The first 100 horrific days of a Trump presidency
« prev   random   next »

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 79 of 79     Last »

41   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 9:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says
It was proven, over and over and over and over.


Nope--what was proven is that you don't understand polling methodology.
42   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 7, 9:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

At a time of unprecedented party gridlock, an outsider beats both parties

—————

How do you figure? You realize Trump is a Republican. Republicans hold absolute power in all three branches.

The outsider was Bernie Sanders, and it’s proven fact that the media and both major parties, conspired against him, so much so, he never stood a chance, even though he had overwhelming support from the citizenry.

If what you suggest is true, that Trump was elected because Americans were sold on his campaign promises, then why would they be satisfied with his presidency? He hasn’t followed through with any of his campaign promises. Shouldn’t that make those people dissatisfied?
43   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 9:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
My point is that as a barometer and indicator of voter sentiment , the media and the pollsters they used dramatically discredited themselves in the 2016 elections.


And your point is clearly wrong. The data shows it to be absolutely incorrect.


I’m sure you can read the data and polls anyway you want. That is the nature of polling and statistics. However, there is no point trying to convince anyone that the media consensus and the popular interpretation of polling prior to the 2016 election wasn’t that Hillary had it locked up. It is entirely revisionistic to claim that the polling data was ambiguous.Media and polling worked together to present the public with an impression of the state of popular opinion in the United States. The media consistently made the case for Hillary having a substantial lead. As I recall, none of the polling organizations came out to contradict this consensus. This makes them complicit and discredits them
44   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 9:40am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PaisleyPattern says
the popular interpretation of polling prior to the 2016 election was that Hillary had it locked up


This is correct. The interpretation overstated the actual lead Clinton had.

PaisleyPattern says
It is entirely revisionistic to claim that the polling data was ambiguous


Nope--smart people like Nate Silver said that before the election.

PaisleyPattern says
As I recall, none of the polling organizations came out to contradict this consensus


That's because polling companies do polls and put out the results. They don't interpret the polls or construct models based on the polls. Your beef is with the idiots that didn't realize a 3% swing towards Trump in a few select states (which is quite normal) would result in Trump winning.
45   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 9:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
the popular interpretation of polling prior to the 2016 election was that Hillary had it locked up


This is correct. The interpretation overstated the actual lead Clinton had.

PaisleyPattern says
It is entirely revisionistic to claim that the polling data was ambiguous


Nope--smart people like Nate Silver said that before the election.

PaisleyPattern says
As I recall, none of the polling organizations came out to contradict this consensus


That's because polling companies do polls and put out the results. They don't interpret the polls or construct models based on the polls. Your beef is with the idiots that didn't realize a 3% swing towards Trump in a few select states (which i...


No , polls can be, and often are, constructed to favor a particular outcome. That’s what happened in this case.
46   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 9:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PaisleyPattern says
No , polls can be, and often are, constructed to favor a particular outcome. That’s what happened in this case.


All evidence to the contrary.

The polling error nationally was well within historical norms as I showed.

There was a much larger group of undecided voters than normal

Trump had been gaining for the last 3-4 days in almost all polling data.

When you look at the big picture, the result shouldn't be that surprising. Only because the idiots making the models gave such ridiculous odds was it so surprising.
47   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 7, 9:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Clinton- 66 million votes
Trump- 63 million votes

Seems similar to what the polls were saying
48   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 7, 10:02am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
No , polls can be, and often are, constructed to favor a particular outcome. That’s what happened in this case.


All evidence to the contrary.

The polling error nationally was well within historical norms as I showed.

There was a much larger group of undecided voters than normal

Trump had been gaining for the last 3-4 days in almost all polling data.

When you look at the big picture, the result shouldn't be that surprising. Only because the idiots making the models gave such ridiculous odds was it so surprising.



What’s more likely is that after distorting polling results for the entire election year, the pollsters were attempting to save a scrap of face by calling it close near the finish. The electoral vote was 306 to 232. Not really very close either. The pollsters bear some blame.
49   Sniper   ignore (11)   2017 Nov 7, 10:03am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
Less than 63 million out of 320 million citizens.
That’s not even 20% of the population.


Children can vote now?
50   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:06am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_f58c3 says

What’s more likely is that after distorting polling results for the entire election year, the pollsters were attempting to save a scrap of face by calling it close near the finish. The electoral vote was 306 to 232. Not really very close either. The pollsters bear some blame.


You really believe that every pollster was in on some massive scheme? And that they all agreed to move the needle at the end?

#takeoffthetinfoilhat
51   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:06am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says
So, you're going to tell me there are 10% - 15% MORE Dem voters in the country, because this is what was being reported in the methodology in your so called "accurate" polls in 2016?


