Here's Something For You Trump Haters & Lovers - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

But Robbie, you ARE a republican. You may be anti drug-war, anti-war, but you are still republican. From every discussion I've ever had with you, you seem to be 100% pure GOP Bush-lovin' republican.

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

No, not at all. I never said that or even thought it. This is like the 3rd or 4th time you have said I've said something which I haven't. All I have ever said is that Trump is an idiot and would make a terrible and dangerous president, regardless of which party he would run with.

You are too funny with your trolling. You kind of remind me of a politician.
You say something and then a few minutes later deny it.

Can you PLEASE go back on topic? Or do you not have ANYTHING to add intellectually to the discussion?

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 03:07 PM

I kind of knew when I started this thread it wouldn't stay on track because of Mark and crockett. lol

They could just debate whether what Trump said is even CLOSE to the campaign of 1800 between Pres. Adams and Vice Pres. Jefferson.

But they don't have any answer. So...attack everything else without even addressing the original post.
Sad...

crockett · 07-22-2015, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I kind of knew when I started this thread it wouldn't stay on track because of Mark and crockett. lol

They could just debate whether what Trump said is even CLOSE to the campaign of 1800 between Pres. Adams and Vice Pres. Jefferson.

But they don't have any answer. So...attack everything else without even addressing the original post.
Sad...

In the 1800s we had slavery people had shoot outs in the West as a way to settle arguments.. Women couldn't vote..

Yet you want to compare campaign rethrotic from then vs now to prove your pre-determined point. Which no matter what is said, will you change your mind..

bronco67 · 07-22-2015, 03:22 PM

If you listen to Donald Trump (and look at him) how can you think he's anything but a gaping asshole? It just shows a flaw in your own character.

bronco67 · 07-22-2015, 03:25 PM

Donald Trump-FEC filing: Read the 92-page filing that shows how Trump counts to TEN BILLION.

2MuchMark · 07-22-2015, 03:46 PM

Robbie: Clearly I have completely misread your political leanings. Please clarify them for me so we can continue the discussion? If you don't want to answer, then don't I guess.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Only on GFy... And only because you guys constantly post shit about how horrible the left is. In fact I only started arguing in these topics because of the daily Vendzilla and Co hates Obama topics.. I got tired of seeing you guys constantly complain about Obama, so I started trolling you guys..

If you right weenies stopped posting these topics, you wouldn't ever see a political post from me..

i post shit about how horrible the left is? where did i do that? because it wasn't on gfy.

yup, i've expressed my views on obama, both praise (obamacare, etc) and disappointment, and that's because i have a right to critique the guy i voted 2x for. I've also stated here to you directly and more than once that Jim Webb is my guy.

you're free to troll gfyers who voted for Obama and who try to view him fair and square, but it's weird you need to pigeonhole me just so you can troll us about the politics you claim you don't care about all while being fully brushed up on the liberal blogosphere agenda.

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Robbie: Clearly I have completely misread your political leanings. Please clarify them for me so we can continue the discussion? If you don't want to answer, then don't I guess.

I've actually said it TWICE in this thread...here's the first time:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Sanders may be the guy to persuade me to vote Democrat instead of Libertarian IF he can win the Dem nomination.

And here is the second time (and you have actually quoted from this reply yourself):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

for the record: I'm leaning to Sanders if he wins the Dem nomination...if not, then third party

Are you really like this in real life? Because I will repeat: You are on a business forum...even if it's a crazy ass one like GFY. And people do judge your intelligence by what you show them here.

Now how about the topic? Instead of your obsession with me and my political leanings?
Yours are already well known and the mention of your name on GFY brings up visions of that side of you instead of your business.

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Donald Trump-FEC filing: Read the 92-page filing that shows how Trump counts to TEN BILLION.

Just looked at that. It didn't really have any facts in that article. Just how the guy who wrote it thinks that Donald Trump isn't worth what he says.

Who knows? I don't, you don't, and the guy who wrote that piece certainly doesn't.

