Sportswriter says Trump 'cheats like a mafia accountant' at golf

[Zippyjuan]

The only thing that matters is winning. How you win is irrelevant. Lie, cheat if necessary. In politics as well as golf.


A longtime sportswriter who claims in a new book that President Donald Trump frequently cheats at golf likened Trump's habit to a way of "showing you that he's better than you."

"He cheats like a mafia accountant. He cheats crazy. He cheats whether you're watching or not. He cheats whether you like it or not," Rick Reilly told CNN's John Berman on "New Day" Tuesday.

Reilly recounted several stories from his new book "Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump" of Trump allegedly cheating, even against professional players.

According to Reilly, Trump hit two balls in the water when he played professional golfer Tiger Woods and then claimed to have almost tied with him, kicked sportscaster Mike Tirico's ball into a bunker when the two played, and claims to have a 2.8 handicap despite professionals such as Dustin Johnson assessing him to be a 9 or 10.

Trump's caddies also allegedly know to accommodate his penchant, Reilly said -- "He kicks the ball out of the rough so many times, the caddies call him 'Pele,'" after the famous soccer player.

CNN has reached out to the White House and Trump Organization for comment. Trump is by no means the first president alleged to have cheated at golf -- an early 2000s book by Don Van Natta Jr., "First Off the Tee," said several presidents cheated at their game.

Reilly attributed Trump's motivation to cheat to a compulsion to win at all costs.

"He has to win no matter what -- it's not that he loves golf, he just loves beating you," Reilly said. "So these guys always say he's fun to play with, always wins but then he doesn't even take your money. It's not about beating you out of the 10 bucks, it's about showing you that he's better than you."

Reilly even offered $100,000 to charity to play Trump in golf -- with a catch.

"I'll play him for 100 grand, (for) either of our charities," Reilly said. "But the rule is, we can't play his course, can't use his cheating caddies, and there's got to be a rules guy with each of us. And I'll play him all day."

[Swordsmyth]

IMPEACH! IMPEACH!

[Krugminator2]

Trump's behavior on the golf course really is inexcusable. Trump is a bad person and a compulsive liar. That is already kind of priced in. But his golf course behavior is on a whole different level. He is the single most disrespectful person to the game I have ever seen by far. The guy drives his cart on the green. I don't care if owns the course or not. You don't do that. He just isn't a good person.

The worst story is not only his cheating for himself, he threw Mike Tirico's golf ball off the green into a bunker before Tirico got to the green on a blind par 5 green. Not as a joke but really did it when they were playing against each other. Tirico only found out after the round when Trump's caddie snitched on Trump. He should be shunned from the game.

Still better on policy than a Dem though.

[Danke]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqqwTgk8ri0

[Krugminator2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqqwTgk8ri0


Except this is a real criticism though. This isn't an unfair or just him being crude on Twitter . He cheats and lies compulsively in a game where you don't do that.

[Zippyjuan]

Except this is a real criticism though. This isn't an unfair or just him being crude on Twitter . He cheats and lies compulsively in a game where you don't do that.

That is his standard response to anything potentially critical of Trump.

[AngryCanadian]

Ah yes says Sportswriter? maybe he should stick to on doing with sports.

[Anti Federalist]

The only thing that matters is winning. How you win is irrelevant. Lie, cheat if necessary. In politics as well as golf.

Does the end justify the means?

Before everyone freaks out, I'm not suggesting Trump is doing this, but consider this:

I've stated numerous times that people do not want freedom and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

[Swordsmyth]

Does the end justify the means?

Before everyone freaks out, I'm not suggesting Trump is doing this, but consider this:

I've stated numerous times that people do not want freedom and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

Good food for thought.

[Stratovarious]

That is his standard response to anything potentially critical of Trump.

What are the top 15 supportive posts you have made of Trump in the last 90 days,
ok name 3..........

2/////////


1...........?

Don't worry no one will 'dislike' your post.

[dannno]

Does the end justify the means?

Before everyone freaks out, I'm not suggesting Trump is doing this, but consider this:

I've stated numerous times that people do not want freedom and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

Yes. That doesn't mean that is always the best strategy, but it's perfectly moral.

I'm suggesting Trump is bringing us in that direction as a country, doing whatever it takes.

