The Slick Sales Pitch of Trump

[Raider5678]

On 5/7/2018 at 12:51 PM, Ten oz said:

In my opinion there is not an opposite group pushing back.

Laughing my ass off.

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

You're far too emotional. I might return to this later, but you bore me when you are like this and I'm not terribly interested in continuing.

Have it your way.

On 5/7/2018 at 2:00 PM, Ten oz said:

Many simply enjoy watching liberals, blacks, immigrants, and whomever they object to suffer.

Damn. Proof?

On 5/7/2018 at 2:00 PM, John Cuthber said:

I'm not sure if it's Trump being a good salesman or the media bigging him up and running down the opposition.

If all the newspapers and TV say you are great then you are going to do well even if you are as bad as Trump is known to be.

Yes. Because we all know the media is massively in Trump's favor. (Facts say that 80% of media coverage on Trump is negative. Your proof?)

http://wjla.com/news/nation-world/trump-and-media-bias

On 5/7/2018 at 12:51 PM, Ten oz said:

Rather I think the integrity of his supporters is simply so low that it doesn't matter what he does or says. 

Yes, I'm certain. They're all just down here HOPING he lies. HOPING he rips them off. HOPING he does bad things. Because you know. Reasons.

On 5/7/2018 at 6:34 PM, CharonY said:

While those may have impacted the image of politicians in former times, it does not seem to be the case anymore. In fact, if anything it does seem to rally their base instead.

Pretty much everyone in politics lies constantly. All those studies that show people still support Trump even though he lied, are the same applied to the other side.

Bill Clinton. Literally got impeached because of lying. His approval rating did fine the whole time: http://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

You're rational. There's no way you're telling me you believe that people not caring if the politician is lying is ONLY with Trump.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If you aren't cheating you aren't trying,

Prove it.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

no body gets rich on their own money,

Prove it.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

it isn't cheating if you don't get caught

Yes it is.

 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

nobody gets rich without burying a few bodies,

Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton.

If that's the case, we should try and execute them.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

laws are made for poor people,

This I can agree with. 

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

winners don't ask for permission

This is really vague. But true. I won a chess game without asking permission.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

are all iterations of the same basic American concept that immoral behavior is loosely justified provided  the result is success.

Bullshit. Prove it.

Go out and take a study.
Tell me how many people you meet, who are American and believe "immoral behavior is loosely justified provided the result is a success."

You're talking out of your ass.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Additionally society thinks people who find loopholes to circumvent the law are brilliant.

No. We don't. Prove it.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Doing what is right for the sake of what's right isn't viewed as an intellectual attribute.

Again, bullshit. People who do what's right for the sake of what's right are typically respected, not considered stupid by society.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Only a smart person worthy of admiration can be rich.

I saw a stupid person win the lottery the other year. He went bankrupt in a few weeks.

7 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If you aren't cheating you aren't trying, no body gets rich on their own money, it isn't cheating if you don't get caught, nobody gets rich working for someone else, nobody gets rich without burying a few bodies, laws are made for poor people, winners don't ask for permission, and etc are all iterations of the same basic American concept that immoral behavior is loosely justified provided  the result is success. Additionally society thinks people who find loopholes to circumvent the law are brilliant. Doing what is right for the sake of what's right isn't viewed as an intellectual attribute. A stupid person can be moral. Only a smart person worthy of admiration can be r

Literally prove a single statement you made here.

Go ahead.

Hey. If rants are allowed, without evidence, without proof, without care, without reason, and have no discussion value, I can make my own.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Raider5678

[Airbrush]

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 9:05 AM, swansont said:

Citation needed [on Trump's approval rating].

From the last "Real Time" with Bill Maher.

[Ten oz]

Part of the sales pitch on the right has been an ongoing disinformation campiagn. I find it disturbing how un-newsworthy much of what has gone on seems to be. 

Quote

 

The whistleblower whose disclosures about Cambridge Analytica shook the tech world over questions about users' data privacy told Congress on Wednesday that the company engaged in efforts to discourage or suppress voting.

Christopher Wylie, a former Cambridge Analytica employee who blew the whistle on its alleged misuse of Facebook data, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the company offered services to discourage voting from targeted sections of the American population. 

"Mr. Bannon sees cultural warfare as the means to create enduring change in American politics. It was for this reason Mr. Bannon engaged SCL (Cambridge Analytica's parent company), a foreign military contractor, to build an arsenal of informational weapons he could deploy on the American population," Wylie claimed, referring to Trump's former top political adviser Steve Bannon.

Wylie did not provide specific evidence of voter suppression campaigns taking place in the US. But when asked by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, if one of Bannon's "goals was to suppress voting or discourage certain individuals in the US from voting," Wylie replied, "That was my understanding, yes."

