Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]The defendant’s witness put the defendant squarely at the scene of the crime. Very hard to weasel out of this one.[/quote]
Good try – but not in court, yet.Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]bill cosby flew commercial. he was pretty rich.
he did standup on drugging women.
he met a chick onboard and later raped her. allegedly[/quote]
There is wealth and then there is stupidly wealthy.Trump was approx $1B in 1980, currently est $11Bil
Cosby is $400mil currently.NOTE: I did see other articles saying $3.7 Bil, but I get $11Bil from remembering a financial article on him. Yes, Trump exaggerate his wealth.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]The NY Post says the Trump campaign arranged interview. And NY post is Trump’s preferred news outlet owned by News Corp, owner of Fox
ucodegen, you sound like that “says who” lawyer.[/quote]
More like prove it and being very careful of how words are crafted and why. As for arranging – that is not the same as vetting. I think there are other shoes to fall here.[quote=FlyerInHi]Trump never denied flying commercial. It’s pretty astounding his apologists claim he’s was too rich to deign flying first class. Trump claims the women are too ugly to assault. But he never claimed he’s too good for commercial first class. Someone should ask him at the next debate.[/quote]
True. However, you may have wanted to pay attention to an earlier post w/respect to litigation.It would be a good question to get him to clarify.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=ucodegen][quote=scaredyclassic]
was he recognizeably famous back then?[/quote]
I presume you mean in the 80’s (didn’t want quotes within quotes etc ad-nauseum) Yes.. and probably more ‘attractive’ too. The crazy hair is now hiding some balding.He was on Oprah in 1988: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
In 1980: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w47wgdhso%5B/quote%5D
79, 80 looks like he was pretty anonymous still. just getting started on putting his face everywhere…
Well are you talking ‘celebrity’ or ‘recognizably famous’. Warren Buffet is ‘recognizably famous’, but is not a ‘celebrity’ except maybe to a group of invest-heads. Same can be said for someone like Greenspan (maybe infamous for how he handled/created the 2000 market overheat)
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Gilbertthorpe contacted the Trump campaign. They vetted him and arranged interview with NY Post.
[/quote]Assuming facts not in evidence. Show evidence of vetting and arranging interview.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
was he recognizeably famous back then?[/quote]
I presume you mean in the 80’s (didn’t want quotes within quotes etc ad-nauseum) Yes.. and probably more ‘attractive’ too. The crazy hair is now hiding some balding.He was on Oprah in 1988: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]The above article seems to have been well-researched, uco.
I just ran across this piece from the same source.
Could the “plot” be thickening re: Leeds’ claim coming out of the blue at this time . . . after 37 years?[/quote]
I was kind of surprised by the existence of an old flight schedule. The article did seem to dig up a few ‘correlations’. I think the Trump camp is just sitting on the side (probably with good info like flight logs) letting people literally hang themselves and present themselves as targets for a sue-ball. Flight logs into controlled airspace tend to be backed by the FAA. The sue-ball approach matches his previous behavior.I do know for an ‘um-impeachable fact’ that Trump owned a Boeing 727 in 1988. I might even be able to get a tail number for it. He has also owned the Citation X for a long time.
Participant[quote=ltsdd]Trump owning a private plane in the 70s – early 80s?[/quote]
Yes. A business class jet. Before 1988, he added a Boeing 727.Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]ucodegen,
You were so certain before. Now you need to dig more.
Trump put forward the witness in the NY Post, no less. That is tacit admission by Trump that he was on the plane. The character of the witness is relevant, but not to the fact that Trump was on the plane.Trump camp puts forward witness to refute sex assault claim
In an exclusive interview arranged by the campaign, Gilberthorpe said he was on the flight — in either 1980 or 1981— where Jessica Leeds
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/%5B/quote%5D
The correct statement is:Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims that the GOP presidential nominee groped a woman on a cross-country flight more than three decades ago.
