Commander of Awesome;1803703 wrote:You want to do battle with Fortune Magazine and the London Review of books, go ahead.

Read it and weep, "Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion."

I'll take 3 reputable sources and the fact that he's filed bankruptcy 4 times in the past ~20 yrs over your internet chest thumping without evidence.

See, this is why liberals are so bad at math. You can look up S&P500 historical returns on yahoo finance - around 110 in 1982, and 2000 by the end of 2015 - which means he created actual value about proportionally to what he would have had in an index fund. So, yeah, I'll argue with their math when the returns (but not their math) is public record. My guess is their using market cap (which would include inflation), and not actual returns from an investment. It's intentionally and intellectually dishonest.

You're a perfect example of someone spoonfed BS who gleefully regurgitates it because you're either too lazy or simply incapable of looking up the actual number yourself....I believe the term is "useful idiot".

And you clearly don't understand bankruptcy, either. Business go bankrupt all the time and, in fact, it's a strategy. Trump has 100's of businesses. He's never filed personal bankruptcy to my knowledge.

gut;1803704 wrote:See, this is why liberals are so bad at math. You can look up S&P500 historical returns on yahoo finance - around 110 in 1982, and 2000 by the end of 2015 - which means he created actual value about proportionally to what he would have had in an index fund. So, yeah, I'll argue with their math when the returns (but not their math) is public record. My guess is their using market cap (which would include inflation), and not actual returns from an investment. It's intentionally and intellectually dishonest.

You're a perfect example of someone spoonfed BS who gleefully regurgitates it because you're either too lazy or simply incapable of looking up the actual number yourself....I believe the term is "useful idiot".

And you clearly don't understand bankruptcy, either. Business go bankrupt all the time and, in fact, it's a strategy. Trump has 100's of businesses. He's never filed personal bankruptcy to my knowledge.

Man, you make a really compelling argument. Let me try and retort in the "gut" fashion.

*Deep Breathe* OK here goes:

See you're such a Faux News Sheep. You just jerk off to some hollywood bozo who is all glitz and glamor bc you like his TV show that you watch in your trailer with your TV dinner on your awful TV Tray. If you'd stop fucking your sister for one second, I believe the term is sister fister, you'd know this. You see I'm right, even though I provide no evidence and then act all high and mighty about it.

/gut argument

Provide an actual link or show me the math to disprove the evidence I supported my claim from 3 different sources. Thanks.

Commander of Awesome;1803696 wrote:Actually he's a terrible business man:

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/



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

I wouldn't take financial advice from a book reviewer, so somebody who works for a book reviewer. Just wanted to say that.

Heretic;1803690 wrote:To me, that's over-simplifying things a bit. A lot of Rs don't particularly like him. I mean, a number of key party members (such as Ohio's own governor) are skipping the RNC and, on this site (which runs pretty far right in the grand scheme of things) there are a lot of conservative voices who are either against him or offering the most begrudging of support (ala: lesser of two evils). Trump seems to mainly get his support from pure party-line voters who only look at the letter next to the name, as well as the "THEY TOOK OUR JORBBBBBBBBBBSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!" crowd, who are up there with the "Obama gonna get me a new phone" crowd as far as stupidity goes.

You'd be surprised at how many lockstep dems there are (because their daddies were, they are still buying into a long-forgotten ideology or the union told them to be) that voting for Trump. I see it day in and day out where I live. Which is eastern Ohio where all the coal mines are shutting down, the glass industry has been gone for decades and the steel mills have already been ran out of town.
The reason this is happening is because of democrat economic policies. They're sick of getting laid off, they're sick of their plants shutting down, their sick of their mines being shut down. So, while in the bigger cities you might find more and more people deciding to go with Hillary (and it will probably be enough with just them) when you step out of it and talk with people who rely on industry you will find an altogether new tune being played out.
When you look around at the tri-state area (Ohio, W.Virgina, Penn.) and you see more people in government housing than you do owning a home, lightbulbs start turning on for you.

Commander of Awesome;1803703 wrote:You want to do battle with Fortune Magazine and the London Review of books, go ahead.

Read it and weep, "Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion."

I'll take 3 reputable sources and the fact that he's filed bankruptcy 4 times in the past ~20 yrs over your internet chest thumping without evidence.

So... NOW he's a target because he didn't make enough money? Or should be richer?

Good God, man...

You're about as bad as CCRunner or Isadore :/

Commander of Awesome;1803705 wrote:Man, you make a really compelling argument. Let me try and retort in the "gut" fashion.

