has anyone in debates mentioned Trump's bankruptcy?

I’d think that there would be some discussion of Trump’s bankruptcy by his opponents during the debates or in the media. I guess Bush Jr. showed that it doesn’t concern voters too much anyhow. I’m not following the elections much at all, so I’m just interested if this topic has been brought up.

His bankruptcies don’t matter. Why that just shows how well he’ll be at handling the budget! He’ll just fire people!

Yeah I don’t actually see how the bankruptcies would matter since he is insanely wealthy NOW. You could even argue that it would work in his favor, he’s come back from adversity and all that.

Especially with no backing money, except from Whorehouse Freddy. :wink:

So if he sucks USA Corp. dry, it’s no big deal as long as his own bottom line is enhanced?

I’m quite sure his business bankruptcies have come up at least once (I don’t think he ever was personally bankrupt). He waved it away as something like “a tool the law provides” or something like that. It was in one of the early debates, maybe the very first one.


Why should his business bankruptcies matter? Strategic default is a viable strategy with the right fact pattern. Complex organizations set up multiple corporate entities for the purpose of, among other things, limiting risk. Ever consider what that means? It means bankruptcy is on the table.

It can be part of doing business.

It matters because he bills himself as not being a LOSER.

Bankruptcy makes you a YUUUUGE LOSER!

Yeah, but not if you come back from it.

Because Trump sells himself as a businessman, when in reality he is a terrible business manager and a talented sales guy. Whenever he got into something that required focus and follow through, he failed. Think about his casinos, his airline, the Plaza hotel. Trump is decent at reading people, which means he can tune his pitch to his audience. But he doesn’t build businesses well.

After his early 1990s bankruptcies, he switched to branding and then entertainment. Good move.

Out of curiosity, if your company goes bankrupt in Australia, there are penalties. I believe you can’t be a director of a company or manage a company for a certain number of years. Does the US not have any laws like that?

US government is only 18 or so trillion in debt. What’s it matter at this point?

Or someone ill-intentioned could argue that he’s got rich on the back of being allowed to walk away from his earlier debts and obligations? What would be the effect of a series of people popping up on TV to say “I lent him squllions and only got twopence back”?

But ultimately, that’s the taxpayers collectively in debt to their collective selves. National Debt is an accounting device.

I’m thinking about his casinos (bankrupt) his airline (bankrupt), his plaza Hotel (bankrupt) and his college Trump University LLC (also bankrupt and in a class action suit). His branding can be bought and his TV appearances which are completely dead (except for the translations I worked on for VOD entertainment three years later).

But, yes, he reads the demographics well to determine that his batshit audience will still buy his next ghostwritten book by yelling about Muslims, religious separation, a free wall built by those who will not be allowed…

But we hope Trump wouldn’t see it as part of doing government.

I haven’t heard of any such laws here, but maybe there is something like that.

Trump’s business bankruptcies are meaningless to those in the know.

In the first place, he, personally, never went bankrupt. So the idea most people have in mind when they hear or think about bankruptcy doesn’t apply in this case.

Secondarily, Trump took a very few of his overall number of companies into bankruptcy as a strategic move, as this is what the law allows and would be most beneficial to him. The other companies he owned at the time continued to thrive.

Third, as I said just above, Trump had many other businesses operating at the same time. They were all separate entities, so Trump wasn’t required to to cover debts and operating costs from the failing companies with the proceeds of his other companies.

Forth, investors lose money all the time when projects or businesses they invest in either fail or are shut down as a strategic move. Many, many people have lost money on movies, for example, when the films either tank at the box office or get shelved after production or even shut down during production. No one ever seems to blame or find fault with the powers that be when things like this happen, so my guess is that criticism of Trump and accusations that he’s made taking his companies into bankruptcies and fleecing his investors is largely political and not based on his having done anything morally or legally wrong. And besides, what would have him do? Continue operating and losing money failed businesses anyway, just to avoid bankruptcy? How is that going to benefit him, and even more importantly in this context, how is it going return its investors’ money?

Fifth, Trump didn’t just start up a few companies and then take them bankrupt just to fleece his investors. In many cases, the casinos for example, he operating them successfully for years before the casino business in New Jersey in general went south, and then when the began losing money and it became obvious a turnaround wasn’t going to happen in time to save them, he took them into bankruptcy to keep from throwing good money after bad.

And sixth (and somewhat redundantly), the four bankruptcies on Trump’s record represent an infinitesimal amount of the overall number of his companies. Even at the time he took some of his companies bankrupt, he had many more operating profitably and employing tens of thousands of people.

And finally, many of the businesses Trump is being accused of starting and failing in were businesses where he’d agreed to license his name for promotional purposes in return for a share of the profits. He did not own nor operate the businesses themselves, and when those companies tanked it was the responsibility of the people who owned or were running them and not Trump’s.

I remember this as well. It was brought up at least once in one of the early debates. He deflected it adequately, IIRC.