Butthurt

[Dene]

This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others. They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!

https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg

[Carbon]

The conservative commentator Kathleen Parker disagrees with you.

"Republicans can argue until their last breath that Trump objectors are
sore losers, but isn't more at stake than "mere politics"? This phrase has
been rendered quaint by such serious issues as: Russian hackers apparently
trying to tilt the election toward Donald Trump; the FBI's possibly
politically motivated practices; Trump's initial resistance to the
conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community; Trump's refusal to release
tax records, which might mollify concerns about his relationship with
Russia."　

More here: https://goo.gl/UdnOeu

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-17 8:34 PM, Dene wrote:
> This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others. They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
>
> https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg
>

You are hilarious!

[Moderate]

Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:

> On 01/17/2017 11:34 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>> This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need
>> to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others.

>> They also need to be fair? To give a new administration time to do

>> what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
>>
>> https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg
>
> The conservative commentator Kathleen Parker disagrees with you.
>
> "Republicans can argue until their last breath that Trump objectors are
> sore losers, but isn't more at stake than "mere politics"? This phrase has
> been rendered quaint by such serious issues as: Russian hackers apparently
> trying to tilt the election toward Donald Trump; the FBI's possibly
> politically motivated practices; Trump's initial resistance to the
> conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community; Trump's refusal to release
> tax records, which might mollify concerns about his relationship with

> Russia."?
>
> More here: https://goo.gl/UdnOeu
>
>

The same Kathleen Parker who urged electors to not vote for Trump.

Very legit source.
--

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 11:34 PM, Dene wrote:
>
>> This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need
>> to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others.
>> They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do
>> what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
>>
>> https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg
>
> The conservative commentator Kathleen Parker disagrees with you.

"Conservative".

[MNMikeW]

But your left-wing opinion piece trolls are gospel. Hilarious!

[Carbon]

Unfortunately Parker is afflicted with an I.Q. over 100, which I'm sure
disqualifies her to many on the far right. Back in 2008, it was her that
said, hey wait, Sarah Palin is a dingbat.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/225784/palin-problem-kathleen-parker

The thing is, Palin really was out of her league. And so is Trump.

[Carbon]

Always with the moral relativity.

[BobbyK]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:34:06 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others. They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
>
>https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg

You'd be wise to drop this. The reason for the boycott is because of
Trump's ongoing trash twitters about Lewis. He's dead assed wrong
about him and if you are looking for childishness he's your man.

[Alan Baker]

From the wingnuts' favourite source:

'A growing number of Democrats, Hollywood celebrities and some
Republicans came to the defense of civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis
amid fallout from Donald Trump's comments earlier on Saturday.

“Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which
is in horrible shape and falling apart,” Trump tweeted.

The response on Twitter was swift. GOP Sen. Ben Sassse of Nebraska
tweeted that "John Lewis and his "talk" have changed the world." '

<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/14/democratic-rep-lewis-trump-not-legitimate-president.html>

More:

'Evan McMullin ✔ @Evan_McMullin
On this Martin Luther King Jr. weekend, let it be clear that John Lewis
is an American patriot. Trump's attacks on him further confirm it.'

'Bill Kristol ✔ @BillKristol
It's telling, I'm afraid, that Donald Trump treats Vladimir Putin with
more respect than he does John Lewis.'

[Dene]

>This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others. They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
>
>https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg

You'd be wise to drop this. The reason for the boycott is because of
Trump's ongoing trash twitters about Lewis. He's dead assed wrong
about him and if you are looking for childishness he's your man.

-------------

Lewis is an excuse. These partisan assholes have no concept of patriotism. Only an agenda that most of America does not want.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

"Most of America", Greg.

Do you need to be reminded...

...again...

...that Trump LOST the popular vote.

...that the Democrats GAINED seats in the senate.

...that the Democrats GAINED seats in the house?

[Moderate]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:

>
> You'd be wise to drop this. The reason for the boycott is because of
> Trump's ongoing trash twitters about Lewis. He's dead assed wrong
> about him and if you are looking for childishness he's your man.
>

Lewis is a lying POS just like you. If he doesn't get his way he
throws a tantrum. Sheeple.

Wise to drop this? Trump exposed this POS for what he really is.
--

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> BobbyK wrote:

> > Dene (Greg) wrote:
> >>This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need
> >> to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others.
> >> They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do
> >> what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
> >>
> >> <https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg>
> >
> > You'd be wise to drop this. The reason for the boycott is because of
> > Trump's ongoing trash twitters about Lewis. He's dead assed wrong
> > about him and if you are looking for childishness he's your man.
>
>

> Lewis is an excuse. These partisan assholes have no concept of patriotism.