One thing is for sure...Trump is pretty damn well off and unlike Mitt Romney, he doesn't try to pretend he's just a "common man".

I think that's the whole secret behind his poll showing. People are sick of politicians and their b.s.

Whether we think Trump is full of shit or not is inconsequential. We KNOW that the lifelong politicians are definitely lying through their teeth.

I think Trump and Sanders are both a breath of fresh air and are exposing the 2 party system and the media for trying to take away our choices of whom to vote for.

What are they so scared of?

If Trump is so unpopular then let the voters decide.
If Sanders has no chance...let the voters decide.

I want to be able to make up my own mind. Not have it decided for me by the RNC and DNC and the media that is in their pocket.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Donald Trump-FEC filing: Read the 92-page filing that shows how Trump counts to TEN BILLION.

according to the documents, Trump is President of several hundred companies. seems a good quality to have to be, you know, President.

Rochard · 07-22-2015, 04:27 PM

Trump Change!

bronco67 · 07-22-2015, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

according to the documents, Trump is President of several hundred companies. seems a good quality to have to be, you know, President.

Why does it? Because having several hundred companies and being bankrupt four times is somehow qualification to understand the nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy?

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Why does it? Because having several hundred companies and being bankrupt four times is somehow qualification to understand the nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy?

If I have to explain how experience as president of running 100s of large multi-national business operations combined with the experience of successfully negotiating with 100s of international banks to refinance and restructure bankruptcy debt, then you wouldn't understand.

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Why does it? Because having several hundred companies and being bankrupt four times is somehow qualification to understand the nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy?

Nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy? You mean the "nuances" that have been handled so well by our Federal Govt. for the last few decades?

I don't think you thought about that. Our country has pretty much set the damn world on fire since the end of WW2.

Also...this is a contest for the position of the Executive Branch of Govt.

Not saying Trump is the guy. Just saying that "yes", an experienced executive would be what you would want.

And I keep seeing references made to bankruptcies. In business...bankruptcy is used to restructure.

Pres. Bush and now Pres. Obama have technically bankrupted our country many, many times over.
Only the Federal Govt. could get away with "deficit spending"
No other entity can do that.

Think about that just a second. Pres. Bush racked up more debt than all the President's before him.
Pres. Obama doubled Bush's debt!

They both would have went truly "bankrupt" a long time ago in the real world.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy? You mean the "nuances" that have been handled so well by our Federal Govt. for the last few decades?

I don't think you thought about that. Our country has pretty much set the damn world on fire since the end of WW2.

Also...this is a contest for the position of the Executive Branch of Govt.

Not saying Trump is the guy. Just saying that "yes", an experienced executive would be what you would want.

And I keep seeing references made to bankruptcies. In business...bankruptcy is used to restructure.

Pres. Bush and now Pres. Obama have technically bankrupted our country many, many times over.
Only the Federal Govt. could get away with "deficit spending"
No other entity can do that.

Think about that just a second. Pres. Bush racked up more debt than all the President's before him.
Pres. Obama doubled Bush's debt!

They both would have went truly "bankrupt" a long time ago in the real world.

In other words, let me continue operating my business, but also allow me to avoid paying what I legally owe to my creditors...ie. I do not want to pay on the contracts that I agreed to.

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 06:14 PM

One other thing bronco67...how exactly were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and especially Pres. Obama "qualified" when they took office to handle the "nuances" of domestic and foreign policy?

Pres. Obama had ZERO experience in that.

The Presidency isn't something that really has a way to train for. It's an on the job learning experience because it is a one-of-a-kind job.
Unless we are gonna elect a former British or Canadian Prime Minister to President of the U.S., nobody is really qualified. lol

But it is by definition the EXECUTIVE branch of govt.
So an actual person with experience running something is preferable...just makes good common sense, right?

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

In other words, let me continue operating my business, but also allow me to avoid paying what I legally owe to my creditors...ie. I do not want to pay on the contracts that I agreed to.

Yes, exactly what Pres. Obama did with General Motors to save it.

