21 questions for Donald Trump...

[CaptainObvious]

Well, gosh, I'm not running for president, and last I checked, you weren't either.

But if I was, then yes, I would certainly expect to be prepared to answer any and all questions about my background that related to my claims of honesty and business success.

We should never expect less of any presidential candidate.

The fact that so many people ARE expecting much less of Trump is very sad. Considering who he is - and his complete lack of experience serving the public in any capacity at all - we should expect even MORE disclosure, not less.

Honest to God, I don't understand how people - like you in this thread - keep willing to cut this guy slack on demanding full disclosure of his background.

He has not been property vetted. Simple as that.

Well sir, with all respect, and I mean that sincerely, the reason that people supporting Trump are so indifferent to his past scandals is that the left has been so completely indifferent to the scandals of their chosen candidates, now and in the past.
See, the right put up the clean cut businessman last time around. He was more than qualified to be president and certainly more so that Obama.He was still vilified and anything he did was taken out of context or outright lied about, and he was too much of a pussy to fight back.
So now the people have said screw it. They, the left, put up a shape shifting con artist, so will we. You don't care, we don't care either. Your hustling candidate gets a wink and a nod, so does ours. You want a race to the bottom? Well, we're in it to win it.
The truly qualified and caring have been kicked to the curb long ago. The only skill set required now is the ability to sell bullshit with a straight face. Two professionals have risen to the challenge. The media is really concerned about the bullshit of the one and completely indifferent to the other. Why is that?

 

[lindq]

If Trump is forced to answer these 21 questions, can we pose 21 to Hillary that she has to answer?

Clinton has served as first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the U.S., as a U.S. Senator, and as Secretary of State. Her background has been explored in great detail for years, by the press and by her political enemies. She isn't perfect, and doesn't claim to be. But the information is all there if you will take the time to look at it.

Trump, however, has never been properly vetted. When asked questions about his background, his response is to attack the questioner, and the source of the information, and to fail to answer the questions.

Reputable, unbiased researchers who have looked closely into his background have CONSISTENTLY found that the facts do not match his claims. He has, in fact, been called with good reason a liar and a fraud.

More reason than ever to FORCE him to open his kimono and share his tax returns and audited financial statements.

He isn't running for Dog Catcher. He wants to be President. Get over making excuses for him.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

See, the right put up the clean cut businessman last time around. He was still vilified and anything he did was taken out of context or outright lied about

You mean the corporate raider who leveraged companies up and then dismantled them, pocketing the money and then shutting them down, selling them for parts? The guy who eliminated good paying jobs at those targeted vulnerable companies with profitable histories, and then claimed to be a job creator, but forgetting to mention that the principal kinds of jobs he created were of the Staples variety? You mean that guy?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Clinton has served as first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the U.S., as a U.S. Senator, and as Secretary of State. Her background has been explored in great detail for years, by the press and by her political enemies. She isn't perfect, and doesn't claim to be. But the information is all there if you will take the time to look at it.

Trump, however, has never been properly vetted. When asked questions about his background, his response is to attack the questioner, and the source of the information, and to fail to answer the questions.

Reputable, unbiased researchers who have looked closely into his background have CONSISTENTLY found that the facts do not match his claims. He has, in fact, been called with good reason a liar and a fraud.

More reason than ever to FORCE him to open his kimono and share his tax returns and audited financial statements.

He isn't running for Dog Catcher. He wants to be President. Get over making excuses for him.

I'm not making excuses for Trump. I don't even like or want Trump as the President. But your bias is certainly showing in great detail. There are many things that Hillary has done that require explanation, and that explanation hasn't been given - despite all that experience you claim that was worth something (First Lady of Arkansas...wow!) Until you confront that bias, your discussions here are going to be more arguments and flame wars.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Trump hasn't been in politics long enough to have the list of crimes and corruption the Clintons have. Give him some time to catch up.

Oh, I think you are underestimating The Donald's CV in that regard.

 

[CaptainObvious]

You mean the corporate raider who leveraged companies up and then dismantled them, pocketing the money and then shutting them down, selling them for parts? The guy who eliminated good paying jobs at those targeted vulnerable companies with profitable histories, and then claimed to be a job creator, but forgetting to mention that the principal kinds of jobs he created were of the Staples variety? You mean that guy?

Yeah, that guy, and just as I stated. All of it taken out of context, exaggerated and made up into something it wasn't.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Well, gosh, I'm not running for president, and last I checked, you weren't either.

But if I was, then yes, I would certainly expect to be prepared to answer any and all questions about my background that related to my claims of honesty and business success.

We should never expect less of any presidential candidate.

The fact that so many people ARE expecting much less of Trump is very sad. Considering who he is - and his complete lack of experience serving the public in any capacity at all - we should expect even MORE disclosure, not less.

Honest to God, I don't understand how people - like you in this thread - keep willing to cut this guy slack on demanding full disclosure of his background.

He has not been property vetted. Simple as that.

I think it is a fair question on your part, if considered in isolation. The answers to your original questions lie largely in the fact that Trump was swimming in a cesspool of corruption in the NYC/NJ commercial property market. He had little choice but to do what was required of everyone. Most of us recognize that and also recognize that if you start dozens of business ventures, not all of them will pan out. Unlike Mitt Romney, who took over companies, gutted them and then tried to pawn them off on the public, trump actually started new ventures that employed tens of thousands of people.

The larger reason however that your questions are unfair is that democrats are never held to similar scrutiny. You say Trump has not been properly vetted. How about Obama? Any questions about his background, which involved mentoring by an actual domestic terrorist with blood on his hands, a Chicago mobster and a radical marxist black liberation preacher, were met by hissing from the media and accusations of racism.

The Clinton scandals would require an encyclopedia to cover. Unlike Trump they involve a shocking number of associates who died unnaturally. Then there are the shady financial deals, the long list of women Bill abused and Hillary tried to discredit or intimidate, the pardons for sale, etc etc. There is an oil slick of sleaze and corruption that oozes behind them.

Hillary also has a record in public life, and it is one that few would be proud of. Her "achievements" as Secretary of State seem to involve traveling a lot on the taxpayers dime and a lot of bungling and lying in the middle east.

Trump has been in the public eye for 30+ years. People have a pretty clear idea of who he is, just as they do Hillary.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Yeah, that guy, and just as I stated. All of it taken out of context, exaggerated and made up into something it wasn't.

Really? Which part was exaggerated or taken out of context?

 

[JamesL]

I'm not making excuses for Trump. I don't even like or want Trump as the President. But your bias is certainly showing in great detail. There are many things that Hillary has done that require explanation, and that explanation hasn't been given - despite all that experience you claim that was worth something (First Lady of Arkansas...wow!) Until you confront that bias, your discussions here are going to be more arguments and flame wars.

At this point in the game "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

 

[lindq]

I think it is a fair question on your part, if considered in isolation. The answers to your original questions lie largely in the fact that Trump was swimming in a cesspool of corruption in the NYC/NJ commercial property market. =.
.

Once again - and again - giving Trump a pass.

While I appreciate your response, you continue to offer EXCUSES as to why he has not been at all forthcoming about his background.

Why is that? Really, I just don't get it.

Has he got you all hypnotized?

The under-education and unemployed, okay, I can excuse that.

But someone who has the facility to sit here and write a cogent post has no excuse in the world for giving this guy a pass.