.
“As everybody knows, I never said that all Mexicans crossing the border are rapists. Jeb is mischaracterizing my statements only to inflame.”
~Donald
[/quote]
Probably damage control. He is clarifying an (I would imagine) intentionally vague comment. Also because he apparently didn’t expect the backlash to be quite so big.
And of course he never said all Mexicans are, because he also said that “some, I assume, are good people”.
But that sentence is, in of itself, quite telling. If some are good people, then does he mean that most aren’t?[/quote]
Maybe it’s just damage control. But of all the candidates around that might be worried about controlling damage Trump would rank #16.
On another note, the incessant quibbling about this is SO representative of our current society. Our pathetic current society.
[/quote]
Push,
Do you really think Trump is going to stay in this race even long enough to report his personal financials? This is about continuing to keep himself relevant. To promote the Trump name, he knows he can’t win. But, he’s a great P.T. Barnum.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is my favorite one because you tried to backtrack on it once during our own debate and then again in a separate post:
"smh_23 wrote:
On surrounding oneself with good and experienced people:
When I was 16, I applied for a summer job at an exclusive adventure camp out west.
The manager interviewed me over the phone and then in person.
She called me a week later to tell me that I’d done well, but a guy years older than I, with lots of experience at various similar organizations (and with lots of relevant certifications) had been too good to pass up.
In other words, she decided to surround herself with the best-qualified employees.
This was undoubtedly the right thing to do. It was undoubtedly a good move. And yet there is nothing particularly impressive about it. Or maybe there is, in which case I suggest that he who is impressed should get out more."
Well how about that smh you learned all about this when you were 16? But apparently forgot about it when you used it as a reason Donald Trump is actually not so impressive.
But now you would rather we all forget about that original accusation and just roll with the bullshit you posted above. Yeah, I’m not doing that.
[/quote]
On “backtracking”: You say that I “forgot about [the lesson of my not being hired at the age of 16] when I used it as a reason Donald Trump is actually not so impressive…”
The not-impressive part is right there in what I allegedly “forgot”:
[quote]
And yet there is nothing particularly impressive about it. Or maybe there is, in which case I suggest that he who is impressed should get out more.[/quote]
Again:
[quote]
And yet there is nothing particularly impressive about it. Or maybe there is, in which case I suggest that he who is impressed should get out more.[/quote]
Again:
[quote]
And yet there is nothing particularly impressive about it. Or maybe there is, in which case I suggest that he who is impressed should get out more.[/quote]
A last time:
[quote]
And yet there is nothing particularly impressive about it. Or maybe there is, in which case I suggest that he who is impressed should get out more.[/quote]
I lied – one more time:
[quote]
And yet there is nothing particularly impressive about it. Or maybe there is, in which case I suggest that he who is impressed should get out more.[/quote]
So, again – and this was just a small part of what I said about not being particularly impressed with a rich guy who inherits an enormous sum of money with which to make investments and a ready-built investment apparatus with which to execute them – that someone inherits or hires an organization filled with smart people in order to carry out some task is not all that impressive to me, in the same way that it’s not all that impressive to me when a guy hires a good painter to paint his house: good for him, but it takes a little more for me to be impressed. My sympathies to you if you don’t share my sense of what is and is not impressive.
