HuskerShark

 

 

 

I guess you are right, but for the wrong reason as Benghazi would have never happened under Bush. That is too funny, a tick better than her predecessors as Secretary of State. When did you become a comedian?

9/11 happened under Bush.

They were here and it was planned for 5 years under Clinton, Bush was 9 months on the job. Nice try though.

Bush then invaded the wrong country, costing the nation trillions of dollars and the lives of over 4,000 servicemen. He was on the job a little more than nine months when he did that.The destabilization of Iraq gave rise to several militant groups, including but not limited to Daesh/ISIS/ISIL, which has been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, and three American servicemen since October, 2015.I mean, I could go on. Bush was a disaster with foreign relations. Set America back decades. But you can pretend he did a good job, and you can pretend Benghazi wouldn't have happened on his watch, but history doesn't agree with you.

Truth. I struggle to understand how people defend the tenure of Bush as president. On the same note, I struggle to understand how people defend the tenure of Obama as well. Speaking of disaster in foreign relations...

 

She's leading him by 767 delegates. There is 475 delegates in California but it's not a winner take all state. So, at most, it looks like they will split them. All she needs is 71 more to secure the nomination.

 

I'm failing to see where she is "struggling to put topple him".

 

Well when counting actual votes won, the delegate count is 1769 to 1501. I'm not saying she is not leading, but she has taken much longer to secure the Dem nomination in a 3 or 4 person field than Trump did in a 16 person field, and the candidates on the GOP side were much stronger that Trump toppled than what Hillary had to deal with. I'm not discounting Bernie's success with the far left elements of the Democratic party either.

Not to mention if the superdelegates hadn't pledged to Clinton early on it would not have swayed voters nearly as much and more potentially could have voted for Sanders.

 

 

 

All I know is - like referenced in the one article - if they really offered a full refund for anyone who was feeling overwhelmed in the course that should be the end of the entire case right there. Scams don't offer refunds.

 

Actually, it makes complete sense for a scam like Trump University to offer a refund. The students that demand a refund are the most likely to sue so giving them a refund could save them millions in a lawsuit. What I find surprising is the number of students that received or attempted to receive a refund:

 

The more apparent inconsistency is that Covais–seeking to demonstrate that Trump University had an accommodating refund policy–declared that the company had issued 2,144 refunds to 6,698 attendees of the $1,495 three-day program, or 32%. That a third of the customers demanded refunds is hard to reconcile with a claimed 98% satisfaction rate, especially since the mass of plaintiffs now suing claimed that they, too, wanted refunds but were, they claimed, told they could not get them because they did not ask for them within 72 hours of the first day of participating in a program. Similarly, the refund rate for the $34,995 program, which according to the lawsuits was tougher on giving money back, was 16%. If at least 31% of one group and 16% of the other were so instantly dissatisfied that they immediately demanded refunds, how could 98% have been satisfied?

 

Link

If only they offered refunds at public universities... There would be closer to 80% that would demand a refund considering that's approximately the number that don't even get a job in their degree field. But since that's the societal norm, for some reason, people keep pushing kids to college even though the student loan debt will set them back.

Hmmmmm.....

 

Your posts are starting to sound like Trumps comments.

You could look back to a couple of years ago and I would've already said that public universities are a waste of money for a vast majority of the population and I maintain that.

If a guy cheats at golf, he'll nuke the whole world. That's what my Grandpa used to say anyway.

And of course you don't have to meet the legal definition of fraud to be unethical and dishonest.

 

I actually think being a notorious golf cheat goes more to character.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/does-donald-trump-cheat-at-golf-a-washington-post-investigation/2015/09/02/f8a940b2-50c4-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html

Not GOLF!!! Damn Guy, you just changed my mind. There's no way I could ever vote for someone who cheats at golf!

I still maintain that Curry wasn't 100% on his knee this past series, but I agree. He's got to be special like he has been all season if he wants to beat this Cavs team.

 

All I know is - like referenced in the one article - if they really offered a full refund for anyone who was feeling overwhelmed in the course that should be the end of the entire case right there. Scams don't offer refunds.