Have you ever run a business? It's a lot harder than it looks.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

In other words, let me continue operating my business, but also allow me to avoid paying what I legally owe to my creditors...ie. I do not want to pay on the contracts that I agreed to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Yes, exactly what Pres. Obama did with General Motors to save it.

Have you ever run a business? It's a lot harder than it looks.

I do not think you understand the GM issue. The Federal government "bailed out" GM. President Obama had nothing to do with GM's bankruotcy.

bronco67 · 07-22-2015, 06:20 PM

[QUOTE=Robbie;20530999]One other thing bronco67...how exactly were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and especially Pres. Obama "qualified" when they took office to handle the "nuances" of domestic and foreign policy?

QUOTE]

The first thing all of those people listed have is the ability to not act like an unfiltered loose cannon that shoots first and asks questions later.

Trump is a buffoon. I don't give a shit what he has or what he's done.

kane · 07-22-2015, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Why does it? Because having several hundred companies and being bankrupt four times is somehow qualification to understand the nuances of domestic and overseas diplomacy?

One of the major aspects of being the president is how well you delegate and manage. It is such a big job you have to rely on your cabinet and advisers and make choices based on the information they give you. You also need to be able to pick good people for those jobs. The better the team you surround yourself with the better the odds are you will be successful.

Being a CEO or president of a company requires many of the same skills.

Sure, there are big differences, but being president is such a unique job is is hard to know for sure just how good someone will be at the job until they are doing the job. That said, if they were governor of a state or Mayor of a major city or CEO of a big company it can give you a glimpse into their management style and how they might do.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

In other words, let me continue operating my business, but also allow me to avoid paying what I legally owe to my creditors...ie. I do not want to pay on the contracts that I agreed to.

liquidation would have been better than restructuring? those banks knew what they were getting into when they loaned trump run orgs all that cash each and ever time and they obviously were fine with the restructured deal terms.

there was nothing inappropriate about those bankruptcies, Trump plays in a risky arena- casinos, everyone knew the risks, prats and pitfalls and how to recover working together if shit hit the fan.

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

The first thing all of those people listed have is the ability to not act like an unfiltered loose cannon that shoots first and asks questions later.

Trump is a buffoon. I don't give a shit what he has or what he's done.

Then you should not vote for Trump (I'm not).

May I offer you a selection of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Web, or O'Malley?

I'm assuming that you are a Democrat right? So those will be your choices for primary races.

Since neither of us are registered Republicans, we can't vote for Trump in the primary even if we wanted to.

I'm a registered Libertarian. But if I were able to vote in the primary, I would vote for Sanders.
Only because I like some of his ideas. Not sure if he has anything about him that would make him good for the Executive Branch...but then again I don't think ANY of the Democrat or Republican contenders do.
At least Sanders tells it like it is and isn't busy lying his ass off and/or helping to fuck our country up like the rest of the Dems and Republican candidates are doing

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

liquidation would have been better than restructuring? those banks knew what they were getting into when they loaned trump run orgs all that cash each and ever time and they obviously were fine with the restructured deal terms.

there was nothing inappropriate about those bankruptcies, Trump plays in a risky arena- casinos, everyone knew the risks, prats and pitfalls and how to recover working together if shit hit the fan.

I never claimed that bankruptcy is inherently wrong...I simply reworded what "restructuring" really means...which is to legally avoid fully paying on a contract that both parties had previously agreed to.

And of course creditors might "be fine" with restructured debt deals, because the other alternative means even less payment or none at all. So of course a creditor would "be fine" with 50 cents on the dollar repaid in a restructure deal versus 1 cent on a dollar repaid in liquidation.

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I do not think you understand the GM issue. The Federal government "bailed out" GM. President Obama had nothing to do with GM's bankruotcy.

You need to educate yourself a bit. The President would NOT give them a "bailout" unless they "Restructured" first (bankruptcy).
He said it didn't make any sense to risk taxpayer dollars unless they did bankruptcy.

He basically forced them to do it. And he was 100% correct.

