Author Topic: President Trump  (Read 473073 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #750 on: January 29, 2016, 06:18:20 PM »
WSJ is not really a conservative rag.  It is a Wall Street rag.  Sells us out for cheap labor brought in from overseas and when that doesn't work they take the companies and use the cheap labor there. 

WSJ is only is good for America if it is good for Wall Street.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
New Yor Magazine on Donald over the decades
« Reply #752 on: January 30, 2016, 08:45:44 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Beck: Donald Trump is a narcisstic sociopath
« Reply #753 on: January 31, 2016, 08:55:52 AM »
I would not say I am a fan of Beck anymore, but do think he is probably right about this.  Since the topic is Trump I post it here rather than under Beck:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/30/2903448/

OTOH Dick Morris thinks that Trump DOES have the temperament to be President.
On this I am with Beck.

Perhaps the best way to get a handle on how Trump would be is to find out from as many of his employees or ex employees as possible how he treated them since he has full power over them.
If he is kind and fair then I think it is reasonable to assume he would be so as President.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 01:04:30 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
WSJ: Trump and the Obama Power Temptation
« Reply #757 on: January 31, 2016, 08:10:38 PM »
second post

y Kimberley A. Strassel
Jan. 31, 2016 6:27 p.m. ET
232 COMMENTS

Of all the Republicans campaigning in Iowa, perhaps none is campaigning harder than Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska. Mr. Sasse isn’t running for president. He’s running against Donald Trump. The particular focus of his opposition deserves a lot more attention.

Mr. Sasse is a notable voice in this debate. He’s a heavyweight conservative—a grass-roots favorite, the furthest thing from the “establishment.” Before winning his Senate seat in 2014, he had never held elected office. He was the president of Midland University in Fremont, Neb., when he decided that he had to try to get to Washington and help restore the constitutional vision of the Founders.

Which is his point in Iowa: “We have a President who does not believe in executive restraint; we do not need another,” said Mr. Sasse in a statement announcing that he would campaign with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and other “constitutional candidates.” On Twitter, Mr. Sasse issued a string of serious questions for Mr. Trump, including: “Will you commit to rolling back Exec power & undoing Obama unilateral habit”?

That’s a good question for every Republican candidate. President Obama has set a new lawless standard for Washington that might prove tempting for his successor from another party. Why suffer Democratic filibusters when you can sign an executive order? Why wait two years for legislation when you can make it happen overnight? The temptation to cut constitutional corners would be powerful given the pent-up conservative desire for a Washington overhaul.

Here’s another question for the Republican contenders, a corollary to the Sasse challenge: Do you promise to reject dark power?

How the candidates answer ought to matter to every conservative voter. For almost a decade conservatives have suffered under a liberal movement that has honed the tactic of deploying government against its political opponents.

The Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative nonprofits—after Mr. Obama and Democrats encouraged the tax agency to act. Prosecutors hostile to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker staged predawn raids on conservative activists, part of a secret John Doe probe into bogus campaign-finance violations. Powerful Democratic senators harassed and intimidated conservatives for giving money to free-market groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council. Democrats singled out conservative donors, who found themselves subject to government audits.

The Republican presidential contenders would undoubtedly decry those nefarious acts—and be offended if asked whether they would do the same. Yet power is seductive, and plenty of voters are angry enough to embrace a “Republican Obama”—that is, someone who would go after their perceived political enemies. Witness the Washington Republicans who last year called on the IRS to hound the Clinton Foundation. Somewhere, Lois Lerner was smiling.

Mr. Trump’s broadsides are no doubt part of his allure. But how would he conduct himself in a post-Obama White House? Mr. Trump, after all, doesn’t merely call out opponents; in this campaign he has threatened individuals and organizations for daring to criticize him. In September he sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Club for Growth, promising a “multi-million-dollar” lawsuit if the group didn’t stop running ads in Iowa highlighting his tax ideas.

In December Mr. Trump’s representatives sent a letter threatening litigation to a wealthy Florida businessman, Mike Fernandez, who ran an ad against the candidate in a local newspaper. Another Trump letter threatened to sue a political-action committee backing presidential rival John Kasich. The company StopTrump.us, which was selling anti-Trump merchandise, was another object of Mr. Trump’s litigious saber-rattling. He has also threatened lawsuits against newspapers, including this one. Mr. Trump in November threatened to sue The Wall Street Journal if it didn’t retract and apologize for an editorial that criticized him for not understanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. The Journal refused, and his lawyer withdrew the threat.

This follows a lifetime of Mr. Trump’s using the judicial branch, or simply the threat of legal action, to try to silence his critics. He (unsuccessfully) sued the author of a book that claimed he wasn’t really a billionaire. He (successfully) sued a Miss USA contestant for claiming the pageant process was “rigged.” He threatened legal action against an activist who had ginned up a campaign to get Macy’s to stop selling Trump-branded products (he didn’t sue in the end).

Sometimes Mr. Trump’s legal actions are less about hushing critics than blocking business competition. He sued New York state for letting bars offer a lottery game that might have cut into his casino revenue. He sued New Jersey for funding a tunnel project that would have funneled more people to a rival casino owner’s resort.

More worrisome is Mr. Trump’s willingness to use government to punish a critic. In September on Fox News, National Review’s Rich Lowry praised GOP candidate Carly Fiorina by saying that in a debate exchange with Mr. Trump, she had “cut his balls off with the precision of a surgeon.” Mr. Trump—who often derides political correctness—called on the Federal Communications Commission to fine Mr. Lowry.

Mr. Trump is a fan of government power generally, as alarmed constitutional conservatives will tell anyone willing to listen. He has never offered deeply considered views about the office of the presidency—on its obligations, the limits of its power, the need to exercise restraint.

