President Donald J. Trump

[theONE]

This... this is your 'A' game?

How can you expect to be taken seriously?

J, I have answer for you who killed Kennedy
it's here in this thread http://bellgab.com/index.php/topic,10236.new.html#new

[albrecht]

It should also be noted, except for Putin's P.R at RT, and some of the things he's done in the Arctic, he's actually been an extremely incapable leader who wasted nearly all of the money received from the oil revenues on himself, military adventures, paying off the oligarchs or the Sochi Olympics.

Yep, instead of bringing them into a more modern Western fold we, under Clinton(s), escalated it. Supported the criminals, the Muslim terrorists, and corruption. And even brought them to go with their enemy China. Sad. We had the opportunity and lost it.  But the Clintons became rich.

[Jackstar]

Odd how you didn't make the same comment to Albrecht for bringing up the alleged Hillary Clinton firing from the Watergate investigation back in 1973.

No shit, because Benghazi literally just happened.

Further, I find housing discrimination issues from the Seventies to be utterly trivial, even if 100% true.

[136 or 142]

He was a Democrat through most of those years. He was just trying to fit in.

Alright, you're being stupid.

[136 or 142]

Yep, instead of bringing them into a more modern Western fold we, under Clinton(s), escalated it. Supported the criminals, the Muslim terrorists, and corruption. And even brought them to go with their enemy China. Sad. We had the opportunity and lost it.  But the Clintons became rich.

Beam me up... OK, I've used this so many times I don't think I can use it any more.  Putin didn't even become Russian President until December of 1999. Bill Clinton was only President for a little over a year longer.

[136 or 142]

No shit, because Benghazi literally just happened.

Further, I find housing discrimination issues from the Seventies to be utterly trivial, even if 100% true.

Why should I give a rat's ass about your opinion on housing discrimination?

[Jackstar]

I have answer for you

Save it for your blog.

[Jackstar]

Why should I give a rat's ass about your opinion on housing discrimination?

Et tu, Brute?

[theONE]

Save it for your blog.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[albrecht]

Beam me up... OK, I've used this so many times I don't think I can use it any more.

I doubt it. You can use again, considering the "spectrum." But, on a rational side, you like wars? 

[GravitySucks]

Alright, you're being stupid.

#MAGA

[Value Of Pi]

Well based on your previous post, you have problems with every president in recent history.

Give me your list of problems with Hillary since you are sure she is going to win. If you had problems with the first Clinton, you surely must have a list started for the second.

And what did you think Carter as president? It will help me calibrate any of your future posts.

I'm not sure about her winning. Never said I was. I am sure that if she does win, the food fight in Washington will continue. We needed some new leadership and didn't get it from either party.

Carter was a big disappointment in general. There hasn't been that much debate about him. Politically, the 1970s stand out as a lost decade, with Watergate on one end and the hostage debacle on the other.

[Jackstar]

Politically, the 1970s stand out as a lost decade, with Watergate on one end and the hostage debacle on the other.

That rather depends on one's perspective and on how ignorant of history one is. For example, Z-Big and the Tri-Lats scored big in those years.

[136 or 142]

I doubt it. You can use again, considering the "spectrum." But, on a rational side, you like wars? 

What gives you that impression?  I even quoted from the lyrics to "War" just a little while ago.

I had an I.Q test taken shortly before I was taken to the mental impatient unit the second time.  The examiner also thought it was likely that I have asperger's.

This was the complete I.Q test and not one of the meaningless quickie tests people can administer to themselves.

I normally don't give much credence to I.Q tests as I don't think they measure anything of significance for the vast majority of people. Even the person who originally  devised the test said they were only meant to confirm extremely high and extremely low intelligence.

The full test scores an I.Q from two components: spatial I.Q and verbal I.Q.  My I.Q was measured at 110.  Spatial I.Q encompasses such things as the ability to make judgments from visual information and to do things like quickly place blocks in the proper holes (spatial thinking.)  I scored an 80 on this, or slightly more than one standard deviation from the 100 average.  Just above the range of being slightly mentally 'retarded' in this area.

Verbal I.Q measures such things as the ability to encompass information from written and oral information and also includes things like the ability to think logically.  I scored a 140 on this. More than two standard deviations above the average.  Or, just short of the genius level. (145, three standard deviations above.)

