Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Valuetainment" channel.

  1. 15
  2. 10
  3. 6
  4. 5
  5. 4
  6. 3
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9.  @Control_alt_delete  I don't have to talk to your 70 year old grandmother. I'm 71 and I've lost a lot of friends, relatives and work associates. Just because people die that doesn't mean that every death is now an innocent demise and we're not to question it. "PBD most likely sold the interview in such a manner then surprised him with nut job stuff." Yeah.....most likely....or most likely not. You don't get points for a "most likely". So, PBD passed on a bunch of questions. That's his choice. It's his show. He can ask or NOT ask whatever he wants. Surely he didn't expect questions like "What's your favourite colour?" or "Do you like ice hockey?". Weiner was in politics. Politicians should be ready for the tough questions especially when he has the record that Weiner has. Then you want to bet that Trump Jr. would react in the same way and used a conspiracy, a well worn out conspiracy about Trump to illustrate your point. Placing a wager isn't evidence either. It's conjecture and means nothing. Besides, this isn't about Trump. It's about the Clintons. Finally, you missed my point, entirely. Weiner's reaction will only lead to a deeper entrenchment of that conspiracy theory. Read all the comments on how people think that he reacted in an hysterical manner which they'll interpret as being highly suspicious. That was my point and those comments lends credence to that point. He should have answered in a calm and rational manner. He could have answered by saying, calmly and rationally, that he feels that this conspiracy is no different than the ones that he didn't ask about. He should have said, in a matter of fact tone, that people die and it doesn't prove or disprove any accusations made. It's an accusation...that's all. Then he should have asked if PBD can show a direct link between those deaths and any real action that the Clintons took that would have caused those deaths, besides knowing the deceased. Knowing the deceased in not evidence of Clinton responsibility for those deaths. Instead, he reacts in anger, so as to intimidate PBD into abandoning this line of questioning, even suggesting that there are questions that shouldn't be asked. Wouldn't politicians love that. Don't ask any tough questions. Make it all a big love fest. You wouldn't want interviewers to treat Trump that way but boy don't you DARE do that to a Democrat. If a person wants to be taken seriously, don't act so totally unhinged. It only validates what people already think.
    2
  10.  @Control_alt_delete  You're STILL not getting it. I never said that his emotional state was evidence. Never said that at all. I never said that he should start laughed it off, either. I said that he should have replied calmly and rationally. I even listed points that he could have made but you ignore it all. People are going to believe as they believe. He shouldn't give them ammunition by losing his temper, interrupting and shouting the way that he did. Weiner already has credibility issues with his criminal record. It didn't help his argument one bit to behave so irrationally, in fact it hurt him. The bottom line is that I was trying to help him with his credibility issues but you won't have it. If he'd have kept his cool, he would have given the perception that he had he was familiar with topic and had points that he'd thought through to the point that he could articulate those thoughts carefully and in a lucid manner. Critical thinkers don't shout and interrupt and that's why he damaged his credibility. For better or worse, people believe that when you have right on your side, you don't have to lose your temper. You let logic and a sense of purpose give you an air of confidence and believability. Any lawyer, in a court of law, knows better than to rant uncontrollably, especially in front of a jury. Perception can be just as important as facts, at times. It may not be right but it's human nature. Weiner didn't offer any facts, logical argument and didn't exactly leave an image of a person who has it together. He who shouts the loudest isn't correct.
    2
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24.  @mnguardianfan7128  The prosecution must have consulted with the Deutsche Bank, the business that was alleged victim of the fraud, then. The bank did show up at his sentencing trial. It seems that the loan, in question, was quite acceptable to the bank and they even said that they'd do business with Trump again. My sister was a real estate appraiser for 30 plus years. The banks were one of her major employers. A person would put up property as collateral for a personal or business loan, claiming that their property was worth X amount of dollars. The bank would contact my sister to appraise the property in question, at the borrower's expense and she would submit an official appraisal which is bound by strict guidelines. If the borrower's claim of X value of his property is too high, they don't call the police. They tell the borrower what the property is actually worth and they either reject the loan application or reduce the amount allowed based on that property value. Once again, they do NOT call the police. My sister has been stopped on the street by irate borrowers who angrily claim that she undervalued the property and that her assessment is ruining their lives. However, she has no choice. There is a formula in deciding the value of real estate and she could lose her licence if she didn't follow the assessment rules. If you have money in a bank that would allow a loan, without following protocols, get that money out right now, if possible. Your money isn't safe there and you're risking another situation like the one in 2008. Giving out loans without any real knowledge of the value of collateral is piss poor banking. This is entirely bogus and is politically motivated.
    1