What if Both Hillary and Donald get Indicted?

[ocean515]

Not my opinion. Trump's only direct involvement with his university was advertising and a controlling interest. In spite of his pitch that his instructors were hand picked and knew his real estate secrets, Trump didn't even know any of the instructors, many of whom couldn't even be determined to have graduated from high school. The one "success story" who praised the university filed for bankruptcy. Read the article in full.

Donald Trump under oath: Trump University's promises crumble - May. 27, 2016



The reviews that you collected from your customers non-anonymously and before they were allowed to even receive your certificates were worthless, except insofar as they could be used to sell the next sales training program. But prove me wrong: go ahead and put in big print next to your reviews: "All reviews are non-anonymous and given before receipt of training certificate." Do tell how many signups you get next time. My guess is none. Imagine the drop in restaurant walk-ins when a four star restaurant on Yelp has the header: "Before receiving their credit card and vehicle back at the end of the night, all customers are required to fill out a Yelp survey with the manager watching."

Sorry, Ocean, your position is indefensible and like all the other Trump supporters who are backed into a corner, you're just going to have to resort to the "caveat emptor" argument.

While I appreciate taking the trouble to present thoughts as you imagine them, they are simple products of your imagination, and thus, have no basis in reality. As such, they are meaningless in the context involved.

I didn't solicit reviews from customers, I solicited reviews from employees who completed the sales training program we created. The anonymous reviews were designed to identify areas of improvement or focus that might need to be addressed. The requirement they be completed before "diplomas" were issued was simply to insure the reviews were received.

At times I've had over 400 employees working for me. I couldn't begin to name all of them. And I certainly wasn't involved in hand picking every single one. However, I most certainly hand picked everyone responsible for hiring them. I also, at one time or another, reviewed every application. In so doing, I did veto some hires as a result.

My position is quite defensible, in spite of your declaration.

IMO, it would appear the big challenge is overcoming NY's prohibition on including "University" in the programs title. It will be interesting to see how that part plays out.

The rest is just wishful thinking among those whose political bias would clutch at anything to reject an ideologically opposed candidate.

 

[Cardinal]

While I appreciate taking the trouble to present thoughts as you imagine them, they are simple products of your imagination, and thus, have no basis in reality. As such, they are meaningless in the context involved.

Only "products of my imagination" if you pretend the stories coming out because of the University fraud scandal aren't real and you're not reading them. According to the facts coming out and the trial that's going to begin in November, it's all quite real.

I didn't solicit reviews from customers, I solicited reviews from employees who completed the sales training program we created. The anonymous reviews were designed to identify areas of improvement or focus that might need to be addressed. The requirement they be completed before "diplomas" were issued was simply to insure the reviews were received.

Yes, because if they aren't anonymous, then receiving the reviews from them IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. Do you realize how desperate you sound?

At times I've had over 400 employees working for me. I couldn't begin to name all of them. And I certainly wasn't involved in hand picking every single one. However, I most certainly hand picked everyone responsible for hiring them. I also, at one time or another, reviewed every application. In so doing, I did veto some hires as a result.

None of which is relevant to anything I said. If you told them you would give them xyz knowledge and then didn't, you're a fraud. If you told them you would give them xyz knowledge and then did, congratulations! You're better than Trump.

My position is quite defensible, in spite of your declaration.

You barely even have a coherent position, except "Nope nope nope! All in your imagination! Lalalalalalalalal!!!!"

IMO, it would appear the big challenge is overcoming NY's prohibition on including "University" in the programs title. It will be interesting to see how that part plays out.

Compared to everything else going on with Trump U., that's actually the least interesting part.

The rest is just wishful thinking among those whose political bias would clutch at anything to reject an ideologically opposed candidate.

 

[ocean515]

Only "products of my imagination" if you pretend the stories coming out because of the University fraud scandal aren't real and you're not reading them. According to the facts coming out and the trial that's going to begin in November, it's all quite real.


Yes, because if they aren't anonymous, then receiving the reviews from them IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE. Do you realize how desperate you sound?



None of which is relevant to anything I said. If you told them you would give them xyz knowledge and then didn't, you're a fraud. If you told them you would give them xyz knowledge and then did, congratulations! You're better than Trump.



You barely even have a coherent position, except "Nope nope nope! All in your imagination! Lalalalalalalalal!!!!"