 

Actually, it makes complete sense for a scam like Trump University to offer a refund. The students that demand a refund are the most likely to sue so giving them a refund could save them millions in a lawsuit. What I find surprising is the number of students that received or attempted to receive a refund:

 

The more apparent inconsistency is that Covais–seeking to demonstrate that Trump University had an accommodating refund policy–declared that the company had issued 2,144 refunds to 6,698 attendees of the $1,495 three-day program, or 32%. That a third of the customers demanded refunds is hard to reconcile with a claimed 98% satisfaction rate, especially since the mass of plaintiffs now suing claimed that they, too, wanted refunds but were, they claimed, told they could not get them because they did not ask for them within 72 hours of the first day of participating in a program. Similarly, the refund rate for the $34,995 program, which according to the lawsuits was tougher on giving money back, was 16%. If at least 31% of one group and 16% of the other were so instantly dissatisfied that they immediately demanded refunds, how could 98% have been satisfied?

Link

 

If only they offered refunds at public universities... There would be closer to 80% that would demand a refund considering that's approximately the number that don't even get a job in their degree field. But since that's the societal norm, for some reason, people keep pushing kids to college even though the student loan debt will set them back.

 

Also, BigRedBuster, to answer your question with a straight forward answer:

 

scam

noun

1.

a dishonest scheme; a fraud.

Former Trump University Students: ‘We Never Felt Pressured’

 

“I see and hear there are former Trump University students coming out and I have to sit back and think to myself, if they were given the same information, the same education, the same opportunity, how come they didn’t have the same results? And I think that’s because you have to take action upon yourself. You have to go out and make it happen.”

 

 

Never mind that it was against NY law to call the organization a "University".

 

Gotcha. I guess fine him for that and move on, because that's as bad as this should ever get.

Also, BigRedBuster, to answer your question with a straight forward answer:

 

 

All I know is - like referenced in the one article - if they really offered a full refund for anyone who was feeling overwhelmed in the course that should be the end of the entire case right there. Scams don't offer refunds.

 

 

 

Seriously???? that is the criteria you are using to decide this wasn't a fraud?

 

That, along with the dozens of testimonies I have watched and read from people who said that they learned great information from the seminars.

So I'm trying to understand you... You told me that you're a business-man... How do you succeed in your business with such an employee mindset?

 

 

 

I agree there's a rush to judgement on Donald Trump at the moment that borders on overkill, and some of it is certainly unfair.

 

But take away all the smoke, and there's still a lot of fire.

 

Really dire warnings from informed non-partisans.

 

There are so many reasons not to trust this man with our country that it's kinda mind-blowing we're even having this discussion.

Even if it were so, look at your other option... That's more than enough reason to consider, well... About anyone else.

I'm having one hell of a problem figuring out which is worse.

 

They both lie constantly and will say and do whatever it takes to reach their end goal no matter who stands in the way. And....both of them have this group of followers that keep trying their best to defend them.

All I know is - like referenced in the one article - if they really offered a full refund for anyone who was feeling overwhelmed in the course that should be the end of the entire case right there. Scams don't offer refunds.

Based on everything that I have read, there is no reason for me to believe that Trump University was a Ponzi scheme to try to talk people out of their money. As far as the aggressive sales tactics, you could walk onto a car lot anywhere in the United States and get more aggressive sales tactics than that. Like I said, the only problem I have with everything that I have read on this entire case is that they encourage people to max out credit cards and take out home equity loans to pay for the University. Other than that, everything else points to good things with that program.

So if you want to continue to use your blind hatred and take any piece of information no matter how inaccurate that supports your viewpoint that is your prerogative but I won't be joining you.

I agree there's a rush to judgement on Donald Trump at the moment that borders on overkill, and some of it is certainly unfair.

 

But take away all the smoke, and there's still a lot of fire.

 

Really dire warnings from informed non-partisans.

 

There are so many reasons not to trust this man with our country that it's kinda mind-blowing we're even having this discussion.

Even if it were so, look at your other option... That's more than enough reason to consider, well... About anyone else.

Wow does that sound scammy...

