The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

Is that something you could elaborate on? Just curious as most is second hand accounts or people with a different agenda.

When Trump formed his presidential exploratory committee in 1999 to then test the waters for a presidential run as a Reform Party candidate, I was hired to work on it. When Trump concluded that such a run would not be successful (the national Reform Party collapsed into a hopelessly dysfunctional mess) exploratory activities ended. That seemed to me to be a wise decision. That's exactly what exploratory committees are designed to do; test the waters and make decisions based on what is learned.

Despite proper billing and repeated submissions to the same address all previous invoices had been submitted and paid, my final invoice and all collections attempts were ignored. This was a long time ago. I do not remember the amount in question but do remember making the decision to suffer the loss instead of making a public stink, going to court or turning the invoice over to a collections agency.

So, years later, when I read reports in the news about how Trump stiffed certain people in his business operations, I am predisposed to believe them.

 

[Pilgrim]

Is that something you could elaborate on? Just curious as most is second hand accounts or people with a different agenda.

When Trump formed his presidential exploratory committee in 1999 to then test the waters for a presidential run as a Reform Party candidate, I was hired to work on it. When Trump concluded that such a run would not be successful (the national Reform Party collapsed into a hopelessly dysfunctional mess) exploratory activities ended. That seemed to me to be a wise decision. That's exactly what exploratory committees are designed to do; test the waters and make decisions based on what is learned.

Despite proper billing and repeated submissions to the same address all previous invoices had been submitted and paid, my final invoice and all collections attempts were ignored. This was a long time ago. I do not remember the amount in question but do remember making the decision to suffer the loss instead of making a public stink, going to court or turning the invoice over to a collections agency.

So, years later, when I read reports in the news about how Trump stiffed certain people in his business operations, I am predisposed to believe them.

So were you stiffed by Trump personally, his exploratory committee or the Reform Party? There obviously had to be a corporation set up to handle invoices and payments. If that was the case, how closely was Trump involved with this group and did he personally review every invoice submitted and paid? Sounds to me like you were stiffed by a Trump underling and he likely didn't know who was being paid and who wasn't.

 

[davekc]

Is that something you could elaborate on? Just curious as most is second hand accounts or people with a different agenda.

When Trump formed his presidential exploratory committee in 1999 to then test the waters for a presidential run as a Reform Party candidate, I was hired to work on it. When Trump concluded that such a run would not be successful (the national Reform Party collapsed into a hopelessly dysfunctional mess) exploratory activities ended. That seemed to me to be a wise decision. That's exactly what exploratory committees are designed to do; test the waters and make decisions based on what is learned.

Despite proper billing and repeated submissions to the same address all previous invoices had been submitted and paid, my final invoice and all collections attempts were ignored. This was a long time ago. I do not remember the amount in question but do remember making the decision to suffer the loss instead of making a public stink, going to court or turning the invoice over to a collections agency.

So, years later, when I read reports in the news about how Trump stiffed certain people in his business operations, I am predisposed to believe them.

Fair enough. As mentioned, there could be that question as to whether it was him personally, or the other groups you mentioned. If other invoices were paid I guess one would wonder why that one was omitted? Just a observation.

 

[Turtle]

(this post moved to this thread, from another thread, because of a combination of poster idiocy and a smartphone)

Here's an interesting piece regarding former CIA head Brennan. When confirmations surfaced of routine, wide-scale unmasking of names of those of the Trump team, my initial gut reaction was Brennan. He had more power and more motive than Susan Rice or anyone else. The man who stayed mostly in the background and in the shadows of the political spotlights, for him to suddenly seek out as many cameras as possible during the presidential campaign for the purposes of trashing Donald Trump, it seemed awfully, awfully, odd. Telling, even.
Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump

 

[Worn Out Manager]

Seriously, quoting from the American Spectator, the Gold Standard of Fake News

Sent from my hand-held Etch-A- Sketch

 

[Turtle]

Seriously, quoting from the American Spectator, the Gold Standard of Fake News

Excellent, the classic ad hominem logical fallacy.
Look, I'll quote from The Village Voice, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, or even BuzzFeed, if it's accurate. Any source needs to be skeptically taken into account when dealing with a brokering of the news, nothing should be accepted at face value, and other sources need to be used to verify it, but to dismiss something outright solely because of the source itself, well that's just stupid.

 

[Pilgrim]

Seriously, quoting from the American Spectator, the Gold Standard of Fake News

Excellent, the classic ad hominem logical fallacy.
Look, I'll quote from The Village Voice, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, or even BuzzFeed, if it's accurate. Any source needs to be skeptically taken into account when dealing with a brokering of the news, nothing should be accepted at face value, and other sources need to be used to verify it, but to dismiss something outright solely because of the source itself, well that's just stupid.

Wasn't it an insignificant online news outlet called the Drudge Report that first exposed the story of Slick Willie's affair with Monica Lewinsky which was being withheld by Newsweek? That forced their hand, the Washington Post soon followed with confirmation and all the other MSM fell in line after that. Even the National Enquirer has occasionally published factual news that none of the MSM would touch.

