Trump University - a fraud according to students

[Jhhnn]

And you forget the main point. We are all being conned by the entire political class.

That some people took seminars/classes that cost a lot of money were encouraged to lever up to buy property isn't new. Not a great idea but not new.

I still fail to see how that was any different than being the chancellor of a school that charged 60k/yr for a dubious degree. I am assuming that the 60k/yr wasn't paid for by using leverage. Ohh, that isn't a great assumption, is it.

I would say the only person that isn't a con man is bernie. He actually believes in what he is selling. What he is selling is ruinous, but at least he isnt trying to cash in.

"Honorary Chancellor", please. That's like an honorary degree.

 

[fskimospy]

LA raza, scholarships to illegals.

So being part of a hispanic law association makes a judge biased against Donald Trump? Are you joking? If not, that's insanely racist.

It is pretty funny what that implicitly acknowledges though, that you think Trump's racism against Hispanics is so extreme that anyone who belongs to a Hispanic advocacy organization would be inherently biased against him, haha.

 

[LegendKiller]

"Honorary Chancellor", please. That's like an honorary degree.

Didn't stop him from getting a not so honorary 16mm. Let's see, applying a 30% default rate on the student loans taken out to finance his honorary 16mm, that means he owes the us taxpayers 5.3mm.

 

[jackstar7]

This is like pure, uncut LK. The hard stuff.

Manage your dosage, everyone.

 

[zinfamous]

Funny coming from a fraud of a businesswoman (Wall St. speeches), wife to the fraud of a chancellor of a fraudulent school, fraud of a Sec State who has lied repeatedly about what happened.

Please explain how this is fraud.

And do it slowly--it seems that most of us are not as lucid as you.

 

[LegendKiller]

So being part of a hispanic law association makes a judge biased against Donald Trump? Are you joking? If not, that's insanely racist.

It is pretty funny what that implicitly acknowledges though, that you think Trump's racism against Hispanics is so extreme that anyone who belongs to a Hispanic advocacy organization would be inherently biased against him, haha.

No, I think it makes people who accept and advocate for illegal immigration potentially biased against him since he wants to end it. I'd feel the same way if it were a judge that belonged to an organization that advocated for more h1bs in fields that have underemployment from Americans.

That you ignore such conflicts provides more evidence of your own biases.

 

[fskimospy]

No, I think it makes people who accept and advocate for illegal immigration potentially biased against him since he wants to end it. I'd feel the same way if it were a judge that belonged to an organization that advocated for more h1bs in fields that have underemployment from Americans.

That you ignore such conflicts provides more evidence of your own biases.

So in other words any judge that holds personal policy preferences that are different than those of Donald Trump is biased against him. That is a comically absurd standard. By that logic no judge can rule on any case involving a politician basically ever as they will invariably disagree on some policy issues.

That you think such a conflict would be evidence of meaningful bias is more evidence of your own bias. You just swallow whatever he tells you uncritically. Straight from the Trump University playbook, people act emotionally then use logic to rationalize the decision they made.

 

[Spungo]

Please explain how this is fraud.

Speech and consulting work is notoriously linked to fraud. Every time we catch people skimming money, it's due to consulting. The brother of a politician will get paid six figures for "consulting" work that involves staying at home and watching TV.

Ben Bernanke was famously taking bribes after he stepped down from the fed. Being able to front run the central bank is worth billions of dollars, so he sold that information to hedge funds. They would pay half a million dollars for a dinner with him where they could ask questions. Is it legal to sell insider information to hedge funds? Technically it's legal, but it's disgraceful behavior that should be publicly shamed.

Is it legal to take bribes from your friends in exchange for immunity from prosecution? Sure it's legal, but it's still immoral. A common type of fraud is when people with power are given jobs as directors of a company. This allows for massive fraud to take place because the directors can stop all investigations of fraud.
Theranos board of directors - Plenty of political connections, little relevant expertise

And while it’s probably useful to have a retired government official or two to teach and offer good leadership skills, when there are six with no medical or technology experience—with an average age, get this, of 80—one wonders just how plugged in they are to Theranos’ day-to-day activities. Nor is there anyone with formal accounting or auditing expertise or legal expertise, which may now become an issue, based on the questions raised in the Journal’s article.

You can probably guess what happened next. As expected, a board comprised of people with political power and no real expertise turned out to be covering up massive fraud. It was a pump and dump scheme. They made bullshit claims about what the company could do, and its political directors would keep groups like the SEC or the FDA at bay long enough to scam billions of dollars from investors.