The rest of your post is filled with similar points on which I can slap you around, and I’ll go ahead and do it (as I did on the two-word sentence you haven’t brought up since) if you enjoy the feeling this much. I am , after all, a people-pleaser. But first, do you intend not to answer the very simple question reproduced below? If you indeed won’t answer it (and I think I know why: something to do with the biological characteristics of the Mustelidae family), do have the sack to say so explicitly. It won’t hurt any more than it already does, and you’ll have achieved a rare point for intellectual honesty. I await your answer with high hopes and subterranean expectations.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
ZEB: Before I wade into the pool of tepid gutter oil that is this last post of yours, I have a sincere question. You’ve shown yourself to have trouble with language at various twists and turns of this rather Anglo-Zanzibari “debate” (most conspicuously, e.g., when you failed to understand the literal meaning of a two-word sentence: but I cleared that up for you, and you ran from it like a mouse before a wild-eyed cat), so allow me to explain that by “sincere” I mean that the question, unlike this prefatory paragraph, is neither mocking nor ironic nor sarcastic nor callous nor put forward in a spirit of self-satisfaction. It is, to put things more simply, a serious question seriously asked, and – though I won’t be holding my breath – it ought to be seriously answered. (On second thought, I might find a way to smuggle in some callous sarcasm. Time will quickly tell.)
The question: Is this, below, a serious quintet of sentences?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Stop right there your Daddy thinks Trump is an idiot and he increased his wealth by a greater factor than 48 so he must be right. Therefore…you agree end of topic. And you say you’re a logical person?
(shaking head) wow every one of your arguments is purely emotional. Just WOW![/quote]
That is, are you pretending not to understand? Or is it instead the case – even after my repeated, explicit invocations of reductio, and even after my use of (admittedly uncharitable) language such as “even by your own dim lights”/“by your very own (idiotic) logic” – that you literally believe me to subscribe to the reasoning laid out in the excerpted quintet?
In other words – and I do wish the dichotomy would present itself in a gentler terminology, but sometimes spades get stubborn about identity – are you dim-witted, or are you dishonest?[/quote]
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
I HONESTLY believe that the American public is so fucking stupid, and so caught up in celebrity worship, that if Kim Kardashian ever ran for public office, she’d win by a land slide. Seriously.[/quote]
I had my ‘Paris for President’ shirt for '08. Regaled in pink of course. She’d have been better than obama.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I don’t have a bone in this fight, but I couldn’t help myself. The real estate business is like a chess match on steroids. Seriously. People with money invest it in real estate (buying and holding, flipping, property management, etc…) and lose their ass on a regular basis. I don’t care how much money Trump was given to start out with - he turned millions (with an “M”) into BILLIONS (with a “B”). That take balls, street smarts, negotiating skill, and LUCK…
I also recall that he made and LOST his fortune several times, declared bankruptcy several times, AND CAME BACK FROM IT… That’s not just luck, that’s skill. As I’ve said before, I’m not a Trump fan, but to not acknowledge his skill and tenacity and raw business ability is pretty ignorant.
my .02[/quote]
I am just glad you are not misusing and massacring the term ‘strawman’ every other sentence. To many people misuse the word way to often. It’s a pet-peeve. People use the term when they should be using ‘Red Herring’ which is similar but distinctly different. Also people use it against non-sequitur’s. BUT neither or those misuses bother me as much as calling something a strawman where there isn’t one, especially when no argument is being made when it’s just personal attacks on one’s character. It’s impossible to make a ‘strawman’ fallacy when you are just insulting somebody. Attacking a person is a free-range proposition.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
Famous for the sake of being famous. It’s certainly a trick. I don’t want to be famous, but if I were to be famous, I would like to have done something other than exist.
So don’t worry, I will never, ever be famous.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
Famous for the sake of being famous. It’s certainly a trick. I don’t want to be famous, but if I were to be famous, I would like to have done something other than exist.
So don’t worry, I will never, ever be famous.[/quote]
And it’s proof that just because you’ve been able to make lots of money that you don’t have any claim of genius, thrift, or ability. Got rich? Bully for you, and I mean that. But you’re nothing special, particularly for electoral purposes.
Moreover, over $3 billion of Trump’s advertised $8 billion of wealth is reported (by Trump) as the value of his “branding”. So, almost half of his pile of wealth is not actual money or hard assets, it’s Trump’s estimation of how important Trump is for licensing and the like. This is impressive?
I’m a pretty cool guy, I like to think - I am going to go ahead and assume an extra million dollars in personal value over my potential to license and brand myself. Look, I’m a millionaire!
