Trump's America

[Notre Dame Joe]

10 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

If the "tracks" are what separate Manhattan from New Jersey, you could kinda make the case that young Don built upon his father's highly successful operation with some bold and risky plays in New York that paid of handsomely for awhile.

 

If you want to roll up your sleeves and vet the business savvy of Donald Trump, he went on wildly over-reach and overestimate himself, going into multiple bankruptcies, including losing his Atlantic City casino. It's actually hard to lose money on casino. Having watched his son's stewardship of the company he founded, Fred Trump drafted legal directives to severely limit Donald's power at Trump Enterprises. When Fred died in 1999, Donald sued to regain power, and within 18 months had driven his father's company completely out of business.  Donald was so notorious for defaulting on loans and screwing contractors that by the time he re-invented himself for The Apprentice, almost no legitimate financial institution would work with him. 

 

Of course there are also the 15 companies Donald Trump started, bearing his name and selling everything from business degrees, to water, to steaks. 100% of them went out of business. Many of The Trump Organizations current real estate "holdings" don't reflect property they own. They are far too cash poor and compromised to purchase anything, simply lending their name and development team to the real players. If you want to see how this plays out in some incredibly unsavory ways, Google "Trump Hotel in Baku."

 

I think someone else did the calculation that if Donald Trump had taken the money his dad gave him and dropped it into the average money market account, he'd be considerably wealthier today. 

 

 

Yeah Trump doesn't bat .1000 few do.   He's good a certain type of business as is Bloomberg.  The major difference seems to be that's still a liability in the party of Hollywood and Silicon Valley.   It's hard to articulate where the D anger at Bloomberg  comes from but it seems to be a conditioned reaction to the trope of a wealthy business owner. 

[mrandyk]

3 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Yeah Trump doesn't bat .1000 few do.   He's good a certain type of business as is Bloomberg.  The major difference seems to be that's still a liability in the party of Hollywood and Silicon Valley.   It's hard to articulate where the D anger at Bloomberg  comes from but it seems to be a conditioned reaction to the trope of a wealthy business owner. 

He's not batting 1.000, but go ahead and tell me what the hell he is doing to even be near the Mendoza Line.

[Guy Chamberlin]

12 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Yeah Trump doesn't bat .1000 few do.   He's good a certain type of business as is Bloomberg.  The major difference seems to be that's still a liability in the party of Hollywood and Silicon Valley.   It's hard to articulate where the D anger at Bloomberg  comes from but it seems to be a conditioned reaction to the trope of a wealthy business owner. 

 

Silicon Valley is made up of people far more successful than Trump, and who read Bloomberg financial content on a daily basis. The industry leans Democrat only because the young, mobile, well-educated employees who fill their ranks wouldn't tolerate the social conservatism and saber-rattling of Republicans. They certainly don't hate money and the incredibly wealthy people all around them, but seem to appreciate that much of the New Wealth is being invested directly into social programs, ambitious experiments, and humane causes. As you know, some of the wealthiest men in the world are Dem friendly. 

 

Bloomberg is certainly being treated differently than fellow billionaire candidate Tom Steyer. Maybe it's because Bloomberg supported George W. Bush and as recently as 2016 poured a record amount of money into a conservative Republican Sentator's campaign, losing the Dems a crucial seat. Bloomberg has wanted to be President in the worst way for about a decade. 

 

Silicon Valley billionaires certainly don't hate their fellow billionaires, and appreciate the same tax breaks and select deregulations. Many will secretly or not-so-secretly vote for Trump. In their hearts, the Silicon Valley engineering culture probably leans Libertarian: they don't like ANYONE telling them what to do. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Silicon Valley is made up of people far more successful than Trump, and who read Bloomberg financial content on a daily basis. The industry leans Democrat only because the young, mobile, well-educated employees who fill their ranks wouldn't tolerate the social conservatism and saber-rattling of Republicans. They certainly don't hate money and the incredibly wealthy people all around them, but seem to appreciate that much of the New Wealth is being invested directly into social programs, ambitious experiments, and humane causes. As you know, some of the wealthiest men in the world are Dem friendly. 