But don't listen to me. Read the transcript of President Obama himself and educate yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us...anted=all&_r=0

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You need to educate yourself a bit. The President would NOT give them a "bailout" unless they "Restructured" first (bankruptcy).
He said it didn't make any sense to risk taxpayer dollars unless they did bankruptcy.

He basically forced them to do it. And he was 100% correct.

But don't listen to me. Read the transcript of President Obama himself and educate yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us...anted=all&_r=0

I never said Obama did not offer incentives to GM. I said he had nothing to do with GM's bankruptcy...I was referring to GM's decision to restructure. GM decided on it's own to file for bankruptcy.

Robbie · 07-22-2015, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I never said Obama did not offer incentives to GM. I said he had nothing to do with GM's bankruptcy...I was referring to GM's decision to restructure. GM decided on it's own to file for bankruptcy.

Wrong. Pres. Obama forced GM's CEO to step down. And then he appointed a new CEO for GM (which is kinda crazy).

Then he told them that unless they declared bankruptcy he would not give them the bailout.

Come on man. That's not "incentives". That's making decisions by the President for GM to go bankrupt so he wouldn't be wasting Federal money.

This is kinda dumb.
I'm praising Pres. Obama for his decision on that.
But you are so adamant about "proving" that Donald Trump isn't a good businessman that you are still going to argue against a business practice that is used by every business out there.

Let's just call this a "draw" if it makes you feel better.

Me? I know how business works. I'm not phased by the word "bankruptcy" and I don't think it denigrates a person's ability to run a company. Especially if it's done in a way that helps the company either come back from the brink...or if it allows the investors to recoup some of their investment.

Pres. Obama never owned any business. But he's an educated man and easily understood the value of using bankruptcy as a tool for restructuring.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Wrong. Pres. Obama forced GM's CEO to step down. And then he appointed a new CEO for GM (which is kinda crazy).

Then he told them that unless they declared bankruptcy he would not give them the bailout.

Come on man. That's not "incentives". That's making decisions by the President for GM to go bankrupt so he wouldn't be wasting Federal money.

This is kinda dumb.
I'm praising Pres. Obama for his decision on that.
But you are so adamant about "proving" that Donald Trump isn't a good businessman that you are still going to argue against a business practice that is used by every business out there.

Let's just call this a "draw" if it makes you feel better.

Me? I know how business works. I'm not phased by the word "bankruptcy" and I don't think it denigrates a person's ability to run a company. Especially if it's done in a way that helps the company either come back from the brink...or if it allows the investors to recoup some of their investment.

Pres. Obama never owned any business. But he's an educated man and easily understood the value of using bankruptcy as a tool for restructuring.

When did I ever suggest that Trump is not a good businessman? His current net worth versus his net worth when he graduated from college is fact that he is indeed a good businessman. I simply clarified what "restructuring" is...which is to legally avoid fully paying debts per original contract terms.

And Obama did not force anyone to file for bankruptcy. He offered GM incentives, which GM was free to accept or reject.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I never claimed that bankruptcy is inherently wrong...I simply reworded what "restructuring" really means...which is to legally avoid fully paying on a contract that both parties had previously agreed to.

And of course creditors might "be fine" with restructured debt deals, because the other alternative means even less payment or none at all. So of course a creditor would "be fine" with 50 cents on the dollar repaid in a restructure deal versus 1 cent on a dollar repaid in liquidation.

you keep needing to cast it in a negative light, such as your 50c on the dollar comment, so it sure comes across that you're trying to claim it's inherently wrong. interest rates change all the time, debt gets restructured and serviced under new rates all the time, banks vie with one another to buy mortages and all types of debt at lower interest rates. that's not 50c on the dollar, that's the banking business.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you keep needing to cast it in a negative light, such as your 50c on the dollar comment, so it sure comes across that you're trying to claim it's inherently wrong. interest rates change all the time, debt gets restructured and serviced under new rates all the time, banks vie with one another to buy mortages and all types of debt at lower interest rates. that's not 50c on the dollar, that's the banking business.