I'm not going to go over this again with you for the millionth time.. You are clearly too dim to understand.
52   Sniper   ignore (11)   2017 Nov 7, 10:16am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

anon_f58c3 says
What’s more likely is that after distorting polling results for the entire election year, the pollsters were attempting to save a scrap of face by calling it close near the finish. The electoral vote was 306 to 232. Not really very close either. The pollsters bear some blame.


They bear A LOT of blame, but in reality, they were just providing required data to their Masters that were paying for it.

In fact, the "experts" all had the Electoral College at the inverse of what it actually ended up being. That's a BIG miss!!
53   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says

Come on Joey the TROLL. I outlined these issues over and over during the election. Why can't you just admit your Tribe is a bunch of dishonest people?


I go where the data takes me.. And in most cases, it leads to the opposite of whatever you are saying.
54   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 10:35am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

After an entire election year of hearing that Trumps candidacy is a joke, that he doesn’t even want to win, of Obama saying “Donald Trump is not going to be President “, that Trump has no path to the presidency, and then him winning a substantial victory, it’s pathetic and comical to hear the same shills claim that polling shows Trump has a 17% unfavorable rating. Unfavorable compared to what anyway? An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda? After decades of gridlock in DC. , Trump defeated the Democrats and the Republicans.Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds. People have and will continue to respond to this.
55   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

PaisleyPattern says
An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda?


Didn't Republicans turn obstructionism into a fine art form over the previous 8 years? Seemed to work OK for them, right?


PaisleyPattern says
Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds


What exactly is he leading on?
56   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-story-of-2016/
"Another myth is that Trump’s victory represented some sort of catastrophic failure for the polls. Trump outperformed his national polls by only 1 to 2 percentage points in losing the popular vote to Clinton, making them slightly closer to the mark than they were in 2012. Meanwhile, he beat his polls by only 2 to 3 percentage points in the average swing state.3 Certainly, there were individual pollsters that had some explaining to do, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Trump beat his polls by a larger amount. But the result was not some sort of massive outlier; on the contrary, the polls were pretty much as accurate as they’d been, on average, since 1968."
57   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 10:58am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
An unraveling and self destructing Democrat party whose entire focus is to obstruct Trumps agenda?


Didn't Republicans turn obstructionism into a fine art form over the previous 8 years? Seemed to work OK for them, right?


PaisleyPattern says
Trump is demonstrating strong leadership against massive odds


What exactly is he leading on?


Both parties were guilty of obstructionism. Trump isnt a Republican except in name, he only chose the Republican Party because he knew he could win more easily in that party. Past criticisms of the Republican Party aren’t relevant to Trump.
Trump is leading with respect to healthcare reform, immigration reform, reinvigorating the manufacturing sector in the US, creating more favorable trade policies, instituting pro growth tax reform. This is his agenda, it’s not all going to happen magically immediately. Also Trump is attempting to restore patriotism as a respectable ethic in the United States. He is attempting to inspire an optimistic and confident outlook in the American public. He is leading the attack to expose the very biased and manipulative media.
58   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 10:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
This was written BEFORE the election.

"Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week before the 2008 election had Barack Obama winning by 7.6 percentage points. He won by 7.3 points. Sometimes, however, the polls miss by more. Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points.
If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. She leads by 3.3 points in our polls-only forecast.
And 2012 isn’t an outlier. For presidential contests since 1968, here’s the average of national polls taken a week before the election compared with the final result."

59   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-polling-error-behind-clinton/
This was written BEFORE the election.

"Even at the end of a presidential campaign, polls don’t perfectly predict the final margin in the election. Sometimes the final polls are quite accurate. An average of national polls in the week before the 2008 election had Barack Obama winning by 7.6 percentage points. He won by 7.3 points. Sometimes, however, the polls miss by more. Four years ago, an average of survey results the week before the election had Obama winning by 1.2 percentage points. He actually beat Mitt Romney by 3.9 points.
If that 2.7-point error doesn’t sound like very much to you, well, it’s very close to what Donald Trump needs to overtake Hillary Clinton in the popular vote. She leads by 3.3 points in our polls-only forecast.
And 2012 isn’t an outlier. For president...


This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.
60   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 11:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I'm not sure I follow all the logic here. I think some are arguing the perception of the polls and others are arguing the accuracy of the polls. The polls were accurate based on the margin of error they list on each poll. Doesn't matter how they sample, most polls were within their own stated margin of error. So they admit there will be error and I think most polls were within that margin. I'm not sure what there is to question in that regards. No poll will ever be 100% accurate and I think we can all agree on that. Or at least I hope so.

The perception of the polls being accurate is another question altogether. I don't think you can co-mingle the perception of accurate polls with polls that were actually accurate by the standards of polling. The perception of the polls were skewed by people with agendas and it's your personal choice to soak it up or ignore it. You have to remember that this was a close race between two really bad candidates. Considering the voter remorse and negativity around the election, I'm actually surprised the margin of error on a lot of these polls didn't get blown out of the water.

