Presidential Race 2016

[Elmer]

16 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

 

He could have chose to thank the tour for their time at Doral. But he didn't stop with his kidnapping dig he feigned a sigh of relief saying he'd make more money with the tournament gone. All of it is uncouth. When I lose a customer I don't  talk shit I wonder what I could have done to retain them. Demonstrates a recurring theme with him, if things don't go his way his response is to say F it I didn't need them anyway. That isn't going to work in the WH.

Of all my years in the business world I have never told a customer I was better off without them. I thanked them for their business & tell them if they I will be here if they wish to return?
Telling the PGA you are better off without them is not going to entice sponsors or the PGA. And according to a report on Real Sports a few years back Trump wants a major. Not just a Major, but a 5th major. He wants a "Trump Open", on par with the masters.
He simple could have said: "We are disappointed to have lost the sponsor and tournament, but we are going to work hard to have the PGA return to Doral"
But no, like a petulant child he says "fine, I didnt want it anyway"!!!

16 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

What's most shocking about it is for all practical purposes he is interviewing for a job. It seems like the negative Trump talk is lopsided compared to the others but the guy is a walking WTF factory. It's like watching the Jerry Springer Show.

I think we all know he has never interviewed for a job. He started with Dad's millions, now he walks into a meeting and says "you want my brand, or not?"

16 hours ago, Lihu said:

 

I fail to see how non-Presidential that makes him? Sure, he's kind of blunt like many other*** native New Yorkers, but what he's saying is pretty much true. It's a concern as compared to Doral. He's not blankly comparing USA to Mexico.

 

15 hours ago, Lihu said:

So, now I know what you think about native New Yorkers.

I don't think he was showing that he was concerned, but probably just venting as you mention in the beginning of your paragraph.

I am a native New Yorker. He is not being blunt like a NY'er, he is behaving like a spoiled petulant child and a jack a$$, who is not getting his fanny kissed every time he walks into a room.
Trumps behavior is not an example of NY. Did Giuliani behave this way? Pataki? Moynihan? Buckley?
No, you are giving Trump a pass based on your a stereotype of how NY'ers act.
Once again Trump is acting like a spoiled petulant, defiant child. He is a silver spoon, he would not mesh with the working class in the Bronx, Buffalo, Binghampton, Burnt Hills  or Albany. He does not have skin thick enough to for a NY'er!

10 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't know who you're addressing, but I hope it's not me.

And just scrolling through HRC's twitter feed doesn't make me feel that she's all that presidential, either. Seemingly 95% of her tweets are just trying to rip DT. How about she talk about what positives she brings rather than the negatives of DT?

 Politics is negative now a days. Just the way the game has changed.

Clinton is going after Trump on his policy and lack of experience in foreign policy, while congratulating him on throwing a great Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Trump resorts to calling names, says he does not appear on Morning Joe because they have a "small audience" and calls out Clinton for putting words in his mouth, when he probably said them any way.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

While I am not big Hillary Fan, she spent 8 years in the WH as 1st lady, and ran a campaign as a senator.
She is pointing out that he is a loose cannon who has pushed policies that are clearly not thought out.
Just as DT continuously refers to her as "crooked", it is all marketing.
She will not point out a positive until atleast the 1st or last debate. If and when she starts to release policy plans.
Who knows if DT will do the same. 

[Lihu]

27 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Since some of you are young and may not remember how corrupt Bill and Hillary were during his presidency I'll leave this here.  I'll take an asshat over a crook any day.  

 

It's funny how many democrats overlook this "sort of thing" when a politician decides they want to represent the Democratic Party.

Of course, southern politics is rife with corruption from the aftermath of the civil war.

4 minutes ago, Elmer said:

I am a native New Yorker. He is not being blunt like a NY'er, he is behaving like a spoiled petulant child and a jack a$$, who is not getting his fanny kissed every time he walks into a room.
Trumps behavior is not an example of NY. Did Giuliani behave this way? Pataki? Moynihan? Buckley?
No, you are giving Trump a pass based on your a stereotype of how NY'ers act.
Once again Trump is acting like a spoiled petulant, defiant child. He is a silver spoon, he would not mesh with the working class in the Bronx, Buffalo, Binghampton, Burnt Hills  or Albany. He does not have skin thick enough to for a NY'er!

I was only born in the city then moved back to my native country, but have many friends from the area. Rich or poor and whatever race or nationality, they're pretty blunt. Some are more civil about it, but they tell you how they feel. People from upstate are more in line with the rest of the country.

The attitude might be from being in close proximity to New Jersey.

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, Lihu said:

It's funny how many democrats overlook this "sort of thing" when a politician decides they want to represent the Democratic Party.

Of course, southern politics is rife with corruption from the aftermath of the civil war.

