Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Info Shows Over $1 Billion in Business Losses 1985-1994. (Page 20/20)
rinselberg OCT 04, 09:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

It's a better use of time to ignore your BS posts and the drivel from the NYT.

But, you do you....it's your time to waste.



"You do you" ... RIGHT ON..!



This very recently aired Tracfone TV promo was the first time that I remember encountering that phrase.

Adds a Message Enhancement +1 to the scoreboard for "olejoedad." (It's like a successful Kick for Extra Point attempt in the NFL.)

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-04-2020).]

Boondawg OCT 05, 10:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


It's a better use of time to ignore your BS posts and the drivel from the NYT.

But, you do you....it's your time to waste.



Yet you felt the need to...what...tell him you’re wasting even more time telling him you’re wasting time reading something you don’t want to read?

Or is it simply to give him permission to spend his own time as he sees fit?

I mean, why are you telling him all this?
This all seems like your problem.

P.S. Before Hitler got going, the first thing he did was label the free-press “Drivel”.

Oh, I get it.
You only want “News” that aligns with your already preconceived notion of what you WANT it to say.
Anything that challenges that is “drivel”.

But you go ahead and “do you”.
rinselberg OCT 05, 05:27 PM
So President Trump has more on his plate than hospital food.

I saw some days ago, after the New York Times published this latest report about the President's tax filing history and related matters on September 27, where President Trump was on camera and said "Fake news."

What if he wanted to address the Times report in a larger way?

I think he could--"with a little help from his friends"--come out with his own op-ed column!

It would present the President's business and personal financial history and current status with "positive spin." The many people that have benefited from their connection to Donald J. Trump through the years, and how they have benefited. Numbers. Examples. Anecdotal material. The details that would linger in a reader's mind.

He could set it up that way, as the overarching narrative, and then (maybe) deal with some of the "points" that were raised in the Times report.

How perfect is that?

Would the Times managing editor allow it to be published in the NYT op-ed section? I could see it. "In the interest of fairness." Maybe the Times business managers would see it as a "plus." But if not the Times, there have to be other newspapers that would go with it. The Wall Street Journal?

Is that thinking outside of the box or what?

Even if it doesn't seem important in terms of the Presidential election, it would be something for the Trump Presidential Library.

I hope that Bill Stepien (or someone who knows him) is "lurking" this forum and reading this message.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-05-2020).]

Hudini OCT 05, 08:47 PM
Probably go over as well as Senator Tom Cotton's op-ed piece. The snowflakes just will not have any opinion different than their own.
olejoedad OCT 05, 09:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:


Yet you felt the need to...what...tell him you’re wasting even more time telling him you’re wasting time reading something you don’t want to read?

Or is it simply to give him permission to spend his own time as he sees fit?

I mean, why are you telling him all this?
This all seems like your problem.

P.S. Before Hitler got going, the first thing he did was label the free-press “Drivel”.

Oh, I get it.
You only want “News” that aligns with your already preconceived notion of what you WANT it to say.
Anything that challenges that is “drivel”.

But you go ahead and “do you”.



What's it to you?
rinselberg OCT 05, 09:26 PM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:
Probably go over as well as Senator Tom Cotton's op-ed piece. The snowflakes just will not have any opinion different than their own.


I was being mostly facetious there--but not entirely.

The idea of an op-ed column in the New York Times or some other iconic newspaper, from the President of the United States--while that person is the POTUS--it just kind of "grabbed me."

Did Obama do one of those, while he was President? Maybe more than just one?

I'd have to look.

I did (just now) look at Senator Tom Cotton's op-ed column in the New York Times. I remember "hearing" about it at the time, but I didn't pay any special attention to it at the time.

I see where the Times published the Senator's op-ed column, and then came back to it and said (in print) that they (the Times) had not done a proper job of working with the Senator on edits and revisions to ensure that the op-ed column came all the way up to the Time's expectations for an op-ed column. A "mea culpa" there, from the New York Times.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-05-2020).]

rinselberg OCT 20, 11:17 PM
.. wrong thread. (oops)

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-21-2020).]

82-T/A [At Work] OCT 21, 12:11 PM
I know it was by accident that this thread got bumped... but figured I'd add my last two cents here (if it doesn't die after this...)

Trump has clearly been successful. He's had a nationally syndicated TV show, hundreds of hotels that bear his name (either as franchises, or wholly owned), there are numerous resorts around the world that bear his name, mostly entirely owned by him, and he has several other business ventures. He's also the President of the United States.

Significant losses on a tax return means one thing... he took a risk... and other people made money as a result of it. Either way, he had money to lose, and he invested in businesses, not all of which succeeded. Up until his election, I passed the Trump Doral in South Florida resort every day. Any time I cruised up and down A1A in Fort Lauderdale to Miami, I passed at least 2 or 3 huge Trump buildings. To suggest he's not successful is kind of silly.


There are three ways that members of congress and senate become millionaires.
1 - They marry someone wealthy, and then use the family's money to pay for their campaign to get them into office.
2 - They are lucky enough to make it into office as poor people, and magically come out as millionaires (explain this one to me).
3 - They found a successful business retire and / or sell, and then run for office and be successful.


We know Trump is an example of #3. We know that people like John Kerry are an example of #1. We should all despise #2. President Obama was an example of #2, as was Hillary Clinton, as was about 90% of the House and Senate. So... which would you rather have? Serious question to everyone. I'm really happy with #3.