 

Bloomberg is certainly being treated differently than fellow billionaire candidate Tom Steyer. Maybe it's because Bloomberg supported George W. Bush and as recently as 2016 poured a record amount of money into a conservative Republican Sentator's campaign, losing the Dems a crucial seat. Bloomberg has wanted to be President in the worst way for about a decade. 

 

Silicon Valley billionaires certainly don't hate their fellow billionaires, and appreciate the same tax breaks and select deregulations. Many will secretly or not-so-secretly vote for Trump. In their hearts, the Silicon Valley engineering culture probably leans Libertarian: they don't like ANYONE telling them what to do. 

Yep!  The ONLY reason most of those techies are into politics is to find out which side will help them make the most cash in the shortest amount of time.  They are true capitalists and basically don't care about some of the things they pretend to care about (not that they are bad people, most of them are probably just like everyone else, pretty decent) but it is all about "users" and "views" and "clicks" so they are simply playing the game, who wouldn't?

 

There are some that are SJW's and some that are crazy conservative but most of them just want to be left alone to make dollars.

[knapplc]

12 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Yeah Trump doesn't bat .1000 few do.   He's good a certain type of business as is Bloomberg.  The major difference seems to be that's still a liability in the party of Hollywood and Silicon Valley.   It's hard to articulate where the D anger at Bloomberg  comes from but it seems to be a conditioned reaction to the trope of a wealthy business owner. 

 

I'm out of the loop. How is Hollywood persecuting you?

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

I'm out of the loop. How is Hollywood persecuting you?

They made Ben Affleck be Batman...

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

They made Ben Affleck be Batman...

 

Or was it the George Clooney nipple suit?

[funhusker]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Or was it the George Clooney nipple suit?

Totally forgot about Clooney...Those Monsters!!!!

 

MAGA!!!! 

[teachercd]

9 minutes ago, funhusker said:

They made Ben Affleck be Batman...

This is funny!

 

I still like Keaton as Batman but when you look back on it now it is really amazing that he was selected. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

Yep!  The ONLY reason most of those techies are into politics is to find out which side will help them make the most cash in the shortest amount of time.  They are true capitalists and basically don't care about some of the things they pretend to care about (not that they are bad people, most of them are probably just like everyone else, pretty decent) but it is all about "users" and "views" and "clicks" so they are simply playing the game, who wouldn't?

 

There are some that are SJW's and some that are crazy conservative but most of them just want to be left alone to make dollars.

 

In fairness, the Silicon Valley culture is about success and bragging rights.  The big money is a byproduct of that, but they're not purebred Capitalists.  These guys thrive on problem/solution scenarios, and doing things nobody has done before. They don't want to be left alone to make money. They want to be left alone because you're in marketing, not engineering, and you have no idea what what the f you're talking about. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

In fairness, the Silicon Valley culture is about success and bragging rights.  The big money is a byproduct of that, but they're not purebred Capitalists.  These guys thrive on problem/solution scenarios, and doing things nobody has done before. They don't want to be left alone to make money. They want to be left alone because you're in marketing, not engineering, and you have no idea what what the f you're talking about. 

That is still capitalism but in this case it might not always be money that they want "more of" it is like you said, bragging rights.

 

But, I agree with you.   

[Notre Dame Joe]

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

Yep!  The ONLY reason most of those techies are into politics is to find out which side will help them make the most cash in the shortest amount of time.  They are true capitalists and basically don't care about some of the things they pretend to care about (not that they are bad people, most of them are probably just like everyone else, pretty decent) but it is all about "users" and "views" and "clicks" so they are simply playing the game, who wouldn't?

 

There are some that are SJW's and some that are crazy conservative but most of them just want to be left alone to make dollars.