Even further, look at the boards he serves on - his own. Trump’s incredible business savvy and people skills are so in demand that…virtually no one is interested in having him help build their business.
Trump is a clown, and the fact that he vaulted to the front of the GOP field is a sign of the weakness of the field.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And it’s proof that just because you’ve been able to make lots of money that you don’t have any claim of genius, thrift, or ability. Got rich? Bully for you, and I mean that. But you’re nothing special, particularly for electoral purposes.
[/quote]
Yes, this is the sober and measured version of what I’ve been saying. This isn’t class warfare – there are many fantastically rich people who have done very impressive things and/or are notably intelligent. It’s simply the case that such praise is not a mechanical debt owed to them by mere virtue of their net worth, particularly if they inherit huge somes of money and ready-built frameworks within which to invest the huge sums of money. Furthermore, Trump acts like a buffoon. He has a reality-TV catchphrase. Allow me to repeat that: he has a reality-TV catchphrase. He says stupid things constantly. Anybody who is impressed is trying to be impressed.
And, again: he is fellating his own ego and/or trying to nurture the “Trumpiness” of his “brand” (by which mechanism he claims to be worth billions more than he is)…at the expense of the GOP. Conservatives should be angry, not weirdly appreciative and certainly not unctuously laudatory.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kim Kardashian has made millions of dollars, even starting her own lines of business, and used realtive television to expand her holdings and public recognition. If Trump is any indicator, expect her to poll no less than third in the next poll.[/quote]
Famous for the sake of being famous. It’s certainly a trick. I don’t want to be famous, but if I were to be famous, I would like to have done something other than exist.
So don’t worry, I will never, ever be famous.[/quote]
And it’s proof that just because you’ve been able to make lots of money that you don’t have any claim of genius, thrift, or ability. Got rich? Bully for you, and I mean that. But you’re nothing special, particularly for electoral purposes.
Moreover, over $3 billion of Trump’s advertised $8 billion of wealth is reported (by Trump) as the value of his “branding”. So, almost half of his pile of wealth is not actual money or hard assets, it’s Trump’s estimation of how important Trump is for licensing and the like. This is impressive?
I’m a pretty cool guy, I like to think - I am going to go ahead and assume an extra million dollars in personal value over my potential to license and brand myself. Look, I’m a millionaire!
Even further, look at the boards he serves on - his own. Trump’s incredible business savvy and people skills are so in demand that…virtually no one is interested in having him help build their business.
Trump is a clown, and the fact that he vaulted to the front of the GOP field is a sign of the weakness of the field. [/quote]
Well, wealth can be gotten in many, many ways. A lot of times it’s a mixture of hard work and some good luck.
I don’t think Trump’s wealth is purely the action of genius but I do think he is an intelligent man, regardless. And I do think in his case he is a ridiculously wealthy as he is, because he is financially smart and has balls. So I do think he is a smart guy and I think part of his success is due to his intelligence, but like I said its not the result of pure genius on his part, but he is smart and intelligence played a role.
That being said, as for politics I think he’s a clown. Whether or not I agree with him on the issues I do not think he would make a good president. He should start with his local state house and then Congress before he throws his hat into the ring.
I think you should decide if you like politics enough to stick with it before jumping into the presidency. It’s not like you can just quit if you don’t like it.
Right now, I think he is just resorting to stirring hornet’s nests because he can. Hell, why not?
I do think illegal immigration is a problem and aside from being a crime itself, it does bring in additional crime.
I do think if the people working so hard to get here spent that effort rather at home they could make a better place for themselves to live. They do, after all, have a democratically elected government. Sure it’s corrupt, a lot of governments are, but they are no where near the worst, or most corrupt. I wouldn’t say they were more corrupt than New Orleans or Chicago. Those are some corrupt-ass cities.
