Trump will bring about a new era of prosperity

Herzlos

Fella wrote: »

As already mentioned, he's a billionaire who just got made president. Suggestions he's not successful are ludicrous & merely demonstrate how determined people are to hate everything about him.

You shouldn't bother, he couldn't care less about us.

Indeed, but it's an important distinction between a man who became a billionaire and president by being successful, and a man who became a billionaire and president because his dad left him billions which he didn't manage to completely squander.

So he's doing pretty well, but only because it was given to him.

Would you regard anyone with his business record as "successful"?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Fella wrote: »

As already mentioned, he's a billionaire who just got made president. Suggestions he's not successful are ludicrous

Like him or loathe him it's a fact he has a string of failed and bankrupted businesses behind him, has been repeatedly sued over at best questionable business ethics and at worst outright fraud, and has done some pretty distasteful (and often borderline illegal) things to suppliers, employees, and tenants over his career.

And as more than a few business analysts have pointed out - had he just taken his fathers inheritance and stuck it in a passive investment tracker fund - he'd have an awful lot more wealth today than he has by losing so much of it over the years in failed schemes.

Like most narcissists, he clearly has a talent for self-promotion, but that doesn't in any way qualify him as being 'successful' by most common definitions of the word.

Fella

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Like him or loathe him it's a fact he has a string of failed and bankrupted businesses behind him, has been repeatedly sued over at best questionable business ethics and at worst outright fraud, and has done some pretty distasteful (and often borderline illegal) things to suppliers, employees, and tenants over his career.

A billionaire with lots of businesses, some of which failed, is successful by any sensible definition. Repeatedly being sued is a fact of life for any large business as you well know. As for questionable business ethics etc, that could also be levelled at most businessmen anybody on here could name. In none of those ways is he any different to the overwhelming majority of billionaire businessmen. The big difference is that unlike most of them he has the liberal rage of social media out to paint him as badly as possible as often as possible.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And as more than a few business analysts have pointed out - had he just taken his fathers inheritance and stuck it in a passive investment tracker fund - he'd have an awful lot more wealth today than he has by losing so much of it over the years in failed schemes.

This argument is gaining popularity but it's nonsense in reality. Would any of those business analysts have suggested that he take his father's inheritance & stuck it in a passive tracker fund at the time? The answer is of course, no. Had passive tracker funds happened to have performed abysmally over the same period we wouldn't be hearing this argument, it just suits people who want to denigrate Trump.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Like most narcissists, he clearly has a talent for self-promotion, but that doesn't in any way qualify him as being 'successful' by most common definitions of the word.

Aside from being a billionaire businessman, he has just become president of the USA. The president is generally regarded as the most powerful person on the world. To claim that somebody who's managed to become president is anything other than successful is just silly.


I'm genuinely surprised people are being daft enough to claim he isn't successful. He has plenty of actual weaknesses to criticize. But unsuccessful he is not.

Herzlos

Fella wrote: »

A billionaire with lots of businesses, some of which failed, is successful by any sensible definition.

If he didn't start as a billionaire I'd agree with you. Being given Billions and making slightly less billions doesn't make you successful. Being given nothing, and making Billions does.

mayonnaise

One might say Vlad The Impaler was quite successful also.

kayfaz

Donald Trump appoints Steve Bannon as Chief Strategist, a man who was founding member of Breitbart and big supporter of the 'Alt-right' (of far-right as they used to be known) and know they want to remove white supremacist & neo-nazis from the counter-extremism program.

Are people so blind that they can't see what's really going on and whats happening here?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-cut-white-supremacism-countering-violent-extremism-programme-neo-nazi-counter-extremism-a7558796.html

chucknorris

Fella wrote: »

As already mentioned, he's a billionaire who just got made president. Suggestions he's not successful are ludicrous & merely demonstrate how determined people are to hate everything about him.

But apart from being a billionaire and the president, the roads, the aqueduct and the wine, what have the Romans ever done for us?

My view is that I would have never voted for him, but just like Brexit, it happened (or going to), so why not try and make the best of it, and give him a chance (not much can be done about him anyway).

Fella

Herzlos wrote: »

If he didn't start as a billionaire I'd agree with you. Being given Billions and making slightly less billions doesn't make you successful. Being given nothing, and making Billions does.

He didn't inherit billions. Are you so desperate to appear correct you're just making stuff up?

Also I note you've just ignored the fact he just successfully ran for president. If that was all he'd ever done that win would make him one of the most successful people on earth.

Conrad

Herzlos wrote: »

If he didn't start as a billionaire I'd agree with you. Being given Billions and making slightly less billions doesn't make you successful. Being given nothing, and making Billions does.

He was given millions and turned this into a massive business empire that has given thousands of people employment (yawn, yes, yes, including some Polish immigrants etc, yawn).


I've had clients that have inherited millions and just bought a few properties, boosting their wealth, employing no one and this includes right-on 'liberal' types that have inherited London property - classic lefty virtue signallers that saw fit to make their wealth greater by investing, certainly no sharing or re-distribution and certainly no business building to employ others as Trump has

wotsthat

I wonder if the successful property tycoon Fergus Wilson might be up for the job of Prime Minister?