So yes, we do have a reason to be suspicious when private companies pay huge sums of money for "speeches" or "consulting" work, or when a politician is given a seat in the boardroom.

 

[chucky2]

So in other words any judge that holds personal policy preferences that are different than those of Donald Trump is biased against him. That is a comically absurd standard. By that logic no judge can rule on any case involving a politician basically ever as they will invariably disagree on some policy issues.

That you think such a conflict would be evidence of meaningful bias is more evidence of your own bias. You just swallow whatever he tells you uncritically. Straight from the Trump University playbook, people act emotionally then use logic to rationalize the decision they made.

It's so weird you'd bring Billary and Sanders voters into this discussion... :thumbsup: LOL Oh Nickie... :wub:

 

[brycejones]

It's not duhflecting. I don't deny that Trump u was terrible. i have said many times on here that all for profit schools should be either shut down or completely eliminated from government grants and loans.

I just think it is disengenuous for hillbilly to use it against Trump when she herself has massively benefitted from the same exact schemes.

Further, I find it suspicious that the firm pushing this has such close ties to her and the judge doesn't exactly seem impartial.

Trying to shift the discussion to alleged schemes by Hillary is deflecting.

 

[0roo0roo]

The hypocrisy on this issue is hard to take.

Burden on tax payer while generating massive student debt, and creating parasitism on productive society...

Close these down and then you can talk.

The left have long been masters of legitimizing fraud.

 

[Jhhnn]

Speech and consulting work is notoriously linked to fraud.

I'll grant that consulting sometimes falls into that realm.

How does giving a speech play into fraud?

 

[Jhhnn]

The hypocrisy on this issue is hard to take.

Burden on tax payer while generating massive student debt, and creating parasitism on productive society...

Close these down and then you can talk.

The left have long been masters of legitimizing fraud.

That's rich coming from conservatives who wear their persecution complex like a badge of honor.

 

[LegendKiller]

Trying to shift the discussion to alleged schemes by Hillary is deflecting.

So morality is not relative?

The statement Pot calling kettle black has no value?

 

[LegendKiller]

I'll grant that consulting sometimes falls into that realm.

How does giving a speech play into fraud?

Lol. And you call trump supporters misled.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol. And you call trump supporters misled.

That's beyond empty LK, particularly since the question wasn't directed at you.

Perhaps Spungo will grace my question with an honest answer.

 

[LegendKiller]

That's beyond empty LK, particularly since the question wasn't directed at you.

Perhaps Spungo will grace my question with an honest answer.

No, what is beyond empty is that you fail to see any way that her peddling global influence is a bad thing.

You don't even care what she said to goldman. It doesn't matter to you they have accumulated over 100mm in no time as a revolving door of money snd influence. Hilarious.

 

[Spungo]

I'll grant that consulting sometimes falls into that realm.

How does giving a speech play into fraud?

Because it's a legal way to pay her money in exchange for favors. They can't just hand her a bag of cash. She gives a 20 minute speech, collects a huge check, leaves. As far as the law is concerned, the money is for the speech, but everyone involved knows what the money is really for. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

It's worth mentioning that the order of the bribes isn't always payment then action. It can also be action then payment. Example: a politician creates some bill that hands billions of dollars to drug companies. The politician then retires and gets hired as a "consultant" for one of those drug companies and collects a 7 figure salary. This happens all the time. It's almost considered strange when a politician doesn't go on to work for the companies he gave billions of dollars to.

She's about 100 pounds too thin and she's not wearing the required problematic glasses. Also, pink hair and red lipstick. See:
aposematism




edit
This way of transferring illegal or semi-legal money is also why it's laughable when central banks talk about banning cash to stop crime. They know damn well that it won't make a difference since big crime doesn't involved cash in the first place. The really skilled criminals even report all of their income to the government and pay tax on it. This is why businesses act as fronts for things. In the show Breaking Bad, they had that car wash. When the car wash isn't big enough to launder all of the money, they grow the business by starting some kind of real estate company or consulting company.
When I read through financial statements of companies I want to invest in, I'm always amazed by the complexity of their schemes. The company I'm buying shares of will be the parent holding company. The parent holding company owns 100% of a retail subsidiary called Company A, but the real estate is owned by another subsidiary called Company B, and the finance is done by another subsidiary called Company C. Company A will borrow money from Company C in order to pay rental fees to Company B. I'm not entirely sure why they do this, but I think it has something to do with managing earnings. Shifting costs between various subsidiaries can lower the tax burden, create paper losses as needed, create paper gains as needed, etc.

