(07-24-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Stayer

Buckley School
Phillips Exeter academy
Yale
Stanford

Yes, that is somebody who started penniless. Amazing how he parlayed those pennies in his tin cup to a fortune 1/6 of Trumps.

We all are given some opportunities and what matters is what one does with them. But only Trump is scorned for his achievements while similar peole who are Democrats are praised. Hypocrites.

I don't scorn Trump for his business achievements. I just don't believe the story that he spins regarding doing it with minimal help from his dad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/po...trump.html

(07-24-2019 09:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 08:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 08:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Funny, in 2008: when community activist Obama was running, the lefties I discussed with then all said executive experience was not a needed background. Glad some of y’all have changed your minds.

Yang may well be the best of a bad lot, which is why the Dems will not nominate him. I think the quest this year is to nominate the most qualified black female.

Lots of people inherit a mil or so. Damn few turn it into billions.

LOL a mil or so.

Each of my kids and grandkids will inherit a million or so. I expect zero billionaires.

I presume you plan to leave your kids nothing, so they can go the rags to riches route. Builds character.

Remember the parable of the talents?

Look around. The auto dealer, the lawyer, the doctor, even the plumber will leave their kids well off. It’s not what you inherit, it’s what you do with it.

Pelvis inherited a bundle. She had t mart money.
Kerry inherited a bundle. He had to marry money
Harris married money
Beta has both a rich parent and married money

Yet y’all scorn the guy who took a relatively modest inheritance and increased it 10,000 times.

Someone mentioned hypocrisy above. Here it is again.

Are you absolutely certain Yang, stayer, etc al were penniless when the started?

LOL that you think Trump inherited about a million dollars.

What ever he inherited, he made it grow, and grow a lot.

Don’t Let your Trump-hate overwhelm common sense.

I wonder why Rice doesn’t have more wealthy donors. They are all smart, and making a fortune is easy.

(07-24-2019 11:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Stayer
Buckley School
Phillips Exeter academy
Yale
Stanford
Yes, that is somebody who started penniless. Amazing how he parlayed those pennies in his tin cup to a fortune 1/6 of Trumps.
We all are given some opportunities and what matters is what one does with them. But only Trump is scorned for his achievements while similar peole who are Democrats are praised. Hypocrites.

I don't scorn Trump for his business achievements. I just don't believe the story that he spins regarding doing it with minimal help from his dad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/po...trump.html

So how much did his father actually help him, and by what objective standard does one measure that?

It’s an opinion/impression issue and not a fact issue.

(07-24-2019 11:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Stayer
Buckley School
Phillips Exeter academy
Yale
Stanford
Yes, that is somebody who started penniless. Amazing how he parlayed those pennies in his tin cup to a fortune 1/6 of Trumps.
We all are given some opportunities and what matters is what one does with them. But only Trump is scorned for his achievements while similar peole who are Democrats are praised. Hypocrites.

I don't scorn Trump for his business achievements. I just don't believe the story that he spins regarding doing it with minimal help from his dad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/po...trump.html

So how much did his father actually help him, and by what objective standard does one measure that?

It’s an opinion/impression issue and not a fact issue.

(07-24-2019 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Stayer
Buckley School
Phillips Exeter academy
Yale
Stanford
Yes, that is somebody who started penniless. Amazing how he parlayed those pennies in his tin cup to a fortune 1/6 of Trumps.
We all are given some opportunities and what matters is what one does with them. But only Trump is scorned for his achievements while similar peole who are Democrats are praised. Hypocrites.

I don't scorn Trump for his business achievements. I just don't believe the story that he spins regarding doing it with minimal help from his dad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/po...trump.html

So how much did his father actually help him, and by what objective standard does one measure that?

It’s an opinion/impression issue and not a fact issue.

Agree with that to some extent.

The amount of money that he inherited from his dad is more of a fact though. We may be uncertain about the exact amount but it seems pretty clear that it was much more than "about a mil".

I don't begrudge him for the inheritance. I applaud him for not losing it and actually building it (how much he built it nobody seems to know).

It struck me that his story of inheriting just a million dollars was being promulgated on this forum though. Does anybody really still believe that?

It is easy to start a ten million dollar business if you have ten million.

Make it grow to ten billion, now that is an achievement, and bet nobody on this board could do it. Certainly nobody has. And it is so easy - if Trump can do it, certainly 93 could. Any Rice grad could.

(07-24-2019 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It is easy to start a ten million dollar business if you have ten million.

Make it grow to ten billion, now that is an achievement, and bet nobody on this board could do it. Certainly nobody has. And it is so easy - if Trump can do it, certainly 93 could. Any Rice grad could.

Calm down... nobody is saying that.

(07-24-2019 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 06:22 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Yang's Freedom Dividend (universal business income) concept is odd - I'll grant you that. But he has some decent ideas besides that. And if you're going to discount his business background, you're nuts. He helped form a startup .com business in 2000, then was the VP and third hire for a healthcare software startup. Then in 2006 he became president of Manhattan Prep, a GMAT prep company later acquired by Kaplan. Then in 2011, he founded Venture in America which is still in service today with about 30 employees.

