No what she did is declare that she was in charge and she would not accept them, she assumed authority that she in truth did not have.
That is business, as the man in the movie said, nothing personal just simply business.
A very large portion came from being a television celebrity while the other part came from licensing his name. He offset that income with real estate losses which was in the millions. Some of the “profit” came from stiffing small companies and from bankruptcies. His company, the Trump Organization, is a convicted felon.
Wasn't that a quote from The Godfather II? Just before he was taken out and shot.
The wrong was McCarthy rejecting a bipartisan agreed on commitee after going down to Mar A Largo to lick the bottom of Trump's shoes.
hundreds of large corporations profit from the very same methods.
OK let me simply say that it is not so. Since when is it ok to limit free speech between two people or decide who should be able to speak with who.
Felony tax evasion, stiffing their creditors, refusing to pay small contractors and filing bankruptcy after bankruptcy? I don’t think so.
Justification for what, justification that the object of business is profit?
I know you don't think so but that does not change the facts and by the way Trump has never been convicted of Felony Tax Evasion or any other crime for that matter, once again we need to recognize the facts.
the people in your post that i responded to are McCarthy and Trump. There is nothing wrong or improper with those two people having a conversation in fact they have every right to communicate.
We were talking about businesses. His business, the Trump Organization, was convicted of felony tax evasion, which is what I said. We need to recognize that fact and the fact that it is his responsibility.
Exploiting the bankruptcy laws for profit is a type of predatory capitalism that misuses laws intended to protect people from destitution. The business model that abuses the bankruptcy laws for profit is unethical. This does not disbar any company from continuing on its course but it reflects on the people running it.
Obviously it was not his responsibility, if it had been his responsibility he would have been charged with the crime instead of the person who was in fact charged with that crime, owning stock in a corporation does not make you personally responsible for any crimes within it. Once again the facts speak in contrast.
The law is the law it defines what is acceptable practice, the question of what is unethical is a matter of opinion not law.
Under the same theory that a passenger on a bus is not guilty of the traffic violations made by the driver of the bus.
