Octopus Overlords

YellowKing wrote:But when faced with two equally distasteful choices, you've got to start basing your decision on the one that will do least harm. I won't be particularly happy with many of Clinton's policies, but I can be fairly assured they're not going to be any worse than the last eight years - which I've managed to survive unscathed.

RunningMn9 wrote: As for the last 8 years, I can't argue much about them. My family and I have prospered. And while that's on me to some degree, there are things that have helped along the way from the federal government (things like my salary and benefitting from the HARP 2 program). So I could handle 4/8 more years of the same without much trouble.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:I find Trump grossly unqualified to be President because [snip] he's a classless douchnozzle.

Wait, you said this makes him unqualified?

Yes.

RunningMn9 wrote:So I see that Trump is continuing to refuse to release his tax returns. I personally don't care at all. I've never felt the need to study and scrutinize a candidate's tax returns. When did this become a thing, and why?

Rip wrote:Well then it is a good thing we are talking about politics then.

RunningMn9 wrote:So I see that Trump is continuing to refuse to release his tax returns. I personally don't care at all. I've never felt the need to study and scrutinize a candidate's tax returns. When did this become a thing, and why?

raydude wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:So I see that Trump is continuing to refuse to release his tax returns. I personally don't care at all. I've never felt the need to study and scrutinize a candidate's tax returns. When did this become a thing, and why?

You can actually learn a lot from a tax return

From the article, one can learn:

1. A person's annual income
2. Sources of a person's income
3. How much a person gives to charity
4. Whether and how one is taking advantage of tax shelters

Not to mention that a tax return is carefully checked and rechecked by accountants and must be accurate under penalty of law.

Contrast this with Trump's financial disclosure form, which is required for Presidential candidates, but is not audited and may not be accurate. So we can either go by Trump's word that "he has given $102 million to charity in the past five years" or look at his tax return and find out how much he really gave.

Seems like it's time to do away with the financial disclosure form and just require a current or recent tax return from Presidential candidates. At least then we'll know that the forms are accurate or at least accurate under penalty of law.

GreenGoo wrote: I suppose I should have said "only in politics could someone claim a lack of qualifications is itself a qualification with a straight face".

raydude wrote:Stuff

RunningMn9 wrote:

raydude wrote:Stuff

Aside from fact-checking some claims, I'm still not seeing the utility. I guess I understand it if you are looking for dirt. I don't care in the least how much money a candidate gives to charity (if any). Again, aside from fact-checking a particular claim about donating money to charity.

I have no need for my politicians to be charitable. I don't care how much they make. I suppose I can muster some care for where the money is coming from, but not really (unless they are being paid by We Buy Politicians, LLC or something like that).

LawBeefaroni wrote:When your whole myth is built on how much money you make and how you make it, a tax return can help validate or refute your braggadocio. So it's important in Trump's case. Maybe not for everyone.

Smoove_B wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:When your whole myth is built on how much money you make and how you make it, a tax return can help validate or refute your braggadocio. So it's important in Trump's case. Maybe not for everyone.

Let's not get too crazy. According to the Internets, the last non-millionaire president elected was Woodrow Wilson. Presidents have been an entirely different class of people for a long time.

GreenGoo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:When your whole myth is built on how much money you make and how you make it, a tax return can help validate or refute your braggadocio. So it's important in Trump's case. Maybe not for everyone.

Let's not get too crazy. According to the Internets, the last non-millionaire president elected was Woodrow Wilson. Presidents have been an entirely different class of people for a long time.

Few have run almost solely on their reputation for being a successful businessman however.

tgb wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:When your whole myth is built on how much money you make and how you make it, a tax return can help validate or refute your braggadocio. So it's important in Trump's case. Maybe not for everyone.

Let's not get too crazy. According to the Internets, the last non-millionaire president elected was Woodrow Wilson. Presidents have been an entirely different class of people for a long time.

Few have run almost solely on their reputation for being a successful businessman however.

These are his personal tax filings to be examined, correct? I don't think there will be much there as to the success or failure of his businesses. That would be in his corporate filings.

1) Income: Trump has made the size of his fortune a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, implying that it’s a measure of his success as a businessman. He has also correctly noted that the income shown on his tax returns isn’t a reflection of his total wealth. Even so, income is a basis for assessing some of the foundations of any individual’s wealth -- and would certainly reflect the financial wherewithal of the businesses in which Trump is involved.

...

2) Business Activities: Trump has long claimed that his company, the Trump Organization, employs thousands of people. He has also criticized Fortune 500 companies for operating businesses overseas at the expense of jobs for U.S. workers. Trump’s returns would show how active he and his businesses are globally -- and would help substantiate the actual size and scope of his operation.

3) Charitable Giving: Trump has said that he’s a generous benefactor to a variety of causes -- especially war veterans -- even though it’s been hard to find concrete evidence to support the assertion. Other examples of major philanthropic largess from Trump have also been elusive. Trump could release his tax returns and put the matter to rest.

4) Tax Planning: There’s been global attention focused on the issue of how politicians and the wealthy use tax havens and shell companies to possibly hide parts of their fortunes from authorities. If released, Trump’s returns would make clear whether or not he used such vehicles.

5) Transparency and Accountability: Trump is seeking the most powerful office in the world. Some of the potential conflicts of interest or financial pressures that may arise if he reaches the White House would get an early airing in a release of his tax returns.

Zaxxon wrote:It's actually apparently been a thing for like 40 years. Every general election candidate since then has released at least some returns. I did not realize it went that far back until I saw it in an article yesterday.

