The reasons I like Trump are the same reasons why people hate him. People are such fucking pussies these days. And all the fucking media bias against him? God, you'd think Trump was a serial rapist and a serial killer.
All this politically correct behavior we see election after election? This over-the-top, "hey the camera's on me, better behave!", "act presidential" persona we've seen from every candidate election after election is getting old. All it tells me is that you're too big of a fucking pussy to be yourself when the camera's on you. That you just listen to your campaign advisors and practice being somebody you aren't, and get coached, etc...what's wrong? Afraid of some criticism? Well then you ain't no fucking leader, so go fuck off.
I mean, are we really going to sit here and lie to ourselves and other people and pretend that all these "presidential" acting presidents we've had in the past god only knows how many decades haven't passed shitty legislation or made shitty foreign policy moves? People need to remember why the fuck we elect politicians in the first place....because they have a job to do. But most Americans are completely retarded at trying to judge how good of a job they will do if elected.
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
"Oh, this one guy says he said something racist this one time 30 years ago, therefore it not only must be true, but it also means that he definitely is a racist and didn't just say a racist thing, and that he's still a racist because nobody changes in 30 years, AND it also means that he's definitely going to pass a law that orders all black people to go live in a giant cage in the desert."
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
Nope. The reason people give for believing he could bankrupt the country is that he has already bankrupt 6 businesses, and welched on his debts to numerous working people that he owned money to before those business filed for bankruptcy protection for their debts.
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
Nope. The reason people give for believing he could bankrupt the country is that he has already bankrupt 6 businesses, and welched on his debts to numerous working people that he owned money to before those business filed for bankruptcy protection for their debts.
This isn't a smart way to look at it. How many businesses has he owned? How many didn't go bankrupt? Were other people in the same industry going bankrupt too?
This is the equivalent at pulling up Hillary's stock portfolio, which is likely well-diversified, and then pointing to the few instances of failing stocks and saying "See? Hillary doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. She can't even invest in the stock market properly."
The reasons I like Trump are the same reasons why people hate him. People are such fucking pussies these days. And all the fucking media bias against him? God, you'd think Trump was a serial rapist and a serial killer.
All this politically correct behavior we see election after election? This over-the-top, "hey the camera's on me, better behave!", "act presidential" persona we've seen from every candidate election after election is getting old. All it tells me is that you're too big of a fucking pussy to be yourself when the camera's on you. That you just listen to your campaign advisors and practice being somebody you aren't, and get coached, etc...what's wrong? Afraid of some criticism? Well then you ain't no fucking leader, so go fuck off.
I mean, are we really going to sit here and lie to ourselves and other people and pretend that all these "presidential" acting presidents we've had in the past god only knows how many decades haven't passed shitty legislation or made shitty foreign policy moves? People need to remember why the fuck we elect politicians in the first place....because they have a job to do. But most Americans are completely retarded at trying to judge how good of a job they will do if elected.
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
"Oh, this one guy says he said something racist this one time 30 years ago, therefore it not only must be true, but it also means that he definitely is a racist and didn't just say a racist thing, and that he's still a racist because nobody changes in 30 years, AND it also means that he's definitely going to pass a law that orders all black people to go live in a giant cage in the desert."
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
Nope. The reason people give for believing he could bankrupt the country is that he has already bankrupt 6 businesses, and welched on his debts to numerous working people that he owned money to before those business filed for bankruptcy protection for their debts.
This isn't a smart way to look at it. How many businesses has he owned? How many didn't go bankrupt? Were other people in the same industry going bankrupt too?
This is the equivalent at pulling up Hillary's stock portfolio, which is likely well-diversified, and then pointing to the few instances of failing stocks and saying "See? Hillary doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. She can't even invest in the stock market properly."
Seriously, that is the exact same argument.
There are also many businesses that failed but didn't go through bankruptcy. Not to mention your analogy is fucktarded. Given that he has direct control of these companies while failed stocks in Hillary's portfolio she didn't have control over.
Oh yeah, and how many people has he directly fucked over monetarily. At least Hillary kills people that are a threat to her.
Okay then how many businesses have failed and how many didn't? I like how we're moving the goal posts, btw, but fair enough. And what were the size and scope of the businesses that failed vs the ones that didn't? Because if I own 10 successful car dealerships, but have had 10 lemonade stands fail, would it not be misleading to say that 50% of my businesses have failed?
And Hillary absolutely has control over her own stock portfolio. Everyone does. Are you trying to say that she doesn't because she hires a financial advisor to look after it? Oh, you mean kind of like how Trump hires people to run and work for his companies? Sorry, you can't have this argument both ways.
