And you shouldn't make baseless claims before fact checking yourself. He wasn't in debt and he never filed for bankruptcy - four of the businesses he owned did. And two of the four companies filed for bankruptcy later, after he was no longer running the company, showing that the fault was not in trump's poor management, but rather the failure of the business itself.
he's been making some ridiculously bad business decisions throughout his career
He's made bad business decisions, but he wouldn't be the 324th richest person in the world if his good decisions vastly outweigh his poor decisions.
Trump’s four bankruptcies were Chapter 11 reorganizations (named for its location in federal bankruptcy code), which are designed to restructure businesses without shutting them down completely. The purpose is to "save" the business, as opposed to other forms of bankruptcy which would liquidate the company, said Michael Venditto, a partner at the ReedSmith law firm who has extensive experience with Chapter 11.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/
And everything that he did was legal, and the loopholes that he 'abused' point to the failures of the U.S. legislature system, instead of his shadiness. This is just conjecture, but doesn't it seem fitting that someone who knows how to 'abuse the system' is well qualified enough to close up its holes if he had the power to do so?
Someone as rich and prominent as trump is constantly being probed for illegal activity such as tax evasion, and until it is proven that he has done something illegal, it's unreasonable for you to look at him unfavorably as if he did.
On another note searz, you're a ****ing *******. You're the entire reason I try to stay away from the off topic forum, and part of the reason why my interest in mobafire is dwindling. I wrote my initial post as a evidence backed opinion (I only include sources when people ask for them), but if you want to have a scholarly discussion about this, you should instead politely ask for my evidence before ****ting on everything I say.
Quoted:
he's been making some ridiculously bad business decisions throughout his career
He's made bad business decisions, but he wouldn't be the 324th richest person in the world if his good decisions vastly outweigh his poor decisions.
Quoted:
Trump’s four bankruptcies were Chapter 11 reorganizations (named for its location in federal bankruptcy code), which are designed to restructure businesses without shutting them down completely. The purpose is to "save" the business, as opposed to other forms of bankruptcy which would liquidate the company, said Michael Venditto, a partner at the ReedSmith law firm who has extensive experience with Chapter 11.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/
And everything that he did was legal, and the loopholes that he 'abused' point to the failures of the U.S. legislature system, instead of his shadiness. This is just conjecture, but doesn't it seem fitting that someone who knows how to 'abuse the system' is well qualified enough to close up its holes if he had the power to do so?
Someone as rich and prominent as trump is constantly being probed for illegal activity such as tax evasion, and until it is proven that he has done something illegal, it's unreasonable for you to look at him unfavorably as if he did.
On another note searz, you're a ****ing *******. You're the entire reason I try to stay away from the off topic forum, and part of the reason why my interest in mobafire is dwindling. I wrote my initial post as a evidence backed opinion (I only include sources when people ask for them), but if you want to have a scholarly discussion about this, you should instead politely ask for my evidence before ****ting on everything I say.
If I helped you out, be sure to throw me a +Rep!
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
utopus wrote:
This is just conjecture, but doesn't it seem fitting that someone who knows how to 'abuse the system' is well qualified enough to close up its holes if he had the power to do so?
utopus wrote:
He's made bad business decisions, but he wouldn't be the 324th richest person in the world if his good decisions vastly outweigh his poor decisions.
The point is, being a good bussinessman doesn't mean you'll know how to run a country. In fact, it could be argued that given a decision that could either benefit the country or his bussiness, the rich man would always tilt to the side of his bussiness. IDK if the US has some legislation in place to avoid this, since lobbying is legal and rich presidents are pretty common, but I'm quite sure nontheless that for every law against it there would be 3 legal voids around it and a bussinessman would know them before even running for president.
utopus wrote:
While I have no intention of voting for him, I also don't think that Trump would be so bad of a president. There's literally a 0% chance that anything that Trump wants in the scope of foreign policy (immigration e.g.) would pass through Congress, and if it did, i'd be more concerned about our Senate than our president. Trumps redeeming factor is that the guy understands money better than any politician has, or will ever have,and based on his successes during his lifetime, I don't see any reason why the US will not prosper economically from his domestic policies
You can argue his failed businesses weren't his fault (pretty sure there have been over 4), but he is the common factor. He has casinos that go broke for gods sake. He started a string of universities called Trump universities. Look that up. Also people think he's going to fail economically or a reason, it's called a RECESSION. Look that up too.
Besides that, where's the fun in arguing for Trump if you're not going to vote for him and you ignore his foreign policy???
