|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 02 2016 14:05 DannyJ wrote:
Yes it seems like a strategic loss some accountant concocted. I'm sure he will tell the press he'd have been an idiot not to do it.
Or he was really bad at business in the early 90s...
A bunch of his ventures flopped in the early 90s but that doesn't mean his income taxes aren't a classic case of strategic avoidance.
|
yeah, trump managed to lose almost tres commas in the casino business during a time when the economy was booming. that's fucking talent right there.
real estate has some pretty rigorous rules about how you depreciate and otherwise deduct for its value. to get to almost negative a billion it still takes some screwing up.
|
On October 02 2016 14:16 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 14:05 DannyJ wrote:
Yes it seems like a strategic loss some accountant concocted. I'm sure he will tell the press he'd have been an idiot not to do it.
Or he was really bad at business in the early 90s... A bunch of his ventures flopped in the early 90s but that doesn't mean his income taxes aren't a classic case of strategic avoidance.
Don't believe this is a "classic case" of anything.
|
By the way, for those who were paying more attention than I was, what moments in the debate did Trump seem to be triggered? I saw two - "maybe you're not as rich as you say" and "Miss Piggy" - but I was watching very intermittently (and mostly audio) so I'm sure I missed quite a few more.
|
On October 02 2016 08:04 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 07:00 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2016 04:41 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 03:19 IgnE wrote:On October 02 2016 03:05 zlefin wrote:On October 02 2016 02:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2016 08:06 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 07:59 biology]major wrote:On October 01 2016 07:49 zlefin wrote:On October 01 2016 06:36 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
I would without a doubt vote for the baby. The only way I would change my vote from the republican ticket is if someone more sociopathic than Clinton emerged, at which point I would just not vote. Trump represents my values, he has a reckless and asshole tone but that doesn't bother me. you are saying Clinton is sociopathic, correct? and if so, what do you mean by that? are you using the clinical definition of sociopathy, or some other? It is pretty apparent to me the way she speaks. No emotion, everything is forced or faked. She isn't actually a person, just pretending to be one all the time. The reason bernie or trump energize their base to a large extent is because they actually believe in something. That is my overall impression of her. Then you add in the email scandal, benghazi, making 150 million from producing absolutely nothing. Her responses are well calculated, and she is able to lie without flinching. My assessment of her is that she doesn't give a shit about other people, but is extremely power hungry to go down in history as the first woman president. That is her primary objective, everything else is secondary. If I had to guess her meyer's briggs it would probably be an INTJ/INTP. She is a robot pretending to be a person. aren't a lot of politicians intj/intp? There's a difference between low emotion and sociopathy. and the other things you cite don't really add up to a claim of sociopathy. of course a lot of leaders tend to score high on sociopathy tests anyways. and why isn't Trump a sociopath? and again, what definition of sociopath are you using? and why would sociopathy be more disqualifying than other disorders, given its prevalence, and evident usefulness in high level positions? whoa dude are you defending sociopathy tout court as societally useful especially among our leaders? how come everyone in this thread cares more about biologymajor's deficient understanding of human beings than this radical suggestion? I think you have a typo in your first paragraph, or something which autocorrected wrong, which makes me unable to tell what your statement is so I can respond to it. the part where you say "tout court" nah its not a typo, maybe i should have italicized it. b. tout court /tu kur/ , in short, in little, simply, without qualification or addition. 1747 H. Walpole Let. 26 June in Corr. (1955) XIX. 420 My eagle is arrived—my eagle tout court, for I hear nothing of the pedestal. 1888 R. Kipling Wee Willie Winkie 38 Judy was officially ‘Miss Judy’; but Black Sheep was never anything but Black Sheep tout court. 1928 C. Dawson Age of Gods xii. 262 There are grave objections to the identification tout court of the Nordic race with the Indo-European stock. 1958 Oxf. Mag. 15 May 435/1 Hove, instead of asking for Psychology tout court, has a course by a Harley Street psychiatrist. 1981 J. Sutherland Bestsellers xxiv. 240 Len Deighton's..history tout court of the Second World War (Bomber and Fighter). http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/203980?redirectedFrom=tout court#eid163706549 hmm, never seen that one before. In that case, the short answer is yes. a longer answer would get into things like "to an extent", elaborations and limitations and uncertainties. why would you want a sociopath as a political leader when politics is an essentially human endeavor with irrational premises? Who says that this is what politics is? Lee Kuan Yew turned Singapore from a swamp into a first world nation by treating politics as what you could call 'rational management'
how is what he did political?
|
On October 02 2016 12:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 02 2016 03:27 Sermokala wrote:
Calling the prevention of a large scale genocide in yugoslavia as an imperialist action is pretty stupid. Europe didn't want to get their hands dirty in the most obvious post cold war problem they could solve so America had to stop the war before it really kicked off.