*Deep Breathe* OK here goes:

See you're such a Faux News Sheep. You just jerk off to some hollywood bozo who is all glitz and glamor bc you like his TV show that you watch in your trailer with your TV dinner on your awful TV Tray. If you'd stop fucking your sister for one second, I believe the term is sister fister, you'd know this. You see I'm right, even though I provide no evidence and then act all high and mighty about it.

/gut argument

Provide an actual link or show me the math to disprove the evidence I supported my claim from 3 different sources. Thanks.

Look it up. I told you how - I even already gave you the numbers, so the inability to read might explain your ignorance. Don't blame me for calling you out for being a useful idiot. I tried to be nice and explain it to you, but then you had to go and double-down on stupid.

And I was wrong. Trump actually considerably outperformed when you take into account he's been paying taxes on his earnings all along (vs. a compounded pre-tax return on the S&P) AND spending money to, you know, actually live.

If I did analysis like either of those articles I'd be fired. But that hack probably got a promotion because of libtards like yourself passing the article around facebook laughing because they don't know better. That article is click-bait at best, but probably just an outright lie pushing a political agenda. And you fell for it. Even after being corrected several times you still believe it.

gut;1803711 wrote:Look it up. I told you how - I even already gave you the numbers, so the inability to read might explain your ignorance. Don't blame me for calling you out for being a useful idiot. I tried to be nice and explain it to you, but then you had to go and double-down on stupid.

And I was wrong. Trump actually considerably outperformed when you take into account he's been paying taxes on his earnings all along (vs. a compounded pre-tax return on the S&P) AND spending money to, you know, actually live.

If I did analysis like either of those articles I'd be fired. But that hack probably got a promotion because of libtards like yourself passing the article around facebook laughing because they don't know better. That article is click-bait at best, but probably just an outright lie pushing a political agenda. And you fell for it. Even after being corrected several times you still believe it.

Provide with a link that you claim since you looked it up. Or are you going to be a typical petty lazy republican? Thanks.

Commander of Awesome;1803715 wrote:Provide with a link that you claim since you looked it up. Or are you going to be a typical petty lazy republican? Thanks.

LOL. You don't know how to look up the S&P 500 return, do you?

Also, I bet you probably think it's just coincidence they chose 1982 and 1988 for their comparisons.

gut;1803716 wrote:LOL. You don't know how to look up the S&P 500 return, do you?

Also, I bet you probably think it's just coincidence they chose 1982 and 1988 for their comparisons.

Great response. I knew you couldn't do it. That or you looked it yourself and saw that FORTUNE Magazine was correct.

Commander of Awesome;1803717 wrote:Great response. I knew you couldn't do it. That or you looked it yourself and saw that FORTUNE Magazine was correct.

LOL. I gave you the numbers and my source. You've validated everything I said about you because you apparently don't even know how to look-up a stock quote.

I'm certain understanding why they chose 1981 and 1988 is far too advanced for someone who can't even look up a stock price.

gut;1803718 wrote:LOL. I gave you the numbers and my source. You've validated everything I said about you because you apparently don't even know how to look-up a stock quote.

I'm certain understanding why they chose 1981 and 1988 is far too advanced for someone who can't even look up a stock price.

To be fair, I've never looked up a stock price, either lol!
In my opinion, that's why you get people.

gut;1803718 wrote:LOL. I gave you the numbers and my source. You've validated everything I said about you because you apparently don't even know how to look-up a stock quote.

I'm certain understanding why they chose 1981 and 1988 is far too advanced for someone who can't even look up a stock price.

No you spouted a number with no reference or evidence. I don't buy what you're saying, thus I'm asking you to prove it. Which you have failed to do 3 separate times. You lose.

Republicans were a lot better when they were just for the rich and big business guys and ignored (but gladly took the votes from) the hillbilly racists. Trump capitalized on the frustrations of the hillbilly racists and this is what we've been left with. A campaign so poorly ran is laughable at best and scary at worst. Literally the only candidate Hillary could beat. If you ran your typical Mitt Romney, enough people are frustrated enough that he would win. But you went full retard.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1803734 wrote:Republicans were a lot better when they were just for the rich and big business guys and ignored (but gladly took the votes from) the hillbilly racists. Trump capitalized on the frustrations of the hillbilly racists and this is what we've been left with. A campaign so poorly ran is laughable at best and scary at worst. Literally the only candidate Hillary could beat. If you ran your typical Mitt Romney, enough people are frustrated enough that he would win. But you went full retard.

