First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Donald Trump defends Bernie Sanders
runec 
28294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/14/16

Rujikin wrote:
A) People that use an argument as stupid and pathetic as the birther argument.

B) Donald trump net worth: 4 Billion dollars, even google values him at billions of dollars. It's still better than these guys who value themselves based on how many different woman they can fuck.


Its not an argument. Its a fact that his original family name was Drumpf. So what in the world are you even talking about?

Both of your points here have nothing to do with the statement you're responding to. Trump markets his name itself and evaluates his name as worth at least 3.3 billion dollars. Though the number fluctuates depending on how much he feels like being a braying arsehole on any given day. He is notorious for lying his ass off about his net worth.

He claimed it at 9 billion when he launched his presidential bid. Despite every estimate to the contrary. And has routinely refused to release any sort of tax information. Claiming he can't because he's currently being audited by the IRS going back "4-5 years". Which if actually true is not worthy because the IRS statue of limitations is 3 years. The only way that's waved is if you're suspected of MAJOR fraud. -.-

Hilariously enough, Hillary has been the most transparent candidate with her taxes. Even Sanders has not released his full income tax returns.
14767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/14/16 , edited 4/14/16

runec wrote:
He claimed it at 9 billion when he launched his presidential bid. Despite every estimate to the contrary. And has routinely refused to release any sort of tax information. Claiming he can't because he's currently being audited by the IRS going back "4-5 years". Which if actually true is not worthy because the IRS statue of limitations is 3 years. The only way that's waved is if you're suspected of MAJOR fraud. -.-


Although it's also possible to be cagey about "losing" your tax records if they show too much information about whom you did business WITH.

(Ie., if you've built at least two skyscrapers in Midtown during the 80's/90's, you've met the Salerno family, or at least their associates have made a friendly business deal with you.
Just how friendly, is the question that would answer a lot of others. "Personality", to begin with.)
16789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/14/16

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
A) People that use an argument as stupid and pathetic as the birther argument.

B) Donald trump net worth: 4 Billion dollars, even google values him at billions of dollars. It's still better than these guys who value themselves based on how many different woman they can fuck.


Its not an argument. Its a fact that his original family name was Drumpf. So what in the world are you even talking about?

Both of your points here have nothing to do with the statement you're responding to. Trump markets his name itself and evaluates his name as worth at least 3.3 billion dollars. Though the number fluctuates depending on how much he feels like being a braying arsehole on any given day. He is notorious for lying his ass off about his net worth.

He claimed it at 9 billion when he launched his presidential bid. Despite every estimate to the contrary. And has routinely refused to release any sort of tax information. Claiming he can't because he's currently being audited by the IRS going back "4-5 years". Which if actually true is not worthy because the IRS statue of limitations is 3 years. The only way that's waved is if you're suspected of MAJOR fraud. -.-

Hilariously enough, Hillary has been the most transparent candidate with her taxes. Even Sanders has not released his full income tax returns.


Actually there is no verifiable proof of that. Its possible but its also possible they are a family with a similar name.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/48ca4h/is_donald_trumps_ancestral_surname_really_drumpf/


In 1885, Donald Trump's 16-year old grandfather emigrated from Kallstadt in what is now southwest Germany to the United States. The immigration officer listed his name as "Friedr Trumpf" (see line 33). No later than 1910, Friedrich Drumpf was calling himself Fred Trump, which is how he appears on the US census of that year (image online at ancestrylibrary.com, subscription required). He died at the age of 49 in Queens and is now memorialized by a tombstone that reads "Fred Trump."

I confirmed what details I could from the Wikipedia entry as well as its source article, verifying them against the records available through ancestrylibrary.com (subscription required). Note that although the immigration record linked above (Wikimedia Commons; also on familysearch.org) clearly attests to the name Friedrich, I could not confirm any occurrence of the spelling of his last name as Drumpf. Ancestry and findagrave.com both list his name as Friedrich Drumpf, but neither gives a witness to this particular spelling. While it is certainly plausible that an immigration officer might have heard Drumpf and written Trumpf, Trumpf is also a plausible spelling for a German name derived from Latin triumpus (triumph).

