Trump. Murica!

SVreX wrote: In reply to mtn: No. Iggy was not saying they make money after their presidencies. I was. He said they make crazy money by becoming politicians. My point, "People don't generally get rich as president, but they do from their book deals , etc after the presidency". His point, "Yes they do", but I haven't seen any evidence. And $400K is hardly "crazy money" to be the leader of the free world. In fact, it's pathetic as a CEO salary.

Pretty sure you mis-interpreted his point. I think. But I don't really care anymore.

Nixon's Head for Prez!

In reply to SVreX:

Here's one, a poster boy for squeaky clean Illinois politics (elected in 2009):

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/summary.php?cid=N00029273&year=2013

Here's an article with a blurb on the median net worth of congress, not including real estate holdings:

http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/23/awesome-life-american-congressman/

pres589 wrote: In reply to SVreX: See, and I see Sanders as someone that's too honest, and that quality makes him a target for jokes or no coverage by news/media outlets. But what's actually wrong with what he's saying?

He's a self described socialist. If that's what you want, go to one of the many, many failed socialist country's and leave us alone.

4cylndrfury wrote: Well, in fairness, having no lobbyist loyalty, and not being a career politician, when taken out of the context of the remainder of his entire existence, does make the Don sound pretty good, comparatively speaking. There's something to be said for someone with a reasonable level of business acumen being in our countries leadership...

How many times can he take our country through Chapter 11 bankruptcy? Having E36 M3 tons of money does not make him a good business man. Just really good at taking other peoples money. Oh wait, that is a good resume for a politician...

bravenrace wrote:

pres589 wrote: In reply to SVreX: See, and I see Sanders as someone that's too honest, and that quality makes him a target for jokes or no coverage by news/media outlets. But what's actually wrong with what he's saying?

He's a self described socialist. If that's what you want, go to one of the many, many failed socialist country's and leave us alone.

I'm assuming you won't be partaking in Medicare and Social Security then? It obviously detriment to your morals.

What about all the successful "socialist" countries? (Even though there are no true socialist countries, just like we aren't a true capitalist country). No reason to take examples of systems that work and make a hybrid.

New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, China

bravenrace wrote:

pres589 wrote: In reply to SVreX: See, and I see Sanders as someone that's too honest, and that quality makes him a target for jokes or no coverage by news/media outlets. But what's actually wrong with what he's saying?

He's a self described socialist. If that's what you want, go to one of the many, many failed socialist country's and leave us alone.

Why does he have to go to a failed one? There are plenty of successful ones. He's not "socialist" by the American definition, which is either "liberal stuff I don't like" or "literally a synonym for communism."

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Nice trolling. Try elsewhere.

Wasn't trolling. Talking about "many, many failed socialist states" suggests that you think socialism is another word for communism. I doubt you were using "liberal stuff I don't like" or the proper definition because there are plenty of successful states run by liberals and socialists.

pres589 wrote: In reply to SVreX: See, and I see Sanders as someone that's too honest, and that quality makes him a target for jokes or no coverage by news/media outlets. But what's actually wrong with what he's saying?

No idea.

I don't know anything about Sanders, and haven't made any comments about him.

I've heard him make a couple juicy sound bites. Nothing more.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Your words, not mine.

bravenrace wrote: He's a self described socialist. If that's what you want, go to one of the many, many failed socialist country's and leave us alone.

No hyperbole there! Desire a stronger safety net? Get out of 'Murica! Wait, I already admitted to an interest in doing so. Guess we're still friends?

In reply to pres589:

Sure, we're as good a friends as ever.
I just find it hilarious that there are people in this country that favor socialism when there can't possibly be anyone paying attention that would have any confidence in our government. The only way to make America great again is with Americans, not government.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Keep on rocking in the free world.

Turns out he had no legal permission to use that song, and Neil Young has expressed his personal disapproval:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/donald-trump-2016-neil-young-song/index.html

Catfish eat turds!!!???

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Nice.

Not a good start.

But surely Neil likes his hair, right?

In reply to bravenrace:

So I did a web search using the last sentence of your last post as the search string, and one of the first returns on that search was this; http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/16/donald-trump-wants-to-make-america-great-again-announces-2016-campaign/

Are you in support of Trump as president of the USA?

You do realize that telling people that have a differing opinion than you to leave the country is probably not a good method to "get America great again", right?

GameboyRMH wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Keep on rocking in the free world.

Turns out he had no legal permission to use that song, and Neil Young has expressed his personal disapproval: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/donald-trump-2016-neil-young-song/index.html

Even MSN(of all the unlikely places) has the rebuttle where they claim to have proof in form of a receipt for its usage....

Selective reporting still happening with CNN I see. Nothing really new there.

Of note, Trump is not quite the "self made man" that many may think he is. He is well educated, certainly smart (in most ways), but almost certainly also had at least a weeeee bit of help:

Trump is the son of Fred Trump, a wealthy New York City real-estate developer. He worked for his father's firm, Elizabeth Trump & Son, while attending the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1968 officially joined the company. He was given control of the company in 1971 and renamed it The Trump Organization

Would he had been so successful without the rather large bump from daddy? Hard to say, but he is know for some pretty bad decisions.

In reply to aircooled:

I'm pretty sure his company has expanded DRASTICALLY since 1971.

SVreX wrote: In reply to aircooled: I'm pretty sure his company has expanded DRASTICALLY since 1971.

and contracted a bit with each of his bankruptcy's...

Didn't he also get some monetary and connection help with one of his wives family?

SVreX wrote: In reply to aircooled: I'm pretty sure his company has expanded DRASTICALLY since 1971.

Certainly, and he is certainly a savvy businessman (in most cases), but the point is, it is also a lot easier to make a lot of money in real estate when you father gives you a real estate company, then if you started from scratch.

It does seem like he specialized in rather aggressively financed projects (what got him in trouble). Something far easier to do with a reputable company behind you then as a start up.

So much for free trade: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/06/17/trump-ford-mexico-tax-report/

Trump advocated instituting a specific tax against Ford products built in Mexico during a speech in New York. Rather than incentivize US production, the outspoken billionaire's proposal would penalize Mexican-built Ford vehicles and parts by 35 percent upon purchase. That would ostensibly raise the base price of a Mexican-built Ford Fiesta from $13,965 to over $18,800, and a Lincoln MKZ from $35,190 to over $47k.

What a buffoon.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

aircooled wrote:

Dusterbd13 wrote: So at what point did this country pass the point of no return?

Mmmmm.... probably 1850's, maybe 1880's, or 1900...

1776

1492

pres589 wrote: In reply to bravenrace: So I did a web search using the last sentence of your last post as the search string, and one of the first returns on that search was this; http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/16/donald-trump-wants-to-make-america-great-again-announces-2016-campaign/ Are you in support of Trump as president of the USA? You do realize that telling people that have a differing opinion than you to leave the country is probably not a good method to "get America great again", right?

Actually, the most successful, peaceful, along with being the safest modern democratic societies are the most homogeneous, aka "the same".

In reply to HiTempguy:

And are those countries trying to improve and "get great again" or are they trying to stay as they are?

While I think Trump's candidacy is a farce, his anti-immigrant/wall off Mexico stance could attract a lot of votes. Add to that his latest comment about having Oprah as his running mate makes it more scary. Think about all the votes she could bring in. And between the two of them they could make all the other candidates fund raising look puny.