I wonder if Trump has seen this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-0o0cSw24

[Zippyjuan]

Yes. That doesn't mean that is always the best strategy, but it's perfectly moral.

I'm suggesting Trump is bringing us in that direction as a country, doing whatever it takes.



Lying and cheating promotes morality. Interesting.

[dannno]

Lying and cheating promotes morality. Interesting.

If you cannot succeed with truth in defending against government tyranny (i.e. Ron Paul), then using lies is an alternative form of self defense. It is certainly preferable to violence, which is what the founders of our country used.

[Anti Federalist]

Lying and cheating promotes morality. Interesting.

I can't speak for dannno but I said nothing about morality.

Freedom. Real, true, honest to god personal and political freedom.

If the only way it could be achieved is through lies, deception and subterfuge...would you be in favor of that?

[Swordsmyth]

Lying and cheating promotes morality. Interesting.
And guns promote peace and safety.

[Stratovarious]

What are the top 15 supportive posts you have made of Trump in the last 90 days,
ok name 3..........

2/////////


1...........?

Don't worry no one will 'dislike' your post.


Yes. That doesn't mean that is always the best strategy, but it's perfectly moral.

I'm suggesting Trump is bringing us in that direction as a country, doing whatever it takes.

I wonder if Trump has seen this video:



Lying and cheating promotes morality. Interesting.

Much more interesting and telling is the fact that you didn't respond to the first quote , above /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

[Stratovarious]

This Sports writer is a Lawyer, Constitutionalist, Political Pundit , Expert on the Mafia,
and a friend of zippy's ?

[Zippyjuan]

Much more interesting and telling is the fact that you didn't respond to the first quote , above /\ /\ /\ /\ /\

https://i.imgflip.com/195fcm.jpg

[dannno]

I'm not even saying that is the best path right now. It might be. But it has its pitfalls. One thing that lying does is that it degrades one's credibility. Nobody knows where you stand, nobody knows if you are ever telling the truth if you have no credibility. The people who want what you want can't be sure if they can trust you. It isn't an easy path.

What I'm saying is that the intentions of what you are doing is the important thing that determines if what you are doing is right as well as how you carry it out. Another important thing would be to avoid dragging down others who are good people with you who believed in you if you are found out. It's very tricky, and it inherently has poor optics and can potentially backfire.

[dannno]

Lying and cheating promotes morality. Interesting.


I can't speak for dannno but I said nothing about morality.

Freedom. Real, true, honest to god personal and political freedom.

If the only way it could be achieved is through lies, deception and subterfuge...would you be in favor of that?

Are chickens in favor of roasting pans??

[Zippyjuan]

I'm not even saying that is the best path right now. It might be. But it has its pitfalls. One thing that lying does is that it degrades one's credibility. Nobody knows where you stand, nobody knows if you are ever telling the truth if you have no credibility. The people who want what you want can't be sure if they can trust you. It isn't an easy path.

What I'm saying is that the intentions of what you are doing is the important thing that determines if what you are doing is right as well as how you carry it out. Another important thing would be to avoid dragging down others who are good people with you who believed in you if you are found out. It's very tricky, and it inherently has poor optics and can potentially backfire.

When he seems to constantly change his position on things, how can we be sure of just what his intentions are- if he has any?

[Zippyjuan]

Are chickens in favor of roasting pans??

Depends. Having pork tonight?

[dannno]

If a bunch of libertarians got together, created a political party called "America's Party", ran on a nationalist platform, took over all three branches of government and then in one day shut 95% of it down and turned it all into a real Constitutional Republic, that would be great. I see nothing wrong with that.

[dannno]

When he seems to constantly change his position on things, how can we be sure of just what his intentions are- if he has any?

I guess we can't, but I know what side I'm betting on.

[Zippyjuan]

If a bunch of libertarians got together, created a political party called "America's Party", ran on a nationalist platform, took over all three branches of government and then in one day shut 95% of it down and turned it all into a real Constitutional Republic, that would be great. I see nothing wrong with that.

Is that what Trump wants? Shutting down 95% of government?

[dannno]

Is that what Trump wants? Shutting down 95% of government?

I think he wants to go about half way toward that direction. But he doesn't have the congress and the courts to do it, so he works with what he's got.