50c on the dollar was a hypothetical. It entirely possible that a liquidation deal could result in 75cents on the dollar...in which case the creditors would likely push for liquidation versus restructuring...especially if restructuring does not have sufficent likelyhood of resulting in payment of more than 75 cent on the dollar. The point is that simply because creditors might "be fine" with a bankruptcy plan, does not mean they are happy with not being paid the full contracted amount. They are just choosing beetween the greater of two lesser options.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

50c on the dollar was a hypothetical. It entirely possible that a liquidation deal could result in 75cents on the dollar...in which case the creditors would likely push for liquidation versus restructuring...especially if restructuring does not have sufficent likelyhood of resulting in payment of more than 75 cent on the dollar. The point is that simply because creditors might "be fine" with a bankruptcy plan, does not mean they are happy with not being paid the full contracted amount. They are just choosing beetween the greater of two lesser options.

i get where you're coming from, you need to cast it in a negative light. again, i get it.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you keep needing to cast it in a negative light, such as your 50c on the dollar comment, so it sure comes across that you're trying to claim it's inherently wrong. interest rates change all the time, debt gets restructured and serviced under new rates all the time, banks vie with one another to buy mortages and all types of debt at lower interest rates. that's not 50c on the dollar, that's the banking business.

By the way, when banks/creditors voluntarily offer debtors loan/debt restructure deals , that has nothing to do with bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, once the trustee approves the filing, the creditors are forced into restructure/liquidation even if they do not want to.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i get where you're coming from, you need to cast it in a negative light. again, i get it.

Just consider it as a balance to your need to present bankruptcy in a positive light (your statement that Trump's creditors were fine with bankruptcy).

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

By the way, when banks/creditors voluntarily offer debtors loan/debt restructure deals , that has nothing to do with bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, once the trustee approves the filing, the creditors are forced into restructure/liquidation even if they do not want to.

international bankruptcy involving 100s of millions of leveraged dollars to international banks aren't decided on by a court trustee like down at the local bankruptcy court.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Just consider it as a balance to your need to present bankruptcy in a positive light (your statement that Trump's creditors were fine with bankruptcy).

i'm presenting reality. those banks knew the riskiness of casino ventures and Trump when they inked the original deals and when they inked the restructuring of the interest rate. you make it out like trump skated on the principle owed. his companies did not, they renegotiated interest rates and that happens all the time and banks understand that better than you, or me.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

international bankruptcy involving 100s of millions of leveraged dollars to international banks aren't decided on by a court trustee like down at the local bankruptcy court.

Trump never filed for an "international bankruptcy" whatever that is. He filed in the United States. And all his filings involved trustees.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm presenting reality. those banks knew the riskiness of casino ventures and Trump when they inked the original deals and when they inked the restructuring of the interest rate. you make it out like trump skated on the principle owed. his companies did not, they renegotiated interest rates and that happens all the time and banks understand that better than you, or me.

The whole point is voluntarines on the part of creditors who are restructuring debt. You cited the fact that debt restructure is common. But in bankruptcy, creditors do not voluntarily offer restructure deals. Rather they are forced to negotiate a plan...or risk recouping even less. Because if the creditors would "be fine" with a debt restructure, then there would be no need for the debtor to file for bankruptcy in the first place. The debtor and creditor could restructure their deal outside of bankruptcy court.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

The whole point is voluntarines on the part of creditors who are restructuring debt. You cited the fact that debt restructure is common. But in bankruptcy, creditors do not voluntarily offer restructure deals. Rather they are forced to negotiate a plan...or risk recouping even less. Because if the creditors would "be fine" with a debt restructure, then there would be no need for the debtor to file for bankruptcy in the first place. The debtor and creditor could restructure their deal outside of bankruptcy court.

no, your point it to cast it in a negative light, again i get it. but specifically, no entity was forced to accept less in any trump bankruptcy i've read about, in fact, the restructured deals returned more. for instance, debt holders received stock in place of debt, increase in value = 2/3rd

there is plenty available online re: any of the trump run businesses restructured deals, you might want to familiarize yourself with any of that.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

