• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
It's a load of crap. There is no way - none - that Wall Street bankers wouldn't kiss his ass to do a financing deal with him. I completely believe Ivanka Trump when she says that the Trump Organization is constantly being solicited by Wall Street banks. A Wall Street bank shunning Donald Trump would be like a prostitute shunning Brad Pitt because she didn't like his last movie. Bankers are whores, and the institutional memory for being stiffed lasts less than a year, if it even lasts the length of time between deal opportunities.
Click to expand...

It is not a load of crap. Not only banks, but other businesses have distanced themselves from Trump.

As this column has noted previously, virtually no big United States banking institution has done new business with Mr. Trump in years, in part because of his history of bankruptcies and his penchant for litigation. During orientation for new employees, Goldman Sachs specifically used to use Mr. Trump as an example of the kind of prospective client to avoid.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/b...-businessman-wheres-his-business-backing.html
 
Foolmewunz said:
I posted this in the 538 thread... polling and all that.... But it belongs here.

If Rasmussen has this large a swing, Hillary may be up quite a bit.

The real stinker for the GOP is that in the 4-way their house polling group, Rasmussen shows a huge swing to Clinton from their previous poll.

Clinton | Trump | Johnson | Stein
39 | 44 | 8 | 2 -- Sep 20/21 1000 LV
42 | 41 | 7 | 2 -- Sep 26/28 1500 LB
+3 -3 -1 nc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thinking that swing to be real because of this poll would be more on the side of wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

Rasmussen uses interactive voice responders on the Internet. They've certainly done one or more good polls to adjust their method, because they go with the general flow, but never take Rasmussen changes as tendencies. Those seem to be much, even mostly, the noise in their methodology.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I posted this in the 538 thread... polling and all that.... But it belongs here.

If Rasmussen has this large a swing, Hillary may be up quite a bit.
Click to expand...

South Carolina poll
(Winthrop University)

Donald: 42
Clinton: 38
Johnson: 6
Stein: 3
MoE +/- 3.7 %

Donald is only +4 in South Carolina!
 
sunmaster14 said:
(1) Trump's lies seem to be designed for rhetorical effect. Although they're more extreme than inaccurate generalization or hyperbole, they are not meant to be taken literally. Somebody linked before to an article in The Atlantic which explained that the media takes Trump's words literally but not seriously, and Trump's supporters take his words seriously, but not literally. I think that is the most eloquent explanation of this point. I wish I had thought of it first. Many of Hillary's lies, by contrast, are not only about consequential things but are also very effective in shaping the actual beliefs of tens of millions of people. I think Trump doesn't shape beliefs so much as evoke beliefs which are already present.

(2) Even though Trump doesn't admit his mistakes or retract his lies, he clearly is still rooted enough in reality to understand when he has repeated a falsehood (or conjured one out of thin air himself) and does in fact back off. Thus, I am not worried about him delusionally clinging to a false reality. Admittedly, he won't make a good role model for our kids, but I don't think the President has ever really functioned as a role model.
Click to expand...

Not meant to taken literally.
When one knows that millions of people are taking one's "inaccurate generalizations and hyperbole" as literal fact, then doesn't one have an obligation to set the record straight? We aren't talking about selling dish soap. We are talking about deciding the direction of America. Shouldn't the standard for claims in a presidential race be measureably higher than the claims allowed on TV ads for some product?

I am not saying that Trump cannot say "I will build a wall." I just want a bit of qualifier in there: "unless Congress values illegals more than citizens, our government will build the wall I promised." Or "unless the legislative branch is prepared to ignore common-sense ideas that all true Americans value, I will build a wall."

I suppose we could use some sort of reasonable-person test. If a reasonable person heard Trump's continued claims that he will build a 20-foot wall, then would that person think that the claims are evidence that he wants to literally build a 6-meter wall or wall-like structure over hundreds of miles of border.

To be fair and to show I understand your position, I am willing to come over to your side when I hear Trump say, "because of what they said, the wall is now going to be 10-feet higher." I can see that as colorful hyperbole or hyper-hyperbole. But the test should not how I see the claims or how you see the claims; the object test would be how a reasonable citizen of the US see those claims.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
It's a load of crap. There is no way - none - that Wall Street bankers wouldn't kiss his ass to do a financing deal with him. I completely believe Ivanka Trump when she says that the Trump Organization is constantly being solicited by Wall Street banks. A Wall Street bank shunning Donald Trump would be like a prostitute shunning Brad Pitt because she didn't like his last movie. Bankers are whores, and the institutional memory for being stiffed lasts less than a year, if it even lasts the length of time between deal opportunities.
Click to expand...

