|
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.
I disagree; and I would say it is not crystal clear.
|
On October 04 2016 07:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 07:17 Plansix wrote: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.
So like every argument you get into, you move the topic to something no one else cares about.
|
United States43964 Posts
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.
Hypocrisy. Donald Trump is insisting that things are hard for ordinary people and the problem is that the rich are paying too much in tax and that cutting taxes on the rich (which incidentally pay for services working Americans need) will solve the problem and the deficit and everything else. And yet, despite making a lot of money, he pays no taxes. Legal or not the hypocrisy ought to leave a sour taste in the mouth of his supporters.
|
|
|
United States43964 Posts
On October 04 2016 07:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 07:17 Plansix wrote: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.
Didn't he also make the appropriate donations to political figures in NY to get the taxes waived on his properties?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.html
Again, not saying anything illegal happened but don't act like he pays the same property taxes that you or I would. It's not just income tax, or property taxes, it's all of it.
|
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) made admissions that could be awkward for his Republican Senate colleagues trying to block President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
In an interview published Monday, Flake conceded that nobody in the Republican Party "really believes" that late Justice Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court seat should be left for the next president to fill.
As proof, he flipped the scenario around and envisioned a Republican president currently in the White House and nearing the end of his term.
"Our position shouldn’t be that the next president ought to decide. Nobody really believes that, because if this were the last year of a Republican presidency nobody would say that," Flake told the Daily Beast.
He added that the Senate's position "ought to be to confirm the most conservative justice to replace Scalia," to maintain balance, even if that means confirming President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
"That ought to be the principle, and that would allow for us to go with Garland if the alternative is somebody more liberal," Flake said.
In March, Flake indicated that he would consider potentially moving forward a Supreme Court nominee in a lame duck session after the election.
"If we come to a point where we've lost the election, and we can get a centrist like Garland in there as opposed to someone like Hillary Clinton might appoint then I'd go for it," he said.
Source
|
On October 04 2016 07:48 plasmidghost wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/trump-s-1995-return-shows-good-tax-policy-at-workAccording to tax laws, apparently the only way Trump wouldn't have paid any federal taxes is if he didn't make a combined $916 million between 1992 and 2010. If that's the case, then he really is a pretty crappy businessman, but what he did was perfectly ethical and legal. That tax rule doesn't just benefit the rich, it benefits every single farmer and business owner who takes a loss in a year from being unreasonably taxed
If taken in isolation. But what makes this story juicy is that this isn't the case according to the man himself. If Trump hadn't claimed the high ground and lectured others about not paying more income tax, his boat wouldn't take on as much water for this. It's only fitting that he is subjected to his very own proclaimed ethical standards.
|
On October 03 2016 21:29 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 03 2016 10:21 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2016 10:17 ticklishmusic wrote:
colombian peace deal just failed to pass.
...this makes me worry about the election a bit more To put some context, the deal failed because it involved pardoning the terrorist group, granting them political power, funding and overriding the Colombian constitution. I believe FARC members unconditional surrender is the "peace deal" that should happen; they should face trial for their crimes. Colombia's last president cornered them close to full defeat, that's why they started these negotiations in the first place. Something tells me the CIA doesn't want FARC in a courtroom going into details about their operations and "assistance" in Columbia. Also we don't want our top cocaine supplier to stop supplying our cocaine, we just want it to be cheaper/consistent, so stability is important. Las FARC is a Left-wing terrorist group that killed thousands of peoples and is currently funded by drug traffic. As I said, in my ideal world they would be hunted down and the only acceptable peace is an unconditional surrender where they are fully dismantled and face trial for their crimes. Because I understand this has a cost in lives, I'm ok with some sort of agreement to reach peace sooner. But granting them pardon, funding and political power is too much, as the people in Colombia have spoken. Wathever the CIA has or has not todo with anything is inmaterial. This people should be trialed for a long history of war or terrorist crimes, however you want to put it. And drugs should be decriminalized, but that's another debate. Can't you simply condemn this categorically evil organization? Or you feel the need to put the blame on something else, like the CIA?
