Wuh? 'The Donald'?

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
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?

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.

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?[/quote]

Says the man who threatened to slap me around- Ha

Hold on, I do remember you not understanding what a questions mark meant. I also read where you back peddled on the fact that it’s actually good to hire people smarter than you if you own a business. But, when I recall the four point challenge I recall you trying to answer and falling further on your face. By gosh if you were only as smart as you think you are wow that would be something wouldn’t it?

The four points in question encompass the totality of my point-idiot.
You tried to answer them once and failed miserably that’s when I declared victory. But, should have known that an insecure pseudo intellectual such as yourself would never admit that he was wrong, or even could be wrong. And I sort of knew that from the beginning.

You don’t get to ask anything. What you get to do is answer the four points in question. You tried once and failed. Do you want to try again? short of that there is no more to say to you. Oh there’s more I’d like to say, but as far as the Trump argument goes there is no more.

You failed.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
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?

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.

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?[/quote]

Says the man who threatened to slap me around- Ha[/quote]

You didn’t deduce that that was figurative? Ah, you did. You are just being dishonest. Alright.

[quote]

Hold on, I do remember you not understanding what a questions mark meant.[/quote]

This is the second time you’ve said this. I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. Care to explain? I’m not going to take your word for it, so please reproduce the post of mine in which I failed to understand what a question mark meant.

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?

My hopes are a little less high, and my expectations are a little more subterranean, but I await your response nonetheless. Please understand that I am not going to let you ignore this question, because it’s central to our entire disagreement. You are either going to answer it, or you are going to give up. There is no third option. [u]Please understand further that every person in PWI knows what it means when a poster refuses to clarify and/or answer a question about an argument he’s making.[/u]

For emphasis: [u]Please understand that every person in PWI knows what it means when a poster refuses to clarify and/or answer a question about an argument he’s making[/u].

I anticipate that you’ll accuse me of doing this very thing by demanding that I answer your much-touted “four points.” But of course my question is a request that you clarify just what the hell one of your points is about, so I cannot oblige you until you oblige me. I look forward to a well-assembled, cogent response.

[quote] smh_23 wrote:

I am not impressed with Donald Trump’s having inherited an enormous sum of money and an apparatus (which undoubtedly employs smart people) by which to make and protect investments. It is not a thing that impresses me. It never has been, and it never will be. [/quote]

Concur. And nothing controversial, illogical, or even puzzling about this view.

smh,

I think I will get back to our original argument and not allow you to bait me with minutia. Clarifications of points that really don’t need clarifying. Questions not leading to any sort of resolution. Redefining what you said through multiple posts. Getting into a he said she said pissing match.

I am not going to take that twisting ride that you wish to take me on.

Attempting to turn what you said into something that never existed. As I said After multiple posts, and some back peddling on your part the origin can get lost, or in your case distorted. Then begins the “I said back on page 27 that bla bla bla.” So, I will go back to near the beginning when you laid out your original thesis for this debate.

The following was your original thesis. My retort eventually became the four points which really threw you into a tizzy (which I enjoyed). But let’s make this even more simple. Let’s look at this line by line. After this you can go on your merry way thinking Donald Trump is an unimpressive financial clown, a loser, a fool an idiot, just like the other 1,799 billionaire morons who occupy planet earth.

Trump began with 25 million and turned it in to 8 billion, okay call it 6 billion and if you go by Forbes estimate 4 billion. Pick the one you like whichever it IS IMPRESSIVE. You don’t have to even appreciate money to objectively take a peak and say “hey that guy did well with what was given him.”

Is that the easiest way to make money? Well, okay let’s say it is. So, if you have $25,000 then by your logic it is it EASY to turn it into 8 million dollars? Since it’s so easy give me a long list of the people who have done it. Can you do that for me? If it’s easy that means it’s common. So if it’s common place let’s see a list…a long one.

Neither of us is privy to what “machine” Trump inherited. Maybe the business was on the down swing. Maybe the father ran a lone wolf operation with only a few helpers. Lot’s of maybe’s. You assume the best case scenario for Trump when it could have been the worst case scenario. If it was the worst case scenario Trumps achievements are even more IMPRESSIVE.

