casino expert Donald Trump

By my count, (and please correct me if I've got my facts wrong) Donald Trump's Atlantic City casinos have filed for bankruptcy 3 times (1991, 2004, 2009). I don't doubt that running a large casino is much easier said than done-- these companies have enormous expenses, mountains of debt, and fierce competition from swanky new casinos in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

Nevertheless, after 20 years of trial and error, how is it that a financial genius like Donald Trump hasn't figured out a way to squeeze a tiny profit out of 7,924 slot machines?

Does The Donald Exist without a TV camera? It is akin to the tree falling and no is there to hear it. Let's see. The Donald Ran as a Democrat for president but bailed when he had to give details about his finances. The Donald ran as an independent fr president but bailed when it came time to discuss his finances now the Donald is trying to be King Teaparty. At Least he found a group that doesn't read so he can say what he wants and they have no capability to research his claims.

I forget who said it but The Donald is Americas most famous Thousandaire. We should elect The Donalds lawyers. Every time he goes bust they sue to get his money back.

He apparently is a bank expert as he can keep getting banks to fund him again after a long history of multiple bankruptcies.

Stating that the Trump casinos have filed for bankrupcy, multiple times, makes it sound like the Trump casinos are unique in their multiple filing status.

They are not.

Many businesses, both in and out of the gaming industry, have filed for bankrupcy, often more than once.

Filing does not mean that a business has failed. It merely means that unless there are drastic measures taken, the creditors will force the business to fail. Filing provides the business some breathing room, and time to re-structure, in an effort to prevent the creditors from taking over. In many cases, bankrupcy does achieve that goal.

Therefore, the mere fact that a business has filed, even repeatedly, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Quote: Wavy70

now the Donald is trying to be King Teaparty. At Least he found a group that doesn't read so he can say what he wants and they have no capability to research his claims.

I'm sorry, but that comment is reprehensible. It is amazing to me that ANY group of people with opposing view points can simply decide to say "but the other side can't read" or "the other side is ignorant" and get away without being called out. If you feel your side of the political spectrum is better, prove it by providing convincing (and real) arguments. Don't simply think calling someone stupid makes them so.

Wasn't it the liberal left that immediately (and incorrectly) attributed the horrid shooting in Arizona to "right wing" nastiness? Since they did that, my experience is that I have heard more hate coming out of the left than out of the right.

My honest opinion? Neither side is 100% correct. The most extreme on both sides almost work in concert against the middle. Consider immigration. Many on the left want open borders and no voter ID checks (no picture IDs required to vote) while on the right there are rich folks employing illegals and not paying proper taxes, etc. Housekeepers, nannies, yard crews, etc. are ignored even though they are not properly documented and taxed on income.

Anyway, I can listen to any arguments for or against a position...but I can't stand someone calling the other side ignorant just because there are a few bad apples on both sides...

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Therefore, the mere fact that a business has filed, even repeatedly, is not necessarily a bad thing.

Yes, I see your point. It just seems unsustainable for a business to continue failing forever, year after year.

.....

Quote: RonC

I'm sorry, but that comment is reprehensible. It is amazing to me that ANY group of people with opposing view points can simply decide to say "but the other side can't read" or "the other side is ignorant" and get away without being called out. If you feel your side of the political spectrum is better, prove it by providing convincing (and real) arguments. Don't simply think calling someone stupid makes them so.

Wasn't it the liberal left that immediately (and incorrectly) attributed the horrid shooting in Arizona to "right wing" nastiness? Since they did that, my experience is that I have heard more hate coming out of the left than out of the right.

My honest opinion? Neither side is 100% correct. The most extreme on both sides almost work in concert against the middle. Consider immigration. Many on the left want open borders and no voter ID checks (no picture IDs required to vote) while on the right there are rich folks employing illegals and not paying proper taxes, etc. Housekeepers, nannies, yard crews, etc. are ignored even though they are not properly documented and taxed on income.

Anyway, I can listen to any arguments for or against a position...but I can't stand someone calling the other side ignorant just because there are a few bad apples on both sides...

Don't get me wrong I enjoy the Teaparty. The people who hate the Teapartiers are the members of the GOP.
Sorry but after listening to the Tea Party "Leaders" I see no evidence of much education if any. Also still haven't heard from the AZ shooter if any of the Teaparty nastiness that he would have been subjected to if he owned a TV in AZ had any role.
But the Tea Party isn't a real party. They are as important as John Birchers. You can't find 3 Teaparty members to agree on anything. The head of the TX Teaparty said they are not against tax increases but the others seem to disagree. The Teaparty is going to be a amusing memory soon. The good part for the Dem's is if the best the GOP can find is Palin and Trump they may not even need to buy ad time.

Can you reference any mainstream candidate or politician on the "Left" that wants open boarders?

Quote: RonC

Wasn't it the liberal left that immediately (and incorrectly) attributed the horrid shooting in Arizona to "right wing" nastiness?

No.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

..Filing does not mean that a business has failed. It merely means that unless there are drastic measures taken, the creditors will force the business to fail. Filing provides the business some breathing room, and time to re-structure, in an effort to prevent the creditors from taking over. In many cases, bankrupcy does achieve that goal..

Then the original premise needs to be massaged a little, how about:

Trump has been such a huge success that he's managed to find himself so close to being put out of business by his creditors that he had to file for bankruptcy on three different occasions.