"Please ignore all those things my client said" - Trump's fraud lawyers

[ati87]

Trump also made a lot of money on other business ventures. Sometimes businesses go South, that is the risk of business, when you are involved in the region of 500 businesses as Trump is, then a lot of them will go down the pan - the trick is to have less go down than go up.

Steve Jobs had business failures, Bill Gates had business failures, Donald Trump had business failures. That is just how it works when you are playing at that level and the more widespread your capital, the more failures you will have.

- - - Updated - - -



He doesn't seem like the sort of person that would let negative personal publicity halt his business marketing, so other than out of pocket money, I am not seeing the risk there and the value of the marketing his run has been worth is phenomenol.

Trump is arguably the most famous person on the planet at this moment and his brand is called Trump, that is billions of dollars worth of marketing.

Argument still stands, because the argument you lot are using just doesn't hold up.

Your calling a person that got millions from his dad smart because he made that million plus dollars he got from his dad into a billion (no proof of this ) but when I show and answer the question that everybody could have done the same thing how is that not like debunking and destroying your entire argument?

The likes of Bill Gates, zuckerberg and Steve Jobs made billion dollar companies out of nothing, they didn't get a businesses from daddy and lost more money in the processes then if they did nothing.

[Kalis]

Argument still stands, because the argument you lot are using just doesn't hold up.

Your calling a person that got millions from his dad smart because he made that million plus dollars he got from his dad into a billion (no proof of this ) but when I show and answer the question that everybody could have done the same thing how is that not like debunking and destroying your entire argument?

Not everybody could have done the same thing, people have proved over-and-over again that is not the case.

There is a quote that the best way to make a small fortune is to start with a large one, i.e. it is easier to lose money than make it. You haven't debunked or destroyed anything, just shown that you don't really know much about business.

As far as marketing goes, Trump is brilliant, his deal making skills I have no idea, but he won't be bad otherwise he would be just another bloke who'd lost his fortune some time ago and not a billionaire.

The likes of Bill Gates, zuckerberg and Steve Jobs made billion dollar companies out of nothing, they didn't get a businesses from daddy and lost more money in the processes then if they did nothing.

Gates and Jobs would have had business ventures, started when they were wealthy, that failed. It is incredibly common for businesses to fail. One of the business basics is to diversify your assets, so you spread them around a lot of ventures in the knowledge that some will fail and some will succeed.

Bill Gates undoubtedly had far more business failures when he was wealthy than he did when he wasn't, for the simple reason that he would have had a larger number of investments when he was rich.

[Kiri]

Gates and Jobs would have had business ventures, started when they were wealthy, that failed. It is incredibly common for businesses to fail. One of the business basics is to diversify your assets, so you spread them around a lot of ventures in the knowledge that some will fail and some will succeed.

Bill Gates undoubtedly had far more business failures when he was wealthy than he did when he wasn't, for the simple reason that he would have had a larger number of investments when he was rich.

The way I understand him, he values these businessmen above Trump because they managed to create a large fortune out of a very small one. His general argument was that it is much easier to make it far in the business world when you have a huge starting capital (and backing, a safety net and connections) than if you start with just a good idea.

[JadedTauren]

Of course not. Because the trial hasn't even begun yet. -_-

Let's make a clear distinction here though. With Clinton they didn't find sufficient evidence to even make it to Trial, with Trump, they did.

[Kalis]

The way I understand him, he values these businessmen above Trump because they managed to create a large fortune out of a very small one. His general argument was that it is much easier to make it far in the business world when you have a huge starting capital (and backing, a safety net and connections) than if you start with just a good idea.

The problem is that history is littered with businessmen that started wealthy and lost it all, hanging on to, or increasing, wealth is not as easy as many people seem to think and that poster claimed he could have turned millions into billions.

They also claimed that losing money showed he wasn't smart, but virtually all businessmen lose some money at some point, that is just business.

[ati87]

The way I understand him, he values these businessmen above Trump because they managed to create a large fortune out of a very small one. His general argument was that it is much easier to make it far in the business world when you have a huge starting capital (and backing, a safety net and connections) than if you start with just a good idea.

Argument is don't call somebody a genius or smart when he his wealth is based on daddy;s money and now his own succeses.

The guy I original responded to asked the following

OK - if I give you 1 million dollars today, do you know how to turn it into 10 billion in let's say 30-40 years?

Ignoring the 10B since he just makes it up as it goes.

If you give the money and businesses Trump got from his dad to anybody else even a idiot red neck that spits tabaco in a bucket he also would have had a Billion dollar worth of money at this point.

And the same guy mentioned Jobs. Well the likes of Jobs and Gates made their own businesses (with partners) and build something out of nothing. That's the difference between smart people and somebody that was born into money.

Oh 1 product of Bill gates or Steve Jobs failed? Thats really a bad comparison when you compare the failure of entire companies to a single product.

[Kiri]

The problem is that history is littered with businessmen that started wealthy and lost it all, hanging on to, or increasing, wealth is not as easy as many people seem to think and that poster claimed he could have turned millions into billions.

They also claimed that losing money showed he wasn't smart, but virtually all businessmen lose some money at some point, that is just business.

