Life wasn't easy for him you know...
@chesterfrie, found the trump supporter
@hwat bobby, he's mocking him. He said (not exact quotes but bear with me) "it has not been easy for me, it was not. I started out in Brooklyn, my father gave me a SMALL LOAN OF A MILLION DOLLARS"
@Guide to Fails, thanks for clearing that up sweet cheeks 😘
@hwat bobby, anything for u bb 😘
@Guide to Fails, from a business stand point that isn't a lot. He turned that million into billions. It's like turning one dollar into 4000 dollars.
@Guide to Fails, I'm not a trump supporter, but you have to think. A loan of a million dollars to make a multi hundred million dollar/billion dollar business. Making a business isn't easy in the first place, and a million isn't as much as it sounds like anymore.
@Fun Facts 101, I see your point. Thanks for the feedback
@Doughnut Boy, I see your point. Thanks for the feedback
@Guide to Fails, ❤
@Fun Facts 101, ❤💓❤
@Fun Facts 101, yeah just to start a taco bell franchise I was told you need a loan of around $750,000 and that's just one store.
@Doughnut Boy, right? And taco bell is one of the cheap ones
@Guide to Fails, and Obama started out with a four trillion dollar debt and turned it into a ten trillion dollar debt
@HeadlessHampster, I feel like those that blame Obama for the debt don't realize that congress decides the federal budget...and that congress has been deadlocked for 6 years by republican legislators who signed a pledge promising to never vote for a bill which raises taxes.
@Nicolas Mage, haha, and yet every year Obama submits a budget with even higher deficits than the continuing resolutions passed by congress.
You are correct that congress bares a great deal of the blame. But Obama hasn't even tried to lower the debt...
@talmet, actually I believe the deficit is now near half what it was 8 years ago, thanks in large part to the sequester debt deal. However, even though the deficit is greatly reduced the total debt continues to rise because we are still running a deficit after all. Obama is by no means a perfect president, but I truly believe that anyone who thinks our country is worse off today than it was in 2008 is kidding themselves.
@Doughnut Boy, that logic doesn't really work if you apply it to real life. Just one super basic example: You can buy a business for $1 million dollars and make more money off it. For comparison, you can barely buy a candy bar for $1 and then make literally $0 off it. You could try selling the candy bar for a tiny profit, but I'm sure there can't be more than one or two people dumb enough to buy candy that's not from a store.
@Nicolas Mage, really? I think we are much worse off.
ISIS, Russia, China, Boko Haram, race relations, failing health care exchanges...
@BunnyGruff, just because you buy a business doesn't mean you will automatically make money off it. There are a lot of things in the business you have to do. He isn't just sitting on his ass all day, he is a business man and owns several companies and has a lot of assets. He has to make sure everything is always going correctly. He went through two divorces because he was working too much.
@Fun Facts 101, it isn't as much as it was. But he also got that loan a long time ago.
@Fun Facts 101, it's actually pretty easy to make that kind of money, even for an idiot like Trump, if you have a large enough capital to get you started. One of the easiest ways of doing it is real estate, but most people can't because they don't have the money to pay off their own house, much less another one. Trump used that money and his connections to real estate to make his fortune. But Trump is an idiot after all, and even tho it's so easy a baby could do it without fvcking it up, Trump STILL managed to fvck it up. FOUR TIMES. His companies filed for bankruptcy four times!! I don't know about you but I'd rather not the US file for bankruptcy after we build a massive wall across Mexico and go to war with every nation in the world that we don't like. And also his side goals sound very familiar. I mean this isn't exactly what he's saying but it seems like he'd be okay with imprisoning all the Muslims and getting 'rid' of all the crippled people. Sound familiar?
@Doughnut Boy, I know, but I said you "can" make money off it. My example was to show that with $1 you "can't" do what you can with $1,000,000. Also if he has to make sure everything is going correctly then he's a pretty bad owner. His companies have filed for bankruptcy 4 times.
@BunnyGruff, just because you file for bankruptcy doesn't mean the company goes bankrupt. He said he used "the law of the land" to claim bankruptcy which I'm assuming is some kind of business scheme to make more money but companies do this stuff all the time.