[Zippyjuan]

I think he wants to go about half way toward that direction. But he doesn't have the congress and the courts to do it, so he works with what he's got.

Universal healthcare. More money for defense and his wall. Small government? Halfway there?

[dannno]

Universal healthcare. More money for defense and his wall. Small government? Halfway there?

Now you're claiming to know what he wants? I thought he couldn't be trusted?

[oyarde]

Are mafia accountants using different numbers ? No . There is no cheating in accounting . Numbers do not lie . I did my Fed taxes and I owe zero . Even they cannot contest it is zero because I use the rules they made .

[Zippyjuan]

Now you're claiming to know what he wants? I thought he couldn't be trusted?

He says it. "Everybody should be covered. I'm going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes." But can you believe him? When you take multiple sides on an issue, people can see what they want to see.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQFItVBKlAU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI-GIVlC9CU

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.theroot.com/trump-hyped-his-wealth-to-get-bankers-and-investors-to-1833645920



Trump Hyped His Wealth to Get Bankers and Investors to Lend Him Money—And He Might've Committed Fraud: Report

The Grand Wizard of the White House is much like the Wizard of Oz; just a little orange colored man behind a financial curtain of falsities.

According to The Washington Post, Trump created a document of lies he titled “Statements of Financial Condition” that he used to borrow money. The problem with this series of documents, which sometimes ran up to 20 pages, was it was full of falsehoods to exaggerate his wealth.

Much like an IG model that Drake talked about on “Emotionless,” Trump would pull the financial equivalent of saving photos on his phones to post later when he was home so that he looked like he was also on the go.

From the Post:

For instance, Trump’s financial statement for 2011 said he had 55 home lots to sell at his golf course in Southern California. Those lots would sell for $3 million or more, the statement said.

But Trump had only 31 lots zoned and ready for sale at the course, according to city records. He claimed credit for 24 lots — and at least $72 million in future revenue — he didn’t have.

He also claimed his Virginia vineyard had 2,000 acres, when it really has about 1,200. He said Trump Tower has 68 stories. It has 58.

But this Trumpian form of bragging (which is just another way of saying lying) is being looked at by investigators on Capitol Hill as well as New York to see if his “Mythical book of fictional finances” has crossed over into fraud.

Also from The Post:

The statements are at the center of at least two of the inquiries that continue to follow Trump, unaffected by the end of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform said it had requested 10 years of these statements from Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA.

And earlier this month, the New York state Department of Financial Services subpoenaed records from Trump’s longtime insurer, Aon. A person familiar with that subpoena, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe an ongoing investigation, said “a key component” was questions about whether Trump had given Aon these documents in an effort to lower his insurance premiums.

Both inquiries stemmed from testimony last month by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen, who told Congress that Trump had used these statements to inflate his wealth — and then sent them to his lenders and his insurers.

“Mr. Trump is a cheat,” Cohen told Congress, adding that Trump used these statements in an attempt to secure a loan from the banks of the Russian oligarchs, Deutsche Bank, when he was attempting to buy the NFL’s Buffalo Bills.

Deutsche Bank and another Trump lender have received subpoenas from the New York State attorney general, the Post reports.

The White House and the Trump Organization, which is run by Trump’s sons Worthless Jr. and “Fuck is this kid’s name?”, declined the Post’s request for comment.

Trump didn’t just inflate his assets by adding floors to his buildings or multiplying rents until he got a number he liked, he also left off liabilities to make himself appear more attractive to lenders.

In 2012, Trump used the accounting firm Mazars to compile his “Statements of Financial Condition,” which included a warning that they’d not reviewed or audited any of the bullshit that was listed in the pages to follow. This included the omission of two of Trump’s major hotels, in Chicago and Las Vegas, both which were carrying mortgages.

Legal experts who spoke with the Post believe that the loose language added by the accounting firm serves as a disclaimer that might make it harder for Trump to be charged with fraud even if the pursuing documents were false.

[dannno]

https://www.theroot.com/trump-hyped-his-wealth-to-get-bankers-and-investors-to-1833645920

This is how reporters write who don't know anything about finance.

When you value your company for tax purposes, you value all of your assets at salvage value, the lowest possible value.

When you value your company for outside investment purposes, you value your company's goodwill, future profitability expectations, etc.. the highest possible value.

They are different things, and it's not illegal.