I don't agree with Zwick that often, but I agree here. This was an easy election to win. The GOP has officially hit rock bottom. They didn't the last two elections, but maybe after this one they can get together and take a hard look at themselves and see why they haven't won a presidential election in 12 years. Sadly, I think we will see the same cycle where Hillary will be dog shit and the GOP will have a good election cycle in 2018, thus never learning their lesson. Liberals tend to pay more attention to an election cycle during a presidential cycle.

I see a re-election for Hillary b/c Americans are lazy. She'll be re-elected b/c it will be the easiest thing to do.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1803734 wrote:Republicans were a lot better when they were just for the rich and big business guys and ignored (but gladly took the votes from) the hillbilly racists.

Ehhhh, Democrats are just scared because Trump is playing their divide & conquer game better than they do, and because the "hillbilly racists" are a much larger segment than the welfare dependents. Fortunately there are probably 1/5th as many "hillbilly racists" and 5X as many welfare dependents as Democrats believe.

Scariest thing is Trump's 2000-ish Democratic agenda of "fair trade", and that's resonating with a lot of lower and middle-income earners.

Anyway, BOTH parties are for big business and big government....difference is Dems put government first.

ernest_t_bass;1803741 wrote:I see a re-election for Hillary b/c Americans are lazy. She'll be re-elected b/c it will be the easiest thing to do.

I think she'll be fine, but her re-election will probably mostly hinge on the timing and severity of the next recession....and whether Republicans can find a non-clown, or at least someone other than Cruz.

gut;1803742 wrote:Ehhhh, Democrats are just scared because Trump is playing their divide & conquer game better than they do, and because the "hillbilly racists" are a much larger segment than the welfare dependents. Fortunately there are probably 1/5th as many "hillbilly racists" and 5X as many welfare dependents as Democrats believe.

Scariest thing is Trump's 2000-ish Democratic agenda of "fair trade", and that's resonating with a lot of lower and middle-income earners.

Anyway, BOTH parties are for big business and big government....difference is Dems put government first.

The hillbilly racists are welfare dependents. They just don't like to make it public.

And it obviously isn't working too well... Hillarys favored to win 3 to 1

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1803744 wrote:The hillbilly racists are welfare dependents. They just don't like to make it public.

And it obviously isn't working too well... Hillarys favored to win 3 to 1

He should definitely stop posting since he didn't have a clue that the hillbilly racists are also the welfare recipients. They had this thing locked up if they chose Cruz or Rubio.

rmolin73;1803752 wrote:He should definitely stop posting since he didn't have a clue that the hillbilly racists are also the welfare recipients. They had this thing locked up if they chose Cruz or Rubio.

I said no such thing - the two are not mutually exclusive, and I didn't claim they were. Why is reading comprehension and basic logic so difficult for liberals? Try reading the comment again and see if you can understand what was actually said.

gut;1803753 wrote:I said no such thing - the two are not mutually exclusive, and I didn't claim they were. Why is reading comprehension and basic logic so difficult for liberals? Try reading the comment again and see if you can understand what was actually said.

No you just made a stupid generalization that back fired on you.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1803754 wrote:No you just made a stupid generalization that back fired on you.

I can see the smoke coming out of his ears trying to figure it out.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1803754 wrote:No you just made a stupid generalization that back fired on you.

He did, but to be fair, this is also a gross generalization:

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1803744 wrote:The hillbilly racists are welfare dependents. They just don't like to make it public.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1803754 wrote:No you just made a stupid generalization that back fired on you.

What generalization did I make? I said there are less "hillbilly rednecks" than Dems claim, and more welfare recipients than they admit.

Or do you disagree that more than twice as many Dems as Repubs have received food stamps?

Of course, I was responding to your implying that hillbilly rednecks nominated Trump, which not only isn't accurate but also ignorant. Unless there are a hoard of hillbilly rednecks in CA, NY and throughout the East Coast I'm unaware of.

gut;1803767 wrote:What generalization did I make? I said there are less "hillbilly rednecks" than Dems claim, and more welfare recipients than they admit.

Or do you disagree that more than twice as many Dems as Repubs have received food stamps?

Of course, I was responding to your implying that hillbilly rednecks nominated Trump, which not only isn't accurate but also ignorant. Unless there are a hoard of hillbilly rednecks in CA, NY and throughout the East Coast I'm unaware of.

lol what you think racists are confined to confederate states too?