Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
The statement is true, per the specifications I allowed. I never indicated any value assessment as you focused on. That's not the point
Edit, to address the goalpost move: as a DA she certainly would have been in charge of staffing an office and had many humans in jobs. More than zero. So that's not true
She didn’t create those jobs. she didn’t run a p/l. The money didn’t come from her but from the state of California or the county depending on which job she did. The tax payers paid for those jobs.
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.
No goal post as been moved. She did not create jobs. She’s never run a business. She proudly proclaimed she’s always been on the government teat.
I prefer someone who actually creates jobs
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.
Goal post wasn’t moved. It’s all a continuation of her lies. Trump never filed bankruptcy. Harris has never created a job or a business. It isn’t semantic. lol. It’s facts. I get the left hates facts but she lied. As a lawyer, she knows the differences.
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.
Yes, but that isn't the same as Trump filing for bankruptcy. That was a lie. She has a pattern of lying, and she knows the difference. It is also a weird thing to judge someone on as it shows a lack of knowledge of the business world and proves she isn't fit to lead the nation. She has no clue how to create jobs or that bankruptcies are common. Sometimes you hit a home run and sometimes you don't. She wouldn't know because she had never done either.
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.
It happens. Anyone with a basic understanding of business knows every business won't be a success. I am familiar with his bankruptcies. That is how I know he has not personally filed for bankruptcy.
I would rather someone with more experience in the real world lead the country. I can't say I am impressed with a lawyer who didn't know the difference between a business failing and a personal bankruptcy. That doesn't show the competence needed to run the country. Part of the reason she is expected to lose the election.