40 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

It is indeed an on-topic related question .

How a Judge would view this topic is quite relevant .

The topic is about whether Trump said certain things  

A Judge would find Trump didnt say such things .

Case dismissed 

A judge might find it unproven, but certainly not definitively rule he didn't say such things. And of course, invoking legal evidentiary standards in political questions is nonsense. Those standards are there to make sure that defendants have some inherent protection against the overwhelming power of the government. In ordinary life, if you suspect some merchants have cheated you, do you still patronize them because you don't have enough evidence to convince a judge of their chicanery?

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

No, but Jo Jorgensen is running too.   Gary Johnson got 5% of the popular vote despite having weak performances on cable news. That is the problem that you have uncovered.  People only think there are two choices. 

 

One thing in Trumps favor, he doesn't pretend to be anything but who he is.  Joe Biden is a pretender but he created the crime bill and supports war.  He's a shill for the American 1%.   I wouldn't vote for either, but I dislike Biden more.       

Which is why he's running on a program to increase taxes on the 1 %? In politics, follow the money. It's obvious that if anyone is a shill for the 1 percent, it's Trump.

15 minutes ago, Poet said:

I was just curious. I find that a lot of people outside the US don't understand how most big business deals there are structured. You usually have dozens, sometimes a hundred or more parties participating. The investors and suppliers assume some risk and negotiate their positions accordingly. If things fall apart, the bankruptcy system is designed to not tear down otherwise viable businesses through personal liability. I'm guessing you might be from the UK, so, a Limited company would serve the same function there.

The main difference between the US and Europe is that everyone in American business life is expected to have some failures and it is not considered a black mark against you. That is why Silicon Valley has generated trillions of dollars in value, because investors are so tolerant of risk that they go into most deals knowing they won't work out. They will often invest in a startup founder who previously lost them millions of dollars, recognizing that this makes him, this time, more aware and better able to handle the problems that might emerge. UK investors don't really have the stomach for that.

Big property developments in the US are particularly risky because there are so many moving parts. A few zoning changes can blow an entire deal. A project might be brilliantly conceived but, by the time it gets to the construction stage, the entire market might collapse. When they do work out, however, they can be insanely profitable.

Trump's role in most of these deals was as a figurehead. Trump was a brand you could slap on a development to make it easier to get your anchor tenants and maybe sell the other units for 20 or 30% more than you could otherwise charge. It's like how Virgin Trains and Virgin Media have nothing to do with Richard Branson, they simply pay him a great big licensing fee every year for the Virgin brand.

Given the sheer quantity of deals Trump participated in, it would be almost impossible not to have some duds. So, it is a tad hyperbolic for you to describe it as "heinous".

Given Trumps many faults, I always wonder why those who hate him focus on issues that everyone knows are fabrications. Why fabricate when there is so much real material to choose from?



 

Please stop spouting generalization about bankruptcies. With the possible exception of his Atlantic city ventures, his bankruptcies do not correspond to the situations you describe. On a mobile phone now so too much labor to provide the laughable details.

10 minutes ago, wombat said:

if it wasn't tax deductible he wouldn't be donating

If that's why Bloomberg donated, then both you and he share the mistaken belief that political contributions are tax deductible.

1 minute ago, Poet said:

Have you ever done business in the US?

I wann't aware that this thread was about me. But I will share with you that I didn't have a wealthy daddy to bail me out out of any business disasters of my own making.

23 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Thank you, but the statement I am reacting to is that Trump has been personally bankrupt 5 times. It is false. 100% false. That businesses Trump had involvement in have filed for bankruptcy is irrelevant. 

It's especially heinous given that Trump didn't run on his performance as a businessman.

23 minutes ago, ezzra said:

No one blows 100 million dollars on election campaign ideology alone, unless they know that somehow, sooner or later they will get it back in kind...

What amount is the cutoff point for self-interested political donations?

29 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

You link states " It has been 2 years, 9 months since North Korea's last ICBM test."

Which must be about the same time as Trump and Kims meeting ?

Far more dangerous are sub launched missiles:

"North Korea test-fired a new-type submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) in the waters off Wonsan. The Republic of Korea Armed Forces said the missile, which was dubbed Pukguksong-3, flew about 450 kilometers and reached a maximum altitude of 910 kilometers, making it an intermediate-range ballistic missile. It fell into the exclusive economic zone of Japan off Shimane Prefecture."

It was successfully tested on Oct 2, 2019.

11 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

The missile testing seems to have stopped though, and those missile tests were what caused the confrontation .

   

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests#:~:text=There have been a number of North Korean missile tests.&text=As of 20 March 2020,undertaken as of December%2C 2019.

6 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Although he didnt sign a peace agreement with NK , the dialogue and meetings stopped the confrontation and caused Trump and Kim to become acquaintances and no longer hostile to each other

So, it wasnt a failure 

Because that's what diplomacy is all about: BFF making. The fact that North Korea continued to advance its nuclear weapons development is utterly besides the point.

28 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

I have quoted your whole post .

Happy now ?

Trolling much?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

How are they being counted?

By actual enumeration.

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I never claimed that earlier censused claimed to identify in respondents were illegal, you are mistaken. 

 

In any event, is because we haven't done it before a good reason to not do something now? 

 

 

So you didn't write this?

"Yes, well we used to count them and identify them as illegals but lefty doesn't like that..."

22 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So but for Trump, the left would want to determine how many illegal aliens are in the country?

Absolutely. Since it's most likely that they are being undercounted.

3 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

No, not really. And I am not the only one to have figured it out, but if you think those are really his/her views then please carry on ????

Again, no rationale provided. Unless you believe that a vague reference to the opinions of others counts.

4 minutes ago, Masterton said:

 

ShindenGo is clearly a troll, I am surprised more people haven't figured it out yet. Some of his posts on this thread, although ironic, are pure comedy gold. 

Actually, name-calling without providing any rationale to back it up is trolling. 

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So why does the left not want to ask if people are citizens?

 

In any event, we know pretty accurately how many non-citizens are in the country legally, so by counting the total number of non citizens and just do the math.

 

Is like if you ask if people are blind, you don't have to ask how many people aren't blind.

 

But you already knew that yes?

To answer your first question, because the left knows that the reason the Trump administration introduced this question on the short form was to discourage undocumented aliens from being counted. Given the rhetoric of Trump and company, how could it be otherwise. And the Supreme Court upheld the fact that the Trump administration lied about its reasons for inserting the question.

I wish that estimates were allowed. But the conservative justices on the Supreme court disallowed that citing the phrase "actual enumeration" as the reason. So they disallowed the use of the sophisticated techniques used by business and industry to get a more accurate count. This had the effect of lowering the count of minorities and undocumented aliens. 

The Census isn't just about counting heads.  Lots of other questions in it.