@talmet, One man can't really be expected to keep the world together forever. Things will happen and we can't just blame one guy for him. Also listing a couple counties is pretty vague, but to start off, ISIS could have been prevented had we gone to war in Syria when they asked us to. However, NOBODY here wanted another war or boots on the ground even tho hundreds of thousands of innocent people were being slaughtered. Some brave Americans took it upon themselves to go fight ISIS but you guys would have been at Obama's throat if he suggested entering the war in Syria. Of course now, after Paris, you're all gung ho for killing those fvckers. So don't blame Obama, blame yourself for ISIS, because he did what you wanted and look where it got us. Russia is being crippled by sanctions, all without firing a single gun, their people are only being held together by their pride, but they're in a really bad spot. China is hacking us, but if Obama proposed a legislative measure that would force
@talmet, companies to beef up their cyber security. You guys would be up in arms saying he's over reaching his authority and he should leave business alone. The vast majority of health care exchanges are working like they're supposed to and millions of the poorest Americans are no longer being condemned to DEATH just because they can't afford obviously arbitrary prices set by hospitals for their procedures. Race relations is something All white people need to come together and agree, let's no longer be racist. Obama is black so he'll be patiently waiting for us to go do that.
@talmet, isis is due to the war in iraq, Russia is because of the plan by the great Ronald Reagan, boko haram and race relations cannot be placed on the president and Healthcare is due to many republicans constantly trying to deal away with free healthcare.
@Doughnut Boy, it's a business scheme but not in the way you thing. It's not something you want to do. It's a last measure. When everything else fails, to keep yourself financially upright. It's not something you do just to make more money. If it comes to bankruptcy, you've already failed at your job. Filing for bankruptcy is the failure, not the actual bankruptcy itself. Just having failed so bad that you'd have to file for bankruptcy, that's what I'm talking about. He's a failure and an idiot, because if he wasn't, he wouldn't have had to file for bankruptcy even once, much less 4 times.
@BunnyGruff, I already said just because the company files for bankruptcy doesn't mean the company is actually bankrupt.
@Doughnut Boy, and I already said being bankrupt isn't the worst thing. The actual bad thing is being in a position that you have to file bankruptcy in the first place. I think you don't understand bankruptcy that well. Being bankrupt is bad, which is why chapter 11 bankruptcy exists. It's a way for you to get back on your feet. People don't start a business thinking hopefully one day I'll file for bankruptcy. It's like saying a bike rider hopes he tumbles and falls on his face, using his helmet and pads to prevent him from getting too injured. The idea is to not fall off the bike in the first place. Just because you didn't get hurt doesn't mean it was a successful bike ride. A successful rider wouldn't tumble and fall in the first place, much less four times.
@the toast rider, not really. Your defense of Obama comes from the right place, but I'm gonna have to agree with talmet that it's wrong. Sure Bush started the war, but Obama was the president, he could have changed the war instead of ending it in a bad place. But then again that's what WE told him to do so he was only listening to us. Russia was doing okayish (Putin isn't really a good leader, he's a popular leader, and usually doing the popular thing is bad for the country), but once can clearly see the Ruble tank just after Obama's sanctions. Again Healthcare is in a much better place now than before so I don't get the arguement there.
@BunnyGruff, not to sound like I'm attacking you but i would like to know what you think Obama should have done to restablize iraq, also putin despite the memes is a dangerous guy the fact that people take him lightly is a mistake. And my argument for Healthcare is that Obamacare is a good plan but there are many republicans trying to repeal it in their state and eventually the country, why, no one knows.
@HeadlessHampster, thanks Obama!
@BunnyGruff, blame one guy? When did I say I blamed only Obama. My only point was that we are not better off now, than we were 8 years ago.
Is it all Obama's fault? No.
Who is "you guys"? Most republicans were in favor of sending in troops after Assad crossed the red line Obama made. It was Obama that did nothing.
Obama did not "do what we wanted"? He got out of Iraq, which is the exact opposite of what the majority of republicans wanted. We needed to keep a force there to keep it stable, Obama didn't want to do that and invented an excuse about a disagreement with the Iraqi president, and pulled out.
Russia is being crippled? Geez, I guess I missed that when they started bombing the Middle East.
