Printable View
So. Is Gilbert the next big capitalist from Michigan to have a decent shot at the Presidency after Romney? Push comes to shove, 4 or five years down the line, is our Gilbert going to reap the rewards of a city on the up and up? Are property values in the neighborhoods and reenergized cores in Mid and downtown going to be a partial result of his putting his money where his mouth is?
Seems to me he would have a pretty good shot at it from both the élitist and the populist points of view.
As long as they take away his twitter...
Who could possibly follow in Trump's footsteps?
Sure. Why not? We've had worse.
A great business man does not make a great politian. How many state people that have been farmers, doctors, and accountants have run this great state into the ground?
I'm left with nothing as far as politics goes. Two years of crap. Why can't we be like the Brit's ?
Nice Vid , Jimaz,
I can always count on you for that stuff.
Now about that Greenbrier -
Dan Gilbert can run as mayor of Detroit than becoming president.
Won't happen. Donald Trump is almost 2 decades older than Dan Gilbert. If you become President, you cannot run your own company anymore--it has to go into a blind trust. In Trump's case, he has openly said his children can run his company while he's president and he won't let them do anymore big, risky deals. It's also a good test for Trump to see if they can run his company successfully without his involvement as he's getting close to passing on.Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
If Gilbert ran for President, he wouldn't be allowed to run his company anymore and it looks like he's still trying to rapidly expand his company. Maybe in two decades when his company has reached its peak and he's ready to let his children take the helm.
Why would any really successful businessman want to take a huge pay cut running for president unless their company reached their peak and they had someone they could really trust not to run their company into the ground while they are still alive?
Not yet. He will when he wants to build his legacy. There comes a point where you have enough money and you want to go in the history books. Nobody will remember a billionaire in 50 years but everyone will remember a president. Trump is 70 years old and wants to go down in the history books and that was the same with Romney.
I'll have to agree with you about the will to dispose of one's ownership in a major company vs the prestige of political power. In Quebec the PQ.s new leader is a billionaire and ex CEO of a major media company and he has had a hard time dealing with the conflict of interest rules thrust upon him by the opposition. In Gilbert's case, it would depend on how comfortable he is with media and the constant and incessant public attention. Business.leaders.like Gilbert are used to playing ball with tons of people on a daily basis so it is a natural extension to reach for political power at that level.Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
Hey everybody! I saw Elvis at the Burger King!!
If the presidential election was say 2018, instead of 2016, I might think Duggan could have been a long shot candidate for VP as a Dem to Clinton.
Hillary needs a male running mate in 2016 and the Dems have a short bench.
He would probably repaint the white house lime green and throw some beanbag chairs in the oval office. You know we're a "cool" administration.
Chuckles... Yes... That is, unless he finds anther Mrs. Gilbert.Quote:
Originally Posted by casscorridor
Why would Duggan ever want to team up with Hillary even as a long shot candidate? Duggan is always talking about how uncorruptable he is and meanwhile Hillary is blatantly corrupt like Kwame with over hundreds of millions of dollars collected by the Clinton Foundation for influence peddling in exchange for using her position as Secretary of State to screw over the public. Want proof? Watch this segment about it from Judge Jeanine Pirro https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2FXo-R4cNkQuote:
Originally Posted by emu steve
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0vufz01qn0
Sorry, but nothing from that hatemonger should be misconstrued as "proof". She follows the well worn path of other Fox "journalists" and uses lies and distortions to pander to the fears of people too lazy to learn the facts from a reliable source. Then she takes it to 11. It must be tough competing for attention on that network.Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ce...b_5524295.html
She's the same one who let that "muslim no go zone" nonsense fly.
One thing she has proven is that she's unreliable.
Don't waste your time.
How exactly does an article about Judge Jeanine Pirro's criticism of Obama discredit the facts relating to Hillary Clinton's corruption as Secretary of State?Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
In the second clip, Jeanine states the different sections of the laws broken by Hillary with exchanging confidential government information on her private e-mail server to avoid transparency--the exact same laws that destroyed General Petraeus' career with a criminal conviction. Why did she delete the server when served with a subpeona for it? After the whole Snowden scandal on leaking government secrets, everybody in Capitol Hill was well aware that keeping confidential government information on a private server in one's home is criminal. Why did she apologize for it if it didn't happen? Why is the FBI still investigating her if there wasn't a breech? Why did the Clinton foundation rewrite and refile their tax returns for the past 5 years? Why is it that out of the $672 million collected by the Clinton Foundation, only 10% went out as charitable grants and the rest went into their pockets, paid salaries, travel expenses, etc. Why is there so many connections between money collected by the Clinton foundation and political favors being returned to the contributors afterwards? So Clinton can do it with impunity and Kwame can't? Please explain.
My point is that the opinions of someone proven to be as incredibly unreliable as Jeanine Pirro should never be cited as proof. That article I referenced dissects many fallacies she has espoused, and I could find plenty of others to make my point if I had the time. Her "Muslim no go zone" nonsense should be evidence enough already. And I know better than to debate the fallacies in your own account of events. That would take much more time.