I'll agree there's now a perception of polls being inaccurate and you're free to question that. I actually think it's good to question data and not just assume it's solid. I'll make a bet though right now. $1k on every single 2nd year major election (presidential and mid-terms). All Federal candidates (President, senators & house members). 5 Days before the election I get the poll leaders and you (anyone) get the field. Whoever wins the most races at the end of that years elections gets $1k from me or I get your $1k. I will make this bet with anyone, every election season until I run out of free cash on hand (I won't).
61   Roidy   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Gentle Reader,

Horrific or not, I've been entertained.

Regards,
Roidy
62   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

PaisleyPattern says

This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.


No he didn't. Please go back and read Nate's writing. . He was banging the drum all season saying the models showing Trump with a 95% chance of winning were crap.

Seriously--you are 100% incorrect. Do some research on your own if you don't believe me.
63   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CIC- again, it's no use having this discussion with you because it's over your head.

If I have a 6 sided die and I say there's only a 16.67% chance it lands on 1, then I roll it and it lands on 1--was I wrong?

Because that's basically what you are saying.

Nate said there's a 30% chance of Trump winning, and he won. Was Nate wrong?
64   Sniper   ignore (11)   2017 Nov 7, 12:25pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Was Nate wrong?


Want to explain his E.C. prediction, because that's the ONLY thing that matters? Was that right or wrong?
65   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says

Want to explain his E.C. prediction, because that's the ONLY thing that matters? Was that right or wrong?


He didn't predict anything. He simply averaged the state's polling data and awarded it to the polling leader.
66   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:27pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says

This is Silver hedging his bets.Throughout the campaign he constantly interpreted the polling as giving Trump approximately zero chance of winning.


No he didn't. Please go back and read Nate's writing. . He was banging the drum all season saying the models showing Trump with a 95% chance of winning were crap.

Seriously--you are 100% incorrect. Do some research on your own if you don't believe me.



Here are a few Silver quotes:

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters,” Two Good Reasons Not To Take the Donald Trump ‘Surge’ Seriously — July 16, 2015.

“Basically Trump is the Nickelback of presidential candidates. Disliked by most, super popular with a few.” — July 28, 2015

“PREDICTION: Trump won’t be the Republican /nominee.” — Aug. 6, 2015

“Media: Trump’s doing great! Nerds: No. Those polls don’t mean what you think. Media: A new poll shows Trump doing great! Proved you wrong!” — Aug. 9, 2015

“Donald Trump is winning the polls and losing the nomination.” — Aug. 11, 2015

“About 25% of Americans identify as Republican. Donald Trump’s getting about 25% of that 25% in the polls. Why is this impressive to people?” — Nov. 19, 2015

“Dear media, Please stop freaking out about Donald Trump’s polls.” — Nov. 23, 2015.

“As for me, I remain quite skeptical of Trump’s chances. I also think his nomination would be an unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans.” — Nov. 29, 2015

“Idea that ‘Trump would win an election today’ also dubious. If election were today, voters would be more informed and news cycle different.” — Dec. 4, 2015

(in response to Rupert Murdoch tweeting that Trump’s “cross-party appeal” was a “winning strategy”): “Actually, Trump is by far the least popular Republican with independents (and Democrats)”— Jan. 15, 2016

“Wait it’s just now sinking in that Trump might be a wee bit problematic as a general election candidate?” — March 20, 2016

“Trump’s general elex numbers have been terrible since he launched bid. Media barely noticed during 2015 Trumpmania.” — March 29, 2016

“[Idea of Trump being presumptive nominee by mid-May] is delusional. Math doesn’t work.” — April 9, 2016

“The bad news for Trump is that a poll showing him 5 points down is considered good news for Trump.” — June 26, 2016

“Perhaps the worst take is the ‘Trump’s actually doing well to only be down by 7!!!’ take. He’s the least popular major-party nominee ever.” — Aug. 3, 2016

“Trump has been super unpopular with the November electorate pretty much forever.” — Aug. 16, 2016

“Trump is doubling down on a losing strategy.” — Aug. 18, 2016

“[The] most delusional part of Trump thinking he has a silent majority is how small a fraction of the population he’s even bothering to appeal to.” — Aug. 13, 2016

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/12/why-you-should-never-ever-listen-to-nate-silver
Is this enough?
This coming from a pollster doesn’t look good. I guess Trump had an incredible surge and just beat Hillary by a nose at the finish line.
67   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 12:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PaisleyPattern says
Is this enough?
This coming from a pollster doesn’t look good. I guess Trump had an incredible surge and just beat Hillary by a nose at the finish line.