Which is a stretch from “Trump camp puts forward..” The line “Trump camp puts forward witness to refute sex assault claim” is from article editors. An statement which is not supported by content in the articles. Even democraticunderground.com is stating “Donald Trump’s campaign says a British man is countering claims..” though the byline says “Trump camp puts forward witness to refute sex assault claim”
Basically Trump’s campaign is saying that this person here disagrees with Leeds’ claim.. without taking any position or making any statements themselves as to whether he was on the plane or not, whether he ever met the woman or not. The semantics on the statement are important.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]A list of snarky reasons, repeating Trump’s brag about his networth, the claim the makes 10% return, just sitting on his fat ass, as reasons Trump is too good to fly commercial, except he did.
The fat ass part was my comment, but I’m speaking in the tell-it-like-it-is vernacular known to Trump land.
I’ll let readers decide if that wasn’t kissass to money.
[/quote]
There was no claim that Trump makes 10%. Warren Buffet expects a minimum of 10% return on his loans like the one he did to Goldman Sachs. I was using it as a reasonable basis to estimate returns on invested net worth. Even at 5% return on invested net worth, the amount of money that would be wasted on time at the terminal is crazy. 5% is reasonably easy to get.The fact that he flew commercial has only been established by a person of questionable voracity.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]it might get boring be rich.
maybe its fun to slum it in 1st class. hang with the plebes.
at a certain point, if you efficiently monetixed every waking moment youd do almost nothing, it wouldnt be worth it. why take a walk in central park? too expensive, too costly.[/quote]
Looks like you don’t understand the concept. Doing nothing also costs money. It is the time that passes that matters, whether walking in central park, waiting on a plane or doing nothing. The question is; what do you get for the time spent.That means; if you need to get from point A to B – do you
1) Choose commercial, wait in line – nearly 2 hours, potentially being mobbed by people who want you to lend money for what ever scheme they have in mind, deal with people who must appear to know you, etc. Deal with waiting at baggage claim and yet more people.2) Fly private for significantly more money, but all the time spent is all time in the air. You are also able to work on the plane if need be. Embarking and disembarking is quick.
I remember the few times I flew private (Corporate sponsored). One time was from San Diego to Nellis AFB. Total flight time about 40min. Virtually no time spent waiting on the ground. If I was going commercial, it would have been approx 4 hours total.
By the way, hanging with the plebes is not what you think when a person is crazy rich. People change in the presence of that much money.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Monetizing time is a dumb elitist way of bragging and putting down people who make less. I’m surprised the populists don’t see that.
I wonder why Trump’s dad was picking up used nails on construction sites. Weren’t Polish and Irish to do that?[/quote]
WRONG. Monetizing time is a way to make decisions to be time and cost effective. I was just revealing the process used by people who have crazy sums of money. Nothing elitist about it. Besides, you did not show any reference stating that ‘Monetizing time’ is a so called elitist way of bragging. I suspect it may be a term you invented yourself because it may show evidence that Trump would not fly commercial for financial reasons.As for the Polish, Irish comment, are you deciding to be racist now? Discriminating against those two races?
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=svelte][quote=ucodegen]
My opinion is that there are too many people trying to get their two minutes of fame in the whole situation.Considering that Gilberthorpe (who made the claims that he witnessed the whole thing) also made claims that he procured boys for under-aged sex parties for high-ranking British politicians in 2014 – means that your source may be questionable, as well as his statement. I don’t think he could be used to show Trump was innocent by not committing sexual harassment nor that he was even on the plane.
[/quote]Wait, but wasn’t it the Trump camp that found and presented Gilberthorpe?
So you’re saying the Trump camp supplied a false witness?
Say it ain’t so~! 🙂
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/
[/quote]No. Gilberthorpe contacted the Trump campaign on his own after he recognized Ms. Leeds photo in the news (holding up a photo of a younger version of herself).[/quote]
Have to say it, bearishgurl is right. It is even stated so in the articles by NYPost, etc as well as supposedly by Trump campaign. Maybe you should read the article for content before commenting to avoid foot-in-mouth disease.Participant[quote=harvey][quote=ucodegen][Bizarre attempt to discredit Trump accuser by claiming a certain type of seat could not have existed on any aircraft in 1979][/quote]
Your line of reasoning is beyond WTF.
[/quote]Sorry, but your whole reasoning is beyond WTF. I did not say what you quoted, though I think you wish I had said it that way because it would be easier to attack.Do proper attribution of quotes not restating in words you wish I said but attributing it to me. Your approach destroys any credibility in what you state.
-
AuthorPosts