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/01/trump-university-students-speak-never-felt-pressured-offered-refunds/

From the article:

She added, “I see and hear there are former Trump University students coming out and I have to sit back and think to myself, if they were given the same information, the same education, the same opportunity, how come they didn’t have the same results? And I think that’s because you have to take action upon yourself. You have to go out and make it happen.”

Casey Hoban, who took Trump University classes with his business partner, is also featured in the video reminding people that the school gave people a chance to have a refund.

“An interesting thing that they did when they started that class… they told us that if you feel you’re over your head or you feel you’re not going use these techniques then leave your books on the shelf, check out of the class now, and we’ll refund you…they gave people a chance to leave the class,” Hoban recalled.

Or you could take a single anecdotal endorsement by a former student, declare it "the other side of the story" and ignore tons of troubling evidence to the contrary.

It's definitely not the only endorsement. I've read four or five articles about this whole thing that are supposedly supposed to be mind blowing. All I've got to say is I went to college for four and a half years and didn't learn Jack squat about business or really anything extremely useful but since it's a societal Norm people don't complain about that. Now when it comes to Trump running a "university" to try to help people who have entrepreneurial ambition and are interested in learning about real estate, people think that they are walking into something that is guaranteed to make them money for whatever reason and don't realize that it takes application of those strategies to make the money. You could actually be open-minded and go research for yourself and find tons of people vouching for the program instead of being ignorant about the topic and taking the first negative thing that supports your viewpoint and running with it - but I understand that that's not what you people do here when it comes to Trump.

I will say that asking people to take out loans against their home equity or asking them to max out their credit cards to pay for Trump University is a disagreeable tactic for sure that I do not support, but I will also say that was literally the only thing I took issue with in everything that I have read.

 

 

A Total Lie: Trump University ex-staffers condemn school as "fraudulent scheme"

And people think this guy should be president. What a joke. You really have to be blind to support someone like this, someone so undeniably crooked and unfit for office.

Or you could get all sides of stories before you overreact.

http://www.businessinsider.com/seattle-man-endorses-trump-university-lessons-2013-8

Warriors in 4 (hopeful prediction)

Warriors in 6 (real prediction)

 

Anyone think it is odd that Mrs. Clinton refers to Mr. Trump as just "Trump" in that email? Seems a bit out of character for her.

No....it just shows the irreverence they have for each other. No different than him just calling her Hillary or at least it's more respectable than Crooked Hillary.

 

But that would be much less accurate than what he currently refers to her as.

 

 

 

Sorry, Shark, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out how people who claim to hate Big Government, Big Spending, and ill-conceived Social Engineering would line up behind the man who wants to build a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican border.

 

How exactly does a wall on the southern border have anything to do with big government? It's supporting nationalism, nothing more. People like me who oppose big government support Trump because of his ideas to cut many of the over-reaching aspects of our government, and as a former educator who has seen how our educational system works first-hand, he is going to get rid of arbitrary testing and bring educational decisions to the state and local levels, which is how it SHOULD be.

Building a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican Border would be a massive undertaking by the federal government, not merely the construction but the maintenance and administration, and regardless of what Trump says in his stump speech, the cost would be footed by the American taxpayer. The purpose of the wall is the very definition of federal government over-reach, a wildly expensive and inefficient response to an issue way down the list of what America needs most at this time.

 

It's a fact that the federal government has ballooned under Republican administrations despite their "small government" claims, and Trump sounds no different. Under the guise of patriotism, they are huge spenders, social engineers and wealth redistributors, merely funneling taxpayer money to their own colleagues, donors and agenda.

 

Now who is this "former educator" you're speaking about, who has seen our education system first-hand? Did you mean you, or Trump?

Me. I just retired (resigned).

 

So acknowledging someone's good looks is now not only politically incorrect but is also a way of meeting someone? Tell me how that makes sense…

He didn't do a very good job of it, but what he was attempting to do was highlight the fact that you crassly pointed out your "expert's" looks, as if what she looks like has anything to do with her opinion.It's the kind of locker-room mentality that doesn't have a place in politics. We need people to absorb information and vote with their brain, not their heart or their balls.

Haha! While I understand your concern, it has nothing to do with anything. If we have come to a point where we can get even acknowledge someone's looks, that is flat out ridiculous.

