Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On 8/8/2015 3:13 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 14:16:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/8/2015 2:04 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H.
wrote:

A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not
personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a
one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal
questions.

Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here
over the past three days.

When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should
be fair game.



I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared
bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those
filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged"
bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in
bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them.
That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did
it with General Motors.


And none of the others were asked *any* questions about their financial background.
-

Ban idiots, not guns!


A financial/business background is all that Trump has, so asking
questions about it seems pertinent. As POTUS he would have financial and
executive responsibilities.

Others (the professional politicians) were asked about past positions on
political issues or actions while they held office. Well, except Doc
Carson. I guess Kelly and crew couldn't come up with any questions
about brain surgery.

Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent
questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was
'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!



I agree that it appears Fox had it in for Trump as evidenced by the
first question and show of hands.

I think they picked Kelly to deliver the most potentially embarrassing
questions, mainly because they were of a sexist nature and she's a
woman. I had never seen her before this debate. Do all the Fox women
look like her? Might have to tune in more often.

BTW ... the reference she made to a contestant on the "Apprentice" being
forced to her knees was apparently quite a stretch of a tale.
The episode in question was found and the contestant was interviewed.
She didn't have a specific memory of what happened but said in no way
was she insulted. She had very positive things to say about Trump and
her experience of being on his show.

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent
questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was
'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX.

===

I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be
comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In
all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased
journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally
because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's
important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to
the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics
to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out.

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent
questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was
'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX.

===

I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be
comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In
all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased
journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally
because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's
important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to
the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics
to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out.

Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was
treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was
appropriate for a 'debate'.

If they wanted to show his 'true colors', I'm sure he'd be glad to be interviewed,
one on one, by the FOX network. Then he wouldn't have to share the spotlight with
anyone. He'd love it.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent
questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was
'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX.

===

I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be
comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In
all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased
journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally
because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's
important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to
the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics
to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out.

Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was
treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was
appropriate for a 'debate'.




Poor Donald. Proceed.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On 8 Aug 2015 22:00:20 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent
questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was
'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX.

===

I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be
comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In
all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased
journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally
because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's
important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to
the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics
to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out.

Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was
treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was
appropriate for a 'debate'.




Poor Donald. Proceed.

It would not have even been fair to you, Krause, and we all know how you lie.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

John H. wrote:
On 8 Aug 2015 22:00:20 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 16:57:42 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 15:13:04 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Perhaps questions about his plans for the economy? There are all kinds of pertinent
questions one with his background could have been asked. The name of the game was
'Get Trump'. I think it reflected very poorly on FOX.

===

I'll concede you this, he's a darned easy target. Would you really be
comfortable with a loose cannon like that rolling around on deck? In
all honesty Fox has never exactly been known for their unbiased
journalism. I do think they went for Trump's throat intentionally
because his temper and boorish manner are his biggest weakness. It's
important for his supporters to see those true colors before going to
the alter with him. Hitler used many of the same blustering tactics
to gain power in Germany. We all know how that turned out.

Whether or not he should be president wasn't the point. The point was the way he was
treated by FOX. I agree - they went for Trump's throat. I don't think that was
appropriate for a 'debate'.




Poor Donald. Proceed.

It would not have even been fair to you, Krause, and we all know how you lie.
--

It was perfectly fair to Trump, and it is likely his many supporters in the
GOP relish his actions and his comments about women, Mexicans, other
candidates, etc. Trump speaks for many in the GOP, including white racist
trash like you.

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H.
wrote:

A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not
personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a
one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal
questions.

Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here
over the past three days.

When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should
be fair game.



I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared
bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those
filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged"
bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in
bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them.
That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did
it with General Motors.

The Atlantic City/Gaming bankruptcies were big and ugly. He tried to
deflect by saying he screwed big players and bad guys but a ****load
of people lost their jobs and many more go hurt by his dubious
business practices. He's as loose and fast in business as he is with
his mouth.

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On 8/8/2015 7:25 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H.
wrote:

A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not
personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a
one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal
questions.

Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here
over the past three days.

When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should
be fair game.



I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared
bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those
filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged"
bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in
bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them.
That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did
it with General Motors.

The Atlantic City/Gaming bankruptcies were big and ugly. He tried to
deflect by saying he screwed big players and bad guys but a ****load
of people lost their jobs and many more go hurt by his dubious
business practices. He's as loose and fast in business as he is with
his mouth.



I hear you but again, that's the way things are in big business and it's
two-sided. It's why I got out when the getting was good ... before I
had to deal with being part of a public company and all that goes with it.

I witnessed how small banks deal with business investments, lines of
credit or financing in another company that I worked for before I
started mine. Banks aren't your "partner" like they try to promote
themselves as. One quarterly downturn in business and missing one of
the covenants associated with your agreement and you can find yourself
out of business fast with a bunch of unemployed employees. When I
started my company I swore I'd never do any form of bank financing ...
and I didn't. Never had a bank line of any kind. All of the growth
financing was organic, based on profits made on an increasing volume of
contracts.

Trump plays with the *really* big boys for financing and I am sure it's
a big reason of why he is what he is and how he acts. I can't even
imagine it.

Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive
when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida
with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for
those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired
people blowing their money trying to hit it big.

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 20:23:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/8/2015 7:25 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 13:40:53 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 8/8/2015 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 12:01:06 -0400, John H.
wrote:

A debate amongst Republican presidential wannabees should focus on public issues, not
personal background. The questions asked of Trump should have been part of a
one-on-one interview. None of the other candidates were asked only personal
questions.

Had to get my comment in before reading the stuff which has been accumulating here
over the past three days.

When a guy is running on his business record, his bankruptcies should
be fair game.



I am not as concerned about businesses owned by Trump that declared
bankruptcy. He claims to own about 500 companies, only four of those
filed for bankruptcy. I believe at least two of them were "arranged"
bankruptcies, meaning he bought distressed companies, put them in
bankruptcy to mitigate liabilities and then re-incorporated them.
That's common in the business world. Hell, even the US government did
it with General Motors.

The Atlantic City/Gaming bankruptcies were big and ugly. He tried to
deflect by saying he screwed big players and bad guys but a ****load
of people lost their jobs and many more go hurt by his dubious
business practices. He's as loose and fast in business as he is with
his mouth.



I hear you but again, that's the way things are in big business and it's
two-sided. It's why I got out when the getting was good ... before I
had to deal with being part of a public company and all that goes with it.

I witnessed how small banks deal with business investments, lines of
credit or financing in another company that I worked for before I
started mine. Banks aren't your "partner" like they try to promote
themselves as. One quarterly downturn in business and missing one of
the covenants associated with your agreement and you can find yourself
out of business fast with a bunch of unemployed employees. When I
started my company I swore I'd never do any form of bank financing ...
and I didn't. Never had a bank line of any kind. All of the growth
financing was organic, based on profits made on an increasing volume of
contracts.

Trump plays with the *really* big boys for financing and I am sure it's
a big reason of why he is what he is and how he acts. I can't even
imagine it.

Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive
when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida
with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for
those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired
people blowing their money trying to hit it big.

An ugly side to America, for certain. Those entities did a lot to help
my business grow but when the going got tough, they didn't mind
reneging on their promises.

Bean counters.

Trump *was* treated unfairly
 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 20:23:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Have to admit though, Trump's places in Atlantic City were impressive
when they were in their prime. One of my stops on the way to Florida
with the boat was the Trump Marina/Casino. I don't particularly care for
those places though. Gives me a creepy feeling watching all the retired
people blowing their money trying to hit it big.

I was in AC real early in the gambling game. The guys spent a night at
Ballys and moved enough chips to get a couple of rooms comped.
Although I broke about even Bally lost money on us.

We also decided to see what was outside the casino.
I knew then that this was a doomed "rejuvenation" of that slum city.
As soon as you walked out of the casino, the place was a **** hole and
there were not many people even adventuring outside.