|
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 04 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:
The other thing that bears mentioning about the release of Trump's tax returns is this: the collusion between Hillary and the media should be crystal clear now. There is no way that it was coincidental that she speculated that Trump paid no taxes during the debate without knowing about the pending NYT story.
The tax returns appeared a NYT mail box in a envelope from The Trump Organization.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/insider/the-time-i-found-donald-trumps-tax-records-in-my-mailbox.html?_r=0
They were leaked internally to the Times. I am willing to bet someone sat on those until October and might have dropped a line to the Clinton camp that they planned to do so.
You can't cheer on wikileaks when the DNC gets hack and then call foul when the same thing happens to Trump. Well you can and likely will, but it doesn't change anything.
|
On October 04 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:
The other thing that bears mentioning about the release of Trump's tax returns is this: the collusion between Hillary and the media should be crystal clear now. There is no way that it was coincidental that she speculated that Trump paid no taxes during the debate without knowing about the pending NYT story.
Not saying it's not a possibility, but I've seen every Tom, Dick & Harry say 'he's not releasing his taxes because he's not paying taxes' for months. Were they all colluding with NYT?
|
On October 04 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space. What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney?
She was appointed to be the man's attorney. She asked to be removed and the Judge refused.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
|
On October 04 2016 06:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:32 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:50 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:47 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend... So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored it voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying. That part was pretty clearly a joke, though if you struggle in perceiving that, well...  Try remembering how three people seriously compared Trump's actions to those of comic book villains in the space of two pages of thread. Anyways, slight chuckle. He literally did the same thing as the villain in Marvel's Daredevil season 1. If you don't want to be compared to comic book villains then don't do comic book villain stuff. It wasn't an inaccurate comparison, he's just a pretty shady businessman.
Thus it's hard to separate jokes riffing on comic books and dead-serious comic book analogies, so we're in agreement.
|
On October 04 2016 06:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:00 farvacola wrote:
How can one know that Trump won't abdicate to Pence, particularly since a vote for Trump has been called "a dice roll" and there is indication that Trump promised leadership spoils to other VP contenders? The fact that I call it a "dice roll" should tell you all that you need to know. I'm very clearly weighing probabilities.
Well if we're talking probabilities, Hillary is probably better on expectation. With Hillary, we are very likely to get a "status quo minus" presidency, with a small chance of significant deviation. With Trump, the likelihood of a very bad result is not insignificant, the likelihood of a "Republican presidency" result is substantial, and the likelihood of a long-term net benefit of his presidency is not insignificant but also not something I see as likely in light of the fact that I don't really think he knows what he's doing.
I have given Trump a lot of credit in the past for bringing attention to important issues that matter - you could see my previous post on NATO as a long-winded example. But, like Bernie Sanders, he's not really the kind of person who has what it takes to bring those issues to a positive resolution. Hillary Clinton isn't either (and I would prefer "pie in the sky" Sanders politics to her politics) but one party has significantly more baggage than the other and in this specific case I see no choice that would be better than to just vote party-line against the Republican Party.
|
United States43964 Posts
On October 04 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space. What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney?
Doing anything less than your utmost to defend a child rapist is granting them a free mistrial. As a lawyer if you want to see justice served you need to do everything in your power to fulfill your role in that, that way once they're found guilty we can lock them up for the rest of their life with no remorse or doubt. The reason we give the accused the best defence we can is so we can say "fuck that guy" with a clean conscience once they're found guilty. Undermining the defence undermines the moral authority to condemn the individual and may allow them to walk free. It's especially important to do it by the book for shitty individuals.
|
Lawyers doing their best to represent shitty people is far better than the alternative.
|
I think there's really no coherent reason to attack Trump for not paying taxes particularly-but there's also no coherent reason to attack HRC for NAFTA or the loss of factory jobs or the last 30 years being "oh so horrible" (I really don't know where those 30 years come from), so this election has long since passed the realm of coherent attacks.
I mean if this were a good country with a functional political citizenry we would have candidates and their campaigns actually commenting on the merits of one another's plans and outlining the detailed reasons their plans are better. But that's nigh-impossible to do when one of the candidates has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about and people live in alternate realities from one another, so there's nothing to engage with.
Trying to discuss policy with Trump's campaign is like shadowboxing the bat signal. Nothing happens.
It's far more interesting to me that Trump managed to lose all that money. Especially if he still hasn't made enough to offset it.
|
On October 04 2016 06:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space. What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney? Doing anything less than your utmost to defend a child rapist is granting them a free mistrial. As a lawyer if you want to see justice served you need to do everything in your power to fulfill your role in that, that way once they're found guilty we can lock them up for the rest of their life with no remorse or doubt. The reason we give the accused the best defence we can is so we can say "fuck that guy" with a clean conscience once they're found guilty. Undermining the defence undermines the moral authority to condemn the individual and may allow them to walk free. It's especially important to do it by the book for shitty individuals.