“The current administration has resurrected Nixon’s weaponization of the bureaucracies against its opponents,” says Mr. Sasse. “And I don’t have great hope that a guy who brags, ‘If someone screws you, screw them back,’ is going to return to the rule of law.”

Mr. Trump on Friday night last week finally responded, sort of, to Mr. Sasse’s tweeted queries. “@BenSasse looks more like a gym rat than a U.S. Senator. How the hell did he ever get elected?” Mr. Trump tweeted. Mr. Sasse responded: “Thanks. As the sonuva football &wrestling coach, this is high praise.” Then he went back to prodding Mr. Trump about how he would wield power if elected president.

A few of Mr. Trump’s GOP rivals, perhaps caught up in the public anger or desperate to catch him in the polls, have also flirted with suggesting that they would govern beyond the law. Maybe that’s what some voters want. But as those voters weigh their choices, they might spare five minutes to remember the years-long IRS nightmare suffered by dozens of tea party groups, or the fear that grass-roots conservatives felt as Wisconsin police swept into their homes.

Government possesses a terrible power that must be used sparingly. Conservatives should prefer a president who agrees.

Ms. Strassel writes the Journal’s Potomac Watch column.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #758 on: February 01, 2016, 05:19:58 AM »
Good post CD.
This use of government including the legal side to silence critics is particularly troubling.
It is like using the IRS against those you don't like, like Clinton or Obama.

Filing lawsuits for every criticism he doesn't like is not good for someone running for public office IMHO

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #759 on: February 03, 2016, 06:29:56 AM »
Where is PP?

Sam Altman points out Trump got "shlonged".

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #760 on: February 03, 2016, 08:39:39 PM »
That is very funny!

BTW WTF with the Donald asking for a do-over on Iowa because "Cruz cheated"?!?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #761 on: February 04, 2016, 04:26:22 AM »
"BTW WTF with the Donald asking for a do-over on Iowa because "Cruz cheated"?!?"

My sense he is wasting his time, sounds like a whiner, and should mover forward.   While he can point it out I don't believe he is endearing himself to new voters by dwelling on this.  Just my opinion.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, Whiner, Loser?
« Reply #762 on: February 04, 2016, 06:37:01 AM »
"whiner"

Right!  Trump is still out saying Cruz is ineligible and Cruz crossed a line?!  Good grief.

Some of us were hoping that seeing the loser side of Trump would not be pretty to his supporters.

Mpls Startribune political cartoon yesterday:


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #764 on: February 05, 2016, 08:52:10 AM »
Knowing what to think about Trump, with regards to how will he govern is an enigma.  It is really hard to tell since he has never governed before.  On one hand we think he will be fair though committed to principles and rebuilding America.  OTOH we see his personality, the lack of humility, the temper tantrums, the name calling
.

I remember many years ago my Mom and I were walking from the corner bank and we ran into our retired dentist.  I don't recall the conversation exactly but I remember word for word something he said to my mother:  "one can never know what is going on in the back of a man's mind".  Something about that and the way he said it, struck me as words only an older person who has seen a lot could know. I never forgot it though I admit I didn't really understand it.  
Now many years later having been through experiences already posted over many years, I now understand it.  
I've have read books and spoken to intelligence people who confirm that there are very few people who can be totally trusted.
Sex , money, power maybe drugs can shift what seems to be a person's character to something else.

I've also read that the best, though far from perfect way to know who might be the one who is telling the truth, or stay honest, is the one who has demonstrated throughout his or her life this trait, or similar traits.  Always go by how a person has lived and NOT by what they say, such as, "you can trust me", or "I a am a person of God".  Unfortunately words mean little to nothing.  Character is based on demonstrated living not on words.

All this said, bottom line, is this this National Review hit piece, while another piece of the puzzle, is just one example of Trump's character.  One could argue that this is a positive trait and when he commits to something he stands by his commitment.  He did offer her to buy her house.  Probably offered her a lot of premium.

One could assume from this that if he commits to building a border wall, he will do it.  Not just empty words.
The National review sees this as a bully.  I agree one could look at it this way.  But I counter that one could also look at it as story that shows Trump is a man who sticks to his guns.

BTW, I used to go to Atlantic City when I lived in Camden, NJ and Philadelphia and I would shoot across South Jersey to AC to play blackjack and I remember this scene of two or three giant casinos surrounding this tiny little island of dirt with a tiny house in the middle of these giant concrete monstrosities.  Someone in that house refused to sell, it was obvious.  So the moguls simply built up these skyscrapers all around her and up to the very and every inch of the property from all sides.  Wow.  When the little gal who is stubborn butts horns with the big guys who are also stubborn this is what we get.  Both stick to their guns.

I still would like to know how Trump is with his employees.  If he is fair and kind with them then that IS how he is likely to be as President.  In business all I want to know is he good for his word. I am less impressed than if he is forceful.  
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 09:02:47 AM by ccp »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Media "winners and losers" with regard to THE DONALD
« Reply #765 on: February 10, 2016, 07:50:22 AM »
Agree with everything this writer concludes about the media and Trump except one.  He spends the whole article pointing out how so many people were wrong about betting against Trump and those who were supportive were right.

But then he ironically bets against Trump by saying he will lose the general election..  I don't agree.  But other than that I agree with the rest:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/donald-trumps-new-hampshire-win-means-these-media-members-are-winners-losers/

PS  I like the sound of "The President Donald" better than "President Trump".

