Cont: President Trump: Part 3

[Belz...]

Ketchup on steak is awesome.

 

[theprestige]

Threatening jail time is fresh shade. Insane but fresh shade.

Sorry, I'm not seeing the threat of jail time. The quoted passage seems to go the opposite way.

 

[Firestone]

Trump's tweet: "Can you imagine what the outcry would be if @SnoopDogg, failing career and all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama? Jail time!"

Terry Jones didn't get "jail time" for burning effigies of Obama and Bill Clinton.

(just to be clear: answer directed at Trump, undoubtedly a frequent lurker on this forum)

 

[eeyore1954]

Remember, Jared Kushner is the son-in-law of trump and the Chinese government is "forgiving" $400 million in Kushner family debt.

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfrum/status/841327667643318275

Just to make sure we have the proper facts.

Remember, Jared Kushner is the son-in-law of trump and a Chinese company (not the government) is buying an interest in a Kushner property and part of the purchase price will be the assumption of debt (not forgiving).

Now if you want to say this could have the appearance of a conflict of interest that is a different story.

 

[Belz...]

(just to be clear: answer directed at Trump, undoubtedly a frequent lurker on this forum)

Fake forum. Sad.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, with this type of comment, I think any politician can feel quite safe ignoring your advice on how to win an election.

How do you feel about a self-proclaimed skeptic insisting that cherry picking and logical fallacies are not only acceptable, but perfectly justifies and justifiable, and supporting the employment of those techniques?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hard to say. I think that the polls overestimated how many Democratic voters would actually get off of their asses and vote, vs how many Republican voters would.

Why hasn't that same overestimation occurred in prior years? What is special about this year that produces this as the driver?

It is possible but that's not usually what happens, sadly.

What is it that you believe happens when the popularity of a candidate changes over the course of the campaign? What is the alternative explanation for that change in polling?

The one you keep harping about, of course; the one that the "deplorables" comment made a huge difference. The one that Trump supporters and Trump apologists use to whitewash Trump voters' decision to vote for him.

I didn't "accept" it as an explanation. I proposed it as one factor that I believe had influence on the overall outcome. You seem to be implying that it can't be a factor. You seem to be implying that I've 'swallowed a lie', that I've been 'conned', that I've been 'misled', or that I'm simply not smart enough to see through the obvious 'whitewash'. Is that what you think has happened? Do you believe that this is the only reason why I might view her comment as having affected voting decisions by republican, democrat, and independent voters all?

 

[Belz...]

Why hasn't that same overestimation occurred in prior years? What is special about this year that produces this as the driver?

I don't know. Maybe something changed about the dynamics at play.

What is it that you believe happens when the popularity of a candidate changes over the course of the campaign?

Most people always vote for the same party throughout their lives. Your question is irrelevant to that fact.

I didn't "accept" it as an explanation. I proposed it as one factor that I believe had influence on the overall outcome.

No, you keep bringing it up, insist that it's an important and overwhelming factor and refuse to listen to people who are telling you that you are wrong. First of all, you didn't come up with it, it was floating about before so yeah, you accepted it as credible; and second no, you didn't just "propose it", you believe it through and through.

You seem to be implying that it can't be a factor.

Then you haven't being paying attention to what I've been posting.

You seem to be implying that I've 'swallowed a lie', that I've been 'conned', that I've been 'misled', or that I'm simply not smart enough to see through the obvious 'whitewash'.

Now you're just making **** up to distract from the fact that your theory doesn't work. I didn't say any of that. So why the quotation marks?

 

[wareyin]

How do you feel about a self-proclaimed skeptic insisting that cherry picking and logical fallacies are not only acceptable, but perfectly justifies and justifiable, and supporting the employment of those techniques?

I do enjoy watching those goal posts whizzing around! You've now moved them so far that you aren't even complaining about the original sport!

 

[wareyin]

Why hasn't that same overestimation occurred in prior years? What is special about this year that produces this as the driver?

Do you understand what a margin of error is in a poll? If so, please explain how far off the polls you cute were from the margin of error.

Do you believe that this is the only reason why I might view her comment as having affected voting decisions by republican, democrat, and independent voters all?

Oh, it's pretty obvious that you assume insulting some of half of Trump voters was such an insult to those who were not Trump supporters that it affected voting decisions across the board. How about you explain how this process works, though?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to make sure we have the proper facts.

Remember, Jared Kushner is the son-in-law of trump and a Chinese company (not the government) is buying an interest in a Kushner property and part of the purchase price will be the assumption of debt (not forgiving).

