Trump lovefest with Mamdani continues...

QP!

Verified User
Trump goes out on a limb here and says Mamdani has already had a start, as Mayor that will make him one of the great one.


@T. A. Gardner head explodes as his true love Trump betrays him for one he hates. :rofl2:
 
Laura Loomer like Terry is in melt down mode. :ROFLMAO:

b1scxj.jpg
 
I speculated here on JPP ages ago that Mamdani is the choice of the people who run America from the shadows......this idea has aged well.
 
Trump goes out on a limb here and says Mamdani has already had a start, as Mayor that will make him one of the great one.


@T. A. Gardner head explodes as his true love Trump betrays him for one he hates. :rofl2:
Sounds like Trump. Praise in public, punish in private.

But the deep disagreements between the two men weren’t far beneath the surface.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/21/mamdani-trump-gracie-mansion-meeting-01086582

What I see is Trump trying to work with Mamdani, but likely not expecting too much, and all the while spewing platitudes in public that are meaningless.
 
Sounds like Trump. Praise in public, punish in private.

But the deep disagreements between the two men weren’t far beneath the surface.
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/09/21/mamdani-trump-gracie-mansion-meeting-01086582

What I see is Trump trying to work with Mamdani, but likely not expecting too much, and all the while spewing platitudes in public that are meaningless.
Trump knows his magats do not read and only see the video clips and headlines and so all they will see is the praise.

That is why so many magats currently are reacting badly to this Trump suck up to Mamdani.

Trump sees Mamdani as coming out 'Central casting' and as a person who won on 'affordability' and he wants to suck up to that and hope some rubs back off on him. He does not want PUBLICALLY to be seen as opposed to Mamdani's very popular agenda with the type of base Trump feels he needs to have on his side.
 
Trump knows his magats do not read and only see the video clips and headlines and so all they will see is the praise.

That is why so many magats currently are reacting badly to this Trump suck up to Mamdani.

Trump sees Mamdani as coming out 'Central casting' and as a person who won on 'affordability' and he wants to suck up to that and hope some rubs back off on him. He does not want PUBLICALLY to be seen as opposed to Mamdani's very popular agenda with the type of base Trump feels he needs to have on his side.
Like they say, Trump wants to support people he thinks are winners.
 
Trump knows his magats do not read and only see the video clips and headlines and so all they will see is the praise.

That is why so many magats currently are reacting badly to this Trump suck up to Mamdani.

Trump sees Mamdani as coming out 'Central casting' and as a person who won on 'affordability' and he wants to suck up to that and hope some rubs back off on him. He does not want PUBLICALLY to be seen as opposed to Mamdani's very popular agenda with the type of base Trump feels he needs to have on his side.
They may be, I say, Meh. Neither here nor there. The proof is in actions not rhetoric. I think Mamdani will fail spectacularly if left to his own devices. Wealth confiscation and the "state" running--maybe ruining would be a better word--everything has a long history of catastrophic failure.
 
They may be, I say, Meh. Neither here nor there. The proof is in actions not rhetoric. I think Mamdani will fail spectacularly if left to his own devices. Wealth confiscation and the "state" running--maybe ruining would be a better word--everything has a long history of catastrophic failure.
And capitalism is a catastraphic failure. Rich people make the worst presidents.
 
And capitalism is a catastraphic failure. Rich people make the worst presidents.
Really? The whole reason the world is as rich as it is today, is because of Capitalism. Communism and Socialism didn't add value to the world. It didn't lift billions out of poverty. Those systems made everyone forced into them, equally poor.

In terms of being rich, these are the top 10 Presidents who were by the standard of their day filthy rich:

1. Donald Trump
2. George Washington
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Bill Clinton
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Andrew Jackson
7. James Madison
8. LBJ
9. Herbert Hoover
10. JFK

Have fun with that.
 
Really? The whole reason the world is as rich as it is today, is because of Capitalism. Communism and Socialism didn't add value to the world. It didn't lift billions out of poverty. Those systems made everyone forced into them, equally poor.

In terms of being rich, these are the top 10 Presidents who were by the standard of their day filthy rich:

1. Donald Trump
2. George Washington
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. Bill Clinton
5. Theodore Roosevelt
6. Andrew Jackson
7. James Madison
8. LBJ
9. Herbert Hoover
10. JFK

Have fun with that.



Among the presidents listed, George Washington, Donald Trump, JFK, Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson were considered exceptionally wealthy relative to the average citizen of their respective eras.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—owned vast estates, their immense debts meant they were asset-rich but cash-poor, frequently bordering on bankruptcy during or after their terms. While Clinton was basically without any asset wealth at all when entering office.