Hey, where is PP?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2016, 07:56:37 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
WSJ: Trumps's Eminent Disdain
« Reply #766 on: February 10, 2016, 08:01:34 PM »
Trump’s Eminent Disdain
Donald is wrong about the Keystone Pipeline and property rights.
Feb. 10, 2016 7:06 p.m. ET
29 COMMENTS

You can’t build a real estate empire unless government helps you snatch private property, or so says Donald Trump, who routinely defends eminent domain as an inevitable business reality. Maybe he needs broader business experience.

In Saturday’s Republican debate, Mr. Trump fielded a question about eminent domain and had a ready answer. “You need eminent domain,” Mr. Trump said. “A lot of the big conservatives that tell me how conservative they are,” they “all want the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline, without eminent domain, it wouldn’t go 10 feet, OK?”

Not OK, or accurate. In the decade since TransCanada proposed the pipeline system, which includes the Keystone XL route President Obama rejected last year, the company says it has negotiated voluntary easements with 96% of 2,600 landowners across 3,000 miles and nine states. That includes 100% of landowners on the Keystone XL path in Montana and South Dakota, and 91% in Nebraska. TransCanada has on rare occasion turned to eminent domain, a process that usually involves a panel of experts determining fair compensation.

In other words, market negotiations have determined what TransCanada offers an owner for using his property in an overwhelming majority of cases. By the way, the company plans to build the 1,179-mile Keystone XL pipeline almost entirely underground, so property owners could forget about the gusher once it was buried.

Mr. Trump’s version of eminent domain is to bulldoze your house, and he tends to haul in government when he doesn’t get his way. In the 1990s a house owned by an elderly widow in Atlantic City blocked a potential limousine parking lot outside a Trump casino. After Vera Coking refused to sell, the state casino authority tried to condemn the place. Ms. Coking prevailed against Mr. Trump after a long legal fight. When Jeb Bush mentioned this tale at Saturday’s debate, Mr. Trump assailed the booing audience as Bush partisans.

Mr. Trump is spinning property seizure as the price of admission for economic progress, whether bridges or factories, but it isn’t true. TransCanada shows that not all developers go the Trump route when closing a deal.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #767 on: February 11, 2016, 03:58:14 AM »
96 % 91 %;

Well what about the few hold outs?  They alone could mess up the whole thing.

Just like Atlantic City.  Everyone sold except this one old lady.

I am not for kicking people off their land.

Just saying.

He does have a very good point.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, Private Takings
« Reply #770 on: February 13, 2016, 10:04:19 AM »
ccp: 96 % 91 % [selling for the pipeline].

Well what about the few hold outs?  They alone could mess up the whole thing.
[The pipeline has become accepted public use. ]

Just like Atlantic City.  Everyone sold except this one old lady.
[If the offer is so high it is something that can't be passed up, and holding out means nothing, a rational person sells - or a rational developer DEVELOPS SOMEWHERE ELSE.  Without government intervention, these things have a way of working themselves out better than with it!]

I am not for kicking people off their land.  [Stay with that point.]


ccp,  There is a fine line between the calling the Texas Rangers a public use and a casino.  If we were to argue that out further, the only other outcome I see is to not let these sports teams pretend they are a public asset or public use either.

If you want a casino or other private business on my land, buy my land or build somewhere else.  There is something very symbolic about the privacy and sanctity of of buying, owning and occupying our own home, and the Founders thought to include it many of the top ten rights in the bill of rights.  The casino use seems important compared to one homeowner, but not if we all realize that is all of us and our rights at stake too, when they attack one of us.

Would we have a better economy and a better society if we just let the central planners have a little more power to centrally plan and control us.  NO!

In the cases of Suzette Kelo and Vera Coking, it turns out that Pfizer never built and Atlantic City casinos went bankrupt.  So did the Soviet Union and every other example, but that is not the point.  The point is that no amount of cronyism makes Donald Trump's use better than Vera Coking's.  The free market allows assets and resources to flow to their best use. 

Trump's confusion of putting roads, bridges, hospitals, airports, rail lines and pipelines in the same category with private commercial use is dishonest and misguided.  Yes, eminent domain power is a necessary evil.  It is a power to be limited, not expanded.  In these cases, New London, Atlantic City, Minneapolis, there is no limit if you allow a presumption of general economic gain to be a valid reason for the government to take private property for a preferred private use.

Yes, plenty of precautions should be taken in the case of a Keystone XL pipeline and plenty of homeowners are harmed by it.  A 38" inch pipe though mostly does not likely cause the displacement of people off their property against their will, as the above cases do.  Despite some denial, oil is considered public use, like transporting wheat or coal over rail, and would otherwise be transported over existing public right of ways at a far higher risk.  The public should own these right of way and the selection of the private company operating it should be made only to through an open public process.  Enabling a pipeline, IF it is considered a valid public use, does not have anything to do with letting government pick all winners and losers.

[My own experience with government private taking:  I owned and operated two small apartment buildings in the Phillips neighborhood.of Minneapolis.  Like nearly all our so-called great cities, there are pockets, a short distance from the skyscrapers, where the incomes and values are low.  One reason a person buys and endures the hell of managing low income property is the hope, upside risk and belief that someday, when we want to sell, this all will all be valuable.  And then when that time finally comes, some big time, well connected operators, instead of buying, entice the local government to perform the takings, pay the owners much later through a wrongful process of courts looking at value through the rear view mirror.  But the value of the taking is the new use, not the old use.  In my case, I sold one property voluntarily, made many times my investment and the private group still got a good deal.  On the second building, they gave a very low take it or leave it offer knowing the City would take it for them.  Challenging the decision of the City of Minneapolis as a private landowner is like challenging Saddam Hussein or Leonid Brezhnev in their time and place of rule.  A complete waste of time is the best outcome possible, and seeing them target you personally and all your properties is a more likely one.  The title changed ownership to the City and them to the sham group performing the redevelopment.  The court dates and hearings were held and an undersized check for 'value' was eventually received years later, including nothing for the loss of income during that elapsed time. (How can you have lost income on a property where you already lost title, they ask?)  Words can't describe how powerless we were against the machine of big government acting locally but empowered by Supreme Court appointees of which Trump approves and would duplicate. ]

