(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
Jonj1611 (10-11-2016)
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Galant (09-11-2016)
Go on, what truth is it you have access to that we don't
At which point Pence takes over. And Pence is worse. Pence had state laws on his books detailing jail time for women who miscarried. Pence is a firm believer in electro-shock to cure gayness. Don't for a second think that Trump dying would improve things.
Apologise, I'd forgotten about that incident, there's so many "incidents" with Trump it's difficult to keep track of all of them.
I think I read somewhere that had Trump just left his inheritance in a bank, he'd be richer than he is now. That's not the sign of a good business man to me.
I hope he was playing to the worst aspects of the electorate in order to get the votes, and will be more measured when president, but I'm filled with doubt.
It does make me laugh that 'people are fed up with the status quo' and they want 'someone who'll look out for the poor', then vote for someone who has no interest in the poor, just making him and his mates even richer.
Well that obviously just proves that he's more interested in creating jobs and giving wealth to other people than purely increasing his bank balance
I'd seen that statement before and I'm always wary of it to be honest - when you're looking back it's easy to pick the option that performed best and say 'if only' - but the looking back over time performance fluctuates on final values so much it's also possible to cherry pick dates to support an argument.
'Start to finish' isn't cherry-picking.
The biggest villains in this whole thing, imo, are the DNC, who have been the things Hillary have been accused of - corrupt, self-serving, establishment, and short-sighted to boot. Had they put their weight behind Bernie, I doubt Trump would be president now. They have likely panicked and tried to fight Trump with fire, i.e. put out a bunch of stuff about him that may or may not be accurate, where that wasn't necessary. Just quoting him should have done the job.
There are a bunch of objective facts - the things he's said about women & minorities, the fact he's not submitted his tax returns, the lies he's been caught up in, his multiple bankruptcies - that should have been hammered, instead of watered down by the combination of the DNCs own idiocy & corruption and the crap they undoubtedly put out.
But, then again, I've never won an election campaign, so what do I know.
This is the quote Smudger was referring to:
https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthem...ate_of_donald/
It seems the quote is somewhat inaccurate but the basic math is right. I remember calculating it myself at a typical growth rate and it seemed entirely feasible.
Wow a reddit thread or even potentially subforum that isn't full of bilious turd, and is actually sensible and attempting accuracy.
It is cherry-picking if 1982 was specifically chosen because the S&P500 was then at its' lowest, and it doesn't take into account taxes (lol) or expenses.
A good example of a bad attempt to besmirch him, where the truth - that he started with a crapton of money, which means making money isn't difficult, and you basically have to be a huge (HUGE!) idiot not to - is powerful enough on its' own.
There's two way it can be cherry-picked - first you take a date and look back over all the different types of investments - bonds, equities, trackers etc. and cherry pick the one that did best, then say 'anyone could have done better by simply...' - to be honest it's not a huge surprise so say that the right index fund could outperform a specific (in his case mostly property) business.
The other way is to pick a moment when a specific index is doing well. They picked to end of 2014 in the article. If they'd actually picked a figure closer to when the article went out (say end 2015) then that annualised 11+% return they're claiming for the S&P 500 drops to 8.8%, and instead of the $20billion they claim he could be worth, it's actually 'just' $8.25billion, which is *less* than the $10billion claimed for his business, not the double the article claims.
So simply picking to end of 2015 rather than end of 2014 changes the figures to show Trump's business actually did better than the index.
references:
Article: http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-yo...-donald-trump/
CAGR calculator: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm
edit: from below post this may not have been the same article used for a particular claim!
Last edited by kalniel; 10-11-2016 at 11:09 AM.
The claim actually got fact checked and although the numbers are open for interpretation, they range from $3.94 to $9 billion if he invested in the S&P 500 and his net worth ranges from $3 to $9 billion, at best he comes out even while providing plenty of job for people, at worst he's lost $5 billion while providing plenty of jobs.
One of his arguments when he was looking for the Democrat nomination was that he was the better candidate to take on specifically Donald Trump, and if you look at the voting patterns that have emerged in the last day or so, he may have been right. Clinton seems to have been deserted by the white working class voters, and that was who, along with the squeezed middle, Sanders policies were directly appealing too. On the other hand, he was/is pro immigration, and I have a nagging feeling that perhaps race played such a big part in getting the election that anyone not espousing the kind of rhetoric Trump was would have struggled. It's certainly true that Sanders would've have been seen far less as an establishment figure than Clinton, a fact which seem to shield Trump from things that would've derailed seasoned politicians.
My big worry isn't so much Trump, whose policy commitments will start to get found out very soon for the empty promises they were, but what comes after when the people who voted for him realise they've been betrayed.
