Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

This Would BE Funny If It Wasnt So Sad...

edit: Drumpf Claims Black Americans Have Never Been Worse Off

"We’re going to make our country safe again. We’re going to rebuild our inner cities because our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before,” he said. “Ever, ever, ever.”

I know some textbooks tried to take slavery out of American History but I am still pretty sure Donald is wrong.

More recent history, I don't think Watts has been burned to the ground, has it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

More recent history, I don't think Watts has been burned to the ground, has it?

1917 was fun, too.

The reason for the Pogrom? The blacks in that neighborhood had good jobs and good homes, their own banks and utilities, and were building their own education infrastructure.

But I hear the cops found PCP in every house...

 

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

More recent history, I don't think Watts has been burned to the ground, has it?

At least in the NYC area, they were worse off before Trump was told he couldn't discriminate against them in housing.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

http://www.businessinsider.com/hole...charity-donald-trump-golf-course-suing-2011-2

Alonzo Mourning charity hosts a charity golf tournament on a Trump course. Guy hits hole in one that is supposed to win him $1M. It turns out though the rules stipulated the shot has to be from greater than 150 yards, and the tee markers (set by Trump's course) were set at the wrong yardage. The course, charity, and insurance refuse to pay, so he takes them to court. Already sounds somewhat skeezy about the course setting the markers wrong, but then Trump pays out $158K using Trump Foundation money from Trump golf course business!

Where does it say in there that Trump paid $158,000?

This is actually a somewhat common occurrence. I was involved in a golf tournament once where a car was given as a prize, a guy got a hole-in-one, but was denied the prize because the tee markers weren't at least 150 yards from the hole. It was a weird deal where the hole was actually something like 153 yards long, "on the card" from it's official marker in approximately the middle of the tee box (where the tee markers were placed that day). However, it was a big green and the hole was actually cut fairly close to the front of the green, so the actual distance was something like 147 yards. Insurance companies are hyper-vigilant about those things. I'm involved in running a tournament at our course and we actually have to use devices to measure the distance from the actual marker to the cup, then we have to have two witnesses watching play at the hole.

But it is the responsibility of the tournament sponsor, since they buy the insurance contract. I'd be surprised if the club got involved at all, other than following the instructions from the tournament sponsor.

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Where does it say in there that Trump paid $158,000?

This is actually a somewhat common occurrence. I was involved in a golf tournament once where a car was given as a prize, a guy got a hole-in-one, but was denied the prize because the tee markers weren't at least 150 yards from the hole. It was a weird deal where the hole was actually something like 153 yards long, "on the card" from it's official marker in approximately the middle of the tee box (where the tee markers were placed that day). However, it was a big green and the hole was actually cut fairly close to the front of the green, so the actual distance was something like 147 yards. Insurance companies are hyper-vigilant about those things. I'm involved in running a tournament at our course and we actually have to use devices to measure the distance from the actual marker to the cup, then we have to have two witnesses watching play at the hole.

But it is the responsibility of the tournament sponsor, since they buy the insurance contract. I'd be surprised if the club got involved at all, other than following the instructions from the tournament sponsor.

Michigan basketball had a kid hit a half court shot in one of those lay up>free throw>3pt>half court contests for 10k or something a year or two ago and they wouldn't pay him because it was a half second late. I think they later did give him a thousand or so after outcry. There have been a lot of other stories about half court shots or center ice shot prizes not being awarded for a foot being over the line. At least those are all fixed boundaries though, not like golf where it's just plain falsely advertised and apparently impossible to win because they moved the hole.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Where does it say in there that Trump paid $158,000?

This is actually a somewhat common occurrence. I was involved in a golf tournament once where a car was given as a prize, a guy got a hole-in-one, but was denied the prize because the tee markers weren't at least 150 yards from the hole. It was a weird deal where the hole was actually something like 153 yards long, "on the card" from it's official marker in approximately the middle of the tee box (where the tee markers were placed that day). However, it was a big green and the hole was actually cut fairly close to the front of the green, so the actual distance was something like 147 yards. Insurance companies are hyper-vigilant about those things. I'm involved in running a tournament at our course and we actually have to use devices to measure the distance from the actual marker to the cup, then we have to have two witnesses watching play at the hole.

But it is the responsibility of the tournament sponsor, since they buy the insurance contract. I'd be surprised if the club got involved at all, other than following the instructions from the tournament sponsor.

