|
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. |
United States43964 Posts
On October 04 2016 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 02:09 Doodsmack wrote:
I find it very hard to believe Trump declaring losses on his tax returns is merely smart usage of the laws on the books. More likely he's obfuscating behind a lawyer army and dampening the IRS's willingness to litigate it. That would be in keeping with his not-so-good-faith litigiousness. Nah, this IRS thing is a dud of a story. What he did was legal. And here's the other problem: even presuming that there are errors in the tax returns, Trump is going to be heavily insulated from liability by virtue of having CPAs handle all of this stuff.
I think you're ignoring the optics of it. I don't think anyone expected Trump to have illegally not paid taxes. That's tricky to get away with. But legally not paying taxes while running on a campaign railing against people taking advantage of America and promising to cut taxes on the wealthy, that's not going to win him much sympathy with blue collar workers.
|
And the Trump Foundation is prohibited from raising money in New York.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us/politics/trump-foundation-money.html?_r=0
The office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has issued a “notice of violation” to Donald J. Trump’s foundation, ordering it to immediately stop soliciting donations in New York.
The letter, which was sent on Friday and released on Monday morning by Mr. Schneiderman’s office, said that its charities bureau had determined that the Donald J. Trump Foundation had been fund-raising in New York this year when it was not registered to do so under state law.
“The Trump Foundation must immediately cease soliciting contributions or engaging in any other fund-raising activities in New York,” wrote James Sheehan, the chief of the charities bureau.
Mr. Trump’s foundation has come under increasing scrutiny amid questions about his fulfillment of large charitable pledges and his lack of financial support in recent years.
The foundation’s compliance with the rules that govern nonprofit groups has also been a concern. The New York Times reported last month that Mr. Trump’s foundation does not show up on the charity registers in many states and The Washington Post subsequently reported that the foundation did not have the certification necessary to solicit money in New York.
“While we remain very concerned about the political motives behind A.G. Schneiderman’s investigation, the Trump Foundation nevertheless intends to cooperate fully with the investigation,” Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s spokeswoman, said in a statement on Monday. “Because this is an ongoing legal matter, the Trump Foundation will not comment further at this time.”
The letter itself:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/03/us/politics/letter-trump-foundation.html
Trump hires the smartest and best people. The best. They can't even set up a charity correctly and fill out the right forms.
|
|
|
Your response to an intentional strawman argument is post a series of strawman arguments, none of which invalidate the original point that Trump is a sexist clown? We know that stupid shit exist on the internet.
|
On October 04 2016 02:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 02:09 Doodsmack wrote:
I find it very hard to believe Trump declaring losses on his tax returns is merely smart usage of the laws on the books. More likely he's obfuscating behind a lawyer army and dampening the IRS's willingness to litigate it. That would be in keeping with his not-so-good-faith litigiousness. And here's the other problem: even presuming that there are errors in the tax returns, Trump is going to be heavily insulated from liability by virtue of having CPAs handle all of this stuff.
That's basically right along with my point and given that Donald likely just declares a huge loss every year (1995 is not the only year he did so) there's lots of room for dishonesty here. Donald just has a morass of lawyers and CPAs and it does not seem very above board or black-and-white legal. Another example is that he only avoided personal bankruptcy with the threat of the financial and time drain of litigation.
Anyone with a lot of money who uses financial tactics in the US legal system is unethical in my book.
|
Between this and Russia suspending the PMDA earlier, the US-Russia relationship is going down the shitter at a fast pace
|
w/r/t the use of NOL's i'm pretty ok. i'm not really surprised that trump uses NOL's. it''s a rule that does make sense in a lot of cases, though i think some adjustment needs to be made for depreciation maybe. whats truly shocking is the size.
|
Meh, this sort of thing comes and goes.
|
On October 04 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:Meh, this sort of thing comes and goes.
It better go fast cause Syria and non-proliferation agreements are the last places where the rest of us want these two to stop cooperating
|
On October 04 2016 02:55 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 02:49 LegalLord wrote:Meh, this sort of thing comes and goes. It better go fast cause Syria and non-proliferation agreements are the last places where the rest of us want these two to stop cooperating
Unless there's another flashpoint for US-Russian conflict, they'll probably just exchange a few mean words and symbolic gestures while really not changing much in the way of actual policy.
|
On October 04 2016 01:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 00:56 TheDwf wrote:On October 04 2016 00:28 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 03 2016 23:57 Doodsmack wrote:In his years as a reality TV boss on "The Apprentice," Donald Trump repeatedly demeaned women with sexist language, according to show insiders who said he rated female contestants by the size of their breasts and talked about which ones he'd like to have sex with.
The Associated Press interviewed more than 20 people — former crew members, editors and contestants — who described crass behavior by Trump behind the scenes of the long-running hit show, in which aspiring capitalists were given tasks to perform as they competed for jobs working for him.
The staffers and contestants agreed to recount their experiences as Trump's behavior toward women has become a core issue in the presidential campaign. Interviewed separately, they gave concurring accounts of inappropriate conduct on the set.
