|
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 |
It was mentioned before, but the 'failing' New York Times just eviscerated Trumps 'almost self made successful businessman' so hard it hurts. They went all the way. He really shouldn't have kept insulting them. They interviewed employees from the Fred Trump empire, and reviewed over 100k pages of documentation. They provide extreme detail to show that his dad siphoned money to him all the way to his deathbed, dodging taxes all the way. Basically the only thing Trump is good at is making people believe he's something he's not. He just started lying from the start and never stopped.
Some small quotes from the huge read. It really feels like one of those 'historic' articles in journalism.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
“He is tall, lean and blond, with dazzling white teeth, and he looks ever so much like Robert Redford. He rides around town in a chauffeured silver Cadillac with his initials, DJT, on the plates. He dates slinky fashion models, belongs to the most elegant clubs and, at only 30 years of age, estimates that he is worth ‘more than $200 million.’”
So began a Nov. 1, 1976, article in The Times, one of the first major profiles of Donald Trump and a cornerstone of decades of mythmaking about his wealth. How could he claim to be worth more than $200 million when, as he divulged years later to casino regulators, his 1976 taxable income was $24,594? Donald Trump simply appropriated his father’s entire empire as his own.
Fred Trump Jr.’s largest asset was his stake in seven of the eight buildings his father had transferred to his children. The Trumps would claim that those properties were worth $90.4 million when they finished converting them to cooperatives within a few years of his death. At that value, his stake could have generated an estate tax bill of nearly $10 million.
But the tax return signed by Donald Trump and his father claimed that Fred Trump Jr.’s estate owed just $737,861. This result was achieved by lowballing all seven buildings. Instead of valuing them at $90.4 million, Fred and Donald Trump submitted appraisals putting them at $13.2 million.
A moment later, Donald Trump abruptly changed the course of his family’s history: He said it was a good time to sell.
Fred Trump’s empire, in fact, was continuing to produce healthy profits, and selling contradicted his stated wish to keep his legacy in the family. But Donald Trump insisted that the real estate market had peaked and that the time was right, according to a person familiar with the meeting.
He was also, once again, in financial trouble. His Atlantic City casinos were veering toward another bankruptcy. His creditors would soon threaten to oust him unless he committed to invest $55 million of his own money.
Yet if Donald Trump’s sudden push to sell stunned the room, it met with no apparent resistance from his siblings. He directed his brother to solicit private bids, saying he wanted the sale handled quickly and quietly. Donald Trump’s signature skill — drumming up publicity for the Trump brand — would sit this one out.
Three potential bidders were given access to the finances of Fred Trump’s empire — 37 apartment complexes and several shopping centers. Ruby Schron, a major New York City landlord, quickly emerged as the favorite. In December 2003, Mr. Schron called Donald Trump and they came to an agreement; Mr. Schron paid $705.6 million for most of the empire, which included paying off the Trumps’ mortgages. A few remaining properties were sold to other buyers, bringing the total sales price to $737.9 million.
On May 4, 2004, the Trump children spent most of the day signing away ownership of what their father had doggedly built over 70 years. The sale received little news coverage, and an article in The Staten Island Advance included the rarest of phrases: “Trump did not return a phone call seeking comment.”
Even more extraordinary was this unreported fact: The banks financing Mr. Schron’s purchase valued Fred Trump’s empire at nearly $1 billion. In other words, Donald Trump, master dealmaker, sold his father’s empire for hundreds of millions less than it was worth.
Here is what can be said with certainty: Had Mr. Trump done nothing but invest the money his father gave him in an index fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500, he would be worth $1.96 billion today. As for that $1 million loan, Fred Trump actually lent him at least $60.7 million, or $140 million in today’s dollars, The Times found.
And what is to come of this? The NYT says:
According to tax experts, it is unlikely that Mr. Trump would be vulnerable to criminal prosecution for helping his parents evade taxes, because the acts happened too long ago and are past the statute of limitations. There is no time limit, however, on civil fines for tax fraud..
I wonder how big those civil fines could be? And how solvent Trumps businesses are right now...
|
On October 03 2018 07:10 Plansix wrote:
Also, do folks remember when Trump wanted the Central Park 5 executed for the crime that they were proven not to have committed? And kept calling for their execution for years?
He was all about due process then.
I've been in several arguments with people where this was brought up, usually as evidence of Trump's racism. I think those people did not know what actually happened. For anyone else who brings this up as evidence of racism by the police or Trump, I'd encourage you to evaluate the facts of the case for yourself first.