It's partially ignorance, since the main stream media doesn't like to criticize anything a Democrat does unless they are forced to, so a lot of this stuff just happens without them being aware of it.   A lot of Democrats (not here) are not very educated in politics and vote based on who will give them the most free stuff.  

The other part of it is "Never Republican", Charlie Manson could run for POTUS as a Democrat and Democrats would vote for him over a Republican, the reverse is also true.   The voting majority of the Democrats still believe Republicans are for big business and Democrats are for the middle class and poor which is total bs if you look at the poverty numbers (especially for minorities) since Obama has taken office.  

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Of all my years in the business world I have never told a customer I was better off without them.

And yet, there are plenty of situations where a business is actually better off without a customer. I can name several examples just from what I do.

29 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Just as DT continuously refers to her as "crooked", it is all marketing.

I didn't pay much attention to that video, but I don't know that I agree "it is all marketing." The video seems to have a number of things that would imply she's "crooked."

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Elmer said:

 Politics is negative now a days. Just the way the game has changed.

The game has never changed. Politics has always been negative. Read up on some of the 1800's elections. Heck a man was shot on the floor of Congress. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/19668/election-1800-birth-negative-campaigning-us

Here are some classic gems from the 1800's

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

Imagine someone saying something like that today. He would be nailed to the cross. 

Here was Adam's retort to that, 

 In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

Here is from the the 1828 election, 

One paper reported that "General Jackson's mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!"

Oh how we think negative campaigns is a modern thing. We are so naive. 

55 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

A lot of Democrats (not here) are not very educated in politics and vote based on who will give them the most free stuff.  

Nice stereotyping there. I wouldn't classify that as mostly true, maybe barely partially true. The Democratic base is widely diversified. To categorize them as all wanting free stuff and as not educated in politics is just classic Republican gibberish. That is to say that Democrats don't stereotype at Republicans, they do. 

55 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

The other part of it is "Never Republican", Charlie Manson could run for POTUS as a Democrat and Democrats would vote for him over a Republican, the reverse is also true.   The voting majority of the Democrats still believe Republicans are for big business and Democrats are for the middle class and poor which is total bs if you look at the poverty numbers (especially for minorities) since Obama has taken office.  

I could claim it was Bush who started the trend of minority poverty increasing. Black poverty was pretty stable at 33% from 1985 till 1993. Then Clinton got into office and Black poverty plummeted to 23% in 2000. Then it has started to rise again. 

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm

That isn't to say Obama hasn't helped the issue. I am not sure. I do not keep up on very executive order. I would suspect that anything meaningful would have to go through the mess that is the US Congress first. 

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Since some of you are young and may not remember how corrupt Bill and Hillary were during his presidency I'll leave this here.  I'll take an asshat over a crook any day.  

Like I would trust a video from a Youtube channel titled, "No Hillary in 2016". I am sure they are not biased. That video just sounds like a 100% spin job. 

[Elmer]

28 minutes ago, iacas said:

And yet, there are plenty of situations where a business is actually better off without a customer. I can name several examples just from what I do.

I didn't pay much attention to that video, but I don't know that I agree "it is all marketing." The video seems to have a number of things that would imply she's "crooked."

@iacas Would you tell the PGA that your course is better off without them?

Let me rephrase in regards to losing business. You never tell a good customer or a profitable customer you are better off with out them. You may very well be better off without them, but why burn a bridge? A customer who is a problem a cost you money, I would have no problem letting them walk, but I would do so diplimatically and with courtesy 
I can imagine in the Golf Industry you run across problematic customers, but with all business, reputations spreads by word of mouth. Around here there are some is a nice course many people will not play, because the owner, strater & Pro are horrible people who treat customers poorly. Now they are slowly going under
Do you really think Trump is better off not hosting a PGA event? And how is that going to work when he wants to host another one?
The PGA has twitter and watches the news? will they want to get in bed with him again? Will a sponsor?

As to your second point.
This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle, "black".
Trump is under investigation for Fraud with Trump U, a school he declares he is going to re-open.
But name me a politician or wealthy business person who did not bend the rules.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/remembering-why-americans-loathe-dick-cheney/244306/

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-halliburton-made-395-billion-on-iraq-war

[Lihu]

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Here are some classic gems from the 1800's

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

Imagine someone saying something like that today. He would be nailed to the cross. 

Here was Adam's retort to that, 

 In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

So, you're saying that Jefferson was a womanizing bastard child, and that Adams was a flaming homosexual?

[iacas]

9 minutes ago, Elmer said:

@iacas Would you tell the PGA that your course is better off without them?

You seem to be ignorant to the fact that several courses have done just that, @Elmer. Not only to the PGA, but to the PGA Tour, the USGA, the R&A…

9 minutes ago, Elmer said:

Let me rephrase in regards to losing business. You never tell a good customer or a profitable customer you are better off with out them.