 

[Turtle]

Wasn't it an insignificant online news outlet called the Drudge Report that first exposed the story of Slick Willie's affair with Monica Lewinsky which was being withheld by Newsweek? That forced their hand, the Washington Post soon followed with confirmation and all the other MSM fell in line after that. Even the National Enquirer has occasionally published factual news that none of the MSM would touch.

Exactly. A lot of the time the source isn't necessarily a measure of factual bias, but rather a bias in which stories they choose to carry, and the angle they take on the story. When you listen to Fox News and CNN for 5 or 6 hours, flipping back and forth between them, the choice of stories to tell, the angle and the narrative they want to put forth, becomes readily apparent, even when both networks are factually accurate.

The American Spectator is unapologetically a conservative news magazine, but that doesn't make it wrong any more than the Huffington Post is wrong just because it's a liberal rag. It's mosty opinion pieces, same as any other partisan publication, liberal or conservative, but the piece above on Brennan contains accurate, verifiable information. The opinions in the piece are certainly up for debate, but not the facts of the piece.

The American Spectator, if you recall, contained the first article in which Paula Jones made her accusations against Bill Clinton, and the article was used as the basis for damages in the sexual assault case, which triggered the set of events that led to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. That article, and their subsequent coverage, despite being a conservative news outlet, was dead-on-balls accurate.

Their coverage of Clarence Thomas accuser Anita Hill, not so dead-on-balls. So like everything else, you can't take anything at face value. In fact, if something so conveniently confirms your own bias, instead of instantly slapping your knee three times and saying, "I knew it!", you should be extra skeptical.

 

[ATeam]

Fair enough. As mentioned, there could be that question as to whether it was him personally, or the other groups you mentioned. If other invoices were paid I guess one would wonder why that one was omitted?

At the time, after repeated attempts to collect the money due, I came to believe the final invoice was not paid because that's how Trump rolls. In later years, my inclination to believe this grew as I learned about many others who were owed money by Trump (his entities and agents) and were not paid.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

90 days and Trump had failed to accomplish very much
Less then other Presidents before
Only 28 bills signed into action Roosevelt did 76...and NO major legislation bills have passed.
Of his big speech only 60% of his first 100 days goals have been done.
So far all blow and no snow....

Trump actually is unusual for his first 100 days, but for a reason opposite of what he said,” said Skidmore, author of “Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review.” “Not only has he accomplished almost nothing, but rather his initiatives (executive orders stayed by courts, a major legislative proposal failing even to come to a vote when his party controls both houses, etc.) have notoriously been unsuccessful.”
“FDR definitely outclasses Trump,” Brands said. “Fifteen major bills through Congress, to zero for Trump.”

 

[OntarioVanMan]

First of all let me say there is something very suspect about this whole strike operation. I believe Russia could have taken out a large number of the Tomahawk's if they chose to. That they didn't might be a quid pro quo of being given enough time to get their asses and assets out of the way.

Secondly why would Assad choose to use Sarin in such a limited way where the provocation far out weighs the limited results? Although I suppose it could strike sufficient fear in the population to encourage capitulation. Yes, I think Assad was framed.
On the USA side its easy to see a couple of messages; don't use chemical weapons and don't cross the "red line." Good messages to send to Syria, Iran, Russia and North Korea.

 

[RoadTime]

90 days and Trump had failed to accomplish very much
Less then other Presidents before
Only 28 bills signed into action Roosevelt did 76...and NO major legislation bills have passed.
Of his big speech only 60% of his first 100 days goals have been done.
So far all blow and no snow....

Trump actually is unusual for his first 100 days, but for a reason opposite of what he said,” said Skidmore, author of “Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review.” “Not only has he accomplished almost nothing, but rather his initiatives (executive orders stayed by courts, a major legislative proposal failing even to come to a vote when his party controls both houses, etc.) have notoriously been unsuccessful.”
“FDR definitely outclasses Trump,” Brands said. “Fifteen major bills through Congress, to zero for Trump.”

Wow, they had to go back to a president that died 20yrs before I was even born for a comparison? Trump must be doing at least something right

Sent from my P00I using EO Forums mobile app

 

[OntarioVanMan]

90 days and Trump had failed to accomplish very much
Less then other Presidents before
Only 28 bills signed into action Roosevelt did 76...and NO major legislation bills have passed.
Of his big speech only 60% of his first 100 days goals have been done.
So far all blow and no snow....

Trump actually is unusual for his first 100 days, but for a reason opposite of what he said,” said Skidmore, author of “Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review.” “Not only has he accomplished almost nothing, but rather his initiatives (executive orders stayed by courts, a major legislative proposal failing even to come to a vote when his party controls both houses, etc.) have notoriously been unsuccessful.”
“FDR definitely outclasses Trump,” Brands said. “Fifteen major bills through Congress, to zero for Trump.”

Wow, they had to go back to a president that died 20yrs before I was even born for a comparison? Trump must be doing at least something right

Sent from my P00I using EO Forums mobile app

I think he is done well on the south border immigration issue.