[Schifference]

When he seems to constantly change his position on things, how can we be sure of just what his intentions are- if he has any?

Changing his positions on things is fantastic. It draws attention to it. I hear Biden should not run because of his past touchy, feely, kissy, mannerisms. The democrats have dug in and don't want to be associated with that behavior. I can only hope that they do the same with flip flopping positions. Call Trump out on it. If nothing else Trump has exposed the total sham.

[Sonny Tufts]

When you value your company for tax purposes, you value all of your assets at salvage value, the lowest possible value.

It depends on the tax. If the owner of 100% of a closely-held company dies, the value for estate tax purposes will usually be based on a discounted multiple of earnings, not liquidation value. The same valuation technique would also apply to the gift tax, except that a gift of a minority interest in the company would be valued using discounts for lack of marketability and the inability to compel dividends or the liquidation of the company.

[Sonny Tufts]

Freedom. Real, true, honest to god personal and political freedom.

If the only way it could be achieved is through lies, deception and subterfuge...would you be in favor of that?

So we lie and deceive to attain a condition in which there's no lying or deceiving. Sounds suspiciously like the official during the Vietnam war who said, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

[Superfluous Man]

If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

No.

[PAF]

Does the end justify the means?

If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?



Good food for thought.



No.


My answer is also NO.

The best approach is education and understanding, with credibility.

[nikcers]

People admire Trump's tenacity to win. He gives people hope in that way.


In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.
Winston Churchill

[Todd]

Does the end justify the means?

Before everyone freaks out, I'm not suggesting Trump is doing this, but consider this:

I've stated numerous times that people do not want freedom and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

Devil's Advocate: The line of thinking that everyone needs to be lead by those that know better is Machiavellian. Most people who engage in that are pathological narcissists. Plus his book "The Prince" is one of the worst philosophical roadblocks people who fight for freedom have to fight against.

[dannno]

So we lie and deceive to attain a condition in which there's no lying or deceiving. Sounds suspiciously like the official during the Vietnam war who said, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."


No.


My answer is also NO.

The best approach is education and understanding, with credibility.

Wow, you guys really don't understand thought experiments very well.

AF didn't ask if the best way to attain liberty is through lying and centrifuge. He certainly never said that was the preferable way to attain it. He asked, whether if you could obtain it that way, would you choose to do so?

The assumption in that thought experiment is that if you try the other ways that are preferable to lying and centrifuge, such as honesty and straightforwardness, they won't work.

So now that you understand how this thought experiment works better, the question is whether you would be willing to use lying and centrifuge to attain liberty, when more preferable ways are not a viable option?

The answer should be "yes".

If you're answer is not yes, then you disagreed with the founders of our country, who did worse than lying and centrifuge and actually relied on violent revolution, killing thousands of people, in order to attain freedom. AF isn't even talking about hurting anybody physically, he is just talking about defending ourselves against violent tyrannical government using words. They might not be honest words, but that's the point. If you hit somebody unjustifiably, that is wrong. If you defend yourself from violent aggression with violence, that is not wrong. If you defend yourself from lies and centrifuge or violence or anything like that with lies and centrifuge, or even violence, that is not wrong. That doesn't mean it will work, that doesn't mean it is the best course of action, it's just not wrong.

So, since we determined that it isn't wrong, and from the thought experiment we determined it will work, and it is the most preferable way to attain liberty of the available options, you cannot answer "no" in any justifiable way..

[dannno]

It depends on the tax. If the owner of 100% of a closely-held company dies, the value for estate tax purposes will usually be based on a discounted multiple of earnings, not liquidation value. The same valuation technique would also apply to the gift tax, except that a gift of a minority interest in the company would be valued using discounts for lack of marketability and the inability to compel dividends or the liquidation of the company.

You are much better at taxes than philosophy.

[PAF]

Wow, you guys really don't understand thought experiments very well.

AF didn't ask if the best way to attain liberty is through lying and centrifuge. He certainly never said that was the preferable way to attain it. He asked, whether if you could obtain it that way, would you choose to do so?

The assumption in that thought experiment is that if you try the other ways that are preferable to lying and centrifuge, such as honesty and straightforwardness, they won't work.

So now that you understand how this thought experiment works better, the question is whether you would be willing to use lying and centrifuge to attain liberty, when more preferable ways are not a viable option?