After the hearing, Wylie told CNN that although he did not take part in voter suppression activities, he alleged that African-Americans were particular targets of Cambridge Analytica's "voter disengagement tactics," which he said were used to "discourage or demobilize certain types of people from voting," and that campaigns and political action committees requested voter suppression from Cambridge Analytica.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/politics/cambridge-analytica-congress-wylie/index.html

 

 

[Airbrush]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:11 AM, Raider5678 said:

Pretty much everyone in politics lies constantly.  All those studies that show people still support Trump even though he lied, are the same applied to the other side.

PROVE that "everyone in politics lies constantly."

The big "lie" that Obama told was that if you liked your doctor, with Obamacare you can KEEP your doctor.  Fox News kept repeating that SINGLE "lie" [or falsehood] for years, because that was the ONLY "lie" they could think of.  With Trump, the con artist, the hyperbole-salesman, there is no comparison, a THOUSAND times as many lies or falsehoods as Obama or any recent president.  That is a false equivalence.

"Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.... In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Edited May 18, 2018 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

PROVE that "everyone in politics lies constantly."

The big "lie" that Obama told was that if you liked your doctor, with Obamacare you can KEEP your doctor.  Fox News kept repeating that SINGLE "lie" [or falsehood] for years, because that was the ONLY "lie" they could think of.  With Trump, the con artist, the hyperbole-salesman, there is no comparison, a THOUSAND times as many lies or falsehoods as Obama or any recent president.  That is a false equivalence.

"Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.... In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Raider's taking some voluntary  time out for a while.

[CharonY]

As it turns out Trump is even a worse businessman than suspected. According to the New York times he got 400mio dollars from his father as part of a team evasion scheme. Apparently more got funneled into Donald's account than to his siblings due to his falling businesses.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

As it turns out Trump is even a worse businessman than suspected. According to the New York times he got 400mio dollars from his father as part of a team evasion scheme. Apparently more got funneled into Donald's account than to his siblings due to his falling businesses.

He has lost a lot of people a lot of money. He is financially amoral.

[Ten oz]

It is unclear what Trump's true net worth is. Two things are clear however and they are that if he were smart with money he'd be worth more than he is and he has lied about the extend of his wealth throughout his entire adult life. 

Quote

 

A former Forbes reporter says that President Donald Trump lied to him in order to make the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans, including impersonating an aide who didn’t exist to claim wealth he didn’t have.

An audiotape of the reporter’s alleged 1984 conversation with Trump was published in The Washington Post Friday. in which Trump is said to have disguised his voice.

While working on the Forbes 400 in May 1984, the reporter says that Trump contacted him claiming to be an aide named John Barron. In 2016, The Washington Post revealed that Barron was actually Trump himself and that he often used the name to pretend to be his own spokesperson.

During the call, Trump as Barron said that he had taken control of the business he ran with his father, and should be credited with owning those assets as well, which would make him a billionaire. Under a previous editor of the Forbes 400 list, the magazine had valued Trump’s assets at $200 million, only a fifth of what he claimed to own in interviews.

The reporter, Jonathan Greenberg, says that over time he learned that Trump shouldn’t have appeared on the lists at all. For instance, in his first appearance on the Forbes 400 in 1982, Trump is listed as having $100 million when he was actually worth around $5 million at the time, according to documents that later came to light.

http://fortune.com/2018/04/20/trump-lied-wealth-forbes-400-list/

 

 

Quote

 

Donald Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion.

The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988.

Other billionaires’ net worths have beaten the stock market’s growth in that time. Bill Gates, for example, saw his increase 7,173%, to $80 billion, since 1988. Warren Buffett’s wealth grew 2,612% in the same time period, to $67.8 billion.

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

 

 

[Airbrush]

On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:47 PM, CharonY said:

As it turns out Trump is even a worse businessman than suspected. According to the New York times he got 400mio dollars from his father as part of a team evasion scheme. Apparently more got funneled into Donald's account than to his siblings due to his falling businesses.

Right, Trump became a millionaire by age 8 because of his salary from his Dad that began at age 3.

[Ten oz]

Deficits continue to rise despite an otherwise stable economy thanks to the Tax Cuts. As part of the standard Republican sales pitch, which Trump used, the Tax Cuts were supposed to be paid for by spending cuts and increases in GDP. It failed under Reagan, it failed under Bush, and now seems to be failing under Trump.

Quote

 

The deficit rose to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018, up 17% from last year, according to final figures released Monday by the Treasury Department. That's the largest number since 2012, when the country was still spending massively to stimulate an economy struggling to recover.