Companies? How about Obama propose a bill to beef up government cypersecurity? Both the IRS and state department were hacked this year. By China....
@BunnyGruff, The vast majority of health exchanges are not doing well, over half are on the way to insolvency. And the largest health insurance Provider has openly said they are considering not covering the exchanges because there are so few people in them.
Nobody was ever condemned to death, or if they were it was illegal. Regardless of whether you can pay or not, you can get treated by walking into an emergency room. It has been that way for decades.
Hospital prices aren't arbitrary, they are market set prices, which are jacked up because Medicare only pays around 10-20% of the bill. So hospitals jack up the prices on everyone to make up the difference.
....what? What about racist African American? Or the idiocy of the media. I bet you're one of the people who never even heard that three autopsies and an investigation by Eric Holder all came to the same conclusion about Ferguson. There was no "hands up don't shoot." It didn't happen, three different autopsies and Eric Holder.
@the toast rider, Isis is due to pulling out of Iraq and leaving an unstable region.
Reagan did what now? Your blaming Reagan, almost 30 years after his presidency.
Healthcare isn't free, it is incredibly expensive.
@the toast rider, I'll tell you what Obama should have done to keep Iraq stable.
Not pull our troops out.
After WW2 we had troops in Japan and Germany. Do you know how long before we pulled our troops out? We didn't. 70 years later and we still have military stationed in Japan and in Germany.
@talmet, we should have never been in iraq in the first place
Reagans star wars destabilized russia's economy allowing for pwoplw like putin to seize the opportunity
Nothing is free but this is where we learn to spend our money wisely, on the health of our citizens or weapons that will ultimately just collect dust?
@talmet, we have troops in those countries because they were barred from having any type of military. We're there to protect them if they were to be attacked.
@the toast rider, so the world would be better if the USSR were still around?
False. Soviet Russia was evil, look up the Ukraine starvation.
If we were spending our own money, I might agree with you. But we're not. We. Have. No. Money. If American took 100% of everyone's income, and wealth, and everything for a whole year...it wouldn't even get the government back to being broke. The CBO every year calculates what tax rate would be required to eventually get the government out of debt. The calculation is over several years (I.e. In the late 90s it was something like 70% for everyone, for 5 years). For the last few years their answer has been "none" there is no tax rate that will pay the debt. It doesn't matter how long a time period, the debt grows to fast just on interest.
@the toast rider, those countries were barred because they were unstable.
So, ban Iraq from having a military, and station our troops there to keep the region stable.
@talmet, those countries were barred because they basically started ww2 and committed terible atrocities.
@talmet, the debt continues to rise with no visible benefits because the government is appropriating the money into the wrong things.
I am quite aware of how bad the ussr was but you have to admit that a country that is destabilized is more likey to be a problem in the future as we will see in Russia
@talmet, unlike the war with Germany and Japan, the war in Iraq was pointless.
@the toast rider, are you and any of the others in any way qualified to say what you're saying? All your arguments are based largely upon assumptions and self-righteous bullsh1t here. I'm just saying, all of this has only made me think of you all as idiots.
@the toast rider, Did Iraq not commit atrocities? Look up what Saddam's sons did. Google Iraqi rape rooms. Or look up what Saddam did to the Kurds.
Benefits? Dude. We. Have. No. Money. You can't just keep borrowing forever. Eventually there will be no where else to borrow money from, and then you fail. Look at what happened to Greece.
Disagree. Unstable isn't safe. But it is better than homicidal tyranny bent on world domination.
Why does it matter whether it was pointless or not? It happened. It is a fact. Deal with the world as it is. What should have happened? We go back in time as stop the Iraq war from happening? Sorry, we don't have that technology. We can only deal with the world as it is, now.
Leaving troops in Iraq to keep it a stable region (as the Iraqi president requested) would have prevented ISIS from taking control of the country.
@Thecerealrapist, please explain.
@talmet, you said that we can't change the past which is true then later talk about what should have been done. That is inconsistency.
