Here are 2 links that make a very clear albeit circumstantial case. Proof will be impossible to come by I’m sure. Have a read:
This doesn’t even mention the multitudes of crooked activities Hillary had been involved in or orchestrated on her own.
Yet here he is, running down Hillary at every opportunity. Yeah, sorry, I don’t buy it.
I think we can safely deduce your political orientation from that statement.
Independent. A true independent. I vote both ways, lol!
Yes, Hillary is crook. I’m feelin the Bern.
From my reading, the first link just says that Trump was a Democrat before this race, which suggests that he’s an opportunist, rather than a mole.
The second article smacks of confirmation bias. Trump regularly says stupid shit; it’s easy to notice when that stupid shit corresponds to controversies (manufactured or otherwise) that might tarnish the Democrats. But does he only say stupid shit when that happens?
And, besides the vagaries of right-wing hate, I’m not sure what you mean in regards to “crooked activities” Hillary has been involved with or orchestrated. Please explain.
The thing the remember is that iot doesn’t matter whether Trump believes the articles in the Enquirer or would realize that his economic plan makes no sense. All that matters is that he thinks the voters he is pandering to will believe the Enquirer, and think that his economic plan makes sense.
It’s not right wing hate that makes me call hillary a crook. I could go on for a while about her lies and unscrupulous business dealings. Some of them may be honest mistakes, but man she sure has made a lot of honest mistakes. In my line of work repeated mistakes are grounds for firing. And I’m not running for the highest office in the land.
Here’s a very short and condensed list. Doesn’t even mention the repeated lies she is constantly telling. I guess it mentions some of the bigger ones.
I didn’t read the link, just scanned it to make sure most of the bigger ones were there. Hope this doesn’t derail the thread because it’s really a side note. Hillary is untrustworthy.
As I said, the “vagaries of right-wing hate”. But, I’ll agree to drop the issue, except to say that, whether or not Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, it doesn’t tend to prove that Trump is a Clinton stooge.
In my experience, this is code for “Extremely right-wing ideologue” of the “Everyone is terrible, therefore vote Republican” variety, not too far off from the so-called Libertarians who somehow manage to vote straight-ticket Republican in every election.
Only people who swallow the right-wing mainstream media’s talking points hook, line, and sinker think Clinton is a crook.
While not qualifying as conspiracy theories, there’s been a steady drumbeat of GOP/right-wing op-eds attempting to blame Obama for the rise of Trump.
You see, it’s the deep unpopularity of Obama’s policies that have driven voters into the Trump camp. Dissatisfaction with GOP policies? Morons who want one of their own running things? Fie and piffle! It’s That Man In The White House!
Derleth I think Obama has been a great president. Wish he would’ve done more. The country needs a president of the people. Obama would’ve been more effective without Republicans efforts to block everything.
Anyway, back to the topic. Trump is a democrat mole. :smack: Some of the posters on this board just can’t wait to derail a thread.
Thanks, Moriarty! I don’t think you’re chopped liver!
I’m not understanding this take. The article’s main focus is on Trump’s buying of Plaza, spending way too much, losing control of it, and having to sell it for a loss. It seems to very much touch on an investment error ?!?
Bummer for your friend’s parents. I don’t think I’d want to be involved in business with Trump in any way.
Anyway, I appreciate the cites, but after reading all of them, I’m still unable to answer basic questions like what have been some of his greatest successes, how did he actually build the real estate empire that he has now, what drove those successes, etc.
Remember, what started this particular tangent was the claim that Trump’s only real strength is as a sales guy, and he hasn’t ever had mastery of the details of the nuts and bolts of actual real estate development. Perhaps a good way to examine that claim is to look at an actual success of his, from the earlier days, before he was just selling a brand. And by a success, I mean where he’s actually made money. And use that to understand what kind of role he’s taken there.
Me neither! 
Shoulda given him a h/t.
Not his worst one though. And he had a sound business plan and negotiation strategy: recall that in the 2000s the condos were eventually sold for $1.4 billion, so the deal might have worked if Trump was decent at execution.
I’d like to ramp down “Solely a salesman” to “Mainly a salesman”. Because he does own a number of golf courses today. But those are good questions. I honestly don’t know enough to answer them in that sort of detail. If we could look at several years of his tax returns, we could impute a rough estimate of his net worth and changes in the same from his cash flows.
I did read an anecdote on this message board. Check out the thread, Donald Trump: How did such a nutcase get so rich? :
I know what you’re saying. And maybe that’s true. I guess my point boils down to this: if you have a hypothesis about why someone is successful (eg, “Trump’s success stems mainly from his skills as a salesman”), you should look at his successes to test that hypothesis. Surely he must have some successes, but all these in-depth articles pointed to focus on his failures (and yes, I’d count Plaza as a failure, even if the reason for failure was his poor execution.)
Fun thread to read back on…
Sound logic.
But you go with the evidence you have. I say the anecdote shows one of the strengths in his skill set. But very good point: if we want to know which of his strengths are most relevant, you need to look at his successes (like Trump Tower I suppose, but definitely the Commodore purchase). One complicating factor is that his successes occurred during the good parts of the business cycle, while his businesses fell apart during recession. That suggests a certain lack of forward thinking.
It would make the Clintons the smartest people ever for knowing what no one else in the world could foresee at the time, that Trump would succeed.
Within the theory, they didn’t need him to succeed as the opponent, only to disrupt the primaries and show the country the GOP’s weaknesses. It may have only been an experiment, even, just to see if they could.
I don’t think it was a real conspiracy at all, but even with all the counter-arguments in this thread, I still think it plausible.
Agreed - I think Bubba was only mischievously trolling Trump with the phone call he denies (but then, he has to either way), hoping only that he’d disrupt the GOP’s image and get a little mud on Jeb!'s face before his nomination. It wasn’t until Trump showed more staying power than the Whackjob Of The Month Club pattern we saw last time that *anyone *thought he could actually win it.
RationalWiki explains the appeal of this theory:
That explanation doesn’t make sense. Trump is a deep cover liberal and Republicans are getting their just deserts aren’t alternative explanatory theories. One is about Trump’s motivation, and the other is about why he’s been successful. I think a lot of people would agree that Trump’s nomination represents Republicans’ just deserts, and Trump’s motivation for running is completely irrelevant to this. Conversely, if it is too painful to believe that this is Republicans’ just deserts, it’s not necessary to believe anything in particular about Trump’s motivation, you just have to believe that his success is a one-off, flash-in-the-pan, cult-of-personality, or whatever.