Even if I am wrong on this (?), Trump is WAY out of step with conservatism and the will and intent of the Founding Fathers, siding instead with big government and the cronyists.  This on an issue where conservatism is IN STEP with the general public.  Cruz gets that.  Bush gets that.  Even Bernie Sanders gets that.  Saying that roads and bridges do it too, even a ballpark, doesn't make it right!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #771 on: February 13, 2016, 10:22:58 AM »
 "A complete waste of time is the best outcome possible, and seeing them target you personally and all your properties is a more likely one.  The title changed ownership to the City and them to the sham group performing the redevelopment.  The court dates and hearings were held and an undersized check for 'value' was eventually received years later, including nothing for the loss of income during that elapsed time. (How can you have lost income on a property where you already lost title, they ask?)  Words can't describe how powerless we were against the machine of big government acting locally but empowered by Supreme Court appointees of which Trump approves and would duplicate. ]

Even if I am wrong on this (?), Trump is WAY out of step with conservatism and the will and intent of the Founding Fathers, siding instead with big government and the cronyists.  This on an issue where conservatism is IN STEP with the general public.  Cruz gets that.  Bush gets that.  Even Bernie Sanders gets that.  Saying that roads and bridges do it too, even a ballpark, doesn't make it right!"

I hear you.  Trump says that an owner can do very well if he/she play their cards right.  Easy for him to say.  Try going up a city if you are a low income old lady.   :cry:

As you point out the need for a baseball stadium and a casino is a fine line.  One could say both would benefit the overall economic health of the area they will be in .  I think his point about the hypocracy of the Bush family on this point is accurate.  I am tired of public money being used for sports stadiums.  Yet your broader points I agree with 100%

There is so much about Trump I love but there are so many aspects about him I am shall we say less than thrilled about.

This is somewhat weird.  Both Joe Scarborough and Breizinski are friends of Trump.  Is this an example of how big money attracts strange bed fellows ?  I don't know. MSLSD staff are going nuts over this    :lol: :

 http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/12/media/joe-scarborough-donald-trump-nbc/
 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump, high floor, low ceiling
« Reply #772 on: February 14, 2016, 07:46:06 AM »
In the debate last night Trump was asked where he disagrees with conservatives.  He actually brought up eminent domain as an example, a very honest and direct answer, though his view of it is still convoluted.  Separately he was asked if he had people around him that ever said no to him, told him when he was wrong.  He danced around that one since in his mind he has never been wrong, and no, he doesn't hire people who stand up to him.  He would consider them to be "nasty".

Considering the passing of Scalia as the breaking news story and the importance of Supreme Court appointments to the job, this would have been a great time for Trump to say he has top advisers who are conservatives who are telling him he is wrong on Kelo and Coking and at their insistence he will humbly reconsider his position on needlessly taking people's properties.  Needless to say, he doesn't have top advisers who are conservatives or originalists and this didn't happen.

The debate reinforced Trump's position.  He leads the GOP race with a strong plurality and matches up worst in the general election polling.  If you believe in polls and he seems to, he should know he will never be President.  There is no time left to reintroduce himself and make a new first impression. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #773 on: February 14, 2016, 10:07:58 AM »
"There is no time left to reintroduce himself and make a new first impression."

Some have voiced for Trump to stop the school yard stuff and start being more Presidential and he would have a much better chance to take this all the way.. The clinton's have proven how polls can turn around very quickly depending on what you say and how you say it.

I keep waiting for Trump to do this - hoping - but I have come to the conclusion it ain't gonna happen.  He is incapable of it.  He is what he is.  He is very flawed as a candidate.

As for surrounding himself with yes men I would guess that is right.  Although a few people who claim they "know him" state he will listen to all views before he makes decisions.

Then after he decides if he has people who will consider his word gospel than one would think they will work harder for him and what he espouses. 

Doug I agree with your position on the eminent domain topic.  It is outrageous that a person's property can be confiscated by the rich and for the rich and only but the rich.  And Trump is one of those rich guys not above being a bully. 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Trump's jet
« Reply #775 on: February 15, 2016, 10:09:54 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Donald vs. The Whale
« Reply #777 on: February 15, 2016, 10:49:53 PM »
The Whale That Nearly Drowned The Donald
How Trump schemed to win back millions from a high-rolling—and doomed—Japanese gambler
Michael Crowley

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/japanese-gambler-donald-trump-213635?paginate=false

In January 1992, a Japanese one-time billionaire named Akio Kashiwagi was found dead in his palatial home near Mt. Fuji. The scene was gruesome. The house’s white paper screens were spattered with blood. The 54-year-old had been stabbed as many as 150 times. By some reports the weapon of choice was a samurai-style sword.

The crime was never solved, though it bore the hallmarks of a killing by Japan’s criminal yakuza. Ostensibly a real estate investor, Kashiwagi was a mysterious figure reputed to have underworld connections. He was also one of the world’s top five gamblers, a “whale” in casino parlance, willing to wager $10 million in a single gaming bender.

And that is how he crossed paths with Donald J. Trump, then a budding Atlantic City casino mogul. In 1990 the two men had an epic and remarkably personal showdown in which millions of dollars changed hands in a matter of days, before it all ended in a flurry of recriminations. One of the Japanese mogul’s last statements to the U.S. media, through an aide, involved his plans to burn a copy of Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal.