Now if you want to say this could have the appearance of a conflict of interest that is a different story.

What do you suggest the 'sweetheart' deal was motivated by?

Jared Kushner's family's company to make $400M in new sweetheart deal with Chinese firm

A real estate company owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser in the White House, is poised to sign a lucrative sweetheart deal with the politically connected Chinese insurance giant Anbang.

According to a Bloomberg report published Monday, Kushner Companies is set to receive $400 million in a deal in which Anbang will invest in the Kushner Companies’ flagship Manhattan office tower at 666 Fifth Ave. The deal values their office building at $2.85 billion, making it the highest valuation of a single Manhattan building ever.

Sweetheart deals involve overvaluing a property. It is a form of money laundering or hiding a political payout.

There are two other elements of the deal that are particularly eye-catching. First, Bloomberg notes that the lenders financing the project, which Kushner Companies says is still being finalized, are not yet known.

The other striking fact is that the deal pays off almost all of a $250 million mortgage that Kushner Companies took out for the building. “According to the deal documents, the Kushners will settle the debt for just $50 million,” Bloomberg reports.

That’s one-fifth of the original value of the loan. Bloomberg reported that some real estate experts consider the deal “unusually favorable” for the Kushners.

Very convenient these are "private companies". Fine, then what is the motivation for the lopsided deal?

A defender of this deal as ethical would say that both Kushner Companies and Anbang are private entities that do not represent their respective governments in any manner, so there’s nothing to see here. But that would require some willful blindness to the web of high-level government connections each party has in its respective country.

Anbang, a Beijing-based company with more than $250 billion in assets, is notoriously opaque. But we do know that Anbang, like many major businesses in China, is steeped in ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

You watch, Trump's bravado about trade deals with China are going to change the same way everything else he said while campaigning changed:

Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, have both been working on US-China policy in the Trump administration. Beijing has taken measures to circumvent the typical diplomatic protocols of working through the State Department and has courted both of them directly. And one of the main policy issues in Kushner’s portfolio is trade, an issue of paramount importance to China in light of Trump’s threats to slap huge punitive tariffs on Chinese goods, an act that could rip a hole in China’s economy.

This is a kleptocracy of the highest order.

 

[eeyore1954]

What do you suggest the 'sweetheart' deal was motivated by?

The same things that motivated Anbang to buy the Waldorf Astoria for $2 billion a few years ago. Profit, growth and cash to invest.

According to a Bloomberg report published Monday, Kushner Companies is set to receive $400 million in a deal in which Anbang will invest in the Kushner Companies’ flagship Manhattan office tower at 666 Fifth Ave. The deal values their office building at $2.85 billion, making it the highest valuation of a single Manhattan building ever.

When he purchased the building in 2007 it was also the highest purchase price for a Manhattan building.

The other striking fact is that the deal pays off almost all of a $250 million mortgage that Kushner Companies took out for the building. “According to the deal documents, the Kushners will settle the debt for just $50 million,” Bloomberg reports.

That’s one-fifth of the original value of the loan. Bloomberg reported that some real estate experts consider the deal “unusually favorable” for the Kushners.

Clearly whoever wrote the article either does not understand real estate deals, is very biased or both.

There is nothing striking at all about when someone is buying an 80% stake in a property that they also will endup with 80% of the debt. This happens all of the time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't know. Maybe something changed about the dynamics at play.

Such as?

Most people always vote for the same party throughout their lives. Your question is irrelevant to that fact.

I don't believe this is true. Registered party voters vote for the same party throughout their lives. Most independent voters lean to one party or the other more frequently. Many independent voters bounce around a lot.

Political Typology

No, you keep bringing it up, insist that it's an important and overwhelming factor and refuse to listen to people who are telling you that you are wrong. First of all, you didn't come up with it, it was floating about before so yeah, you accepted it as credible; and second no, you didn't just "propose it", you believe it through and through.

I believe it is a material factor, not necessarily overwhelming. People tell me I'm wrong... but that doesn't make them right. There hasn't been any solid rational for why I'm wrong. No, I didn't come up with it... but I also didn't parrot it. I was exposed to the comment after the fact and I deemed it likely to have had an effect on my own. That other people have also reached that conclusion before me doesn't mean I "accepted" it from them. I do believe that it is a factor - not only because Clinton said it, but also because of how vehemently her followers have defended it.