Where was that Patriotism in the Senate nearly a year ago when a
Supreme Court nomination was presented?

Or are you going to claim that that wasn't Patriotism, but Solemn Duty?

Any rational appeal to fairness would have recognized that the Public Will
had already decided back in 2012 that that Presidential vote also included
the direction for all SCOTUS nominations for the entire presidential term.

Because even by 2012, the court was already getting obviously quite old,
as Sandra Day O’Connor was already 82, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 79,
and Kennedy, Breyer and Scalia were all 76. That's half the court already
at (or above) average life expectancy - - back in 2012.

Oh, and you can't try to claim that there wasn't any mention of this
as a factor in the 2012 election ... because there most definitely was:

'Supreme Court possibilities if Romney wins election'
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
Updated 12:33 PM ET, Tue October 2, 2012

"Here is an unofficial list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court if
Mitt Romney is elected president in November. This list was compiled
from a number of sources, including those serving as informal advisers
to the Romney campaign. The Republican nominee has not specified
publicly on favorites for the court."

<http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/>

FYI, to serve as contrast against whoever Trump puts forward, they were:

Paul Clement, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Judge Diane Sykes, Mike Lee [Utah (R)],
Judge Steven Colloton, Judge Neil Gorsuch, Judge Jeffrey Sutton,
Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Judge Allyson Duncan.


-hh

[Carbon]

On 01/18/2017 11:15 PM, Dene wrote:

>>> This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need
>>> to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous
>>> others. They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time
>>> to do what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
>>>
>>> https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg
>>
>> You'd be wise to drop this. The reason for the boycott is because of
>> Trump's ongoing trash twitters about Lewis. He's dead assed wrong
>> about him and if you are looking for childishness he's your man.
>

> Lewis is an excuse. These partisan assholes have no concept of
> patriotism. Only an agenda that most of America does not want.

But even taking such a shallow view of things, shouldn't it have still
been obvious that attacking a civil rights icon in some stupid twitter
rampage was a bad idea?

Graydon Carter is right. Trump does have skin of gossamer and he cannot
tolerate any criticism. He is going to be the worst president in US
history. He will be so bad that even you true believers will agree.

[Dene]

But even taking such a shallow view of things, shouldn't it have still
been obvious that attacking a civil rights icon in some stupid twitter
rampage was a bad idea?

Graydon Carter is right. Trump does have skin of gossamer and he cannot
tolerate any criticism. He is going to be the worst president in US
history. He will be so bad that even you true believers will agree.

----------------

I'm not a believer. I'm an independent who decided to take a chance and give a chance. I'll become a believer if deals are done that benefit the country and put aside the liberal agenda that's been imposed on us for the last eight years. I'm sick of PC, social justice, and transgender bathrooms.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

You're a cheerleader and you're ignoring the obvious gaping holes in his
suitability for the job.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:33:31 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> But even taking such a shallow view of things, shouldn't it have still
> been obvious that attacking a civil rights icon in some stupid twitter
> rampage was a bad idea?
>
> Graydon Carter is right. Trump does have skin of gossamer and he cannot
> tolerate any criticism. He is going to be the worst president in US
> history. He will be so bad that even you true believers will agree.
>
> ----------------
>
> I'm not a believer. I'm an independent who decided to take a chance
> and give a chance.

And when asked to commit to how long said "chance" is to be, you've bailed.

> I'm sick of PC, social justice, and transgender bathrooms.

Just try not to get literally sick: you'll be bankrupt before you know it.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>
>> I'm not a believer. I'm an independent who decided to take a chance
>> and give a chance. I'll become a believer if deals are done that
>> benefit the country and put aside the liberal agenda that's been
>> imposed on us for the last eight years. I'm sick of PC, social
>> justice, and transgender bathrooms.
>>
>> -Greg
>>
>
> You're a cheerleader and you're ignoring the obvious gaping holes in his
> suitability for the job.

Says the biggest leftist cheerleader here.

[Dene]

Not to mention, a bold faced liar.