After his murder, the New York Times reported that he owed at least $9 million to casinos in Atlantic City and Las Vegas. One unnamed casino Atlantic City executive told the paper that Kashiwagi had owed the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino $4 million.

Trump is obsessed with winning, a topic he usually brings up in the context of his merciless deal-making style. But a crucial question about any would-be president who may be confronted with questions of war and peace is his attitude toward risk. Some presidents — Barack Obama comes to mind — are highly averse to it. Others roll the dice, as George W. Bush did when he invaded Iraq.

The story of Akio Kashiwagi, drawn from Trump’s memoirs and news accounts from the day, offers a revealing window into Trump’s instincts. It shows that Trump isn’t just a one-time casino owner — he’s also a gambler, prone to impulsive, even reckless action. In The Art of the Comeback, published in 1997, Trump explains that until he met Kashiwagi, he saw himself as an investor who dealt only in facts and reason. But his duel with the great whale in action made him realize “that I had become a gambler, something I never thought I was.”

Perhaps just as important, when gambling failed him, Trump didn't quit: He doubled down. But he did it shrewdly, summoning a RAND Corporation mathematician to devise a plan that would maximize his chance of fleecing his Japanese guest.

And it worked. Kind of. In Trump’s recollection, which he shared for this story, his showdown with Kashiwagi was another one of his many great wins. Just don’t look too hard at the ledger.
***

In February of 1990, Donald Trump flew to Tokyo, where he was promoting a heavyweight bout between Mike Tyson and Buster Douglas. At a party for friends and business partners the night before the fight, Trump took Tyson around the room for photos. When Trump spotted one man standing alone in a corner, the mogul threw his arm around him and positioned him for a shot with Tyson.

“No picture! No picture!” the man shouted, covering his face.

That man was Akio Kashiwagi. By then Trump had been courting the mysterious businessman for weeks, hoping that, with some luck, his seemingly limitless bank account could help keep Trump’s latest business venture afloat.

A few years earlier, Trump had begun an aggressive move into the Atlantic City casino business. He had three hotel-casinos under his belt, including the Trump Taj Mahal, modestly dubbed the “eighth wonder of the world.”

But those enterprises required huge revenues to turn a profit. Retirees playing their Social Security checks would only get Trump so far. High rollers promised not only quick winnings, but that lifeblood of Trump’s career: publicity.

Kashiwagi fit the bill. His game was baccarat, a fast-paced card game similar to blackjack that is favored by James Bond. And he bet big, wagering up to $250,000 per hand. He was also a murky figure. The son of a carpenter, he claimed income of $100 million per year and assets of $1 billion, owned a palatial Tokyo home and retained a private chef who cooked him marinated monkey meat. But an independent assessment found his real estate business had revenues of only $15 million and a handful of staffers. Rumors swirled about his ties to the yakuza—perhaps explaining his aversion to photographers.

The high-roller world is small, and the highest rollers are discussed among top casino owners. Trump first heard about Kashiwagi from the late Sir James Goldsmith, a European financier and casino owner. Kashiwagi had recently won nearly $20 million at Goldsmith’s Diamond Beach casino in Australia, almost bankrupting it. But he’d also blown $6 million on baccarat at Steve Wynn’s Mirage casino in Las Vegas a year earlier.

Trump’s top casino executive warned him against inviting Kashiwagi to Atlantic City. Too risky, he said. Trump couldn't resist. He told Kashiwagi there was a penthouse waiting for him at the Trump Plaza. Kashiwagi, in turn, was “eager to match stakes with the famous Donald Trump,” John O’Donnell, then the casino’s chief operating officer, wrote in a memoir.

A few days after dodging the photo with Trump and Tyson, Kashiwagi arrived in Atlantic City. Trump greeted him with an autographed copy of The Art of the Deal. Things got off to an odd start, Trump would later recall in his own memoir: Kashiwagi retired to his bi-level penthouse suite—featuring ocean views, butler service, a grand piano and an $800,000 jade Buddha—and didn’t emerge for two days. Finally he reappeared on a Friday night. Piles of $5,000 chips awaited him at a table reserved for his play. One $250,000 stack stood over a foot high, according to Trump’s later account.

With his black hair slicked back, Kashiwagi played marathon sessions at a table roped off for his private use. Surrounded by bodyguards and watchful casino officials, he was supplied with hot towels and given a private bathroom; Trump even hired a Japanese chef to cook for him. Amid the opulence, Kashiwagi cut a modest profile. “Sipping tea amid tuxedo-clad baccarat croupiers, Mr. Kashiwagi, in his rumpled blue-striped shirt and plain black slippers, has the look of a quarter slot-machine player just off the bus from Hoboken,” the Wall Street Journal reported at the time.

Dozens of low-rollers peered over a marble wall into a world they could barely fathom. “All that money,” one woman told the Philadelphia Inquirer. “How can anyone… I can't imagine…”

It was just the sort of publicity Trump had been seeking. “That [Kashiwagi] chose Trump Plaza was an enormous coup for us,” O’Donnell wrote. He was “the perfect complement to the world-class image we were marketing, and enhanced the Trump image of elegance and excitement.” Kashiwagi “could propel Trump Plaza into an entirely new realm of action,” O’Donnell believed.

But the great whale Trump had harpooned was threatening to swamp his boat.

“From the very first hand, Kashiwagi started beating the hell out of us,” Trump wrote in Comeback. Trump was down a million dollars within half an hour.

“What the hell am I doing? I asked myself,” he wrote. "Cash flow is way down, and I’m playing with a guy who could win $40 or $50 million in a matter of days.” Suddenly, it became clear that this was a PR triumph that could put the Trump Plaza out of business.

Every casino game has a built-in advantage for the house. But Trump grew alarmed as he focused on the fact that baccarat offers a relatively narrow dealer's edge.

