Octopus Overlords

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:01 pm**

GreenGoo wrote:I read an article (I think it was yesterday) that did the numbers on Trump's inheritance and suggested that if he had just put all of his inheritance into an index tracking fund, he would be worth almost a billion dollars more than he is today.

So while he has grown his wealth, it has been much slower than the market as a whole. Which I admit I found some amusement in.

Has anyone else read that? Is there any truth to it? It was just a bunch of words on paper so I have no idea as to the veracity of it. I know I want it to be true.

Fortune magazine said so last year.

Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion. The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988. Other billionaires’ net worths have beaten the stock market’s growth in that time. Bill Gates, for example, saw his grow increase 7,173% since 1988 to $80 billion. Warren Buffet’s wealth grew 2,612% in the same time period, to $67.8 billion.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:02 pm**

Jeff V wrote:
Moliere wrote:
Smoove_B wrote:It's disgraceful - even for a NJ governor.
Imagine if he was governor of Illinois. Staying out of jail is considered a success.
I still can't understand how other states allow their former governors to roam free.

Have you seen the former AZ governor talk?

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:23 pm**

Moliere wrote: Have you seen the former AZ governor talk?

Wow, that was awkward. (As was having three news anchors named Larry, Berry and Terry)

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:40 pm**

Max Peck wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I read an article (I think it was yesterday) that did the numbers on Trump's inheritance and suggested that if he had just put all of his inheritance into an index tracking fund, he would be worth almost a billion dollars more than he is today.

So while he has grown his wealth, it has been much slower than the market as a whole. Which I admit I found some amusement in.

Has anyone else read that? Is there any truth to it? It was just a bunch of words on paper so I have no idea as to the veracity of it. I know I want it to be true.
Fortune magazine said so last year.
Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion. The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988. Other billionaires’ net worths have beaten the stock market’s growth in that time. Bill Gates, for example, saw his grow increase 7,173% since 1988 to $80 billion. Warren Buffet’s wealth grew 2,612% in the same time period, to $67.8 billion.

That was probably the article then. Google feeds me things. I eat them. I don't look at where they came from.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:01 pm**

GreenGoo wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I read an article (I think it was yesterday) that did the numbers on Trump's inheritance and suggested that if he had just put all of his inheritance into an index tracking fund, he would be worth almost a billion dollars more than he is today.

So while he has grown his wealth, it has been much slower than the market as a whole. Which I admit I found some amusement in.

Has anyone else read that? Is there any truth to it? It was just a bunch of words on paper so I have no idea as to the veracity of it. I know I want it to be true.
Fortune magazine said so last year.
Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion. The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988. Other billionaires’ net worths have beaten the stock market’s growth in that time. Bill Gates, for example, saw his grow increase 7,173% since 1988 to $80 billion. Warren Buffet’s wealth grew 2,612% in the same time period, to $67.8 billion.
That was probably the article then. Google feeds me things. I eat them. I don't look at where they came from.

There is also one going around that points out that Paris Hilton is better at business than Donald Trump, based on what what each inherited and how much they've been able to grow their net worth and sell their respective brands.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:10 pm**

I read an article about Paris Hilton's business savvy awhile back. She's no joke.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 7:11 pm**

El Guapo wrote:I read an article about Paris Hilton's business savvy awhile back. She's no joke.

Say it with me, "Donald Trump Sex Tape."

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:00 pm**

PLW wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I read an article about Paris Hilton's business savvy awhile back. She's no joke.
Say it with me, "Donald Trump Sex Tape."

That's hot.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:03 pm**

tgb wrote:
PLW wrote:
El Guapo wrote:I read an article about Paris Hilton's business savvy awhile back. She's no joke.
Say it with me, "Donald Trump Sex Tape."
That's hot.

It will be YUGE!

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:23 pm**

Forbes is often wrong on its wild estimates of wealth. Their researchers necessarily work on only partial information.

I would expect Trump to underperform the market given his known investments, regular public failures, prior business bankruptcies and focus in real estate and tourist destinations.

Trump embodies the classic flim-flam artist's Pump and Dump strategy. Buy America low, Sell high and make a Killing. But those economics work out terribly for the business operations in the ling run.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:27 pm**

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwz ... e=youtu.be

Mitt Romney speaking on Donald Trump.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:31 pm**

Would it kill people to put a description on their YouTube links?

