US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4859

On August 31 2016 09:19 Chairman Ray wrote:
Cross-posting from EU thread, since there was a discussion on this a few pages back, and I'm hoping someone here would know:

[..]

In the late 1980s, Apple was among the pioneers in creating a tax structure — known as the Double Irish — that allowed the company to move profits into tax havens around the world, said Tim Jenkins, who helped set up the system as an Apple European finance manager until 1994.

Apple created two Irish subsidiaries — today named Apple Operations International and Apple Sales International — and built a glass-encased factory amid the green fields of Cork. The Irish government offered Apple tax breaks in exchange for jobs, according to former executives with knowledge of the relationship.

But the bigger advantage was that the arrangement allowed Apple to send royalties on patents developed in California to Ireland. The transfer was internal, and simply moved funds from one part of the company to a subsidiary overseas. But as a result, some profits were taxed at the Irish rate of approximately 12.5 percent, rather than at the American statutory rate of 35 percent. In 2004, Ireland, a nation of less than 5 million, was home to more than one-third of Apple’s worldwide revenues, according to company filings. (Apple has not released more recent estimates.)

Moreover, the second Irish subsidiary — the “Double” — allowed other profits to flow to tax-free companies in the Caribbean. Apple has assigned partial ownership of its Irish subsidiaries to Baldwin Holdings Unlimited in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven, according to documents filed there and in Ireland. Baldwin Holdings has no listed offices or telephone number, and its only listed director is Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s chief financial officer, who lives and works in Cupertino. Baldwin apples are known for their hardiness while traveling.

Finally, because of Ireland’s treaties with European nations, some of Apple’s profits could travel virtually tax-free through the Netherlands — the Dutch Sandwich — which made them essentially invisible to outside observers and tax authorities.

Robert Promm, Apple’s controller in the mid-1990s, called the strategy “the worst-kept secret in Europe.”

It is unclear precisely how Apple’s overseas finances now function. In 2006, the company reorganized its Irish divisions as unlimited corporations, which have few requirements to disclose financial information.

However, tax experts say that strategies like the Double Irish help explain how Apple has managed to keep its international taxes to 3.2 percent of foreign profits last year, to 2.2 percent in 2010, and in the single digits for the last half-decade, according to the company’s corporate filings.

[...]

On August 31 2016 09:45 xDaunt wrote:

Dude, you clearly don't even understand why the case was decided the way it was. It wasn't decided on the grounds that what O'Brien said was "true." It was decided solely on the issue of whether Trump could demonstrate malice. You have no idea what you're even arguing. I'm sure that what's confusing is the fact that the what O'Brien said doesn't seem that "bad" (and I would agree on this point, and I think that it is silly that Trump sued him for it), but that issue was completely irrelevant to the Court's decision.

On August 31 2016 09:41 xDaunt wrote:


The fact that you think that I have changed positions or contradicted myself here makes it very obvious to me that you're not following my arguments. Let's just revisit my core points starting from when I entered the discussion:

1) I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately (in other words, he's paying a shitton for the privilege of dragging people into litigation).

2) Defamation claims are really hard to prove for public figures like Trump.

3) Frivolous lawsuits are not a concern for bankrupting people because the courts will typically award attorney fees in those cases (not to mention the availability of malicious prosecution claims). In other words, Trump can't successfully sue and bleed people simply because they say things that he doesn't like -- particularly if those things are true.

4) What's really at issue is the case where Trump sues someone for saying something that is injurious and false (such that the case is not dismissed outright), but where Trump is likely going to be unable to prove actual malice.

5) I have made the value judgment that it is preferable for rich people to be able to sue people in the instance set forth in those circumstances and inflict financial pain through the cost litigation upon those who say false and injurious things even if the ultimate result with be loss of the lawsuit for failure to demonstrate actual malice.

6) Various posters around here have no idea what they're talking about on this subject.

So what am I missing? This all looks pretty coherent and consistent to me. I certainly don't see any backflips for Trump, and it is hilariously telling that you think that there are some.

On August 31 2016 09:51 Doodsmack wrote:
xDaunt thinks it's okay for rich people to sue to inflict financial pain in some circumstances, even when they and their lawyers know the Supreme Court has made it the law that their claim has no merit.

Intellectual honesty 101

On August 31 2016 09:47 KwarK wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure if you know the meaning of the word disproportionately. Proportionate is when the two quantities are weighted so that they can be more evenly compared. If Trump spends a million dollars making me waste $100,000 then he's actually done disproportionate harm to my finances because $100,000 to me is more than $1,000,000 to him.