The red word drastically changes things to the point where we're no longer discussing what you said originally.

• A good customer is not one you're better off losing, almost by definition.
• You and I have no way of knowing if Donald Trump considers the PGA Tour a "good" customer.

8 minutes ago, Elmer said:

As to your second point.
This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle, "black".

No, and you can play all the word games you want, but no… you got that one wrong. You said one thing, I pointed out that it wasn't true at all, and now you're just trying to play word games and get out of it.

DT calling HRC "a crook" does not seem at all to be "all marketing." According to that video, you're wrong on that.

---

P.S. One quick example: http://www.golfdigest.com/story/winged-foot-members-reject-us .

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

So, you're saying that Jefferson was a womanizing bastard child, and that Adams was a flaming homosexual?

I don't think calling someone a hermaphrodite is saying they are a flaming homosexual.

I wasn't saying it. They said it to each other

It's hilarious that Thomas Jefferson was Adam's vice president before running against him in 1800. Things were much different back then in how Vice Presidents were selected. The Election of 1800 was just a mess. Of course it was the two political party system that exploited the flaw in how the electoral college cast their votes previous to 1804. 

 

[Elmer]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

You seem to be ignorant to the fact that several courses have done just that, @Elmer. Not only to the PGA, but to the PGA Tour, the USGA, the R&A…

The red word drastically changes things to the point where we're no longer discussing what you said originally.

• A good customer is not one you're better off losing, almost by definition.
• You and I have no way of knowing if Donald Trump considers the PGA Tour a "good" customer.

No, and you can play all the word games you want, but no… you got that one wrong. You said one thing, I pointed out that it wasn't true at all, and now you're just trying to play word games and get out of it.

DT calling HRC "a crook" does not seem at all to be "all marketing." According to that video, you're wrong on that.

You did not answer the question, would you turn down the PGA/USGA...?
I know plenty of courses have turned them down. But none of these course are owned by a narcissist like DT!

"DT calling HRC "a crook" does not seem at all to be "all marketing." According to that video, you're wrong on that."

You have already admitted to not following politics and this is by no means an attempt to speak down to you, but Campaigns are nothing but over blown marketing strategies.
From the catch phrases, to the colors & logos it is all set up to sell someone.
If DT was that concerned about Hillary being crooked, why did he donate to her previously, why by all accounts was he friendly with her & Bill?
He is using "crooked" for marketing purposes, much in the same way as "lyin Ted".

[Gunther]

39 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I could claim it was Bush who started the trend of minority poverty increasing. Black poverty was pretty stable at 33% from 1985 till 1993. Then Clinton got into office and Black poverty plummeted to 23% in 2000. Then it has started to rise again. 

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq3.htm

That isn't to say Obama hasn't helped the issue. I am not sure. I do not keep up on very executive order. I would suspect that anything meaningful would have to go through the mess that is the US Congress first. 

I don't doubt your data although I haven't independently confirmed it.  But, if true, it's pretty elementary why.

Newt put the welfare reform bill in front of Clinton.  Moving back to the center because of the mid-term shellacking he got, he signed it and was much maligned by his own supporters.  It was arguably the most significant accomplishment of his 8 years.

Guess what happened?  Entitlements were harder to come by, people were forced to work and voila, poverty was down.  Pretty elementary yet something so lost on the liberal left.

One of the reasons I was so disappointed in Bush is because he was a big spending Republican.  Entitlement reform lapsed on his watch, by design because he tried to placate the left.  Ok, so now fewer people had to work cuz the govt began to trickle them money and voila, poverty began to rise.

Enter Obama, the biggest spender this country has ever seen in that office. He promised and delivered cash and other things to the chronically poor and voila, they get poorer.  Imagine that?

What most don't realize is this is all a carefully calculated effort.  Obama knows people get poorer and lose ambition as the govt nurtures them.  He's building a base who will always be dependent on the govt.  Any Republican promising to remove that trickle of cash has no shot, you notice this is not a Trump platform issue although it is a goal, he just frames it as more jobs.

It's just all so transparent to me and I'll forever be baffled by people who don't understand this.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, Elmer said:

You did not answer the question, would you turn down the PGA/USGA...?

I did as well as possible: I don't host a PGA Tour event (the PGA is not the PGA Tour), so I pointed out for your knowledge that plenty of courses have turned down the PGA, PGA Tour, USGA, and R&A. Each had their reasons.

If I hosted a PGA Tour event, I'd be able to answer your question. I imagine there are several sets of circumstances wherein I'd decline to host, yes. It's foolish to think that there are not such situations.

5 minutes ago, Elmer said:

I know plenty of courses have turned them down. But none of these course are owned by a narcissist like DT!

How do you know that? You don't.

