Donald Trump will retain his role as executive producer of 'The Apprentice'

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

I guess he should give up the money to keep you pedants happy.

[Soeroah]

"You have a superiority complex, that's why you lost."

"I have a degree and an IQ of 140."


Lol. No wonder Trump appealed to him.

[Elegiac]

I guess he should give up the money to keep you pedants happy.

Yes, he should. He should be liquidating his assets and putting them in a blind trust -not- managed by his family members.

Then again, it isn't corruption when the fuhrer does it, now is it?

[BourneWolf]

Why do 'working class' votes matter more than everyone else's?

Aha !!! I was waiting for somebody to incorrectly assume i was talking about a working class vote (that would have usually turned into a "you're racist" comment).

I wasn't.

The vote that matters is the WINNING vote.


Ta Da !!

[Deleted]

The zealotry from the right is insane, seems like they build their reasons just on spite.

[XDurionX]

Wow, this gets more ridiculous by the day. A fucking tv show is more important than office to him.

[BourneWolf]

The zealotry from the right is insane, seems like they build their reasons just on spite.

My Brexit vote was exactly that.

A spite vote.

A justified spite vote. But a spite vote nonetheless. This is not new news.

The bigger question is why the hell did the Left fail to recognise the levels of spite they were causing?

[Elegiac]

Aha !!! I was waiting for somebody to incorrectly assume i was talking about a working class vote (that would have usually turned into a "you're racist" comment).

I wasn't.

The vote that matters is the WINNING vote.

Ta Da !!

So you admit that Trump does not have a popular mandate, he is not the candidate that even a plurality of Americans want, and his policies are not supported by a majority of Americans. Good to know.

- - - Updated - - -

My Brexit vote was exactly that.

A spite vote.

A justified spite vote. But a spite vote nonetheless. This is not new news.

We're aware that the 'Leave' votes were not based on rational assessment of the facts.

[vetinari]

Yes, he should. He should be liquidating his assets and putting them in a blind trust -not- managed by his family members.

Then again, it isn't corruption when the fuhrer does it, now is it?

Explain precisely how him keeping his wealth and having his children run his businesses for him is ipso facto corrupt.

[Deleted]

My Brexit vote was exactly that.

A spite vote.

A justified spite vote. But a spite vote nonetheless. This is not new news.

The bigger question is why the hell did the Left fail to recognise the levels of spite they were causing?

THAT is debatable...

And building your argument simply 'spite spite spite', is a reason why its impossible to have a decent discussion with your kind of people, cause you are so into your own victim complex that you don't see anything else than 'me me me'.

[Elegiac]

Explain precisely how him keeping his wealth and having his children run his businesses for him is ipso facto corrupt.

It doesn't remove the conflict of interest which people in the vein of Trump are more than willing to take advantage of, for one.

[Soeroah]

Explain precisely how him keeping his wealth and having his children run his businesses for him is ipso facto corrupt.

Keeping his wealth is fine, it's the problem that as President he's got the power to make decisions that affect his own income, his own business profits. There have already been foreign ambassadors staying at Trump Tower to get in good with him, which gives him money for being President, and there are reports that he's already asked foreign politicians about letting him build golf courses and shit in their countries, which they'd be more likely to do since he's slated to become president. Even if his children run his businesses for him, as long as he knows what the assets are he can very easily skew decisions toward what benefits his businesses.

Looks like Snopes says he doesn't own Carrier stock, so I'll point that out, but I will say by way of example; if he had owned Carrier stock, his decision to inject $7 million or whatever it was over ten years into "creating jobs" at that company, as a shareholder he would have eventually received some of that taxpayer money back as dividends, which would have encouraged him to pick that company over another, for example, since it ultimately lines his family's pockets.

I guess the level of outrage people feel about him keeping his assets comes down to how corrupt people think the guy is. Personally, I don't see how we can trust a man who one year blasts Time Magazine for being biased, terrible, useless and all manner of insults because they didn't pick him when he should have won, then praised the magazine for the "great honour" when he was named Person of the Year this year. The guy's hypocritical as fuck, changes his position on a whim, thinks no one will notice/that he can dismiss evidence that he's changed his position more than Australia's changed its prime ministers in the last decade as being "media bias", and apparently wants to change freedom of speech laws to outlaw flag burning as a method of political expression despite the US Supreme Court holding it as a legal way to express oneself, while simultaneously apparently insisting the second amendment is more iron-clad and unchangeable than that first amendment.

The guy got through the election process by saying whatever would benefit him. You can't really blame people for thinking he'll continue to do so.

[BourneWolf]

So you admit that Trump does not have a popular mandate, he is not the candidate that even a plurality of Americans want, and his policies are not supported by a majority of Americans. Good to know.

- - - Updated - - -



We're aware that the 'Leave' votes were not based on rational assessment of the facts.

Trump is a smart guy. To think otherwise is an underestimation.

He played to the voting system, which is why he won.

Had the rules been different, his strategy would have bern different. Its likely he still would have won.

This is the difference between theorycrafting and being dynamic.

Which is also the reason why all these Lefty economists keep getting it so very badly wrong.

The USA and UK economy will both thrive under Trump and Brexit.

[Deleted]

The presidency isn't American Idol.

jealousy is never pretty. 'Stay Woke', you are unworthy of that statement.