Yeah, he oversimplifies things. Just like many people who did not start rich fail in their endeavours while some succeed, so those who did. It is, however, easier to stay rich when you are already rich unless you really mess it up. As you said, rich starters can diversify their investments and still have a lot of capital if one goes down the drain, while those he cited had to bet most of what they had on a single business. Of course, the likes of Gates and Zuckerberg are only part of a small minority of people who did that and actually succeed. Most failed. That is just America's variation of capitalism at work, working as intended even.

But the core that I can see in the whole argument in general is that Donald Trump is not necessarily a brilliant businessman simply because of what he achieved. Basic competency and ruthlessness can get you very far if you start with millions.

[Xandrigity]

The FBI investigated her. Apparently/allegedly they found nothing. What's the problem?

The FBI investigation into the Clinton foundation, pay for play ect is still ongoing. Actually there are multiple FBI investigations still ongoing. The only investigation that would likely not lead to charges is the email one.

[Deleted]

But hey, good thing you didn't vote for Crooked Hillary, right?

Yes, this is truly worse than WW3.

[Kiri]

Yes, this is truly worse than WW3.

WW3? How did that spectre of history come into this 'law-turned-economics' discussion?

[Kalis]

Yeah, he oversimplifies things. Just like many people who did not start rich fail in their endeavours while some succeed, so those who did. It is, however, easier to stay rich when you are already rich unless you really mess it up. As you said, rich starters can diversify their investments and still have a lot of capital if one goes down the drain, while those he cited had to bet most of what they had on a single business. Of course, the likes of Gates and Zuckerberg are only part of a small minority of people who did that and actually succeed. Most failed. That is just America's variation of capitalism at work, working as intended even.

But the core that I can see in the whole argument in general is that Donald Trump is not necessarily a brilliant businessman simply because of what he achieved. Basic competency and ruthlessness can get you very far if you start with millions.

You I agree with, but...

If you give the money and businesses Trump got from his dad to anybody else even a idiot red neck that spits tabaco in a bucket he also would have had a Billion dollar worth of money at this point.

...that is just nonsense.

[Nadiru]

Isn't that what a lawyer is supposed to do? Tell the jury that your client isn't on trial for being a schmuck, but for actual real things he allegedly did?

[Phlegethon]

So you're willing to forgive Hillary for all this stuff, but when Trump does it, it's just awful

Bias is a four-letter word

That's not what I read there though.
Nowhere does it say "forgive", just the fact that you voted for potatoe while not liking potatoe. You just voted for the same thing only more racism and stupidity.
By all means, tell me how I now love Hillary. Fact remains they were both shit and you should have been able to pick Bernie.
Anyway, on to #kanye2020 amirite.

[Kiri]

You I agree with, but...



...that is just nonsense.

Yeah, over exaggeration is over 9000. He also argues from a hindsight perspective, which is a terrible strategy altogether.

[Kalis]

Yeah, over exaggeration is over 9000. He also argues from a hindsight perspective, which is a terrible strategy altogether.

There are well known examples of poor people who suddenly came into a great deal money and blew it all, e.g. lottery winners are notorious for it, that shows many people are just awful with investments.

[Kiri]

There are well known examples of poor people who suddenly came into a great deal money and blew it all, e.g. lottery winners are notorious for it, that shows many people are just awful with investments.

Yeah, I think people who grew up with money can deal much better with having so much money, especially as opposed to those who can 'finally buy that X they always wanted'.

[ati87]

You I agree with, but...



...that is just nonsense.

Warren Buffet compared to a monkey with a blindfold and a dart....

So yes it makes sense when you call somebody smart when literately everybody could have done just as well if not better if they only had a dartbord and daddy's money

[DeadmanWalking]

That's not what I read there though.
Nowhere does it say "forgive", just the fact that you voted for potatoe while not liking potatoe. You just voted for the same thing only more racism and stupidity.
By all means, tell me how I now love Hillary. Fact remains they were both shit and you should have been able to pick Bernie.
Anyway, on to #kanye2020 amirite.

Regardless of Delegates or emails Bernie lost the popular vote by 3 million voters in the Demo nominee selection, 14 million to 17 million. When asked by Tapper why the Democrats should pick the guy who lost the popular vote he responded, "They should pick the nominee with the most enthusiastic supporters." Hillary flat out won that election regardless of any delegate crap. Unless one can open a portal into an alternate reality to see what would of happened with a Sanders nominee there is no telling if Trump or he would of won as they would most likely painted him as a dirty commie marxist.

[ati87]

Regardless of Delegates or emails Bernie lost the popular vote by 3 million voters in the Demo nominee selection, 14 million to 17 million. When asked by Tapper why the Democrats should pick the guy who lost the popular vote he responded, "They should pick the nominee with the most enthusiastic supporters." Hillary flat out won that election regardless of any delegate crap. Unless one can open a portal into an alternate reality to see what would of happened with a Sanders nominee there is no telling if Trump or he would of won as they would most likely painted him as a dirty commie marxist.

In all honestly.

The democratic party pushed for Clinton, maybe it wouldn't have materede in the end but if you start adding all of the small things up don't be surprised that the ''weaker'' candidate wins (justifiable or not, Clinton was a weak candidate in the eyes of the people)

Both Biden and Warren would have destroyed Clinton in the primaries given that both are more well known that Sanders while at the same time Sanders who was unknown at the start had a chance to win.

[ohnoto]

The FBI investigated her. Apparently/allegedly they found nothing. What's the problem?

They didn't find "nothing". They found that she had broken the law. They just stated that they were not going to recommend criminal charges.