They've done some horrible things but I don't believe in "evil". As was pointed out though, the CIA secures drug trades, it doesn't eliminate them. Without FARC who's going to run the cocaine trade out of Columbia? Can't be the government, since you know, we claim we don't want all that cocaine we buy year in and year out in this country.
On October 04 2016 06:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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=0They 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.
Did I miss you calling foul on this Trump Tax thing coming out (there were a lot of pages)?
|
On October 04 2016 07:58 Dan HH wrote:If taken in isolation. But what makes this story juicy is that this isn't the case according to the man himself. If Trump hadn't claimed the high ground and lectured others about not paying more income tax, his boat wouldn't take on as much water for this. It's only fitting that he is subjected to his very own proclaimed ethical standards.
Yeah, more or less.
This is just one more thing in the ongoing list of things Trump accuses others of (right or wrong), but is actually guilty of himself (or his businesses, or both). Fake charities, hiring cheap immigrant labour, not paying workers, trafficking people into the country...
|
“I know a lot of bad people in this country that are making a hell of a lot of money and not paying taxes” (August 2015)
“The hedge fund guys are getting away with murder...They’re paying nothing and it’s ridiculous." (August 2015)
“[Bezos has been] using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed” (May 2016)
“[The problem is that Ford and] many other companies leave Michigan and our other states, go to Mexico and abandon all of the jobs and all of the taxes that they were paying here.” (September 2016)
|
On October 04 2016 07:39 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 07:31 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 07:17 Plansix wrote: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. So like every argument you get into, you move the topic to something no one else cares about.
If you happen to come up with a thought, you could use your post to tell me about it and move the topic further still. But otherwise it wasn't necessary to narrate to me your discovery of conversation.
On October 04 2016 07:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 07:31 oBlade wrote:On October 04 2016 07:17 Plansix wrote: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. Didn't he also make the appropriate donations to political figures in NY to get the taxes waived on his properties? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/nyregion/donald-trump-tax-breaks-real-estate.htmlAgain, not saying anything illegal happened but don't act like he pays the same property taxes that you or I would. It's not just income tax, or property taxes, it's all of it.
That we would if we were real estate moguls, do you mean? Or right now? Because since he's lowering everyone's taxes, (it's the better.gop plan anyway), I don't really care how he's doing personally.
|
This is what the new Democrats have to look forward to.
Not to be a stickler for details, but Assange isn't American.
|
Look forward to 1984 (lol that year)? Because that's when this guy was involved in politics.
His last job was Fox News commentator and is currently doing CNN coverage.
|
Also, that video is from 2010.
|
That idiot is still on the air lol
|
On October 04 2016 07:48 plasmidghost wrote:https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/trump-s-1995-return-shows-good-tax-policy-at-workAccording to tax laws, apparently the only way Trump wouldn't have paid any federal taxes is if he didn't make a combined $916 million between 1992 and 2010. If that's the case, then he really is a pretty crappy businessman, but what he did was perfectly ethical and legal. That tax rule doesn't just benefit the rich, it benefits every single farmer and business owner who takes a loss in a year from being unreasonably taxed
Correct me if I'm wrong but the way I see is that while his income may not have exceeded 916 million since 95, the values gained on his assets maybe more than that amount. The later part would not have counted as taxable income since it's not income.
|
I suspect that we're going to be very underwhelmed by what Wikileaks releases, but who know, we could be pleasantly surprised.
|
On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010.
Oh, lol...so really it should say "Fox News pundit acting like Fox News pundit".
But I guess that doesn't get as many clickbait retweets.
|
On October 04 2016 08:27 kwizach wrote:
Also, that video is from 2010.
The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself.
|
On October 04 2016 08:34 GreenHorizons wrote:The idea of assassinating Assange has been floating around neo-liberal circles for quite a while, that is true. It's not like Hillary came up with it herself.
Yeah, remember when people post videos of Black people doing mean things to say racism doesn't exist?
Try harder not to be those guys GH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