Yes the WSJ is part of the conspiracy against Donald.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's a load of crap. There is no way - none - that Wall Street bankers wouldn't kiss his ass to do a financing deal with him. I completely believe Ivanka Trump when she says that the Trump Organization is constantly being solicited by Wall Street banks. A Wall Street bank shunning Donald Trump would be like a prostitute shunning Brad Pitt because she didn't like his last movie. Bankers are whores, and the institutional memory for being stiffed lasts less than a year, if it even lasts the length of time between deal opportunities.
Click to expand...

You may know more about the business practices of bankers and whores, but among lawyers it is common for a firm to have a blacklist built into their conflict check system and it is also common for a local company to have to reach outside of their own city to find representation. And if the firm doesn't formally keep track, the attorneys sure as hell do. I've heard it come up in conflict checks at every firm I've ever worked with. Just last week the phrase used was: Nope, they are a write-off nightmare, we don't need their work.
 
Dr. Keith said:
You may know more about the business practices of bankers and whores, but among lawyers it is common for a firm to have a blacklist built into their conflict check system and it is also common for a local company to have to reach outside of their own city to find representation. And if the firm doesn't formally keep track, the attorneys sure as hell do. I've heard it come up in conflict checks at every firm I've ever worked with. Just last week the phrase used was: Nope, they are a write-off nightmare, we don't need their work.
Click to expand...

That's irrelevant. The legal profession is completely different, especially since paying legal bills is at the bottom of everybody's priority list (with the exception perhaps of medical bills). Also, lawyers bill for so much crap there is plenty of room for legitimate disagreement about the billing. In banking, the fees are contracted for upfront, and there is no ambiguity about what is owed. Also, every desk at a big bank is like its own little fiefdom, and it couldn't care less if a client got into a dispute with another part of the bank.
 
sunmaster14 said:
That's irrelevant. The legal profession is completely different, especially since paying legal bills is at the bottom of everybody's priority list (with the exception perhaps of medical bills). Also, lawyers bill for so much crap there is plenty of room for legitimate disagreement about the billing. In banking, the fees are contracted for upfront, and there is no ambiguity about what is owed. Also, every desk at a big bank is like its own little fiefdom, and it couldn't care less if a client got into a dispute with another part of the bank.
Click to expand...
Yes but Donald Trump is a conman who has a history of not being able to pay off his debts.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
Yes but Donald Trump is a conman who has a history of not being able to pay off his debts.
Click to expand...

The Republic of Argentina has a history of stiffing creditors, and yet bankers would suck Argentina's dick in order to be in on its next bond deal. If a country had a dick.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's a load of crap. There is no way - none - that Wall Street bankers wouldn't kiss his ass to do a financing deal with him. I completely believe Ivanka Trump when she says that the Trump Organization is constantly being solicited by Wall Street banks. A Wall Street bank shunning Donald Trump would be like a prostitute shunning Brad Pitt because she didn't like his last movie. Bankers are whores, and the institutional memory for being stiffed lasts less than a year, if it even lasts the length of time between deal opportunities.
Click to expand...

But why do you believe this in face of contrary evidence? Trump is not a big player in the New York real estate industry, and most of his income for decades has come from licensing his name to other developers' projects for fat fees. He has taken six companies into bankruptcy, which is a big red flag to all potential lenders, and has a long history of shady behavior. Why do you think bankers would be panting to hand him their money? Why do you think they need Trump?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-donald-trump-needs-a-loan-he-chooses-deutsche-bank-1458379806
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0
http://fortune.com/2016/03/21/donald-trump-bank-loans/
http://fortune.com/2016/07/17/trump-financial-comeback-story/
 
It's not that banks won't do business with Trump - it's just that he has a terrible credit score due to his bankruptcies.
It is entirely possible that Trump wants to be president to force the banks to give him better deals.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
... It is entirely possible that Trump wants to be president to force the banks to give him better deals.
Click to expand...

In general, he does seem to be on a desperate, all-out, last retreat forward, as if wielding power will allow him to put in all the fixes he increasingly seems to need. If elected, he will either have a temper tantrum after finding out he is the President, not God, that is so bad that he is removed from office for medical reasons, or he will be impeached for succeeding initially at blatant coercion and corruption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom