Trumping

Nod said:
Although Zeppelins were filled with Hydrogen rather than Trump's hot air... Mind you, it's probably worth trying to pop Trump with a blow torch to see if his contents are explosive.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure his hair is.
 
rjbell said:
The guy Isn't a master of anything. He thinks he's some sort of business guru when in reality he would have made more money leaving his inheritance in the bank to gain interest.

That $600bn bailout he got Is a bit like socialism isn't it. Someone should tell him.
Click to expand...

Whilst strictly speaking yes; if he liguidised his $35M inheritance, reinvested all interest and dividend and not used a single penny since early 1970s he would have end up with slightly more than his current net worth.

We could all play that game. Pretty boring live though to just money accumulate.

It wasn't a $600Bn bailout. He over leveraged against his property portfolio and came to an arrangement to defer payment of $1Bn and raise some further funding. So he hit an issue and came out of it.

Yes he had a very decent head start to get a $35M share of his fathers inheritance. But still to turn that in a multi billion empire and personal wealth does take a little bit more skill.

But it's a choice people have, and most people don't recognise opportunity when it knocks.
 
rjbell said:
The guy Isn't a master of anything. He thinks he's some sort of business guru when in reality he would have made more money leaving his inheritance in the bank to gain interest.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. In 'The art of the deal' he says he started out with about $200,000 straight out of college, including real estate which his father helped him own. His father died in 1999 and he received a large sum then ($40-$200 million; estimates vary); but at that time Forbes estimated his wealth to be $1.6 billion.

If true, that implies that he made his first billion himself, which is not quite consistent with your assertion. But still, I do think the amount of vagueness concerning his wealth - compared with, say, Bill Gates - would be a major concern if I were ever contemplating investing in a scheme he was involved with. There's just too much smoke and mirrors.
 
Alastair said:
But here's a question, what's wrong with socialism? - the NHS is socialist organisation. Your best pal Trump is vehemently opposed to principals behind the NHS and a healthcare service free at the point of need. Are you against the NHS? Do you want healthcare to be reserved only for those that can afford to pay for it?
Click to expand...

Lets just return to this point briefly

24 hour stay for Apendicitis in US Hospital, $55000 bill of which the insurance paid 75%, leaving $11000 to find.
http://imgur.com/a/WIfeN

Or how about these charges
http://imgur.com/gallery/f7MfL

Scarey
 
Byker28i said:
Lets just return to this point briefly

24 hour stay for Apendicitis in US Hospital, $55000 bill of which the insurance paid 75%, leaving $11000 to find.
http://imgur.com/a/WIfeN

Or how about these charges
http://imgur.com/gallery/f7MfL

Scarey
Click to expand...
Get better insurance ;) I used to have insurance for the final part as well.

I'm happy for the NHS to remain as is, however I would want them to issue the actual bills. I think it is good to be transparent and for people to know he real costs that are involved.
 
dejongj said:
I'm happy for the NHS to remain as is, however I would want them to issue the actual bills. I think it is good to be transparent and for people to know he real costs that are involved.
Click to expand...
The NHS tariff is a published document. If you want to know how much you treatment theoretically cost the information is there.
 
dejongj said:
Get better insurance ;) I used to have insurance for the final part as well.
Click to expand...
Trouble is, it's not a reality for many people in the us, which is why the affordable care act was an important step forward
 
dejongj said:
Get better insurance ;) I used to have insurance for the final part as well.

I'm happy for the NHS to remain as is, however I would want them to issue the actual bills. I think it is good to be transparent and for people to know he real costs that are involved.
Click to expand...
A photographer 'friend' just suffered* from the birth of premature twins, the bill was about a quarter of a million dollars, much of which wasn't covered by their healthcare insurance.

*obviously preventable, and clearly their own fault.
 
Alastair said:
The NHS tariff is a published document. If you want to know how much you treatment theoretically cost the information is there.
Click to expand...
That is not the point I made. Hitting people with the bill clearly laid out provides that realisation where our tax payers money goes too. Having to look it up yourself doesn't provide the impact to those who need it. I think more transparency is required.
 
So much money is wasted in the nhs on overpaid management, agency staff and the like
I can see no reason why wealthy people can't pay for all/some of their treatment or at least shown the bill and ask for a donation. As it stands, a lot of the rich folk can choose to go private, or wait for the nhs and take up space in a struggling system
I know I'm like a broken record, but it's time we started using the wealth of those who can afford it instead of constantly targeting the poorest members of our communities with cuts, as they are hit the hardest already
I'm not so sure a lot of wealthy people would even mind helping out, it's just the political fall out from asking the question that scares our leaders
 
BruceMo said:
So much money is wasted in the nhs on overpaid management, agency staff and the like
I can see no reason why wealthy people can't pay for all/some of their treatment or at least shown the bill and ask for a donation. As it stands, a lot of the rich folk can choose to go private, or wait for the nhs and take up space in a struggling system
I know I'm like a broken record, but it's time we started using the wealth of those who can afford it instead of constantly targeting the poorest members of our communities with cuts, as they are hit the hardest already
I'm not so sure a lot of wealthy people would even mind helping out, it's just the political fall out from asking the question that scares our leaders
Click to expand...
So the top 1% of tax payers is already paying for a significant part of our income. And you want even more? To use a good Dutch saying; f*** that. Got to love champagne socialist always suggesting others should be paying more. So nice spending other people's hard work and my children's future inheritance.
 
BruceMo said:
I know I'm like a broken record, but it's time we started using the wealth of those who can afford it instead of constantly targeting the poorest members of our communities with cuts, as they are hit the hardest already
Click to expand...
The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the lowest paid 9,000,000. I think that's "using the wealth of those who can afford it", don't you?
 
Byker28i said:
Nope my guess he's american. He's ticking a lot of boxes from the outspoken trump supporters I met recently


Sadly quite a few believe his trollop, based on my recent travels and discussions, but then I met others who believed the US haven't had a decent president since Reagan. Mind you, wasn't there a stat about the high percentage of americans who believe the moon landings were faked.

So you can fool some of the people all of the time...
Click to expand...
Have you seen the interview with Kubrick just before he died claiming he faked all of the landings?
 
mex said:
Sums Trump and his entourage up for me:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ters-bomb-agrabah-disney-aladdin-donald-trump
Click to expand...
Which aspect of it, exactly?

The first point to note is that the poll asked respondents whether they support the Republicans or Democrats, but not whether or not they support Trump. Trump is still leading the Republican polls, but he only has about 35%. So there's plenty of room for those 30% of Republican supporters who favour bombing a fictitious place to be non Trump supporters. You can't use this poll to conclude anything about Trump and his supporters - a point which the Guardian journalists seem to recognise but you do not.

Additionally - and I should point out that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here - you could argue that the poll shows Republican voters to be more in touch with reality than Democrat voters. The former were 30/13 in favour of bombing and the latter were 36/19 against, but where are the people who realised that 'Agrabah' is fictitious? Surely they're in the 'no opinion / don't know / not sure' segment, and that's larger amongst the Republicans (57 to 45). In fact you could say the poll shows that *most* Democrats (over 50%) are stupid enough to think Agrabah is real.

Don't you just love statistics? I do.
 
The23rdman said:
Have you seen the interview with Kubrick just before he died claiming he faked all of the landings?
Click to expand...

Plausible....except that the interview in question claims to be from May 1999.
Tricky, since he died in the March of that year.
Still, can't beat a good conspiracy. :D
 
.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
The highest paid 3,000 people in the UK pay more income tax than the lowest paid 9,000,000. I think that's "using the wealth of those who can afford it", don't you?
Click to expand...
And for avoidance of doubt that is represents only 0.01% of tax payers ;)

When that group gets enlarged to the top 1% the entry level goes down to £160,000.

But yes that 1% is not contributing enough and should pay a little more. Unbelievable twaddle.
 
StewartR said:
Which aspect of it, exactly?

The first point to note is that the poll asked respondents whether they support the Republicans or Democrats, but not whether or not they support Trump. Trump is still leading the Republican polls, but he only has about 35%. So there's plenty of room for those 30% of Republican supporters who favour bombing a fictitious place to be non Trump supporters. You can't use this poll to conclude anything about Trump and his supporters - a point which the Guardian journalists seem to recognise but you do not.

Additionally - and I should point out that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here - you could argue that the poll shows Republican voters to be more in touch with reality than Democrat voters. The former were 30/13 in favour of bombing and the latter were 36/19 against, but where are the people who realised that 'Agrabah' is fictitious? Surely they're in the 'no opinion / don't know / not sure' segment, and that's larger amongst the Republicans (57 to 45). In fact you could say the poll shows that *most* Democrats (over 50%) are stupid enough to think Agrabah is real.

Don't you just love statistics? I do.
Click to expand...
Mate, 30% of the republican voters polled actually wanted a Disney cartoon city bombed!! and you are waffling on about stats? .........and by they way, according to the article " Of those who support the bombing of the fictional nation, about 45% support Donald Trump.".
 
kubrick was a oddball all right but he made sure his films were right up there in accuracy stakes ,when i worked on 2001 we spent all morning in the workshops on the special effects props for the film ,then every afternoon sitting it the studio cinema viewing and then commenting on the previous days takes ,even down to choosing the right piece of music to go with each scene ,we also had lectures on space technology from people from nasa and the smithsonian institute regularly .

so if anyone could have faked the filming it could have been him .but i think highly unlikely as it was probably done by donald trump and the conspiracy will be uncovered by president hillary when she breaks into area 51 looking for the roswell aliens :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Did you REALLY think that was Kubrick? I mean seriously?
Click to expand...
I thought it was Kubrick in the interview because I wasn't really sure what he looked like. That doesn't mean that I believed that he faked they moon landings or have given the video more than a moments thought since I saw it.
 
A Clockwork Orange, timeless classic.

Based on my formative years;)
 
The23rdman said:
I thought it was Kubrick in the interview because I wasn't really sure what he looked like. That doesn't mean that I believed that he faked they moon landings or have given the video more than a moments thought since I saw it.
Click to expand...