Then you haven't being paying attention to what I've been posting.

Or I've simply missed it in the deluge of this thread. I don't usually ignore you. How am I supposed to argue with you if I don't pay attention to you?

Now you're just making **** up to distract from the fact that your theory doesn't work. I didn't say any of that. So why the quotation marks?

They aren't quotation marks. Hell, I can't win this particular bit. If I use double-quotes to add emphasis, as "scare quotes", someone will call me on acting like it's a quote when they didn't literally say exactly that specific thing. If I use single quotes to avoid that, even when I specifically call it out as being implied... I still get called on acting like it's a quote. What's the right way to go about this?

 

[Belz...]

Such as?

Maybe the "I don't know" part of my post didn't clue you in on that fact, but I don't know.

I don't believe this is true. Registered party voters vote for the same party throughout their lives.

Most independent voters lean to one party or the other more frequently. Many independent voters bounce around a lot.

Uh-huh, and what are the actual numbers for all that? Your link doesn't cover that.

 

[Belz...]

People tell me I'm wrong... but that doesn't make them right. There hasn't been any solid rational for why I'm wrong.

Of course there's been solid rationales. You just ignored them.

No, I didn't come up with it... but I also didn't parrot it.

I didn't say you did.

Or I've simply missed it in the deluge of this thread. I don't usually ignore you. How am I supposed to argue with you if I don't pay attention to you?

It's quite easy, in fact.

They aren't quotation marks.

No, but apostrophes are often used as quotation marks. Why did you use them at all if not to refer to something I said?

And this doesn't change the fact that I didn't say anything like that and you're making **** up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh, it's pretty obvious that you assume insulting some of half of Trump voters was such an insult to those who were not Trump supporters that it affected voting decisions across the board. How about you explain how this process works, though?

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of democrat supporters into what I call the basket of arrogance. Right?

The condescending, elitist, holier-than-though -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. Now, some of those folks -- they are unable to be set their egos aside, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket -- and I know this because I have friends like this -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the uneducated have let them down, the ignorant people have let them down, nobody cares about their better judgement and education, and they just want to be heard. It doesn't really even matter who is listening. They don't think they know everything, but they hold out some hope that someone will value their insight. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Of course there's been solid rationales. You just ignored them.

I've also provided solid rationale, and you're the one ignoring it!111!!!!1

Opinions don't offset each other.

I didn't say you did.

It seemed implied by your post.

It's quite easy, in fact.

With a name like "Argumemnon", I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you like arguing...

No, but apostrophes are often used as quotation marks. Why did you use them at all if not to refer to something I said?

And this doesn't change the fact that I didn't say anything like that and you're making **** up.

I did refer to something you said. I did not make anything up, I inferred. Which, by the way, I specified when I literally said "you seem to be implying... "

 

[Belz...]

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of democrat supporters into what I call the basket of arrogance. Right?

Possibly. Gee, I guess I'll vote left from now on.

 

[Belz...]

I've also provided solid rationale, and you're the one ignoring it!111!!!!1

Ugh. No, you haven't. You just repeated your claim over and over. Just because you think Clinton's words are beyond the pale, and I would certainly agree that they were ill-chosen, doesn't mean that they had any real impact on the election results.

It seemed implied by your post.

Well no offense but I think you tend to see implications where none exist.

With a name like "Argumemnon", I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you like arguing...

I like debating in order to get to the facts, and Debamemnon doesn't have the same ring to it.

I did refer to something you said. I did not make anything up, I inferred.

Again, I don't see what the apostrophes were there for, but one way or another it had little to do with anything I've said, so you once more saw implication where none existed. Tell you what: stick to what I actually post and don't try to divine a hidden message, please.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of democrat supporters into what I call the basket of arrogance. Right?

The condescending, elitist, holier-than-though -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. Now, some of those folks -- they are unable to be set their egos aside, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket -- and I know this because I have friends like this -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the uneducated have let them down, the ignorant people have let them down, nobody cares about their better judgement and education, and they just want to be heard. It doesn't really even matter who is listening. They don't think they know everything, but they hold out some hope that someone will value their insight. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Hold on, I can do even better than this what with the purposeful hyperbole to illustrate a fundamental point...



You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of black people into what I call the basket of criminals. Right?

The thieves, gang-bangers, thugs -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. Now, some of those folks -- they are unable to act like civilized people, but thankfully they are not America. But the other basket -- and I know this because I have black friends -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything white people say, but they hold out some hope that change can happen.