 

[Ragman]

90 days and Trump had failed to accomplish very much
Less then other Presidents before
Only 28 bills signed into action Roosevelt did 76...and NO major legislation bills have passed.
Of his big speech only 60% of his first 100 days goals have been done.
So far all blow and no snow....

Trump actually is unusual for his first 100 days, but for a reason opposite of what he said,” said Skidmore, author of “Presidential Performance: A Comprehensive Review.” “Not only has he accomplished almost nothing, but rather his initiatives (executive orders stayed by courts, a major legislative proposal failing even to come to a vote when his party controls both houses, etc.) have notoriously been unsuccessful.”
“FDR definitely outclasses Trump,” Brands said. “Fifteen major bills through Congress, to zero for Trump.”

Wow, they had to go back to a president that died 20yrs before I was even born for a comparison? Trump must be doing at least something right

Sent from my P00I using EO Forums mobile app

I think he is done well on the south border immigration issue.

 

[Turtle]

90 days and Trump had failed to accomplish very much
Less then other Presidents before
Only 28 bills signed into action Roosevelt did 76...and NO major legislation bills have passed.
Of his big speech only 60% of his first 100 days goals have been done.
So far all blow and no snow..

Yeah...

"Less then other Presidents before"

I like that. It's absolutely true. There were, in fact, other presidents that signed more legislation into law. Two of them - Truman and Roosevelt.

First 100 days, bills signed into action:
Trump - only 28
Obama - 11
Bush Jr - 7
Clinton - 24
Bush Sr - 18
Reagan - 9
Carter - 22
Nixon - 9
Johnson - 10
Kennedy - 26
Eisenhower - 22
Truman - 55
Roosevelt - 76

 

[Ragman]

90 days and Trump had failed to accomplish very much
Less then other Presidents before
Only 28 bills signed into action Roosevelt did 76...and NO major legislation bills have passed.
Of his big speech only 60% of his first 100 days goals have been done.
So far all blow and no snow..

Yeah...

"Less then other Presidents before"

I like that. It's absolutely true. There were, in fact, other presidents that signed more legislation into law. Two of them - Truman and Roosevelt.

First 100 days, bills signed into action:
Trump - only 28
Obama - 11
Bush Jr - 7
Clinton - 24
Bush Sr - 18
Reagan - 9
Carter - 22
Nixon - 9
Johnson - 10
Kennedy - 26
Eisenhower - 22
Truman - 55
Roosevelt - 76

It would seem to me,, there is more to governing than how many bills can you sign into law.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Turtle]

It would seem to me,, there is more to governing than how many bills can you sign into law.

That's the right answer.

It's not a numbers game. Every president and congress is different. Every time is different, with very different issues facing the nation at any given First 100 Days.

The Press likes the numbers (including the 100 Days number) because it lets them toss out easily digestible bites to the (mostly) ignorant masses to mold the collective thought.

What matters is what that legislation does with respect to furthering the administration's policies and how those policies affect the nation and the world. But that's not something you can neatly wrap up in a number, or a sound bite, and instead requires actual journalism coupled with critical thinking, something The Press is no longer interested in. So, instead, we get pearls of journalistic wisdom like, “Not only has he accomplished almost nothing, but rather his initiatives have notoriously been unsuccessful. FDR definitely outclasses Trump. Fifteen major bills through Congress, to zero for Trump.”

People read it, believe it... thought successfully molded.

One of the laws Trump signed was the legislation to name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago (American Samoa) the Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Clinic.

"Zero [major bills through Congress] for Trump," my ass. <snort>

 

[davekc]

It would seem to me,, there is more to governing than how many bills can you sign into law.

That's the right answer.

It's not a numbers game. Every president and congress is different. Every time is different, with very different issues facing the nation at any given First 100 Days.

The Press likes the numbers (including the 100 Days number) because it lets them toss out easily digestible bites to the (mostly) ignorant masses to mold the collective thought.

What matters is what that legislation does with respect to furthering the administration's policies and how those policies affect the nation and the world. But that's not something you can neatly wrap up in a number, or a sound bite, and instead requires actual journalism coupled with critical thinking, something The Press is no longer interested in. So, instead, we get pearls of journalistic wisdom like, “Not only has he accomplished almost nothing, but rather his initiatives have notoriously been unsuccessful. FDR definitely outclasses Trump. Fifteen major bills through Congress, to zero for Trump.”

People read it, believe it... thought successfully molded.

One of the laws Trump signed was the legislation to name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pagosa (American Samoa) the Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Clinic.

"Zero [major bills through Congress] for Trump," my ass. <snort>

That's the right answer. Not all that bad for the first 100 days. Only mistake I see is letting Ryan handle healthcare. Likely see a few changes coming on that.

 

[Turtle]

Every single Republican House member who has been in Congress for more than 4 years need to be taken out to the wood shed and paddled to the point where they can't sit down for weeks. 7 years, and the best they can come up with is a rabbit raisinette.

 

[Turtle]

Vote: Should ICE stay out of N.J. courthouses?

Interesting results. Not surprising, though.