Trump tax returns leaked, and show he lost more money than anyone in the time period.

Okay, let's start with this one and see if you are interested in having an earnest discussion about this. How can they be normal businesses losses when they eclipse, well, pretty much every other individual's losses?

 

That wasn't logic, that was me having fun.

I don't, and I doubt Trump does, care about your armchair quarterbacking of his business ventures. You can wax poetic on it as much as you want.

The parts you quoted was the part I responded to your claim.

Please continue on with your pointless assessment.

 

That doesn't look like a citation. Do you have one or not?
You also have several other assertions to support.
Hint: If you can support your assertions, you don't need to ask questions.
Try again.

 

He didn't lose physical money.

 

Me thinks these unexplained numbers are due to Trump laundering money for the Russians.

 

Have you seriously not even read the OP at this point? I'll move on to the other points once I've seen that you are willing to engage this one in intellectually honest discussion. I've seen this tactic before. I'm taking this one at a time to minimize dodges. Hint: I'm asking questions because, in order to deny my point, you'd have to hold the position that this size of losses is normal. Which I don't think you actually believe. Hence why I'm asking you about your dismissal of what seems to be fairly obvious points.

 

It appears you are indeed unable to support any of the assertions I listed, as per your request - just as I thought.
When you can provide the relevant citations, let us know.

 

Citations are in the OP. Let us know when you read it. Meanwhile, the logic is literally elementary.

1. If Trump's losses were typical, we'd expect them to be typical of other business losses for individuals.
2. Trump's losses aren't typical (given their size -- see OP any time now).
3. Therefore Trump's losses aren't typical.

Where am I losing you? This is a denial of the consequent. Every logic 101 class covers this. When you can address basic logic, let us know.

 

You have not supplied a single citation to support the assertions I listed; you balk at providing those citations because you know you cannot.
As such, your assertions remain unsupported, and thus, meaningless.

 

Citation. In. O. P.

 

You made these assertions:

- It is useless to play make-believe that these are normal business losses
- [the losses] are in keeping with the criticism of Trump's business practices that people have been giving for years.
-Trump borrows recklessly, drastically inflating his own value to borrow money, and often can't pay back.
-His business models are often lacking in any depth of strategy -- simply buying something, putting his name on it, and calling it "the best."
-Trump's business losses are hardly limited to Atlantic City
- Trump has always loved over-borrowing

You were challenged to support these assertions, and include citations to said effect.
You have not done so - and you know you cannot do so.
Your assertions, thus, are unsupported and therefore meaningless.

 

If you can address the first assertion, I'll move on the the second. If you can address the second, I'll move on to the third. Noticing a pattern? You are projecting your unwillingness or inability to address points onto others. Again, I'm taking this one-by-one because I'm used to this tactic by now. It is one of the most popular dodging techniques on the forum: desperately scramble to put people on the defensive by making unfocused demands and covering for failures to address by jumping from point to point. Try addressing the post you quoted and then I'll be willing to move on to the next. I'm not interested in the typical hop-frog game used by many Trump supporters to avoid actually addressing any particular point.

 

No...
After you provide a citation to support your first assertion, you can then provide a citation to support the 2nd.
Et al.
They are YOUR claims and thus the onus falls wholly upon you to support them.

 

Yeah that must be it.

 

You've asked for the citation and have been given it.

Note sure how I can type any slower her: First. Post. Of. The. Thread. Please. At. Least. Try. Reading. It. There. Is. This. Thingie. Called. A. Link. You. Can. Click. On.

 

He loves saying stuff and then acting like you said it.

Really weak sauce tactic.

 

Literacy fail in addition to the logic fails.

 

Says the people crying over Trump's tax returns from 30 years ago.

 

When you can't address the fail, there's always the dodge/redirect. Wish it were surprising at this point.

 

Actually he has lost lots of money in several businesses, but that is not the point
The point is the divergence between how trump presents himself and the reality
And, fwiw, it seems odd to compare “me starting a business” compared to “trump starting a business”. In theory trump should have a higher business acumen. Alternatively we could compare trump to bill gates, larry Ellison, elon musk, jeff bezos, warren buffet, or lots of other acknowledged business leaders

 

You are fully aware of the fact have not provided a citation that supports your assertion that "that these are normal business losses"
Disagree?
In your next response, copy and past that citation, and then copy and paste the text found in that citation that supports your assertion.

You are also fully aware of the fact you have not provided a citation to support any of your other assertions:

- [the losses] are in keeping with the criticism of Trump's business practices that people have been giving for years.
-Trump borrows recklessly, drastically inflating his own value to borrow money, and often can't pay back.
-His business models are often lacking in any depth of strategy -- simply buying something, putting his name on it, and calling it "the best."
-Trump's business losses are hardly limited to Atlantic City
- Trump has always loved over-borrowing

These are your assertions, and the onus is on you to support them.

 

I thought the whole point of being a money launder was to make money.

 

Sure, me going to the topic of the thread is a dodge.

Talk about failure in both literacy and logic. You should take your own advice.

 

He wants me to disprove his suppositions because he know he cannot prove them.
That's elementary-school level debate.

 

You are fully aware that you have been pointed the citation multiple times now. Disagree? In your next response, try actually joining the discussion you purport to be interested in. Read the OP. Kind of standard practice for any thread . . . well, for those interested in intellectually honest discussion, anyway.