The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:35 am

tgb wrote:I'm open to the possibility that he's subconsciously sabotaging his own campaign, probably because he never really wanted the job in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if those pages from his taxes were sent by "John Barron".

Or perhaps it's his evil good twin.

I'm guessing Trump's whole machine is gripped with paranoia and suspicion today. You know he wants to hurt someone for this.

But I'll bet this isn't the only Deep Throat we'll hear from. Despite Trump's threat of legal action, Susanne Craig's NYT article this morning (which is definitely worth a read) ends with an invitation to more whistleblowers.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:10 pm

Tone deaf much?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:20 pm

Giuliani is in so deep that he no longer distinguishes between Trump rallies and decent society.

At a trade group awards ceremony last week, he went way off script and made multiple racist remarks and attacks. It was bad enough that the host organization issued a formal apology to the attendees.

Part of the apology email read like this: “At CFA’s 40 Under 40 Awards last Thursday night, keynote speaker Rudolph Giuliani veered sharply off course from the leadership message he agreed to deliver and presented unscripted personal opinions which were independent of CFA’s political position or core values. While we, the event organizers, made every attempt to direct Mr. Giuliani’s remarks ahead of time to focus on leadership, for which he is renowned and has authored a book, there is always the possibility of such a surprise at a live event.”

[...]

Most of the rest of the email was devoted to expressing the organization's abhorrence of racism in all forms. So presumably they got an earful that Rudy was pretty racist.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:45 pm

I suppose Giuliani is correct that as a CEO, your main obligation is to make as much money as possible. You can absolutely do that by doing a lot of things that are in legal and ethical gray areas, sure. That probably works out great for you and your shareholders. If it doesn't work out so well for your employees or other people in society, that doesn't matter so much.

Of course, if you do those things and then try running for public office, then that stuff starts looking WAY less appealing. Especially when you try and bill yourself as some kind of man of the people. Is it okay that you did those things? Sure. Is it surprising that some segment of voters will see it as disqualifying for you to win the election. You bet. Is it smart to stand up and brag about how you did the smartest thing because it was technically legal (the very best kind of legal)? Nope, not really, unless the only people voting are also CEOs.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:52 pm

Blackhawk wrote:I've been wondering if he's been doing that for months. He always seems to say the worst possible thing at the worst possible time. Pure random egotistical jackassery alone couldn't account for it.

I think narcissism can.

The things that really set him off seem to trend towards those that deflate his importance (discussions of his net worth, losing the debate) or come from people "beneath" him ie, the Miss Universe winner and the Khan family.

I was "friends" with a narcissist for longer than I want to recall. This was literally his behavior, though on a more moderate scale. Anything that touched his self importance would set him off. Since he was better then everyone else, rudeness (or political incorrectness) was a daily concurrence. It's easy to justify it when the target is someone else, its funny! He's just telling it like it is! People can point out that he's toxic. They can point out he's an ass (or jackass), until it turns towards you or someone you love, it's so damn easy to overlook.

There is nothing you can ever say that will get through to a narcissist. Trump cannot acknowledge he lost the debate. He justifies screwing people as smart business, not unethical, because he followed the rules. He was smarter then everyone else!

I honestly do not think Trump sees his behavior as anything but justified. If he should win things will get far worse.

milo · Post by **milo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:01 pm

Chaz wrote:I suppose Giuliani is correct that as a CEO, your main obligation is to make as much money as possible.

That's just not remotely true. The CEO's obligation is to execute the company's mission in accordance with its core values. There are plenty of valid reasons not to "make as much money as possible," above and beyond limiting yourself to purely legal and ethical means. My point is that "being a CEO" is never an excuse for screwing people over.

Trump didn't even manage to make money. He lost a billion dollars running a casino empire. Talk about losing on easy mode.

Chaz · Post by **Chaz** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:14 pm

Fair enough, I probably should have said a CEO's main obligation can be to make as much money as possible. Especially in the context of Trump being the CEO of his own company, and if we've learned anything, Trump's main mandate is to make sure everyone knows that he's the greatest at everything.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:33 pm

Fitzy wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:I've been wondering if he's been doing that for months. He always seems to say the worst possible thing at the worst possible time. Pure random egotistical jackassery alone couldn't account for it.
I think narcissism can.