Government receipts were flat this year from last year. Corporate tax collections fell $76 billion, or 22%, due to the Republican-backed tax cut. But that drop was more than offset by increased revenues from individual and self-employment taxes. The fiscal year ended September 30.

Spending rose 3% over the previous year, fueled in part by increases to the defense budget agreed upon in September 2017 as part of a deal between Republicans and Democrats to head off a government shutdown. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/economy/us-budget-deficit/index.html

 

 

[iNow]

I’m shocked by this.

We weren’t taking in enough revenue to cover our expenditures. That’s why we had a deficit.

So, we decided to cut our revenue. The deficit got worse.

It really just doesn’t make sense.

Our best course of action is obviously to cut revenues more. Basic math demands this as the only logical path forward.

...even the blind could see this coming...

Side note: Tye US government pays $1.5 Billion every single day just in interest payments, a number rapidly approaching $2B daily

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

I’m shocked by this.

We weren’t taking in enough revenue to cover our expenditures. That’s why we had a deficit.

So, we decided to cut our revenue. The deficit got worse.

It really just doesn’t make sense.

Our best course of action is obviously to cut revenues more. Basic math demands this as the only logical path forward.

...even the blind could see this coming...

Side note: Tye US government pays $1.5 Billion every single day just in interest payments, a number rapidly approaching $2B daily

 

 "You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.' …Dick Cheney

Fiscal Conservatism is a sham in my opinion.  Republicans do not care about the govt's deficits, revenue, of budgets. They care about their own wealth and the wealth of their financial backers. I think Fiscal Conservatism is just a sales pitch. 

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Fiscal Conservatism is a sham in my opinion.  Republicans do not care about the govt's deficits, revenue, of budgets. They care about their own wealth and the wealth of their financial backers. I think Fiscal Conservatism is just a sales pitch. 

I don't think they fear the government failing, since it would be a prime private investment opportunity. Make sure it breaks, then rush in with a private solution. When I hear the slickos talking about fiscal conservatism these days, it always seems to be pushing more and more private ownership, especially in areas it shouldn't be used (like the prison system). 

[DrP]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

 especially in areas it shouldn't be used (like the prison system). 

Over hear they keep trying to do it with our health system. They have already fucked our transport systems which were run fine when publically owned.   A train to Scotland or even to the Midlands is more expensive that most flights over sees these days....  or it was last time I checked it a few years back. 

 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Over hear they keep trying to do it with our health system. They have already fucked our transport systems which were run fine when publically owned.   A train to Scotland or even to the Midlands is more expensive that most flights over sees these days....  or it was last time I checked it a few years back. 

 

The sales pitch that Govt should be ran like a business usually evolves/devolves into Govt should be ran by business from what I've seen. 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

Over hear they keep trying to do it with our health system. They have already fucked our transport systems which were run fine when publically owned.   A train to Scotland or even to the Midlands is more expensive that most flights over sees these days....  or it was last time I checked it a few years back. 

In the US, the extreme right (even our Democrats are moderately right-wing compared to Europe) has purposely conflated social endeavors with state ownership, which is completely false. They refer to Socialism and Communism like lifestyles instead of economic tools. Most Americans agree that it's good for the public to own the roads and sidewalks, but they continue to vote for those who want to privatize more and more public and state functions. It's a lie most Americans fall for time and time again, that between private, public, and state ownership, private is always the best choice.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, DrP said:

Over hear they keep trying to do it with our health system. They have already fucked our transport systems which were run fine when publically owned.   A train to Scotland or even to the Midlands is more expensive that most flights over sees these days....  or it was last time I checked it a few years back. 

 

I am expecting someone from Hamburg today.

Her plane was 4 hours 10 minutes late.

But then the Ryanair fare was only £35 return.

[DrP]

Just now, studiot said:

But then the Ryanair fare was only £35 return.

Which wont even get you a single to the north of our relatively small country by train.

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

In the US, the extreme right (even our Democrats are moderately right-wing compared to Europe) has purposely conflated social endeavors with state ownership, which is completely false. They refer to Socialism and Communism like lifestyles instead of economic tools. Most Americans agree that it's good for the public to own the roads and sidewalks, but they continue to vote for those who want to privatize more and more public and state functions. It's a lie most Americans fall for time and time again, that between private, public, and state ownership, private is always the best choice.

Throught my life I've watched the conflict between those who want private ownership and operation and state ownership and operation.

Both sides want it all.

Neither will contemplate a society where some roads (for example) are private and some are state. That is anathema to them.

Furthermore there is a question of what is state ownership.