Now you know what the word means hopefully you can understand how Trump has done it and stop arguing against Trump who is bragging about having done it.

On August 31 2016 09:56 KwarK wrote:


In 1 you argue directly against Trump's own boasts and also against the meaning of the word disproportionately.

In 2 you complain about the Supreme Court.

In 3 you conclude that Trump's boasts can't be right because you know better.

In 4 you complain about Trump's feels and how the law won't protect them.

In 5 you make a value judgement that the Supreme Court and the 1st amendment are wrong and that Trump's feels trump them. In doing so you undermine points 1 and 3 but whatever, have fun with that.

On August 31 2016 10:11 KwarK wrote:
How is you not understanding the meaning of the words you use quibbling over semantics? Jesus Christ man, are you like this in court? How do they not laugh you out of the room?

On August 31 2016 04:16 xDaunt wrote:

If I was a public figure who had a lot of money, and if lots of dumbass journalists were publishing false shit about me that I found offensive, I absolutely would sue them when possible to deter further defamatory statements.

On August 31 2016 10:18 hunts wrote:


From what I've seen, no journalist has posted false statements about trump. trump has made enough of an ass of himself that all journalists have to do is post the truth about him.

On August 31 2016 10:18 hunts wrote:


From what I've seen, no journalist has posted false statements about trump. trump has made enough of an ass of himself that all journalists have to do is post the truth about him.

Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown, a 12-term incumbent who faced both redistricting and a federal indictment, lost her primary Tuesday in Florida’s 5th District, becoming the fifth House member to lose renomination this year.

Al Lawson, a former state legislator, had 47 percent of the vote to Brown’s 39 percent when the Associated Press called the race with 96 percent of precincts reporting. The heavily Democratic district is all but certain to elect Lawson in November.

Brown’s district, which used to stretch from Jacksonville south to Orlando, instead extended east to Tallahassee — Lawson’s home base — under a new congressional map drawn this cycle, after the old one was ruled unconstitutional in state court. Brown was also indicted on federal fraud charges in July, including allegations that she and her top adviser personally profited from a charity.

Lawson unsuccessfully challenged then-Rep. Allen Boyd in a 2010 primary in the old 2nd District. He ran again and lost to former GOP Rep. Steve Southerland in the general election in 2012.

Former Democratic Rep. Chaka Fattah, who has since resigned, also lost his primary earlier this year following an indictment, while Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes and North Carolina Republican Rep. Renee Ellmers lost after being displaced by redistricting. GOP Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas was also defeated in a heavily ideological primary earlier this month.

On August 31 2016 10:14 xDaunt wrote:

I've just demonstrated you badly misrepresenting my points and you dare call me out like this? Particularly on an issue in which I showed you to be egregiously wrong? Damn, you got a pair on you, son.

On August 31 2016 09:41 xDaunt wrote:
1) I highly doubt Trump's claim that he's able to bleed others' time and money disproportionately (in other words, he's paying a shitton for the privilege of dragging people into litigation).

On August 31 2016 10:00 xDaunt wrote:
"It costs them a lot. It didn't cost me very much because I make good deals with my lawyers." Sorry, but there is no other way to read Trump's statement than "I'm paying a lot less than the defendants in these lawsuits."

On August 31 2016 10:08 xDaunt wrote:
Maybe his attorneys love him so much and get so much other work from him that they're willing to litigate these cases on his behalf without being paid, but I highly doubt that.

On August 31 2016 10:08 xDaunt wrote:
Again, no I didn't. I argued for the status quo, which is exactly what the Supreme Court and First Amendment allow.

On August 31 2016 10:38 Doodsmack wrote:


You're failing badly in your attempt to maintain an air of expertise and fairness. The Supreme Court doesn't "allow" rich people to use the courts to "inflict financial pain", as you put it. The Supreme Court has ruled that there must be malice. Trump and his lawyers know there isn't malice, but file anyway to inflict financial pain. Trump even says it's for the purpose of financial pain, not to obtain legal redress. In no other circumstances except to defend Trump against the media would you condone bad faith lawsuits.

And your position, as a practicing lawyer, is that good policy w/r/t rich people obtaining redress against defamers is for them to be using civil lawsuits to inflict financial pain?

I know you're just going to wave your hands and say you're not bright enough to follow and I'm a lawyer, but just realize how far you appear to bending over backwards to defend Trump.

On August 31 2016 10:47 Sbrubbles wrote:
It's interesting to check this thread every once in a while to see these arguments in which both sides refuse to give in while at the same time assume attitudes that will most likely turn off bystanders not already invested into one side. It's a highpoint in the futility of internet arguments.