If you look back a few pages to when the WaPo article was linked I believe in there it talks about how Drumpf paid (perhaps with a check though I forget) but I could be wrong.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Michigan basketball had a kid hit a half court shot in one of those lay up>free throw>3pt>half court contests for 10k or something a year or two ago and they wouldn't pay him because it was a half second late. I think they later did give him a thousand or so after outcry. There have been a lot of other stories about half court shots or center ice shot prizes not being awarded for a foot being over the line. At least those are all fixed boundaries though, not like golf where it's just plain falsely advertised and apparently impossible to win because they moved the hole.

Where do they say they moved the hole on this guy?

I know, from practical experience that this is very easily screwed up. First, the guy setting the pins and tee markers in the morning is usually just some club employee who does the exact same thing every morning.

Second, I've seen clubs (including ours in the event I mentioned) think they have it right because they held the contest on a hole that was at least 150 yards long without realizing that it doesn't matter how long the hole is, what matters is the distance from the tee markers to the actual cup.

Third, and the reason that it makes zero sense to accuse the tournament sponsor, the golf club, or Donald frickin' Trump for that matter, of some sort of intentional fraud or tampering with the hole is they have no incentive to do so! What happens with these events is this. The sponsor plans to give away $1 million, or a car, or whatever. They then go out and buy an insurance policy for a few grand to cover it if someone makes the hole-in-one.

By the time the tournament starts, the premium has been paid. The only party with any exposure is the insurance company. If anything, both the tournament sponsor and the course should want someone to get a qualifying hole-in-one, since the insurance company pays, but their course and tournament gets all the great press.

Why would the sponsor or golf course try to secretly prevent people from getting a hole-in-one that counts for the prize???

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Where do they say they moved the hole on this guy?

I know, from practical experience that this is very easily screwed up. First, the guy setting the pins and tee markers in the morning is usually just some club employee who does the exact same thing every morning.

Second, I've seen clubs (including ours in the event I mentioned) think they have it right because they held the contest on a hole that was at least 150 yards long without realizing that it doesn't matter how long the hole is, what matters is the distance from the tee markers to the actual cup.

Third, and the reason that it makes zero sense to accuse the tournament sponsor, the golf club, or Donald frickin' Trump for that matter, of some sort of intentional fraud or tampering with the hole is they have no incentive to do so! What happens with these events is this. The sponsor plans to give away $1 million, or a car, or whatever. They then go out and buy an insurance policy for a few grand to cover it if someone makes the hole-in-one.

By the time the tournament starts, the premium has been paid. The only party with any exposure is the insurance company. If anything, both the tournament sponsor and the course should want someone to get a qualifying hole-in-one, since the insurance company pays, but their course and tournament gets all the great press.

Why would the sponsor or golf course try to secretly prevent people from getting a hole-in-one that counts for the prize???

I wasn't referencing Trump at all. I was referencing the story you posted, in which it was impossible to actually win because they accidentally cut the hole too close. Perhaps false advertising was the wrong term because it implies the golf course purposely did it, but in the end the contest wasn't legitimate.

But to think Trump is above this in any way is ignorant. What has he done in the last year and a half to show that he has morals?

 

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Where does it say in there that Trump paid $158,000?

That's an old article from before it was settled, so I guess it doesn't contain the rest of the story. Here's a newer one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ity-settle-suits-businesses-article-1.2799475

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

I wasn't referencing Trump at all. I was referencing the story you posted, in which it was impossible to actually win because they accidentally cut the hole too close. Perhaps false advertising was the wrong term because it implies the golf course purposely did it, but in the end the contest wasn't legitimate.

But to think Trump is above this in any way is ignorant. What has he done in the last year and a half to show that he has morals?

I don't know that he has any morals. I'm just telling you what I know from personal experience. This is a dispute between the golfer who got the hole-in-one and the insurance company. Neither the golf course nor the tournament sponsor have any liability, or for that matter, any reason to try to cheat golfers out of a chance to claim the prize. They've already paid the insurance premium.

If Trump paid some money on this, and it's certainly possible he did, I suspect it was only to try to keep this guy from starting a lawsuit to claim his $1 million and causing Trump and Alonzo Mourning and others associated with the tournament bad publicity. The public doesn't understand the dynamics of how these events really work. All they see is a guy claims he was cheated out of his $1 million at a tournament with Alonzo Mourning's name on it, on a Trump course, and do what a lot of people here did -- immediately assume Trump, Mourning and the course were responsible for the cheating.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

The main point here is, you cannot use the charitable foundation to pay off on behalf of the golf course...

