No... you're just repeating what some other idiot said without doing the math.
It doesn't matter. We all know that if the numbers were put right in front of you, you'd find some other deflection.
It is continually interesting that folks who, for some reason, are intent not to be labeled as Trumpers, daily defend the indefensible and wave away the undeniable about the man.....
You guys are clearly comfortable in your "I hate liberals" skin, so why can't you be completely comfortable in your "I love Trump" skin ??
If it was as easy to become a billionaire as you people say it is there would be a hell of a lot more of them running around.
Trump built a real estate empire. He's worth billions. These are facts even if you don't like him.
I don't "love" Trump. I simply preferred him to HRC and Joe Biden because I'm not a fool.
Near the beginning of Donald Trump’s time in office, the then-president had a pressing question for his national-security aides and administration officials: Does China have the secret technology — a weapon, even — to create large, man-made hurricanes and then launch them at the United States? And if so, would this constitute an act of war by a foreign power, and could the U.S. retaliate militarily? Then-President Trump repeatedly asked about this, according to two former senior administration officials and a third person briefed on the matter. “It was almost too stupid for words,” said a former Trump official intimately familiar with the then-sitting president’s inquiry. “I did not get the sense he was joking at all.”
Selling anti-Trump books to morons is the new American pastime...
They're so desperate for validation they'll believe anything so long as it's negative.
You have Everest-sized piles of 100% objective evidence that Trump is pretty much all of the bad things people say he is (and STILL true if a small amount of stuff - NOT in that pile - MIGHT be wrong or exaggerated). But you CHOOSE to think otherwise. You definitely shouldn't be throwing around "moran," or pretty much any other personal pejorative.
Once again, it's the (rather amusing) Trump-caused devaluation of the "biased liberal media" criticism. The liberal media HASN'T HAD TO BE BIASED AGAINST TRUMP. He's provided ALL of the first-person, 100% unfiltered evidence - on an hourly basis - anyone could have ever needed to reach a rock solid conclusion about the man and public servant.
Any thinking "conservative" or Republican sees this. Far, far too many have their heads in the sand, or are putting career/power over principle.
You guys are clearly comfortable in your "I hate liberals" skin, so why can't you be completely comfortable in your "I love Trump" skin ??
I think for a significant proportion of board posters, they love how he perturbs liberals more than they love him personally.
I'd like to think that. But I don't think that the evidence supports it real well. LOTS of actual defending of the man and his actions. And downplaying his negatives. Most recently, "He WAS a genius business man" (not just an ambitious and ruthless silver spooner who managed not to squander ALL of his huge inheritance). And, "He was GREAT on policy!" And, "There weren't MASSIVE problems with how he handled the presidency, he JUST has an abrasive personality." Etc., etc. with the stupidity.
It's astonishing that anyone still thinks that Trump built anything worth any value. He essentially inherited the core business from his dad (plus 400 million bucks to throw around). He went through 6 corporate bankruptcies, was litigated against over 4000 times, and at the end of the day, most of his brands failed (Trump airline?!) or were exposed as fraudulent (Trump U?!). HE claims he's worth billions, but that clearly isn't true, given how leveraged he is by multiple financial institutions, nearly all of whom have cut off his lifeblood (credit). Also, since essentially every single phrase out of his mouth is a falsehood, that you would take his word about his wealth leads me to suggest you reevaluate the last 4 words of your post with an open mind. Also Jan. 6th.
It doesn't matter. We all know that if the numbers were put right in front of you, you'd find some other deflection.
It is continually interesting that folks who, for some reason, are intent not to be labeled as Trumpers, daily defend the indefensible and wave away the undeniable about the man.....
You guys are clearly comfortable in your "I hate liberals" skin, so why can't you be completely comfortable in your "I love Trump" skin ??
If it was as easy to become a billionaire as you people say it is there would be a hell of a lot more of them running around.
Trump built a real estate empire. He's worth billions. These are facts even if you don't like him.
I don't "love" Trump. I simply preferred him to HRC and Joe Biden because I'm not a fool.
You talk about numbers, but then ignore them. The poster said something I've heard many times over the years: If he had simply conservatively invested what Trump got from his father, he'd have much more than what he accumulated. That's simply not genius business work, or anywhere close, obviously. Moreover, once he started running for president, his evident lack of intellectual genius (or again, anywhere close) was put on full display daily.