In the past, throughout this green and pleasant land, local coucils used local money to obtain, build or whatever, facilities for their locality.
This included water supply, gas supply electricity supply, telephone and so on.
In many cases the local council issued bonds to raise the money.
These bonds were well regarded.
Subsequent right wing governments grabbed these assests for themselves and eventually sold them off as though the national government actually owned them.
Furthemore the same national governments have now prevented the issuing of local authority bonds (as they were called) for several decades.

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

Which wont even get you a single to the north of our relatively small country by train.

But who wants to go to the North?

The train ticket from Paddington to the SouthWest cost £12.

Further I must apologise for an earlier mistake. The plane price should have been in euros.

Edited October 16, 2018 by studiot

[DrP]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

The train ticket from Paddington to the SouthWest cost £12.

That is surprisingly cheap - and a much better destination!

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

But who wants to go to the North?

Ha ha - that's funny  -  I'd give you +1 for making me laugh - but I used my quota cancelling out Vvi's red marks to others in his rubbish thread earlier...  along with the few reds I had to give him.  They deleted all record of him - but my quota is still full. for today.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

That is surprisingly cheap - and a much better destination!

Yes it is and a result of the despicable "soak the unsuspecting tourist" policy.

If a tourist walked into a railway station and bought a single to us or from us to London they would pay over £80.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Both sides want it all.

I'm going to treat "both" as public and private groups. I'm quite frankly not as clear about why, in some cases, state ownership is preferable. 

I don't know how you have it set up in the UK, but in the US, the "slick sales pitch" types have sold us on private solutions to public problems that are more shaped to bring profit than solve problems. It's one thing when a private company can meet the proposed needs of the public, and quite another when the private companies shape the public proposals for maximum profit through lobbying and legislation. 

To me, it's a question of simple vs easy. The simple approach is to publicly fund endeavors that need only keep pace with society's growth, and allow private ownership where growth can be reasonably unlimited. And don't mix them like paint, which is our inclination and makes the approach anything but easy.

[studiot]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm going to treat "both" as public and private groups. I'm quite frankly not as clear about why, in some cases, state ownership is preferable. 

I don't know how you have it set up in the UK, but in the US, the "slick sales pitch" types have sold us on private solutions to public problems that are more shaped to bring profit than solve problems. It's one thing when a private company can meet the proposed needs of the public, and quite another when the private companies shape the public proposals for maximum profit through lobbying and legislation. 

To me, it's a question of simple vs easy. The simple approach is to publicly fund endeavors that need only keep pace with society's growth, and allow private ownership where growth can be reasonably unlimited. And don't mix them like paint, which is our inclination and makes the approach anything but easy.

 

I indeed meant public and private, which largely translates to left v right on the political spectrum.
But note my comment about which 'public' . Local v national.

 

It's neither simple nor easy.

What about subsidies?
Some are open,
some are hidden.

 

Yes private outfits have the profit motive to operate.

But should they be allowed to walk away from unprofitable contracts
they have bid for and won?

Yes they will try to arrange and promote structures, situations and circumstances where they can earn a profit.

Drug companies will close factories for profitability reasons, even if some patients die as their source of medicine dries up.
Is this equitable?

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

What about subsidies?
Some are open,
some are hidden.

In the US, subsidies are often exploited by the same right wing that argues for free trade and fair markets. Open or hidden, I think the purpose of subsidies should be to offset the costs of competing for new technologies challenging older ones, which is the opposite of how we do it in the US. 

Again, I think the solution is simple, but not easy. Don't let private interests use public funding to give them more advantage than they already have. Doing so only enables businesses that would otherwise have failed on merit.

The slick pitch from the rich is ALWAYS looking for more money, and since we know this we should be able to regulate it, as long as we don't listen when the pitch claims they can always do better than publicly funded programs. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I'm going to treat "both" as public and private groups. I'm quite frankly not as clear about why, in some cases, state ownership is preferable. 

I don't know how you have it set up in the UK, but in the US, the "slick sales pitch" types have sold us on private solutions to public problems that are more shaped to bring profit than solve problems. It's one thing when a private company can meet the proposed needs of the public, and quite another when the private companies shape the public proposals for maximum profit through lobbying and legislation. 

To me, it's a question of simple vs easy. The simple approach is to publicly fund endeavors that need only keep pace with society's growth, and allow private ownership where growth can be reasonably unlimited. And don't mix them like paint, which is our inclination and makes the approach anything but easy.

I actually think allowing the private sector to manage publicly funded endeavors often stifles private sector growth because so many of the contracts with the govt don't include robust competition or demand new products. When the Private sector is forced to compete exclusively in the private sector they must constantly evolve in order to succeed which often leads to innovation and businesses which are responsive to their consumers.