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:19 pm**

Rip wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwz ... e=youtu.be

Mitt Romney speaking on Donald Trump.

Let's see what he has to say about him today. I suspect...less flattering.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:30 pm**

Moliere wrote:Would it kill people to put a description on their YouTube links?

Yes, as Bob will tell you, if he hadn't DIED WHILE PUTTING A DESCRIPTION IN A YOUTUBE LINK.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:56 pm**

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwz ... e=youtu.be

Mitt Romney speaking on Donald Trump.

Let's see what he has to say about him today. I suspect...less flattering.

Of course, which says all there is to say about ol Mitt, he is essentially a Christie with half the body fat and half the brains. Trump should just tell him like Hillary told that lady the other day. Don't like it, why don't you run for office? Oh wait, that's right you already did. Get outta my face loser.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:00 pm**

Smoove_B wrote:Yeah, there are like 8 or so newspapers in NJ calling for his resignation. He essentially came back to NJ (after being gone the better part of a year), announced the end of his run, argued with a bunch of local politicians and then flew off to Florida to stand behind Drumpf. It's disgraceful - even for a NJ governor.

I loved that he only returned to nominate a NJ Supreme Court judge that was essentially already rejected (to build conservative street cred)....would only talk to the Press about one subject....his dead upon arrival Supreme Court nominee....and then fled to grovel for neo-Wallace. He is a useless sack of shit. I can't believe we are stuck with this asshole for 2 more years.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:08 pm**

Will you trade for Governor Rauner? I'll take a DOA Supreme Court nominee over a DOA state budget.

Posted: **Wed Mar 02, 2016 11:24 pm**

Donald Drumpf releases his healthcare reform plan. It seems to be basically a cobbled together best hits list of yesteryear's Republican healthcare "reform" derpitude. And they are oddly conflicting now. For instance, we'll cater to state's rights - since they know what is best for their citizens and propose expanding Medicaid block grants. And then we'll take away those state right's by not allowing them to regulate insurance companies (i.e. the old allow insurance to be sold across state lines). How does that save money? No one is really sure but fuck it just pitch it out there as a legitimate solution again!

After his 7 point plan he blow's on the old illegal immigrant's stealing our healthcare dog whistle by saying that $11 Billion is wasted on dirty brown people (a whopping 0.3% of the countries healthcare spend by GDP annually). I guess tackling that massive problem will fix the healthcare system.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:06 am**

If you can't deport them over that big wall, let them die?

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:40 am**

Zarathud wrote:If you can't deport them over that big wall, let them die?

Mr. Trump doesn't like that word.

On his behalf, allow me;

Never say that you can't do something, or that something seems impossible, or that something can't be done, no matter how discouraging or harrowing it may be; human beings are limited only by what we allow ourselves to be limited by: our own minds. We are each the masters of our own reality; when we become self-aware to this: absolutely anything in the world is possible.

Master yourself, and become king of the world around you. Let no odds, chastisement, exile, doubt, fear, or ANY mental virii prevent you from accomplishing your dreams. Never be a victim of life; be it's conqueror.”

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:28 am**

Someone kick the Rip bot. It's randomly quoting people again.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:30 am**

hepcat wrote:Someone kick the Rip bot. It's randomly quoting people again.

Hmmmm...someone seems to have changed it's setting from the default "pictures of Hillary" setting to "quotable phrases."

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 9:51 am**

Rip wrote: On his behalf, allow me;

Never say that you can't do something, or that something seems impossible, or that something can't be done, no matter how big or small your inheritance may be; human beings are limited only by what we get from our daddies: our own trust fund. We are each the masters of our own portfolio; when we become self-aware to this: absolutely anything in the world is possible, as long as it's tasteless, gaudy and yuge enough.

Master yourself, and become a short-fingered vulgarian. Let no truth, fact, woman, or colored person prevent you from accomplishing your dreams. Never be a victim of life; be it's conqueror.”

Fixed it for both of you.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:52 am**

Jesus H. Christ. When you've caused Ben Stein to come out and indicate that he'd rather vote for Hillary GD Clinton over the GOP nominee, you've fuct up to an unimaginable degree. They don't come more conservative than Stein (aside from his support of single payer healthcare).