@the toast rider, well, that comment was meant for all of you in this "argument." All of you are making these huge assumptions without any source to back it up. For instance, there are still around 4,000 US troops in Iraq. The difference between that and Germany, as I've discovered through some quick research, is the cold war and the division of West and East Germany. These events required troops to stay behind. In Japan, troops were left behind at Japan's request to help stabilize the collapsing government and economy. These troops were removed in 1952. Similarly, we left 4,000 troops as security forces, and to help train the Iraqis to fight for themselves. We did not need a fully operational fighting force there, because we already implemented a new government. Moreover, the Iraqi government requested a demobilization, while the Japanese government requested additional troops.
I figured all that out with about 20 minutes of googling. I suggest you guys spend some more time googling.
@Thecerealrapist, this is common knowledge, at least i hope it is. I didn't state these things because I expect others to know.
With that being said if you had seen in my argument i was trying to say that the us shouldn't have been involved in iraq in thw first place and if it was inevitable it should have left as soon as the rebels delt with the government instead of staying.
The Germany thing was just because the us feared that Russia would try to get revenge on Germany for the backstab they did in ww2
And as for Japan they don't have a military anymore, that is why the un stepped in so that they have some way of defending themselves if they were to be attacked.
This should be common knowledge, for you to assume that I don't know my history without even looking at the entirety of my comments is troubling.
@the toast rider, that one is one that stood out to me from talmet's argument. You have your own, I'm certain. I agree with you on most points, I just think your arguments should be better structured in order to get the point across
@Thecerealrapist, I tried to but tamlet isn't making sense, I'm currently trying to get him to elaborate because as of late he's been contradicting himself.
@the toast rider, it is not inconsistent.
My point is not that we shouldn't consider if an action in the past, was good or bad. It was that complaining about how the world got the way it is, is not an excuse for taking a wrong action.
If you want to argue that Iraq was a pointless war, that is fine. But it doesn't excuse the actions taken by Obama when he pulled most of our troops out, ignoring the request of the Iraqi president.
@Thecerealrapist, you are correct.
We left troops in Germany in large part because of the Cold War. We should have left troops in Iraqi to assist in dealing with Iran/Lybia/Syria/etc...
We left troops in Japan at their request. The Iraqi president requested that we leave many more troops in Iraq. Obama said no, and invented an excuse about US soldiers being tried in Iraqi courts (the Iraqi president offered to grant US troops immunity, but Obama ignored that).
You are incorrect. The Iraqi president did not request fewer US troops. He requested the number remain constant. Obama lied and said there was a request, but the Iraqi president had made his request public. In your googling, remember that some sources are biased. Go to original sources if possible, read the Iraqi president's own speeches, and press releases.
@Thecerealrapist, what was your point? That there are still troops in Iraq? Very very small numbers, and their actions are extremely restricted by the rules of engagement which were set by Obama.
@talmet, and it doesnt take the fact that bush shouldn't have gone there in the first place, or clinton shouldn't have trained the rebels. You can't say we shouldn't consider if the events in the past were wrong or right and then say why a previous action was wrong in the same sentence. That is a contradiction!
@the toast rider, no, it isn't a contradiction. I never said we shouldn't consider if an action in the past was right or wrong. In the post that you replied to, I said "My point is not that we shouldn't consider if an action in the past, was good or bad." Get it? That is not my point. As in, you CAN make that determination. My point is that the wrong actions in the past are not an excuse for later wrong actions.
When Obama pulled most of our troops out of Iraq, he left it open for other forces to come in. Obama should be judged on his own actions, the actions of people before him do not excuse Obama's actions, nor do they cast blame on Obama. Why we went into Iraq is something that has nothing to do with determining if Obama's actions were good and just. He came into office and took actions, and those actions were either right or wrong.
Trying to right past wrongs is a very human impulse. But it is one that never really works out.
@talmet, as matter of fact, it was president Bush who did most of the work convincing Congress to pull out of Iraq. Furthermore, the government of Iraq at the time of SOFA was more concerned about an excess of residual troops and demanded the troops pull out. Furthermore, the prime minister of Iraq removed the immunity from prosecution on July 1, 2008. In fact, the Iraqi government refused to approve SOFA without a deadline for the "complete removal of foreign troops." That's a direct quote from Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak Al-Rubaie.
@Thecerealrapist, once again, way to find biased sources.
