Why do they fall in line like lambs?

I can speak from experience. I don't think dictators are psychopaths but I agree they are power mad. They are extreme controllers. It's a good thing we don't have a dictatorship here.

 

His father's name was already well-known. Without his father, Trump would have had nothing to sell. And the TV show? You mean the one that wasn't even his idea . . . the one based on the lie that he was a self-made billionaire . . . the single thing that saved him from absolute bankruptcy?

Oh, and I never called Trump a loser . . . well, except for in the last election. I said he was a fraud, a crook, and a serial business failure. All of which are objectively true. I know you don't care. As long as he says meanie head things about liberals and other people you hate, he can do no wrong in your eyes. You even support him after he tried to overthrow the Constitution and install himself as an unelected dictator.

 

Apparently, what you can't do all day is actually address the post. Try reading it. Also, you do realize that most of those "businesses" aren't actual businesses . . . that they only exist on paper for transferring money . . . right?

 

I never knew of his father when the Trumps lived in Queens. The only people I knew of from Queens was Archie Bunker, and he was a fictional character. I bet you did not know his father either.

His father certainly was not the President of the United States.

Nobody here has used the term "self made billionaire", except YOU of course. I guess that is one of them strawman arguments you hear so much about.

 

They weren't the only ones but you're a leftist so you wouldn't understand.

 

So you didn't argue that the 70% number was misleading?

 

Everyone living in New York state at the time knew his father. So did many, many people outside it.

He had no desire to be.

Many, many, many people on the forum have described him that way, as have many of his other followers. And it is, of course, HOW HE DESCRIBES HIMSELF AND WHAT HE RAN ON.

Then why does the search feature turn up so many examples of you going on and on about Trump's status as a billionaire? Oops!

 

But you are not looking at anything close to the whole. Not even remotely.

 

Yes. Ah, I see. You didn't realize there was more than one sentence in the post. There was. In fact, there was a specific question for you.

 

I will take your word on that. I have no idea how you could know this, but I will stipulate that you must have access to a vast amount of information not available to the rest of us.

At any rate, we arent talking about New York.

We are talking about the ENTIRE country and to a lesser extant the entire world. He was world-famous by the 80s, and in the United States a household name associated with luxury and excess.

 

Do you always reply to EVERY statement in EVERY post you reply to?

If you claim you do, I bet I can prove you wrong.

Or are you just trying to boguly imply I am doing something wrong when in reality replying to a part of a post is the norm in here?

 

There is no need to debate this. In order to understand what another is saying and meaning, your mind has to be open.

 

I find it sad that people admire Trump for his business acumen. Or they see his name as 'gold'. Yes, he built businesses. Yes, he became POTUS. But how someone achieves is more important to me than the achievements themselves.

 

What am I missing?

 

Of course there is not.

Every accomplishment I have listed is unassailable and easily verifiable. There is nothing to debate.

That didn't stop you from trying your darndest though.

 

90% of the story.

 

who are those people?

 

I applaud how charitable you are !!

 

There was a specific question in there for you. After explaining why the 70% number is flawed, I gave a much better measure. There's a reason you wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

 

Lawyers. Previous attorneys for the same offices. Hell, there's a reason why the so-called "defenders" frequently hesitate to provide any actual argument and instead resort to crying without actually providing an argument.

 

It is available to every literate person.

Yes . . . to rubes. Congrats. He managed to con people. You think that's an accomplishment. I don't.

I'll return to the question you've already dodged: can you name a single business entity he owns that hasn't either failed, been fraudulent, or both? Again, I'll bet you can think of 1, maybe even 2, but you will have a hard time going beyond that.

 

Yes, that reason is that it changes nothing, which is why I went to a ridiculous amount in your direction and stipulated that it is only 7% of businesses that fail so that NOBODY could argue that was a low number for business failures.

Even with that ridiculous bending in your direction, when applied to 500 businesses, that is STILL a great record of business success.

The reason I did not "touch it", was because it is as irrelevant as it gets. This changes absolutely nothing in the discussion and was therefore not worth debating. The wise man does not get bogged down in various strawmen attempts.

 

No. I've looked at his history down the years. You will find everything I said is as stated. Marketing genius with at least 11 failed business?
I'm not American but have watched your politics for many years. Trump accomplished little while in power - except raising the deficit per year more than any other president. As with all Presidents most of his policies were a continuation of policies already under way from Obama's presidency which, apart from his 'war policy', brought the US out of the 2008 depression despite opposition from Congress. He left Trump a good start. Trumps Presidency was about personal gain and prestige - for him and his family.

 

Yet another person who won't read posts before "responding." I never said anything about 7%.

That wasn't my direction or my standard. If you had bothered to read, you would have learned the standard I proposed: honest and successful business. Why do you find that to be a controversial measure of business success?

Also, no, the "500 businesses" thing also isn't accurate, and I gave one reason why. I'll give you another one. Most of those "businesses" only exist on paper. They only exist for moving money around. They aren't actual enterprises. And you guys can't even decide if we are talking about failures or just bankruptcies. I'll give you credit for creativity on that one, but it is intellectually dishonest. The number provided for business failures was NOT based on bankruptcies alone, so using only Trump's BANKRUPTED businesses is dishonest. Dude, you guys aren't even counting the businesses that were bleeding him dry and that he sold off to minimalize losses. Not make a profit. Minimalize losses.

I'm sorry you think that honest, successful businesses are not the mark of a successful businessman. I disagree. But our difference in standards does explain why you continue to defend Trump and I want nothing to do with the con man and wannabe fascist.

 

OK. Then it should be easy to find a link making that assertion. Could you point us in that direction from a credible link Mr Literate?

He conned people into thinking he won the Presidency of the United States? Are you sure about that?

It is my long-standing policy to not reply to strawmen arguments.

If this notion invalidates any of the accomplishments I have listed I will happily reply. Can you explain what accomplishment I have listed ( going from the son of a nondescript real estate developer from Queens, into a household name associated with luxury, Hit TV show, President of the United States) that this refutes and how?

Unless you can do that, I will not reply to this strawman no matter how many times you repeat it.