He did all that without any help from pops, which is something you can't say about either Bush or Trump.

Yep I took a loan from my pop to get my side stuff started. Glad to know that you seemingly dump on that notion.

I didnt do as well as Papa Bush with his start.

By the way, look up how Robert started *his* web page builder business as well. A phrase that rhymes with 'poan from lops' kind of comes to mind.

Just saying that Yangs 'lets give everyone 1000 dollars' is the simple fing pandering that permeates the left. Sound like smart business? That is aside from the business of of buyig votes that is.

The general concept of UBI isn't pandering - it's an actual economic policy that many are interested in to help address issues created from the evolution of the workforce. As was mentioned, Yang sees it as a way to deal with some of the side effects of workforce automation.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily the right answer, but it isn't pandering.

His tweet didnt say 1000 clams for those whom have been disrupted as a side effect of workforce automation.

Or does the term 'everyone' mean that now?

I can see the issue when targeted. The scope of 'everyone' screams 'pandering' to this illiterate. Perhaps the scope of 'everyone' makes sense to you.... I dont know.

To be honest, there is a huge mismatch there between the reason and the target population.

The idea of UBI is that everyone gets it, regardless of need. So that way there is equity. Again, not pandering.

(07-24-2019 09:38 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Kerry inherited a bundle. He had to marry money

Not only did he marry a bilionaire..... he did it *twice*.

(07-24-2019 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 09:02 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 06:22 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Yang's Freedom Dividend (universal business income) concept is odd - I'll grant you that. But he has some decent ideas besides that. And if you're going to discount his business background, you're nuts. He helped form a startup .com business in 2000, then was the VP and third hire for a healthcare software startup. Then in 2006 he became president of Manhattan Prep, a GMAT prep company later acquired by Kaplan. Then in 2011, he founded Venture in America which is still in service today with about 30 employees.

He did all that without any help from pops, which is something you can't say about either Bush or Trump.

Yep I took a loan from my pop to get my side stuff started. Glad to know that you seemingly dump on that notion.

I didnt do as well as Papa Bush with his start.

By the way, look up how Robert started *his* web page builder business as well. A phrase that rhymes with 'poan from lops' kind of comes to mind.

Just saying that Yangs 'lets give everyone 1000 dollars' is the simple fing pandering that permeates the left. Sound like smart business? That is aside from the business of of buyig votes that is.

The general concept of UBI isn't pandering - it's an actual economic policy that many are interested in to help address issues created from the evolution of the workforce. As was mentioned, Yang sees it as a way to deal with some of the side effects of workforce automation.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily the right answer, but it isn't pandering.

His tweet didnt say 1000 clams for those whom have been disrupted as a side effect of workforce automation.

Or does the term 'everyone' mean that now?

I can see the issue when targeted. The scope of 'everyone' screams 'pandering' to this illiterate. Perhaps the scope of 'everyone' makes sense to you.... I dont know.

To be honest, there is a huge mismatch there between the reason and the target population.

The idea of UBI is that everyone gets it, regardless of need. So that way there is equity. Again, not pandering.

I understand UBI.

Just say it is UBI. Period.

Yang walks off into the weeds for the reasoning for it. The target of that reasoning is not 'everyone'. I guess you dont see that mismatch. Fine with me.

Quote:Former special counsel Robert Mueller confirmed in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that President Trump directed staffers to falsify records connected to Mueller’s investigation.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/45452...ssion=true

Quote:Former special counsel Robert Mueller told Congress Wednesday that he generally agreed that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded his nearly two-year investigation.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/45451...NrZ6IN9WTw

(07-24-2019 06:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And while having experience running a business is undoubtedly helpful in the executive branch, Trump is a poster child for how lacking political experience is detrimental. Ideally someone who lacks one of those traits would surround themselves with advisers who fill the void.

But doesn't it seem to you that finding political advisers in Washington is vastly easier than finding people with successful experience running a business willing to put that on the sideline and even take heat over it (have it get bad-mouthed and protested) to work in DC?

(07-24-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The general concept of UBI isn't pandering - it's an actual economic policy that many are interested in to help address issues created from the evolution of the workforce. As was mentioned, Yang sees it as a way to deal with some of the side effects of workforce automation.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily the right answer, but it isn't pandering.

It sells very well to a lot of people who don't have significantly valuable skills

(07-24-2019 12:34 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Mueller corrects himself: “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning: I wanted to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu — who said, and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President b/c of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way “As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”to say it.”

(07-24-2019 11:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  It is easy to start a ten million dollar business if you have ten million.

Make it grow to ten billion, now that is an achievement, and bet nobody on this board could do it. Certainly nobody has. And it is so easy - if Trump can do it, certainly 93 could. Any Rice grad could.