It's an easy mistake.
Judging by a lot of his films he was clearly barking. :D
 
mex said:
.........and by they way, according to the article " Of those who support the bombing of the fictional nation, about 45% support Donald Trump."
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I hadn't read all the way to the bottom of the article. I don't know why you used quotation marks though, because what you wrote isn't at all what the article said. You're getting your conditional probabilities the wrong way round.

Anyway I've crunched the numbers for you. Of all the Republican voters polled:
* 13.5% support Trump and want to bomb 'Agrabah'
* 16.5% do not support Trump and want to bomb Agrabah
* 21.5% support Trump but do not want to bomb Agrabah (either anti or no opinion)
* 48.5% do not support Trump and for not want to bomb Agrabah
 
I chanced to see the Daily Politics this lunchtime when, of all people, they had the SNP's Tommy Sheppard on the show decrying Trump - that he shouldn't be allowed into Britain and that he would never be nominated by his Party, let alone elected. I couldn't work out which offended him more; the knee-jerk, xenophobic polemics or the clownish, preposterous hairstyle! :LOL:

It was perfect irony you couldn't invent! [Google is your friend ;) ] Especially since I have heard Trump give a speech and what astounded me wasn't his content but his delivery! President Donald's performance was unlike any other politician I think I've ever heard. It was a pure stand-up comedy shtick that seemed to move from punchline to punchline with emphasis on the great timing rather than the repeated content!
 
dejongj said:
So the top 1% of tax payers is already paying for a significant part of our income. And you want even more? To use a good Dutch saying; f*** that. Got to love champagne socialist always suggesting others should be paying more. So nice spending other people's hard work and my children's future inheritance.
Click to expand...

I know you're a bit of a money fan. I'd gladly pay a bit toward keeping my family well
If I had a lot of money, I'd be happy to pay even more. Why aren't you?
Having a bit of money makes some people really greedy, ant to save upsetting them, maybe make it a voluntary thing
And yes, I would definitely tax big business and the super rich far more, if they want to leave, so be it
 
dejongj said:
And for avoidance of doubt that is represents only 0.01% of tax payers ;)

When that group gets enlarged to the top 1% the entry level goes down to £160,000.

But yes that 1% is not contributing enough and should pay a little more. Unbelievable twaddle.
Click to expand...

In your opinion
If we harassed big business as much as we harassed the unemployed and the ill we wouldn't need to raise anyone's personal tax, but porkie looks after them all a bit too much. Anyone would think he's about to retire from his post and be looking for a bit fat pay packet job huh
 
BruceMo said:
I know you're a bit of a money fan. I'd gladly pay a bit toward keeping my family well
If I had a lot of money, I'd be happy to pay even more. Why aren't you?
Having a bit of money makes some people really greedy, ant to save upsetting them, maybe make it a voluntary thing
And yes, I would definitely tax big business and the super rich far more, if they want to leave, so be it
Click to expand...
I think the reason why I'm not happy to pay more is quite clear. Relatively some of us are already paying so much more than others. Yet for others to maintain their lifestyle it isn't enough and want those who contribute by far the most contribute even more. I do not think that is right at all.

And by definition when you have more money you already pay a lot more, so I don't understand where you come from when you say you happily pay a bit more. You do that anyway.

No what is much kinder and more sustainable is when more people attain to be high contributors. That way you spread the cost of the care over many instead of a few. Surely that is fairer for all and more beneficial for all?

So even with the knowledge on how much the top 0.01% contribute you happily see that contribution go away? Really? Just think about it for moment what you just suggested.
 
BruceMo said:
In your opinion
If we harassed big business as much as we harassed the unemployed and the ill we wouldn't need to raise anyone's personal tax, but porkie looks after them all a bit too much. Anyone would think he's about to retire from his post and be looking for a bit fat pay packet job huh
Click to expand...
Oh very mature, a grandad resorting to insults to the prime minister. Sure, whatever you say :rolleyes:
 
dejongj said:
I think the reason why I'm not happy to pay more is quite clear. Relatively some of us are already paying so much more than others. Yet for others to maintain their lifestyle it isn't enough and want those who contribute by far the most contribute even more. I do not think that is right at all.

And by definition when you have more money you already pay a lot more, so I don't understand where you come from when you say you happily pay a bit more. You do that anyway.

No what is much kinder and more sustainable is when more people attain to be high contributors. That way you spread the cost of the care over many instead of a few. Surely that is fairer for all and more beneficial for all?

So even with the knowledge on how much the top 0.01% contribute you happily see that contribution go away? Really? Just think about it for moment what you just suggested.
Click to expand...

you seem obsessed with this .1 % thing, what I'm suggesting and would be happy to do, is if the hospital saved my daughters life say, and they had a policy of asking for a donation toward treatment I'd be happy to. If I was loaded, I'd happily pay the entire bill
With the country in such a mess just now and kids surviving from food banks, I think that's reasonable. You don't, so if it was voluntary, don't.
The PDsa do something similar where those on low incomes get free treatment, those that can pay do. Great idea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top