💰 Extremely Wealthy (Top-Tier Relative Wealth)


George Washington (1st President): Widely considered the wealthiest president in U.S. history relative to his time. He inherited and expanded the massive Mount Vernon estate, owned over 50,000 acres of land, and held hundreds of enslaved people. His presidential salary alone accounted for roughly 2% of the total U.S. federal budget at the time.


Donald Trump (45th President): Born into a wealthy real estate family, Trump amassed a multi-billion-dollar empire spanning commercial real estate, golf courses, and licensing brands before entering office. He is the first billionaire president in U.S. history.


JFK / John F. Kennedy (35th President): Kennedy was born into extraordinary generational wealth. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, built a massive fortune in banking, liquor, and real estate. JFK’s share of the family trust funds made him independently wealthy, and he famously donated his entire presidential salary to charity.


Herbert Hoover (31st President): Long before entering politics, Hoover was a self-made international mining engineer and consultant. He accumulated millions of dollars through global mining investments and, like JFK, donated his presidential salary during his term.

🏛️ Moderately Wealthy to Upper-Class


Theodore Roosevelt (26th President): Born into a prominent, wealthy New York family, Roosevelt inherited a substantial trust fund. While he was highly comfortable and owned the famous Sagamore Hill estate, he was not quite as wealthy as the industrial "robber barons" of the Gilded Age.


Andrew Jackson (7th President): Jackson was a self-made man who became highly affluent through law, land speculation, and cotton farming. His Hermitage plantation was a massive, highly profitable operation worked by over 150 enslaved people, placing him firmly in the wealthy elite of the antebellum South.


LBJ / Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President): Johnson grew up in modest circumstances but amassed significant wealth during his political career. The bulk of his fortune came from a highly successful Texas radio and television station purchased and managed by his wife, Lady Bird Johnson.

📉 Cash-Poor / Heavily Indebted (The Illusion of Wealth)


Thomas Jefferson (3rd President) & James Madison (4th President): On paper, both possessed massive Virginia plantations (Monticello and Montpelier). In reality, both men suffered from crushing lifelong debt due to volatile agricultural markets, lavish lifestyles, and inherited liabilities. Jefferson died deeply in debt, forcing his family to sell Monticello and his enslaved workers at auction.


Bill Clinton (42nd President): Clinton entered the White House with very little personal wealth, having spent most of his adult life earning modest public servant salaries as Governor of Arkansas and President. He only became exceptionally wealthy after his presidency through lucrative book deals and global speaking tours.
 
Among the presidents listed, George Washington, Donald Trump, JFK, Herbert Hoover, Theodore Roosevelt, and Andrew Jackson were considered exceptionally wealthy relative to the average citizen of their respective eras.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison—owned vast estates, their immense debts meant they were asset-rich but cash-poor, frequently bordering on bankruptcy during or after their terms. While Clinton was basically without any asset wealth at all when entering office.

💰 Extremely Wealthy (Top-Tier Relative Wealth)


George Washington (1st President): Widely considered the wealthiest president in U.S. history relative to his time. He inherited and expanded the massive Mount Vernon estate, owned over 50,000 acres of land, and held hundreds of enslaved people. His presidential salary alone accounted for roughly 2% of the total U.S. federal budget at the time.


Donald Trump (45th President): Born into a wealthy real estate family, Trump amassed a multi-billion-dollar empire spanning commercial real estate, golf courses, and licensing brands before entering office. He is the first billionaire president in U.S. history.


JFK / John F. Kennedy (35th President): Kennedy was born into extraordinary generational wealth. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, built a massive fortune in banking, liquor, and real estate. JFK’s share of the family trust funds made him independently wealthy, and he famously donated his entire presidential salary to charity.


Herbert Hoover (31st President): Long before entering politics, Hoover was a self-made international mining engineer and consultant. He accumulated millions of dollars through global mining investments and, like JFK, donated his presidential salary during his term.

🏛️ Moderately Wealthy to Upper-Class


Theodore Roosevelt (26th President): Born into a prominent, wealthy New York family, Roosevelt inherited a substantial trust fund. While he was highly comfortable and owned the famous Sagamore Hill estate, he was not quite as wealthy as the industrial "robber barons" of the Gilded Age.


Andrew Jackson (7th President): Jackson was a self-made man who became highly affluent through law, land speculation, and cotton farming. His Hermitage plantation was a massive, highly profitable operation worked by over 150 enslaved people, placing him firmly in the wealthy elite of the antebellum South.


LBJ / Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President): Johnson grew up in modest circumstances but amassed significant wealth during his political career. The bulk of his fortune came from a highly successful Texas radio and television station purchased and managed by his wife, Lady Bird Johnson.

📉 Cash-Poor / Heavily Indebted (The Illusion of Wealth)


Thomas Jefferson (3rd President) & James Madison (4th President): On paper, both possessed massive Virginia plantations (Monticello and Montpelier). In reality, both men suffered from crushing lifelong debt due to volatile agricultural markets, lavish lifestyles, and inherited liabilities. Jefferson died deeply in debt, forcing his family to sell Monticello and his enslaved workers at auction.