The things that really set him off seem to trend towards those that deflate his importance (discussions of his net worth, losing the debate) or come from people "beneath" him ie, the Miss Universe winner and the Khan family.

I was "friends" with a narcissist for longer than I want to recall. This was literally his behavior, though on a more moderate scale. Anything that touched his self importance would set him off. Since he was better then everyone else, rudeness (or political incorrectness) was a daily concurrence. It's easy to justify it when the target is someone else, its funny! He's just telling it like it is! People can point out that he's toxic. They can point out he's an ass (or jackass), until it turns towards you or someone you love, it's so damn easy to overlook.

There is nothing you can ever say that will get through to a narcissist. Trump cannot acknowledge he lost the debate. He justifies screwing people as smart business, not unethical, because he followed the rules. He was smarter then everyone else!

I honestly do not think Trump sees his behavior as anything but justified. If he should win things will get far worse.

This sounds right to me. Stir in some paranoia and he's easily manipulated into the kind of self-defeating behavior that we saw in abundance last week.

If he is deliberately taking a dive then I expect him to endorse Clinton this week.

We saw him recover from a similar spiral over the summer, but time's a-running out. Unless he somehow manages to "win" (not just survive) the next two debates, he needs another Clinton misstep/health crisis or a random event (like a terrorist attack or an economic shock) to turn it around.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:51 pm

milo wrote:
Chaz wrote:I suppose Giuliani is correct that as a CEO, your main obligation is to make as much money as possible.
That's just not remotely true. The CEO's obligation is to execute the company's mission in accordance with its core values. There are plenty of valid reasons not to "make as much money as possible," above and beyond limiting yourself to purely legal and ethical means.

A publicly traded company has a legal obligation to generate as much value as possible for its shareholders.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:57 pm

I don't think Trump is taking a dive, but I think he's running a double game.

If he wins the White House, he's the king of all he surveys. But if he loses, he's still poised to remain a media behemoth and defacto leader of the Frankenstein wing of the GOP. He'll be Sarah Palin with a hundred times the media savvy.

This is why I don't think we'll see a contrite or transformed Trump in October. Winning as Trump would mean getting to be president but also having to be president; losing as Trump means the money never stops.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:02 pm

Defiant wrote:
Kraken wrote:
Carpet_pissr wrote: Bernie's unexpected strength in the primaries showed the depth of anti-establishment sentiment even among Democratic-leaning independents.
Fixed that for you. And I think much of it had more to do with Clinton's image than with being anti-establishment. The same people love Obama (who is, by his very position, establishment)

Democrats can't win without independents (nor can Republicans, of course), and a Jewish socialist curmudgeon beat Clinton in 22 states. So I wouldn't be too sanguine about broad-based anti-establishment unrest -- although, with Clinton as the nominee, I suppose you don't have a choice anymore.

Establishment candidates did pretty well against upstart challengers throughout the primaries, though, so I could be the one who's deluded. Maybe Trump will flame out without doing lasting damage and we'll get back to politics as usual after this.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:15 pm

Kraken wrote: Democrats can't win without independents (nor can Republicans, of course)

Indeed, "President" Romney won the independent vote in 2012, 50%-45%

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:17 pm

Captain Caveman wrote:So being a shitty businessman and losing almost a billion dollars in one year allows him to avoid paying any taxes for almost two whole decades?

What a totally fucked up system we have.

I'm no defender of Donald Trump but this is being really unfair to him. This is a tax provision that has been in existence for decades and it totally reasonable and has been used by many different entities. If you look at a business as a going concern, sometimes it will lose money. In those years, there is no tax credit that you receive for having negative income. It's only reasonable to look a company's income over several years and in effect tax them for that.

Example, sometimes companies will generate losses in order to build a business. You may hire a bunch of people up front, buy a lot of equipment, lease a lot of locations, know that you are losing money now but that this investment will pay off later - which is exactly what Amazon did for years as they build their business. It's entirely reasonable that we should look at a corp history over a number of years when this happens.

