Thats not what he said ..thats what you heard him Say Hell that would of been great if just said it like you did no issue But no he cant even articulate the simplest of messages with any nuance

This seem to a reoccurring trend with Trump he clearly say's one thing and then others translate for the rest of what he really said or his real meaning Trump speaks like a fortune cookie

"you’re strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can’t handle it.”

AKA not strong if you cant handle it...

not saying he said that with malice intent . But come on

I didn't hear him say anything. I posted his entire quote. If I got it from an inaccurate source, OK...but if that is the whole, entire quote, there's nothing there that insults me. He has said plenty of things that no one can deny were rotten (I can't believe he survived making fun of Carly Fiorina's face), but this? I don't see it. And I'm not a blind Trump apologist as you have seen.

"AKA not strong if you cant handle it... "

You are the one hearing things that he didn't say.

He said some guys can handle it, some can't. Maybe that sounds callous and dismissive of those he describes as unable to handle it. But he didn't say those who can't are weak. He said we are obligated to help them, and that we are falling short of that obligation today. I don't see ho what can be taken any other way. He didn't say he could handle it and they are weak because they can't.

"he clearly say's one thing and then others translate for the rest"

Again, you seem to be the one who translated what he said, implying that he's saying those who were damaged, are "weak". I didn't see him say that anywhere, and if he did, I would ask you to post it.

If all he said is that "some can't handle it". Well, he could have used more sympathetic language I guess...But I would argue that what he said, is irrefutably true.

Thanks for your other post about the trucks. Sincerely...

some people are just so anxious to become indignant...:exp:

no worries Jim and no grudges here either :) what fun would it be if everyone saw everything in the same light .. and its hard to make a point in 50 words or less.. At least for me .. however if you can pull me a little right and I can pull you a little left its a win win...

You nailed it. The media and politicians dig up some truly irrelevant stuff which they try to pass off as dirt . . . tell us how awful it is . . . then, on cue, the peanut gallery squeaks and squawks a chorus of indignant outbursts . . . and others wonder "is this what the election is about? These are the kind of issues which will determine the fate of our country?"

But even more puzzling than the need to be indignant is analysis like:

"Now we can see why he does not wish to release his tax returns ... I would guess it would show more about him trying to get over on the government then trying to get by as a business .. not sure how the right who claim to be fiscal conservatives can twist this into a positive?

if he runs the country the same way as his business, does he know the Country cant right off what it owes .. or does he roll the dice?"

Is it being suggested that Trump should tell his tax accountant to disregard losses when doing his taxes. Should trump pay taxes on lost revenue? Does that make sense? Can a business survive with that type of tax policy? Are we supposed to think that "fiscal conservatives" approve of running a business that way? Isn't a primary character of being fiscally conservative not paying more or spending more than is necessary? Wouldn't spending money for nothing in return actually be fiscally profligate?

And the notion that Trump is writing off what he owes is peculiar nonsense. To be able to write it off means he doesn't owe it. If he owed it, he couldn't write it off.

And if he ran the country in the same fiscally conservative way, would that not be exactly what We the People want? Wouldn't we want the government to actually not pay more in expenses than is necessary? That is if the President actually is even supposed to "run the country." Or if it were actually the President's responsibility to control the budget. That is the Congress's duty, not the President's. Although President's, of late, have been ramming through executive orders which cost us money and runs up the debt.

Of course, that is not supposed to happen in our constitutional system. But who cares about that? People expect the new ways over the restrictive constitutional stuff. We expect that the President should "run the country," not us or our elected representatives. Ergo we are frightened to indignation about the chances of electing a candidate who didn't pay taxes which were not necessary to pay. After all, under the new way, fiscal profligacy is exactly what is expected and approved. All the wonderful things that our government does for us costs lots of money. And the government can't write off the debts because it actually owes them. They cannot be considered losses because the government is not a profit producing business. For the government, there is no profit or loss, there is just spending or not spending. And, under the new way, the more spending, the more government, and the more wonderful things it does for us.

We are under the fabricated impression that we actually want a spendthrift government. I guess that's why the curious suggestion that Trump should pay more in taxes than he owes makes sense. The actual suggestion is not that Trump should be fiscally conservative. That might deprive the government of unearned income with which it could spend on getting votes for the really good candidates who want to do stuff for us and enables them to keep the new "system" of raising the debt for the good of all.

And that is too real of an issue to debate on, or dig up "dirt" on. Better to obfuscate, "roll the dice" and make profligacy seem like conservatism. That way we can put the dirt on someone who acts fiscally conservative.

The Marine who asked Trump the question that elicited his response, was on TV tonight. He said he didn't think Trump's language was derisive of those who need help, and he's upset that people are using this to attack Trump.

In case that matters...

Hey, I am in favor of gay marriage!!

Of course, I am as guilty as anybody of spreading the ugliness. I wish we could talk more about issues. Forget politics, just look at what has been tried. Let's scrap what doesn't work, and expand upon what does work. We (and that includes me) can't get past the politics to accomplish that.

Have a good night.

Yeah, they took the veterans quote out of context. He was mostly saying a statement of fact; namely, a lot of this stuff is so awful that some people can't stomach it. That's basically correct. I don't believe he meant to impugn any of the veterans.

On the original topic however: how does such a great businessman manage to lose almost a billion dollars in a year during an economic boom? THAT'S hard to believe.

Until this above quote I believed like others on this site, U were the smartest person in the world....:) most or all the money to build these sky scrapers come from the banks or investers....if U have been to boston the last couple of years and the building that has been going on is all bank loans or investers and the owner of the property having the work done just sits back pays in most cases a monthly construction loan and hopes work is done on schedule. ..if the deal fails banks and investers lose, owner declares a write off on taxes...:)

spence, Apple avoids paying 17 million in taxes every day....U and hillary only pick on on poor mr. trump....:)

The point is, to gather that much of a loss there was a scheme, he couldn't have done it on personal losses alone.

I thought I explained this once ?
Spence do you and the Mrs. take all the deductions you can or do you give a little extra to the government ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device