 

 

This was worth watching again this morning.

 

[/size]

 

Not gonna lie, I laughed a lot, even as someone who advocates for Trump. The only problem with this guy is he makes a career making jokes about other people, and that's not someone I'm ever going to listen to.

 

Here is an intelligent person who lays it out there (and she's really nice on the eyes as well):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQfIXixFi7o

 

 

 

Also, one thing to note is that Tomi was extremely against Trump because she thought he was rude, and she has since joined his side understanding his flaws but still understanding that he's the best remaining candidate.

 

This was worth watching again this morning.

 

[/size]

 

Not gonna lie, I laughed a lot, even as someone who advocates for Trump. The only problem with this guy is he makes a career making jokes about other people, and that's not someone I'm ever going to listen to.

 

Here is an intelligent person who lays it out there (and she's really nice on the eyes as well):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQfIXixFi7o

 

 

 

Also, one thing to note is that Tomi was extremely against Trump because she thought he was rude, and she has since joined his side understanding his flaws but still understanding that he's the best remaining candidate.

Not sure if I'd bucket you as a sexist or a misogynist but either way you're an ass. If you had anyone starting to buy into your weird bs theories, you hopefully lost them with your 'easy on the eyes" comment. Do you not realize that by demeaning her with that comment you also take away any perceived legitimacy of her comments? I understand now why you're such a zombie like follower of Drumpf.

So acknowledging someone's good looks is now not only politically incorrect but is also a way of meeting someone? Tell me how that makes sense…

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

 

So....I post a video of a guy making points as to why Trump is a total imbecile (in a comedic way) and to counter that, a video is posted of a person who claims to be kind of/sort of/maybe going to support Trump because he's not nearly as bad as the alternative. She really doesn't give any real reason to vote for him other than....he isn't Hillary.

 

Wow.....that just gives me that warm and fuzzy feeling.

 

She typically presents her points in short, fiery segments. Watch more of them, and you'll see why she supports him other than the fact that Hillary is pretty much evil.

Sorry, Shark, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out how people who claim to hate Big Government, Big Spending, and ill-conceived Social Engineering would line up behind the man who wants to build a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican border.

 

How exactly does a wall on the southern border have anything to do with big government? It's supporting nationalism, nothing more. People like me who oppose big government support Trump because of his ideas to cut many of the over-reaching aspects of our government, and as a former educator who has seen how our educational system works first-hand, he is going to get rid of arbitrary testing and bring educational decisions to the state and local levels, which is how it SHOULD be.

Although as mentioned, I think Trump is enough of a businessman to know the wall is a terrible investment that will never work, but it sounds good when you're recruiting angry voters who have no desire to fact check him.

 

It's funny how people dismiss the things he says. At first when he said Mexico would pay for the wall, their former president says "we're not going to pay for that f***ing wall!" The rhetoric is drastically different now, just months later. You can choose not to believe it, that's your choice. Hell, I'm not sure if I believe that it will be paid for by Mexico, or if congress will even let it happen (if they even have a say in the matter). But I feel that he's saying that as a firm stance to begin negotiations on the matter. The 30-35% tariffs on trades with China is serving the same purpose. It's starting the grounds for negotiations.

People don't want another 4 years of the same old sh*t in the White House, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the most dishonest person I've ever personally witnessed. Trump is advocating big change that will benefit every-day Americans more than any candidate in the past few decades, which is why he's going to be the next Commander in Chief.

This was worth watching again this morning.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

Not gonna lie, I laughed a lot, even as someone who advocates for Trump. The only problem with this guy is he makes a career making jokes about other people, and that's not someone I'm ever going to listen to.

Here is an intelligent person who lays it out there (and she's really nice on the eyes as well):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQfIXixFi7o

Also, one thing to note is that Tomi was extremely against Trump because she thought he was rude, and she has since joined his side understanding his flaws but still understanding that he's the best remaining candidate.

I find it hilarious that people who oppose Trump try to categorize the "type" of person that supports him when in fact there are a lot of terrific reasons to support him. That's why he's going to be our next President, and i don't think it's going to be all that close because of the diverse audiences that he appeals to.