No--I'm saying actually go to 538 and read some of his articles from late Oct. and early Nov. Don't go to conservative hit piece sites--go to the source and judge for yourself.

That's if you really want to learn something.
68   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
Is this enough?
This coming from a pollster doesn’t look good. I guess Trump had an incredible surge and just beat Hillary by a nose at the finish line.


No--I'm saying actually go to 538 and read some of his articles from late Oct. and early Nov. Don't go to conservative hit piece sites--go to the source and judge for yourself.

That's if you really want to learn something.


Those are his quotes aren’t they?
69   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 12:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says
joeyjojojunior says
No--I'm saying actually go to 538 and read some of his articles


OK, even Nate said he fucked up, but YOU still won't admit it:


How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump
Trump’s nomination shows the need for a more rigorous approach.

By Nate Silver

Filed under 2016 Election

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/


Hey Joey the TROLL, what else you got???


This.
70   Sniper   ignore (11)   2017 Nov 7, 12:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
Don't go to conservative hit piece sites-


Like WaPo, are they a conservative hit piece site?

Nate Silver blew it when he missed Trump. Now he really needs to get it right.
..."Silver, 38, had a run of them a few months ago, when it became obvious that his consistent early dismissals of Donald Trump’s chances to be the Republican presidential nominee were flat-out wrong. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nate-silver-blew-it-when-he-missed-trump-now-he-really-needs-to-get-it-right/2016/10/30/82c1f258-9bab-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?utm_term=.30430a561dff
71   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 7, 1:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

achieves some successes

————

How much longer are you going to hold your breath? Oh, I almost forgot. Even though they hold absolute power of all branches of government, they are still thwarted by the media and some wimpy string beans at Berkeley.

Do you realize how this makes you look?
72   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 1:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says
OK, even Nate said he fucked up, but YOU still won't admit it:


How I Acted Like A Pundit And Screwed Up On Donald Trump
Trump’s nomination shows the need for a more rigorous approach.

By Nate Silver

Filed under 2016 Election

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump


That was the primary. I'm talking general election.
73   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 1:10pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

PaisleyPattern says
Those are his quotes aren’t they?


Sure--out of context and very old. Most are 2015 for God's sake.

Look at his writing in Oct and Nov. 2016
74   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 1:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says
Hillary had 90% of the media on her side


That's also BS.

https://www.good.is/articles/hillary-clinton-negative-press
"It’s no secret that, from the moment she announced her candidacy back in April 2015, Hillary Clinton has been bludgeoned by negative media coverage. The email server; the Wall Street speaking fees; the attacks from both Trump and Sanders. I’ve debated with people who legitimately fear she will be imprisoned before the election. Some, despite the venomous dismissal of my rolling eyes, have called her a murderer. Others: an old woman, a plutocrat, a crook, abused by her husband, no backbone to speak of. But if you’ve suspected that there’s a reason people are saying these things—perhaps parroting disproportionately negative stories they’ve consumed in the media over the past year-and-a-half—it turns out you’re right.
A new report released this week by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy found Clinton has received far more negative coverage than any other candidate in the race thus far. The study was based on an analysis of news statements from CBS, Fox, the Los Angeles Times, NBC, the New York Times, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post."
75   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 7, 1:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

joeyjojojunior says
PaisleyPattern says
Those are his quotes aren’t they?


Sure--out of context and very old. Most are 2015 for God's sake.

Look at his writing in Oct and Nov. 2016
.

Nate Silver did call it much closer at the end than a lot of others reading the polls.
76   anonymous   ignore (null)   2017 Nov 7, 1:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

errc says
achieves some successes

————

How much longer are you going to hold your breath? Oh, I almost forgot. Even though they hold absolute power of all branches of government, they are still thwarted by the media and some wimpy string beans at Berkeley.

Do you realize how this makes you look?



Trump isn’t really a Republican and doesn’t have the support of the Republican Party. That’s why it he isn’t able to push his agenda. The Republicans are blocking him. I believe eventually he will gain support from both sides of the aisle and will begin to move forward.
77   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 1:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Trump isn’t really a Republican and doesn’t have the support of the Republican Party. That’s why it he isn’t able to push his agenda. The Republicans are blocking him. I believe eventually he will gain support from both sides of the aisle and will begin to move forward.
78   PaisleyPattern   ignore (0)   2017 Nov 7, 2:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The people blocking him most are McCain, Corker and Flake. One has cancer and two are retiring. Trump will soon have control of the party and things will start moving.
79   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2017 Nov 7, 3:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Sniper says

Just how deep do you have to dig to find links that support your bullshit? Couldn't you find one on Mother Jones or Think Progress?


It's a Harvard study, you moron.

« First    « Previous     Comments 41 - 79 of 79     Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions