Trump's long list of failures...

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:29 pm

The length and breadth of Trump's prior failures should give anyone pause if they were simply a would-be investor in his latest scheme...

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/201 ... epage=true

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:24 pm

Should I re-post Hillaries long list of failures? At least Trump didn't get anyone killed, nor did he protect a known rapist/woman abuser.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:28 pm

woodchip wrote:Should I re-post Hillaries long list of failures?

Why are you so completely obsessed with a candidate no one on this board likes? Are you supporting Trump because he's not Hillary? Because if you want to be a not-Hillary vote there are better candidates to support.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:18 pm

People may not like her, but I guarantee many will hold their breath and pull the lever anyway.

So posting her negatives might….might dissuade some.

(but I doubt it)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:28 pm

vision wrote:
woodchip wrote:Should I re-post Hillaries long list of failures?
Why are you so completely obsessed with a candidate no one on this board likes? Are you supporting Trump because he's not Hillary? Because if you want to be a not-Hillary vote there are better candidates to support.

I support Trump because no one else in the Rep. party will shake up the status quo like trump will. Hillary, to me, is everything that is wrong with politicians. You want to vote for a complete crook, someone when the 2 in the morn came just killed the alarm and went back to sleep...then go ahead. Don't complain when you finally realize you voted for a person who has a failed morality.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:36 pm

woodchip wrote:I support Trump because no one else in the Rep. party will shake up the status quo like trump will.

Can you elaborate on the "shake up the status quo" part and explain, specifically, how that is going to create unity and cooperation between both the citizens of the United States and all it's levels of government?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:57 pm

woodchip wrote:I support Trump because no one else in the Rep. party will shake up the status quo like trump will.

this, and the following questions, are honest attempts to understand......
When you say 'shake up the status quo', to what extent does that encompass the GOP fold? 2nd question--To what level does your beef go past all levels of government and into society as a whole?Finally, what, more precisely, do you desire by way of shaking up? I get a bit concerned by the term, frankly, as 'shaking' usually doesn't 'fix' anything in real life. Still, your definition or idea might be completely benign for all I know. Flesh it out a bit.

Hillary, to me, is everything that is wrong with politicians.

not a question here, actually.......one could do worse than using that definition.

You want to vote for a complete crook, someone when the 2 in the morn came just killed the alarm and went back to sleep...then go ahead. Don't complain when you finally realize you voted for a person who has a failed morality.

You take the vitiol too far, to my mind, when you go past her political/leadership issues that are on the record to wild speculation and exaggeration.I figure EVERYONE has gaps in their morality, it's awareness of same that makes the real difference. For me, neither Trump nor Clinton have ANYWHERE near the self-awareness. Trump is certainly NO better than HIllary. Simply having a different set of bad morals isn't inherently superior.
If moral consistency is what you seek, you're sort of left to Cruz and Sanders, with two completely different approaches to and visions for government.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:59 pm

Trump's shaking up the status quo == Obama's hope and change.

Trump is running a batshit insanity version of the Obama 2008 campaign.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:22 pm

Krom wrote:Trump's shaking up the status quo == Obama's hope and change

Remember the phrase "Rorschach candidate"? I remember people saying it about Obama a lot -- that most people who liked him didn't have any specifics they could point to, but they liked the vague idea of "hope and change" and they liked his attitude, so they sort of projected their own ideas onto him. Moderates saw him as moderate and strong liberals saw him as a strong liberal.

That's kind of the impression I get with Trump "shaking up the status quo" or "shaking up washington". What does that actually mean? The few people I know who are Trump supporters are all over the place in terms of what they think -- some people think he'll overturn Obamacare, others think he'll overturn executive orders, others think he'll be militarily aggressive, others think he'll institute prayer in schools. Basically, whatever he's said that sounds kind of like something they care about, they think he really really means, and whatever he's said that sounds vaguely offensive they assume he doesn't really mean.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:41 pm

What I find most amusing is that woody has mocked the "hope and change" line for the better part of the past 8 years, and yet is falling head-over-heels for the exact same concept presented in a far more vitriolic manner.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:21 pm

Top Gun wrote:What I find most amusing is that woody has mocked the "hope and change" line for the better part of the past 8 years, and yet is falling head-over-heels for the exact same concept presented in a far more vitriolic manner.

well, he is the perfect product of that party.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:46 am

Top Gun wrote:What I find most amusing is that woody has mocked the "hope and change" line for the better part of the past 8 years, and yet is falling head-over-heels for the exact same concept presented in a far more vitriolic manner.

Except Trump has a track record of accomplishing things, Obama had a record of voting present 147 times.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:19 am

woodchip wrote:Except Trump has a track record of accomplishing things

Care to elaborate?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:32 am

Should I list all the projects he's built? Did Obama build anything besides a false persona ?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:42 am

woodchip wrote:Should I list all the projects he's built? Did Obama build anything besides a false persona ?

a reputation for decency, for starters. In 8 years on the national stage, he never talked about his dick size. Also, what does financing(it isn't like he designed or constructed a damn thing)a building project have to do with the skillset of being President of the US. It isn't like the day-to-day follows any plan or anything can be prioritized. Completely bogus thinking, Woody.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 7:44 am

If he didn't lead the way, all those architects and engineers would of designed nothing.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:12 am

Yes, politicians are pure awesomeness, and businessmen suck balls.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:24 pm

woodchip wrote:Should I list all the projects he's built?

No need, a little research pretty much covers it.

Trump Shuttle? went out of business.

Trump Magazine? folded.

Trump Vodka? gone.

Trump Steaks? gone.

Trump University? being sued.

Trump Follies? abandoned.

Trump’s American Pale Ale? gone.

Yup. He built a lot of stuff. A lot of failures.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:09 pm

A good measure of success can be how many times you fail without giving up.

Failure is when you give up.

The guy I rent my shop from had at least half a dozen business startup failures before he became a millionaire in real estate.

....Not defending Trump...just saying...

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:06 pm

Spidey wrote:A good measure of success can be how many times you fail without giving up.

Failure is when you give up.

The guy I rent my shop from had at least half a dozen business startup failures before he became a millionaire in real estate.

....Not defending Trump...just saying...

yeah. there's also this saying: "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result."

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:12 pm

So Ferno, what percentage of Trumps ventures failed?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 5:53 pm

I’m pretty sure anybody with half a brain can tell each of those startups is a different thing.

.....................

Doesn’t matter how many attempts fail, only one has to succeed.

Statistically most business startups fail within the first 7 years. (that number may actually be higher, because that was from years ago when the business environment wasn’t as hostile as it is now)

Again...I'm not defending Trump per se.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:46 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So Ferno, what percentage of Trumps ventures failed?

58%

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:05 am

So, while some of you are looking at the glass half empty, lets see where he did succeed. :

Grand Hyatt Hotel

Trump bought the former Commodore Hotel, which had fallen into relative disrepair, from Penn Central Railroad in 1974 and after six years of construction, the Grand Hyatt Hotel debuted. Smack dab in the heart of New York City, with the image of Grand Central reflected off its glass façade, the 34-story hotel is still booming business today.

Trump Tower

Trump broke ground on his now-famous 48-story Trump Tower in 1980. The luxury high-rise opened in 1983 and, with upscale restaurants and stores located in the mostly residential building, is still highly sought after real estate.

Wollman Rink

Trump renovated Wollman Rink in 1986 after contacting Mayor Ed Koch and offering to complete the renovation for $3 million. He finished the project on time and $750,000 under budget. Wollman Rink remains a Central Park fixture with more than 5 million annual visitors.

40 Wall Street

Trump purchased the building in 1995 for $1 million and renovated it for $35 million. Today, 40 Wall Street, one of the tallest office buildings in downtown New York, is worth over $500 million.

Trump Place

After years of negotiations, Trump finally broke ground on Trump Place, the gargantuan housing development along the Hudson River. The development includes 25 acres of open space and 5,700 apartments housed in 18 residential buildings.

The Apprentice

The Apprentice premiered on NBC in 2004 to great ratings. Trump served as not only the host but also the executive producer, raking in $1 million per episode. The show was successful enough that it inspired a spinoff, The Celebrity Apprentice.