But, let’s say that you are 100% correct (that would be a first). Let’s say he inherited a machine. Now tell me who runs the machine? An idiot? A fool? Someone who does not understand money? Highly doubtful. If you are correct and he inherited a machine then he had to run said machine in a highly skilled manner in order to build such an impressive (impressive to most) financial empire. Hand that same opportunity to someone else and a different outcome could have easily taken place.

I am in business and I agree the assembly of the machine is difficult. But that takes nothing away from someone who can effectively run it. That takes intelligence, drive and all sorts of other skills like negotiating etc. and plenty of other qualities. Especially when you take it from 25 million to somewhere between 4 and 8 billion. No one does that because their lucky. So, again that’s IMPRESSIVE.

Does “easier” mean “easy” or simply less difficult? It takes someone to drive the machine just as it takes someone to steer the car. An idiot off spring (which you and others may assume Trump is) would have steered it into the ditch. Trump drove it to a vast financial empire. Once again idiots don’t make such good moves. They drive cars into the ditch and don’t get them out.

Here is one of the magic lines we’ve been tossing back and forth. When connected to the rest of your paragraph it is evident that you are berating Trump. You are taking credit away. In fact, in that first line you are saying Trump “is not necessarily responsible for it’s success” Not responsible? Uh huh. You take away Trumps effort with no facts to back it up. Assuming Trump has nothing or very little to do with it. And you end by basically saying it’s not him succeeding it’s all those smart people he hired.

That brings us to the final point.

I have repeatedly said it takes a smart man to hire people smarter than himself. Trump did just that which makes him a pretty smart business man.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
smh,

I think I will get back to our original argument and not allow you to bait me with minutia. Clarifications of points that really don’t need clarifying. Questions not leading to any sort of resolution. Redefining what you said through multiple posts. Getting into a he said she said pissing match.
[/quote]

To alter Shakespeare’s coinage: You are an index and prologue to the history of intellectual dishonesty. Which is to say: No, you will not “get back to our original argument” (that wasn’t even our original argument: our original argument had to do with that two-word sentence that so confounded your faculties of linguistic interpretation; I cleared things up, and you went all kinds of quiet). This is not elementary school, and I am not responsible for holding your hand through an excruciating and ludicrous series of do-overs and mulligans. I am not here for bumper bowling or T-ball. I am, somehow, willing to circle back and deal – again – with your strange, babbling, incoherent criticism of a series of uncontroversial and self-evident points I made pages ago. But first, you are going to answer for the appallingly terrible argument with which you’ve been wasting my time for days now. That is how this works – you make a case, an argument, and you drag it into the debate, and it’s yours. You are responsible for it. It is not my problem that you made it poorly. It is not my problem that you jury-rigged it with chewed gum and lint and cat-hair. You made it, and, now that someone is asking you about it, you don’t get to turn around, abandon it, and dive tail-tucked into the bushes while pretending not to know who made and brought the poor, cobbled-together monstrosity begging to be mercy-killed. (I know that this is actually a textbook description of how you conduct yourself here on PWI, but it’s not how you’re going to conduct yourself with me.)

In other words, it is not that you and I simply disagree. It is not that you have failed to sufficiently evidence your claims. It is not that you have made a bad argument. It is that you have made a fundamentally fallacious, logically absurd, arrantly terrible argument, and you’ve done it either by failing to understand something I was forced to say to you over and over and over again, or – and this latter possibility has, for me, the unmistakable feel of verity – by pretending not to understand something I was forced to say to you over and over and over again. I am going to clarify things; I am going to figure out just how or why you came to waste my time with nonsense. You are going to resolve or explicitly renounce your bullshit. I am going to figure out just what the hell you’ve been talking about for the last few days, and then I’m going to respond to it. Again: I am going to figure out just what the hell you’ve been talking about for the last few days, and then I’m going to respond to it. This is going to happen before you are granted any kind of do-over.

I’ve said all this already, of course:

Edited.

Not that any of this really matters, but, Push, the they’re/their mystery has been solved:

Zeb,

I haven’t read all the particulars of your donnybrook with Smh_23, and don’t plan to. But your near-obsession with trying to command people to respect Donald Trump as “impressive” is bizarre. No ome has to think he is.

Trump was born into money, and since has bankrupted four times. I don’t begrudge anyone using bankruptcy court when they get sideways, but if someone has to seek government intervention and court protection to protect their assets from their own bad judgment four times, I don’t think such a person is worthy of praise as a stellar businessman. That ain’t impressive. Period.