Okay then how many businesses have failed and how many didn't? I like how we're moving the goal posts, btw, but fair enough. And what were the size and scope of the businesses that failed vs the ones that didn't? Because if I own 10 successful car dealerships, but have had 10 lemonade stands fail, would it not be misleading to say that 50% of my businesses have failed?
And Hillary absolutely has control over her own stock portfolio. Everyone does. Are you trying to say that she doesn't because she hires a financial advisor to look after it? Oh, you mean kind of like how Trump hires people to run and work for his companies? Sorry, you can't have this argument both ways.
I don't see anything on that website that does an overall analysis on Trump's business successes vs failures. Nothing on the size and scope of those businesses. Just a list of failures. Like I've been saying all along, you have to have the complete picture. For example, if I own a business that's been steadily making me $10 million a year, I can afford to take risks with other businesses. Seriously, there is nothing of value to be learned from that article in terms of the overall success Trump has had with his businesses.
And you're still wrong about the stock thing. CEO's and presidents are hired to do things that the owner(s) of the company do not want to do (maybe they aren't as good, maybe they have a better use of their time, etc). A financial advisor is hired to do things that the owners of the stock do not want to do. But at the end of the day, both the owner(s) of the company and the owner of the stock are responsible for evaluating the performance of the people they hired to perform the task.
I don't see anything on that website that does an overall analysis on Trump's business successes vs failures. Nothing on the size and scope of those businesses. Just a list of failures. Like I've been saying all along, you have to have the complete picture. For example, if I own a business that's been steadily making me $10 million a year, I can afford to take risks with other businesses. Seriously, there is nothing of value to be learned from that article in terms of the overall success Trump has had with his businesses.
And you're still wrong about the stock thing. CEO's and presidents are hired to do things that the owner(s) of the company do not want to do (maybe they aren't as good, maybe they have a better use of their time, etc). A financial advisor is hired to do things that the owners of the stock do not want to do. But at the end of the day, both the owner(s) of the company and the owner of the stock are responsible for evaluating the performance of the people they hired to perform the task.
Comments
All this politically correct behavior we see election after election? This over-the-top, "hey the camera's on me, better behave!", "act presidential" persona we've seen from every candidate election after election is getting old. All it tells me is that you're too big of a fucking pussy to be yourself when the camera's on you. That you just listen to your campaign advisors and practice being somebody you aren't, and get coached, etc...what's wrong? Afraid of some criticism? Well then you ain't no fucking leader, so go fuck off.
I mean, are we really going to sit here and lie to ourselves and other people and pretend that all these "presidential" acting presidents we've had in the past god only knows how many decades haven't passed shitty legislation or made shitty foreign policy moves? People need to remember why the fuck we elect politicians in the first place....because they have a job to do. But most Americans are completely retarded at trying to judge how good of a job they will do if elected.
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
"Oh, this one guy says he said something racist this one time 30 years ago, therefore it not only must be true, but it also means that he definitely is a racist and didn't just say a racist thing, and that he's still a racist because nobody changes in 30 years, AND it also means that he's definitely going to pass a law that orders all black people to go live in a giant cage in the desert."
Jesus Christ. Jesus FUCKING Christ America.
Some of you need to learn the difference.
This is the equivalent at pulling up Hillary's stock portfolio, which is likely well-diversified, and then pointing to the few instances of failing stocks and saying "See? Hillary doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. She can't even invest in the stock market properly."
Seriously, that is the exact same argument.
FO. Thx!
Oh yeah, and how many people has he directly fucked over monetarily. At least Hillary kills people that are a threat to her.
And Hillary absolutely has control over her own stock portfolio. Everyone does. Are you trying to say that she doesn't because she hires a financial advisor to look after it? Oh, you mean kind of like how Trump hires people to run and work for his companies? Sorry, you can't have this argument both ways.
http://gawker.com/a-complete-list-of-donald-trump-s-business-disasters-1764151188
If you don't like the source, there's hundreds of others that say the same thing.
And yes, having direct control over the CEO is completely different than investing in a stock. Holy fuck that was a retarded statement.
Stop. We believe you. You do not understand what makes Donald Trump successful as a businessman and/or candidate. OK
And you're still wrong about the stock thing. CEO's and presidents are hired to do things that the owner(s) of the company do not want to do (maybe they aren't as good, maybe they have a better use of their time, etc). A financial advisor is hired to do things that the owners of the stock do not want to do. But at the end of the day, both the owner(s) of the company and the owner of the stock are responsible for evaluating the performance of the people they hired to perform the task.