Useful Analogy?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37416457

[naomi24]

RandyMarsh, I don't know anything about his bankruptcies. Do you think they're relevant?

[RandyMarsh]

Surprised you don't know anything about them, they are not exactly a secret.

[andy-hughes]

RandyMarsh - //Surprised you don't know anything about them, they are not exactly a secret. //

I would suggest that if they involve the potential next President, they are highly relevant!

How can you expect a man who can't run a business to run a country?

[Khandro]

Sound like it's no big deal;
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/

[jim360]

I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't venture onto that site often enough, Khandro, if you are such a Turmp fan. Over half of what he says, according to that site, is either False or outrageously false (and most of the rest is at best half-true).

[naomi24]

Randymarsh, //Surprised you don't know anything about them, they are not exactly a secret. //

I'll ask you again. Do you think they are relevant?

[Khandro]

jim; Now there is something wrong with the website! I see it is a no-win situation with you.

[jim360]

Not really, Khandro; I think you are misinterpreting that particular fact-check (and then ignoring everything else it says about Trump, it seems), which to me said that the bankruptcies are "complicated", rather than "no big deal".

[naomi24]

Jim, they are no big deal. You and RandyMarsh are succumbing to conspiracy theories.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/

[jim360]

That's an ironic criticism Naomi when Trump's just been banging on for the last five years about the birther conspiracy, and then tried a humiliating climbdown in which he blamed Clinton.

Well, I say it was humiliating, but presumably, like all of his other "gaffes", he'll get away with it. But anyway, I mentioned the bankruptcies myself only in passing, and focused on a separate "litany of failures", that I'd strongly recommend you start reading up on (I'd discovered Khandro's link months ago).

[naomi24]

Jim, we were talking about his bankruptcies ... but you seem to have suddenly changed tack.

[Zacs-Master]

Jim, you seem to be attempting a climb down of your own. Now that's ironic.

[jim360]

I haven't changed tack at all. On the other hand, you and Khandro picked up on one part of the picture, decided that it's "no big deal" (neither of your sources actually say this, by the way, so that's your own twist on things), and then ignored literally everything else that makes Trump who he is. I never changed tack. See, for example, my posts from earlier in the thread, where I discussed rather a lot more of Trump's problems than a few bankruptcies. The oft-mentioned (and oft-ignored) Trump University, for example.

[naomi24]

Jim. Well, you hopped from bankruptcy to the birther conspiracy in one fell swoop. Seems like a change of tack to me – and actually, I believe my source does say it’s no big deal. If you don't understand that then I can only assume you don’t understand how business works.

[Zacs-Master]

What's wrong with discussion on one aspect of Trump? I think he's a political dinosaur where politics are concerned but you can't deny his business acumen.

[jim360]

It seemed an appropriate jump to make when you accused me of falling victim to a conspiracy, which is both complete cobblers and also exactly the sort of thing that Trump and his sheep fall for all the time.

I'm not a businessman, and doubt I ever will be. I never said Trump wasn't unsuccessful. I never said the bankruptcies demonstrated his incompetence. I do think they form a (small) part of a picture of the man, what he is like, and whether or not he is a suitable president.

[naomi24]

Jim, //I do think they form a (small) part of a picture of the man, what he is like, and whether or not he is a suitable president.//

Why?

[jim360]

I have to get some work done for a change, and anyway I don't want to launch into another lengthy tirade. But, in brief, it matters because of the way Trump portrays himself. He is incredibly loud about his successes -- when they happen, the world knows about it. It follows that the world should know about the times he has been less than successful just as loudly.

[naomi24]

Jim, you can’t say why then? As for saying the world should know about the times he’s been less than successful, it's apparent that his opponents are doing their very best to broadcast those – and coming unstuck.

[jim360]

I thought that was reason enough; you can feel free to disagree, but whether his history of failed businesses (bankruptcy or otherwise) is irrelevant, or outweighed by his successes, they should at least be highlighted. And as I am trying to make clear, they barely scratch the surface in any case. Trump is a disaster waiting to happen, a consummate liar, and an arrogant self-centred megalomaniac. America should steer well clear of him. And under normal circumstances they would -- but he has timed his second attempt to become president superbly, as the Republican Party is currently a mess anyway, and Hillary Clinton would herself otherwise have been the least popular candidate in history, were it not for Trump.

"Trumpageddon", as TTT puts it, is a real possibility. It's a bizarre name to choose, because who looks forward to the end of the world?