Do you know how to find unbiased sources on the internet? Here's a hint, if you are looking at a news site...it is not unbiased. Go to what people actually said, not what some journalist of unknown bias says.
@talmet, is Wikipedia a biased source? I wasn't aware. Where are you getting your information, may I ask? Can you provide a direct, unbiased quote? And furthermore, a news site cannot create a quote out of thin air, that's called libel. They can misinterpret it or analyze it incorrectly, but they still have to use the original quote.
@Thecerealrapist, Wikipedia is not unbiased...it is crowd sourced. Hell, there have been times where according to Wikipedia, the Holocaust didn't happen.
I get my information from many different sources. I read a lot of official press releases, and eyewitness accounts.
A direct quote? Do you speak Arabic?
News sources create quotes all the time by taking things out of context. They don't have to use the original quote in its entirety. They take a few words here, a few words there, and put together something that means the complete opposite of what was actually said.
I.e. The only quote you have is "complete removal of foreign troops" that is not a complete sentence, which means he said something before and after it. It could have been "There are some in this country who want the complete removal of foreign troops, but we, the government, like foreign troops, so we request 1 million more." From your source, you can't tell me he didn't say that.
@talmet, all you've provided here is hypothetical situations. Provide some evidence to support your claim or it is invalid. Direct quotes can be translated as you well know. If you read all these things, cite one! Send a link to the Iraqi prime minister's press release begging for more troops! Until you provide evidence that counters mine, you have no reason to be writing anything here.
@talmet, We envisage the U.S. troop presence by year’s end to be under 100,000, with most of the remaining troops to return home by the end of 200
@Thecerealrapist, you are not in charge of me, I can write where ever I want to.
You have provided no real evidence either. Provide a complete quote.
It has been almost 7 years, so I don't know a quote off the top of my head, but I'll look for a complete quote.
@Thecerealrapist, August 2nd, 2011
Prime Minister Malaki and all Iraqi political leaders from every faction except the Sadrists agreed with the idea of at minimum 20,000 US troops staying in Iraq, and began negotiations for a new SOFA with that as the basis.
"We agree with the idea, from the American military, of the need for a military presence to preserve the peace and stability in our Country. We will negotiate with team sent by, the American President, Obama, on length of time and the role of such a military force."
@Thecerealrapist, what was that? When and who said that? I gave you a source, and a translated quote from Maliki.
@talmet, June 20, 2006. Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak Al-Rubaie
Prime Minister national security advisor
Oh, and I'm done with this conversation, as I won, but you aren't going to accept that.
@Thecerealrapist, hmm...apparently you can't post greater than signs....
That should have been 2011 is better/greater than 2006
And Prime minister is better than/greater than national security adviser.
@talmet, oh please. You are immature and foolish. You have provided one quote and then called yourself the winner. Even if I accept that the prime minister at one point requested additional troops, who's to say the United States could provide them? You yourself said "we have no money." However, I've had about enough of you. You are a complete bullheaded idiot. I've met many of your kind. In no way, shape or form will you admit you're wrong, so I'll just have to leave you alone. I'd wish you good day, but I'm sure no day can be considered good when you occupy it.
@Thecerealrapist, as I said, you wouldn't accept that I won.
And you resort to name calling and insults...way to prove your superiority, nothing shows how smart you are like calling the other person a name...
@talmet, I admit that you "won" regarding whether or not the Iraqi government asked for more troops by attrition. I am merely pointing out that it doesn't solidify the rest of your wild statements as correct. Also, the Iraqi people don't want any more boots on the ground and neither do the American people. Believe me, I've heard the, "I'm above you because you call me names" argument a thousand times. The fact remains that you are bullheaded, as in stubborn to the death that you're correct, but misguided and largely dull, making you the definition of an idiot, and an utter troll. If you're done, then stop replying to me.
@Thecerealrapist, ...as you said, I was right that the Iraqi government asked for more troops.
I knew I was right, so I didn't back down. That is not a failing.
You are pointing out nothing, other than you trust whatever biased sources you find.
I made no wild statements. As you agreed, my statement that the Iraqi government requested more troops was correct.
