I know that a lot of you watched the Republican debate last night and have your opinion. Well, I have mine too. I am going to limit my comments to the exchange between Trump and Wallace.
Wallace's question went something like this. "What do you have to say about your business that went bankrupt and you put hundreds of people out of their jobs." This sounds a lot like the type of questions that Romney got during the last election. The implication was that Trump did something wrong when he chose for one of his corporations to go bankrupt and that he had little concern for the welfare of his workers.
I know that there was a limited amount of time for Trump to respond, but he did make a common mistake that I have been blogging on. Trump talked over the heads of both Wallace and the average voter and here is how. Trump claimed that he was just following the law assuming that voters had some kind of understanding of the law. Further, he assumed that the average voter understood business. Trump's problem is that he hangs around with competent people and not the average voter. He does not understand how little the average voter understands about bankruptcy law, corporations or business.
Here is what happened. Trump responded to the change in the laws of New Jersey that allowed the construction and operation of casinos in Atlantic City, NJ by forming a corporation to build and operated a casino there. Before Trump made his decision there was a run down water front in Atlantic City with hundreds of people out of work. Trump put up some of his own money and found investors who were willing to loan the new "corporation" the additional money needed. Trump was able to get his casino up and running, but after a period of time it became clear that the casino was not going to be able to make a profit. Trump then decided to close down the casino and liquidate the corporation's assets and distribute the funds back to creditors. The people who did not have jobs before Trump built the casino were layed off. Both Trump and the creditor lost money on their investment in the casino too.
I don't understand what Trump did wrong! We all know that most new businesses fail. Most of the businesses that Trump has started have not failed. Think of all the people who now have jobs as a result of the businesses that Trump has created. Does that count for something? For some reason liberals only want "perfect" solutions. They think that the only businesses that have 100% chance of being successful should be started so that there is zero chance of people losing the jobs the new business created. How is that? Now, I think that you can see that Trump was forced to talk over the heads of the average voter.
PS---If you owned stock in a corporation that went bankrupt, does that mean "you" went bankrupt? That is exactly what Wallace implied Trump did. When someone says that they have a car or that they lost their cell phone, is that the same as when the say that they have job and they have lost their job? I don't think so. You don't "have" a job, you are an employee of a company. It is the company who "has" the job. It is hard to have a debate when the parties don't have a clear understanding of the words that are being used!
Wallace's question went something like this. "What do you have to say about your business that went bankrupt and you put hundreds of people out of their jobs." This sounds a lot like the type of questions that Romney got during the last election. The implication was that Trump did something wrong when he chose for one of his corporations to go bankrupt and that he had little concern for the welfare of his workers.
I know that there was a limited amount of time for Trump to respond, but he did make a common mistake that I have been blogging on. Trump talked over the heads of both Wallace and the average voter and here is how. Trump claimed that he was just following the law assuming that voters had some kind of understanding of the law. Further, he assumed that the average voter understood business. Trump's problem is that he hangs around with competent people and not the average voter. He does not understand how little the average voter understands about bankruptcy law, corporations or business.
Here is what happened. Trump responded to the change in the laws of New Jersey that allowed the construction and operation of casinos in Atlantic City, NJ by forming a corporation to build and operated a casino there. Before Trump made his decision there was a run down water front in Atlantic City with hundreds of people out of work. Trump put up some of his own money and found investors who were willing to loan the new "corporation" the additional money needed. Trump was able to get his casino up and running, but after a period of time it became clear that the casino was not going to be able to make a profit. Trump then decided to close down the casino and liquidate the corporation's assets and distribute the funds back to creditors. The people who did not have jobs before Trump built the casino were layed off. Both Trump and the creditor lost money on their investment in the casino too.
I don't understand what Trump did wrong! We all know that most new businesses fail. Most of the businesses that Trump has started have not failed. Think of all the people who now have jobs as a result of the businesses that Trump has created. Does that count for something? For some reason liberals only want "perfect" solutions. They think that the only businesses that have 100% chance of being successful should be started so that there is zero chance of people losing the jobs the new business created. How is that? Now, I think that you can see that Trump was forced to talk over the heads of the average voter.
PS---If you owned stock in a corporation that went bankrupt, does that mean "you" went bankrupt? That is exactly what Wallace implied Trump did. When someone says that they have a car or that they lost their cell phone, is that the same as when the say that they have job and they have lost their job? I don't think so. You don't "have" a job, you are an employee of a company. It is the company who "has" the job. It is hard to have a debate when the parties don't have a clear understanding of the words that are being used!
