Octopus Overlords

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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

Defiant wrote:

Tone deaf much?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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%

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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