The answer should be "yes".

If you're answer is not yes, then you disagreed with the founders of our country, who did worse than lying and centrifuge and actually relied on violent revolution, killing thousands of people, in order to attain freedom. AF isn't even talking about hurting anybody physically, he is just talking about defending ourselves against violent tyrannical government using words. They might not be honest words, but that's the point. If you hit somebody unjustifiably, that is wrong. If you defend yourself from violent aggression with violence, that is not wrong. If you defend yourself from lies and centrifuge or violence or anything like that with lies and centrifuge, or even violence, that is not wrong. That doesn't mean it will work, that doesn't mean it is the best course of action, it's just not wrong.

So, since we determined that it isn't wrong, and from the thought experiment we determined it will work, and it is the most preferable way to attain liberty of the available options, you cannot answer "no" in any justifiable way..


I would approach lying to achieve liberty in the same way that I view "existing roads". I do not advocate/support lying to achieve anything. What the "founders" did was created a forceful "centralized" government which we all know how well that turned out.

Nice thought experiment, but I am too well grounded in principal to give it further thought.

[dannno]

I would approach lying to achieve liberty in the same way that I view "existing roads". I do not advocate/support lying to achieve anything. What the "founders" did was created a forceful "centralized" government which we all know how well that turned out.

Nice thought experiment, but I am too well grounded in principal to give it further thought.

Ok, so you disagree with the founders of the country, that was actually built into my thought experiment..


If you're answer is not yes, then you disagreed with the founders of our country

Is that correct? You disagreed with the founders of the country, and would have preferred to remain under British rule?

[PAF]

Ok, so you disagree with the founders of the country, that was actually built into my thought experiment..



Is that correct? You disagreed with the founders of the country, and would have preferred to remain under British rule?


Folks came here to escape “British Rule”. But lo and behold it was central planners who instituted a close variation of it when they worked tirelessly to create the Federal Govt.

The “founders” that most people refer to is the creation of the Fed Gov and who signed to ratify the federal constitution. Nowadays the anti-feds are looked down upon and seldom if ever referenced, let alone agree with what they accurately warned what would happen.

[dannno]

Folks came here to escape “British Rule”. But lo and behold it was central planners who instituted a close variation of it when they worked tirelessly to create the Federal Govt.

The “founders” that most people refer to is the creation of the Fed Gov and who signed to ratify the federal constitution. Nowadays the anti-feds are looked down upon and seldom if ever referenced, let alone agree with what they accurately warned what would happen.

Ok, but just to be clear, you would have preferred we remain under British rule to what the founders did?

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/03/trump-claims-father-born-germany-false-fred-trump


Donald Trump wrongly claims his father was born in Germany – again


Donald Trump has wrongly claimed his father was born in Germany, again, during a press conference with the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg.

Trump made the claim while criticizing Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, whose country, the president said, “was not paying their fair share” toward the military alliance.

“I have great respect for Angela and I have great respect for the country,” said Trump. “My father is German, was German, born in a very wonderful place in Germany so I have a very great feeling for Germany.”

Trump’s father, Fred Trump, was born in New York. Trump’s grandfather, Friedrich Trump, was born in the German village of Kallstadt.

According to a German historian, Friedrich Trump immigrated to the US in 1885, escaping poverty and allegedly catering to miners during the Gold Rush in the western US. He returned to Germany in 1901, fell in love with Elisabeth Christ. The two married and returned to the US.

Friedrich attempted to return to Germany in 1905 when Christ became homesick, but was ejected from Germany and ordered not to return after it became apparent he failed to perform mandatory military service. The couple returned to the US on a ship bound for Pennsylvania. Christ was three months pregnant with Fred at the time. Their son was born in New York City.

Trump has falsely claimed his father was born in Germany before. In July 2018, as he criticized EU nations for doing business with Iran after Trump broke a nuclear agreement with the country, Trump also claimed his father was born abroad. He was not. Trump’s mother was Scottish.

For years before he became president, Trump falsely claimed former president Barack Obama was born in Kenya, a conspiracy theory he repeated even after it was disproved.

[Ender]

Does the end justify the means?