[Daerio]

It doesn't remove the conflict of interest which people in the vein of Trump are more than willing to take advantage of, for one.

Conflict of interest only becomes relevant if Trump acts on it. Conflict of interest wasn't a problem when your candidate was Clinton, though.

[Bodakane]

tears of liberals.

yes u are fucked. hopefully xD

u dont understand hard working class u are from another planet xDD

silver-spoon kids

Um....silver spoon kids? Trump was born rich and given $14 million to start is business. He lives in gold plated palace. He shits on the blue color workers that actually work for him. He's defrauded blue collar workers out of $1000's of dollars over a scam school. He wants to take away $15 minimum wage. He wants to take away ACA. And to top it all off, he's assembled the richest cabinet in history, with guys from banks and other people who shit on their blue collar workers.

Delusion, thy name is Trump Supporter

[BourneWolf]

Keeping his wealth is fine, it's the problem that as President he's got the power to make decisions that affect his own income, his own business profits. There have already been foreign ambassadors staying at Trump Tower to get in good with him, which gives him money for being President, and there are reports that he's already asked foreign politicians about letting him build golf courses and shit in their countries, which they'd be more likely to do since he's slated to become president. Even if his children run his businesses for him, as long as he knows what the assets are he can very easily skew decisions toward what benefits his businesses.

Looks like Snopes says he doesn't own Carrier stock, so I'll point that out, but I will say by way of example; if he had owned Carrier stock, his decision to inject $7 million or whatever it was over ten years into "creating jobs" at that company, as a shareholder he would have eventually received some of that taxpayer money back as dividends, which would have encouraged him to pick that company over another, for example, since it ultimately lines his family's pockets.

I guess the level of outrage people feel about him keeping his assets comes down to how corrupt people think the guy is. Personally, I don't see how we can trust a man who one year blasts Time Magazine for being biased, terrible, useless and all manner of insults because they didn't pick him when he should have won, then praised the magazine for the "great honour" when he was named Person of the Year this year. The guy's hypocritical as fuck, changes his position on a whim, thinks no one will notice/that he can dismiss evidence that he's changed his position more than Australia's changed its prime ministers in the last decade as being "media bias", and apparently wants to change freedom of speech laws to outlaw flag burning as a method of political expression despite the US Supreme Court holding it as a legal way to express oneself, while simultaneously apparently insisting the second amendment is more iron-clad and unchangeable than that first amendment.

The guy got through the election process by saying whatever would benefit him. You can't really blame people for thinking he'll continue to do so.

Whats the difference in raising funds one way, or raising funds another way?

The same lines of family have been in the USA Government since the........1800's is it? The same gene pool running the political establishment.

All of them raised funds to secure their positions of power. Trump might be doing it in Real Estate which could be viewed as a different way to raise funds than historically has been done, but its the exact same thing that has always gone on.

Who the heck do you think the investors are that historically backed Government parties? The tooth fairies?

What about selling weapons in the middle east to raise fund for the same thing? You ok with that?

Trump looks like a goddam Saint raising cash through real estate compared with Government dealings of the past.

[Bodakane]

Whats the difference in raising funds one way, or raising funds another way?

The same lines of family have been in the USA Government since the........1800's is it? The same gene pool running the political establishment.

All of them raised funds to secure their positions of power. Trump might be doing it in Real Estate which could be viewed as a different way to raise funds than historically has been done, but its the exact same thing that has always gone on.

Who the heck do you think the investors are that historically backed Government parties? The tooth fairies?

What about selling weapons in the middle east to raise fund for the same thing? You ok with that?

Trump looks like a goddam Saint raising cash through real estate compared with Government dealings of the past.

I guess you don't understand the phrase, "conflict of interest".

[Huehuecoyotl]

My Brexit vote was exactly that.

A spite vote.

A justified spite vote. But a spite vote nonetheless. This is not new news.

The bigger question is why the hell did the Left fail to recognise the levels of spite they were causing?

What in the ever loving name of fuck have the left got to do with the spite around Brexit? Are you under the delusion that the Daily Mail are left? Because a fair amount of the hatred generated in the Brexit campaign came from them, and their dehumanisation of immigrants. And the Sun, of course, which also isn't left. Maybe you think Blair's Labour government caused the spite? I have news for you, they were barely any closer to being left than Thatcher was.

The economy was tanked, of course, which generated a fair amount of spite. That was the well known hot-bed of the left, the banking community. That was sarcasm, in case you didn't get it. Some of the blame can be laid at the feet of globalism. Is that something that the left came up with? A means to drive down the security and conditions of working people, in order to maximise the profits of global corporations? Doesn't sound very left to me.

So back to you. Feel free to explain to me what "spite" the left were guilty of creating that caused idiots to vote for Brexit. Unless you are talking about how the left tried to stop moronic racists from casting poor foreign people as being the cause of all their woes? Tried to stand up against the tide of racist vitriol spewing from rags like the Mail, because if they didn't have a foreigner for people's anger to be directed towards, it might actually start being directed against the 1% in this country that caused, profited from, and perpetuate the exact things that caused this spite in the first place.

The left were trying to stop evil, and the money men spun that around into something they could use. And people like you fell for it. And you are now STILL blaming the left for everything that happened. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[Deleted]

Reminder that you guys elected an actor once and the nation still exists.

Maybe you should stop being a bunch of overdramatic pussies.