Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[boost]

Forbes is not the floor of Trump net worth estimates, nor are their net worth estimations thought to be particularly accurate. But let's pretend that first sentence doesn't exist-- you're not concerned with discrepancies like this? You're basing a large part of your assessment of who Trump is on this figure, and you don't think it's important that there is no reasonable consensus on what it actually is?

You're right, seeing his tax returns would not settle anything, but it would be one more data point, and a significant one at that. I can publicly claim to be a billionaire with essentially no consequences and essentially no way for you to discredit my claim. Claiming false things on my tax returns carries much greater consequences

Btw, I get that it's easier to argue against the position you want me to have, but that's not my position. I did not claim what you have attributed to me. I am asserting that the best supported position on the matter is one of agnostic skepticism. Pointing out the weak foundation your claim is built on is not the same as claiming its opposite.

Again, Forbes' calculation is not thought to be reliable, especially when it comes to individuals who have much of their net worth in privately held businesses. You're right, 3.5 billion is an impressive number, but it's not even a number we can be sure of. And again, my claim is not that he is "only" worth 500 million, or 10 million, or 5 billion-- my claim is that straying any distance from agnosticism is an unsupportable position.

My point in mentioning how Trump turned his exploits of tax loopholes into a political plus was giving props. Lemons to lemonade.

This is a great example of something I think you all too readily do-- you get triggered by a string of words and then it's off to the races. Read it in context-- I'm not making a moral judgement here, I'm pointing out that his finances are not transparent, it's intentional, it's admirably clever, and he's playing both sides of it-- something that was claimed upthread couldn't be done. The point of the 50 cent anecdote is that it's extremely clever, but onlookers that aren't his audience are reasonably going to be left agnostic as to his actual wealth

[BananaStand]

Forbes is not the floor of Trump net worth estimates, nor are their net worth estimations thought to be particularly accurate.

OMFG. Here you are shouting from the rooftops about how we need more data points. Then you get one and you're like "naaah"

But let's pretend that first sentence doesn't exist-- you're not concerned with discrepancies like this?

No. I'm not. All reasonable estimates say the same thing....he's filthy fucking rich.

You're basing a large part of your assessment of who Trump is on this figure, and you don't think it's important that there is no reasonable consensus on what it actually is?

There is a reasonable consensus...he's filthy fucking rich. Trump's businesses have earned him a level of wealth only enjoyed by about a zillionth of the population. I can't believe you think it's worth debating, or even wondering, whether he's in the top zillionth percentile, or the top jillionth percentile. Who fucking cares? Would being worth 5 billion, or 10 billion really make a difference in your assessment of Trump's abilities, intelligence, executive skills, or fitness for office?

You're right, seeing his tax returns would not settle anything, but it would be one more data point, and a significant one at that.

You know, in one post you say "without tax returns we have to speculate". Then when someone points out the obvious fact that tax returns aren't any more accurate than Trump's election financial disclosures. Now you're saying how it's important to have one more data point. But Forbes doesn't count, seemingly for no other reason than it's inconvenient to your agnosticism.

Bloomberg estimates Trump's net worth between 3 and 4.5 Billion. There's another data point.

We know which buildings are Trump's, that's a matter of public record. And real estate values are primarily market driven, regardless of what financial statements say. So a very objective data point would be that Trump's real estate holdings, just within NYC, are worth 1.6 billion.

I can publicly claim to be a billionaire with essentially no consequences and essentially no way for you to discredit my claim. Claiming false things on my tax returns carries much greater consequences

He doesn't need to claim anything. He owns buildings worth billions. That's not even debatable. Hence, he's a billionaire.

Flying around in a $100M jet with your name on it helps too.

Btw, I get that it's easier to argue against the position you want me to have, but that's not my position. I did not claim what you have attributed to me

Don't be cowardly. I even used your own words when I attributed that claim to you. Own it.

I am asserting that the best supported position on the matter is one of agnostic skepticism

And I'm asserting that that's not what you've been asserting, and your own words prove it. But since we're talking about it, what you just said there is wholly ignorant.

Again, Forbes' calculation is not thought to be reliable, especially when it comes to individuals who have much of their net worth in privately held businesses.

thought by whom?? You keep saying this so you can cling to your precious agnosticism. It's kinda pathetic.

You're right, 3.5 billion is an impressive number, but it's not even a number we can be sure of.

How far off do you think it could possibly be?? Furthermore, why do you even care what the number is. The question that started all this was whether or not Trump's success is indicative of his intelligence and executive skills. And for some reason, your position seems to be as follows:

"Well I don't even know if he's successful or not. He says he is, but he could be lying. Forbes says he is, but they could be lying. Bloomberg says he is, but they could be lying. He was the star of a very successful network television show, but maybe he did that for free. He has wildly expensive cars, opulent houses, and a jet with his name on it....but maybe someone gave him those things. Or maybe he stole them. And maybe his lifestyle is funded through debt. Maybe banks want to loan him money because he's so good looking. And maybe the banks don't bother to check his financial records to make sure they are profitable and generating positive cash flow....like they do with EVERY OTHER BORROWER. Oh and even though its an objective fact that he is a billionaire just based on his NYC real-estate holdings...let's not talk about that because it fucks up my stubborn agnostic viewpoint"

This is a great example of something I think you all too readily do-- you get triggered by a string of words and then it's off to the races. Read it in context-- I'm not making a moral judgement here,

I never said you made a moral judgement. I'm saying that the morality of it is irrelevant. Even if the Trump empire is one big pyramid scheme...that would ALSO demonstrate extremely high intelligence and business acumen. I'm not even sure why you want to argue about Trump's net worth. The question was whether or not his success is indicative of intelligence. If you want to be agnostic about whether or not he's actually got any money, go ahead. But you're a retard if you deny that he'd have to be pretty fucking smart either way.

I'm pointing out that his finances are not transparent,

Who cares?

[boost]

Even if the Trump empire is one big pyramid scheme...that would ALSO demonstrate extremely high intelligence and business acumen.

Pablo Escobar was clearly intelligent and had a great sense for business. The caveats tied to those accolades are an issue when the accolades are being used to suggest he's fit for political office.

I'm not even sure why you want to argue about Trump's net worth. The question was whether or not his success is indicative of intelligence.

His net worth is repeatedly paraded by him, and his supporters (you amongst them) as the principle piece of evidence in support of the claim that he is a successful businessman.

If you want to be agnostic about whether or not he's actually got any money, go ahead. But you're a retard if you deny that he'd have to be pretty fucking smart either way.

I actually think I've made a decent case for how Trump could find himself where he is without possessing an all too impressive intellect-- but that's fine, I can concede that point and take you up on your challenge of my chromosome count-- in your dichotomy which results in him being smart one way or another, which way it is is relevant to how fit he is to serve as president. If, as you suggested he may be, a mega Bernie Madoff, you've got an uphill battle when you assert he'd still be fit for office.

Put more simply, explain how your logic does not include Bernie Madoff and Al Capone in the "fit for office" subset of the population.

[OngBonga]

"fit for office"

There's that phrase again.

What does it mean to you boost?

[Poopadoop]

Pablo Escobar was elected to the Colombian congress, and therefore also fit for office apparently.

[OngBonga]

Pablo Escobar was elected to the Colombian congress, and therefore also fit for office apparently.

Then yes, he was, because the Colombian electorate decided he was. Just because you, and for what it's worth, I, believe that he wasn't fit for office, doesn't mean we're "right". What did he do while in office? He built schools and football fields. So, perhaps we're wrong.

What does "fit for office" mean? Noone has answered that yet. You know why? Because it's subjective, and any answer will expose the subjective nature of the question.