Individuals can't generate a loss but there is something similar for them. If you have really high income that would throw you into a top tax bracket, you are allowed to average your income over several year so that you are not penalized by that top tax bracket in the one year you do receive a large payment.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 2:43 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Trek Against Trump

Spoiler:
Star Trek has always offered a positive vision of the future, a vision of hope and optimism, and most importantly, a vision of inclusion, where people of all races are accorded equal respect and dignity, where individual beliefs and lifestyles are respected so long as they pose no threat to others. We cannot turn our backs on what is happening in the upcoming election. Never has there been a presidential candidate who stands in such complete opposition to the ideals of the Star Trek universe as Donald Trump. His election would take this country backward, perhaps disastrously. We need to elect a president who will move this country forward into the kind of future we all dream of: where personal differences are understood and accepted, where science overrules superstition, where people work together instead of against each other.

The resolution of conflicts on Star Trek was never easy. Don’t remain aloof –vote! We have heard people say they will vote Green or Libertarian or not at all because the two major candidates are equally flawed. That is both illogical and inaccurate. Either Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump will occupy the White House. One is an amateur with a contemptuous ignorance of national laws and international realities, while the other has devoted her life to public service, and has deep and valuable experience with the proven ability to work with Congress to pass desperately needed legislation. If, as some say, the government is broken, a protest vote will not fix it.

Have you just turned 18? Have you moved? Have you never voted before? Some states have early registration (early October) and/or absentee ballots. You can’t vote if you are not registered. So make it so. Go to (rock the vote), a non-profit, non-partisan organization, and fulfill your civic duty. Because, damn it, you are a citizen of the USA, with an obligation to take part in our democracy! Do this not merely for yourself but for all the generations that follow. Vote for a future of enlightenment and inclusion, a future that will someday lead us to the stars.
Endorsed by:

Spoiler:
J.J. Abrams
Allan Apone
Richard Arnold
René Auberjonois
Scott Bakula
Ira Steven Behr
Rick Berman
John Billingsley
Christopher Black
Paula Block
Paul Boehmer
André Bormanis
Brannon Braga
Mark Robert Brown
LeVar Burton
Terri Potts-Chattaway
John Cho
Tracee Cocco
George Colucci
Mimi Cozzens
Denise Crosby
Dan Curry
Joseph D'Agosta
Peter David
Nicole de Boer
Keith R.A. DeCandido
John de Lancie
Jonathan Del Arco
John DeMita
Chris Doohan
Paul Eiding
Aron Eisenberg
Terry Erdmann
Terry Farrell
Lolita Fatjo
David C. Fein
Juan Carlos Fernandez
Louise Fletcher
Jonathan Frakes
Bryan Fuller
Dave Galanter
Tim Gaskill
David Gerrold
Robert Greenberger
Bruce Greenwood
Max Grodénchik
Martha Hackett
Glenn Hauman
Manu Intiraymi
Michael Jan Friedman
Dominic Keating
John Knoll
Walter Koenig
Alex Kurtzman
Judith Levitt
Jeff Lewis
Justin Lin
David Mack
Dennis Madalone
Chase Masterson
Dakin Matthews
Gates McFadden
Robert Duncan McNeill
Nicholas Meyer
Anthony Montgomery
Ronald B. Moore
Tom Morga
Kate Mulgrew
Larry Nemecek
Adam Nimoy
Susan Nimoy
Robert O'Reilly
Linda Park
Leslie Parrish
Robb Pearlman
Simon Pegg
Randy Pflug
Ethan Phillips
Robert Picardo
Sandra Piller
Chris Pine
Emmett Plant
Zachary Quinto
Michael Reisz
Andrew Robinson
Eugene & Heidi Roddenberry
Marvin Rush
Tim Russ
Zoe Saldana
Ralph Senensky
Naren Shankar
Armin Shimerman
Gregory Smith
Brent Spiner
Rick Sternbach
Peter Sternlicht
Eric Stillwell
Jay Stobie
Sandy Stone
Carel Struycken
Marina Sirtis
Michael Sussman
Kitty Swink
George Takei
Michael Taylor
Hallie Todd Withrow
Connor Trinneer
Karl Urban
Wil Wheaton
Herman Zimmerman

Updated list:

Spoiler:

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:48 pm

Defiant wrote:
Tone deaf much?

Apparently Rudy generated a truly awesome sound-bite in that interview.

Did Rudy Giuliani really mean to say Donald Trump would make a better president than Hillary Clinton because he's a man?

The former New York mayor told ABC's "This Week" that Trump was a "genius" for maneuvering around tax laws, unlike Clinton who was investigated by the FBI for using a private email server.

