You are too funny with your trolling. You kind of remind me of a politician.
You say something and then a few minutes later deny it. :1orglaugh

Can you PLEASE go back on topic? Or do you not have ANYTHING to add intellectually to the discussion?

I kind of knew when I started this thread it wouldn't stay on track because of Mark and crockett. lol

They could just debate whether what Trump said is even CLOSE to the campaign of 1800 between Pres. Adams and Vice Pres. Jefferson.

But they don't have any answer. So...attack everything else without even addressing the original post.
Sad...

In the 1800s we had slavery people had shoot outs in the West as a way to settle arguments.. Women couldn't vote..

Yet you want to compare campaign rethrotic from then vs now to prove your pre-determined point. Which no matter what is said, will you change your mind..

If you listen to Donald Trump (and look at him) how can you think he's anything but a gaping asshole? It just shows a flaw in your own character.

Robbie: Clearly I have completely misread your political leanings. Please clarify them for me so we can continue the discussion? If you don't want to answer, then don't I guess.

i post shit about how horrible the left is? where did i do that? because it wasn't on gfy.

yup, i've expressed my views on obama, both praise (obamacare, etc) and disappointment, and that's because i have a right to critique the guy i voted 2x for. I've also stated here to you directly and more than once that Jim Webb is my guy.

you're free to troll gfyers who voted for Obama and who try to view him fair and square, but it's weird you need to pigeonhole me just so you can troll us about the politics you claim you don't care about all while being fully brushed up on the liberal blogosphere agenda.

I've actually said it TWICE in this thread...here's the first time:
And here is the second time (and you have actually quoted from this reply yourself):
Are you really like this in real life? Because I will repeat: You are on a business forum...even if it's a crazy ass one like GFY. And people do judge your intelligence by what you show them here.

Now how about the topic? Instead of your obsession with me and my political leanings?
Yours are already well known and the mention of your name on GFY brings up visions of that side of you instead of your business.

Just looked at that. It didn't really have any facts in that article. Just how the guy who wrote it thinks that Donald Trump isn't worth what he says.

Who knows? I don't, you don't, and the guy who wrote that piece certainly doesn't.

One thing is for sure...Trump is pretty damn well off and unlike Mitt Romney, he doesn't try to pretend he's just a "common man".

I think that's the whole secret behind his poll showing. People are sick of politicians and their b.s.

Whether we think Trump is full of shit or not is inconsequential. We KNOW that the lifelong politicians are definitely lying through their teeth.

I think Trump and Sanders are both a breath of fresh air and are exposing the 2 party system and the media for trying to take away our choices of whom to vote for.

What are they so scared of?

If Trump is so unpopular then let the voters decide.
If Sanders has no chance...let the voters decide.

I want to be able to make up my own mind. Not have it decided for me by the RNC and DNC and the media that is in their pocket.

according to the documents, Trump is President of several hundred companies. seems a good quality to have to be, you know, President.

Trump Change!

https://dummidumbwit.files.wordpress...omination.jpeg

Why does it? Because having several hundred companies and being bankrupt four times is somehow qualification to understand the nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy?

If I have to explain how experience as president of running 100s of large multi-national business operations combined with the experience of successfully negotiating with 100s of international banks to refinance and restructure bankruptcy debt, then you wouldn't understand.

Nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy? You mean the "nuances" that have been handled so well by our Federal Govt. for the last few decades?

I don't think you thought about that. Our country has pretty much set the damn world on fire since the end of WW2.

Also...this is a contest for the position of the Executive Branch of Govt.

Not saying Trump is the guy. Just saying that "yes", an experienced executive would be what you would want.

And I keep seeing references made to bankruptcies. In business...bankruptcy is used to restructure.

Pres. Bush and now Pres. Obama have technically bankrupted our country many, many times over.
Only the Federal Govt. could get away with "deficit spending"
No other entity can do that.

Think about that just a second. Pres. Bush racked up more debt than all the President's before him.
Pres. Obama doubled Bush's debt!