Trump International Tower Chicago

Trump bought the former Chicago Sun-Times headquarters in 2005 for $73 million and converted it into the second tallest building in Chicago. It houses a hotel, condos, restaurants and shops, and was named Travel+Leisure’s best large city hotel in North America in 2010.

vision · Post by **vision** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:49 pm

woodchip wrote:So, while some of you are looking at the glass half empty, lets see where he did succeed. :

So, real estate and reality TV. Sounds "presidential."

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 05, 2016 1:42 pm

woodchip wrote:So, while some of you are looking at the glass half empty, lets see where he did succeed.

how does real estate and reality tv factor into foreign/domestic policy positions again?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 6:16 am

So when Obama was running, did you use the same logic?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:20 pm

woodchip wrote:So when Obama was running, did you use the same logic?

Was obama involved in real estate? Reality TV? No. Dodging the question won't save you.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 1:10 pm

honestly, this is a worthless thread.

Anyone who has been involved in a lot of business ventures will have a lot of failures. And some successes. What sets good and bad businessmen apart is whether they conduct themselves with integrity, and whether their successes outweigh their failures.

If I were to list ycombinator's 79 failures, you might not think very highly of them. But if I list a few of their successes -- Airbnb, dropbox, twitch ($970 million exit), reddit, instacart, stripe, heroku, quora -- you might realize they're actually one of the most successful startup incubators of all time of all time.

So... hey, Trump has a lot of failures. And some successes. This tells us nothing of value.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:19 pm

Ferno wrote:
woodchip wrote:So when Obama was running, did you use the same logic?
Was obama involved in real estate? Reality TV? No. Dodging the question won't save you.

This is what you said:

"how does real estate and reality tv factor into foreign/domestic policy positions again?"

Let me rephrase my reply. Obama had exactly zero experience doing anything that would factor into foreign/domestic policy positions. He had no leadership positions. Wasn't a Governor, didn't even manage a party store yet he got elected. Do you understand better now what I meant? So no dodge, just you didn't think of another possibility that I might of meant ?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:30 pm

Anyone who has been in business long enough would have learned from their failures and not make the same missteps. Integrity is good for customer service, as is honesty.

Successes vs failures tells us a lot of value -- including but not limited to whether or not a person is likely to be successful at the job you put them to. Especially when it's in a field they have zero experience in.

And speaking of ycombinator, they look like they have triple the success rate as trump.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 2:46 pm

Ferno wrote:Successes vs failures tells us a lot of value...

Only if you have the right context to evaluate it. Pretty worthless to just count successes and failures. Some types of businessmen go for likely successes; others go for riskier ventures.

speaking of ycombinator, they look like they have triple the success rate as trump.

By what metric?

By return on investment, they're better than triple Trump's rate. By number of failures to number of successes, I don't really have a comprehensive list to be able to count. And I'm betting that you don't either.

Which is really what I'm getting at -- we don't have the right type of information to be making these sorts of evaluations in this thread. Maybe the information is out there, but settling for simplistic crap like "here's a list of Trump failures" or "here's a list of Trump accomplishments" doesn't get us anywhere close to being able to make a sensible evaluation.

So why argue about a red herring? Oh look, Trump has had some failures! Oh look, he has a lot of money! Why do we care? What's more important is that Trump sounds like a Nazi when he speaks. He doesn't have a plan with any sort of detail for 99% of what he claims. He doesn't show any integrity. He says he loves the Bible but can't even name a favorite Bible verse or passage. He speaks hatefully about far too many people. So whether or not he's an adequate businessman, he's definitely not president material.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:54 pm

Lothar wrote:
By what metric?

Total number of ventures launched.

but settling for simplistic crap like "here's a list of Trump failures" or "here's a list of Trump accomplishments"

Except, I'm not. I'm going off the total number of ventures under his name. He markets himself as a great businessman, and 42% isn't exactly a number that screams greatness. These are about the same odds as a coin flip.

If someone wants to be a leader, everything is up for scrutiny. You might think they're irrelevant or unimportant, but it's unwise to ignore anything. Especially if the next eight years comes down to someone doing a Harvey Dent. It's the same method of thinking that would be applied to decisions that have huge ramifications in the future.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:44 pm

Ferno wrote:
Lothar wrote:
By what metric?
Total number of ventures launched.

Which is a terrible, awful, no-good, very-bad metric.