In fact, German Wikipedia includes no notable Drumpfs other than Friedrich himself. And it actually claims that the spelling "Drumpf" is falsified. The article instead calls him by his Americanized name, Frederick Trump, but it points to familysearch.org, which lists his baptismal name as Friedrich Trump. This record points back an additional generation to Donald Trump's great-grandfather Johann Ii Trump. I have no way of confirming these spellings or finding their source, which is a compilation of baptismal records.

According to this encomium, the Drumpf family arrived in Kallstadt in 1608 and changed their name to Trump sometime before 1700. Unfortunately, this claim is not supported by verifiable research and is in fact attached to the unlikely name (for a 17th-century German) of John Philip Trump. So while the deep roots of the Drumpf family tree may or may not prove false, it looks like archival research might be necessary for their final proof.




Assuming that the account in Blair's The Trumps (2000) is accurate, several possibilities come to mind. The Drumpf who arrived in Kallstadt in 1608 was purportedly a lawyer, so his name likely appears as he would have spelled it in whatever (uncited) source document Blair may have referenced. Sometime before 1700, Blair says she found a record for a winegrower named Trump. How might these men have been connected?

They weren't. Drumpf the lawyer moved out and a generation later Trump the winegrower moved in. Maybe someone from the Trump family had even been around in the early 1600s, but no one was born, died, or married, so none of them survive into modern records to prove that the Trumps and Drumpfs were two separate families.

Trump was a descendant of Drumpf but—unlike his lawyer ancestor—didn't know how to spell his name. Someone else wrote it down for him, and the Trump family enters the historical record. Perhaps this was a new priest from another region trying to make sense of the silly dialect his new parishioners spoke—making similar choices about name spelling that US immigration officers often made (and still make) on Ellis Island and elsewhere.

Trump was a descendant of Drumpf, but whereas his ancestor had proudly held onto his name, Trump modified it to sound more local, perhaps as a subtle way of telling his neighbors that he and his family were there to stay. In an era without extensive government bureaucracies, he could have made this change without ever having to leave a trace of his family's former appellation.

Perhaps there's other possibilities that I lack the background knowledge even to imagine.

This kind of question is actually really important for historians to consider, since our archives are made by people who make choices, and the choices they make determine just what kinds of information we're able to recover about them. Just because things are in the archive doesn't mean that all things happened just as they seem, and just because something isn't in the archive doesn't mean it never existed at all.




Is it true, as this article suggests, that there are many versions of the Trump name?

Drumb, Tromb, Tromp, Trum, Trumpff, Dromb … the Trump family name has had various permutations over the past five hundred years, according to the local church register. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/29/kallstadt-germany-on-the-trail-of-the-donald-in-the-trump-ancestral-home

It would be interesting to hear how the family's surname went Drumpf to Trump to Drumpf to Trump (or perhaps it never did go back to Drumpf again, if it ever was that in the first place, and Fredriech arrived in America a Trumpf). If these are just ways of spelling the same name, then it's easy to conceive of scenarios where one spelling would be swapped for the other.


For what it is worth the Low German dialects have not fully embraced the second German consonant shift which turned p into pf/f, they would presumably say Trump for Trumpf.

(For the same reason they often have d where High German has t, so the picture is not quite as nice. But nevertheless Drumpf and Trump are entirely within the range of pronunciations and, prior to heavily standardized orthography, spellings one could encounter in different parts of Germany.