-Greg

[Dene]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:30:35 AM UTC-8, recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:33:31 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> > But even taking such a shallow view of things, shouldn't it have still
> > been obvious that attacking a civil rights icon in some stupid twitter
> > rampage was a bad idea?
> >
> > Graydon Carter is right. Trump does have skin of gossamer and he cannot
> > tolerate any criticism. He is going to be the worst president in US
> > history. He will be so bad that even you true believers will agree.
> >
> > ----------------
> >
> > I'm not a believer. I'm an independent who decided to take a chance
> > and give a chance.
>
> And when asked to commit to how long said "chance" is to be, you've bailed.

100 days. You know...the number after 99.

> > I'm sick of PC, social justice, and transgender bathrooms.
>
> Just try not to get literally sick: you'll be bankrupt before you know it.
>
>
> -hh

I have health insurance with a maximum out of pocket of $6500. $6500 will not drive me to bankruptcy.

BTW....the maximum out of pocket by law is $7150. Hardly a cause for a legitimate bankruptcy.

-Greg

[John B.]

It is for some people.

[BobbyK]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:15:35 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>

>>This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others. They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
>>
>>https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg
>
>You'd be wise to drop this. The reason for the boycott is because of
>Trump's ongoing trash twitters about Lewis. He's dead assed wrong
>about him and if you are looking for childishness he's your man.
>
>----------
>

>Lewis is an excuse.
He absolutely is not. You keep saying that he isn't the reason for the
boycott. You're dead wrong. Do some reading on the Internet it's
explained over and over there. The election is secondary in this
instance. Trump is still OTT on his many tweets saying that Lewis is

>These partisan assholes have no concept of patriotism.

How in hell can you make a statement like that? You have no idea
what their concept of patriotism, or anything else is. Trying to read
one person mind is not very smart, of a large group is ridiculous.

>Only an agenda that most of America does not want.
>
>-Greg

You keep missing the point, and the fact that most of America does not
want Trump.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 1:42:45 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:33:31 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:

> > > [Carbon wrote]

> > > Graydon Carter is right. Trump does have skin of gossamer and he cannot
> > > tolerate any criticism. He is going to be the worst president in US
> > > history. He will be so bad that even you true believers will agree.
> > >
> > > ----------------
> > >
> > > I'm not a believer. I'm an independent who decided to take a chance
> > > and give a chance.
> >
> > And when asked to commit to how long said "chance" is to be, you've bailed.
>
> 100 days. You know...the number after 99.

So now noted. Congratulations on finally committing.

> > > I'm sick of PC, social justice, and transgender bathrooms.
> >
> > Just try not to get literally sick: you'll be bankrupt before you know it.
>

> I have health insurance with a maximum out of pocket of $6500.
> $6500 will not drive me to bankruptcy.

I wasn't talking about the annual out-of-pocket limit:
instead, I was referring to the cost of the actual health
insurance policy, which as per the latest CBO estimates is
expected to now grow by 20-25% per year from ACA's repeal.

The ramifications of this are that if you don't get a $5K
raise (increase in total benefits) the first year of rate
change after ACA repeal, you're falling behind. And because
of compounding, this number goes up every year thereafter:
year 2 requires no less than a $6K/year raise to prevent
falling even further behind; the "tread water" for year 3
is +$7.2K and for year 4 (2020 election year) its +$8.6K

Oh, and these are assuming the CBO's lower estimate; the
upper ones are: +$6K, +$7.5K, +$9.4K, +11.7K

Because after four years, the current[1] cost for a generic
family of four will increase from $24K/year to $48K/year.

[1] - as per Forbes, via the 2015 Milliman Medical Index:

<http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2015/05/19/annual-healthcare-cost-for-family-of-four-now-at-24671/#7fb6029a4dfb>

> BTW....the maximum out of pocket by law is $7150. Hardly
> a cause for a legitimate bankruptcy.

True, under ACA, but that was in no small part because the
ACA prohibited "lifetime limits".

But with ACA's repeal, the "lifetime limit" prohibition
is gone too, so they'll come back into effect.

And as you know, once you hit your LL, the healthcare policy
stops paying and the max out-of-pocket no longer applies.


-hh

[MNMikeW]

BobbyK wrote:

>
>> These partisan assholes have no concept of patriotism.
>
> How in hell can you make a statement like that? You have no idea
> what their concept of patriotism, or anything else is. Trying to read
> one person mind is not very smart, of a large group is ridiculous.

Yes. Like saying you know how midwest voters think.