Now, you could ask the poster (or me), or find for yourself, those numbers. Maybe they're wrong (although it's a pretty simple calculation, so I doubt it). But regardless, I don't care all that much. If he DID make somewhat more than standard investing, I don't care. But we've seen enough of you and the other Trumpers on this board (like STILL denying the 2020 election results) to be 100% certain that if very solid evidence were presented about Trump's relative business/financial performance, you wouldn't accept it.
If it was as easy to become a billionaire as you people say it is there would be a hell of a lot more of them running around.
Trump built a real estate empire. He's worth billions. These are facts even if you don't like him.
I don't "love" Trump. I simply preferred him to HRC and Joe Biden because I'm not a fool.
You talk about numbers, but then ignore them. The poster said something I've heard many times over the years: If he had simply conservatively invested what Trump got from his father, he'd have much more than what he accumulated. That's simply not genius business work, or anywhere close, obviously. Moreover, once he started running for president, his evident lack of intellectual genius (or again, anywhere close) was put on full display daily.
Now, you could ask the poster (or me), or find for yourself, those numbers. Maybe they're wrong (although it's a pretty simple calculation, so I doubt it). But regardless, I don't care all that much. If he DID make somewhat more than standard investing, I don't care. But we've seen enough of you and the other Trumpers on this board (like STILL denying the 2020 election results) to be 100% certain that if very solid evidence were presented about Trump's relative business/financial performance, you wouldn't accept it.
Sorry, put MUCH, MUCH more succinctly: Contrary to what you state, if you start with a few hundred million from your father (I wanna say it might been in the 2-hundred's?) it IS (repeat IS) easy to become a billionaire in fairly short order.
It's astonishing that anyone still thinks that Trump built anything worth any value. He essentially inherited the core business from his dad (plus 400 million bucks to throw around). He went through 6 corporate bankruptcies, was litigated against over 4000 times, and at the end of the day, most of his brands failed (Trump airline?!) or were exposed as fraudulent (Trump U?!). HE claims he's worth billions, but that clearly isn't true, given how leveraged he is by multiple financial institutions, nearly all of whom have cut off his lifeblood (credit). Also, since essentially every single phrase out of his mouth is a falsehood, that you would take his word about his wealth leads me to suggest you reevaluate the last 4 words of your post with an open mind. Also Jan. 6th.
Just utter garbage you post. Trump and his dad appeared on the first Forbes 400 list in 1982 with a combined net worth of $200 million. Trump did get money from his dad but has done very well to make himself a multi-billionaire. It is not Trump who says that but the highly acclaimed busiess magazine Forbes which estimates his net worth at $3 billion. His net worth has increased $600 million in just over a year. And you are worth how much?
It's astonishing that anyone still thinks that Trump built anything worth any value. He essentially inherited the core business from his dad (plus 400 million bucks to throw around). He went through 6 corporate bankruptcies, was litigated against over 4000 times, and at the end of the day, most of his brands failed (Trump airline?!) or were exposed as fraudulent (Trump U?!). HE claims he's worth billions, but that clearly isn't true, given how leveraged he is by multiple financial institutions, nearly all of whom have cut off his lifeblood (credit). Also, since essentially every single phrase out of his mouth is a falsehood, that you would take his word about his wealth leads me to suggest you reevaluate the last 4 words of your post with an open mind. Also Jan. 6th.
It's not astonishing that you can't stop thinking/talking about him on the Biden Thread.
I think for a significant proportion of board posters, they love how he perturbs liberals more than they love him personally.
I'd like to think that. But I don't think that the evidence supports it real well. LOTS of actual defending of the man and his actions. And downplaying his negatives. Most recently, "He WAS a genius business man" (not just an ambitious and ruthless silver spooner who managed not to squander ALL of his huge inheritance). And, "He was GREAT on policy!" And, "There weren't MASSIVE problems with how he handled the presidency, he JUST has an abrasive personality." Etc., etc. with the stupidity.
Oh, and perhaps it goes without saying, but most (if not practically all?) of Trump's worst transgressions should piss of conservatives EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS liberals. There really is no exaggeration in that statement. Show me the political philosophy/inclination that would preferentially favor:
- Mocking all POWs (and federal law enforcement, the intelligence community, etc.)
- Purposely screwing up a pandemic response
- LYING, LYING, LYING.....
- Abusing the power of the office in countless ways
- Shaking down foreign leaders
- And you know THE biggest one
- ....and dozens or hundreds of other ones, depending on how one chooses to count
None of these things have much or anything to do with being against liberalism, and all of them should be 100% unacceptable to any conservative.