(80+140)/2 = 110

The examiner said he had never personally recorded or read in the literature a gap that large, which he didn't know what to make of.  He also said that people with gaps though often have aspergers'.

For me though, this meant that my I.Q scores were significant to me because they both fall close to being in the significant range. They were close enough for me to take seriously, anyway.

However, in this case here.  You can keep referring to me being on the autism spectrum disorder if you like, but I also have a near genius level logical mind.  So, you might want to reconsider pointing that out.

I've never mentioned this before, so like the Hilary Clinton hater liar who embellished his story, you might accuse me of embellishing this.  However, I have discussed this with a friend on Facebook (the same guy who wanted to volunteer for the Trump campaign in Hawaii) and I have the logs.  I could post them for you if that's really necessary.

[Donald Noory]

No shit, because Benghazi literally just happened.

Further, I find housing discrimination issues from the Seventies to be utterly trivial, even if 100% true.

[Donald Noory]

I am actually really curious about the discussion after the election when everybody can be more  honest. Let's face it we are all right now super partisan (both sides) that we all try to spin as much as possible and doing so say ridiculously things at times. Hopefully in a couple of weeks when it's all said and done we can all step back and have a more realistic and clear headed discussion of what worked and what didn't in each campaign. I thought both had some major flaws in the campaign, heck Obama team would have destroyed both of them,  heck I have a feeling Romney team would have done pretty well. There is some truly amateur  hour on both sides, Trump team might be historically bad though.

Trump has already given the Trumptards their talking point for after the election. It was rigged and he never stood a chance. One part of that is true, he never stood a chance because he's the most flawed candidate the Republicans have ever nominated.

[Jackstar]

The examiner said he had never personally recorded or read in the literature a gap that large, which he didn't know what to make of.

There are professional ethics guidelines that prevent clinicians in positions like that from telling people like you what a colossal dipshit they are.

[136 or 142]

Trump has already given the Trumptards their talking point for after the election. It was rigged and he never stood a chance. One part of that is true, he never stood a chance because he's the most flawed candidate the Republicans have ever nominated.

The election was a pig circus
Trump never had a chance
Hillary made the voters drunkards from the slums

[Jackstar]

Trump has already given the Trumptards their talking point for after the election. It was rigged and he never stood a chance. One part of that is true, he never stood a chance because he's the most flawed candidate the Republicans have ever nominated.

You're such an idiot. It's rigged for Trump. How do you not see this?

Oh, right, "colossal dipshit." Carry on.

[21st Century Man]

1.Fines for criminally illegal business activities:

1.Racial Housing Discrimination   

Where and when: New York City, 1973-1975

The dirt: The Department of Justice sued Trump and his father Fred in 1973 for housing discrimination at 39 sites around New York. “The government contended that Trump Management had refused to rent or negotiate rentals ‘because of race and color,’” The New York Times reported. “It also charged that the company had required different rental terms and conditions because of race and that it had misrepresented to blacks that apartments were not available.” Trump called the accusations “absolutely ridiculous.”

The upshot: The Trumps hired attorney Roy Cohn, who had worked for Joe McCarthy and whom Michael Kinsley once indelibly labeled “innocent of a variety of federal crimes.” They sued the Justice Department for $100 million. In the end, however, the Trumps settled with the government, promising not to discriminate and submitting to regular review by the New York Urban Leagueâ€"though crucially not admitting guilt. The Times has much more on the long history of allegations at Trump-owned properties

2.The Undocumented Polish Workers 

Where and when: New York City, 1980

The dirt: In order to construct his signature Trump Tower, the builder first had to demolish the Bonwit Teller store, an architecturally beloved Art Deco edifice. The work had to be done fast, and so managers hired 200 undocumented Polish workers to tear it down, paying them substandard wages for backbreaking workâ€"$5 per hour, when they were paid at all. The workers didn’t wear hard hats and often slept at the site. When the workers complained about their back pay, they were allegedly threatened with deportation. Trump said he was unaware that illegal immigrants were working at the site.

The upshot: In 1991, a federal judge found Trump and other defendants guilty of conspiring to avoid paying union pension and welfare contributions for the workers. The decision was appealed, with partial victories for both sides, and ultimately settled privately in 1999. In a February GOP debate, Marco Rubio brought up the story to accuse Trump of hypocrisy in his stance on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, Massimo Calabresi shows that testimony under oath shows Trump was aware of illegal immigrants being employed there.

