Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Yet another prominent (R) for Clinton, says Trump is a national embarrassment, list grows every day
Comments
-
Of course they are different. One is a stock, the other is a company. But that's not what we're looking at. The comparison is valid in terms of who is responsible, and whether or not we should be looking at just one piece or the entire picture.OZONE said:
Picking a losing stock as part of a diversified portfolio is very different than running your businesses so poorly that 6 of them went bankrupt.Fenderbender123 said:
This isn't a smart way to look at it. How many businesses has he owned? How many didn't go bankrupt? Were other people in the same industry going bankrupt too?OZONE said:
Nope. The reason people give for believing he could bankrupt the country is that he has already bankrupt 6 businesses, and welched on his debts to numerous working people that he owned money to before those business filed for bankruptcy protection for their debts.Fenderbender123 said:
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
This is the equivalent at pulling up Hillary's stock portfolio, which is likely well-diversified, and then pointing to the few instances of failing stocks and saying "See? Hillary doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. She can't even invest in the stock market properly."
Seriously, that is the exact same argument.
Two prominent billionaires have already criticized him for it. I mention this last part only because some of you guys seem to be really impressed by billionaires.
In other words, if you're going to try and make the argument that Trump sucks at running businesses, you have to look at EVERYTHING. You don't point to the games that John Wooden's UCLA teams lost and say "see, Wooden sucks at coaching". -
You must be new here.Fenderbender123 said:
Of course they are different. One is a stock, the other is a company. But that's not what we're looking at. The comparison is valid in terms of who is responsible, and whether or not we should be looking at just one piece or the entire picture.OZONE said:
Picking a losing stock as part of a diversified portfolio is very different than running your businesses so poorly that 6 of them went bankrupt.Fenderbender123 said:
This isn't a smart way to look at it. How many businesses has he owned? How many didn't go bankrupt? Were other people in the same industry going bankrupt too?OZONE said:
Nope. The reason people give for believing he could bankrupt the country is that he has already bankrupt 6 businesses, and welched on his debts to numerous working people that he owned money to before those business filed for bankruptcy protection for their debts.Fenderbender123 said:
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
This is the equivalent at pulling up Hillary's stock portfolio, which is likely well-diversified, and then pointing to the few instances of failing stocks and saying "See? Hillary doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. She can't even invest in the stock market properly."
Seriously, that is the exact same argument.
Two prominent billionaires have already criticized him for it. I mention this last part only because some of you guys seem to be really impressed by billionaires.
In other words, if you're going to try and make the argument that Trump sucks at running businesses, you have to look at EVERYTHING. You don't point to the games that John Wooden's UCLA teams lost and say "see, Wooden sucks at coaching". -
Losing a game in basketball, or picking a stock that underperforms the S&P500, are vastly different than running a business so poorly that it declares bankruptcy.Fenderbender123 said:
Of course they are different. One is a stock, the other is a company. But that's not what we're looking at. The comparison is valid in terms of who is responsible, and whether or not we should be looking at just one piece or the entire picture.OZONE said:
Picking a losing stock as part of a diversified portfolio is very different than running your businesses so poorly that 6 of them went bankrupt.Fenderbender123 said:
This isn't a smart way to look at it. How many businesses has he owned? How many didn't go bankrupt? Were other people in the same industry going bankrupt too?OZONE said:
Nope. The reason people give for believing he could bankrupt the country is that he has already bankrupt 6 businesses, and welched on his debts to numerous working people that he owned money to before those business filed for bankruptcy protection for their debts.Fenderbender123 said:
"Oh, he told a lady with a crying baby to leave his rally, that means he's going to bankrupt our country and let the Russians invade!"
This is the equivalent at pulling up Hillary's stock portfolio, which is likely well-diversified, and then pointing to the few instances of failing stocks and saying "See? Hillary doesn't know what the fuck she's doing. She can't even invest in the stock market properly."
Seriously, that is the exact same argument.
Two prominent billionaires have already criticized him for it. I mention this last part only because some of you guys seem to be really impressed by billionaires.
In other words, if you're going to try and make the argument that Trump sucks at running businesses, you have to look at EVERYTHING. You don't point to the games that John Wooden's UCLA teams lost and say "see, Wooden sucks at coaching".
You can run a business poorly, but have a small profit and pay your obligations.
But running it so poorly that you declare bankruptcy, is like saying "fuck, I'm in way over my head here, I can't even afford to pay my debts. Gov't, please help me get of of my debts".
When Trump gets in way over his head with the US, who is going to bail him out?
-
Think of the federal budget as Trump's personal budget. There are many sources of revenue, and many sources of expenditures.
Perhaps there will be one area where too much money is being spent, but as long as overall revenues and expenses are looking good, things are golden....just like Trump's individual situation. He individually has NOT declared bankruptcy, because he's managed the bigger picture well enough to not need to.
-
Whatever, we will not agree on his competence.Fenderbender123 said:Think of the federal budget as Trump's personal budget. There are many sources of revenue, and many sources of expenditures.
Perhaps there will be one area where too much money is being spent, but as long as overall revenues and expenses are looking good, things are golden....just like Trump's individual situation. He individually has NOT declared bankruptcy, because he's managed the bigger picture well enough to not need to.
But at least you have stopped conflating his ability to run the country without it going bankrupt, with him kicking a crying baby out of the conference, which is where this entire thread started.
So, you are getting slightly better in your analytical ability. Enough to impress Race anyway, which might not be saying much.
-
So you're saying Trump is going to raise taxes?Fenderbender123 said:Think of the federal budget as Trump's personal budget. There are many sources of revenue, and many sources of expenditures.
Perhaps there will be one area where too much money is being spent, but as long as overall revenues and expenses are looking good, things are golden....just like Trump's individual situation. He individually has NOT declared bankruptcy, because he's managed the bigger picture well enough to not need to.
He hasn't proposed any spending cuts. -
I find it funny that Donald will be the first man in the history of this country to lose a presidential election to a woman heh heh heh
-
Technically speaking he would be the third. Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders should set themselves on fire.Peterman said:I find it funny that Donald will be the first man in the history of this country to lose a presidential election to a woman heh heh heh
-
Given how rigged the DNC was against Sanders, I think he did pretty fucking well.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Technically speaking he would be the third. Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders should set themselves on fire.Peterman said:I find it funny that Donald will be the first man in the history of this country to lose a presidential election to a woman heh heh heh
-
Losing by 13 points is special.OZONE said:
Given how rigged the DNC was against Sanders, I think he did pretty fucking well.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Technically speaking he would be the third. Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders should set themselves on fire.Peterman said:I find it funny that Donald will be the first man in the history of this country to lose a presidential election to a woman heh heh heh
Sincerely,
Doogs for the past dozen years.