Trump is basically a Kardashian - born into fantastic wealth, he has leveraged the idiocy of reality television to apparently grow his “brand” into more wealth, in addition to developing real estate. Except, I don’t know if any of the Kardashian have bankrupted, so on balance, Kim Kardashian is more “impressive” than Trump as a business person.

Moreover, Trump has doubled down on uber-developing golf courses…juat as the sport is losing steam. He bet big on luxury golf courses in a down market. Maybe that pans out, but it’s looking unlikely. He may be headed for big sales or additional bankruptcy.

C’mon. I have no idea why you pine for consensus on Trump’s “impressiveness” - maybe you have some of Trump’s business self-help books. But the idea that everyone must recognize Trump as impressive is foolish.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not that any of this really matters, but, Push, the they’re/their mystery has been solved:

[/quote]

So only the Mexican’s being sent here by the Mexican government are rapists?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not that any of this really matters, but, Push, the they’re/their mystery has been solved:

[/quote]

So only the Mexican’s being sent here by the Mexican government are rapists? [/quote]

I guess? But Trump apparently believes that illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States is an enormous conspiracy, as if we are the equivalent of Manhattan in Escape from New York?

All I know is that Trump would do well to hire Push to run his PR, because that would have been a slippery and see-through but undeniably clever out.

The larger point is simply that it isn’t good for the GOP to have to put this guy on stage with the person, whoever he is, whom they will ultimately ask us to send to the White House.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Not that any of this really matters, but, Push, the they’re/their mystery has been solved:

[/quote]

So only the Mexican’s being sent here by the Mexican government are rapists? [/quote]

I guess? But Trump apparently believes that illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States is an enormous conspiracy, as if we are the equivalent of Manhattan in Escape from New York?

All I know is that Trump would do well to hire Push to run his PR, because that would have been a slippery and see-through but undeniably clever out.

The larger point is simply that it isn’t good for the GOP to have to put this guy on stage with the person, whoever he is, whom they will ultimately ask us to send to the White House.[/quote]

I’m not a fan of Trump either.

And as for Trump’s impact on the GOP’s positioning for 2016, I think columnist George Will said it best, saying (paraphrasing) if Trump was an actual Democratic mole intending to screw up the GOP’s chances, how would he act differently?

He’s atrocious. And the GOP will suffer as long as he is anywhere near the party.

smh,

Back to clarifying a point that is not germane to the argument?

I don’t think so smh. It is thrown out to distract from the main point. So we can post back and forth for 20 more pages about minutia, as I warned in my last post? Not going down that road. I’m not going to address anything except the main point which you don’t seem to want to talk about anymore.

The point that you want clarification on is irrelevant and certainly not important to the topic at hand. It is a tiny part of an overall debate which centers on someone not being able to objectively respect another persons accomplishments.

You are claiming that I misinterpreted it. I don’t believe that I did. But let’s say that I did…now what? 20 more pages on this insignificant nonsense? Nope, not going there, nor am I asking you to go there regarding some of the silly crap that you wrote several pages back on some finite irrelevant point.

All I want you to do is answer my previous post regarding your original statement regarding Trump. If you are unable, or unwilling to do so I’m done with you.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And as for Trump’s impact on the GOP’s positioning for 2016, I think columnist George Will said it best, saying (paraphrasing) if Trump was an actual Democratic mole intending to screw up the GOP’s chances, how would he act differently?

He’s atrocious. And the GOP will suffer as long as he is anywhere near the party. [/quote]

Which won’t be for much longer…I hope.

As a Presidential candidate he’s a bust. Even though he did turn 25 million into 8 billion or so which I (and probably most) find very impressive.

:wink:

Trump is clearly wrong in his statements, but the recent murder of a San Francisco woman by a 5-time deported illegal alien with 7 felonies does bring up a point about our immigration policies. The blather about legalization is one thing, but when a man with 7 felonies is granted bail, and goes off and kills a 32 yr old woman on the 4th of July, it means there is a huge fucking problem when we can’t get rid of a person like that.