Before everyone freaks out, I'm not suggesting Trump is doing this, but consider this:

I've stated numerous times that people do not want freedom and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

Lying & subterfuge do not bring true freedom- they bring us a Hamilton, which is exactly how the CONstitution came to be. A so-called leader with an ego from here to Jupiter & no moral standards at all, will not bring liberty. They will just keep conning the people whose brains are already submerged in lies & false history.

So- NO.

Gimme a Ron Paul.

[Cap]

Lying & subterfuge do not bring true freedom- they bring us a Hamilton, which is exactly how the CONstitution came to be. A so-called leader with an ego from here to Jupiter & no moral standards at all, will not bring liberty. They will just keep conning the people whose brains are already submerged in lies & false history.

So- NO.

Gimme a Ron Paul.

Me thinks those posting in support of no core values is disturbing.

[Superfluous Man]

AF didn't ask if the best way to attain liberty is through lying and centrifuge. He certainly never said that was the preferable way to attain it. He asked, whether if you could obtain it that way, would you choose to do so?

What about my answer to that question suggested to you that I didn't understand it?

My answer is no.

[nikcers]

What about my answer to that question suggested to you that I didn't understand it?

My answer is no.

That's because the question is a false choice fallacy. There are always better ways of doing things. Propaganda teaches us to think that there isn't a choice. There is always a choice even when you choose to believe there is no other options.

[RonZeplin]

Trump wrongly claims for third time his father was born in Germany (https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/04/02/592444/US-Donald-Trump-Germany-NATO)

If his father was actually German then that means that Donald is NOT a Natural Born US Citizen. He's a usurper, fake president.

Where's the Birth Certificate for Fred Trump?

So many lies, so few Mueller's. :cry:

http://217.218.67.233//photo/20190402/0dc13576-07fb-4ac7-8d27-0789f7f7749d.jpg

Trying to suck up to the NATO Nazis.

[Superfluous Man]

If his father was actually German then that means that Donald is NOT a Natural Born US Citizen.

Are you being satirical here?

[dannno]

What about my answer to that question suggested to you that I didn't understand it?

My answer is no.

Right, and so you must have disagreed with the founders of the country, and wish that we were still under British rule. That's fine. You just have to admit that. And be clear about it. And not lie about it or be deceptive. That way when you give you opinion on other issues, people on the site can keep in mind that you would prefer to be under British rule than have the founders create our country.

[Superfluous Man]

Right, and so you must have disagreed with the founders of the country, and wish that we were still under British rule. That's fine. You just have to admit that. And be clear about it. And not lie about it or be deceptive. That way when you give you opinion on other issues, people on the site can keep in mind that you would prefer to be under British rule than have the founders create our country.

The post with the question I was answering didn't say anything about any founders.

Where did I say anything deceptive?

And where did you get this idea that the only way anyone could answer the question posed in the negative was if they didn't understand the question?

[RonZeplin]

Are you being satirical here?

No, not at all.

https://cdrkerchner.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/venn-diagram-2.jpg

[Superfluous Man]

No, not at all.

https://cdrkerchner.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/venn-diagram-2.jpg

Using the definition that graphic uses, Donald Trump's father having been born in Germany wouldn't disqualify Donald Trump himself from being a natural born citizen. It would only disqualify his father from being one.

[nikcers]

Right, and so you must have disagreed with the founders of the country, and wish that we were still under British rule. That's fine. You just have to admit that. And be clear about it. And not lie about it or be deceptive. That way when you give you opinion on other issues, people on the site can keep in mind that you would prefer to be under British rule than have the founders create our country.

Would you rather live under British rule or live under the deepstate's rule?

[tfurrh]

Who, who isn't a pro, doesn't?

[dannno]

The post with the question I was answering didn't say anything about any founders.

Where did I say anything deceptive?

And where did you get this idea that the only way anyone could answer the question posed in the negative was if they didn't understand the question?

Read the posts of mine you skipped and get back to me. I know I responded to you at one point about the founders, I responded to all three of you.

In order for you to hold your position that you hold, you cannot agree with the founders of the country who used violence to attain liberty. We already determined that simply being dishonest to attain liberty is preferable to killing thousands of people, which is what the founders did. The founders did something far more extreme than being dishonest to attain liberty. You are not even willing to have someone else be dishonest for the purpose of attaining liberty, so logically you would therefore be against the founders attaining liberty using violence.