Trump never filed for an "international bankruptcy" whatever that is. He filed in the United States. And all his filings involved trustees.

i didn't state it was "an" international bankruptcy as if there's an international bankruptcy court. and you don't at all know what all his filings involved. and heads-up, you have absolutely zero proof that those filings had trustees appointed.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no, your point it to cast it in a negative light, again i get it. but specifically, no entity was forced to accept less in any trump bankruptcy i've read about, in fact, the restructured deals returned more. for instance, debt holders received stock in place of debt, increase in value = 2/3rd

there is plenty available online re: any of the trump run businesses restructured deals, you might want to familiarize yourself with any of that.

Again, there is the issue of volunatariness...or lack there of. It is immaterial that the stocks they were forced to accept as payment increased in value after bankruptcy so that the creditors ultimately ended up with more. The issue is that bankruptcy forced those creditors to accept as payment something other than what was in the original contract. That is entirely different than the common voluntary debt restructure deals that you previously cited.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 07:41 PM

Upon filing a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 or, in an involuntary case, the entry of an order for relief, the debtor automatically assumes an additional identity as the "debtor in possession." 11 U.S.C. § 1101. The term refers to a debtor that keeps possession and control of its assets while undergoing a reorganization under chapter 11, without the appointment of a case trustee. A debtor will remain a debtor in possession until the debtor's plan of reorganization is confirmed, the debtor's case is dismissed or converted to chapter 7, or a chapter 11 trustee is appointed. The appointment or election of a trustee occurs only in a small number of cases. Generally, the debtor, as "debtor in possession," operates the business and performs many of the functions that a trustee performs in cases under other chapters. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a).

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i didn't state it was "an" international bankruptcy as if there's an international bankruptcy court. and you don't at all know what all his filings involved. and heads-up, you have absolutely zero proof that those filings had trustees appointed.

Trump filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy 4 times. Every chapter 11 filing necessarily involves a trustee.

The U.S. Trustee's Role In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases | UST | Department of Justice

"The United States Trustee Program is the component of the Department of Justice that works to protect the integrity of the bankruptcy system by overseeing case administration and litigating to enforce the bankruptcy laws.

The Program consists of an Executive Office for U.S. Trustees in Washington, D.C., as well as 21 regional U.S. Trustee Offices and 95 field offices that operate in all federal judicial districts except those located in Alabama and North Carolina.

Generally, the duties of the U.S. Trustee in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 586. They include the following:"

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 08:02 PM

i just posted the terms for ch11. lolz. every ch11 does NOT necc. involve a trustee. why not read the words i posted, the ones in your favorite color.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 08:03 PM

again...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Upon filing a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 or, in an involuntary case, the entry of an order for relief, the debtor automatically assumes an additional identity as the "debtor in possession." 11 U.S.C. § 1101. The term refers to a debtor that keeps possession and control of its assets while undergoing a reorganization under chapter 11, without the appointment of a case trustee. A debtor will remain a debtor in possession until the debtor's plan of reorganization is confirmed, the debtor's case is dismissed or converted to chapter 7, or a chapter 11 trustee is appointed. The appointment or election of a trustee occurs only in a small number of cases. Generally, the debtor, as "debtor in possession," operates the business and performs many of the functions that a trustee performs in cases under other chapters. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a).

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i just posted the terms for ch11. lolz. every ch11 does NOT necc. involve a trustee. why not read the words i posted, the ones in your favorite color.

You can post whatever words you desire. Doesn;t change the fact that chapter 11 which Trump filed for, all involve a trustee as I cited.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 08:08 PM

no trustee used in the pre-packaged bankruptcy deal Trump made

A "prepackaged" bankruptcy petition, in which the majority of creditors and the debtor had already agreed on a plan that needed the court's approval, was approved in Federal bankruptcy court yesterday. As part of the petition, Mr. Trump must insure that the casino meets projections for earnings and performance in order to keep control of the company's board.

As part of a settlement with bondholders. Mr. Trump agreed to cede 50 percent of the equity in the casino to bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates on the debt and more time to pay it off.

