My original involvement was to fact check the bankruptcy claim, not discuss the value or issues with bankruptcy. The goal posts were moved to bring up Harris being a long time government employee. I spent replies discussing how.the differences are largely semantic, but that’s literally besides my original point, and you are free to have your opinion on government work, because it’s not what I’m here for anyway.
Trump, as leader of his businesses, DID file bankruptcies, as the article describes.
Facts indeed. I provided a source of the bankruptcies for companies that he was the leader of, as I specified.
Edit Any discussion of the consequences of those bankruptcies or the validity of candidates based on their business background is outside of the scope, and a goalpost move.
As I stated in my comment, he takes direct leadership in his businesses and his businesses filed. Contesting this point is not goalpost moving and would have been meaningful discussion, yesterday. Arguing about her business background has nothing to do with my original comment. I’d recommend to read the article, which is not from this year, and discusses the situation about his bankruptcy situation.
Bankruptcies are not “common” for successful business folks, but they do happen.
She has worked as a public servant in a legal capacity, which we can certainly agree is important for a modern society. A president should also be well versed in such things, which trump is not. So, on that basis they break even. Weather you agree with her policy or approach, you have to accept that she has worked for the government, and therefore the furtherance of the nation. You may believe her approach was not to your liking, but I’m thankful people work in governmental, public roles too. I think such people are completely valid candidates for higher office.
deleted by creator
Her office would have designated the need for positions and filled them. They would have had a budget and worked within it to staff.
Another goalpost move on p/l.
deleted by creator
My original involvement was to fact check the bankruptcy claim, not discuss the value or issues with bankruptcy. The goal posts were moved to bring up Harris being a long time government employee. I spent replies discussing how.the differences are largely semantic, but that’s literally besides my original point, and you are free to have your opinion on government work, because it’s not what I’m here for anyway.
Trump, as leader of his businesses, DID file bankruptcies, as the article describes.
deleted by creator
Facts indeed. I provided a source of the bankruptcies for companies that he was the leader of, as I specified.
Edit Any discussion of the consequences of those bankruptcies or the validity of candidates based on their business background is outside of the scope, and a goalpost move.
deleted by creator
As I stated in my comment, he takes direct leadership in his businesses and his businesses filed. Contesting this point is not goalpost moving and would have been meaningful discussion, yesterday. Arguing about her business background has nothing to do with my original comment. I’d recommend to read the article, which is not from this year, and discusses the situation about his bankruptcy situation.
Bankruptcies are not “common” for successful business folks, but they do happen.
She has worked as a public servant in a legal capacity, which we can certainly agree is important for a modern society. A president should also be well versed in such things, which trump is not. So, on that basis they break even. Weather you agree with her policy or approach, you have to accept that she has worked for the government, and therefore the furtherance of the nation. You may believe her approach was not to your liking, but I’m thankful people work in governmental, public roles too. I think such people are completely valid candidates for higher office.
deleted by creator