I'm going to copy/paste some parts from Wikipedia, but help yourself to the full article if you feel the need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case
The police were dispatched at 9:30 p.m. and responded with scooters and unmarked cars. They apprehended Raymond Santana and Kevin Richardson along with other teenagers at approximately 10:15 p.m. on Central Park West and 102nd Street.[4][10][11] Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, and Korey Wise were brought in for questioning later, after having been identified by other youths as participants in or present at some of the attacks.[10][11]
Trisha Meili was going for a run on her usual path in Central Park shortly before 9 p.m.[6][14][10] While jogging in the park, she was knocked down, dragged or chased nearly 300 feet (91 m), and violently assaulted.[4] She was raped and almost beaten to death.
Additionally, before the raped jogger was found, one of the other boys the police had rounded up, sitting in the back of a police car, blurted that he "didn't do the murder" and named Antron McCray as the perpetrator. Kevin Richardson, who was sitting beside him, immediately agreed, saying "Antron did it".[39]
Later, after Raymond Santana was interrogated about the rape and while he was being driven to another precinct, he on his own exclaimed: "I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel her tits."
Before the trial, the FBI tested the DNA of the rape kit and found it did not match to any of the tested suspects.
In 2001, convicted serial rapist and murderer Matias Reyes was already serving a life sentence for other crimes, but he was not at that point a suspect in the Central Park attack on Meili. Reyes met Wise in an upstate New York prison, the Auburn Correctional Facility.[39][51] In 2002, Reyes declared that he was 17 years old on the night of April 19, 1989 when he assaulted and raped the jogger. He said that he had acted alone
In 2002, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly commissioned a panel of three lawyers to review the case.
The panel disputed Reyes's claim that he alone had raped the jogger.[39][64][65] It insisted there was "nothing but his uncorroborated word" that he acted alone.[64] Armstrong said the panel believed "the word of a serial rapist killer is not something to be heavily relied upon."[64] The report concluded that the five men whose convictions had been vacated had "most likely" participated in the beating and rape of the jogger and that the "most likely scenario" was that "both the defendants and Reyes assaulted her, perhaps successively."[39][64] The report said Reyes had most likely "either joined in the attack as it was ending or waited until the defendants had moved on to their next victims before descending upon her himself, raping her and inflicting upon her the brutal injuries that almost caused her death."[39][64]
As to the five defendants, the report said:
We believe the inconsistencies contained in the various statements were not such as to destroy their reliability. On the other hand, there was a general consistency that ran through the defendants' descriptions of the attack on the female jogger: she was knocked down on the road, dragged into the woods, hit and molested by several defendants, sexually abused by some while others held her arms and legs, and left semiconscious in a state of undress.[64][65]
"It seems impossible to say that they weren't there at all, because they knew too much," Armstrong said in an interview.[68]
The city refused for a decade to settle the suits, saying that "the confessions that withstood intense scrutiny, in full and fair pretrial hearings and at two lengthy public trials" established probable cause.[70] New York City lawyers under then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg felt they would win the case.[49]
While running for mayor of New York City in 2013, Bill de Blasio pledged to settle the case if he were to win the election.
A settlement in the case for $41 million, supported by Mayor De Blasio, was approved by a federal judge on September 5, 2014
|
Just imagine, if there was a 100% inheritance tax, Trump never would have happened.
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 08:26 PeTraSoHot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 07:10 Plansix wrote:
Also, do folks remember when Trump wanted the Central Park 5 executed for the crime that they were proven not to have committed? And kept calling for their execution for years?
He was all about due process then. I've been in several arguments with people where this was brought up, usually as evidence of Trump's racism. I think those people did not know what actually happened. For anyone else who brings this up as evidence of racism by the police or Trump, I'd encourage you to evaluate the facts of the case for yourself first. I'm going to copy/paste some parts from Wikipedia, but help yourself to the full article if you feel the need.
The primary issue isn't the case itself, it's that Trump was calling for the death penalty a) before their guilt was determined and b) for years after they'd been cleared.
The police weren't really in the wrong, but Trump sure as fuck was, at every point. He jumped the gun by calling for them to be executed, and he wouldn't stop calling for it once the state realised it got it wrong. Trump's so obviously racist at this point that America is literally the only place in the western world he could exist and there be any doubt.
|
United States24741 Posts
That Times article about Trump getting all of his wealth from his father was quite a long read. I think an important thing to realize is that the IRS foolishly concurred on much of the bullshit his family submitted as tax documents. The scope of what can actually be recouped is probably much lower than what is implied by the article, but the damage to egos is probably more substantial than the dollars at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
United States43259 Posts
You certainly could if your assumption is that anyone with any criticism, no matter how legitimate, is an angry Dem. It's amazing how many lifelong Republicans have been discovered to be secret Deep State Democratic plants. Only last week Fox News was alleging that George W. Bush was "A radical liberal. A liberal himself. He wasn’t a conservative.”