The rest of that I pretty much agree with, nato has become a way for the us to cover for europes lack of military in exchange for increased Us influence on the world. As much as euroes like to parrot around about being free from US influence they only have a choice between the US and Russia. One will cut off their natural gas in the middle of winter and watch your people freeze to death while blaming you for it. Yugoslavia was a mess of a country whose demise was quite likely. As with quite a few Eastern European countries, there was quite a bit of ethnic strife that made it quite hard to exist as a single country. Part of the reason the USSR even had such a substantial security apparatus was that there were quite a few conflicts within an unstable part of the world (though that apparatus did have a number of key weaknesses of note since it was established in a less sane and more paranoid environment). However, it is also true that NATO, in Yugoslavia as in multiple other countries in their operating zones, pushed to escalate those conflicts into civil war and to end those civil wars on terms more favorable to parties that were pro-Western. Yugoslavia was a special case simply because of when it happened - in the decade after the collapse of the USSR, when Russia really did not have the ability to oppose this intervention. It has moderate geopolitical importance due to its location, but more importantly the intervention there was a diplomatically aggressive move that destroyed any hopes of a genuine reset with Russia and led to a very neocon-esque approach to American FP. Rather imperialist. You're ignoreing the very real genocide happening along not even just religious lines. the USSR was incapable of acting outside of its borders as it was collapsing from the inside. Europe tried to "intervene" and got PTSD from WW1. That left the USA as the only one capable in the world of stopping a massive civil war in the middle of europe from spiralling out of control and very possibly starting WW3. The USSR was able to keep civil unrest from happening in eastern europe by keeping a powerful army ready to slaughter any resistance to communist rule. When this was removed the balkans did what the balkans have been doing for hundreds of years and went to war with eachother. Why the fuck Russia would oppose the intervention? At the very least we saved them from a black eye FP wise that would have lasted for centuries and at the best we gave them a semblance of slavic brotherhood with serbia and greece to counter our croatian-albaian-turkic allies. Anyone who says the Balkans has moderate Geopolitical importance due to its location has never read European history, or looked at a map.
Will someone please enlighten me what was the US intervention that ended the war? They did stop the genocide at Kosovo a few years after Serbia basically capitulated. During the war itself from 1991-1995 we had some NATO troops here which were notorious for not doing anything as they were ordered not to intervene so as far as I know the main part of the war went on without US or European intervention.
There is also truth to LegalLord's claims how the US had its fingers in breaking up Yugoslavia.
|
Some hacker leaked audio from a Clinton fundraiser back in February. Almost 50 minutes long.
Source
It's an interesting insight into what she's been saying in more private settings to donors.
|
On October 02 2016 16:07 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 12:22 Sermokala wrote:On October 02 2016 09:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 02 2016 03:27 Sermokala wrote:
Calling the prevention of a large scale genocide in yugoslavia as an imperialist action is pretty stupid. Europe didn't want to get their hands dirty in the most obvious post cold war problem they could solve so America had to stop the war before it really kicked off.
