EPTI didn't even realize it was possible to get up to that level of debt as a person.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2681
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I didn't even realize it was possible to get up to that level of debt as a person. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 28 2020 06:30 Danglars wrote: If his advisors are smart, they'll be telling him he'll be an icon for decades in the future conceding once the votes are in and smiling at the three judicial nominees he got on the Supreme Court. Do yourself a favor and ask a conservative today if they'd trade a single-term Trump presidency for 3 originalist supreme court justices. God, just imagine saying that Donald Trump will be an 'icon for decades'. Donald Trump, spoken with reverence among the great Presidents in American history. Gut-churning. | ||
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States766 Posts
On September 28 2020 08:32 Nevuk wrote: The really shocking part of the Trump returns is that he has 421 million in loans, PERSONALLY guaranteed, coming due soon. So not backed by his company or anything - him, personally. I didn't even realize it was possible to get up to that level of debt as a person. I mean, how do we get THAT INFO. Who does he owe the money to? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
And within the next four years, more than $300 million in loans — obligations for which he is personally responsible — will come due. Between this article and the one last year that showed Trump just burned Fred Trumps money in the early decades of his career, NYT has completely eviscerated Trump as a businessman. He just a serial loaner and fraud that somehow keeps getting away with it for his entire life. Mr. Trump has an established track record of stiffing his lenders. But the tax returns reveal that he has failed to pay back far more money than previously known: a total of $287 million since 2010. How the fuck? Mueller's choice of not looking into Trump's financials will age poorly. It's clear he's very vulnerable. On a more funny note Trump paid 173 times more hush money to a pornstar than tax in 2016. The world we live in. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On September 28 2020 06:27 Danglars wrote: Had you been a malicious individual intent on sowing division, I have the expectation that you would respond the same. The diversity training didn't work. The people saying it's counter-productive are just reacting to a loss of actual privilege. All the while large group of people (let's say white people) are taunt to identify as their race and start to grow in resentment towards whoever's making them say they're complicit in racism and are racist themselves. That's one of the troubles with nice-sounding programs and reacting simply based on their names. Of course, any program that actually worsens the problem it's going in to solve will say: they lack time and resources, the hurdles they're attempting to overcome are just too large, the people complaining are deficient due to privilege or disposition. I am not surprised in the least to your reaction, WombaT. I hear it all the time when conservatives critique one liberal sacred cow or another. I think much of today's politics misidentifies good intentions, and fails to appreciate (and I mean *really* fails to appreciate) how much harm and regression is done with the good intentions of the participants. I'm not really trying to single out WombaT for a trend I find to be generally the case. I was merely clarifying that I myself am not particularly a fan of such things, for a variety of reasons. There appeared to be a misunderstanding of my position on this particular issue, no harm no foul. | ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
On September 28 2020 08:38 iamthedave wrote: God, just imagine saying that Donald Trump will be an 'icon for decades'. Donald Trump, spoken with reverence among the great Presidents in American history. Gut-churning. Hay i too like my icons to be almost 500 million in debt. Really show his great fortitude and willingness to persevere. Real talk though how to people keep lending him money. He has crashed multiple businesses into fiery wreaks and has to file for bankruptcy how many times. But maybe this hundreds of millions will be different? edit Also Biden with the burns. Released a"I Paid More In Taxes Than Donald Trump" sticker that cost 7:50$. That is some masterclass right there. | ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
On September 28 2020 07:59 Nevuk wrote: Remember that Trump got applauded in 2016 for saying that paying no taxes "made him very smart" at the debates. True but in 2016 the media carried water for him and suggested that Trump’s ability to find tax loopholes would help him close said tax loopholes if put into power. These tax returns shows that Trump isn’t so much abusing loopholes, like most people do with deductions and the like, but actually committing tax fraud. It’s not so much Trump being smart like he famously said in 2016 but rather an underfunded IRS being impotent and one half of the political system doing everything in their power to protect him from any potential legal problems. Also have a very timely Chuck Tingle: | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On September 28 2020 07:59 Nevuk wrote: Remember that Trump got applauded in 2016 for saying that paying no taxes "made him very smart" at the debates. I really think the raw 750 dollar number here is the only possible way this sticks to Trump. In 2016 I don't think "no taxes" was hammered home as "0 dollars in taxes" and probably was publicly perceived as "way less taxes than you would expect." 750 might end up memed out of control. Or it might just disappear into the ether. Who the hell knows anymore? I will say this is more ammunition for Biden's ads which, as someone in a swing state, I've been seeing a ton of. You literally just need Biden on camera saying "Donald Trump paid 750 dollars in taxes. How much did you pay?" and his campaign has been going all-out on having him directly record campaign ads. Seems much more resonant than the dozens of Trump ad variations of "small business owner saying Biden is too weak to protect them from rioters" or just the word "weak" over and over that completely seem to miss the fact that Trump is clearly too weak to do so as well. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24784 Posts
edit: Even if they did not uncover criminality, it's still a bad look and reaffirms what Trump has denied to an extent. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 28 2020 11:36 micronesia wrote: I think they have to be careful about alleging crimes prior to the subject being charged or found guilty. If they say "his 2016 taxes show he violated laws XYZ, they will get sued in an unfavorable way. edit: Even if they did not uncover criminality, it's still a bad look and reaffirms what Trump has denied to an extent. Trust me the media has no qualms about trying to criminalize Trump. | ||
|
StalkerTL
212 Posts
User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Shingi11
290 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 28 2020 11:26 WombaT wrote: Well that was a hell of a read. Aside from the pesky tax issues I mean if you want a concrete example of how broken things can be if you have some cash and connections, how the entire Trump empire functions is as good a one as I’ve seen. The example of how broken things are will be when the right dismisses it as fake news. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On September 28 2020 11:33 Doodsmack wrote: If the NYT has Trump's tax returns and the headline is not "here is the criminality we found," I'm not sure I'm impressed. Seems like if it was tax fraud, they would be saying so. Their previous story about Fred Trump's inheritance did seem to show straight up tax fraud, proven by documents. This one is apparently just stuff we already knew. They can't label it a term with a legal definition ("criminal fraud") or they are then open to libel claims, which are both an expensive proposition, and could be used to compel them to submit some of their sources to our infamously non-partisan AG, William Pelham Barr, for redactions. This isn't baby's first news story, they're well aware of what they can and can't label actions in their reporting. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 28 2020 11:54 Shingi11 wrote: Also according to the NYT this only the first story of many. Going to be a slow drip all through this month right up to the election. Going to keep it on peoples minds, not just let it fade away. Ideally for trump this would be the time where the numbers start to tighten up and maybe he can start trying to play some offense. Instead he is going to have to play defense with his abysmally low numbers and they are going to continue to be down. Sounds like an October Surprise. The NYT's source undoubtedly committed a crime in disclosing the info, so let's just hope it's not a foreign nation carrying out an influence operation. If we go by Obama administration standards, we now have sufficient evidence to wiretap the NYT reporters under the Espionage Act and get this figured out. After all, the intelligence community has assessed that China is engaging in election interference in order to hurt Trump. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 28 2020 12:02 Nevuk wrote: NYT's story explicitly outlines that their source obtained the documents legally. Burden of proof is on you to disprove this. Well the story says they had "legal access" to the data, but that doesn't necessarily mean they could legally disclose it. While it might seem to rule out the possibility of a Chinese hacking operation, we can't be sure that the Times isn't being lied to about the "legal access." | ||
| ||