5 minutes ago, Elmer said:

You have already admitted to not following politics and this is by no means an attempt to speak down to you, but Campaigns are nothing but over blown marketing strategies.

Oh brother. Whatever, buddy. It's clear your bias on these things, so… just whatever. Watch that other side of your mouth. It's talking, too.

You made a statement that DT was wrong in calling HRC a crook, I pointed out that a video very much makes it appear as though that is grounded in fact, and you spew that bull about how all campaigns are marketing.

And people wonder why I don't care about politics…

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

Like I would trust a video from a Youtube channel titled, "No Hillary in 2016". I am sure they are not biased. That video just sounds like a 100% spin job. 

That's just the user who is hosting the video, if you do a search on Hillary Clinton:  A Career Criminal you will find others that are hosting the video without such a biased user name.  Regardless of who hosts it, the content is based on public documents that detail the corruption and scandal that has surrounded the Clinton's, which you can research on your own if you question it.  

[saevel25]

5 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

That's just the user who is hosting the video, if you do a search on Hillary Clinton:  A Career Criminal you will find others that are hosting the video without such a biased user name.  Regardless of who hosts it, the content is based on public documents that detail the corruption and scandal that has surrounded the Clinton's, which you can research on your own if you question it.  

Yet there are articles who refute the same claims and sourcing the same material used in the video. Who is right? Who is wrong? Depends on which agenda is posting the information.

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yet there are articles who refute the same claims and sourcing the same material used in the video. Who is right? Who is wrong? Depends on which agenda is posting the information.

True, but it doesn't change the fact that throughout their lives the Clinton's have been surrounded by scandals and investigations.   No one is disputing the horribly poor job Hillary did on the Universal Health Care plan while Bill was in office and how much tax payer money she wasted.  

[Lihu]

27 minutes ago, Gunther said:

you notice this is not a Trump platform issue although it is a goal, he just frames it as more jobs.

In general, bringing back jobs to America is the heart of reducing poverty. Poverty is not just a minority issue.

The main thing about Trumps plan with the world (specifically China), is that the timing is really good. There are 300M Chinese consumers who want to purchase American products. The reason? We have laws protecting consumers. Even without this added security, it's more fashionable in China to purchase American made goods.

So the bottom line is the more products we can produce, the more we will sell to them. There are literally thousands of examples listed from everything from cell phones down to food items that people in China like. As long as he's low key, and doesn't try to start a "trade war" with China, Chinese people will continue to enjoy purchasing American made products and in higher volumes.

The rest of the world will likely follow once we get our economy going again.

[Gunther]

20 minutes ago, Lihu said:

In general, bringing back jobs to America is the heart of reducing poverty. Poverty is not just a minority issue.

The main thing about Trumps plan with the world (specifically China), is that the timing is really good. There are 300M Chinese consumers who want to purchase American products. The reason? We have laws protecting consumers. Even without this added security, it's more fashionable in China to purchase American made goods.

So the bottom line is the more products we can produce, the more we will sell to them. There are literally thousands of examples listed from everything from cell phones down to food items that people in China like. As long as he's low key, and doesn't try to start a "trade war" with China, Chinese people will continue to enjoy purchasing American made products and in higher volumes.

The rest of the world will likely follow once we get our economy going again.

I agree, there is a massive trade deficit now, that Trump has vowed to balance.  He knows it can't be done through tariffs alone, something that frightens the far right.  I trust the economic team he will be able to assemble far more than whatever Hillary would do.  Trump is focusing on this, Hillary doesn't understand there is even an issue. She'd rather focus on letting men use ladies restrooms because hey, that's an inequality problem that exists in our unfair, evil country.  

Again, the chief reason I support Trump is that he has called out the biggest challenges facing our country and will tackle them.  Will he succeed on every front?  Probably not but I'm confident he's targeting the right things.

[Elmer]

28 minutes ago, Lihu said:

In general, bringing back jobs to America is the heart of reducing poverty. Poverty is not just a minority issue.

The main thing about Trumps plan with the world (specifically China), is that the timing is really good. There are 300M Chinese consumers who want to purchase American products. The reason? We have laws protecting consumers. Even without this added security, it's more fashionable in China to purchase American made goods.

So the bottom line is the more products we can produce, the more we will sell to them. There are literally thousands of examples listed from everything from cell phones down to food items that people in China like. As long as he's low key, and doesn't try to start a "trade war" with China, Chinese people will continue to enjoy purchasing American made products and in higher volumes.

The rest of the world will likely follow once we get our economy going again.

I dont deny it is a decent idea. However how does he plan on bringing manufacturing back? over the last 30 years small and large scale manufacturing has been leaving either to pay for cheaper labor or cut down on having to import parts and supplies. 
I would imagine if anything it would require tax incentives to the companies but I always thought that is done at a state level?