ChatterBank9 mins ago
Useful Analogy?
84 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Jim, //I thought that was reason enough//
Why? He’s never declared personal bankruptcy and filing for corporate bankruptcy is an astute business practice . It’s no reason to debar someone from standing for political office. It’s not a crime. As my link points out //many people don't fully understand the nature of the bankruptcy process, or the distinctions between personal and corporate bankruptcies.// .... and unless you're one of them, you're deliberately making a mountain out of a molehill. Your post is over-dramatic and, actually, quite hateful.
Why? He’s never declared personal bankruptcy and filing for corporate bankruptcy is an astute business practice . It’s no reason to debar someone from standing for political office. It’s not a crime. As my link points out //many people don't fully understand the nature of the bankruptcy process, or the distinctions between personal and corporate bankruptcies.// .... and unless you're one of them, you're deliberately making a mountain out of a molehill. Your post is over-dramatic and, actually, quite hateful.
Hateful is a strong term but, Jim, what you've failed to do is answer why anyone who has strategically made a company bankrupt could not run for president. As you've already said, you're no businessman. Maybe this disqualifies you (unless you do some serious practical,research) from comment.
Again, I abhor Trump and his brash soundbites style and the way it appeals to the uneducated masses of the US but you seem to be dodging this particular aspect of his qualifications.
Again, I abhor Trump and his brash soundbites style and the way it appeals to the uneducated masses of the US but you seem to be dodging this particular aspect of his qualifications.
I don't see what's hateful about anything I've said, which is presumably because it's Naomi being melodramatic.
I'll leave the bankruptcy issue aside. Maybe it's an astute business practice after all, maybe it isn't, but either way it was never that the bankruptcies alone and of themselves "debar" Trump or anyone else from holding office. I don't think I ever implied this in the first place, though. Indeed, again, it was randymarsh who brought the bankruptcies up; I was mainly focusing on his "hateful" (and this time it's accurate to describe it that way) rhetoric.
I'll leave the bankruptcy issue aside. Maybe it's an astute business practice after all, maybe it isn't, but either way it was never that the bankruptcies alone and of themselves "debar" Trump or anyone else from holding office. I don't think I ever implied this in the first place, though. Indeed, again, it was randymarsh who brought the bankruptcies up; I was mainly focusing on his "hateful" (and this time it's accurate to describe it that way) rhetoric.
