Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[acbytesla]

You had indicated at one time that you knew something about finance. I now know that that was a facade. You clearly know very little. Bankruptcy is a natural and healthy part of capitalism. It's why we have such a rich and developed bankruptcy code. Almost every business eventually goes bankrupt. It's almost as inevitable as death for a human being. Bankruptcy provides an ordered mechanism of making the best use of the corpse.

No, it's not. It's a necessary evil that is often abused. No, not almost every business goes bankrupt. A great many businesses simply fold and negotiate their debts without the use of a bankruptcy court. And what I do love is the changes in bankruptcy laws where personal bankruptcies are extremely penal on those that declare it whereas corporate bankruptcies, the principles often go dancing away.

The fact is multiple bankruptcies show that the executives are inept BOOBs. It also demonstrates a lack of responsibility and accountability. I find it particularly appalling that someone who SAYS that he has a net worth of 10 billion dollars is fine with letting those with far less take the blows.

 

[NoahFence]

His doublespeak strtegy is working, and it's brilliant. CNN now has Trump ahead of Clinton by 1%.

The key is the Independent voters, where the CNN poll shows him crushing Hillary. The Independents are smart enough to know that he won't really build a wall with Mexico's money, and deport 11 million people. They rationalize it by thinking 'he's just saying that to appease the ultra right'
The core supporters rationalize it by saying he is just trying to get the media off his back, but that he really will build the wall etc.
It's win-win for Trump.

I've been saying for months this would be a close election, even when polls had him down 12%. The reason it will be close is obvious in the latest CNN poll--the voters who are super enthusiatic about the election are the Trump supporters--they will come out and vote even if there is a major eathquake on election day. The other voters feel defeated already, so they are more likely to stay home.

There had better be better turnout in November than what the polls indicate, or we are screwed.

How to blacks typically vote? Do they come out in large numbers? If they do I can't see how Trump could possibly win.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I disagree. That is exactly the kind of person I want. Our Presidents have been too cautious. We need somebody to shake up the system a bit.

I'd love for you to expand on how a businessman who has run most of his partners and businesses into the ground is a good person to put in charge of our country. Why should we partner with someone who has so little regard for those he partners with?

Based on the public record of his businesses, I wouldn't advise investing in anything with the Trump name on the door. But if you did, how much of your life's savings would you hand over to a Trump branded enterprise? I could see a 5% or 10% investment of your portfolio, but even then only with some sort of personal guarantees from Trump or another deep pocket. Otherwise it would be silly at this point. You know he is going to leave investors holding the bag, why would you want to be one of those investors. Why would any of us want to invest in Trump's America?

 

[NoahFence]

So right now, the defense of Trump has turned into

1) Bankruptcies are good, and
2) Harvard is a scam, too

Pretty funny in a terribly sad sort of way.

 

[The Don]

How to blacks typically vote? Do they come out in large numbers? If they do I can't see how Trump could possibly win.

Depends on how effective GOP attempts at voter suppression are

 

[sunmaster14]

Nope.

Most businesses end up being acquired in full or in part by another business or being "wound up". A lot of this is due to the fact that most businesses are partnerships or sole traders. When the principal or principals no longer wish to work then the business is wound up in and ordered way.

In the case of larger businesses, surprisingly few actually end up going bankrupt. Usually this is because even in the case where it's obsolete,. there's usually some residual value in the fixed assets, intellectual property or brand value of the business.

Then again I probably know nothing, running a business myself and being active in the local business community

First of all, bankruptcy doesn't mean that the creditors don't get paid in full. Often they do. Bankruptcy is a means of preserving value and distributing it fairly. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, in particular, is used to restructure a company and keep it operating. All of Trump's bankruptcies have gone through Chapter 11 and come out on the other side as still functioning businesses. Bankruptcy just provided a mechanism for distributing some or all of the ownership to the creditors through an ordered process with judicial oversight.