COMPANY NEWS - Taj Mahal Is Out Of Bankruptcy - NYTimes.com

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

You can post whatever words you desire. Doesn;t change the fact that chapter 11 which Trump filed for, all involve a trustee as I cited.

i post the fucking law, 11 U.S.C. § 1101.

you post conjecture.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

You can post whatever words you desire. Doesn;t change the fact that chapter 11 which Trump filed for, all involve a trustee as I cited.

post just 1 link to an article that confirms trump's ch11 filings had appointed trustees.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

post just 1 link to an article that confirms trump's ch11 filings had appointed trustees.

"The trustee in Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc.?s Chapter 11 proceedings has objected to the debtor?s proposed hiring of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, alleging a conflict of interest stemming from a previous bankruptcy case. "

Weil Gotshal Has Conflict Of Interest: Trump Trustee - Law360

By the way, I did not post "conjecture". I posted the US Trustee program description from the DOJ website.

Anyhow, this whole trustee tangent is irrelevant to the issue that restructuring through bankruptcy is not voluntary from the standpoint of creditors. So it is a misnomer to say that creditors are "fine" with banrkruptcy.

dyna mo · 07-22-2015, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

"The trustee in Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc.?s Chapter 11 proceedings has objected to the debtor?s proposed hiring of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, alleging a conflict of interest stemming from a previous bankruptcy case. "

Weil Gotshal Has Conflict Of Interest: Trump Trustee - Law360

By the way, I did not post "conjecture". I posted the US Trustee program description from the DOJ website.

Anyhow, this whole trustee tangent is irrelevant to the issue that restructuring through bankruptcy is not voluntary from the standpoint of creditors. So it is a misnomer to say that creditors are "fine" with banrkruptcy.

no, it's not, if they were not fine with it, they would not have pre-packaged the deal terms and presented it as fine to the judge. so it's not a misnomer, it's a nomer.

and it sounds like you got ch7 mixed up with ch11, ch7 requires a trustee, ch11, as i mentioned 2x above, defaults to *debtor in posession* and usually (routinely) does not have a trustee. a trustee runs the business while the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, something the debtor and creditors are very not fine with, thus pre-packaged terms presented to the judge and accepted by the judge.

TCLGirls · 07-22-2015, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

no, it's not, if they were not fine with it, they would not have pre-packaged the deal terms and presented it as fine to the judge. so it's not a misnomer, it's a nomer.

and it sounds like you got ch7 mixed up with ch11, ch7 requires a trustee, ch11, as i mentioned 2x above, defaults to *debtor in posession* and usually (routinely) does not have a trustee. a trustee runs the business while the business is in bankruptcy proceedings, something the debtor and creditors are very not fine with, thus pre-packaged terms presented to the judge and accepted by the judge.

That's like saying a guy who suggests taking a punch in the gut is fine with it when his only other alternative choice is getting kicked in the balls.

And in chapter 11, the reason a "trustee is not assigned" is when the debtor also takes on the responsibilities of a trustee in good faith. So in essence there is always a trustee in chapter 11. And when the creditors argue that the debtor is not performing his trustee duties in good faith, than an outside trustee is appointed.

"Section 1107 of the Bankruptcy Code places the debtor in possession in the position of a fiduciary, with the rights and powers of a chapter 11 trustee, and it requires the debtor to perform of all but the investigative functions and duties of a trustee. "
Chapter 11 - Bankruptcy Basics | United States Courts

And there is always a US Trustee that oversees the administration of chapter 11:

"The U.S. trustee plays a major role in monitoring the progress of a chapter 11 case and supervising its administration. The U.S. trustee is responsible for monitoring the debtor in possession's operation of the business and the submission of operating reports and fees. Additionally, the U.S. trustee monitors applications for compensation and reimbursement by professionals, plans and disclosure statements filed with the court, and creditors' committees. The U.S. trustee conducts a meeting of the creditors, often referred to as the "section 341 meeting," in a chapter 11 case. 11 U.S.C. § 341. The U.S. trustee and creditors may question the debtor under oath at the section 341 meeting concerning the debtor's acts, conduct, property, and the administration of the case. "
Chapter 11 - Bankruptcy Basics | United States Courts

Still all entirely irrelevant to the fact that that chapter 11 banrkruptcy is not voluntary in terms of creditors.

