Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christiane Amanpour recently interviewed David Enrich about his book, Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump, and an Epic Trail of Destruction. It's already known that major American banks wanted nothing to do with Trump because they considered him too untrustworthy, but I was particularly struck by this:
Deutsche Bank, for the past two decades, has been basically the only mainstream financial institution willing to do business consistently with Trump and his companies, and you know, they have lent well over $2 billion in total, some $300 million of which is still outstanding.
That means he's paid off 85% of the debt... is that bad as long as he is current?
(doubletake)
Is this a new liberal-fanatic rule?
Suddenly, a business that carries debt is now somehow "untrustworthy"?
I've noticed that when liberals really hate someone, they start making up new "rules" out of thin air that their target is somehow supposed to "obey", and then start bashing them when they don't.
While I'm sure many leftists will weigh in on how Trump is beholden to Deutsche Bank, or various other financial malfeasances they believe, the optimist in me says none of them will be so ignorant as to claim the existence of borrowing is "Orange Man bad".
I believe Bush 2 had a lot of debt at one time. His Rangers sale allowed him to pay it all of though. But I'd have to care enough about educating the financially illiterate to confirm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.