Second, it is almost a tautology that if a business is wound up such that its creditors have been paid in full, that the owners of the business have left value on the table. The equity value is equal to a call option on the enterprise value with a strike price equal to the value of the debt. Unwinding the business is equivalent to exercising the call option early, unless of course it is timed when there is no debt, which extinguishes option time value. It is usually better for the owners to sell the business to somebody else or to keep going. The main point is that the creditors are paid to take the downside risk of the company after the equity holders have taken their hit. Their protections are contractual, and to the extent the managers can extract value consistent with the contractual terms, then they should do so. In fact, they have a fiduciary obligation to do so for the owners.

 

[Bob001]

Not a single one of those accusations is remotely as bad as what I learned about Clinton just 4 days ago.

Also, why do people think that bankruptcies are bad? They're a part of doing business and taking risk. A developer who hasn't had projects go bankrupt is probably not being aggressive enough.

Aggressive? Or stupid? And how is a string of bankruptcies a qualification for the Presidency, unless you want him to default on U.S. debt, as he has threatened?

And his bankruptcies are the least of his crimes:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

 

[sunmaster14]

I'd love for you to expand on how a businessman who has run most of his partners and businesses into the ground is a good person to put in charge of our country. Why should we partner with someone who has so little regard for those he partners with?

Based on the public record of his businesses, I wouldn't advise investing in anything with the Trump name on the door. But if you did, how much of your life's savings would you hand over to a Trump branded enterprise? I could see a 5% or 10% investment of your portfolio, but even then only with some sort of personal guarantees from Trump or another deep pocket. Otherwise it would be silly at this point. You know he is going to leave investors holding the bag, why would you want to be one of those investors. Why would any of us want to invest in Trump's America?

Running the federal government is not like running a business, so his acumen (or lack of it) as a businessman is not terribly relevant. More important is the ability to make tough decisions and take risks, and then take the heat that follows. A perfect example of this would be Bush's decision to proceed with the Iraq surge in 2007. That was the bravest (and the best) Presidential decision I've ever seen. A perfect example of not doing this is pretty much Obama's whole administration (except the decision to pull the trigger on bin Laden). Would Trump be that kind of President? I don't know. I think Hillary would actually, except within normal parameters. She would play between the 45 yard lines, at least in public. In secrecy, she might be less restrained, although that's not actually a good thing. Trump would be less restrained in public. Which is a good thing I think.

 

[stanfr]

How to blacks typically vote? Do they come out in large numbers? If they do I can't see how Trump could possibly win.

They voted big for Obama not surprisingly. Remains to be seen how much support Hillary has. I don't know about all the swing states, but in my state (CO) the black vote won't be significant. And based on my travels around the state (which are frequent and extensive) Trump has huge support among the conservatives and the rural communities.

 

[sunmaster14]

Aggressive? Or stupid? And how is a string of bankruptcies a qualification for the Presidency, unless you want him to default on U.S. debt, as he has threatened?

I don't know if it was aggressive or stupid. Neither do you, or anybody here, apparently. Four of his bankruptcies were in the casino business in 1992. In a way, it was one event. If it was all under one holding company, it would be counted as one bankruptcy. How many of Warren Buffett's ventures have gone bankrupt? Do you even know? Lots of them have failed, but he only looked like a shareholder, because he doesn't attach his name to them.

And I never said that having a bankruptcy was a qualification for the Presidency. I only claim that it is not much of a disqualification, or any.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Back to the election. Recent polls tracking intention to vote show Trump perilously close to Clinton, even leading in national terms; however, not state-by-state yielding key electoral votes. Not yet, anyway.

I can hardly believe there are so many [censored], completely [censored], [censored] in the US. But, then, there are the polls for you. [Censored.] Back to medieval mindsets we go, knuckles a-drag. Damn, more [censored]; seems I'm a tad upset.

 

[NoahFence]

Running the federal government is not like running a business, so his acumen (or lack of it) as a businessman is not terribly relevant.

But that's what he's basing his entire campaign on. WTF??!?!

Do you even listen to yourself???

eta: guess not.

A perfect example of this would be Bush's decision to proceed with the Iraq surge in 2007. That was the bravest (and the best) Presidential decision I've ever seen.