The secret conspiracy of liberals trying to bring down the government with their lies grows daily. Or alternatively, it's just people speaking the truth, many of whom are conservatives, without an agenda.
|
On October 03 2018 11:14 KwarK wrote:You certainly could if your assumption is that anyone with any criticism, no matter how legitimate, is an angry Dem. It's amazing how many lifelong Republicans have been discovered to be secret Deep State Democratic plants. Only last week Fox News was alleging that George W. Bush was "A radical liberal. A liberal himself. He wasn’t a conservative.” The secret conspiracy of liberals trying to bring down the government with their lies grows daily. Or alternatively, it's just people speaking the truth, many of whom are conservatives, without an agenda.
No, my assumption is whatever his reaction was at the hearing they will paint his character as "not fit for scotus".
Except if he vowed down obviously, then the press would flip instantly to call him "courageous and brave" and what not.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 11:19 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 11:14 KwarK wrote:You certainly could if your assumption is that anyone with any criticism, no matter how legitimate, is an angry Dem. It's amazing how many lifelong Republicans have been discovered to be secret Deep State Democratic plants. Only last week Fox News was alleging that George W. Bush was "A radical liberal. A liberal himself. He wasn’t a conservative.” The secret conspiracy of liberals trying to bring down the government with their lies grows daily. Or alternatively, it's just people speaking the truth, many of whom are conservatives, without an agenda. No, my assumption is whatever his reaction was at the hearing they will paint his character as "not fit for scotus". Except if he vowed down obviously, then the press would flip instantly to call him "courageous and brave" and what not.
We're not talking hypotheticals. 500 law professors didn't sign this ahead of time like the 65 women Kav went to school with. They signed it after seeing exactly how Kav carried himself in that shitshow of a hearing. This isn't hard. Don't make this hard. Everyone who ever says anything you don't wanna hear isn't an "angry Dem" by default. Grow up.
|
He did let his emotions get the better of him at the hearing. He certainly gets some leeway because of the accusations, but it's safe to say he was an emotional wreck at the hearing.
|
5930 Posts
That letter doesn’t say anything about Ford being coached or coaching someone in how to beat a polygraph test. From memory, that was the thing she was asked about during the hearing. Telling someone about what to expect from a polygraph test and how it works isn’t the same as coaching someone to beat it, it’s like saying a PT explaining the contents of a CrossFit circuit is the same as a PT running a one on one session with a client.
|
On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for?
No, the moving goal post means:
BK can't be SCOTUS because:
-attempted rapist
-liked to drink when young
...
into
-not happy when falsely acussed of rape
-threw ice at someone in 1985
|
|
|
On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985
Is that actually an argument people are making? Or is that what Fox News is telling you? Because the ice thing is stupid and anyone making that argument is stupid. But I also haven't seen these people. Attack actual arguments, not strawmen set up for you by the other side of the MSM.
|
United States24741 Posts
On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:
<Snip - same quote as above two posts>
That's a pretty disingenuous representation of what the 'new' disqualifying concerns with Kavanaugh are.
The fact that you equate 'not happy' with getting snide with a sitting senator questioning him in a formal and public hearing shows you are not discussing this in good faith.
|
On October 03 2018 11:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2018 11:34 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 03 2018 11:25 JimmiC wrote:Do you know what moving the goal post is? It does not mean made up if that what is what you are going for? No, the moving goal post means: BK can't be SCOTUS because: -attempted rapist -liked to drink when young ... into -not happy when falsely acussed of rape -threw ice at someone in 1985 This did happen. It is not an assumption you treat like fact such as "if he was stoic they WOULD have called him a sociopath." Your life will be better if you understand the difference between Fact and a Assumption you make.
Yes I understand the difference, doesn't change the reaction is made up to fit the agenda. That's my argument at least, I could be wrong though.
So now he can't be SCOTUS because he wasn't "stoic" enough. Goal post moves further.
(Despite that's a made up usage of stoic, the true stoic thing to do is not caving to baseless allegations).
FBI investigation will be done soon. If nothing is found, will you be ok with the Senate voting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