“At that moment I realized for the first time that I had become a gambler,” Trump wrote. Yes, he had speculated on real estate, based on sound judgment. “But this had nothing to do with logic or reason. I was merely sitting on the sidelines watching as one of the best gamblers in the world played against me for $250,000 per hand, seventy times an hour.”

Trump was nervous to his core. In what he says was a first, he called down to the casino floor late that night to check on the ledger. He learned that he was down $4 million—a figure that would soon double. Kashiwagi had so many chips he had to pile them on the floor.

But in public, Trump was typically unflappable. "Have you ever seen action like this?" he told the Inquirer, which had come to document the action at Trump’s behest. He was speaking at 4 a.m.; Trump had stayed up until his casino closed to monitor the first night’s action. "This guy is great, the best in the world. The best."

The ledger swung wildly through the weekend. Kashiwagi went on hot and cold streaks, enduring wild swings of millions of dollars. He played quietly, sometimes just smiling when he lost hands. But at times he flung his cards down in annoyance after losing, or made fists and opened them as if releasing frustrated energy.

He soon decided he’d had enough. He was becoming irritable, and the gawkers and multiplying news stories were spooking a man obsessed with privacy. He abruptly announced that he was headed back to Tokyo.

With $6 million of Donald Trump’s money in his pocket.

“He quit, Jack. What the fuck?” a furious Trump said to O’Donnell. Trump had expected Kashiwagi to play for several days; he’d stayed for only two.

Where many people would retreat into shame and self-recrimination, Donald Trump doubled down. He immediately courted Kashiwagi to make a return visit, like a heavyweight boxing rematch. One Trump executive even publicly proposed a date for Kashiwagi’s return: December 7, the anniversary of Japan’s 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Behind the trademark bluster, however, Trump grew more calculated. Having looked in the mirror and seen a gambler, he reverted to careful strategy. Trump consulted Jess Marcum, a mathematical probabilities expert who co-founded the Rand Corporation — a government-affiliated think tank then better known for modeling nuclear war with the Soviet Union—on how to maximize his odds in a second showdown with Kashiwagi. Marcum knew the only way to compensate for the house’s very slight baccarat advantage, of just over one percent, was to keep the game going for as long as possible. Time was on Trump’s side.

So Marcum and an Atlantic City casino insider named Al Glasgow prepared a report for Trump proposing a “freeze out” agreement. Under the deal, Kashiwagi would bring $12 million to the table and play until he had either doubled it—or lost everything. Even with huge bets, that would take a long time. Marcum simulated the match in detailed handwritten notes. Kashiwagi might surge ahead early, he estimated, but after 75 hours at the table – far longer than he had stayed the first time - his chances of winning would fall to 15 percent. The key was to prevent a repeat of Kashiwagi’s first visit, when he had walked out while ahead.

Kashiwagi, presumably fuzzier on the probabilities, agreed to the terms. There was no legal way to hold him to such a deal but Trump felt the men were honor-bound. “Gamblers are honorable, in their own way—at least about gambling,” he later wrote.
***

Kashiwagi returned to Trump Plaza in May, and Trump was again on the casino floor. And once again, his Japanese rival hit an early winning streak. One Trump biographer, Harry Hurt III, described the mogul as “impolitely ‘sweating the action’ in view of Kashiwagi and the other patrons” before excusing himself. After falling behind another $9 million—now $15 million in total over the two sessions—a stunned Trump considered stopping the game. But Marcum convinced him to be patient and wait for the probabilities to work.

The gambling continued for more than five days. In Comeback, Trump recalled hearing from a pit manager that Kashiwagi hit a major losing streak, by pure chance, after his dealers changed from a team of men to a team of women. Losing faith in his RAND-generated odds, Trump now seized on the only thing he had left: superstition: “I want those women dealing to this guy all the time,” Trump insisted. “I don’t give a damn if it’s a coincidence or not.” The mogul even called the women directly to make clear he expected them to stay at the table.

Trump’s account, written years later, here diverges significantly from others. In his telling, the Kashiwagi saga unfolded over one epic visit. But several other fuller accounts—including O’Donnell’s detailed recollection and newspaper reports from the time—clearly describe two separate Kashiwagi trips to Atlantic City.

One thing everyone agrees on is that Trump's fortunes took a sudden turn, just as his RAND expert had predicted. After six days, Trump was up $10 million, meaning he’d won back the $6 million from Kashiwagi’s February visit plus another $4 million.

But there is also disagreement over what happened next. “Remembering our deal, I told my people to stop the play.” Trump wrote in Comeback. Kashiwagi “was not particularly happy about this” Trump recalled, “but he agreed.” Here Trump cited the gamblers’ credo: “When a deal is made, they usually abide by it.”

Kashiwagi saw things very differently. His aide told reporters that Trump had dishonorably violated their deal by calling off the game early. The deal had reportedly been for play to continue until Kashiwagi either won or lost $12 million. That’s not what happened: Trump called the game after $10 million.

It’s not clear, then, why Trump would later write that he was “[r]emembering our deal"—or why he would say that Kashiwagi agreed to stop play. But if Trump did change the terms of a deal at the last minute, it would not be for the first or last time.

Kashiwagi departed in a rage, with his aide announcing plans for that autographed copy of Art of the Deal. “We are going to burn it soon,” he said.

Trump might not have cared, except that Kashiwagi owed him a lot of money. He had been playing on credit, and left before a $6 million check drawn from a Singapore bank had cleared. Though the facts are unclear, the check apparently bounced or Kashiwagi canceled it. Trump executives publicly threatened lawsuits. Trump’s account in Comeback never mentions any of this, although concerns about his guest’s credit could explain his decision to end their showdown prematurely.