[Carbon]

On 01/19/2017 01:31 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a believer. I'm an independent who decided to take a chance
>>> and give a chance. I'll become a believer if deals are done that
>>> benefit the country and put aside the liberal agenda that's been
>>> imposed on us for the last eight years. I'm sick of PC, social
>>> justice, and transgender bathrooms.
>>

>> You're a cheerleader and you're ignoring the obvious gaping holes in
>> his suitability for the job.
>
> Says the biggest leftist cheerleader here.

Again with the relativity. Be honest for once: Do you think Trump is
qualified to be President?

[Dene]

YES!

-Greg

[Dene]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 1:26:19 PM UTC-8, BobbyK wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:15:35 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>This opinion piece nails it. It's the cure to butthurt. Democrats need to face the real reasons why they lost this election in previous others. They also need to be fair… To give a new administration time to do what's right for this country. Enough of the childishness!!
> >>
> >>https://apple.news/AU7jbW3ART46XYza97KFAlg
> >
> >You'd be wise to drop this. The reason for the boycott is because of
> >Trump's ongoing trash twitters about Lewis. He's dead assed wrong
> >about him and if you are looking for childishness he's your man.
> >
> >----------
> >
> >Lewis is an excuse.
> He absolutely is not. You keep saying that he isn't the reason for the
> boycott. You're dead wrong. Do some reading on the Internet it's
> explained over and over there. The election is secondary in this
> instance. Trump is still OTT on his many tweets saying that Lewis is

You are not changing my mind on this one.

> >These partisan assholes have no concept of patriotism.
>
> How in hell can you make a statement like that? You have no idea
> what their concept of patriotism, or anything else is. Trying to read
> one person mind is not very smart, of a large group is ridiculous.

Petty partisanship over patriotism. You are not going to convince me otherwise.

> >Only an agenda that most of America does not want.
> >
> >-Greg
> You keep missing the point, and the fact that most of America does not
> want Trump.

Tell that to middle America or your state.

-Greg

[Moderate]

Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> Wrote in message:
>

> Again with the relativity. Be honest for once: Do you think Trump is
> qualified to be President?
>

What stupid question.

Relatively speaking, you aren't qualified to judge anything.
--

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

BTW, one more thing on this, before I misplace the reference:

<http://www.actuary.org/files/publications/Acad_eval_indiv_mkt_011817.pdf>

Its a new publication from the American Academy of Actuaries
(Individual and Small Group Markets Committee). Its title is:

"AN EVALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET AND IMPLICATIONS OF POTENTIAL CHANGES"

Since Greg's in the business of selling health insurance, he may find it an
interesting read too.


-hh

[BobbyK]

If you had been following what was going on in various polls you'd
know too. There were dozens of stories about how people in various
areas were thinking, and why they were voting as they were. But in
your usual mode it's easier to make comments without thought.

Got it?

[Moderate]

BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net> Wrote in message:

Still sticking with polls. What a fish.

--

[MNMikeW]

In the traditional sense of qualified, as in spending ones entire life
mired in politics and bought off by everyone, no. He can learn on the
job like Obama did.

[MNMikeW]

DOZENS!! LOL! What ever you say Mr. hypocrite.

[BobbyK]

Yes dozens, and what am I being hypocritical about?
Fuck off.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-19 1:42 PM, recscub...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 1:42:45 PM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 11:33:31 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>>>> [Carbon wrote]
>>>> Graydon Carter is right. Trump does have skin of gossamer and he cannot
>>>> tolerate any criticism. He is going to be the worst president in US
>>>> history. He will be so bad that even you true believers will agree.
>>>>
>>>> ----------------
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a believer. I'm an independent who decided to take a chance
>>>> and give a chance.
>>>
>>> And when asked to commit to how long said "chance" is to be, you've bailed.
>>
>> 100 days. You know...the number after 99.
>
> So now noted. Congratulations on finally committing.

Perhaps this will help:

'Donald Trump has made many statements about his plans. Below are the
concrete items from Donald Trump's Contract with the American Voter,
which contains his promises for his first 100 days. Here, we will track
fulfillment of those promises, and update it daily during the initial
100 day period.'

<http://www.track-trump.com/>

What do you want to bet that the moment this website states that Trump
has failed on a promise or reneged, the wingnuts here will declared it
"leftist"?

:-)

[MNMikeW]

Why wait till then.

Alec was a campus organizer on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential
campaign, and he is excited to be involved in this project which he
hopes will promote accountable governance and be useful as a nonpartisan
resource.

[Alan Baker]

Yeah... ...why wait for an actual examination of whether what they've
posted is true or not...

...when a zealot can tell what's truth by who posted it?