Bill Clinton (42nd President): Clinton entered the White House with very little personal wealth, having spent most of his adult life earning modest public servant salaries as Governor of Arkansas and President. He only became exceptionally wealthy after his presidency through lucrative book deals and global speaking tours.
Equivocation on your part. They were wealthy, but...

It really doesn't matter in any case. The proof is that Hume(militaed) is wrong. Wealth and the quality or efficacy of a President are not co-dependent. That is, a wealthy president can be a success or failure just as much as a poor president can. Hume(miliated) is simply wrong.

You adding irrelevant details to that does nothing to change that outcome.
 
Equivocation on your part. They were wealthy, but...

No that is just your stupidity and lack of understanding of finance. You do not understand what the term 'house rich but cash poo' means so you just think a person with a big house must be rich as you do not consider and offset their debt.

So when you see the big house and i point out they have more debt than equity you say "equivocation... they are wealthy but...' as you think they are still rich.

It is not equivocation. It is a fact check showing they are not rich.


It really doesn't matter in any case.
It matters that you were wrong.

The proof is that Hume(militaed) is wrong. Wealth and the quality or efficacy of a President are not co-dependent. That is, a wealthy president can be a success or failure just as much as a poor president can. Hume(miliated) is simply wrong.

You adding irrelevant details to that does nothing to change that outcome.
No i am merely added the one thing you hate, to your post. Facts to correct your constant mistakes. Those are not irrelevant.
 
No that is just your stupidity and lack of understanding of finance. You do not understand what the term 'house rich but cash poo' means so you just think a person with a big house must be rich as you do not consider and offset their debt.

Argument from fallacy. Or, a fallacy fallacy. I never argued any of that. You are just making shit up no.
So when you see the big house and i point out they have more debt than equity you say "equivocation... they are wealthy but...' as you think they are still rich.

It is not equivocation. It is a fact check showing they are not rich.

That's the fallacy fallacy .
It matters that you were wrong.

You are wrong.
No i am merely added the one thing you hate, to your post. Facts to correct your constant mistakes. Those are not irrelevant.
You offered no facts here. All you did was make up a fantasy position as a strawman and then present it as if I was making that argument. You fail.
 
Argument from fallacy. Or, a fallacy fallacy. I never argued any of that. You are just making shit up no.


That's the fallacy fallacy .
...
Yes you did argue it but you are too stupid to understand your own points.

You are LITERALLY saying a person who owns assets but has more debt on those assets than they are worth is still rich because of how much the assets are worth.

You are calling it "equivocation" to point out the debt exceeds the equity when you claim as rich.

You simply do not understand asset value versus debt, and during the sub Prime Mortgage crisis economy crash you would be the guy claiming the people who owned houses with mortgages under water we more wealthy than a renter who owned no such home but had no such debt.

And as the home owner, with the mortgage under water got foreclosed on and was left with debt you would be the person not able to understand why they ended up more poor than the renter as you kept repeating 'BUT THEY OWNED A HOME, SO HOW DID THIS HAPPEN'.

You simply are dumb on this topic and most areas of finance and need to be continually educated on them.

You do and will try to change what you claimed after the fact once you finally realize it was wrong, and i expect that here, but your initial take based on YOUR understanding is almost always wrong.
 
Yes you did argue it but you are too stupid to understand your own points.

You are LITERALLY saying a person who owns assets but has more debt on those assets than they are worth is still rich because of how much the assets are worth.

If the value of those assets is not fixed, then how do you actually know what they're worth? Real Estate is that way. Its value can only be determined when it sells. It can be estimated, guessed at, but is not actually known until that happens.
You are calling it "equivocation" to point out the debt exceeds the equity when you claim as rich
You simply do not understand asset value versus debt, and during the sub Prime Mortgage crisis economy crash you would be the guy claiming the people who owned houses with mortgages under water we more wealthy than a renter who owned no such home but had no such debt.

And as the home owner, with the mortgage under water got foreclosed on and was left with debt you would be the person not able to understand why they ended up more poor than the renter as you kept repeating 'BUT THEY OWNED A HOME, SO HOW DID THIS HAPPEN'.

You simply are dumb on this topic and most areas of finance and need to be continually educated on them.

You do and will try to change what you claimed after the fact once you finally realize it was wrong, and i expect that here, but your initial take based on YOUR understanding is almost always wrong.
The whole problem for you here is that you are now arguing for why a wealth tax should NOT be implemented. The way California is going to slap this on billionaires is on their paper net worth while ignoring debt. California wants that wealth and having lots of debt is not going to stop them from taking it.
 
Back
Top