As for going from Trumpf to Trump after immigration - Trumpf pronounced the American way just doesn't sound very good and Trump is the direct English translation of Trumpf - the 2nd consonant shift of course didn't apply to English either, so you'll often find Low German and English words to be very close; e.g. Pann (LG) / pan (E) - Pfanne (HG), Schipp (LG) / ship (E) - Schiff (HG), ...)
runec 
28294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/14/16

Ejanss wrote:
They already do, but it's too farther down their Fear-Crisis list than depicting "Bill Clinton 2.0" as the unstoppable Democratic Antichrist.


Yeah, its already one of their "Things That Will Supposedly Destroy The American Way Of Life" entries. Which is why it'll be pretty effective if they need to tie it to Sanders if he was the nominee. Which as I was saying is fundamentally why Sander's poll numbers are deceiving. The GOP is too wrapped up in the unstoppable Democratic Antichrist panic to bother much with Sanders yet. But if he was the nominee and they actually focused entirely on him it would not be pretty.

Say what you will about Hillary, but she's already use to their shit and can sit through hours of it without batting an eyelash ( Benghazi(tm) ). Sanders on the other hand couldn't make it through an NY Times interview. I like Sanders but I don't think he or his campaign realizes just how deplorable US politics has become nor do I think his campaign has a good handle on the primary to begin with.



Ejanss wrote:
Although it's also possible to be cagey about "losing" your tax records if they show too much information about whom you did business WITH.


I think Trump's problem likely has a lot more to do with maintaining his bluster and image. There's no way he's worth what he claims he is and with most of his net worth basically being what he thinks his name is worth.





http://www.snopes.com/donald-drumpf/

-.-


35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 4/14/16 , edited 4/14/16

runec wrote:

Hillary has spent literally years weathering every last piece of mud and bullshit the GOP could think off.

Conversely, the Eye of Mordor has not even turned on Sanders yet. The GOP would have a field day with the word "socialist". His poll numbers are not going to hold once the attack machine starts to spin up. Whereas Hillary's numbers are tempered by years of shit and mudslinging already. Not much is going to move them now.


The GOP has been screaming itself hoarse with accusations of authoritarian leftism against the Obama administration pretty much since its beginning, and that particular Eye of Mordor is and has been on Sanders as well. People have been asking this question since the beginning of the primary process, even to the very first debate.

Fox News tried to take on the task of running this very attack against Sanders in this interview, and they failed horribly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwYmcbRYi1w

If anything the right-wing media's attack on Sanders there bolstered his electability. They made buffoons of themselves, and we're talking about Fox. We're talking about the centre of the GOP media universe. They made buffoons of themselves when they tried this.

That's not all, though. Sanders has gotten it from his own side as well. Some of the cost-cutting measures for medications Sanders proposes as part of his healthcare plan are to allow people to import drugs from Canada, prevent drug companies from forming cartels with generic manufacturers, compel drug companies to report their pricing information publicly, impose a stiff penalty for fraudulent behaviour, and grant the federal government the authority to negotiate (not set, negotiate) with drug manufacturers on prices.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/fighting-to-lower-prescription-drug-prices/

These sort of proposals should hardly be surprising from Sanders. He has a long history of proposing such things, and it appears to me that these fall under multiple provisions of the second bill of rights envisioned by Franklin Roosevelt as the second world war was winding down. Specifically, these three:



And yet Paul Starr (a former adviser on healthcare for the Clinton administration) didn't seem to make the connection between Franklin Roosevelt's view of the direction the US should take following the second world war's conclusion and Sanders' proposals for medicine markets while he trotted out a history lesson to alleviate "amnesia" and to warn about the "dangers" of Sanders' socialist billing in February:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-2016-socialism-213667

In fact, Starr could scarcely see a connection between Roosevelt and Sanders at all, proposing that Sanders was merely wearing Roosevelt's liberalism as a "mask". Roosevelt not only sought to establish economic security by guaranteeing things like housing, food, work, and healthcare to all people in the US, he framed the matter as one of critical importance to national security. He used price controls and taxes as tools for managing economic woes, imposed limitations on the relationships and conduct of private banking institutions and restructured the federal banking system, created a large number of federal institutions tasked with enforcing a long list of economic regulations, and much more. And yet because Bernie Sanders made a documentary about Eugene V. Debs, set his proposed tax rates to "confiscatory" levels, and proposes a single payer healthcare system while simultaneously wanting to renegotiate international trade deals the connections somehow dissolve?