07-22-2015, 03:07 PM	#102
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,845	I kind of knew when I started this thread it wouldn't stay on track because of Mark and crockett. lol They could just debate whether what Trump said is even CLOSE to the campaign of 1800 between Pres. Adams and Vice Pres. Jefferson. But they don't have any answer. So...attack everything else without even addressing the original post. Sad... __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-22-2015, 03:22 PM	#104
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,035	If you listen to Donald Trump (and look at him) how can you think he's anything but a gaping asshole? It just shows a flaw in your own character. __________________

07-22-2015, 03:25 PM	#105
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,035	Donald Trump-FEC filing: Read the 92-page filing that shows how Trump counts to TEN BILLION. __________________

07-22-2015, 03:46 PM	#106
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 47,471	Robbie: Clearly I have completely misread your political leanings. Please clarify them for me so we can continue the discussion? If you don't want to answer, then don't I guess. __________________ VideoChat Solutions \| Custom Software \| IT Support https://www.2much.net \| https://www.lcntech.com

07-22-2015, 04:27 PM	#111
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 71,114	Trump Change! __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

07-22-2015, 06:14 PM	#116
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,845	One other thing bronco67...how exactly were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and especially Pres. Obama "qualified" when they took office to handle the "nuances" of domestic and foreign policy? Pres. Obama had ZERO experience in that. The Presidency isn't something that really has a way to train for. It's an on the job learning experience because it is a one-of-a-kind job. Unless we are gonna elect a former British or Canadian Prime Minister to President of the U.S., nobody is really qualified. lol But it is by definition the EXECUTIVE branch of govt. So an actual person with experience running something is preferable...just makes good common sense, right? __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

07-22-2015, 06:20 PM	#119
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,035	[QUOTE=Robbie;20530999]One other thing bronco67...how exactly were Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and especially Pres. Obama "qualified" when they took office to handle the "nuances" of domestic and foreign policy? QUOTE] The first thing all of those people listed have is the ability to not act like an unfiltered loose cannon that shoots first and asks questions later. Trump is a buffoon. I don't give a shit what he has or what he's done. __________________

07-22-2015, 07:41 PM	#140
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 61,646	Upon filing a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 or, in an involuntary case, the entry of an order for relief, the debtor automatically assumes an additional identity as the "debtor in possession." 11 U.S.C. § 1101. The term refers to a debtor that keeps possession and control of its assets while undergoing a reorganization under chapter 11, without the appointment of a case trustee. A debtor will remain a debtor in possession until the debtor's plan of reorganization is confirmed, the debtor's case is dismissed or converted to chapter 7, or a chapter 11 trustee is appointed. The appointment or election of a trustee occurs only in a small number of cases. Generally, the debtor, as "debtor in possession," operates the business and performs many of the functions that a trustee performs in cases under other chapters. 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a).

07-22-2015, 08:02 PM	#142
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 61,646	i just posted the terms for ch11. lolz. every ch11 does NOT necc. involve a trustee. why not read the words i posted, the ones in your favorite color.

07-22-2015, 08:08 PM	#145
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 61,646	no trustee used in the pre-packaged bankruptcy deal Trump made A "prepackaged" bankruptcy petition, in which the majority of creditors and the debtor had already agreed on a plan that needed the court's approval, was approved in Federal bankruptcy court yesterday. As part of the petition, Mr. Trump must insure that the casino meets projections for earnings and performance in order to keep control of the company's board. As part of a settlement with bondholders. Mr. Trump agreed to cede 50 percent of the equity in the casino to bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates on the debt and more time to pay it off. COMPANY NEWS - Taj Mahal Is Out Of Bankruptcy - NYTimes.com