I bet Trump would be able to spot all of the underhanded shit Hillary does, particularly with her Clinton Foundation "charity" scam. It sometimes takes a criminal to spot a criminal. Trump gets a lot of crap for bankruptcies, but bankruptcy is a smart move when you know how to do it properly. If one business is failing, what you do is sell all of its valuable assets to your successful company at a steep liquidation discount. The successful company gets $1 worth of assets while only paying $0.10 for them, the failed company's creditor is left holding the bag, and the creditor can't go after the successful company because each company is a separate entity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Because it's a legal way to pay her money in exchange for favors. They can't just hand her a bag of cash. She gives a 20 minute speech, collects a huge check, leaves. As far as the law is concerned, the money is for the speech, but everyone involved knows what the money is really for. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Nice conspiracy theory.

You apparently don't realize that speaking fees are one of the purest forms of the free market currently extant. Speakers balance their fees against the amount of time they want to put into making speeches, the vast majority of that being behind the scenes in writing speeches. They'll speak or not speak for anybody they choose.

The people paying big for the speeches obviously want more than the mindless meanderings of a Sarah Palin. Their participation is entirely voluntary, as well.

The whole thing is based on what the market will bear.

Here's a list of some of the fees charged by the famous-

http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

Many seem to think the highest possible legitimate speaking fee couldn’t be over $10,000, and anything higher must be a bribe. But looking at the list below, it’s obvious no one is bribing Charlie Rose, Lady Gaga or Larry the Cable Guy, or any of the other 120 people who get paid $200,000 or more per speech.

 

[LegendKiller]

Nice conspiracy theory.

You apparently don't realize that speaking fees are one of the purest forms of the free market currently extant. Speakers balance their fees against the amount of time they want to put into making speeches, the vast majority of that being behind the scenes in writing speeches. They'll speak or not speak for anybody they choose.

The people paying big for the speeches obviously want more than the mindless meanderings of a Sarah Palin. Their participation is entirely voluntary, as well.

The whole thing is based on what the market will bear.

Here's a list of some of the fees charged by the famous-

http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

A well known media interviewer (entertainer), a well know singer (entertainer), and a well known comedian. You are paying for entertainment.

For hillary, you're paying for political access. If not, why won't she release transcripts.

 

[Spungo]

For hillary, you're paying for political access. If not, why won't she release transcripts.

I'm guessing her transcript doesn't even say anything illegal, but it shows her true colors. It's important to present the image of being a fighter for the people, and that generally means fighting against big corporations like banks and oil companies.

Elizabeth Warren has all kinds of stories about speeches she gave to banks and credit agencies, which makes sense because that actually is (or was) her profession. One that comes to mind is when she said she gave them a presentation of how to reduce the number of loans going into default. Someone in the audience then said that loans going into default is how they make most of their money. She's not afraid to share stories like this because she knows her presentations and speeches agree with the public image she is portraying.

 

[jackstar7]

For hillary, you're paying for political access. If not, why won't she release transcripts.

Trump taxes...?

No, not related. Nevermind.

 

[ivwshane]

A well known media interviewer (entertainer), a well know singer (entertainer), and a well known comedian. You are paying for entertainment.

For hillary, you're paying for political access. If not, why won't she release transcripts.

Political access? Be specific. What exactly will they be getting?

She won't release her transcripts for the same reason trump won't release his tax returns. What would that reason be legendkiller?

 

[ivwshane]

I'm guessing her transcript doesn't even say anything illegal, but it shows her true colors. It's important to present the image of being a fighter for the people, and that generally means fighting against big corporations like banks and oil companies.

Elizabeth Warren has all kinds of stories about speeches she gave to banks and credit agencies, which makes sense because that actually is (or was) her profession. One that comes to mind is when she said she gave them a presentation of how to reduce the number of loans going into default. Someone in the audience then said that loans going into default is how they make most of their money. She's not afraid to share stories like this because she knows her presentations and speeches agree with the public image she is portraying.

Her true colors? You mean it will show whatever you want it to show.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/inside-the-clinton-paid-speech-machine-223395

 

[Meghan54]

nvm....wrong thread.