I'm not so sure. And given the lack of impact on the polling figures by Starr's article, I think I'm far from alone in that regard. So come from the left or come from the right, crying "Socialist!" doesn't seem to be doing much damage to Sanders' favourability or general election performance so far.
16789 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/14/16

runec wrote:


Ejanss wrote:
They already do, but it's too farther down their Fear-Crisis list than depicting "Bill Clinton 2.0" as the unstoppable Democratic Antichrist.


Yeah, its already one of their "Things That Will Supposedly Destroy The American Way Of Life" entries. Which is why it'll be pretty effective if they need to tie it to Sanders if he was the nominee. Which as I was saying is fundamentally why Sander's poll numbers are deceiving. The GOP is too wrapped up in the unstoppable Democratic Antichrist panic to bother much with Sanders yet. But if he was the nominee and they actually focused entirely on him it would not be pretty.

Say what you will about Hillary, but she's already use to their shit and can sit through hours of it without batting an eyelash ( Benghazi(tm) ). Sanders on the other hand couldn't make it through an NY Times interview. I like Sanders but I don't think he or his campaign realizes just how deplorable US politics has become nor do I think his campaign has a good handle on the primary to begin with.



Ejanss wrote:
Although it's also possible to be cagey about "losing" your tax records if they show too much information about whom you did business WITH.


I think Trump's problem likely has a lot more to do with maintaining his bluster and image. There's no way he's worth what he claims he is and with most of his net worth basically being what he thinks his name is worth.





http://www.snopes.com/donald-drumpf/

-.-




Ah blindly believing snopes because single authors know everything

"At any rate, neither Trump nor his father ever bore the surname Drumpf, and whether Trump's grandfather had also anglicized the name at some point remained unclear."

For what it is worth the Low German dialects have not fully embraced the second German consonant shift which turned p into pf/f, they would presumably say Trump for Trumpf.

(For the same reason they often have d where High German has t, so the picture is not quite as nice. But nevertheless Drumpf and Trump are entirely within the range of pronunciations and, prior to heavily standardized orthography, spellings one could encounter in different parts of Germany.

As for going from Trumpf to Trump after immigration - Trumpf pronounced the American way just doesn't sound very good and Trump is the direct English translation of Trumpf - the 2nd consonant shift of course didn't apply to English either, so you'll often find Low German and English words to be very close; e.g. Pann (LG) / pan (E) - Pfanne (HG), Schipp (LG) / ship (E) - Schiff (HG), ...)
runec 
28294 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/15/16

BlueOni wrote:
The GOP has been screaming itself hoarse with accusations of authoritarian leftism against the Obama administration pretty much since its beginning, and that particular Eye of Mordor is and has been on Sanders as well. People have been asking this question since the beginning of the primary process, even to the very first debate.


Sorry, it may have swept by him but Sanders just simply has not been the main focus of the GOP's ire or attention so far. Not with Hillary, the Democratic Antichrist(tm) and Grand Matron of Benghazi(tm) on the ticket beside him. Sanders won't get the full gaze of darkness unless he overtakes Hillary as the frontrunner and proves he's actually worth spending the attack money on.

It doesn't matter how many scattered examples you can cite. Sanders just hasn't been under the lamp like Hillary has so far. She's been under it for years. Heck, she's been under it for longer than some of Sanders supporters have been alive. The GOP Is obessed with the Clintons.



Rujikin wrote:
Ah blindly believing snopes because single authors know everything


.....you say after citing a comment thread from Reddit.
Sailor Candy Moderator
200577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 9/15/16
OP Nuked. Locked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.