Compared to everything else going on with Trump U., that's actually the least interesting part.

I'm not sure why demonstrating you have nothing but straws to clutch at would compel me to accept your opinion. Perhaps you should consider how desperate YOU are confirming you are. 12 reviews from 12 students is easy to count.

While it is interesting to see evidence of how your imagination works, it does nothing to advance your argument.

 

[Cardinal]

I'm not sure why demonstrating you have nothing but straws to clutch at would compel me to accept your opinion. Perhaps you should consider how desperate YOU are confirming you are. 12 reviews from 12 students is easy to count.

While it is interesting to see evidence of how your imagination works, it does nothing to advance your argument.

All you're demonstrating is that you believe if you refuse to read the news, then none of it is real.

 

[ocean515]

All you're demonstrating is that you believe if you refuse to read the news, then none of it is real.

I've seen enough of your imagination here to conclude we have nothing more to exchange.

Have a good day.

 

[MrT]

Those few people voluntarily paid that price - that is not so with PPACA or other laws based on fraud.

What are you talking about? The PPACA only requires that you purchase insurance from a private company. They voluntarily decide which insurance to purchase. And when they make that decision, they aren't being lied to about the cost or the benefits that they purchase.

The same can not be said of the Trump University purchasers.

 

[MrT]

His testimony is easy to find. The link you provided is quite vague on the issue of handpicked.

I think we have established he hand picked the instructors responsible for developing the entire enterprise. The fact he reviewed resumes also suggests he was involved in the selection process. Remembering individual names? That is a poor basis to use as evidence he was not involved. There is no way I could name all my employees, even though I have probably reviewed their resumes at some point in time.

But can you name any of your employees? He could not.

 

[radcen]

Ok, let's break this down and make it as straight forward as possible.

Donald Trump publicly claimed that he hand picked the instructors. Donald Trump, during his deposition, said that he had nothing to do with the selection process of instructors.

Are those two positions contradictory?

Sounds like when Obama claimed Obamacare wasn't a tax, then to get it past the Supreme Court argued it was legal because it was a tax.

Random thought: I wouldn't expect Trump to have hand-picked all the instructors, but I also would not believe him if he claimed to have picked none of them. He should have picked at least the senior instructors, or else having his name on the program is meaningless.

 

[ocean515]

But can you name any of your employees? He could not.

I could name some, but I certainly couldn't name many. With two manufacturing facilities in different states, I could probably only name a dozen or so people out of the 200+ who worked at my Indiana plant.

Some people are not good with names. Last I checked, that was not against the law.

 

[MrT]

Sounds like when Obama claimed Obamacare wasn't a tax, then to get it past the Supreme Court argued it was legal because it was a tax.

Random thought: I wouldn't expect Trump to have hand-picked all the instructors, but I also would not believe him if he claimed to have picked none of them. He should have picked at least the senior instructors, or else having his name on the program is meaningless.

Yea...not a good analogy. Sorry.

As for Trump, he allowed the guy that came to him with the idea for Trump University to pick the instructors. Trump admitted personally to a lack of influence on the selection process.

 

[MrT]

I could name some, but I certainly couldn't name many. With two manufacturing facilities in different states, I could probably only name a dozen or so people out of the 200+ who worked at my Indiana plant.

Some people are not good with names. Last I checked, that was not against the law.

But it doesn't help you in a fraud case where one of the basic arguments is that you sold the product under the claim that you hand picked the instructors and then admitted under oath that you dI'd not have any involvement with the selection process.

 

[radcen]

Yea...not a good analogy. Sorry.

As for Trump, he allowed the guy that came to him with the idea for Trump University to pick the instructors. Trump admitted personally to a lack of influence on the selection process.

Both scenarios demonstrate contradiction in presentation to the public as selling points vs reality and as such are hypocrisy, if not outright lies. Perfect analogy. Please don't tell me you're just being a partisan hack because one of the people is someone you like.

 

[ocean515]

But it doesn't help you in a fraud case where one of the basic arguments is that you sold the product under the claim that you hand picked the instructors and then admitted under oath that you dI'd not have any involvement with the selection process.

It depends on definitions. To coin a phrase, "it depends on what the definition of is, is." He admitted he reviewed the resumes. That would likely mean approval was sought by those he hand picked to do the job of hiring. Othewise, why would he be reviewing the resumes?