What we are getting are a lot of poor people, which cause a huge strain on resources and infrastructure. They offer cheap labor but cost much more than they contribute. If Trump wanted to address this, then he could have in a much more tactful way.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Trump is clearly wrong in his statements, but the recent murder of a San Francisco woman by a 5-time deported illegal alien with 7 felonies does bring up a point about our immigration policies. The blather about legalization is one thing, but when a man with 7 felonies is granted bail, and goes off and kills a 32 yr old woman on the 4th of July, it means there is a huge fucking problem when we can’t get rid of a person like that.

What we are getting are a lot of poor people, which cause a huge strain on resources and infrastructure. They offer cheap labor but cost much more than they contribute. If Trump wanted to address this, then he could have in a much more tactful way.[/quote]

No question everyone in the republican field (even Trump who won’t be there long, just a prediction) has to properly address the issue. But the bigger question is this: Why does Obama continue to allow illegal aliens to cross our borders without cracking down?

Now you and I both have a good idea why he’s doing it. But, where is the blow back?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Back to clarifying a point that is not germane to the argument?[/quote]

If it is not “germane to the argument,” why have you been copying and pasting it and recopying and re-pasting it into this thread for days? You described it as my – this is a verbatim quotation – “biggest flop yet.” You’re telling me that we are arguing, and my many-times-cited “biggest flop yet” has, by means mysterious and possibly magical, simply vanished from the list of things you’re willing to talk about? How curious. How deeply, deeply curious.

[quote]
I don’t think so smh. It is thrown out to distract from the main point.[/quote]

You are the one who has been throwing it against the wall of this thread for days now, so is this meant as some kind of admission on your part? You were distracting me from a bad argument by smearing yourself with a worse one?

[quote]
So we can post back and forth for 20 more pages about minutia, as I warned in my last post? Not going down that road. I’m not going to address anything except the main point which you don’t seem to want to talk about anymore.[/quote]

It doesn’t really matter what we talk about, because it’s all going to end in the same place, and you know well where that is (don’t worry: because of the height at which your historical conduct demands I peg my expectations, you are not expected to admit it). It has, in fact, already come to that place, with you abandoning your confusion about Trump’s fabled two-word sentence only to begin blindly harping on a separate point and then, having discovered that you’d gotten that literally (and comically) backwards as well, ducking back into the shadows – in search, no doubt, of yet another cowpie with which to defend yourself against steel and lead.

But while we’re here, I will explain very briefly why all of this matters. The first reason, as I explained above, is that you made it matter by making and remaking and celebrating and re-celebrating the damn argument in the first place. This is obvious; it’s also funny, because the thing was truly horrendous. As wrong as one can be, really.

The second reason – and this is actually more important – is that this particular series of events (i.e., your making a criticism, my explaining why it is ass-backwards, you re-making it as if you’d had your head stuck somewhere dark during my explanation, and so on and so on until you finally decided that, no, you didn’t want to talk about it anymore because it just ain’t important) is archetypical of the way in which you sometimes conduct yourself hereabouts. The recipe, I believe, is something like this: one part unabashed carelessness (i.e., careless and lazy misunderstanding of everything that can possibly be misunderstood), two parts febrile dishonesty, three parts argument by assertion/repetition, and a handful each of strawman and petulant intransigence. Cook in old dishwater, garnish with a “you’re wrong because I’m old,” and serve lukewarm on a bed of dirty laundry and grass clippings.

Anyway, I’m half-kidding with a lot of this stuff. But I’m not kidding about the dishonesty – it’s fun for nobody. It wastes people’s time and, since things take longer to write than to read, you are the most tragic victim of us all. I am pretty much done here. I have no desire to explain, again, why Donald Trump does not impress me, or why I don’t have any reason to believe he’s a “smart” person, the kind to whom I’d look up intellectually or the kind to whom I’d offer even an ounce of political support or general praise of any kind. I don’t want to go again into why an inheritance of (what is in today’s dollars) $100+ million, plus an already-built real estate empire, are not the kinds of things that are going to lead me in the direction of impression or awe or even moderate admiration. I am not going to get into why it is (so, so much) easier to accumulate wealth with $25 million with which to invest than with $25,000 with which to invest (of course, $25,000 is not money that can be invested unless rent and food and clothing are already taken care of, which they are by definition if somebody has dozens of millions on hand) – you say you’re in business, so you already know this. I’m not going to get into – again – why I don’t tend to be impressed when people hire competent painters to paint their houses and take their cars to competent mechanics and hire babysitters who have never spent time in any juvenile correction facility.