It's clear to me it was a mistake for Hillary Clinton to use a personal server for government emails. It's also clear to me that in itself was not criminal. No one except people misinformed on the matter is saying it was. In fact, even though it shouldn't have been, it was allowed, and always had been. Government old fogeys are way behind the curve with technology.
And I agree, classified emails are another story. But I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were, I don't have access to enough of the specifics to evaluate whether there was any criminal wrongdoing. There are large teams of people currently looking into this who are much more capable of that job than we are. They have the necessary training and access. I suggest we let them do their work and don't pretend we can do it better than them. And surely you know an investigation is a far cry from an accusation.
As far as the Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories, again, I don't have enough information and don't claim an opinion, but my instinct tells me to be more skeptical here. One thing for sure: there certainly are Clinton haters, just like there are Obama haters, and there were G W Bush haters before that. It's irresponsible of you if you rely on your information from any of them.
You may find a common thread among many of my comments here. I trust facts, and distrust unfounded emotional opinions.
And that's the last I have to say on this matter.
I wish you well.
What you are doing is a fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
A set of facts and a citation of laws broken was presented to reach the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.
You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented.
Just because Judge Pirro added rhetoric to a set of facts doesn't make the facts themselves false. You have to show the facts are false, not challenge the rhetoric, to contradict the conclusion that Hillary is corrupt.
Funny how in your third last sentence you say, "I trust facts, and distrust unfounded emotional opinions."; yet, you don't offer any facts to the contrary, just an unfounded emotional opinion like "... my instinct tells me to be more skeptical here."
So, based on your own reasoning, why should anyone trust what you said? It's kinda like Kwame saying he's innocent and his political rivals are just out to get him so it has no merit, when the facts proved he was corrupt.
"You respond by attacking the presenter of facts--Judge Pirro--instead of offering any facts that contradict the facts presented."Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
You discredit the source is the source is crappy.
In this case, Pirro is about as reliable of a source as wikipedia -- crap.
She's a shill for Fox Entertainment who will say anything that will keep the checks coming.
Her opinion holds about as much weight as a set of Styrofoam balls; therefore, she is merely a secondary source, as best, and considering her past spew -- her words are far from facts.
Now, bring up this argument and cite some primary sources; then I'm sure we can all talk about it. But using her as a source of "fact" is just not right.
You're doing the exact same thing. You know the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion", right? Just because you disagree with an "opinion" doesn't invalidate the "facts". Facts were presented. If you disagree with the facts, present contradictory facts to prove your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baselinepunk
It's ironic you say that because the whole problem with your argument is you take Jeannine Pirro's opinions as fact. She presents them as facts; she's nothing if not bluster. But that doesn't make them facts. She has a proven proclivity to misrepresent facts. Don't be fooled.Quote:
Originally Posted by davewindsor
See if you can back up her "facts" with a reputable source. It doesn't have to be a "liberal" one. It can be the Wall Street Journal, which like Fox is owned by Murdoch. Just don't take them from their opinion page. Especially not their op-ed page. By definition those are opinions, not facts.
There is no point discussing this with someone who doesn't understand the difference. I have the humility to admit when I don't have enough facts to formulate an opinion I can back up. And I don't have enough facts to debate your opinions. Neither do you.
Besides that it's no one else's job to do your research. We've been trying to point you in the right direction. Or at least to point you away from the wrong one where you've been. The rest is up to you. Until then, try some humility too.
How can one show humility when they see corruption??Quote:
Originally Posted by bust
It's an undeniable fact that Hillary broke the law with the private e-mail server. She even apologized for doing it [[admission of guilt right there). It's also a fact about influence peddling with the Clinton foundation. You see the favours returned to contributors that make donations to the foundation. It's a matter of record; they are not opinions.
It's your turn to provide facts to the contrary if you disagree--not an opinion piece that attacks her opinion. That's your job if you want to keep debating this. Why should I provide another article citing facts so you can just attack the writer of that article too without any factual basis. Her case is proven with facts. Watch both videos. It's all there.
"How can one show humility when they see corruption??
It's an undeniable fact that Hillary broke the law with the private e-mail server. She even apologized for doing it [[admission of guilt right there). It's also a fact about influence peddling with the Clinton foundation. You see the favours returned to contributors that make donations to the foundation. It's a matter of record; they are not opinions.
It's your turn to provide facts to the contrary if you disagree--not an opinion piece that attacks her opinion. That's your job if you want to keep debating this. Why should I provide another article citing facts so you can just attack the writer of that article too without any factual basis. Her case is proven with facts. Watch both videos. It's all there.How can one show humility when they see corruption??
It's an undeniable fact that Hillary broke the law with the private e-mail server. She even apologized for doing it [[admission of guilt right there). It's also a fact about influence peddling with the Clinton foundation. You see the favours returned to contributors that make donations to the foundation. It's a matter of record; they are not opinions.
It's your turn to provide facts to the contrary if you disagree--not an opinion piece that attacks her opinion. That's your job if you want to keep debating this. Why should I provide another article citing facts so you can just attack the writer of that article too without any factual basis. Her case is proven with facts. Watch both videos. It's all there."
Oh for fucking crying out loud.
Hey Horse; this is water. It's cool, wet and refreshing and I seriously suggest that you take advantage of this opportunity. However, in the end, Horse, it's up to you to drink it.