LOL

[MNMikeW]

Alan Baker wrote:

>>>
>>> <http://www.track-trump.com/>
>>>
>>> What do you want to bet that the moment this website states that Trump
>>> has failed on a promise or reneged, the wingnuts here will declared it
>>> "leftist"?
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Why wait till then.
>>
>> Alec was a campus organizer on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential
>> campaign, and he is excited to be involved in this project which he
>> hopes will promote accountable governance and be useful as a nonpartisan
>> resource.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah... ...why wait for an actual examination of whether what they've
> posted is true or not...
>
> ...when a zealot can tell what's truth by who posted it?
>
> LOL

Says the zealot leftist troll.

[Alan Baker]

See: you did it again.

You can't actually attack the facts, so you attack those who post them!

[Carbon]

Which quality in particular? The fourth grade reading level? The outright
scam that was Trump "University"? Perhaps another quality?

[Carbon]

The fourth grade reading level should be a great help with that.

[Carbon]

It's either killing the messenger, or some ridiculous and usually
unsubstantiated claim that it's ok because the Democrats do it too, or
BWHAHAHAHAAA!! Getting anything else out of Mike is a rare event.

[Dene]

Which quality in particular? The fourth grade reading level? The outright
scam that was Trump "University"? Perhaps another quality?

-------

His business experience. His work ethic. His policies. And the fact that he beat 16 Republicans and two Democrats, in an 18 month vetting process.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-20 5:48 PM, Dene wrote:
>
> Which quality in particular? The fourth grade reading level? The outright
> scam that was Trump "University"? Perhaps another quality?
>
> -------
>
> His business experience.

Which you don't really know about... ...because he won't reveal it.

> His work ethic.

His stealing from suppliers and employees...

> His policies. And the fact that he beat 16 Republicans and two Democrats, in an 18 month vetting process.

He won with a stacked deck in a rigged game...

...and none of it is actually an important quality of being a good
president.

[David Laville]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:19:11 -0500, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> In the traditional sense of qualified, as in spending ones entire life
>> mired in politics and bought off by everyone, no. He can learn on the
>> job like Obama did.
>
>The fourth grade reading level should be a great help with that.

If someone with a 4th grade reading level was able to multiply his
inheritance 40X over than what's your excuse for being so poor?

[Dene]

Socialists have no concept of that. Riches earned are only because you took advantage of somebody...not hard work and/or the willingness to envision and risk.

In the real world, there are Chiefs and Indians. In socialism, all Chiefs are evil.

-Greg

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

David Laville wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>>[...]

>>> In the traditional sense of qualified, as in spending ones entire life
>>> mired in politics and bought off by everyone, no. He can learn on the
>>> job like Obama did.
>>
>>The fourth grade reading level should be a great help with that.
>
> If someone with a 4th grade reading level was able to multiply his
> inheritance 40X over than what's your excuse for being so poor?

Considering that a mere Stock Market Inder Fund did significantly better
over that time period, the degree of his personal underperformance is as
plain as day.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

I don't know that riches are ONLY earned that way, Greg...

...but let's at least face the fact squarely that you have NO IDEA how
Trump's riches were acquired.

[Alan Baker]

Did he? How do you know?

[michae...@gmail.com]

And nether do you, Trust Fund Boy.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Agreed... ...at least about not knowing...

...but I'm not making claims about his great "wealth", am I?

:-)

[Carbon]

He doesn't.

As Thomas Picketty persuasively argued, r > g, where over time the return
on investment always exceeds the rate of economic growth. That being said,
I present

How to be a multi-billionaire when Daddy owns half of Long Island:

1. Inherit 200 million dollars.

2. Wait 40 years.

3. Profit.

#2 is problematic for Trump due to his obvious financial ineptitude,
demonstrated by his four (4) bankruptcies and thirty-five hundred (3500!)
lawsuits. I would be very surprised if an honest accounting of Trump's
finances showed his current net worth to be anywhere close to what it
would have been with the sit-on-your-ass-and-do-nothing strategy.

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

And this has also been discussed in the financial circles, such as
this from Forbes:

"Donald Trump would be richer if he’d have invested in index funds"
Claire Groden
Aug 20, 2015 5:47 PM UTC

"...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."

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


-hh

[michae...@gmail.com]

Just another assholes opinion. One who doesn't have anywhere near Trumps wealth.

And of course, hindsight is 20/20.

[michae...@gmail.com]

Right, you don't know jack shit.