Basically MOBAFire.
utopus wrote:
Sheesh the unconditional Sanders love and "Some, I assume, are good people" "Why is Obama playing basketball today" "The American dream is dead" Donald "I have a great relationship with the blacks" Trump / hillary hate reminds me of bbg's unconditional hate of AMD
I think that Hillary has a better resume than all other candidates. I think that past performance is the best indicator of future intentions, and if the worst thing that she's done is reply to confidential emails on her personal email, then I think the reasons to have hillary are moot and baseless. Like seriously to someone of her stature that has been engaged in politics all of her life, getting **** for replying through a personal email is about the same level of ridiculousness as you going to the owner of your company and resigning because you accidentally nabbed one of his pens during your egress from last week's meeting.
I think that Hillary has a better resume than all other candidates. I think that past performance is the best indicator of future intentions, and if the worst thing that she's done is reply to confidential emails on her personal email, then I think the reasons to have hillary are moot and baseless. Like seriously to someone of her stature that has been engaged in politics all of her life, getting **** for replying through a personal email is about the same level of ridiculousness as you going to the owner of your company and resigning because you accidentally nabbed one of his pens during your egress from last week's meeting.
Let me start by saying that the Issue with the E-mail server isn't as small as you make it seem. She either doesn't know or doesn't care how to handle sensitive data. If it is the first one, there is a policy about that so she should know. If it was the latter one, imagine if there were any actually dangerous(there were some top-secret ones, but nothing that would be seriously damaging to the united states iirc) mails on the server. At the moment she started using the server, she essentially handed all of those mails to anyone who wanetd to read them. Wheter the first or the second is true doesn't really matter though, it doesn't exactly show that she is suitable to be president. Let me also point out that if anyone that isn't hillary clinton would have done this, that person would prohably be in prison right now.
I don't get why she wanted to have her own server in the first place, but that is besides the point.
The problem with the E-Mail server isn't my part of main problems with Hillary though.
My first problem with her is that she is about as corrupt as it gets. If you put her into office, you might as well put in the CEO of goldmann sachs. She and her husband got paid millions upon millions for speeches(~210k per speech on average). Most of her campaign is fundend by large individual contributions, meaning more than 2,5k$ per person per election circle(the primaries and the actual election count as individual circles), so not exactly an amount your average citizen would spend, and if you look at her top contributors, you can see that there are a ton of big wallstreet companies(and a couple of unions and foundations). If we compare this with Sander's campaign finances, we can see that most of the money comes from small individual contributions. His top are also big corporations, but the amout of money they spent was a fraction of what the top contributors from clinton spent. Now keep in mind that all those corporations and rich people excpect a return on their investment and Hillary will give it to them.
My second big issue with her is that she changes her political stances all the time based on whatever the polls currently say.
Here's a video that tackles the issue pretty well. The beginning is pretty much two minutes of ****ing around, feel free to watch it if you want to.
I totally didn't use the video because I was too lazy to get more sources
You should also keep in mind that trump said that if hillary gets the nomination, it will be an easy campaign and I am willing to belive him on that one.
tl,dr: Your politicans are currently working for the money instead of the citizen and it ****ed up your country pretty badly. You have a candidate promising to change that and yet you want vote for the candidate who couldn't be more against a change of the political culture.
Quoted:
If he already abused them, what's making you think he'll just close them and give bussinessmen a cold shoulder?
I mean, that's why I'm calling it conjecture - the argument can go both ways. I don't know which way to go, and you have a good idea of which way you think it'll go.
Quoted:
In fact, you only need a couple really good decisions to cover for all your bad ones and then some. You can't do that with a country (well you can to some extent, but you can't escape the backlash with the legal voids rich people abuse).
On the contrary, is it reasonable to conclude that someone who does not have a history of many successes relative to failures involving money is better qualified to decide on policies regarding businesses?
Quoted:
Besides that, where's the fun in arguing for Trump if you're not going to vote for him and you ignore his foreign policy???
All jest aside, I ignore his foreign policy because the president doesn't get to write policies. He only gets to approve or reject policy that has been drafted by the senate and house of representatives, and I think that hell will freeze over before senate writes something as destructive as trump's foreign polices
If I helped you out, be sure to throw me a +Rep!
