Canadian Commercial Real Estate Thread

[Blader]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

From The American Interest

http://www.the-american-interest.com...ampaign=buffer

What a read and from a source that in turn lists sources.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by niwell

She's not at all IMO. In my mind Hillary is no more corrupt than any politician. But the Democrats decided they wanted to put their trust in her which in my mind was a pretty bad error. Look at the popularity of Obama today compared to Hillary. That being said I don't think Bernie Sanders is any saviour and if under the intense scrutiny he'd probably end up pretty disgraced.

She won by almost 3 million votes. It's just a peculiarity of the American electoral system that she's not President-elect. It's their version of PEI, Labrador, etc. having the seats that they do.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

From The American Interest

http://www.the-american-interest.com...ampaign=buffer

Variations of "reportedly" in that article: 66

Variations of "allegedly" in that article: 25

Many of the sources in that article simply reference how rich individuals who happen to be from Russia ended up spending money in Trump properties including casinos and condos.

You can easily find articles that also show very wealthy and powerful Chinese entities intermingled with Trump as well, including ICBC leasing Trump real estate, Chinese investors holding Trump condo units, and links between capital flight (potentially due to corruption crackdowns) in China and luxury units, including in Trump properties.

Yet Trump takes a very hard line against China.

I think it's safe to say that Trump running for President has had a very negative impact on his businesses. He has had to rebrand Trump to Scion, he has seen hotel bookings fall, he has been ostracized by almost half the country in boycotts. He was a billionaire, who didn't have to run for public office, and could have quietly retired at 70, and any normal individual (who doesn't have a "personality disorder", what a harsh way to frame someone who wants to run for office to make the country better) happily played golf the rest of his life.

All these attempts to paint Trump's presidency as some nefarious insidious grand conspiracy are absurd on their face, and take either some serious suspension of disbelief or being fully committed to a highly partisan narrative to make any sense.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

She won by almost 3 million votes. It's just a peculiarity of the American electoral system that she's not President-elect. It's their version of PEI, Labrador, etc. having the seats that they do.

If you remove the entire state of California's votes, Trump won the popular vote.

It's also a quirk of the American system that no candidate ever has any reason to campaign or even set foot in the most populous state in the country. You can't really say that about Canada.

[SignalHillHiker]

Well, if you remove Alberta and the 905 belt, the Conservatives would probably be the third party in Canada in perpetuity. Both countries have their pockets of sensibility.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by niwell

She's not at all IMO. In my mind Hillary is no more corrupt than any politician. But the Democrats decided they wanted to put their trust in her which in my mind was a pretty bad error. Look at the popularity of Obama today compared to Hillary. That being said I don't think Bernie Sanders is any saviour and if under the intense scrutiny he'd probably end up pretty disgraced.

Hillary was a bad candidate, but she was likely the best the democrats had to offer at the time. Look at the other people running against her. Sanders (who arguably could have been a better choice), and a bunch of forgettable names who no one would be excited to vote for.

It goes back to the fact that these really aren't that many political figures that people can get excited about. So when you have the energy and following of someone like Sanders, it's a lesson that I think you should probably just run with it, and not collude with party elites to tilt the scales in the favor of an "establishment" candidate.

People in America have been signalling for a long time that they only want political outsiders to run for the office of the presidency. They spoke very loudly by choosing Obama over Hillary in 2008 and electing him twice against establishment Republicans. The DNC ignored those head winds to their own peril.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Hillary was a bad candidate, but she was likely the best the democrats had to offer at the time. Look at the other people running against her. Sanders (who arguably could have been a better choice), and a bunch of forgettable names who no one would be excited to vote for.

I supported Hillary and wanted her to win, but in retrospect, yes... they quashed a movement not choosing Sanders. The eventual white, working class backlash would've probably been even stronger than Trump in the long run... but it would've been better for the next few years at least.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

What people think of as crazy is him using extreme statements alongside balanced ideas to get his message out into the media (for free).

He followed his framework outlined in "Art of the Deal" to a tee. Start from an extreme position in negotiations, and then negotiate down to a reasonable approach in the middle. A Muslim ban turned into "extreme vetting" (the same solution Clinton was proposing). A concrete border wall turned into "fencing is OK". This is how he operated from the beginning, and the media gives him the free advertising, and the non-partisan independents who actually use their brain to evaluate a candidate instead of relying on sensationalist media outlets, see the reasonable approach and trust in media is further eroded.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Variations of "reportedly" in that article: 66

Variations of "allegedly" in that article: 25.

I can't simply take your word for it because you have a curious habit of arbitrary dismissal. In which paragraph does the first one appear?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

This is plain nutty.

You don't need to have a degree to realize there's something wrong whether it constitutes a personality disorder or some underlying addiction. It's hard for anyone to have not had first hand experience with disorders. It's as common as ice in winter.

I mean, I just don't subscribe to the 2017 assumption that everybody must have a personality disorder. People are different. And some people behave differently.

People with outsized wealth who achieved it by taking outsized risks tend to have a certain personality. Driven, highly competitive, workaholics. You can frame some of those as "disorders", but I think that begs the question of what is an ideal personality and who actually is qualified to define such a thing.

I think when many want to claim Trump has some sort of personality disorder, they mainly refer to him engaging and discrediting people who try to discredit him. You saw this with McCain, the Khans, and recently with Lewis. This is simply how he operates, and he hasn't been shy about admitting it and saying that when people come after him, he will respond. It's likely part of his highly competitive nature, but I don't see it being on the level of "disorder", outside of political attacks.

Regarding being a pathological liar, I think it requires quite the suspension of disbelief to characterize someone like Trump as a pathological liar, and totally ignore someone like Hillary's long and tenuous relationship with the truth.

As much as there is a certain personality profile that tends to accompany billionaires and highly driven individuals for whom millions of dollars isn't enough, the same is true of those who pursue public office. There is a certain personality type there as well, which is typically self serving, and these people largely have a highly polished image to maintain and can repeatedly lie to the public with a giant smile on their face about their intentions, history, or even their direct words (like the doozy of a dodge Hillary made in the debate regarding open borders). Do these people also have a "personality disorder"? If Trump does, I don't know how you can claim these people don't also. And then we enter a slippery slope where you can attach personality disorders to almost anyone.

Has Trump lied or misled the public in some of his interviews and statements? Undoubtably. But at least to me, he comes across as considerably more authentic then the types of career politicians who smile and will gladly and passionately talk about "helping the country" BS while they know they are lying. IMO people like Hillary and Rubio exemplify these characteristics the greatest.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I can't simply take your word for it because you have a curious habit of arbitrary dismissal. In which paragraph does the first one appear?

It's odd that you would characterize my response as a "habit of arbitrary dismissal". I can tell you I am one of the only ones who tends to read the entire articles posted, and am one of the only ones to repeatedly challenge sources. I would instead characterize others as "arbitrary acceptance" because these articles fit a preconceived narrative.

For the record, the first instance of reported occurs in the section "The Big Picture: Kleptocracy and Capital Flight", here:

for example, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s reported relationship with exiled Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.

First instance of "allege":

In other words, when it comes to evaluating the probity of senior public officials, the public has the right to know about any material allegations—true, false, or, most commonly, unprovable—about their business partners and associates, so long as this information is clearly labeled as unverified.

A very telling summary of the rest of the article, mind you. Also I encourage you to actually read the sources, because it's hearsay and coincidences and "evidence to fit the narrative", in other words, turtles all the way down. I could write a similar article about the Chinese and Trump, as a cursory google search fills in most of the same details.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

If you remove the entire state of California's votes, Trump won the popular vote.

It's also a quirk of the American system that no candidate ever has any reason to campaign or even set foot in the most populous state in the country. You can't really say that about Canada.

In both countries you can become leader without a majority of the vote, but the bar for that is even lower in Canada (where high 30%s support suffices).

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lio45

In both countries you can become leader without a majority of the vote, but the bar for that is even lower in Canada (where high 30%s support suffices).

The corollary to this, as I've mentioned before, is that framing the 30% majority rule in Canada as a relatively bad thing implies that Americans are better served by having less choice in candidates because by having only two choices, they get closer to a 50% majority decision.

In reality, Canada is constantly flirting with minority governments, who are really the best vehicle to deliver a nuanced, highly inclusive, and broad based policy approach to government. If Canada can permanently shake the prospect of ever having a majority government again, our system would have orders of magnitude closer representation to the will of the majority of the country than our neighbours to the south.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The corollary to this, as I've mentioned before, is that framing the 30% majority rule in Canada as a relatively bad thing implies that Americans are better served by having less choice in candidates because by having only two choices, they get closer to a 50% majority decision.

In reality, Canada is constantly flirting with minority governments, who are really the best vehicle to deliver a nuanced, highly inclusive, and broad based policy approach to government. If Canada can permanently shake the prospect of ever having a majority government again, our system would have orders of magnitude closer representation to the will of the majority of the country than our neighbours to the south.

Both systems have their advantages and drawbacks.

In Canada, as we all know, a guy can get four years of absolute power despite 60%+ of Canadians being almost united in their opposition to him.

In the U.S., a President can be nearly impotent politically if Congress is opposed to his ideas. And the earliest opportunity to block a team/administration shows up a year and three quarters after his inauguration, as opposed to approximately four years up here.

(in other words, if Trump and the GOP turn out to be really really awful, we will likely have the Senate and House switch to Dem domination in 2018.)

The big difference is that the POTUS has way less absolute power than a PM of Canada who has a majority of automated voting machines that always toe the party line at his disposal (machines also known as "MPs"). So I find it less objectionable to have four years of an undemocratically-elected POTUS than to have four years of an undemocratically-elected majority govt in Ottawa.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Variations of "reportedly" in that article: 66

Variations of "allegedly" in that article: 25

Many of the sources in that article simply reference how rich individuals who happen to be from Russia ended up spending money in Trump properties including casinos and condos.

You can easily find articles that also show very wealthy and powerful Chinese entities intermingled with Trump as well, including ICBC leasing Trump real estate, Chinese investors holding Trump condo units, and links between capital flight (potentially due to corruption crackdowns) in China and luxury units, including in Trump properties.

Yet Trump takes a very hard line against China.

I think it's safe to say that Trump running for President has had a very negative impact on his businesses. He has had to rebrand Trump to Scion, he has seen hotel bookings fall, he has been ostracized by almost half the country in boycotts. He was a billionaire, who didn't have to run for public office, and could have quietly retired at 70, and any normal individual (who doesn't have a "personality disorder", what a harsh way to frame someone who wants to run for office to make the country better) happily played golf the rest of his life.

All these attempts to paint Trump's presidency as some nefarious insidious grand conspiracy are absurd on their face, and take either some serious suspension of disbelief or being fully committed to a highly partisan narrative to make any sense.

Power and prestige are what Trump craves. And the office of President will absolutely allow him to enrich himself. Pretending he ran simply as some benevolent billionaire willing to sacrifice it all to serve his country is as you put it "ridiculous on its face". If it really was about that he'd be transparent and release his tax returns as every president before him has for 40 years, not to mention fully divest his businesses into a blind trust.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I mean, I just don't subscribe to the 2017 assumption that everybody must have a personality disorder. People are different. And some people behave differently.

People with outsized wealth who achieved it by taking outsized risks tend to have a certain personality. Driven, highly competitive, workaholics. You can frame some of those as "disorders", but I think that begs the question of what is an ideal personality and who actually is qualified to define such a thing.

I think when many want to claim Trump has some sort of personality disorder, they mainly refer to him engaging and discrediting people who try to discredit him. You saw this with McCain, the Khans, and recently with Lewis. This is simply how he operates, and he hasn't been shy about admitting it and saying that when people come after him, he will respond. It's likely part of his highly competitive nature, but I don't see it being on the level of "disorder", outside of political attacks.

Regarding being a pathological liar, I think it requires quite the suspension of disbelief to characterize someone like Trump as a pathological liar, and totally ignore someone like Hillary's long and tenuous relationship with the truth.

As much as there is a certain personality profile that tends to accompany billionaires and highly driven individuals for whom millions of dollars isn't enough, the same is true of those who pursue public office. There is a certain personality type there as well, which is typically self serving, and these people largely have a highly polished image to maintain and can repeatedly lie to the public with a giant smile on their face about their intentions, history, or even their direct words (like the doozy of a dodge Hillary made in the debate regarding open borders). Do these people also have a "personality disorder"? If Trump does, I don't know how you can claim these people don't also. And then we enter a slippery slope where you can attach personality disorders to almost anyone.

Has Trump lied or misled the public in some of his interviews and statements? Undoubtably. But at least to me, he comes across as considerably more authentic then the types of career politicians who smile and will gladly and passionately talk about "helping the country" BS while they know they are lying. IMO people like Hillary and Rubio exemplify these characteristics the greatest.