I get escaping evil, tyrannical, oppressive governments. I happen to be a product of such action, but we did it legally. 100% legal. These people for the most part are jumping the fence for money. I get their starting point is less than here. But for the most part they are no hopelessly oppressed and they can join together and make their voices heard in there own government.
Conversely, I do believe that for anybody who wants to come to the U.S., a path of legal immigration and work permits should be made available that is both reasonable for the applicant and provides appropriate safeguards for our borders.
If we have a reasonable entry policy that people can legitimately use, legally to get in, then we can be more confident that the fence jumpers are mostly interested in crime rather than legitimate reasons.
It’s baffling that for so long, we have still been unable to come up with a solution that works for everybody. It really seems like it should be an easy enough problem to solve. And there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political isle for it.
[quote]smh_23
The rest of your post is filled with similar points on which I can slap you around, and I’ll go ahead and do it (as I did on the two-word sentence you haven’t brought up since) if you enjoy the feeling this much. I am , after all, a people-pleaser. But first, do you intend not to answer the very simple question reproduced below?
[/quote]
It is you who needs to answer the four points previously posted. Nice try attempting to reframe the debate but I’m not biting.
As for slapping anyone around I doubt you are capable of that intellectually or (probably) physically either.
So, once again get busy and give me logical (I know that’s difficult for you) answers to the four points previously posted. Keep in mind that back tracking is not allowed as you tried to do with your now famous “I worked as a 16 year old bla bla bla …so hiring smarter people than you is a good idea.”
But for some reason when you first wrote that Trump hired smarter people than he it was an attempt to demean him. You want us all to forget about that but not so fast…
If you want to give another shot at answering those four points I’ll take the time to read it. Otherwise, don’t waste my time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh_23
The rest of your post is filled with similar points on which I can slap you around, and I’ll go ahead and do it (as I did on the two-word sentence you haven’t brought up since) if you enjoy the feeling this much. I am , after all, a people-pleaser. But first, do you intend not to answer the very simple question reproduced below?
[/quote]
It is you who needs to answer the four points previously posted. Nice try attempting to reframe the debate but I’m not biting.
As for slapping anyone around I doubt you are capable of that intellectually or (probably) physically either.[/quote]
Is your e-dick bigger than mine as well? Weren’t you supposed to be a grown-up, or is it the case that you are actually an adolescent?
Anyway, it would be more accurate to say that you posted your “four points” after having abandoned our original disagreement, which turned on your failure to deduce the meaning of two words in conjunction. Of course I then answered your points. But let’s ignore all that. Let’s accept that you are unsatisfied with my answers. I will respond to them more forcefully.
Here’s the thing, though. The question I keep asking you is a question about one of your points (point number 3, to be specific). Argument – as you should know – works in the following way: You make a case, I respond, you respond, I respond, etc. If at any point one of us makes a case that the other literally cannot understand, the maker of the case clarifies his words, his logic, his intention. Now, I will respond to you, but I literally cannot understand how or why you believe point number 3 to be a legitimate one, and I thus cannot respond – cannot do what you want me to do – until you rectify this situation.
So, I ask again:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Stop right there your Daddy thinks Trump is an idiot and he increased his wealth by a greater factor than 48 so he must be right. Therefore…you agree end of topic. And you say you’re a logical person?
(shaking head) wow every one of your arguments is purely emotional. Just WOW![/quote]
Are you pretending not to understand? Or is it instead the case – even after my repeated, explicit invocations of reductio, and even after my use of (admittedly uncharitable) language such as “even by your own dim lights”/“by your very own (idiotic) logic” – that you literally believe me to subscribe to the reasoning laid out in the excerpted quintet?
[/quote]
One more time:
Are you pretending not to understand? Or is it instead the case – even after my repeated, explicit invocations of reductio, and even after my use of (admittedly uncharitable) language such as “even by your own dim lights”/“by your very own (idiotic) logic” – that you literally believe me to subscribe to the reasoning laid out in the excerpted quintet?