Moreover, ANY one of them should have been enough for the R party to say (similar as with Nixon at the end), "Enough. We can do far, far better than you in a country of 330 million. Let's go find someone else. We simply HAVE to."
But no. Roughly 6 years later, and no principle, no courage, no backbone, no ethics.
Says this actual conservative (but not and never-been R).
Felonious wife-beater liar D'Souza's film is a work of fiction and a steaming pile of lies!
I never, never, never would have thought a felonious wife beater trumper would lie to us. Never. Those people are so honest and public-spirited! /sarcasm
I guess you all have to wait two more weeks for evidence of election fraud. Sorry,rubes.
At its heart, “2000 Mules” is a triumph of capitalism. There’s huge demand for proving that Trump didn’t lose in 2020, and this film provides just enough of a veneer of authority to let people collapse comfortably into that belief. That it doesn’t survive even mild external scrutiny is as irrelevant as pointing out contradictions in a religious text is to recent converts: They want to believe what they want to believe. “Their ability to keep their side ignorant is total,” radio host Dennis Prager said during the pundit panel portion of the film. It’s an interesting commentary on how partisan belief works, certainly.
OMG. You are as dumb as Trump. "The ocean is large." You are hilarious.
You really think we'd be better off with the Navy we had 20 years ago?
Yes, technology can do more than it used to. A modern ship can project power over a much larger area than the ships of old.
But it's still more than big enough that one can have too few ships. I'm a 31 year Navy veteran, retired a few years ago. Haven't been keeping up at all, but I'm certain that our Navy is still smaller than what we need to be everywhere we'd like and/or "need" to be, especially the Western Pacific (for China, obviously). Ships' sensors and weapons only reach so far. And average speed has increased little, if at all (LCS aside...but still not terribly meaningful). And a significant number still need escorts to defend them from the greatest threats, diluting the number of potent offensive ships you have for other things (particularly offensive things).
And doesn't help when you decide to buy ships like LCS (with which I was directly involved). Sure, a ship like that is packed full of tech we didn't have 20 or more years ago. But if it still can't defend itself well against sophisticated air threats (as it couldn't, and I'm sure still can't), or pack much of an offensive punch, or get very far on a tank of gas (1 variant is better than the other, don't recall which), or be reliable enough to operate long periods before repairs....you don't have nearly what you need or ought to have got for the high price.
Just read an article in CNN today that the Navy is ALREADY asking to decommission a bunch of them. Holy cow. Already an embarrassing program, and this is probably the worst hit, yet.
Long story short, folks who you would think would be FAR better at spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the best defense possible.....STILL get it wrong too often.
Of course, EXTREMELY little or NONE of that actually has ANYTHING to do with the capabilities, or lack thereof, of any recent president. The services and DoD (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Congress and industry) DO deserve most or all of the blame.
It's always good (and rather rare) to see someone on here who knows what they are talking about.
Thank you for your posts (especially ones like the above).
But it's still more than big enough that one can have too few ships. I'm a 31 year Navy veteran, retired a few years ago. Haven't been keeping up at all, but I'm certain that our Navy is still smaller than what we need to be everywhere we'd like and/or "need" to be, especially the Western Pacific (for China, obviously). Ships' sensors and weapons only reach so far. And average speed has increased little, if at all (LCS aside...but still not terribly meaningful). And a significant number still need escorts to defend them from the greatest threats, diluting the number of potent offensive ships you have for other things (particularly offensive things).
And doesn't help when you decide to buy ships like LCS (with which I was directly involved). Sure, a ship like that is packed full of tech we didn't have 20 or more years ago. But if it still can't defend itself well against sophisticated air threats (as it couldn't, and I'm sure still can't), or pack much of an offensive punch, or get very far on a tank of gas (1 variant is better than the other, don't recall which), or be reliable enough to operate long periods before repairs....you don't have nearly what you need or ought to have got for the high price.
Just read an article in CNN today that the Navy is ALREADY asking to decommission a bunch of them. Holy cow. Already an embarrassing program, and this is probably the worst hit, yet.
Long story short, folks who you would think would be FAR better at spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the best defense possible.....STILL get it wrong too often.
Of course, EXTREMELY little or NONE of that actually has ANYTHING to do with the capabilities, or lack thereof, of any recent president. The services and DoD (and perhaps to a lesser extent, Congress and industry) DO deserve most or all of the blame.
It's always good (and rather rare) to see someone on here who knows what they are talking about.