3.Breaking Casino Rules   

Where and when: New York and New Jersey, various

The dirt: Trump has been repeatedly fined for breaking rules related to his operation of casinos. In 1990, with Trump Taj Mahal in trouble, Trump’s father Fred strolled in and bought 700 chips worth a total of $3.5 million. The purchase helped the casino pay debt that was due, but because Fred Trump had no plans to gamble, the New Jersey gaming commission ruled that it was a loan that violated operating rules. Trump paid a $30,000 fine; in the end, the loan didn’t prevent a bankruptcy the following year. As noted above, New Jersey also fined Trump $200,000 for arranging to keep black employees away from mafioso Robert LiButti’s gambling table. In 1991, the Casino Control Commission fined Trump’s company another $450,000 for buying LiButti nine luxury cars. And in 2000, Trump was fined $250,000 for breaking New York state law in lobbying to prevent an Indian casino from opening in the Catskills, for fear it would compete against his Atlantic City casinos.

The upshot: Trump admitted no wrongdoing in the New York case. He’s now out of the casino business.

4.Antitrust Violations   

Where and when: New Jersey, 1986

The dirt: In 1986, Trump decided he wanted to expand his casino empire in Atlantic City. His plan was to mount a hostile takeover of two casino companies, Holiday and Bally. Trump started buying up stock in the companies with an eye toward gaining control. But Bally realized what was going on and sued him for antitrust violations. “Trump hopes to wrest control of Bally from its public shareholders without paying them the control premium they otherwise could command had they been adequately informed of Trump's intentions,” the company argued.

The upshot: Trump gave up the attempt in 1987, but the Federal Trade Commission fined him $750,000 for failing to disclose his purchases of stock in the two companies, which exceeded minimum disclosure levels.

These are the kind of debts no honest man would pay.

In regards to his contractors, first: Trump sells himself as a supremely competent businessman.  If that's the case he sure seems to hire (or his staff hire anyway) an awful lot of really bad contractors.  For a supremely competent businessman he seems to hire an awful lot of incompetent people.

The upshot: Trump has offered various excuses, including shoddy workmanship, but the scale of the problemâ€"hundreds of allegationsâ€"makes that hard to credit. In some cases, even the lawyers Trump has hired to defend him have sued him for failing to pony up their fees. In one lawsuit, a Trump employee admitted in court that a painter was stiffed because managers determined they had “already paid enough.” The cases are damaging because they show Trump not driving a hard bargain with other businesses, but harming ordinary, hard-working Americans.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

For somebody who says all the allegations against The Trump Thing are just speculation, you don't actually seem to know any of the things the Trump Thing has done.

Like GS said, Trump was a Democrat then. LOL.  No seriously.  I am aware of the first case as it has been talked about but he was never found guilty of anything in that matter.  He may very well be a racist.  I never said that I liked Trump or condoned some of his business practices but  again he was not found guilty in the case.  As for the undocumented Polish workers, well all we have is Calebresi's word that he knew they were illegal and again the case was settled rather indecisively as an end result.  Again, much can be said of some of the business practices that Trump engaged in and whether they were ethical or not.

Seriously the first 2 stories could be spinned to anybody's advantage.  Case 3.  Dad tried to help his son out with a bad investment.  That could happen to anybody.  Frankly I don't see it as criminal or even unethical offense.  The money helped the son in the very short term but not in the long term.  It was a risk that Donald and Fred took and it didn't pay off in the long run.  They lost a ton of money.  Lesson learned.  Again you can spin that to Donald's disadvantage because he had to pay a fine and for what?  For risking his Dad's money.

As for the antitrust case, businessmen are always trying to corner a market.  Some succeed like TimeWarnerwhateverelsehasbeenaddedtotheirname and others fail. Why does the government prosecute some and not the others?  Maybe because some contribute large amounts of campaign money and others don't.  I'm against monopolies and trusts as a principle but the fed. govt. picks and chooses which ones they prosecute.  Hardly ethical behavior on their part.  I can't really blame Trump for trying when so many companies get away with it.