So, until next time (or until I return and find that you’ve made a mistake too grievous for me to ignore).

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Anyway, I’m half-kidding with a lot of this stuff. But I’m not kidding about the dishonesty – it’s fun for nobody. It wastes people’s time and, since things take longer to write than to read, you are the most tragic victim of us all.

I know what you mean and could not agree more. Like the time you wrote about how when you were 16 and applied for a job bla bla bla. The end result being you agree that hiring smart people is the right thing to do. And all that after you pounded trump stating that it wasn’t him that succeeded but others whom he hired. As if he gets no credit for hiring smart people.

quote]I am pretty much done here.[/quote]

No way man I have next week off too and want to see how long we can keep this up. :wink:

You’ve laid out your case, of course I disagree. But I still believe that it is difficult for you to remain objective regarding Trump. I imagine that the lack of desire you’re talking about won’t turn into a burning desire any time soon.

Well, I think you just hit on the main reason that you are not and never will be impressed by the building of his wealth. I never asked you to “look up” to him, I don’t. Nor, do I think he’s a good political candidate for President. But for some reason I am able to separate those things and still be impressed by his accomplishment of turning 25 million into a huge financial bonanza. In short, I feel you are unable to be objective about his financial accomplishments because you dislike the man so very much- Fine, I understand so be it.

I cannot disagree with some of what you said. But in reality my friend what Trump did was take 25 million of 1970’s dollars and turn it into billions in todays dollars over the previous four decades. And that is what impresses me. I do not applaud his antics in the political arena, his second rate TV show, his ego, or even the way he carries himself. I think he is a media whore to the core! Yet, I am separating all of that and saying dang he went from 25 million to (choose a number you are comfortable with) X billions and that is pretty freaking impressive…to me and I bet to many others but absolutely not to smh! I get it.

Fair enough?

Again, let’s not take away the hiring of good competent people as a means to support your business activities. Also, as I’ve pointed out and I think you agree, neither of us knows what Trump was handed. It could have been a well oiled machine with all the parts in place. This still takes level headed thinking and good business smarts to grow it to the level he did. But if he began with less than that it is even more impressive. But alas I understand you are NOT IMPRESSED with Trump building a vast fortune. You feel that he had a head start and therefore it is unimpressive to you. Fair? But I do feel the underlying reason is that you hate the man Trump. The reason, and plenty do for certain.

I feel sort of bad that my powers of persuasion could not prevail over your extreme distaste for anything Trump.

But it was fun- no?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But it was fun- no?
[/quote]

Yes, it was. As I said, for most of us, it is fun to throw wild punches from time to time.

Since you came into that post with a level head and tone, I will return in kind. This was probably the most important sentence in your post:

[quote]
Well, I think you just hit on the main reason that you are not and never will be impressed by the building of his wealth. I never asked you to “look up” to him, I don’t. Nor, do I think he’s a good political candidate for President. But for some reason I am able to separate those things and still be impressed by his accomplishment of turning 25 million into a huge financial bonanza. In short, I feel you are unable to be objective about his financial accomplishments because you dislike the man so very much- Fine, I understand so be it.[/quote]

I sure do dislike him (actually, I hesitate to say this, because I don’t know who “him” is – I believe he is living layer upon layer of acts and reality-TVish poses, and I have no idea if, deep down, I would actually kind of like the guy in a half-laughing-at-him sort of way). But disliking someone because of how he acts and failing to be impressed with his being rich are not logically connected. What can I say? There are too many irritating, stupid rich people in the world (and I personally know some of them) for me to consider riches – even vast riches – to mechanically afford their owners impressiveness or admiration or the assumption that they are “intelligent” in the way that I use the term. Herman Cain*, having been born to a poor janitor, almost certainly enriched himself more, proportionally, than did Trump. But I have it on good authority – as was often clearly the case back in 2011 – that he is a guy of very limited intellect. Sarah Palin is rich, and I very much believe that the horror stories about her ignorance that came out of the McCain campaign after the 2008 elections. I simply cannot make myself impressed with these people, and they didn’t even have big inheritances with which to begin their accumulations of wealth.


  • Actually, I am kind of impressed with Herman Cain. He once began a sentence with “a poet once said,” and then went on to quote a line from a song that was recorded for Pokemon: The Movie. That I still laugh out loud about this every time I think of it is proof that he has left at least some kind of impression on me.