If you are for the founders attaining liberty using violence, then it doesn't make logical sense that you would be against someone using dishonesty to attain liberty when that is the effective and preferable option presented.

[Superfluous Man]

Read the posts of mine you skipped and get back to me.


The post of mine that you quoted as proof that I didn't understand the question I was answering was not written in reply to any of your posts.

[RonZeplin]

Using the definition that graphic uses, Donald Trump's father having been born in Germany wouldn't disqualify Donald Trump himself from being a natural born citizen. It would only disqualify his father from being one.

:warning: If Fred & Mary Anne Trump had not became 14th amendment Naturalized US Citizens, before Donald was born then President Trump is not a Natural Born US Citizen.

[dannno]

The post of mine that you quoted as proof that I didn't understand the question I was answering was not written in reply to any of your posts.

Read this post:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?533079-Sportswriter-says-Trump-cheats-like-a-mafia-accountant-at-golf&p=6776235&viewfull=1#post6776235

You cherry picked a quote from that post to respond to, when a discussion of the founders was contained in that post. I responded back and said you didn't understand. You responded back and said my quote didn't have anything about the founders.

You are fake news, because the post you quoted did have information about the founders, you just cherry-picked a quote from that post that didn't say anything about the founders. And you obviously didn't read the rest. You suck at debating and you are dishonest. People shouldn't listen to anything you have to say about honesty, because you yourself are not honest and straightforward.

[Superfluous Man]

You cherry picked a quote from that post to respond to

The quote I cherry picked was the only part I was responding to. It was also the opening line of the post.

Somehow, apparently, in your mind, it is not possible for anyone to answer AF's yes-or-no question with a "no," unless they misunderstood the question.

I'm not sure what made you think that.

I understood the question just fine. And my answer was and still is no.

[Superfluous Man]

:warning: If Fred Trump had not became a 14th amendment Naturalized US Citizen, before Donald was born then President Trump is not a Natural Born US Citizen.

OK, using the definition given in that graphic, that's true.

But of course Fred Trump was a naturalized citizen. So how would Fred Trump having been born in Germany disqualify Donald Trump from being a natural born citizen? That's what you were claiming, and continued to claim even after I first asked for clarification.

[dannno]

The quote I cherry picked was the only part I was responding to. It was also the opening line of the post.

Somehow, apparently, in your mind, it is not possible for anyone to answer AF's yes-or-no question with a "no," unless they misunderstood the question.

I'm not sure what made you think that.

I understood the question just fine. And my answer was and still is no.

That's fine, you can answer however you want. But if you are going to try and say how being straightforward and honest is so great and nobody should ever deviate from that, then you should be honest and straightfoward, otherwise it doesn't mean anything.

On that note, I guess you disagree with the founders of the country, and would prefer to be under British rule? I would like clarification on that.

I think it is important for members here to know that you disagree with the founders and would have preferred that we remain under British rule.. if we are being all straightfoward and honest and junk.

[RonZeplin]

OK, using the definition given in that graphic, that's true.

But of course Fred Trump was a naturalized citizen.

If in fact he was born in Germany, when did he & Mary Anne become naturalized US citizens? If by the time Donald was born, then all is well (two US Citizen parents). If after, then President Trump is illegitimate, a usurper.

[dannno]

Lying & subterfuge do not bring true freedom- they bring us a Hamilton, which is exactly how the CONstitution came to be. A so-called leader with an ego from here to Jupiter & no moral standards at all, will not bring liberty. They will just keep conning the people whose brains are already submerged in lies & false history.

So- NO.

Gimme a Ron Paul.

Dude, can't you read?


If a political "leader" could attain true freedom, but only by through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

This is called a thought experiment. If a political "leader" (not you, somebody else) could attain true freedom, but only through lies and subterfuge, would you be for it?

In this thought experiment, using Ron Paul's tactics won't work. Will violence work? I don't know. The founders used violence. That is MANY times worse than using lies and subterfuge. Do you disagree with what the founders did? Or would you prefer that we remained under British rule?

[Superfluous Man]

If in fact he was born in Germany, when did he & Mary Anne become naturalized US citizens? If by the time Donald was born, then all is well. If after, then President Trump is illegitimate, a usurper.