Way braver than the Cuban Missile crisis.

 

[sunmaster14]

Back to the election. Recent polls tracking intention to vote show Trump perilously close to Clinton, even leading in national terms; however, not state-by-state yielding key electoral votes. Not yet, anyway.

I can hardly believe there are so many [censored], completely [censored], [censored] in the US. But, then, there are the polls for you. [Censored.] Back to medieval mindsets we go, knuckles a-drag. Damn, more [censored]; seems I'm a tad upset.

Agreed. It's amazing how many people don't care that their candidate of choice lied to them, obstructed justice, and was grossly negligent with the country's national secrets. And that she has managed to avoid answering any questions from the press about her "peccadillos" for months.

 

[sunmaster14]

But that's what he's basing his entire campaign on. WTF??!?!

Do you even listen to yourself???

Why do you keep personalizing everything? I speak for myself. I don't care what he is basing his campaign on. Hillary is basing her campaign on the fact that she has a vagina (allegedly).

 

[NoahFence]

You said his business acumen is irrelevant.

It's WHY he's running.

How can that not be relevant???? You don't see a plain contradiction there?

Honestly?

 

[Bob001]

Running the federal government is not like running a business, so his acumen (or lack of it) as a businessman is not terribly relevant. More important is the ability to make tough decisions and take risks, and then take the heat that follows.
....

But his self-described business acumen is his only qualification, and the only basis we have to assess him. Making tough decisions based on the best available information and advice is indeed the President's job. The easy stuff doesn't get up to the Oval Office. Whether or not Bush's decision was the right one, he relied heavily on the experts on the ground. But Trump has displayed fundamental ignorance of basic Constitutional principles, he claims to know more than anybody else ("I know more about ISIL than the generals, believe me," "My primary consultant is myself, because I have a very good brain," etc., etc.), and he is actually unable to absorb facts, as when he keeps lying even after his "errors" are made plain. He has even questioned why we don't use nuclear weapons. Trump would not "decide," as normal people understand the word; he would convulse.

 

[NoahFence]

Why do you keep personalizing everything? I speak for myself. I don't care what he is basing his campaign on. Hillary is basing her campaign on the fact that she has a vagina (allegedly).

I sincerely apologize.

But it's terribly difficult not to when the statements I'm responding to are so patently absurd and obviously taken from a reality most of us aren't aware of.

I guess i need a better command of the language.

 

[sunmaster14]

But his self-described business acumen is his only qualification, and the only basis we have to assess him. Making tough decisions based on the best available information and advice is indeed the President's job. The easy stuff doesn't get up to the Oval Office. Whether or not Bush's decision was the right one, he relied heavily on the experts on the ground. But Trump has displayed fundamental ignorance of basic Constitutional principles, he claims to know more than anybody else ("I know more about ISIL than the generals, believe me," "My primary consultant is myself, because I have a great mind," etc., etc.), and he is actually unable to absorb facts, as when he keeps lying even after his "errors" are made plain. Trump would not "decide," as normal people understand the word; he would convulse.

Maybe. Like I said, I'm willing to take that chance. He's a wild card, but I think we could use a little more volatility in the Presidency. The bureaucracy is too ossified, and the country is being stifled by too much regulation and too much political correctness. Our society is like a stagnant soup on the fire, and we're becoming a little burned on the bottom. Trump is the best bet to stir the pot, if you will.

 

[NoahFence]

Volatility is the absolute last thing we need in the Oval office. That word has no place being attached to a psycho who has the US Military at his disposal.

 

[Crossbow]

Maybe. Like I said, I'm willing to take that chance. He's a wild card, but I think we could use a little more volatility in the Presidency. The bureaucracy is too ossified, and the country is being stifled by too much regulation and too much political correctness. Our society is like a stagnant soup on the fire, and we're becoming a little burned on the bottom. Trump is the best bet to stir the pot, if you will.

That is same nonsense that was used to justify putting that stupid, idiotic, liar George W. Bush into office.