 

[unofan]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

I don't know that he has any morals. I'm just telling you what I know from personal experience. This is a dispute between the golfer who got the hole-in-one and the insurance company. Neither the golf course nor the tournament sponsor have any liability, or for that matter, any reason to try to cheat golfers out of a chance to claim the prize. They've already paid the insurance premium.

If Trump paid some money on this, and it's certainly possible he did, I suspect it was only to try to keep this guy from starting a lawsuit to claim his $1 million and causing Trump and Alonzo Mourning and others associated with the tournament bad publicity. The public doesn't understand the dynamics of how these events really work. All they see is a guy claims he was cheated out of his $1 million at a tournament with Alonzo Mourning's name on it, on a Trump course, and do what a lot of people here did -- immediately assume Trump, Mourning and the course were responsible for the cheating.

Well, they are. The guy who sank the hole in one didn't contract with the insurance company, the charity and the golf course did. His dealings were with the charity and the golf course. They owe him, and then they could collect from the insurance company.
And if the event advertised a hole-in-one contest, and then made it impossible to win by making the hole too short, that's still shady dealings. For a million dollars, bet your *** I'd sue.

And French is correct. The reason this is a deal is that charitable funds were used to pay off a business debt. Which is not okay.

 

[SJHovey]

Well, they are. The guy who sank the hole in one didn't contract with the insurance company, the charity and the golf course did. His dealings were with the charity and the golf course. They owe him, and then they could collect from the insurance company.
And if the event advertised a hole-in-one contest, and then made it impossible to win by making the hole too short, that's still shady dealings. For a million dollars, bet your *** I'd sue.

And French is correct. The reason this is a deal is that charitable funds were used to pay off a business debt. Which is not okay.

You'd sue the golf course. And you'd lose, which is why this guy with a million dollar claim agreed to drop the case if the other side made a charitable donation.

You guys still haven't explained exactly why the club would sabotage the event (as the insurance company with $1 million on the line claims). The club and organizers had no exposure if someone got a hole-in-one. I'll hang up (again) and wait for that answer.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Even if they didn't intentionally sabotage it they still didn't honor the bet due to a convenient loophole and he used charity funds to pay it off.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

You'd sue the golf course. And you'd lose, which is why this guy with a million dollar claim agreed to drop the case if the other side made a charitable donation.

You guys still haven't explained exactly why the club would sabotage the event (as the insurance company with $1 million on the line claims). The club and organizers had no exposure if someone got a hole-in-one. I'll hang up (again) and wait for that answer.

It doesnt matter if it was sabotaged (it wasnt) it matters that when he settled he used the charity to pay off the settlement which is not ok. He chose to settle and then violated tax law with how he paid it off.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

Wouldn't you know it......

Take Jack Bauer and send him to Cornell and all he wants to do is build section 8 housing for everyone

 

[unofan]

You'd sue the golf course. And you'd lose, which is why this guy with a million dollar claim agreed to drop the case if the other side made a charitable donation.

You guys still haven't explained exactly why the club would sabotage the event (as the insurance company with $1 million on the line claims). The club and organizers had no exposure if someone got a hole-in-one. I'll hang up (again) and wait for that answer.

The club and the organizers have liability if they set up a hole-in-one contest that someone wins, but they negligently set it up in a manner that the insurance will not cover it. . Again, the insurance company is paid to cover their loss; the guy would still have a claim for a million from the course and/or the charity who actually put on the contest.

There are plenty of reasons the guy may have settled for 15 cents on the dollar even with a valid claim. Absent the insurance, the course and/or charity might not have the funds to pay out a million; the guy might not have wanted the years delay going through a full suit and appeals; litigation expenses could have eaten into the majority of the damages awarded at trial versus an early settlement. Who knows for sure.

You still haven't explained why you seem to think its ok that trumps charity paid out a business loss.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

So This Guy Is Not Mincing Words About Drumpf and His Voters

And I thought I was angry

Oh and Joss Whedon Made This Video

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

So This Guy Is Not Mincing Words About Drumpf and His Voters

And I thought I was angry

Oh and Joss Whedon Made This Video

Both awesome. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVIII: I'm OK, You're Deplorable

I loved the article. The video? I love and understand what was behind it, but when they started joking about Mark Ruffalo doing a nude scene in his next movie if you voted, they lost me. Not because I don't want to see a nude Mark Ruffalo, but it was a powerful video until they made it all jokey. It could've been so much more. This is the kind of stuff that bothers me. The idea behind it was strong, the execution missed its mark, IMO.