Eight former crew members recalled that he repeatedly made lewd comments about a camerawoman he said had a nice rear, comparing her beauty to that of his daughter, Ivanka. Yahoo Show me one man that doesn't talk about/rate/rank sexual aspects of attractive women with other men. This article is about as useful as one saying, Trump breathes air. Is this really your defence line? “Sexism is widespread so it's ok” ?? Essentially, yep. Men are wired to be pigs when it comes to women. Sure, some of us have better self-control than others, and we have a lot of self-imposed social constructs to constrain these male behaviors. But none of this changes the fact that, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud."
I am not a native English speaker, so I don't know the connotation of wired. If it means programmed as in biologically “programmed” or “it's just nature,” then no. Men are not born sexist, they (or rather, most of them) become so. And male circlejerking about the “fuckability” of women is one of the many practices which reinforces sexist masculinity.
I hope you guys who support Trump understand why there's a problem with a candidate who despises like the two thirds of the population of his country... (Based on their sex, origin, race, religion, etc.)
|
So does this mean the space race is back on?
|
On October 04 2016 03:23 a_flayer wrote:
So does this mean the space race is back on?
It won't look like much of a race if so 
|
On October 04 2016 02:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 00:49 KwarK wrote:On October 04 2016 00:43 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2016 00:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 04 2016 00:28 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 03 2016 23:57 Doodsmack wrote:In his years as a reality TV boss on "The Apprentice," Donald Trump repeatedly demeaned women with sexist language, according to show insiders who said he rated female contestants by the size of their breasts and talked about which ones he'd like to have sex with.
The Associated Press interviewed more than 20 people — former crew members, editors and contestants — who described crass behavior by Trump behind the scenes of the long-running hit show, in which aspiring capitalists were given tasks to perform as they competed for jobs working for him.
The staffers and contestants agreed to recount their experiences as Trump's behavior toward women has become a core issue in the presidential campaign. Interviewed separately, they gave concurring accounts of inappropriate conduct on the set.
Eight former crew members recalled that he repeatedly made lewd comments about a camerawoman he said had a nice rear, comparing her beauty to that of his daughter, Ivanka. Yahoo Show me one man that doesn't talk about/rate/rank sexual aspects of attractive women with other men. This article is about as useful as one saying, Trump breathes air. At work? Not really. Certainly not in a typical 9-5/office job type setting. It's not like this is a construction or oil field job or something where its 99.999% guys who will talk about dumps and dick jokes. Call me crazy but I don't actually care about anyone's opinion of who they find attractive or what they find attractive about them least of all coworkers. I have seen people of all management levels be fired for far less. Any argument that these comments are acceptable does not line up with what is considered sexual harassment and hostile work environment. "Fucking SJWs expanding the definition of sexism and sexual harassment beyond what it was in the 1950s why can't they just leave it alone and let men tell them when they're being harassed instead of just going off of when they feel they're harassed and anyway if they don't like it they can get a new job". Saved everyone some time with the talking points. It's a good straw argument, but what it needs is examples of the bonkers people to show they really exist and aren't just a rhetorical invention of the right: + Show Spoiler +
Yeah, but the right disproportionally focusing on the excesses rather than the main point is a tactic to dodge the debate and demonize the other side. It's obstruction.
|
On October 04 2016 03:23 a_flayer wrote:
So does this mean the space race is back on?
#BringBackConstellation
|
On October 04 2016 02:35 Plansix wrote:Your response to an intentional strawman argument is post a series of strawman arguments, none of which invalidate the original point that Trump is a sexist clown? We know that stupid shit exist on the internet.
I checked out a few of these articles and honestly they are not that bad, though sometimes you have to read them in the context of online feminist websites writing for an audience of online feminists. For instance, much of the underlying reasoning for people to be pro life is that they think women's bodies should be controlled and that women should be punished for illicit sex, all of which is documented. And I imagine it is not quite a coincidence that Trump emerged when we have the first female candidate and the first black president.
Some articles are a bit silly, but have a point: women have different internal temperatures vs men so that air conditioning settings are a front for a gender war and encourage stupid overarching sexist statements, though of course the article saying the debate about the right settings is sexist is incredibly overreaching.
And of course some words have a sexist background, like how words can be racist. The reason to link this whole series of articles actually is about how someone was once called racist or sexist and that hurt so much and it was so unfair that now they have to fight against feminism. There are alternatives, of course, to take these things with a grain of salt and try to accommodate people.
|
On October 04 2016 03:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 03:23 a_flayer wrote:
So does this mean the space race is back on? It won't look like much of a race if so
I'm counting on some China+Russia action. They should be able to put up a fight once they realize what's happening. XD Hell maybe the Chinese can cash in on some of that debt and buy some SpaceX flights, kek.
