Trump Doesn't Own Most Of The Products He Pitched Last Night

[emperus]

lol Yeah, it's a shame that Trump supporters can't have high IQs like the Democrats that need other people to pay for their health care, education, day care, cell phone, broadband, birth control . . .

Hey, look at the bright side: Without those low IQ people, all the high IQ people wouldn't have any free government-distributed shit. We can't all be ticks, some of us have to be the dog.

Yeah, I think you need to take a look at the Map of Democratic States and Republican States and how much each state receives from the Fed government vs. what they give.

And really, the Republican party is about to elect Trump as it's candidate. You are really talking about the party of Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, George Bush and Heman "999" Cain. Please.

Have you watched any of the Republican debates? My gosh. This is one hilarious post.

 

[Fern]

You're getting too cute by half. If he doesn't legally own it, he doesn't own it.

Are we really arguing this? The winery put out a statement saying he doesn't own it. The statement is very very explicit and carefully worded and moreso very surprising that it said what it said. They went out of their way to disavow any association with Donald Trump and any of his affiliates.

The defense of Trump is taking on some epic proportions.

As my posts demonstrate it is entirely possible to both legally own 0% and 100%. It depends upon which legal purpose and which law(s) are in play.

Yes, the statement is rather explicit. But if you understand the (legal) point I'm making you'll understand it may have 'holes' in it. E.g., I do not believe the statement excludes the possibility that the company is "owned" (or held) in a Trump trust.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Dismiss the winery. What about the others?

I do not contend that the possibility I raise dismisses the winery. I question the statement, that's all.

The only other one I heard about was the steaks. I heard someone claiming the steak thingy went out of business in 2004 (IIRC). I have not confirmed that. But if it did, Trump is mistaken or lying. That would be a huge mistake or an incredibly stupid lie.

Mostly I don't care. This whole thing was started by Romney and others claiming that Trump is not a successful business person etc. as he claims. Well, I have confirmed enough through independent sites (e.g., Forbes) to know he is very successful by any definition I know of. IMO, that's the real point and litigating details, the info of which we're not likely to reliably obtain, is rather pointless.

And I don't care if his net worth is $1B, $4B or $10B; $1B is so much money to me that I can't imagine spending it all if I lived a hundred more years. (It's also an unknowable and unprovable number because it depends upon the estimation of FMV, which is an inherently subjective thing.)

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

As my posts demonstrate it is entirely possible to both legally own 0% and 100%. It depends upon which legal purpose and which law(s) are in play.

Yes, the statement is rather explicit. But if you understand the (legal) point I'm making you'll understand it may have 'holes' in it. E.g., I do not believe the statement excludes the possibility that the company is "owned" (or held) in a Trump trust.

Fern

It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

 

[Fern]

It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

Actually it depends upon the intended meaning of the word "affiliated". While we use that in tax law that was clearly not a 'tax statement'. A quick search yesterday indicated that there are three (other) legal definitions, again dependent upon the type of law in play.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Actually it depends upon the intended meaning of the word "affiliated". While we use that in tax law that was clearly not a 'tax statement'. A quick search yesterday indicated that there are three (other) legal definitions, again dependent upon the type of law in play.

Fern

So again, when Trump says he 'owns something 100%' and that entity says they are 'not owned' by Trump, you want to say the result is ambiguous.

If you want to parse reality in that way that's fine, I just don't want to see you complaining about politicians parsing phrases in advantageous ways in the future.

I mean when you've gone from '100% owned' to equal '0% owned' there's basically nowhere further to go on the spin scale.