>
> ...but I'm not making claims about his great "wealth", am I?

Golly, another goalpost shift. Your great at that, Shit Stain.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

How do you know what Trump's wealth actually is, Michael?

Like you: he makes a lot of claims...

...but there's no actual proof, is there?

:-)

[Alan Baker]

The same way you don't.

>>
>> ...but I'm not making claims about his great "wealth", am I?
>
> Golly, another goalpost shift. Your great at that, Shit Stain.

No shift at all, Michael.

My point was that Greg was making claims that he doesn't have the
slightest idea about.

:-)_

[Dene]

He doesn't.

As Thomas Picketty persuasively argued, r > g, where over time the return
on investment always exceeds the rate of economic growth. That being said,
I present

How to be a multi-billionaire when Daddy owns half of Long Island:

1. Inherit 200 million dollars.

2. Wait 40 years.

3. Profit.

#2 is problematic for Trump due to his obvious financial ineptitude,
demonstrated by his four (4) bankruptcies and thirty-five hundred (3500!)
lawsuits. I would be very surprised if an honest accounting of Trump's
finances showed his current net worth to be anywhere close to what it
would have been with the sit-on-your-ass-and-do-nothing strategy.

---------------

The people Trump employs count for nothing?

-Greg

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

Greg wrote:
> [some attempted hero worship about jobs creation]

Well, as "job creation" bit, there's a couple of considerations:

First, everyone's net worth does this, unless it is literally being
held as cash withheld from circulation (eg, stuffed in a mattress).
That means your "by the time you're age 65" net worth of $1M
is also a jobs creation force. And I've previously shown how you've
been a better businessman, which means you've outperformed him
in job creation on a normalized resources basis.

Second, not all jobs are equal. Most of the jobs in his industry (which
is primarily the hospitality business) aren't really all that great: since
one doesn't need a college degree to be a maid cleaning hotel rooms,
nor does the pay.

Third, the jobs which are overseas are just that: overseas. Our own
investment savings portfolios probably have had much higher percentages
of domestic investment than his, which means on a normalized basis, it'd
be doing more domestic good per dollar than his.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

The ones he cheats, you mean?

[Carbon]

> The people Trump employs count for nothing?

Only if he doesn't rip them off by refusing to pay them.

https://goo.gl/LDcauf

Just one example, but Trump has pulled this stunt many times over the
years. This is a big part of why he's been sued so many times.

The idea that a con artist like this is going to clean up Washington is a
complete fucking joke. I cannot believe how gullible people are.

[Moderate]

Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net> Wrote in message:

>
> My point was that Greg was making claims that he doesn't have the
> slightest idea about.
>

You just described the majority of your posts.


--

[Dene]

The majority of the liar's posts....virtually all unanswered.

-Greg

[MNMikeW]

Carbon wrote:

>>
>> In the traditional sense of qualified, as in spending ones entire life
>> mired in politics and bought off by everyone, no. He can learn on the
>> job like Obama did.
>
> The fourth grade reading level should be a great help with that.
>

Will come in handy with dealing with liberals.

[Alan Baker]

You just answered another.

:-)

[BobbyK]

Hasn't helped you to admit Trump is dishonest and a liar.

[David Laville]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:11:08 -0800 (PST), michae...@gmail.com
wrote:

>> I don't know that riches are ONLY earned that way, Greg...
>>
>> ...but let's at least face the fact squarely that you have NO IDEA how
>> Trump's riches were acquired.
>
>And nether do you, Trust Fund Boy.

They were acquired through real estate and management.

[David Laville]

On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:24:06 -0500, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>>>
>>> If someone with a 4th grade reading level was able to multiply his
>>> inheritance 40X over than what's your excuse for being so poor?
>>
>> Did he? How do you know?
>
>He doesn't.
>
>As Thomas Picketty persuasively argued, r > g, where over time the return
>on investment always exceeds the rate of economic growth. That being said,
>I present
>
>How to be a multi-billionaire when Daddy owns half of Long Island:
>
>1. Inherit 200 million dollars.
>
>2. Wait 40 years.
>
>3. Profit.
>
>#2 is problematic for Trump due to his obvious financial ineptitude,
>demonstrated by his four (4) bankruptcies and thirty-five hundred (3500!)
>lawsuits. I would be very surprised if an honest accounting of Trump's
>finances showed his current net worth to be anywhere close to what it
>would have been with the sit-on-your-ass-and-do-nothing strategy.