As for the contractors, once again, that can be argued from the plaintiffs and defendants standpoint.  Maybe points are valid on both sides.  The contractor did do the work after all.  I guess he should be paid something.  You can see it from that point of view.  You can also see it from the other point of view that the work was shoddy.  I'd have to act as a jurist before speculating further.

[Donald Noory]

There are professional ethics guidelines that prevent clinicians in positions like that from telling people like you what a colossal dipshit they are.

err...just wondering...how can a David Icke fan call someone else a colossal dipshit?

[136 or 142]

There are professional ethics guidelines that prevent clinicians in positions like that from telling people like you what a colossal dipshit they are.

That didn't prevent him from telling me what a colossal dipshit you are.

[Donald Noory]

You're such an idiot. It's rigged for Trump. How do you not see this?

Oh, right, "colossal dipshit." Carry on.

You better stock up on Preparation H for election day. You won't just be butt-hurt, your racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-loving ass will be on fire.

[136 or 142]

You're such an idiot. It's rigged for Trump. How do you not see this?

Oh, right, "colossal dipshit." Carry on.

I thought you told me you didn't support Trump.

[Jackstar]

The election was a pig circus
Trump never had a chance
Hillary made the voters drunkards from the slums

That didn't prevent him from telling me what a colossal dipshit you are.

Now you're just making shit up. Classic NPD.

[Jackstar]

I thought you told me you didn't support Trump.

I don't think you know what that word means. You don't use it appropriately.

[136 or 142]

Like GS said, Trump was a Democrat then. LOL.  No seriously.  I am aware of the first case as it has been talked about but he was never found guilty of anything in that matter.  He may very well be a racist.  I never said that I liked Trump or condoned some of his business practices but  again he was not found guilty in the case.  As for the undocumented Polish workers, well all we have is Calebresi's word that he knew they were illegal and again the case was settled rather indecisively as an end result.  Again, much can be said of some of the business practices that Trump engaged in and whether they were ethical or not.

Seriously the first 2 stories could be spinned to anybody's advantage.  Case 3.  Dad tried to help his son out with a bad investment.  That could happen to anybody.  Frankly I don't see it as criminal or even unethical offense.  The money helped the son in the very short term but not in the long term.  It was a risk that Donald and Fred took and it didn't pay off in the long run.  They lost a ton of money.  Lesson learned.  Again you can spin that to Donald's disadvantage because he had to pay a fine and for what?  For risking his Dad's money.

As for the antitrust case, businessmen are always trying to corner a market.  Some succeed like TimeWarnerwhateverelsehasbeenaddedtotheirname and others fail. Why does the government prosecute some and not the others?  Maybe because some contribute large amounts of campaign money and others don't.  I'm against monopolies and trusts as a principle but the fed. govt. picks and chooses which ones they prosecute.  Hardly ethical behavior on their part.  I can't really blame Trump for trying when so many companies get away with it.

As for the contractors, once again, that can be argued from the plaintiffs and defendants standpoint.  Maybe points are valid on both sides.  The contractor did do the work after all.  I guess he should be paid something.  You can see it from that point of view.  You can also see it from the other point of view that the work was shoddy.  I'd have to act as a jurist before speculating further.

What a load of rationalization and out right bull shit. 

1.He paid the fines but did so without admitting guilt.  If you want to think that shows he might be innocent, go ahead.  I personally don't think ethical people would accept having to pay a fine if they truly weren't guilty (and that includes Bill Clinton)

2.Trump was the ultimate boss, if he didn't know his subcontractor hired illegal aliens, he should have known.

3.Trump wasn't fined for anti trust violations.  He was fined for failure to disclose stock purchases.  I don't think you need to have a genius level verbal I.Q to be able to read the story correctly.

Odd how you don't give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt on anything, but call her 'corrupt' even though she's never been charged with any crime, and, to the best of my knowledge, never been fined for anything or sued civilly.

I'd have respect for you if you'd say something like "Trump is a psychopath but I'm still going to vote for him because he says he'll put conservative justices on the Supreme Court." At least then, you'd be honest.

[Jackstar]

anti-Semitic, conspiracy-loving

What is this, jumbo shrimp?

[136 or 142]

I don't think you know what that word means. You don't use it appropriately.

Alright, you're being stupid.

[Donald Noory]

What is this, jumbo shrimp?

He'll put one on the barbie for you.