4 ms·

That's almost certainly true, but why risk it in the chance you did win? Your sketchy family business is now under the purview of the public, which is exactly w

That's almost certainly true, but why risk it in the chance you did win? Your sketchy family business is now under the purview of the public, which is exactly what is happening now.

adamrezich 9y ago
What evidence is this assertion you and your parent comment are making based on?
- jorblumesea 9y ago
  Trump's scandals and corruption goes back decades, at least to the 90s. He has clear ties to elements of the criminal world and money laundering enterprises. His business empire shows up in the panama papers. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-panama/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trum... You literally shine a light on almost anything he's done and something criminally suspicious shows up. The more you look into it, the more unbelievable it becomes that he isn't knee deep in something illegal. Exactly what, no one is sure, but if your business empire is run in a shady manner, why on earth would you want to be one of the most scrutinized person on the planet? Only logical conclusion is that he never intended to win.
  - adamrezich 9y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't clear; I was asking what the basis was for the assumption both you and your parent comment were making here: >I don't think [Trump] ever thought he would win [the 2016 US Presidential election]. >That's almost certainly true, Things like this get tossed around a lot, presumptions about the thought processes of others, specifically public figures. The parent comment to yours at least couched the assertion in an "I think," but you went on to reply, "That's almost certainly true," as though you have some sort of intimate understanding of the President's thought process that the rest of us aren't privy to. I feel that these sort of careless assertions bring down the quality of discourse in general, but here on HN specifically.
    - jorblumesea 9y ago
      It's not really a controversial idea that no one thought Trump was going to win, including himself. Look at the state of his campaign, he didn't even have a cabinet worked out or any kind of transition plan. The first 100 days were a complete mess with people cobbled together from random areas of his life. The Michael Wolff book lays it out pretty clearly about what the thought process was at the time. If you look at the situation, they were not expecting a win at all. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-f... Not really sure what you're looking for, this is politics not computer science. You'll never get a sigma six answer for any of this. That's about as close as you're going to get in politics for any "fact".
      - vixen99 9y ago
        You have an agenda and therefore make statements that pretend to be factual 'well we all know that, don't we?'. Plenty of other places to conduct that game.
        jorblumesea 9y ago
        I think for anyone who hasn't been hiding under a rock this is pretty well known. There's no real game here, just those who have been paying attention and those who have not. If any of this comes off as a surprise, I would do more digging into most of this.
      - adamrezich 9y ago
        Despite you saying "it's an uncontroversial idea" and a book some guy wrote with obvious political intent, I still feel that projecting thoughts and feelings onto someone is dangerous, because it means that my perception of the world is no longer necessarily founded in reality. The more assumptions like this one makes, the further one's own internal reality has the potential of drifting away from those who don't share it. I've been making an effort to do less and less of this, myself, in the past few years, and I feel that it's helped my perception of reality considerably. For example, I predicted the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election early in the year, while very nearly everyone I knew—even those who supported and voted for Trump!—were sure he would lose. I refused to buy into memes that ascribe intentions or motivations to public figures based on hearsay, and I believe this helped me understand all the crazy shit that went on that year quite a bit better.

That's almost certainly true, but why risk it in the chance you did win? Your sketchy family business is now under the purview of the public, which is exactly what is happening now.

adamrezich 9y ago

What evidence is this assertion you and your parent comment are making based on?

jorblumesea 9y ago
Trump's scandals and corruption goes back decades, at least to the 90s. He has clear ties to elements of the criminal world and money laundering enterprises. His business empire shows up in the panama papers. https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-panama/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trum... You literally shine a light on almost anything he's done and something criminally suspicious shows up. The more you look into it, the more unbelievable it becomes that he isn't knee deep in something illegal. Exactly what, no one is sure, but if your business empire is run in a shady manner, why on earth would you want to be one of the most scrutinized person on the planet? Only logical conclusion is that he never intended to win.
- adamrezich 9y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't clear; I was asking what the basis was for the assumption both you and your parent comment were making here: >I don't think [Trump] ever thought he would win [the 2016 US Presidential election]. >That's almost certainly true, Things like this get tossed around a lot, presumptions about the thought processes of others, specifically public figures. The parent comment to yours at least couched the assertion in an "I think," but you went on to reply, "That's almost certainly true," as though you have some sort of intimate understanding of the President's thought process that the rest of us aren't privy to. I feel that these sort of careless assertions bring down the quality of discourse in general, but here on HN specifically.
  - jorblumesea 9y ago
    It's not really a controversial idea that no one thought Trump was going to win, including himself. Look at the state of his campaign, he didn't even have a cabinet worked out or any kind of transition plan. The first 100 days were a complete mess with people cobbled together from random areas of his life. The Michael Wolff book lays it out pretty clearly about what the thought process was at the time. If you look at the situation, they were not expecting a win at all. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-fire-and-fury-book-donald-trump.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/01/michael-wolff-f... Not really sure what you're looking for, this is politics not computer science. You'll never get a sigma six answer for any of this. That's about as close as you're going to get in politics for any "fact".
    - vixen99 9y ago
      You have an agenda and therefore make statements that pretend to be factual 'well we all know that, don't we?'. Plenty of other places to conduct that game.
      - jorblumesea 9y ago
        I think for anyone who hasn't been hiding under a rock this is pretty well known. There's no real game here, just those who have been paying attention and those who have not. If any of this comes off as a surprise, I would do more digging into most of this.
    - adamrezich 9y ago
      Despite you saying "it's an uncontroversial idea" and a book some guy wrote with obvious political intent, I still feel that projecting thoughts and feelings onto someone is dangerous, because it means that my perception of the world is no longer necessarily founded in reality. The more assumptions like this one makes, the further one's own internal reality has the potential of drifting away from those who don't share it. I've been making an effort to do less and less of this, myself, in the past few years, and I feel that it's helped my perception of reality considerably. For example, I predicted the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election early in the year, while very nearly everyone I knew—even those who supported and voted for Trump!—were sure he would lose. I refused to buy into memes that ascribe intentions or motivations to public figures based on hearsay, and I believe this helped me understand all the crazy shit that went on that year quite a bit better.