Lets make a deal- I'll accept that you actually believe Trump is out to get you

Ah, so. That's not what I said. Let me try it like Jesus would have;

If tRaitor tRump inherited a debt free liquor store in an all male mining town with a whore house up stairs, he would bankrupt it before the ink dried on the title.

 

That still sounds like the same argument... It just doesn't fit with the fact that Trump was a wildly successful businessman right up until he entered politics, at which point he started hemmoraging money. Which is the exact opposite of how political corruption and personal enrichment tends to work.

 

Being a wildly successful businessman doesn't mean he's a wildly successful politician.

 

True ...and not the point.

 

Every business tRaitor tRump got into failed. If he would have taken the money he inherited and invested it he would have been far better off. The only reason he was solvent before going into politics was his pretending to be a businessman on the Apprentice.

Ivanka one quoted him as pointing a beggar and saying “That guy has more money than I do”.

 

If your measure of wealth is limited to dollars stored, then I spose that's true... but its not a very good measure. And while its true that a standard S&P investment would've net Trump more dollars than his real estate investments, I'd hardly call turning millions into billions a 'failure', given the tendency for the average lottery winner to simply retire or often go broke anyway.

But that's not really the point. The point is that Trump made money until he went into politics, and then lost money while in office. That trend is the opposite of most politicians. And while it isn't 'proof' that he isn't or wasn't using his authority of office for self enrichment, it certainly is reason to place him lower on the list of suspects for self enrichment than others, like congresspeople who tend to increase their net worth by dozens or hundreds of times over during their time in office. It seems a rather illogical approach to focus on and consternate over Trump getting poorer before looking into them getting richer.

 

You were the one bragging about all his billions.

TRaitor tRump makes millions by starting with billions.

His business's were in trouble before he ran and only got worse while he was president.

The post you responded to didn't mention anything about tRaitor tRump's finances, just he propensity to screw things up. You're the one that brought finances up.

 

You're confused. I don't care about Trump's billions, beyond its usefulness as evidence that he knows how to make money. Evidence that contradicts the theory that he is somehow enriching himself in office while hemorrhaging net worth. Its an analysis of distorting propaganda not matching up with reality.

But perhaps I also misunderstood... If you weren't talking about Trump's business acumen when you said "never underestimate tRaitor tRump's ability to phuk up an anvil with a rubber hammer" then what were you talking about?

 

Then you're the one who's confused.

No, IF he could actually make money he wouldn't be in his supporters pockets day and night.

TRaitor tRump couldn't afford to get out of politics, even if he wanted to. Donations to his many PAC's is the only thing keeping him afloat.

His life.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

How many BANKRUPTCIES was he FORCED to file for HIMSELF?

How many other hardworking Americans did he FORCE into bankruptcy by FAILING to PAY what he OWED?

How many HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of DOLLARS did he DEFRAUD from the State of NY and multiple BANKS?

Everything he did was a CROOKED SCAM!

 

Even if all that were true, it doesn't explain how he lost money (between $700M-$2B net worth) while in office. Where is the 'self enrichment'?
Donald Trump's wealth takes tumble during presidency (bbc.com)
Trump lost $2B while serving as president | Washington Examiner

 

It doesn't seem like you're being very genuine here... you used exactly the same "Trump would phuk up an anvil with a rubber hammer" metaphor to specifically criticize his 'financials' in a thread you created and titled:
Only the best money management ... | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics

...and are now claiming that you WERE NOT referring to 'Trumps financials' when you said in this thread "never underestimate tRaitor tRump's ability to phuk up an anvil with a rubber hammer"

Surely you can understand my skepticism...

 

about your “skepticism”, really ~ really!

 

The problem with running SCAMS is that when you STOP they FALL APART.

Your Traitor-in-Chief had to hand over everything to his IDIOT son ERIC.

That does EXPLAIN why his scams collapsed.

 

And when did that happen?

 

In 2017
###############
Trump hands over business empire to sons

• Published

12 January 2017
US President-elect Donald Trump says he is handing over his business empire to his sons, Donald Jr and Eric.

He told a news conference he had formally given "complete and total" control to them in a bid to avoid conflicts of interest.

Mr Trump's lawyer, Sheri Dillon said the President-elect had "isolated" himself from his businesses.

But the Office of Government Ethics said Mr Trump's plan didn't "meet the standards" of former presidents.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38587628

 

So Trump's 'self enrichment' "scams" (claimed by the poster I was responding to) "stopped" at the beginning of Trump's term.