I don't have a problem with lawyers, I'm trying to figure out how someone squares that with a person not paying income taxes they don't owe.
|
On October 04 2016 06:40 xDaunt wrote:
The other thing that bears mentioning about the release of Trump's tax returns is this: the collusion between Hillary and the media should be crystal clear now. There is no way that it was coincidental that she speculated that Trump paid no taxes during the debate without knowing about the pending NYT story.
everyone has been saying that in here for months before it happened...
|
|
|
On October 04 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:56 KwarK wrote:On October 04 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space. What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney? Doing anything less than your utmost to defend a child rapist is granting them a free mistrial. As a lawyer if you want to see justice served you need to do everything in your power to fulfill your role in that, that way once they're found guilty we can lock them up for the rest of their life with no remorse or doubt. The reason we give the accused the best defence we can is so we can say "fuck that guy" with a clean conscience once they're found guilty. Undermining the defence undermines the moral authority to condemn the individual and may allow them to walk free. It's especially important to do it by the book for shitty individuals. I don't have a problem with lawyers, I'm trying to figure out how someone squares that with a person not paying income taxes they don't owe.
The two things are not comparable. You just pulled that out of your bag of things Clinton did that you think are bad and threw it out there. It is an off topic counter point that is essentially worthless.
Clinton ran a legal aid clinic, serving the poor people who could not afford legal counsel and the Judge assigned her a case. And she did what she swore to do, defend the person to the best of her ability.
Trump had a bad year in 1995 because he is bad at business and wrote off the next 20 years of income taxes. He also stiffed all the people he hired in that year, who likely couldn't afford the tax consulting to do the same thing Trump did. He made bad decisions, lost a lot of other peoples money, didn't pay people and got to live tax free for 20 years.
|
On October 04 2016 07:15 Barrin wrote:
What does everyone expect from the VP debate tomorrow?
Very little, they're both as generic as they come
|
Kaine to knock Pence off the moral high ground that he's claiming. Or try, at least. Probably make Pence answer for a lot of Trump stuff as well as score some points on Pence's various acts-of-heartlessness in a disappointed dad sort of way.
|
I expect them to trip over each other to see who can be more polite. They are very different breeds of politician and it won't get nasty. I do expect Kaine to push back against a bunch of stuff Trump has said, but I doubt he will hold Pence's feet to the fire. Kaine will just keep it civil to show how things are supposed to work.
|
It appears that the debate falls very conveniently into my 1.5 hour slot of free time tomorrow. Good time to watch two generic candidates do probably very little of consequence.
Though I have to say Biden vs. Ryan was the most memorable debate of last election cycle so VP debates do have a chance to impress.
|
On October 04 2016 07:15 Barrin wrote:
What does everyone expect from the VP debate tomorrow?
I'm expecting people in two days to say "Oh that was yesterday?"
edit: That said, I'll be watching. Not sure what to expect though, other than people being generally less interested in it.
|
On October 04 2016 07:26 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 07:15 Barrin wrote:
What does everyone expect from the VP debate tomorrow? I'm expecting people in two days to say "Oh that was yesterday?"
Hell, I have to admit that I wouldn't have known it was tomorrow if Barrin didn't mention it right now. For all intents and purposes it has been mostly invisible.
|
On October 04 2016 07:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I think there's really no coherent reason to attack Trump for not paying taxes particularly-but there's also no coherent reason to attack HRC for NAFTA or the loss of factory jobs or the last 30 years being "oh so horrible" (I really don't know where those 30 years come from), so this election has long since passed the realm of coherent attacks.
I mean if this were a good country with a functional political citizenry we would have candidates and their campaigns actually commenting on the merits of one another's plans and outlining the detailed reasons their plans are better. But that's nigh-impossible to do when one of the candidates has no idea whatsoever what he's talking about and people live in alternate realities from one another, so there's nothing to engage with.
Trying to discuss policy with Trump's campaign is like shadowboxing the bat signal. Nothing happens.
It's far more interesting to me that Trump managed to lose all that money. Especially if he still hasn't made enough to offset it.
I think everyone expected that Trump was not paying any taxes. And most reasonable people assumed it was through some loophole or number trickery, opposed to something illegal.
The main points of interest are of course that one of the "richest" persons in the US has not paid taxes at all in the last 2 decades, despite saying how opposed he was to tax cheats. And two, he said that not paying taxes makes him smart, when in fact he's not paying taxes because he was bad at business and lost a billion dollars.
|
On October 04 2016 07:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 06:56 KwarK wrote:On October 04 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space. What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney? Doing anything less than your utmost to defend a child rapist is granting them a free mistrial. As a lawyer if you want to see justice served you need to do everything in your power to fulfill your role in that, that way once they're found guilty we can lock them up for the rest of their life with no remorse or doubt. The reason we give the accused the best defence we can is so we can say "fuck that guy" with a clean conscience once they're found guilty. Undermining the defence undermines the moral authority to condemn the individual and may allow them to walk free. It's especially important to do it by the book for shitty individuals. I don't have a problem with lawyers, I'm trying to figure out how someone squares that with a person not paying income taxes they don't owe. The two things are not comparable. You just pulled that out of your bag of things Clinton did that you think are bad and threw it out there. It is an off topic counter point that is essentially worthless.
No, I mentioned it because it's something you personally said was her job. Trump's job is actually not to donate money to the IRS that he doesn't owe. You keep saying he doesn't pay taxes, but this is only about income taxes (and without seeing other returns it's uncertain), it's not accurate to say the government gets no money from him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