If you've heard the "I'm above you because you call me names" argument a thousand times, then maybe you should stop calling people names? Back up your point with facts. Simply calling the other person a name is not a productive method of debate.
I am bullheaded when I'm right. That is a virtue, not a failing.
You agreed that I was right, so how am I misguided? You were misguided. You didn't know what you were talking about. While making statements that you now agree were incorrect, you demanded that I stop telling the truth.
Once again, you are not in control of me, I can post whatever I want.
@talmet, they all made poor decisions and continue to lead the next gen astray but you can't blame Obama for this when he did what most people wanted us to do
@the toast rider, he is the leader. He should lead.
I don't mean he should go against popular opinion. I mean, that if it is, as you said "a poor decision, then he should change popular opinion. Give speeches, use the bully pulpit.
A good leader knows the right course of action, and can explain it so that the majority of people know that it is the right course of action as well.
To paraphrase an old political saying "don't move to the center, move the center to you."
@talmet, but you do realize that Obama isn't a dictator that can do what ever he wants right? And even if he were to give conferences on something the republicans and the media will still try to go against whatever it is and criticize him for it. The guy literally never wins.
@the toast rider, When did I say he was? I said that a good leader knows the right course of action. And a good leader can explain it in a way that the people understand why it is right.
I.e. In the election of 1980 and afterwards, Reagan stated that lowering tax rates would spur the economy. The media called him an idiot. The democrats said he hated the poor. The republican elite called him a bumpkin, and invented the term "voodoo-economics" and "trickle-down economics" but Reagan made speeches and articulated his point of view well enough that he won the two largest landslide victories since Washington. And even now, 30 years later 60% of Americans agree that cutting taxes is the best way to spur the economy.
Regardless of whether you agree with the idea, that is the result of someone who didn't just follow popular opinion, or allow his opponents to dictate what he did or did not say.
@the toast rider, Given that you agreed that pulling out of Iraq was a "poor decision", there are too possibilities.
A) Obama agreed with that poor decision.
B) Obama didn't agree with the poor decision, but just went along with popular opinion.
If A is true, then he deserves the blame for making a poor decision.
If B is true, then he should have at least attempted to change popular opinion. Make speeches, give interviews, etc where he explained why pulling out was a poor decision. He did not do that, which means he deserves the blame.
@talmet, but Reagan was an idioy, the idea of trickle down economics had to be one of the worst in economic history. And the reason why Reagan was so successful in convincing people to side with him is because he was an actor, convincing people used to be his job.
@talmet, I don't agree with the pullout was a poor decision. It also seems that you will continue to make these rediculous claims about how this is obama's fault. The previous presidents gave him shjt and people expect him to turn it into diamonds. No you didn't say that you think he should however you are refusing to aknowledge how which ever decision Obama would have went with he would have lost.
@the toast rider, you said "they all made poor decisions"
Who is they, and what decisions? I thought you were referring to presidents, and that pulling out was one of the "poor decisions."
Yes, Reagan convinced the public that he was doing the right thing. Obama can't convince anyone, there is no issue where he has moved the public towards him.
I don't agree that whatever decision he made would have made him lose. If he was a real leader, he could have lead America. He did not, he simply followed the popular opinion.
Oh, and supply side economics (the real name of trickle down) is actually a well known and real economic theory that has been known and proven many times in the past. JFK was the first president to apply it.
@hwat bobby, are you stupid?
I really want to know if this was actually real, and if so where can I find the rest of it?
@ThatCreepyMan, civil war trailer
@ThatCreepyMan, Go onto YouTube this minute and watch the Captain America Civil War teaser trailer
Isnt trump leading in the polls tho?
@child lover, and it drives the Hillary supporters nuts
Fvck Donald Trump!
Looks like he needs a small loan of a million dollars
@Hal 9000 , if only mom could give me a small loan of one million dollars
thanks for clearing that up sweet cheeks 😘
@hwat bobby, oh dear
Spoiler alert. Trump wins in real life😐🔫
Why isn't Rand Paul in this!!!???? He is Captain America!!
I must say, i enjoyed the trailer, but I imagined it more of a "whose side are you on" kind of thing :/
...wait...Cap and Bucky are beating on iron man? What? I don't remember this!!
@Punny lad, Civil War trailer