He said: "Don't you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman, and the only thing she's ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails?"

A phone call and email to Giuliani's staff asking if he would like to elaborate were not immediately returned.

I'm sure that won't get any play at all. Also, I'm not really following why Trump's so-called fiduciary duty to his investors/business has any bearing on his personal taxes.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:02 pm

Grifman wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:So being a shitty businessman and losing almost a billion dollars in one year allows him to avoid paying any taxes for almost two whole decades?

What a totally fucked up system we have.
I'm no defender of Donald Trump but this is being really unfair to him. This is a tax provision that has been in existence for decades and it totally reasonable and has been used by many different entities. If you look at a business as a going concern, sometimes it will lose money. In those years, there is no tax credit that you receive for having negative income. It's only reasonable to look a company's income over several years and in effect tax them for that.

Example, sometimes companies will generate losses in order to build a business. You may hire a bunch of people up front, buy a lot of equipment, lease a lot of locations, know that you are losing money now but that this investment will pay off later - which is exactly what Amazon did for years as they build their business. It's entirely reasonable that we should look at a corp history over a number of years when this happens.

Agreed. And it's going to be annoying to watch the Dems spend the next 4 weeks harping on how he pays no taxes and being wholly political about it. That said, Trump will undoubtedly do himself no favors with his reactions.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:26 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
milo wrote:
Chaz wrote:I suppose Giuliani is correct that as a CEO, your main obligation is to make as much money as possible.
That's just not remotely true. The CEO's obligation is to execute the company's mission in accordance with its core values. There are plenty of valid reasons not to "make as much money as possible," above and beyond limiting yourself to purely legal and ethical means.
A publicly traded company has a legal obligation to generate as much value as possible for its shareholders.

This has nothing to do with Trump's personal income taxes. There is no possible argument that Trump owed anyone an obligation to pay as little in personal income tax as possible.

milo · Post by **milo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:49 pm

GreenGoo wrote: A publicly traded company has a legal obligation to generate as much value as possible for its shareholders.

Even that isn't true!

The CEO has fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to shareholders, which basically say the CEO and other officers work for the shareholders and must act in the shareholders' interests above their own. This does not imply that the CEO has a legal obligation to pursue actions that generate measurable monetary value on any particular timeframe. The CEO works at the pleasure of the board, and they may replace the CEO for poor performance. But the CEO is generally protected from liability due to poor business judgement.

Fitzy · Post by **Fitzy** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:50 pm

I know absolutely nothing about taxation except what my software tells me every year. So I am curious, every year we hear about Congress having to "fix" the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is supposed to ensure that the wealthy pay some tax, but hits the middle class harder because it was poorly written, or something.

How did he bypass the AMT? I'm not suggesting anything illegal, obviously the IRS would have found something that big, I'm just curious how he bypassed what was supposed to close all loopholes and prevent the super wealthy from paying no federal tax.

On the actual political fallout, Democrats need to explain how they will fix this. I don't want to hear a month of groaning how terrible this is, I want to hear why it's bad and how it should be fixed.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:14 pm

Grifman wrote: I'm no defender of Donald Trump but this is being really unfair to him. This is a tax provision that has been in existence for decades and it totally reasonable and has been used by many different entities.

Anyone who's ever invested any money ever knows that losses can be applied against gains. I've never heard of a system that allows a billion in losses to be used for nearly 2 decades to offset all income (typically the investment type must be the same, and is not for an indefinite time period).

I assume Lawbeef or some of the other guys who invest regularly would know how it works in the states.

So while I agree with you Grif, I do find the idea that he can avoid 20 years of taxes because of one massive loss strange.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:16 pm

Defiant wrote:
Kraken wrote: Democrats can't win without independents (nor can Republicans, of course)
Indeed, "President" Romney won the independent vote in 2012, 50%-45%

Party affiliations

Gallup's most recent numbers say:

27% Republicans
32% Democrats
40% Independents

44% R including leaners
49% D including leaners

So each party needs independents, but Republicans need more of them. Independent "leaners" apparently split 50/50 since the 5-point D lead is intact when they're counted. If just 7% are actually up for grabs, then the Rs would need to win almost all of them to overcome the D's 5-point advantage (that is, if the national popular vote meant anything; you'd need to look at affiliations in the tossup states to translate this into predictions).

