GG Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 That's been my take also.............but I have been asked (frequently) to "prove it", that he would deal with others better than Hillary. As if their records over the past 40 years isn't enough............. You don't need last 40 years for trump. Just look at how he's handled things when people disagreed with him. Trump could easily be sitting on a $40 billion empire of real value if he only knew how to work with other people. Instead, the bulk of his tangible net worth is still tied up in a building he put up 30 years ago, because he's been tossed out of all the development deals, and now just peddles his name to the highest bidder.
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You don't need last 40 years for trump. Just look at how he's handled things when people disagreed with him. Trump could easily be sitting on a $40 billion empire of real value if he only knew how to work with other people. Instead, the bulk of his tangible net worth is still tied up in a building he put up 30 years ago, because he's been tossed out of all the development deals, and now just peddles his name to the highest bidder. That's something I don't get about his net worth...his single biggest asset is listed as "licensing," worth three billion dollars. Is he really claiming that his name has a net value of $3B?
GG Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 That's something I don't get about his net worth...his single biggest asset is listed as "licensing," worth three billion dollars. Is he really claiming that his name has a net value of $3B? Yeah, the numbers are all over the place. His filing listed $8.7 billion. But the numbers he uses to add up to the $10 billion that he brags about, peg his brand name as $5 billion. Some publications have estimated his true net worth at about $3 billion, and Forbes clocks in at over $4 billion, with Trump Tower having the highest value at about $550 million.
4merper4mer Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) You don't need last 40 years for trump. Just look at how he's handled things when people disagreed with him. Trump could easily be sitting on a $40 billion empire of real value if he only knew how to work with other people. Instead, the bulk of his tangible net worth is still tied up in a building he put up 30 years ago, because he's been tossed out of all the development deals, and now just peddles his name to the highest bidder. OTOH Hillary has been easy to agree with because she is selling things which she controls but does not own....thus there is no cost to her. Give me $xxxx and I will allow you to buy XYZ's uranium or have access to this market or get this legislation passed. It is real easy to be "successful" when there is no risk but lots of reward. A dick like Trump can be tuned out and marginalized. That will come with damages. They won't be well hidden. Hillary will not be tuned out or marginalized. She will have Paul Ryan and his ilk as obedient lap dogs a la James Comey. That is dangerous and the damages will be hidden. That said, I do think Trump will be able to transition rather easily from the buyer of influence into a seller. So we're screwed either way and badly. Edited August 2, 2016 by 4merper4mer
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Yeah, the numbers are all over the place. His filing listed $8.7 billion. But the numbers he uses to add up to the $10 billion that he brags about, peg his brand name as $5 billion. Some publications have estimated his true net worth at about $3 billion, and Forbes clocks in at over $4 billion, with Trump Tower having the highest value at about $550 million. I just don't know how you value "licensing" that way. I always thought licensing agreements were more "cash flow" than hard assets...which doesn't preclude treating them as assets. But valuing it as high as $5B must require some vaguely Enron-style accounting practices.
Observer Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) I just don't know how you value "licensing" that way. I always thought licensing agreements were more "cash flow" than hard assets...which doesn't preclude treating them as assets. But valuing it as high as $5B must require some vaguely Enron-style accounting practices. You've obviously missed this gem in Trump's assessment of his net worth. Can't make this schit up. “Now, Mr. Trump, have you always been completely truthful in your public statements about your net worth of properties?” my lawyer asked during the deposition. “I try,” said Donald. “Have you ever not been truthful?” “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings, but I try.” “Let me just understand that a little bit,” my lawyer said. “Let’s talk about net worth for a second. You said that the net worth goes up and down based upon your own feelings?” “Yes, even my own feelings, as to where the world is, where the world is going, and that can change rapidly from day to day. Then you have a September 11th, and you don’t feel so good about yourself and you don’t feel so good about the world and you don’t feel so good about New York City. Then you have a year later, and the city is as hot as a pistol. Even months after that it was a different feeling. So yeah, even my own feelings affect my value to myself.” “When you publicly state what you’re worth, what do you base that number on?” “I would say it’s my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked,” Donald responded. “And as I say, it varies.” I feel like I'm worth 5 billion today. Edited August 2, 2016 by Observer
....lybob Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You've obviously missed this gem in Trump's assessment of his net worth. Can't make this schit up. I feel like I'm worth 5 billion today. What do you have against mark-to-market accounting?
unbillievable Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You've obviously missed this gem in Trump's assessment of his net worth. Can't make this schit up. I feel like I'm worth 5 billion today. trans gender trans racial trans financial People are required to treat you the way you identify yourself. Go be a Billionaire Black Bunny Rabbit if you want.