They both would have went truly "bankrupt" a long time ago in the real world. :(

One other thing bronco67...how exactly were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and especially Pres. Obama "qualified" when they took office to handle the "nuances" of domestic and foreign policy?

Pres. Obama had ZERO experience in that.

The Presidency isn't something that really has a way to train for. It's an on the job learning experience because it is a one-of-a-kind job.
Unless we are gonna elect a former British or Canadian Prime Minister to President of the U.S., nobody is really qualified. lol

But it is by definition the EXECUTIVE branch of govt.
So an actual person with experience running something is preferable...just makes good common sense, right?

Yes, exactly what Pres. Obama did with General Motors to save it.

Have you ever run a business? It's a lot harder than it looks.

[QUOTE=Robbie;20530999]One other thing bronco67...how exactly were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and especially Pres. Obama "qualified" when they took office to handle the "nuances" of domestic and foreign policy?

QUOTE]

The first thing all of those people listed have is the ability to not act like an unfiltered loose cannon that shoots first and asks questions later.

Trump is a buffoon. I don't give a shit what he has or what he's done.

One of the major aspects of being the president is how well you delegate and manage. It is such a big job you have to rely on your cabinet and advisers and make choices based on the information they give you. You also need to be able to pick good people for those jobs. The better the team you surround yourself with the better the odds are you will be successful.

Being a CEO or president of a company requires many of the same skills.

Sure, there are big differences, but being president is such a unique job is is hard to know for sure just how good someone will be at the job until they are doing the job. That said, if they were governor of a state or Mayor of a major city or CEO of a big company it can give you a glimpse into their management style and how they might do.

liquidation would have been better than restructuring? those banks knew what they were getting into when they loaned trump run orgs all that cash each and ever time and they obviously were fine with the restructured deal terms.

there was nothing inappropriate about those bankruptcies, Trump plays in a risky arena- casinos, everyone knew the risks, prats and pitfalls and how to recover working together if shit hit the fan.

Then you should not vote for Trump (I'm not).

May I offer you a selection of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Web, or O'Malley?

I'm assuming that you are a Democrat right? So those will be your choices for primary races.

Since neither of us are registered Republicans, we can't vote for Trump in the primary even if we wanted to.

I'm a registered Libertarian. But if I were able to vote in the primary, I would vote for Sanders.
Only because I like some of his ideas. Not sure if he has anything about him that would make him good for the Executive Branch...but then again I don't think ANY of the Democrat or Republican contenders do.
At least Sanders tells it like it is and isn't busy lying his ass off and/or helping to fuck our country up like the rest of the Dems and Republican candidates are doing

You need to educate yourself a bit. The President would NOT give them a "bailout" unless they "Restructured" first (bankruptcy).
He said it didn't make any sense to risk taxpayer dollars unless they did bankruptcy.

He basically forced them to do it. And he was 100% correct.

But don't listen to me. Read the transcript of President Obama himself and educate yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us...anted=all&_r=0

I never said Obama did not offer incentives to GM. I said he had nothing to do with GM's bankruptcy...I was referring to GM's decision to restructure. GM decided on it's own to file for bankruptcy.

Wrong. Pres. Obama forced GM's CEO to step down. And then he appointed a new CEO for GM (which is kinda crazy).

Then he told them that unless they declared bankruptcy he would not give them the bailout.

Come on man. That's not "incentives". That's making decisions by the President for GM to go bankrupt so he wouldn't be wasting Federal money.

This is kinda dumb.
I'm praising Pres. Obama for his decision on that.
But you are so adamant about "proving" that Donald Trump isn't a good businessman that you are still going to argue against a business practice that is used by every business out there.

Let's just call this a "draw" if it makes you feel better.

Me? I know how business works. I'm not phased by the word "bankruptcy" and I don't think it denigrates a person's ability to run a company. Especially if it's done in a way that helps the company either come back from the brink...or if it allows the investors to recoup some of their investment.