First of all it's a false equivalency to say Hillary lies too therefore she's equal to Trump. Fact checkers regularly found her to lie somewhere around 11% of the time iirc vs. Trump lying 60+% of the time. So no, it's not normal for politicians to be like Trump. There's a reason the term gas lighting is coming back into vogue and why people are terming this the "post truth" era.

Now as for your disbelief of personality dissorders I don't really know how to respond since it's pretty much the same kind of irrational opinion as something like climate change denial. If you want to ignore decades, more like over a century, of cases, research etc. then by all means have at 'er!

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It's odd that you would characterize my response as a "habit of arbitrary dismissal". I can tell you I am one of the only ones who tends to read the entire articles posted, and am one of the only ones to repeatedly challenge sources. I would instead characterize others as "arbitrary acceptance" because these articles fit a preconceived narrative.

For the record, the first instance of reported occurs in the section "The Big Picture: Kleptocracy and Capital Flight", here:



First instance of "allege":



A very telling summary of the rest of the article, mind you. Also I encourage you to actually read the sources, because it's hearsay and coincidences and "evidence to fit the narrative", in other words, turtles all the way down. I could write a similar article about the Chinese and Trump, as a cursory google search fills in most of the same details.

Just because the article uses the word allege doesn't discredit it. It's the norm to "allege" something until it's proven to be true. Just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean you should dismiss everything about it. You'd make a terrible juror.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Pretending he ran simply as some benevolent billionaire willing to sacrifice it all to serve his country is as you put it "ridiculous on its face".

I'm not saying he is purely altruistic (such a thing would be rightly ridiculous), but these things need to be evaluated in context. I would put Trump's motivations, who is already wealthy, has no need to exploit the office of the presidency to "enrich" himself (not to mention his entire involvement in politics from the beginning has been toxic to his businesses) somewhere above the motivations of Hillary, who was caught red handed in bribery (pay to play) schemes using her political influence, and whose family has largely gotten wealthy over exploiting their public offices.

Obviously Trump ran because he wanted to run. You can play arm chair psychologist all you want, and call it ego, or hyper competitive, or whatever, but in context - in the world in which running cost him money (he spent almost Clinton's entire net worth of his own money on his campaign), cost him clients, cost him revenue and profit potential, and objectively was a bad decision in terms of his business - his motivations seem a hell of a lot more altruistic than a figure like Hillary.

I really think it would have been a different race if he was up against someone like Obama or Sanders, who both exude more authenticity. At the end of the day there wasn't enough choice in the democratic primary process for the democratic electorate, and that was a real problem. We should be asking ourselves why there wasn't more choice? If we're being honest, part of it is because the specter of Hillary - who everybody should have recognized was a deeply flawed candidate - was crushing dissent in the background.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

First of all it's a false equivalency to say Hillary lies too therefore she's equal to Trump.

Well, first of all, fact checking has been a bit of a joke. We've discussed this before in other threads.

https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...&postcount=520

Aside from that, there is plenty of evidence that both Hillary and Trump are "pathological liars". Again, given the context of Trump's run, I find Trump's record somehow less insidious compared to Hillary.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Now as for your disbelief of personality dissorders

To be clear, I don't deny the concept of personality disorders. I am only claiming it is absurd for these arm chair psychologists to be diagnosing a political figure like Trump off the content of his 140 character twitter messages.

These types of attacks are highly politically motivated, and really muddy the waters and do a severe disservice to those individuals who actually do suffer from real personality disorders.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Just because the article uses the word allege doesn't discredit it. It's the norm to "allege" something until it's proven to be true. Just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean you should dismiss everything about it. You'd make a terrible juror.

It's the entire concept of "you can't disprove a negative". It's a bunch of hearsay presented in a misleading manner to build a case to confirm your own bias.

It isn't a secret that the three main markets for ultra luxury goods over the past few years have been the middle east, China, and Russia. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Trump condos or Patek Philippe watches or Ferrari sports cars. What anyone should be looking for in an article like this is some analysis which shows Trump had disproportionate involvement with Russia compared to these other markets, in the context of his businesses, and furthermore that such an involvement can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt (juror speak for you) to paint Trump as guilty.

I do not believe the article does that, and the way it presents evidence is a laundry list of hearsay, presenting the mere ownership or involvement of wealthy Russian individuals as being damning of Trump.

In my opinion, the article is misleading, one sided, and seeks only to preach to the choir.