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:13 am**

RunningMn9 wrote:Jesus H. Christ. When you've caused Ben Stein to come out and indicate that he'd rather vote for Hillary GD Clinton over the GOP nominee, you've fuct up to an unimaginable degree. They don't come more conservative than Stein (aside from his support of single payer healthcare).

To be fair, at the time that he was advocating for single-payer healthcare (during the Nixon administration), that was a perfectly sensible position for a Republican to take. The times were a little different.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 11:38 am**

TrumpOS patched to version 2.0

This was a strikingly different Donald Trump who met reporters last night. His tone was conciliatory. He was quietly spoken. He said he would be a unifier - of the Republican Party, of the nation. He didn't crow and he didn't claim to be the nominee, but he clearly thinks the primary race is effectively over.

This was a man not looking to the next primary, the next bit of slog along that long and exhausting road. This was a man with an eye on the much bigger fight in November, and his presumptive opponent Hillary Clinton.

He graciously congratulated Ted Cruz over his wins in Texas and Oklahoma. No mention last night of him being the biggest liar he's ever met. And no demeaning of Marco Rubio either. Were it not for the unmistakable blonde hair and the family members at his side, you might have been forgiven for thinking an impostor had entered the room.

But no, it was Donald 2.0 that we had with us. The trouble, though, when you upload a new operating system (OS) is there are inevitable bugs and glitches. And the new OS takes a bit of getting used to.

And there will be many who say what brought me to the product was the original software. So can and will the new magnanimous Donald be able to keep up this new modus operandi, and will his army of fans like what they see?

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:13 pm**

Rip wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwz ... e=youtu.be

Mitt Romney speaking on Donald Trump.

Let's see what he has to say about him today. I suspect...less flattering.
Of course, which says all there is to say about ol Mitt, he is essentially a Christie with half the body fat and half the brains. Trump should just tell him like Hillary told that lady the other day. Don't like it, why don't you run for office? Oh wait, that's right you already did. Get outta my face loser.

It says that he's willing to hold his nose if it helps him (what politician doesn't?) but when push comes to shove, he'll make it clear what he really thinks of Trump. I can't really ask much more of a politician, because if I did, they probably couldn't get elected to the PTA, let alone get the Republican nomination.

I'm not a fan of Romney, and even though I'm happy he's come out against Trump, that doesn't make me like him him more. Well, I'm happy he ISN'T pulling a Christie, and doing the right thing. Or at least a more right thing.

Basically I cut him some slack because being a politician is hard. People are fickle.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:24 pm**

El Guapo wrote:To be fair, at the time that he was advocating for single-payer healthcare (during the Nixon administration), that was a perfectly sensible position for a Republican to take. The times were a little different.

I wasn't judging his support for the position - I was simply noting that he still has it, and that it's the only position that he has that I am aware of that is out of touch with the modern conservative platform.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:29 pm**

There was some babbling on the Today show about some Republicans forming a committee to find a non-Trump candidate to run -- I suppose they would be bypassing the convention by doing so. Hillary's campaign should consider funding this initiative.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:38 pm**

Jeff V wrote:There was some babbling on the Today show about some Republicans forming a committee to find a non-Trump candidate to run -- I suppose they would be bypassing the convention by doing so. Hillary's campaign should consider funding this initiative.

They can't bypass the convention, but they don't have to. If Trump doesn't have a majority at the convention (he'll almost certainly have a plurality), he'll lose the first ballot. Elected delegates are only bound to the voter's choice for that ballot, so from that point forward it's all drama and bribery. Literally anyone could be chosen by the party then, and it would all be rules-legal.

Of course Trump's people would riot in the streets and Cleveland 2016 would look like Chicago 1968, but to the party it might be worth it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:43 pm**

All he needs to do is start the attacks on Hillary and both Cruz and Rubio will fade into obscurity. Trump is built for this -- and that's what is so awesome (and terrifying). Honestly - in your darkest of hearts can you picture anyone other than Trump stiggin' it to Hillary in attack ads and speeches? Of course not. I feel like this has been the longest con that has ever been conned and we're about to see what happens when a loudmouth TV personality is given the ability to run for President.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:47 pm**

Holman wrote:
Jeff V wrote:There was some babbling on the Today show about some Republicans forming a committee to find a non-Trump candidate to run -- I suppose they would be bypassing the convention by doing so. Hillary's campaign should consider funding this initiative.
They can't bypass the convention, but they don't have to. If Trump doesn't have a majority at the convention (he'll almost certainly have a plurality), he'll lose the first ballot. Elected delegates are only bound to the voter's choice for that ballot, so from that point forward it's all drama and bribery. Literally anyone could be chosen by the party then, and it would all be rules-legal.