Thx!

 

READ the whole article or at least the last line of my reply.

"But the Office of Government Ethics said Mr Trump's plan didn't "meet the standards" of former presidents."

Of course!

In any case, as I said, his business's were on the rocks when he took office.

But to your point:

Trump at 100 Days: Case Studies of Trump’s Self-Serving, Special Interest Government
https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...mps-self-serving-special-interest-government/

How Trump fused his business empire to the presidency
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/trump-businesses-empire-tied-presidency-100496

President Trump’s legacy of corruption, four years and 3,700 conflicts of interest later
https://www.citizensforethics.org/r...mp-legacy-corruption-3700-conflicts-interest/

Thx!

 

Wait, so handing over the reigns to his sons DIDN'T stop the "scams"? If not, then why did he stop being 'enriched'?

 

Well, to quote Rex Tillerson, because ... "he's a ****ing moron!".

I edited that post; check it out.

Of the three I like what this one had to say:

President Trump’s legacy of corruption, four years and 3,700 conflicts of interest later

"Next week marks the end of Donald Trump’s term as President. In his wake, he will leave behind a legacy of profound corruption and egregious conflicts of interest, the repercussions of which will echo for years after he is gone. In the last four years, Trump has flouted all kinds of norms set by previous presidents, starting with his decision not to divest from his business interests while in office, setting the stage for what became an administration marked by placing self-interest and profiteering at the highest levels above the public interest and culminated in a deadly insurrection that was rooted in the same self-serving ethos."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38587628

 

Because his sons are INCOMPETENT bunglers who would bankrupt a dockside bar with a whorehouse out back.

 

Given the demographics of the enlisted men, I'm not sure we WOULD have to fight against them, depending on circumstances, of course. In most civil wars, at best you divide the military. But our unique situation wouldn't play out well for Democrats, I can assure you that. Most of the Military votes right wing. Most of the gun nuts are right wing. It's a bit of a silly notion to bet on blue in that one. The Democrat party would lose a current day civil war, worse than they lost the other one they started. That's just an objective fact, that can't be denied. I'm newish here so, just to be clear, I want no part of that, or any war, pretty much ever. I care about ending them, not who wins or who was right.

Saying you think Trump is more dangerous than Hitler, is just...silly on so many levels, but it's also pretty insensitive to diminish the foul deeds of the worst villain in history. Hitler had a vehement following for his ideas. Trump wasn't even really the president, and he won't be if re-elected. No Republican is ever REALLY in charge of DC, truly. When people say stuff like, Trump will become a dictator, that's hurts my head it's so dumb. He would say that, and the secret service would say, no you fool, and march him out of there. This premise is really really dumb, and to your defense, it's shared by a lot of really smart people, who just can't control their rhetoric. I'm not insulting you, just the notion.

 

Your facts are correct but your assumptions are not. The following is not about what would trigger another civil war but rather how it would transpire on the ground.

Ask yourself these questions, what was the reaction, worldwide, to the latest Israel/Palestine conflict? Was the reaction the same as before or different to what it had been in the past?

Your erroneous assumption is that if there is to be another civil war then both sides will begin fighting battles similar to those that have occurred in the past. Let me explain why that is not how it will happen.

There are about 400 million guns in circulation in America but only HALF of them are in the hands of the extremists who actively WANT another civil war which begs the question as to who owns the other half? There are 80 million gun owners but only 3% of them OWN half of all guns meaning that having a lot of guns means squat if there is no one to fire them. Not ALL gun owners are going to join the extremists.

Then there is the actual use of firearms. Going up against trained military forces like the US has means that your odds of taking them on in a conventional manner is not going to work so instead it will become more of a guerilla/asynchronous style combat instead. The number of guns becomes meaningless in that context.

The questions above now become pertinent. Unlike previously this time Israel was condemned globally. There is a STRONG anti-war sentiment that knows no boundaries. The internet is responsible for some of this, not because of disinformation but because of the ability to communicate what was actually happening on the ground. LBJ knew that the vietnam war was lost when the media stopped supporting the government back in the days of hardcopy news and limited TV viewing options. Nowadays it is impossible to commit a public act of violence without it being reported online within hours.

How do you imagine We the People are going to REACT when the extremists engage in another civil war against the government of We the People?

Some will grab their guns and join the fighting. Some will grab their bug out bags and head elsewhere. However the MAJORITY, especially the Millennials and GenZ will come out into the streets and make it clear that they do NOT want another civil war.