What logic! Turning 200 million (I thought it was 250 million) into
10 billion shows financial ineptitude! So who is this Thomas
Picketty? He's a French professor and economist who works on wealth
and income inequality.

Is there any wonder why Carbon would use him as a reference?

[David Laville]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 00:19:02 -0500, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>> The people Trump employs count for nothing?
>
>Only if he doesn't rip them off by refusing to pay them.
>
>https://goo.gl/LDcauf
>
>Just one example, but Trump has pulled this stunt many times over the
>years. This is a big part of why he's been sued so many times.

Do you know I'm suing three dentist right now for not paying me? Know
what they all had in common? Hillary signs in front of their offices.

>The idea that a con artist like this is going to clean up Washington is a
>complete fucking joke. I cannot believe how gullible people are.

Says the guy who was so certain Hillary was going to win the election
because the polls said so.

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-24 4:27 PM, David Laville wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2017 15:24:06 -0500, Carbon
> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> If someone with a 4th grade reading level was able to multiply his
>>>> inheritance 40X over than what's your excuse for being so poor?
>>>
>>> Did he? How do you know?
>>
>> He doesn't.
>>
>> As Thomas Picketty persuasively argued, r > g, where over time the return
>> on investment always exceeds the rate of economic growth. That being said,
>> I present
>>
>> How to be a multi-billionaire when Daddy owns half of Long Island:
>>
>> 1. Inherit 200 million dollars.
>>
>> 2. Wait 40 years.
>>
>> 3. Profit.
>>
>> #2 is problematic for Trump due to his obvious financial ineptitude,
>> demonstrated by his four (4) bankruptcies and thirty-five hundred (3500!)
>> lawsuits. I would be very surprised if an honest accounting of Trump's
>> finances showed his current net worth to be anywhere close to what it
>> would have been with the sit-on-your-ass-and-do-nothing strategy.
>
> What logic! Turning 200 million (I thought it was 250 million) into
> 10 billion shows financial ineptitude!

You don't know how much he turned it into, David.

He's not released that information.

[Alan Baker]

Were they?

How do you know?

What is your source for Trump's supposed wealth?

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-01-24 4:29 PM, David Laville wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2017 00:19:02 -0500, Carbon
> <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> The people Trump employs count for nothing?
>>
>> Only if he doesn't rip them off by refusing to pay them.
>>
>> https://goo.gl/LDcauf
>>
>> Just one example, but Trump has pulled this stunt many times over the
>> years. This is a big part of why he's been sued so many times.
>
> Do you know I'm suing three dentist right now for not paying me? Know
> what they all had in common? Hillary signs in front of their offices.

So it's wrong that they're not paying is it?

[Carbon]

Actually Trump did claim to be worth 10 billion. Of course only a total
moron would take him at his word.

[BobbyK]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:29:19 -0800, Alan Baker <alang...@telus.net>
wrote:

He should have consulted a prosthodontist.

[David Laville]

On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 21:01:23 -0500, Carbon
<nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>
>Actually Trump did claim to be worth 10 billion. Of course only a total
>moron would take him at his word.

Says the moron who took the word of presidential election polls as if
they were gospel.

[BobbyK]

Wrong, but they weren't lying. Trump is the master.

[David Laville]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 20:57:46 -0600, BobbyK <bkn...@Conramp.net>
wrote:

I didn't say they were lying, now did I? I said Carbon took their
word as if they were gospel. They turned out to be wrong, didn't
they?

[Dene]

Where America is watching the news. I routinely watch CNN, CBS, and FOXNews. The distinction is quite apparent. The first two go right to the negative and rarely tell the whole story. The CIA speech is a classic example. Refreshing that mainstream America is choosing Fox over the biased spin.

Lefties… You're losing big-time....on all fronts.

FOX News Channel marks ratings milestone
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/01/31/fox-news-channel-marks-ratings-milestone.html

-Greg

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 9:29:32 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
> Where America is watching the news. I routinely watch CNN,
> CBS, and FOXNews.

Suggest you add BBC World News too.

> The distinction is quite apparent. The first two go right
> to the negative and rarely tell the whole story. The CIA
> speech is a classic example. Refreshing that mainstream
> America is choosing Fox over the biased spin.

So then why is it that Fox gets basic facts wrong then?
For example, Fox was just forced to backpedal on their Tweet
which claimed that the Canadian Mosque shooter was a Moroccan:

<https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/31/pmo-slams-fox-news-for-inaccurate-tweet-about-quebec-shooting-suspect.html>

And from a journalistic integrity standpoint, where is Fox's
formal retraction and apology for reporting bad information
on their own website?