Kashiwagi suggested that Trump, then in significant debt himself, was the one with a credit problem. His aide told the Journal that Trump Plaza had offered his boss a $5,000 shopping spree at Macy’s in Atlantic City—but that the store had rejected Trump’s credit at the register.

“We pity Mr. Trump’s creditors,” said the aide. “No wonder if they panic.” Eventually, they did. All three of Trump’s Atlantic City casinos were bankrupt by 1992. But Akio Kashiwagi didn’t get to enjoy it. He was murdered in early January of that year.

In Trump’s telling, it was Kashiwagi’s visit to his casino that effectively ruined the secretive gambler’s life. He returned home to a media frenzy in Tokyo over his Atlantic City adventure. “One day he completely lost it,” Trump wrote. “He ran outside to get away from two television cameras peering into his window. He tripped over the curb and broke his ankle. His chauffeur pulled him into his black Mercedes and sped off.”

“Kashiwagi went into hiding and was never seen again until his body was found hacked to pieces by a samurai sword,” Trump continued. “They never caught the killers.”

Japanese authorities did make an arrest in the case, charging a man the Los Angeles Times described as "a reputed local gangster" acquainted with Kashiwagi's son. The motive was unclear, but Japanese media noted that the killer did not steal Kashiwagi’s diamonds or the hundreds of thousands of dollars stashed in the house.

In a statement to POLITICO, Trump expressed respect for Kashiwagi (though no remorse for his death). “I loved our matches with him,” Trump said. “He was a great player who loved big numbers. He made me a lot of money when money was very tight and the economy was crashing.”

But it’s not clear that Kashiwagi made Trump any money at all. The final ledger is murky. But if Kashiwagi won $6 million on his first trip to Atlantic City, then lost $10 million — and died owing Trump $4 million, then Trump at best broke even. If reports that Kashiwagi cashed in nearly $500,000 in chips on his way out of the casino are correct, then Trump finished in the red.

Trump did get the media attention that had always been part of his plan. But it wasn’t enough to save the Trump Plaza or any of his other properties. Within a couple of years Trump would limp out of Atlantic City altogether, narrowly escaping personal bankruptcy. His great gamble — on Kashiwagi, and on gambling itself — can hardly be called a success. Only in Trump’s world can that kind of wager be called a win.

Michael Crowley is Politico’s senior foreign affairs correspondent.
 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #779 on: February 15, 2016, 11:10:48 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #780 on: February 16, 2016, 04:23:18 AM »
Yes, the debate was a watershed with me concerning Donald Trump.

I would only vote for him as a last resort.

He just soared - to the bottom of my list.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Trump positions
« Reply #783 on: February 22, 2016, 06:27:17 AM »
Doesn't say too much.  Just half a dozen or thereabouts. 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #785 on: February 22, 2016, 12:41:54 PM »
Trump keeps citing Carl Icahn as an example of who would advise him. 


http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/22/investing/carl-icahn-oil-cash-crunch/index.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Why Donald Trump Is Wrong About How the Economy Works
« Reply #789 on: February 26, 2016, 08:58:30 AM »
First this, Bret Stephens has a recent column telling truth about Trump if anyone has access...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trumpkins-lament-1456184997
------------------------------------------------

Why Donald Trump Is Wrong About How the Economy Works
http://fortune.com/2016/02/19/donald-trump-wrong-economy/

“This country is in big trouble. We don’t win anymore. We lose to China. We lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border.”

That’s his campaign’s economic theme. America has been “losing” by letting in immigrants and allowing free trade. Trump would reclaim our tradition of “winning.” But Trump has an outmoded view of economics that was never true and is particularly false now.

It is true in a casino, where Donald Trump’s understanding of economics began, and perhaps ended. A casino is a perfect zero-sum economy. If you win, the house loses. Much more often, your loss is the house’s win.


That’s because a casino is not productive (aside from its employment of a few low-wage workers). Its only activity is gambling. Someone’s win is another party’s loss.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Trump’s other occasional successes, in commercial real estate, have a history of relying on government tax abatements and other breaks. That’s another forum for zero-sum, win-lose economics. One mogul dodges a tax; many ordinary citizens have to pay a little more.

But in the mainstream economy where most Americans work, economics is not zero-sum. Each transaction enriches both sides. When you buy an automobile it enriches the dealer, the manufacturer, the bank that provided financing, the suppliers who contributed parts—an entire web of affiliated parties. You, the consumer, also benefit—because you value the automobile.

In the Trump view of the world, one of those parties—say, the car company—“wins” and everyone else loses. In fact, every one of those parties wins, or rather benefits, to a small degree. And their increased prosperity marginally increases their propensity to spend and notches up growth for all.

The new high-tech and health-care economies are redolent with examples of firms whose success, rather than “taking” from others, has sprouted entire subcultures of spinoff companies. One successful enterprise leads to another. (Think of the iPhone and the gaggle of app developers founded in its wake.)

Although not every industry spawns such a virtuous circle, in a free economy every participant gains, to a small degree, from every trade. And that is true even for the foreign “trade” that Trump routinely disparages.

As Trump might have learned had he paid attention as a student at Wharton, trade bestows the benefits of “comparative advantage.” Let’s say your neighbor is a doctor and you are a carpenter. You would be foolish to diagnose your children’s illnesses, and your neighbor would be foolish to build his own bookcase.

The same holds true for nations: each has different comparative advantages. While this may be hard to visualize on a global scale, it is easy to see on a local level. If a political xenophobe, say in Massachusetts, chose to restrict trade with Connecticut, or to build a wall on the border with Vermont, or to keep local companies from hiring workers from Rhode Island, the Bay State would become, over time, a lot poorer. The same is true for the U.S. in the global economy.