Seriously. You can't do anything with that information unless you understand the risk profiles and the goals. There are some types of investors who aim for a 95%+ success rate of marginally profitable businesses (typical if you're, say, investing in gas stations), and others who are willing to fund 100 duds if they find one diamond (venture capitalists). According to Dave McClure, "if we define success as an exit at better than even money relative to investment ... the average angel investor is likely below 10%, and probably even for experienced / professional angel investors no higher than 20-30%."

I'm not saying it's "irrelevant" or "unimportant". I'm saying it's not something we can "scrutinize" in a reasonable way with the information in this thread. We literally do not have the proper information to be able to determine whether 42% is an awful success rate or a great one. Because we don't know what sort of risk profile was selected or desired.

42% is really bad if you're an airline pilot and we're measuring successful landings, but if you're an NBA player shooting 3-pointers it's an elite skill. It's really bad if you're investing in gas stations and really great if you're investing in high-risk startups. Trump is investing in an odd and eclectic mix, which means it would take a lot deeper, professional-grade analysis (by the caliber of analyst that even slick doesn't have access to) to make 42% into an actually-meaningful number.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:59 pm

Lothar wrote: Because we don't know what sort of risk profile was selected or desired.

We can get an idea of that by examining what types of ventures were launched. Such as a mortgage venture that went belly-up at the housing crisis(why in hell would you launch this just before the subprime crisis??). Or a line of Vodka (how does alcohol fail?), and an airline (this is pretty much a guaranteed success, but somehow it died).

You may think the rationales don't apply, but in my experience; they do.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:02 pm

do you have data on how often those types of ventures fail?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:35 am

I think that you all are missing the true issue to consider here. HOW did Trump operate his businesses? The point made about success/failure ratio in private commercial ventures is valid, FOR THAT BUSINESS, but not really much of an indicator for being President. One cannot have a high failure rate, for instance, with saber rattling, or someone's kids get killed in a stupid war.

However, it IS informative to consider this: Trump learned(via failure) early on to not risk much of his own capital, becoming far less an investor as he became a huckster, selling his personal 'brand'. He has played very fast and loose with the finances of others, as has been revealed in Delaware's Chancery Court proceedings every few years. He is used to working in an envioronment where he has a LOT of control over the playing field and rules, and can risk failure, because it isn't HIS failure, by and large. This experience in NO WAY prepares him to be POTUS. He has ZERO legislative experience, ZERO experience in the design and operation of government. It is quite easy for him to stand there, all orange faced and all, talking about how stupidly the nation is run, but his supporters don't seem to get that he is offering NO suggestions as to the specifics of how to make it run 'smarter', or even the depth of knowledge to understand if some aspects are running well or not.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:41 pm

That’s why it’s called risk capital, nobody in their right mind would risk their own money, that’s just not how it’s done. Trump never had to learn this, it's standard procedure.

Since forever venture capitalists have been using other people’s money, because if one risks a million bucks on a risky venture, that’s a big loss, but if someone takes a lot of smaller donations from many people who risk what they can afford, the losses can be managed.

Anyone that risks more than they can afford to lose is a fool, but I like how you spin business as usual into a negative because he is a political rival.

Now sure you can make the case that Trump is way too cavalier, but I would imagine his contributors already know this.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:07 pm

actually, early on, Trump was mainly putting up his own money. Venture capital is fine if your tryiing to design the next big thing in your parent's garage. but hardly the thing if you're starting a wine business, or building resorts. It just isn't done that way. You might build an investment team, but it all goes through major banking and investment houses, NOT VC firms, or individual VC 'angels'. At any rate, my point is that there is very little linkage between the business world and a government. Just like conflating household budgeting with government, conflating business with governance(which sometimes ignores making a profit in favor of making things right, and in invested in largely with long-term notes) is just wrong.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:16 pm

At least Trump’s investors have a choice, where is my choice when the government plays “fast and loose” with my money.

Want some examples…

The Challenger launch, that was definitely a bad decision on the part of NASA and killed people to boot.

Want another…

The ACA is paying for health care thru private insurance, way more expensive than paying for it directly…what do I have to say about it…and to add insult to injury, if you don’t take their blood money…you can get penalties.

And I have NEVER conflated the Federal budget to a home or business budget, only the fundamental things all of them have in common.