Dear god, I need to start on getting that 200k, maybe I can leave this planet in 20 years if we haven't blown it all up. I can already see the ruined statue of liberty lying broken on the beach, remade into Trump's own image.
|
On October 04 2016 03:22 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 01:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 00:56 TheDwf wrote:On October 04 2016 00:28 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 03 2016 23:57 Doodsmack wrote:In his years as a reality TV boss on "The Apprentice," Donald Trump repeatedly demeaned women with sexist language, according to show insiders who said he rated female contestants by the size of their breasts and talked about which ones he'd like to have sex with.
The Associated Press interviewed more than 20 people — former crew members, editors and contestants — who described crass behavior by Trump behind the scenes of the long-running hit show, in which aspiring capitalists were given tasks to perform as they competed for jobs working for him.
The staffers and contestants agreed to recount their experiences as Trump's behavior toward women has become a core issue in the presidential campaign. Interviewed separately, they gave concurring accounts of inappropriate conduct on the set.
Eight former crew members recalled that he repeatedly made lewd comments about a camerawoman he said had a nice rear, comparing her beauty to that of his daughter, Ivanka. Yahoo Show me one man that doesn't talk about/rate/rank sexual aspects of attractive women with other men. This article is about as useful as one saying, Trump breathes air. Is this really your defence line? “Sexism is widespread so it's ok” ?? Essentially, yep. Men are wired to be pigs when it comes to women. Sure, some of us have better self-control than others, and we have a lot of self-imposed social constructs to constrain these male behaviors. But none of this changes the fact that, as a female friend of mine so eloquently put it, "men will fuck mud." I am not a native English speaker, so I don't know the connotation of wired. If it means programmed as in biologically “programmed” or “it's just nature,” then no. Men are not born sexist, they (or rather, most of them) become so. And male circlejerking about the “fuckability” of women is one of the many practices which reinforces sexist masculinity. I hope you guys who support Trump understand why there's a problem with a candidate who despises like the two thirds of the population of his country... (Based on their sex, origin, race, religion, etc.)
It is ironic, but feminists complain about men because they know they can do better, while the counter argument by some men is that men are inherently sexist and can't control their sex drive. Who exactly has the more noble view of men here?
|
On October 04 2016 03:26 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 02:30 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 00:49 KwarK wrote:On October 04 2016 00:43 Plansix wrote:On October 04 2016 00:41 OuchyDathurts wrote:On October 04 2016 00:28 Chewbacca. wrote:On October 03 2016 23:57 Doodsmack wrote:In his years as a reality TV boss on "The Apprentice," Donald Trump repeatedly demeaned women with sexist language, according to show insiders who said he rated female contestants by the size of their breasts and talked about which ones he'd like to have sex with.
The Associated Press interviewed more than 20 people — former crew members, editors and contestants — who described crass behavior by Trump behind the scenes of the long-running hit show, in which aspiring capitalists were given tasks to perform as they competed for jobs working for him.
The staffers and contestants agreed to recount their experiences as Trump's behavior toward women has become a core issue in the presidential campaign. Interviewed separately, they gave concurring accounts of inappropriate conduct on the set.
Eight former crew members recalled that he repeatedly made lewd comments about a camerawoman he said had a nice rear, comparing her beauty to that of his daughter, Ivanka. Yahoo Show me one man that doesn't talk about/rate/rank sexual aspects of attractive women with other men. This article is about as useful as one saying, Trump breathes air. At work? Not really. Certainly not in a typical 9-5/office job type setting. It's not like this is a construction or oil field job or something where its 99.999% guys who will talk about dumps and dick jokes. Call me crazy but I don't actually care about anyone's opinion of who they find attractive or what they find attractive about them least of all coworkers. I have seen people of all management levels be fired for far less. Any argument that these comments are acceptable does not line up with what is considered sexual harassment and hostile work environment. "Fucking SJWs expanding the definition of sexism and sexual harassment beyond what it was in the 1950s why can't they just leave it alone and let men tell them when they're being harassed instead of just going off of when they feel they're harassed and anyway if they don't like it they can get a new job". Saved everyone some time with the talking points. It's a good straw argument, but what it needs is examples of the bonkers people to show they really exist and aren't just a rhetorical invention of the right: + Show Spoiler + Yeah, but the right disproportionally focusing on the excesses rather than the main point is a tactic to dodge the debate and demonize the other side. It's obstruction.
What you're saying assumes that the the side you like is correct. It's not dodging the debate, it's having the debate. Disagreement is not obstruction.
|
Sexist poster for bringing all this evidence for the obvious purpose to deny his own sexism.
This election is getting better and better. A billionaire playboy (turned politician) commented about a woman's ass and which women he'd like to take home. And that's a valid news story for some people. Contrast that with a woman who repeatedly demeaned her husband's rape victims. One's problematic sexism, the other is an icon of female empowerment.
I realized a while ago how funny the attempts would be to criminalize the old moral traditions and establish new ones in the mold of political correctness, in this case particularly towards male social behavior. Not in my wildest dreams would I expect this level of humor in the new school of Puritanism. Press on America!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