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
utopus wrote:
I mean, that's why I'm calling it conjecture - the argument can go both ways.
doesn't it seem fitting that someone who knows how to 'abuse the system' is well qualified enough to close up its holes if he had the power to do so?
doesn't it seem fitting that someone who knows how to 'abuse the system' is well qualified enough to close up its holes if he had the power to do so?
utopus wrote:
He's made bad business decisions, but he wouldn't be the 324th richest person in the world if his good decisions vastly outweigh his poor decisions.
Quoted:
And everything that he did was legal, and the loopholes that he 'abused' point to the failures of the U.S. legislature system, instead of his shadiness.
Quoted:
On another note searz, you're a ****ing *******. You're the entire reason I try to stay away from the off topic forum, and part of the reason why my interest in mobafire is dwindling.
****ting on everything I say.
****ting on everything I say.
I'll keep ****ting on the things you say if they keep being so stupid.
Happy to make MobaFire a better place :)
"If someone is ****, you point at them and declare "****!". Because this is the internet." - Serpentiferous
"The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and little girls are the FBI." - ???
"The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and little girls are the FBI." - ???
Searz wrote:
It could be, if we knew what his motivation was. But unless that can be convincingly shown it seems more reasonable to go with the assumption that he will continue along the same path he already follows, which would be to keep exploiting people and loopholes for profit.
So you're saying that it's reasonable to assume that past behavior is a reasonable predictor of future behavior
utopus wrote:
He's made bad business decisions, but he wouldn't be the 324th richest person in the world if his good decisions vastly outweigh his poor decisions.
Searz wrote:
That's a deductive fallacy. Correlation =/= causation.
Two things: First, you're saying that here it's reasonable to assume that past behavior isn't a reasonable predictor of future behavior, which means that you've just contradicted yourself.
Second, there's no causality even being disputed here. I'm just saying that it's reasonable to conclude that he makes more good business decisions than bad ones based on the fact that he's insanely rich and has only had 4 instances of his businesses failing. I'm not going to bother cross referencing trump's business record with other politicians, but i'm pretty sure he's a more successful businessman than the rest of them.
The only argument that I've been making about trump is that he understands money better than politicians, and that based on his successes with businesses, he knows what is best for businesses better than politicians.
Because businesses are critical to growth of GDP, the best way to create jobs (reduce unemployment) and prosper strictly from an economic standpoint is to cultivate an environment where businesses are most likely to succeed. I actually think that the points that you've made seem to support that.
If I helped you out, be sure to throw me a +Rep!
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
Searz wrote:
I'll keep ****ting on the things you say if they keep being so stupid.
Happy to make MobaFire a better place :)
Happy to make MobaFire a better place :)
Except you weren't ****ting on the things he was saying, you were ****ting on him for posting it and discouraging him from posting again in the process. It should go without saying that that's not how you make MF "a better place", focus on the actual discussion / points made instead.
mastrer1000 wrote:
My first problem with her is that she is about as corrupt as it gets. If you put her into office, you might as well put in the CEO of goldmann sachs. She and her husband got paid millions upon millions for speeches(~210k per speech on average). Most of her campaign is fundend by large individual contributions, meaning more than 2,5k$ per person per election circle(the primaries and the actual election count as individual circles), so not exactly an amount your average citizen would spend, and if you look at her top contributors, you can see that there are a ton of big wallstreet companies(and a couple of unions and foundations). If we compare this with Sander's campaign finances, we can see that most of the money comes from small individual contributions. His top are also big corporations, but the amout of money they spent was a fraction of what the top contributors from clinton spent. Now keep in mind that all those corporations and rich people excpect a return on their investment and Hillary will give it to them.
This is actually a reasonable point. Thanks for bringing it up - it totally escaped me to check about the backers for all of the nominees.
mastrer1000 wrote:
My second big issue with her is that she changes her political stances all the time based on whatever the polls currently say.
Another valid point. I don't know which is more damaging though:
A president that stands strongly to his beliefs is more predictable, but it also means that he is ******ant to change, even when it might be necessary.
A president that flip-flops like her points to her ability to re-assess situations based on new information. This means that changes will be faster when they are necessary, but less predictable (and less controllable for a citizen).
If I helped you out, be sure to throw me a +Rep!
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
-
My Soraka Guide | My Review Service
Thanks a lot for the sig, jhoi! :)
You need to log in before commenting.
No. No, it is not. Don't write like you know something when you're clueless.
The guy was in millions if not billions (can't remember) of dollars in debt at some point and he's been making some ridiculously bad business decisions throughout his career. Seemingly the only reason he's not in debt currently is his tendency to do shady business. Business that is borderline illegal and/or abuses the system, screwing everybody else over.