Of course Trump's people would riot in the streets and Cleveland 2016 would look like Chicago 1968, but to the party it might be worth it.

I don't see how a brokered convention leading to a non-Trump nominee, in the likely scenario where Trump as a plurality of delegates going in, would make any sense for the party. Trump's supporters would (rationally, in this case) be completely livid, and under those circumstances Trump would almost have to mount an independent bid. Whomever the official nominee would get <1% of Trump voters, and it's really hard to see how the official nominee beats Clinton in that scenario.

So the party almost certainly loses the presidential vote. On top of that, one major upside to the GOP establishment from a Trump nomination is that, after he most likely loses, they can use that in intra-party fights thereafter (see? We did it your way and we got crushed! So let's do it our way next time). A brokered convention would totally demolish their ability to make that argument, and in fact would probably lead the Trump faction to redouble their efforts (possibly to actually form a third party).

So why do it?

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:49 pm**

So much for the integrity of the Party.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0kTaBFUpdI

Don't see how any of them could be taken at the word again.

At least someone sees the danger of this approach.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:55 pm**

El Guapo wrote:So why do it?

So they can still sleep at night.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:02 pm**

RunningMn9 wrote:
El Guapo wrote:So why do it?
So they can still sleep at night.

It just seems like the worst of all worlds for them - a democratic president and no leverage to shut the crazies up.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:08 pm**

Smoove_B wrote:All he needs to do is start the attacks on Hillary and both Cruz and Rubio will fade into obscurity. Trump is built for this -- and that's what is so awesome (and terrifying). Honestly - in your darkest of hearts can you picture anyone other than Trump stiggin' it to Hillary in attack ads and speeches? Of course not. I feel like this has been the longest con that has ever been conned and we're about to see what happens when a loudmouth TV personality is given the ability to run for President.

Trump doesn't do nuanced attacks. He does name calling and attacks on a person's looks and perceived image. What happens when Trump attacks a woman's looks and image?

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:08 pm**

Trump still says he's open to running third party given the amount being spent on negative ads on him.

While I think he would still be able to meet the deadlines of all or almost all the states for filing as an independent, what about sore loser laws? How many states would that disqualify him from?

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:11 pm**

El Guapo wrote: Whomever the official nominee would get <1% of Trump voters

Or maybe 32%:

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:20 pm**

Defiant wrote:
El Guapo wrote: Whomever the official nominee would get <1% of Trump voters
Or maybe 32%:

That's going to go up if Trump loses a brokered convention after getting a plurality of the delegates (especially if his lead is substantial). Trump supporters are generally speaking inclined to view the GOP establishment as a bunch of liars who will say the right thing and then immediately sell out their interests in a backroom deal. This would be the purest embodiment of that fear.

On top of that, losing 68% of Trump voters, in a scenario where he's received enough votes to get a plurality of delegates, would almost certainly be enough to sink the GOP nominee's prospects (depending on where those voters live). The GOP nominee has a shot at winning (absent a Trump third party bid), but it's hard to see the nominee winning by a lot, and so hard to see how they could survive losing that many votes.

Posted: **Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:23 pm**

Incidentally, since I can see the future, here's what's going to happen:

Trump gets a large plurality of votes (finishes 30% above the second-place candidate), but short of a majority. A panicked GOP establishment gives the nomination to Rubio in Cleveland. In the two weeks leading up to the GOP convention, meanwhile, Clinton is indicted and forced to drop out of the race. Trump immediately flies to DNC headquarters, emerging with a deal to run as the democratic nominee. Trump immediately switches his rhetoric to Occupy Wall Street populism, insisting that is what he has always advocated. He retains his supporters and trounces Rubio in the general election. Shortly after taking office he pardons Hillary, noting in his statement that he has "always known those charges were garbage, and always respected Secretary Clinton tremendously."

Octopus Overlords

The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow

Re: The Art of the Donald Trump Sideshow