Merely deleting a Tweet doesn't clearly set the record straight.


> FOX News Channel marks ratings milestone [link]

Logically, you're now 0 for 2, because you've just made
an "Argumentum ad populum" fallacy.

If you need the definition, here ya go:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum>

FWIW, here's some examples of incorrect beliefs of
the masses:

<https://www.soundimmigration.com/9-mistaken-beliefs-about-immigrants-the-law/>

Note the topical nature of #8 as it relates to the "Build
A Wall" populism, since it estimates that 80% of illegal
immigrant entries were by means other than an illegal border
crossing (eg, "climbing a wall")...which means $15-25B to
be spent on what's at most only a 20% solution.


-hh

[bobby...@onramp.net]

Nope, there are just more idiots watching cable news.

[Dene]

They are finding fair and balance. Use to think CBS News was like that but Pelley's stuff has gone from neutral to leftist/victim orientated. Always the negative.

-Greg

[Alan Baker]

On 2017-02-01 4:34 PM, Dene wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 9:03:48 AM UTC-8, bobby...@onramp.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where America is watching the news. I routinely watch CNN, CBS, and FOXNews. The distinction is quite apparent.
>> The first two go right to the negative and rarely tell the whole
>> story. The CIA speech is a classic example. Refreshing that mainstream
>> America is choosing Fox over the biased spin.
>>>
>>> Lefties… You're losing big-time....on all fronts.
>>>
>>> FOX News Channel marks ratings milestone
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/01/31/fox-news-channel-marks-ratings-milestone.html
>>>
>>> -Greg
>>
>> Nope, there are just more idiots watching cable news.
>
> They are finding fair and balance.

Bullshit.

[bobby...@onramp.net]

CBS is not my #1 to watch, but Fox isn't in the running because imo
they are anything but fair,except for O'Reilly.

[Dene]

----------

I'm glad you like O'Reilly. I like Tucker Carlson but can't stand Hannity. The regular, ongoing news coverage is quite good.
On CNN, I like Don Lemon. I also like Anderson Cooper but some of his whiny panel guests irritate the hell out of me.

For special event coverage, I like George Stephanopoulos. Also like his Sunday morning show. Chris Wallace as well.

-Greg

[MNMikeW]

alan_b...@huntzinger.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 9:29:32 AM UTC-5, Dene wrote:
>> Where America is watching the news. I routinely watch CNN,
>> CBS, and FOXNews.
>
> Suggest you add BBC World News too.
>
>> The distinction is quite apparent. The first two go right
>> to the negative and rarely tell the whole story. The CIA
>> speech is a classic example. Refreshing that mainstream
>> America is choosing Fox over the biased spin.
>
> So then why is it that Fox gets basic facts wrong then?
> For example, Fox was just forced to backpedal on their Tweet
> which claimed that the Canadian Mosque shooter was a Moroccan:
>
> <https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/31/pmo-slams-fox-news-for-inaccurate-tweet-about-quebec-shooting-suspect.html>
>
> And from a journalistic integrity standpoint, where is Fox's
> formal retraction and apology for reporting bad information
> on their own website?
>
> Merely deleting a Tweet doesn't clearly set the record straight.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/media/fox-news-justin-trudeau/

[MNMikeW]

Let me guess. All the smart ones are watching NBC/MSNBC? LOL!

[recscub...@huntzinger.com]

On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 9:49:09 AM UTC-5, MNMikeW wrote:
> alan_b...@huntzinger.com wrote:

Oh, look: a lame name-calling attempt!


[...]

> > So then why is it that Fox gets basic facts wrong then?
> > For example, Fox was just forced to backpedal on their Tweet
> > which claimed that the Canadian Mosque shooter was a Moroccan:
> >
> > <https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/01/31/pmo-slams-fox-news-for-inaccurate-tweet-about-quebec-shooting-suspect.html>
> >
> > And from a journalistic integrity standpoint, where is Fox's
> > formal retraction and apology for reporting bad information
> > on their own website?
> >
> > Merely deleting a Tweet doesn't clearly set the record straight.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/media/fox-news-justin-trudeau/

That's promising in that it is CNN reporting that Fox did actually
provide a retraction, but the question ... still listed above ... is
just where is it ON FOX'S OWN website?


-hh

[bobby...@onramp.net]

Bad guess.