What comes after when the people who voted for him realise they've been betrayed is probably preferable to what would have happened had Clinton won.
In a country with high levels of gun ownership in an election that stoked the embers of an anti-establishment, rigged, and corrupt system it probably wouldn't have turned out well if things had gone the other way.
There are such things as 'reloading', semi-automatic and even full automatic, nowadays... No more struggling with the ramrod or dropping the ball, even in a darkened theatre.
Probably much the same as after virtually any election, when the voters are reminded, yet again, that the dictionary definition of "political promise" is "misdirection or deceit ranging from mildly deceptive euphemism to outrageous lie, that the politician not only knew was impractical or undeliverable, but had no the faintest intention of attempting to deliver, and for which the sole and unique purpose was to get elected, or re-elected".
Oh, okay, it ought to be a dictionary definition.
In reality, the smokescreen over Trump's 'trumps' has already started, and indeed had before election say, with senior Trump advisors clouding the issue by commenting on "build a wall" as bejng "taken too literally" with a heavy emphasis on it meaning "clamp down hard on border protection". Also, "get Mexico to pay for it" could mean tear up or "renegotiate" NAFTA, and slap heavy tariffs on imports, or even certain classes of imports, like cars ftom US companies that have relocated plants to Mexico thus exporting the jobs.
Among those that have suffered as a result of such plant relocations, imposing such tariffs might well be seen as an acceptable "wall".
If not, then some analysis of exit poll stats suggests that at least part of the voter demographic that secured the win for Trump was dusenchanted blue-collar types that hadn't bothered voting for a couple of decades precisely because the regard the Democratic party, dating back to Clinton (Bill) as having deserted them, their core base, for "liberal elites", not least because that's where election-fighting funds came from.
There is pissibly one race issue that played, though, but it's not in Trump's camp. I saw an interview with a senior, black Democratic party figure, about a week before the election, that suggest Hillary gad nade a big miscalculation. That was that because blacks identified with and turned out for Obama, and Obama endorsed Hillary, that she could rely on them to turn out again.
Three issues with that. First, nobody likes being taken for granted. Second, being taken for granted by a wealthy, white elitist woman that is almost the establushment personified, is especially grating. And third, a general feeling that even "one of us", a black President Obama, hadn't actually done mhch to improve their lives in 8 years, so being presumptuoysly handed on like the parcel in a giant, political game of the the oarcel, grated. Result? Some, having never bothered to vote pre-Obama, as doing so never made much difference, simpky went back to not bothering, at exactly the same time as disenchanred white, blue collar voters heard Trump singing their song and turned out.
In any event, despite all the furore about Trump, the "build the wall, stop Mexico exporting its ctiminals" stuff, the sex abuse tapes, etc, those exit polls showed Trump doing almost exactly the same among African-Americans, Latinos and women, as Romney did sgainst Obama last time.
The conclusion seems to be that Trump voters may well have discounted the OTT rhetoric as exactly that, election rhetoric, and simply decided that they'd hac enough of liberal elites promising the earth and in the end naking littke or no difference to what really matters, which is poverty, joblessness and homelessness, and voted for Trump, noses held, because no matter what he is, he isn't the usual lyjng political elite.
And yes, I hear the come-back .... billionaire Trump is as elite as they come. Sure, but not political elite.
Washington is one of the most corrupt cities on earth. Not necessarily in the "cash backhander" sense, but in the sense that, until Trump, just about every previous president, certainly in modern time, has come either from a senate seat, or a major state governership, and that to get into either role requires years of political butt-kissing, shady deals in smoky back rooms, and promises made or favours owed in return for campaign funding.
Much has been made in the media of Trump having no political experience, never held an elected role, etc. Well, EXACTLY.
He's not had years kissing those butts and incurring favour-debts. In Washington terms, he's not "one of us" which, to the politically disenchanted and disenfranchised, means precisely that he's not "one of them", billionaire or not.
And please, readers of this, DO NOT take this to mean I support Trump. I don't. I think he's an obnoxious, egotistical, self-entitled minimally-talented snob, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with distinctly sociopathic characteristics. To my values, he's aboyt the only argument for voting for Hillary, if I'd had a vote which, thank all the Gods of every religion, I didn't.
I feel sorry for average American Joes and Joannas. This election meant either not voting, or regardless of who you picked, holding your nose while doing it.
I just MIGHT have gone for Trump, despite my opinion of him, just to see see whether an outsider, unencumbered by years of political whoremongering, MIGHT have been able to get things done that a real "politician", like Clinton, couldn't in the political cesspool that is Washington.
Galant (10-11-2016)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