The rest of that I pretty much agree with, nato has become a way for the us to cover for europes lack of military in exchange for increased Us influence on the world. As much as euroes like to parrot around about being free from US influence they only have a choice between the US and Russia. One will cut off their natural gas in the middle of winter and watch your people freeze to death while blaming you for it. Yugoslavia was a mess of a country whose demise was quite likely. As with quite a few Eastern European countries, there was quite a bit of ethnic strife that made it quite hard to exist as a single country. Part of the reason the USSR even had such a substantial security apparatus was that there were quite a few conflicts within an unstable part of the world (though that apparatus did have a number of key weaknesses of note since it was established in a less sane and more paranoid environment). However, it is also true that NATO, in Yugoslavia as in multiple other countries in their operating zones, pushed to escalate those conflicts into civil war and to end those civil wars on terms more favorable to parties that were pro-Western. Yugoslavia was a special case simply because of when it happened - in the decade after the collapse of the USSR, when Russia really did not have the ability to oppose this intervention. It has moderate geopolitical importance due to its location, but more importantly the intervention there was a diplomatically aggressive move that destroyed any hopes of a genuine reset with Russia and led to a very neocon-esque approach to American FP. Rather imperialist. You're ignoreing the very real genocide happening along not even just religious lines. the USSR was incapable of acting outside of its borders as it was collapsing from the inside. Europe tried to "intervene" and got PTSD from WW1. That left the USA as the only one capable in the world of stopping a massive civil war in the middle of europe from spiralling out of control and very possibly starting WW3. The USSR was able to keep civil unrest from happening in eastern europe by keeping a powerful army ready to slaughter any resistance to communist rule. When this was removed the balkans did what the balkans have been doing for hundreds of years and went to war with eachother. Why the fuck Russia would oppose the intervention? At the very least we saved them from a black eye FP wise that would have lasted for centuries and at the best we gave them a semblance of slavic brotherhood with serbia and greece to counter our croatian-albaian-turkic allies. Anyone who says the Balkans has moderate Geopolitical importance due to its location has never read European history, or looked at a map. Will someone please enlighten me what was the US intervention that ended the war? They did stop the genocide at Kosovo a few years after Serbia basically capitulated. During the war itself from 1991-1995 we had some NATO troops here which were notorious for not doing anything as they were ordered not to intervene so as far as I know the main part of the war went on without US or European intervention. There is also truth to LegalLord's claims how the US had its fingers in breaking up Yugoslavia.
Nato started "Operation something" after a massacre of bosnian people by serbian troops, effectively bombing and shelling serbian troops for about a month, long enough for the ground forces of Bosnia and Croatian partisans to break the siege. NATO did nothing for 3 years because they were too scared, Blue Helmet troops were nothing but cover for the different parties and couldn't stop anything. So, yes, you are true.
And of course in cold war times USA or maybe even Nato tried to find ways to hurt the communist block. But that does not mean the war that nato almost did not fight was imperialistic. I can't tell what would have happened if Yugoslavia had been completely isolated before and after the break up of the UDSSR, but i bet it wouldn't have been pretty as well.
|
On October 02 2016 14:35 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 14:16 oBlade wrote:On October 02 2016 14:05 DannyJ wrote:
Yes it seems like a strategic loss some accountant concocted. I'm sure he will tell the press he'd have been an idiot not to do it.
Or he was really bad at business in the early 90s... A bunch of his ventures flopped in the early 90s but that doesn't mean his income taxes aren't a classic case of strategic avoidance. Don't believe this is a "classic case" of anything.
Except he failed to pay the contractor's that were building/operating his casinos while he took advantage of the loophole... That and I don't think he even reimbursed investors. If he even told them about the tax break he used...
|
Amazing. It just couldn't get more cartoonish. Loses hundreds of millions of dollars so quickly that the government won't even ask him to pay taxes.
"That makes me smart."
You couldn't write this shit. No one would believe it.
|
First person to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 involvement following congress override is 9/11 widow.
A woman widowed when her husband was killed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 sued the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia just two days after Congress enacted legislation allowing Americans to sue foreign governments for allegedly playing a role in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Stephanie Ross DeSimone alleged the kingdom provided material support to al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, in a complaint filed Friday at a U.S. court in Washington. Her suit is also filed on behalf of the couple’s daughter. DeSimone was pregnant when Navy Commander Patrick Dunn was killed.
Fifteen of the 19 men who hijacked airliners used in the attack were Saudi nationals. One jet struck the Pentagon, seat of the U.S. military, two destroyed the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York while another crashed in a Pennsylvania field as its passengers fought back against the hijackers.
A U.S. commission that investigated the 2001 attacks said in a 2004 report that it “found no evidence that the Saudi government, as an institution, or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al-Qaeda.” Long-classified portions of a congressional inquiry that were released in July found the hijackers may have had help from some Saudi officials.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-30/sept-11-widow-sues-saudi-arabia-over-her-husband-s-death
|
|
|
Why is Trump bringing it up as a bad thing when he is part of those not paying...
|
On October 02 2016 20:45 Gorsameth wrote:Why is Trump bringing it up as a bad thing when he is part of those not paying...