In April, 538 asked why Sanders does better with independents. In May, they said Sanders voters could be key to Clinton's success -- as we are in fact seeing. "If Clinton wins over those voters, she’ll gain a few percentage points on Trump in national and swing state polls, and the race will potentially look more like it did in March and April, with Clinton having a fairly comfortable lead over Trump. If not, the general election could come down to the wire."

Well, it's apparently coming down to the wire. Most of the Bernie Bros did get on the Clinton train, but a significant number have not (yet). Those are the people who are either fed up with the establishment or who detest Clinton on a personal level, and they're the ones who are going to make or break her.

If Bernie were the nominee, would we be having the same conversation about converting Clinton supporters to him? I suspect not, because Clinton's base is loyally partisan. But that's purely hypothetical.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:19 pm

El Guapo wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
milo wrote:
Chaz wrote:I suppose Giuliani is correct that as a CEO, your main obligation is to make as much money as possible.
That's just not remotely true. The CEO's obligation is to execute the company's mission in accordance with its core values. There are plenty of valid reasons not to "make as much money as possible," above and beyond limiting yourself to purely legal and ethical means.
A publicly traded company has a legal obligation to generate as much value as possible for its shareholders.
This has nothing to do with Trump's personal income taxes. There is no possible argument that Trump owed anyone an obligation to pay as little in personal income tax as possible.

First, let's get it straight. Are we talking about personal losses or the company's? Because it matters.

If it's personal losses, then him being a CEO has nothing to do with anything. If it's company, it still doesn't matter, because unless it's publicly traded, there is no legal obligation to maximize profit. If it's a publicly traded company then he has to have his accounting reviewed on a regular basis.

Since it sounds like its his personal losses we're talking about, then Grif is right in that gains can be offset by losses. Those losses can be used against gains made in years other than the years the losses occurred, although how much can be shifted around is limited.

In Canada your capital gains losses this year can be applied against your gains next year, for example, but I don't believe it can be used for gains 20 years from now. I've never been in that situation and it has been a long time since I've looked into it.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:23 pm

milo wrote:
GreenGoo wrote: A publicly traded company has a legal obligation to generate as much value as possible for its shareholders.
Even that isn't true!

Shrug.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:10 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:
milo wrote:
Chaz wrote:I suppose Giuliani is correct that as a CEO, your main obligation is to make as much money as possible.
That's just not remotely true. The CEO's obligation is to execute the company's mission in accordance with its core values. There are plenty of valid reasons not to "make as much money as possible," above and beyond limiting yourself to purely legal and ethical means.
A publicly traded company has a legal obligation to generate as much value as possible for its shareholders.
This has nothing to do with Trump's personal income taxes. There is no possible argument that Trump owed anyone an obligation to pay as little in personal income tax as possible.
First, let's get it straight. Are we talking about personal losses or the company's? Because it matters.

If it's personal losses, then him being a CEO has nothing to do with anything. If it's company, it still doesn't matter, because unless it's publicly traded, there is no legal obligation to maximize profit. If it's a publicly traded company then he has to have his accounting reviewed on a regular basis.

Since it sounds like its his personal losses we're talking about, then Grif is right in that gains can be offset by losses. Those losses can be used against gains made in years other than the years the losses occurred, although how much can be shifted around is limited.

In Canada your capital gains losses this year can be applied against your gains next year, for example, but I don't believe it can be used for gains 20 years from now. I've never been in that situation and it has been a long time since I've looked into it.

It may be that some of his entities are flow-through, in which case business losses (and gains) are reflected on his personal returns.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:48 pm

Whether you believe Trump's tax dealings are perfectly above board or not, he had every opportunity to clear this stuff up months ago. "Here's my tax returns, you'll find that I paid no federal income taxes for these years due to this loss, etc. etc."

Trump has only himself to blame for trying to cover this up. All we hear from the Republicans is how "shady" and "secretive" Clinton is about things like her medical records, even as she releases them publicly. Trump steadfastly refuses to release his returns, and everyone gives him a pass. Sounds to me they're finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and don't much care for it.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:50 pm

If that's true then any losses or gains are as you said, reflected on his personal income taxes. I just look at that as personal gains/losses, the company is not even a proxy for him.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:58 pm

YellowKing wrote:Whether you believe Trump's tax dealings are perfectly above board or not, he had every opportunity to clear this stuff up months ago. "Here's my tax returns, you'll find that I paid no federal income taxes for these years due to this loss, etc. etc."