Civil unrest will be the order of the day and while the extremists might believe that their red states will offer them safety they will soon discover that is not the case. The protests won't only happen on the streets, the internet will coordinate asymmetric warfare in a similar manner to the way the Auto Unions used their strikes more strategically. Mass walkouts become a waiting game that the Corporations can outlast. Random shutdowns are way more expensive because that really screws with the supply chain and pushes UP costs for the corporations. Similar strategies will undermine the effectiveness of the extremists.

In simple terms attempting to OPPRESS a nation of people who KNOW and UNDERSTAND their Constitutional Rights is going to take way more MANPOWER than the extremists have on hand even if they has 100% of the military on their side. There are 330 million citizens and about 1.4 million in the military not all of whom can be used in POLICING activities, perhaps 350,000 would be available?

Just counting the number of guns and believing that is ALL that is needed in order to win another civil war is the kind of DISINFORMATION that stems from the Xtofascist controlled GOP/NRA gun culture. It is based upon self-deception because it ignores objective reality. We the People have demonstrated that we will NOT tolerate oppression of POC, LBGTQ and women. What makes you think we will tolerate being oppressed by extremists just because they have guns?

NO ONE "wins" a civil war!

One side PREVAILS over the other.

Whichever side upholds the Constitution and the Rights of ALL Americans to EQUALITY will ultimately prevail because surrendering to extremist OPPRESSION is NOT an acceptable outcome for the vast MAJORITY of We the People.

Duly noted.

 

Some really interesting points in here. Thanks for the detailed response.

Right off the bat, I have to refute your notion that the military members would not be part of the civil war, and that they would all fight for team status quo. That isn't what happened last time, at all. Robert E Lee was our best general, before he fought against us, as one famous example. Last time we fought brother vs brother, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be similar the second time. Look, if what you think would happen does, there isn't a war. The public can't beat the army in a fight. My point is that they wouldn't have to. I think at best Democrats could maybe retain half-ish...if that. But the voting demographics are clear, if the soldiers go the way they vote.

Your point about people owning more guns than they have hands IS a good point. But I think the issue is more of who DOESN'T have any, and who doesn't know how to use them very well, if at all. I wouldn't bet on team blue in a shooting competition, and that's sort of what wars are. I'm also not sure why you are drawing a line between civilian and military marksmanship; many members of the public, were themselves in the military, and hunting deer might not be as scary as a war, but you still have to hit the target.

I'm not sure either side largely WANTS a civil war. But I fear we are on a path that could lead there eventually. All we need is a little dehumanization, and we are on our way.

I'm unaware of any civil war in history, that ended over bad press. Vietnam might have. The press even convinced us we lost that war, but the Viet Cong disagreed. They were shocked we retreated after their heavy casualties they took in the Tet Offensive. But at the root of those protests was not death and destruction, it was the draft and why are we doing it. Those concerns will not exist in a civil war. We will know why we are doing it, unlike Vietnam.

It seems you think anyone participating in a civil war, is somehow no longer "We the People"? Why? You might think that of them, but they and their supporters would not think that of themselves. Also, I'm not sure why you think only extremists from the right, would start a civil war. It was mainstream duly elected politicians who started the last one, not some rogue group.

Why do we need more police than we have now, in your scenario, and why do think they are all fighting for team status quo? This is another demographic with huge numbers of Republicans, and they have both firearms, and firearms training. And why do you think if the civil war is lost by the US, that doom and gloom oppressive laws are to follow? Those aren't the teams. The American right is NOT going to engage in MORE control of the public, that is the opposite of their views.

I don't own a gun, and I'm not an NRA member. But I don't think they are the boogeyman, either. I think they push the things their members want them to push, like any other group. The NRA isn't changing any minds, that's for sure. If you hate guns, of course you hate them. That's fair as can be. But the idea that is often presented without challenge, that the NRA has to buy Republicans, is completely illogical. Those Republicans were members when they were 12, and signed up for gun training.

I would say this to your oppression fears. The Republicans, if they won, would likely adopt the same constitution, because they don't have any issues with it in the first place. It would be the authoritarian left, who is more likely to take away freedoms. We know of several rights already, for a fact, that they would abolish. I'm not saying one side is good and the other is evil, but lets at least get the teams straight. People don't fight a war just to do the opposite of their beliefs.

Interesting chat. I like some of your points, but I just can't get around the unlikely premise that the military stays in tact, which kind of impacts many of the points made. But we can agree that if they did, the point is moot. There is no war, if that were the case.