He's brought it up many times in the past pointing fingers at other people. Do as I say, not as I do I guess.
|
You can use the rules while still wanting to change them. He'd be a fool not to use them if given the chance to.
|
|
|
On October 02 2016 21:08 RvB wrote:
You can use the rules while still wanting to change them. He'd be a fool not to use them if given the chance to.
Yeah, but none of his proposals change the rules in any way that would make him pay any taxes as far as I know.
Also, the fact that he was fine with admitting he payed no taxes means that there's a good chance what he didn't want the public to know was that he lost 1.4 billion dollars in current American dollars. That's not great for his ego or image.
|
On October 02 2016 22:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2016 21:08 RvB wrote:
You can use the rules while still wanting to change them. He'd be a fool not to use them if given the chance to. Yeah, but none of his proposals change the rules in any way that would make him pay any taxes as far as I know.
He'll close unspecified loopholes. A charitable interpretation would be that hehis accountants have been exploring these loopholes for the last 30 years, so he is now very familiar with them and can shut them down.
A more realistic interpretation is that he will simply make it even easier for him and other billionaires to avoid paying any tax at all.
|
From firsthand accounts of Trump's models and financial and immigration records... Trump may very well be a human trafficker:
BREAKING: U.S. Senate Moves To Investigate Donald Trump For Human Trafficking (DETAILS)
A United States senator just sent the Department of Homeland Security a letter asking for the immediate investigation of Donald Trump’s modeling agency after an August 30th publication by media outlet, Mother Jones, in which Trump’s company was accused of trafficking illegal immigrants willing to work as models. The investigation by Mother Jones uncovered countless cases of Trump ignoring immigration laws by employing illegal immigrants to work for Donald Trump’s Model Management. Mother Jones reported that: “Trump Model Management, has profited from using foreign models who came to the United States on tourist visas that did not permit them to work here, according to three former Trump models, all noncitizens, who shared their stories with Mother Jones. Financialand immigration records included in a recent lawsuit filed by a fourth former Trump model show that she, too, worked for Trump’s agency in the United States without a proper visa.” By law, people visiting the United States from a foreign land are not allowed to attain employment via an American company. Trump, however, is known for not only hiring illegals, but hiring them for the specific reason of not having to follow US labor laws. Models hired by Donald Trump’s Model Management have come out against the mogul, saying they were barely able to making ends meet after paying the high cost of rent and fees bestowed on them by the company. Trump profited $2 million dollars in the 17 years the company has been in existence. In response to the investigation, senator Barbara Boxer sent the following letter to US Citizenship and Immigration’s Leon Rodriguez: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NN3ARcc.jpg) The openly anti-immigrant candidate is being accused of “illegally importing” women to work as models in his agency, and while this makes him look like a giant fool, it could also hold legal ramifications that would leave Trump paying a hefty fine, and possibly even serving jail time for human trafficking. Along with her letter, Boxer also tweeted out: Trump: tough on illegal immigration unless he’s importing foreign models to exploit. https://t.co/eahs6srlDE— Barbara Boxer (@BarbaraBoxer) August 31, 2016 This isn’t the first time that Trump has been accused of shipping immigrants in with the sole intention of exploiting them for near slave wages. One woman, in particular, was set to be on Trump’s cancelled MTV show “Girls of Hedsor Hall.” Earlier this summer, she spoke out against Trump, saying that he brought her here for no reason other than to be able to pay her less than minimum wage. Unfortunately for Republicans, they didn’t know the anti-immigrant Republican they nominated to lead their party was nothing more than a phony, showboating, trafficker of women. Despite the illusions Trump has cast out about his strict immigration policies, his past has proven to be far more telling than his mouth.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/09/07/breaking-u-s-senate-moves-to-investigate-donald-trump-for-human-trafficking-details/
|
There's also some hilarious hypocrisy in the Trump campaign's response about how the documents may have been stolen-while they said it should in no way factor into the public's appraisal of the DNC documents who hacked them or what their motives were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