Thorndike traced the roots of presidential candidates releasing tax returns back to President Nixon's famed "Checkers" speech in 1952, where in an attempt to clear his name over controversy surrounding his finances, he spoke about his Cocker Spaniel "Checkers." As the vice presidential candidate for Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon baited the candidates running against him, Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson and runningmate Sen. John Sparkman, to release their financial information by saying Americans wanted a president who had the "confidence" of all people.

Ironically, Stevenson and Sparkman complied, releasing several years of returns while Nixon never followed through with releasing his own. He and Eisenhower went on to win the election, and Nixon released four years of tax returns later while in office after facing additional questions over his finances.

I've seen speculation that Trump's not nearly as rich as he makes himself out to be.

YellowKing wrote:

I've seen speculation that Trump's not nearly as rich as he makes himself out to be.

Which in a normal world would help, not hinder, his cause. That whole "1%" movement sure died quick, didn't it? Such strange times we live in.

YellowKing wrote:

I've seen speculation that Trump's not nearly as rich as he makes himself out to be.

Which in a normal world would help, not hinder, his cause. That whole "1%" movement sure died quick, didn't it? Such strange times we live in.

Holman wrote: 4) Tax Planning: There’s been global attention focused on the issue of how politicians and the wealthy use tax havens and shell companies to possibly hide parts of their fortunes from authorities. If released, Trump’s returns would make clear whether or not he used such vehicles.

tgb wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Smoove_B wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:When your whole myth is built on how much money you make and how you make it, a tax return can help validate or refute your braggadocio. So it's important in Trump's case. Maybe not for everyone.

Let's not get too crazy. According to the Internets, the last non-millionaire president elected was Woodrow Wilson. Presidents have been an entirely different class of people for a long time.

Few have run almost solely on their reputation for being a successful businessman however.

These are his personal tax filings to be examined, correct? I don't think there will be much there as to the success or failure of his businesses. That would be in his corporate filings.

YellowKing wrote:

I've seen speculation that Trump's not nearly as rich as he makes himself out to be.

Which in a normal world would help, not hinder, his cause. That whole "1%" movement sure died quick, didn't it? Such strange times we live in.

GreenGoo wrote:

YellowKing wrote:

I've seen speculation that Trump's not nearly as rich as he makes himself out to be.

Which in a normal world would help, not hinder, his cause. That whole "1%" movement sure died quick, didn't it? Such strange times we live in.

Some would claim that Bernie's success is directly tied to the 99% movement.

Me, for example.

Kraken wrote:Yeah, I don't think there was ever a "1% movement" on the (R) side. On the (D) side it's so vigorous that Elizabeth Warren rapidly became a party leader.

YellowKing wrote:
Also, trotting out slams against Hillary aren't really going to work for me this election cycle because I already hate her. I know she's a terrible person, I don't want her to be President. But when faced with two equally distasteful choices, you've got to start basing your decision on the one that will do least harm. I won't be particularly happy with many of Clinton's policies, but I can be fairly assured they're not going to be any worse than the last eight years - which I've managed to survive unscathed. I have zero guarantee of that with Trump. It's a matter of playing the odds, and right now I'm going with the known quantity.

Rip wrote:JACKPOT!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05 ... tcmp=hpbt2

Rip wrote:CRACKPOT!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05 ... tcmp=hpbt2

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:CRACKPOT!!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05 ... tcmp=hpbt2

p.s. Adelson isn't giving that money away for free. Trump and Hillary are the same person when it comes to their ability to be bought...it's just that Hillary has better hair. And larger hands.

Holman wrote:My wife is helping to manage the graduation ceremony at Penn next weekend. Trump's daughter is getting her degree, and Trump is planning to be there, so security is tight.

Among the items students/faculty/staff are prohibited from bringing to the event: "produce."

Donald J. Trump has attracted enormous attention for his proposal to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the United States. But on Monday he said he was “happy” that London had elected its first Muslim mayor and suggested that the new official would be among the exceptions to his proposal.

“There will always be exceptions,” Mr. Trump said when asked in an interview on Monday how his proposed ban would affect London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan.

Donald Trump said Monday London's new mayor made "very rude statements" about him -- and the presumptive Republican presidential nominee warned he won't have a good relationship with British Prime Minister David Cameron if he's elected.

Trump made the comments in an interview with ITV's "Good Morning Britain" host Piers Morgan, when asked to respond to criticisms made about him by British politicians.
...
Shortly after taking office, Khan criticized Trump's views of Islam as ignorant -- remarks that Trump said had offended him. The new mayor had been responding to a suggestion from Trump that he would make an "exception" to his proposed "temporary Muslim ban" for Khan.

"Let's take an I.Q. test," Trump said Monday, adding that Khan had never met him and "doesn't know what I'm all about."

"I think they're very rude statements and frankly, tell him, I will remember those statements. They're very nasty statements."

Khan responded Monday by repeating his criticism of Trump's politics, calling it "the politics of fear at its worst," and saying Trump's remarks on Islam play "straight into the extremists' hands and makes both our countries less safe."

He rebuffed Trump's suggestion of taking an I.Q. test, saying "ignorance is not the same thing as lack of intelligence."

Khan told CNN last week he hoped that Trump would not win the U.S. election, describing him as "somebody who is trying to divide, not just your communities in America but who is trying to divide America from the rest of the world."

Trump, who in December issued a press release "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," appeared to modify his position last week.
He said such a ban "hasn't been called for yet" and was "only a suggestion."