Which reminds me of this old saw:
- Budding entrepreneur to wise veteran: "Can you tell me how to make a small fortune?"
- Wise veteran (after a long pause for reflection): "First, start with a large fortune..."

(07-24-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The general concept of UBI isn't pandering - it's an actual economic policy that many are interested in to help address issues created from the evolution of the workforce. As was mentioned, Yang sees it as a way to deal with some of the side effects of workforce automation.
I'm not saying that it is necessarily the right answer, but it isn't pandering.

The trick with UBI is setting it at the right level. If you set it at $3,000/month per adult, you are going to have significant negative unintended consequences, not the least of which are involved in funding it.

I would set it much lower, generally somewhere around 1/2 to 1/3 of the poverty level. That's about where Friedman set it for his negative income tax (NIT) and a bit higher than the Fair Taxers have included in their Boortz/Linder prebate/prefund. That, plus Bismarck health care, puts every person within a minimum wage job (at today's minimum wage) of being above the poverty level. So you can survive doing nothing, but if you really want to have much quality of life, you need to get off your butt and do something. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. People who work should live better than people who don't work.

(07-24-2019 01:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 06:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And while having experience running a business is undoubtedly helpful in the executive branch, Trump is a poster child for how lacking political experience is detrimental. Ideally someone who lacks one of those traits would surround themselves with advisers who fill the void.

But doesn't it seem to you that finding political advisers in Washington is vastly easier than finding people with successful experience running a business willing to put that on the sideline and even take heat over it (have it get bad-mouthed and protested) to work in DC?

Trump's turnover rate in his Cabinet and senior level administration is the highest of any presidential administration since 1980 (which is all this link tracks). It doesn't help having political advisors, or business advisors, if your president doesn't listen to and value their opinions.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/track...istration/

(07-24-2019 11:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:25 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Stayer
Buckley School
Phillips Exeter academy
Yale
Stanford
Yes, that is somebody who started penniless. Amazing how he parlayed those pennies in his tin cup to a fortune 1/6 of Trumps.
We all are given some opportunities and what matters is what one does with them. But only Trump is scorned for his achievements while similar peole who are Democrats are praised. Hypocrites.

I don't scorn Trump for his business achievements. I just don't believe the story that he spins regarding doing it with minimal help from his dad.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/po...trump.html

So how much did his father actually help him, and by what objective standard does one measure that?

It’s an opinion/impression issue and not a fact issue.

Agree with that to some extent.

The amount of money that he inherited from his dad is more of a fact though. We may be uncertain about the exact amount but it seems pretty clear that it was much more than "about a mil".

I don't begrudge him for the inheritance. I applaud him for not losing it and actually building it (how much he built it nobody seems to know).

It struck me that his story of inheriting just a million dollars was being promulgated on this forum though. Does anybody really still believe that?

I first heard the number one million from left wingers. I have no idea how much he inherited, I just know that he took what he had avalabale and built something much bigger with it.

Being a millionaire is no longer a big thing. When I play poker on Wednesday nights, there may be as many as six or seven millionaires at each table, and up to three tables. One guy owns retail stores. Two are builders. One owns an electroplating company, another builds trailers, Mix in a coach, several roofers, and a pair of brothers who, like trump, own a lot of rental real estate, and there is a lot of wealth in that room.

These days, if you are middle aged with a paid off house and a 401k, you are approaching millionaire status, if not there already. My son in Iowa would be there if not for a divorce.

Yet the left keeps railing on about millionaires. Update your rhetoric, guys. Millionaires are not the bad guys. These guys employ a lot of people. Get your minds out of the Monopoly game.

I don’t much care how much Teump inherited, he took it and did something with it. Just starting with wealth does not guarantee finishing with it, as numerous sports and entertainment stars can attest.

discrimination suit

Looks like the Democrats need certain things to happen, if they are to prevail in November 2020.

Higher unemployment
More people losing their jobs
Lower wages
Lower take home pay
Lower stock market
War with either NKorea or Iran or both
Millions of illegal aliens
Drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes
Crop failure
Higher taxes
Racial unrest


In short, they need misery for the American public. Of course, lip service will be paid, but in private, the leadership will rejoice if any or all of these happen, as the only goal is winning.

I think I have figured out Kamala Harris’s platform. It has three main points.

Trump is an ******* and I’m not.
Trump is a man and I’m not.
Trump is white and I’m not.

It was kind of infuriating yesterday to hear the Democrats and their publicity outlets (CNN, MSNBC) claim that there was no hoax/witch hunt because Russia meddled.

The hoax/witch hunt was NOT to prove Russia meddled. It was to prove Trump colluded with Russia, and that has been debunked except in the mind of Adam Schiff.

Also, does anybody really believe the Russian meddling had any effect? Telling truth to the populace is generally considered a good thing, and nobody has said any of the released emails were tampered with or false. Yet they were all so innocuous. The worst thing exposed was the collusion between Donna Brazile and Hillary’s campaign to cheat Sanders. I cannot imagine that news changed even one vote to Trump.