I'm pretty certain they were both citizens when Donald was born, and that this has never been disputed, regardless where either of them were born. And it would be strange to jump to the conclusion that they were not just from the claim that one of them had been born in Germany, which seemed to be what your entire thrust was when you brought it up.

That said, I don't think that definition of "natural born citizen" is a good one anyway. Anyone who has been a US citizen since their birth, including anyone born in the USA to parents of whom one or both weren't citizens at that time, is a natural born citizen.

[dannno]

Finding out who the trolls are on this website is cake.

[dannno]

Let's tell everybody on Ron Paul forums they have to be straightfoward and honest so that we know exactly what they are doing. Let's only pretend to be honest and straightfoward ourselves, so they don't know what we are doing.

CHECK!

Tell them there is only one path to liberty, which is being totally honest and straightforward. Ignore any mention of the founding fathers and what THEY did for liberty.

CHECK!!

Devolve into a discussion about whether Donald Trump is a natural born citizen..

CHECK!!!

[PAF]

Ok, but just to be clear, you would have preferred we remain under British rule to what the founders did?

Please reread post #45.

No, I do not prefer British Rule, or the American variation of it.

I endorse/support Natural Rights and the NAP.

Do you know what those are?

[dannno]

Please reread post #45.

No, I do not prefer British Rule, or the American variation of it.

I endorse/support Natural Rights and the NAP.

Do you know what those are?

Uhh, ya, I know, and I support that too.

But I would prefer living in a capitalist society that is 99% free than a communist society that is 100% prison island. I would fight for that, even if the 99% free capitalist society isn't exactly what I want.

The question is do you believe that we would be better off if the founding fathers had just sat back and allowed the British to rule, or whether you think it was beneficial for them to carry out their actions?

[Swordsmyth]

Folks came here to escape “British Rule”. But lo and behold it was central planners who instituted a close variation of it when they worked tirelessly to create the Federal Govt.

The “founders” that most people refer to is the creation of the Fed Gov and who signed to ratify the federal constitution. Nowadays the anti-feds are looked down upon and seldom if ever referenced, let alone agree with what they accurately warned what would happen.
Without the founders we would still be under British rule and if you didn't notice we are much better off than the Brits.

You choose perfect failure over partial progress every time.

[Swordsmyth]

Would you rather live under British rule or live under the deepstate's rule?
The British also have a deepstate and their rule is worse.

[Zippyjuan]

Without the founders we would still be under British rule and if you didn't notice we are much better off than the Brits.

You choose perfect failure over partial progress every time.

Without immigration, we all would be in Europe (mostly) still.

[Swordsmyth]

Without immigration, we all would be in Europe (mostly) still.
So what?

I have no duty to allow any other group to come here and it would be bad for me and my posterity to allow too many of them to come.

The Injuns would have been better off if they had kept all or almost all of us in Europe.

[dannno]

The Injuns would have been better off if they had kept all or almost all of us in Europe.

There is actually more native american DNA around today than there was before we came. Pure native DNA? Not so much, but considering that they bred with europeans then it ends up getting passed down, and if you add all that up they are much better off. But we had technology that allows for an increased standard of living. The immigrants coming in these days do not offer that. Not to mention we have setup a wealth siphoning mechanism for them to leech from. So we set ourselves up to be slaves for the immigrants.

[Swordsmyth]

There is actually more native american DNA around today than there was before we came. Pure native DNA? Not so much, but considering that they bred with europeans then it ends up getting passed down, and if you add all that up they are much better off. But we had technology that allows for an increased standard of living. The immigrants coming in these days do not offer that. Not to mention we have setup a wealth siphoning mechanism for them to leech from. So we set ourselves up to be slaves for the immigrants.
The Injuns lost their independence and many lives, is a better standard of living a good trade?

In any case we will be even worse off than them as you point out.

[Danke]

The Injuns lost their independence and many lives, is a better standard of living a good trade?

In any case we will be even worse off than them as you point out.

Oyarde is better off, that is fur sure.

[Swordsmyth]

Oyarde is better off, that is fur sure.

For knowing you?

[Danke]

For knowing you?

Yes, and his access to power tools and bourbon.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Lie, cheat if necessary. .


Lying and cheating promotes morality.



How do you square that with the "supporting member" claim in your avatar?







Interesting

Very.







`