 

If it was just about the dollars then Silicon Valley wouldn't fire people on the wrong side of gay marriage who could bring them more dollars.  They have a somewhat fanatical worldview that does not align with how they run their own affairs.  Bloomberg cannot run on what he is, he has to apologize for it. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

47 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

If it was just about the dollars then Silicon Valley wouldn't fire people on the wrong side of gay marriage who could bring them more dollars.  They have a somewhat fanatical worldview that does not align with how they run their own affairs.  Bloomberg cannot run on what he is, he has to apologize for it. 

 

Right. Some companies are willing to fire an executive for taking public stances against their corporate policies. At that point the executive could be a liability to the brand and its revenue. That's neither fanatical nor unaligned with their business goals.

 

But thanks for acknowledging there's a wrong side of the gay marriage issue. 

 

Bloomberg mostly has to apologize for stop & frisk, rampant allegations of sexual harassment, recent financial support for Republican candidates, and the understandable perception that he's buying his way into the primary. 

 

If Amy Kolbacher had Bloomberg's $500 million ad blitz, she'd be a shoo-in. 

[TGHusker]

8 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Amy Kolbacher had Bloomberg's $500 million ad blitz, she'd be a shoo-in.

Got that right and I don't think Trump would have much mud he could throw at her either. 

[TGHusker]

On 2/24/2020 at 11:50 AM, Guy Chamberlin said:

Google "Trump Hotel in Baku."

I did.  Trump doing business with some pretty corrupt people. Imagine that.  

Worse yet, potentially in violation of the law as well. 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal
 

Quote

 

Two people who worked on the Trump Tower Baku told me that bribes were paid. Much of the graft was routine: Azerbaijani tax officials, government inspectors, and customs officers showed up occasionally to pick up envelopes of cash.

The executive at Mace, the construction firm, told me that the Mammadovs handled payments and all interactions with the Azerbaijani government. “Were people bribed?” he said. “I don’t know. Maybe. We didn’t check.” (A spokesman for Mace said that the firm was “not involved” in any corruption.)

Pierre Baillargeon, the architect whom the Mammadovs hired to alter the tower’s original design, is a Canadian who runs a studio in London. He has often worked in parts of the world known for corruption, including Sudan and Syria, and has done several projects in Azerbaijan. In a phone interview, Baillargeon said that he knew nothing about corruption and was “just a designer.” I asked him why he thought the hotel had been built in such an inhospitable part of Baku. “Every project has detractors,” he said. When I asked him if he had seen large payments being made in cash, he hung up. (He did not respond to later calls.)

Alan Garten, the Trump Organization lawyer, did not deny that there was corruption involved in the project. “I’m not going to sit here and defend the Mammadovs,” he said. But, from a legal standpoint, he argued, the Trump Organization was blameless. In his opinion, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act doesn’t apply to the Baku deal, even if corruption occurred. “We didn’t own it,” he said of the hotel. “We had no equity. We didn’t control the project. The flow of funds is in the wrong direction.” He added, “We did not pay any money to anyone. Therefore, it could not be a violation of the F.C.P.A.”

“No, that’s just wrong,” Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean at George Washington University Law School, who specializes in the F.C.P.A., said. “You can’t go into business deals in Azerbaijan assuming that you are immune from the F.C.P.A.” She added, “Nor can you escape liability by looking the other way. The entire Baku deal is a giant red flag—the direct involvement of foreign government officials and their relatives in Azerbaijan with ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Corruption warning signs are rarely more obvious.”

 

Tillipman explained that the F.C.P.A. defines corruption as “the payment of money or anything of value” to a foreign official. Last year, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay two hundred and sixty-four million dollars to settle charges that it had violated the F.C.P.A.; the bank had given jobs and internships to relatives and friends of government officials in Asia. Tillipman, along with several other F.C.P.A. experts, told me that the Trump Organization had clearly provided things of value in the Baku deal: its famous brand, its command of the luxury market, its extensive technical advice.