Trump has only himself to blame for trying to cover this up. All we hear from the Republicans is how "shady" and "secretive" Clinton is about things like her medical records, even as she releases them publicly. Trump steadfastly refuses to release his returns, and everyone gives him a pass. Sounds to me they're finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and don't much care for it.

And don't forget that the NYT windfall almost certainly isn't the whole story of Trump's taxes. All we've seen is a portion of his 1995 returns. It damages his image as a great businessman, and it paints a classic portrait of the .1% exploiting the rest of us, but it's not all there is.

1995 was a long time ago, and there are tons of unanswered questions around Trump's finances in the current century. Circumstantial evidence gives the strong impression of ties to Russia and other foreign powers, misuse of his his foundation funds, and other shenanigans. "Trump hasn't paid taxes in decades" looks terrible, but it's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:07 pm

YellowKing wrote:Sounds to me they're finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and don't much care for it.

Someone fetch me my fainting couch.

I'm always amused that for people who extol the virtues of "telling it like it is" and being "anti-PC", Trump (and his supporters) sure are whiny when it comes back at them in kind.

Default · Post by **Default** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:13 pm

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:26 pm

Fitzy wrote:I know absolutely nothing about taxation except what my software tells me every year. So I am curious, every year we hear about Congress having to "fix" the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is supposed to ensure that the wealthy pay some tax, but hits the middle class harder because it was poorly written, or something.

How did he bypass the AMT? I'm not suggesting anything illegal, obviously the IRS would have found something that big, I'm just curious how he bypassed what was supposed to close all loopholes and prevent the super wealthy from paying no federal tax.

This would apply to his corporate taxes, not his individual taxes.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:30 pm

YellowKing wrote:Whether you believe Trump's tax dealings are perfectly above board or not, he had every opportunity to clear this stuff up months ago. "Here's my tax returns, you'll find that I paid no federal income taxes for these years due to this loss, etc. etc."

Trump has only himself to blame for trying to cover this up. All we hear from the Republicans is how "shady" and "secretive" Clinton is about things like her medical records, even as she releases them publicly. Trump steadfastly refuses to release his returns, and everyone gives him a pass. Sounds to me they're finally getting a taste of their own medicine, and don't much care for it.

This is the real issue here. If he had released his taxes months ago, he would have had plenty of time to explain them and get this behind him. But because he didn't, now it's been dumped on the public with 2 months to go in the race, not a good position to be in. Whether he did any wrong not, it's totally is fault and serves him right be stiffing the public on this information.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:34 pm

Trump Withheld Alimony From Marla Maples When She Threatened His Presidential Ambitions

When Donald Trump publicly floated the idea of running for president in 1999, his ex-wife Marla Maples made it clear she would spill the beans on her ex-husband if he were to make it to the general election.
“If he is really serious about being president and runs in the general election next year, I will not be silent,” Maples told London Telegraph. “I will feel it is my duty as an American citizen to tell the people what he is really like.”
The reaction from Trump and his attorney was swift and brutal. They launched a full-court effort in the press to discredit Maples and withheld an alimony payment to “send a message.” The episode illustrates how Trump uses character assassination and threats to quash any opposition. Maples has largely remained silent on Trump’s 2016 candidacy.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:36 am

Liberal media.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:07 am

Guess who else used tax loss carryover.......

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-document ... e_Page.pdf

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:25 am

Rip wrote:Guess who else used tax loss carryover.......

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-document ... e_Page.pdf

HOW DID YOU GET YOUR HANDS ON CLINTON'S TAXES???

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:35 am

You're running on fumes, Rip.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:45 am

In other news DJT is in Denver today. Hear he is going to win Colorado..........

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:23 am

hepcat wrote:You're running on fumes, Rip.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:34 am

Rip wrote:In other news DJT is in Denver today. Hear he is going to win Colorado..........

That's cute. I like that the country is letting him have a little something before the ship rights itself and remembers that the man is a piece of trash.

Default · Post by **Default** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:48 am

Gotta fill up on his "meds".