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 What do you have against mark-to-market accounting? Let's start with 2008...
B-Man Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 ONLY SOME PUTIN TIES ARE BAD: Media Ignores Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chairman Bagging $35 Million from Putin. THE HILL: DNC cleans house after emails. Top staffers leave 100 days before the election in wake of #DNCLeaks email hack.
Nanker Posted August 3, 2016 Author Posted August 3, 2016 In Trump's case, he claimed he had a relationship with Putin, before he said he doesn't have one. In Hillary's case, as SoS she let the Rooskies gain control of our nation's uranium production - while coincidentally $200,000,000.00 was given to her family's "charity", and she stood up to those Slavic cretins and bravely gave the bastages a "Reset Overcharge" button! So what if John Podesta's firm got $35 million from them. That's $35 million less than they had... She'll keep this up and they'll run out of cash, and then she'll have them eating out of her hand.
4merper4mer Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 ONLY SOME PUTIN TIES ARE BAD: Media Ignores Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chairman Bagging $35 Million from Putin. THE HILL: DNC cleans house after emails. Top staffers leave 100 days before the election in wake of #DNCLeaks email hack. 100 days before the election? Ha. Ha. In case you haven't noticed it is more like 100 days after the election.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Oops. Hillary says she's going to raise taxes on the middle class: https://twitter.com/seankd/status/760605882065485824
reddogblitz Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Oops. Hillary says she's going to raise taxes on the middle class: https://twitter.com/seankd/status/760605882065485824 And everyone cheered!
4merper4mer Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 And everyone cheered! 100% tax on everyone then distribution at her whim seems about right.
B-Man Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 (edited) Consequences of Clintonian recklessness: Hillary's weak leadership would give Putin another four years of nearly unrestrained aggression. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/08/02/hillary-russia-putin-trump-servers-dnc-leading-behind-obama-iran-column/87968406/ The Democratic National Committee has taken to frantically spinning a narrative of victimhood since it carelessly left its email system vulnerable, resulting in 20,000 internal emails being stolen by hackers. DNC officials’ absurd claim that Russia – specifically President Vladimir Putin – targeted the party to help Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump win the election in November is textbook damage control. When organizations find themselves defending against self-inflicted crises, the first endeavor is to quickly deflect attention from the facts of the story. What better distraction than their convenient Putin-Trump conspiracy theory? When facts create headaches, they tell a lie, and the bigger that lie the better. The truth is that Russia surged in global influence from the day Barack Obama assumed the presidency and appointed Hillary Clinton as secretary of State. Their strategy of “leading from behind” enabled the Russian bear to forcefully assert itself in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Russia filled a void created by the lack of U.S. leadership and a lack of support for American allies around the world. It thrust itself into Egypt, Syria and even parts of Iraq as it expanded its sphere of influence over the past seven years, in addition to its belligerence in Ukraine. Putin most certainly would hope for a Clinton presidency and the extension of Obama’s policies, giving him another four years of nearly unrestrained aggression. It would offer more opportunity compared to a Trump administration, whose “America First” platform would guide its foreign policy. Because of the DNC’s irresponsibility and overt bias towards Clinton during the primary season, the Democrats’ convention was damaged and their general election efforts have been jeopardized. They have tried to spin their ineptitude of potentially jeopardizing U.S. national security by portraying Clinton as a victim. If she is a victim, she’s a victim of her own recklessness. Edited August 3, 2016 by B-Man
Nanker Posted August 3, 2016 Author Posted August 3, 2016 "Yes, its true. We have the same taste in women."
Doc Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 And everyone cheered! Even Buffett. "I must break you."
GG Posted August 3, 2016 Posted August 3, 2016 Oops. Hillary says she's going to raise taxes on the middle class: https://twitter.com/seankd/status/760605882065485824 Cut her some lack. She's finally being honest about how she's going to pay for the promises.
Recommended Posts