Thank you for your posts (especially ones like the above).
Selling anti-Trump books to morons is the new American pastime...
They're so desperate for validation they'll believe anything so long as it's negative.
You have Everest-sized piles of 100% objective evidence that Trump is pretty much all of the bad things people say he is (and STILL true if a small amount of stuff - NOT in that pile - MIGHT be wrong or exaggerated). But you CHOOSE to think otherwise. You definitely shouldn't be throwing around "moran," or pretty much any other personal pejorative.
Once again, it's the (rather amusing) Trump-caused devaluation of the "biased liberal media" criticism. The liberal media HASN'T HAD TO BE BIASED AGAINST TRUMP. He's provided ALL of the first-person, 100% unfiltered evidence - on an hourly basis - anyone could have ever needed to reach a rock solid conclusion about the man and public servant.
Any thinking "conservative" or Republican sees this. Far, far too many have their heads in the sand, or are putting career/power over principle.
Even if 100% of the stuff in your "pile" was true. HRC and Biden are still exponentially WORSE.
You have Everest-sized piles of 100% objective evidence that Trump is pretty much all of the bad things people say he is (and STILL true if a small amount of stuff - NOT in that pile - MIGHT be wrong or exaggerated). But you CHOOSE to think otherwise. You definitely shouldn't be throwing around "moran," or pretty much any other personal pejorative.
Once again, it's the (rather amusing) Trump-caused devaluation of the "biased liberal media" criticism. The liberal media HASN'T HAD TO BE BIASED AGAINST TRUMP. He's provided ALL of the first-person, 100% unfiltered evidence - on an hourly basis - anyone could have ever needed to reach a rock solid conclusion about the man and public servant.
Any thinking "conservative" or Republican sees this. Far, far too many have their heads in the sand, or are putting career/power over principle.
Even if 100% of the stuff in your "pile" was true. HRC and Biden are still exponentially WORSE.
Why is this so confusing for you?
what the heck is worse than actively working to overthrow democracy?
what the heck is worse than calling the states to 'find' more votes?
You talk about numbers, but then ignore them. The poster said something I've heard many times over the years: If he had simply conservatively invested what Trump got from his father, he'd have much more than what he accumulated. That's simply not genius business work, or anywhere close, obviously. Moreover, once he started running for president, his evident lack of intellectual genius (or again, anywhere close) was put on full display daily.
Now, you could ask the poster (or me), or find for yourself, those numbers. Maybe they're wrong (although it's a pretty simple calculation, so I doubt it). But regardless, I don't care all that much. If he DID make somewhat more than standard investing, I don't care. But we've seen enough of you and the other Trumpers on this board (like STILL denying the 2020 election results) to be 100% certain that if very solid evidence were presented about Trump's relative business/financial performance, you wouldn't accept it.
Sorry, put MUCH, MUCH more succinctly: Contrary to what you state, if you start with a few hundred million from your father (I wanna say it might been in the 2-hundred's?) it IS (repeat IS) easy to become a billionaire in fairly short order.
You could probably have 900 million handed to you and you'd still never be a billionaire.
I seriously doubt that Trump has a net worth over $1 billion.
Most of his properties are failing. I wouldn't be surprised if his net worth is negative.
So Forbes has extensively investigated his finances and believes he is worth about $3 billion. Fat Hurts, on the other hand who hasn't looked at his finances or books, believes his net worth is in the red. Got it! He will have to sell that big jet very soon.
If it was as easy to become a billionaire as you people say it is there would be a hell of a lot more of them running around.
Trump built a real estate empire. He's worth billions. These are facts even if you don't like him.
I don't "love" Trump. I simply preferred him to HRC and Joe Biden because I'm not a fool.
You talk about numbers, but then ignore them. The poster said something I've heard many times over the years: If he had simply conservatively invested what Trump got from his father, he'd have much more than what he accumulated. That's simply not genius business work, or anywhere close, obviously. Moreover, once he started running for president, his evident lack of intellectual genius (or again, anywhere close) was put on full display daily.
Now, you could ask the poster (or me), or find for yourself, those numbers. Maybe they're wrong (although it's a pretty simple calculation, so I doubt it). But regardless, I don't care all that much. If he DID make somewhat more than standard investing, I don't care. But we've seen enough of you and the other Trumpers on this board (like STILL denying the 2020 election results) to be 100% certain that if very solid evidence were presented about Trump's relative business/financial performance, you wouldn't accept it.