Pres. Obama never owned any business. But he's an educated man and easily understood the value of using bankruptcy as a tool for restructuring.

you keep needing to cast it in a negative light, such as your 50c on the dollar comment, so it sure comes across that you're trying to claim it's inherently wrong. interest rates change all the time, debt gets restructured and serviced under new rates all the time, banks vie with one another to buy mortages and all types of debt at lower interest rates. that's not 50c on the dollar, that's the banking business.

i get where you're coming from, you need to cast it in a negative light. again, i get it.

By the way, when banks/creditors voluntarily offer debtors loan/debt restructure deals , that has nothing to do with bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, once the trustee approves the filing, the creditors are forced into restructure/liquidation even if they do not want to.

international bankruptcy involving 100s of millions of leveraged dollars to international banks aren't decided on by a court trustee like down at the local bankruptcy court.

i'm presenting reality. those banks knew the riskiness of casino ventures and Trump when they inked the original deals and when they inked the restructuring of the interest rate. you make it out like trump skated on the principle owed. his companies did not, they renegotiated interest rates and that happens all the time and banks understand that better than you, or me.

no, your point it to cast it in a negative light, again i get it. but specifically, no entity was forced to accept less in any trump bankruptcy i've read about, in fact, the restructured deals returned more. for instance, debt holders received stock in place of debt, increase in value = 2/3rd

there is plenty available online re: any of the trump run businesses restructured deals, you might want to familiarize yourself with any of that.

i didn't state it was "an" international bankruptcy as if there's an international bankruptcy court. and you don't at all know what all his filings involved. and heads-up, you have absolutely zero proof that those filings had trustees appointed.

Again, there is the issue of volunatariness...or lack there of. It is immaterial that the stocks they were forced to accept as payment increased in value after bankruptcy so that the creditors ultimately ended up with more. The issue is that bankruptcy forced those creditors to accept as payment something other than what was in the original contract. That is entirely different than the common voluntary debt restructure deals that you previously cited.

Upon filing a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 or, in an involuntary case, the entry of an order for relief, the debtor automatically assumes an additional identity as the "debtor in possession." 11 U.S.C. § 1101. The term refers to a debtor that keeps possession and control of its assets while undergoing a reorganization under chapter 11, without the appointment of a case trustee. A debtor will remain a debtor in possession until the debtor's plan of reorganization is confirmed, the debtor's case is dismissed or converted to chapter 7, or a chapter 11 trustee is appointed. The appointment or election of a trustee occurs only in a small number of cases. Generally, the debtor, as "debtor in possession," operates the business and performs many of the functions that a trustee performs in cases under other chapters. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a).

i just posted the terms for ch11. lolz. every ch11 does NOT necc. involve a trustee. why not read the words i posted, the ones in your favorite color.

again...

no trustee used in the pre-packaged bankruptcy deal Trump made


A "prepackaged" bankruptcy petition, in which the majority of creditors and the debtor had already agreed on a plan that needed the court's approval, was approved in Federal bankruptcy court yesterday. As part of the petition, Mr. Trump must insure that the casino meets projections for earnings and performance in order to keep control of the company's board.

As part of a settlement with bondholders. Mr. Trump agreed to cede 50 percent of the equity in the casino to bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates on the debt and more time to pay it off.


COMPANY NEWS - Taj Mahal Is Out Of Bankruptcy - NYTimes.com

i post the fucking law, 11 U.S.C. § 1101. :1orglaugh you post conjecture.

post just 1 link to an article that confirms trump's ch11 filings had appointed trustees.

no, it's not, if they were not fine with it, they would not have pre-packaged the deal terms and presented it as fine to the judge. so it's not a misnomer, it's a nomer.

and it sounds like you got ch7 mixed up with ch11, ch7 requires a trustee, ch11, as i mentioned 2x above, defaults to *debtor in posession* and usually (routinely) does not have a trustee. a trustee runs the business while the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, something the debtor and creditors are very not fine with, thus pre-packaged terms presented to the judge and accepted by the judge.