Over the past twenty-five years, and in contrast to Trump’s repeated alarums, U.S. exports have soared from $535 billion to $2.23 trillion. In 1990 exports accounted for less than 9% of the GDP. Now they are 13.5%. Our trade partners have benefitted but so have we—from imports as well as from exports.

Trump says he wants to take jobs “back” from China. But jobs in a world economy stimulate each other. A prosperous China is good for America, no less than a prosperous Vermont benefits Massachusetts. (Notice: our stock market didn’t rise on word of China’s recent troubles—it sank.)


Trump has frequently fulminated about the fact that Mexico is making automobiles. Recently, on CNN, he spliced in a bit of nativism: “If they [the Ford Motor Co] go there … the next thing you know they have the illegals driving right across the border.” Trump loves to imply that the U.S. is besieged with unauthorized Mexicans. Actually, there are 1 million fewer unauthorized Mexicans living in the U.S. than a decade ago. But those that remain here contribute both to the economy and to the tax base—via Social Security.

Trump also told CNN that, while in Los Angeles, he “saw” ships coming in from Japan, “loaded up with cars, thousands of cars. …You know [what] we send them? Beef. And they don’t want it. And we send them wheat; they don’t want it.” The notion that U.S. exports tend to be less valuable, or support only low-paying jobs, is another Trump canard—“a total lie,” as the Donald might say. Our five biggest exports to Japan are aircraft, medical and technical equipment, machinery, electronics, and pharmaceuticals. (As a trade analyst Trump is living in another century. Wheat accounts for one half of one percent of American goods exports.)

Trump’s slogan—“making America great again”—borrows from the Republican demigod, Ronald Reagan. But Reagan projected a fearless optimism and generally tried to open the economy. Trump wants to close the economy. He represents not the economics of hope but the economics of fear. We can only win if our neighbors lose. That’s the sort of narrow, desperate protectionism that, in the 1930s, helped to fuel a world depression.

Trump’s vulgarities and Big Lie deceptions should, alone, disqualify him for the presidency. To cite only one very low example, his claim that he saw “thousands” of American Muslims cheering on the day that the Twin Towers went down is a blood libel, intended to whip up fear against a minority.

Far from bringing America back, Trump, with his disdain for facts and readiness to stir up xenophobia, represents everything that is un-American. But if that’s not enough, there is this: Donald Trump has as much chance of reviving the economy as you do of drawing a jackpot on a slot machine. Not unlike his politics, his economics are based on fear and lies. His way leads to impoverishment not just spiritually, but materially too.
---------------------------------

Comments, Pat?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Only if Trump finally insults the "wrong" people; not everyone else
« Reply #790 on: February 26, 2016, 09:19:16 AM »
GM and Doug,

It doesn't appear that reason, logic, history, vulgarity, disrespect for  anyone who disagrees with him is going to matter.

30% or so of the Republican party and a smaller group of Democrats are going to vote for Trump no matter what.

The only thing I can think of that may change this is if he should in some way insult  *this* group.

He has insulted so many others and we all know so many despise him.  But he has not insulted this same 30%.

I suppose if he backs down on immigration (which appears to be his biggest draw) or perhaps trade etc then that may change the minds of some.

Otherwise we don't see breaking down of this block of voter support.

I am in the Levin camp.  I definitely like some of what he says but I cannot stomach his vulgarity his not just being tough but outright cruelty to those who challenge as well as Levin's more important point about that he is not a real conservative.

Yet it looks as though we are stuck .  Even if the convention is brokered and someone else is given the nominee we can be sure Trump will go crazy and run as an independent if for no other reason than for revenge.

OTOH some think this would hurt the Dems even more.  I don't know.  Are we  going to have a world with Heads of States saying F you to one another?  Of course they do it anyway but at least not in public I suppose.

To me I felt saddened watching the elder Bushes watching the debate and having to listen to this guy.  Whatever  I thought about them as whether good for conservatism or not; they didn't deserve what this guy did to their son.  IMHO

« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 09:26:48 AM by ccp »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #791 on: February 26, 2016, 10:00:36 AM »
"looks as though we are stuck"

I say that most of Trump's supporters will stay with him no matter what, but not all.

I wonder what comes out of this debate and out of people starting to see that this isn't a protest anymore; it is a choice of who will be the nominee and who will be the President for the next 4-8 years.

If Trump can keep polling nationally at 36% and every candidate stays in, Trump wins.  But if that support can be chipped down to 30% AND if those who can't win get out soon enough, then this could be competitive.

In separate news, Chris Christie just announced he is entering the race to be Trump's VP, his best shot at ever being President.  Kasich, Carson and Cruz should switch to running to be Rubio's VP, the best shot each of them has to be President.

But no.  They don't call this the stupid party for nothing.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #792 on: February 26, 2016, 10:10:08 AM »
 Chris Christie just announced he is entering the race to be Trump's VP"

Oh my God!  I hadn't seen that.   :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

However I don't think Trump would dare have one near him who has just as big a mouth and is just as head strong.  Also I couldn't see Christie playing second fiddle to anyone.

I am dizzy at the thought of this.  Excuse me while I go lay down.   :roll:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile
Re: Donald Trump
« Reply #793 on: February 26, 2016, 10:27:07 AM »
Chris Christie...

The whole thing is shocking, no, no one can see him playing second fiddle, nor see Trump as having one, but otherwise a perfect fit.   (

This changes everything for Kasich.  It's your move, Governor...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72340
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: February 28, 2016, 11:32:01 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19778
    • View Profile
more on Mr Trump
« Reply #798 on: February 29, 2016, 09:53:16 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19464
    • View Profile