Zombie [NY Times] Trump tax returns

[Denny Crane]

FTFY.

barfo

Those are your words, not mine. but I can fix your posts for you, too:

I'm not smarter than a 5th grader.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Qualified. Utter bullshit. UK retrospective on the Libya thing. You know, Hiliar's claim to competence.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...amning-verdict-on-camerons-libya-intervention

MPs deliver damning verdict on David Cameron's Libya intervention


David Cameron’s intervention in Libya was carried out with no proper intelligence analysis, drifted into an unannounced goal of regime change and shirked its moral responsibility to help reconstruct the country following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, according to a scathing report by the foreign affairs select committee.

The failures led to the country becoming a failed a state on the verge of all-out civil war, the report adds.

The report, the product of a parliamentary equivalent of the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, closely echoes the criticisms widely made of Tony Blair’s intervention in Iraq, and may yet come to be as damaging to Cameron’s foreign policy legacy.
It concurs with Barack Obama’s assessment that the intervention was “a shitshow”, and repeats the US president’s claim that France and Britain lost interest in Libya after Gaddafi was overthrown. The findings are also likely to be seized on by Donald Trump, who has tried to undermine Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy credentials by repeatedly condemning her handling of the Libyan intervention in 2011, when she was US secretary of state.

(Obama calls her major policy initiative a shit show)

...

“There is a debate about whether that intervention was necessary and on what basis it was taken, but having been achieved, the whole business then elided into regime change and then we had no proper appreciation of what was going to happen in the event of regime change, no proper understanding of Libya, and no proper plan for the consequences,” he said.

...

The report says: “We have seen no evidence that the UK government carried out a proper analysis of the nature of the rebellion in Libya. It may be that the UK government was unable to analyse the nature of the rebellion in Libya due to incomplete intelligence and insufficient institutional insight, and that it was caught up in events as they developed.

“It could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime; it selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi’s rhetoric at face value; and it failed to identify the militant Islamist extremist element in the rebellion. UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.”

It finds the UK’s plans for reconstruction were founded on the same incomplete and inaccurate intelligence that informed the initial military intervention. It says political engagement might instead “have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at lesser cost to the UK and to Libya. If political engagement had been unsuccessful, the UK and its coalition allies would not have lost anything”.

 

[jlprk]

I've seen you change the subject many times when you're losing, but that diversion was too blatant for words.

 

[barfo]

Neither the RNC nor the DNC wants a Libertarian on stage in the debates.

True. And that would be a bad thing, if the L party had even a remote possibility of fielding a serious candidate.

I don't expect them to win this time, but from ~0% to ~1% to ~10% in three straight elections is real progress.

It would be, but you won't be getting 10% this time.

In very small part because you spend 40% of your time bashing Hillary, 60% defending Trump, and 0% promoting your supposed party.

Your lack of enthusiasm is telling.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

True. And that would be a bad thing, if the L party had even a remote possibility of fielding a serious candidate.



It would be, but you won't be getting 10% this time.

In very small part because you spend 40% of your time bashing Hillary, 60% defending Trump, and 0% promoting your supposed party.

Your lack of enthusiasm is telling.

barfo

Your math is completely off. It's not even a fifth grade thing.

I spend 0% of my time defending trump.

I spend a lot of posts critical of the media doing a hit job. Excuse me if I want more from the media than 24/7 Clinton ads. Or 47% or binders of women instead of Benghazi.

I already posted a photo of my Libertarian primary ballot. You have to register Libertarian Party to get one. Or at least I got one because I have been registered LP for decades.

When you've told the truth about Trump, I've agreed.

If I wanted to support Trump, I would say so. Imagine that!

 

[Denny Crane]

I've seen you change the subject many times when you're losing, but that diversion was too blatant for words.

the clown brought up qualifications. I've seen enough.

You claim to be anti war. Why keep the ol' trap shut when it's Libya, Iraq post surrender, Syria, Pakistan, and several other places? I have a pretty good idea.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Your math is completely off. It's not even a fifth grade thing.

I spend 100% of my time spinning "facts" in favor of trump.

FTFY

 

[Denny Crane]

I lie and make shit up.​

​

FIFY

What a great game this is.

 

[Denny Crane]

Let's see.

• NYTimes: "Trump used a legal tax loss provision to write down his future earnings, maybe paying $0 in taxes some years. He lost $916M one year"
  (What they don't say is he's worth $3.7B by the lowest estimate)
• Forbes: "NYTimes paid $0 in taxes despite ~$30M in profit."
  (NYTimes: "do as we say, not as we do!" - hypocrites)
• NYTImes: "Teresa Heinz Kerry releases a few pages of her 2003 tax return in the 2004 election; she is worth ~$1B"
  (NYTimes nor Trump detractors didn't cry foul about that - hypocrites)
• Clinton used the same LEGAL tax loss provision as Trump did.
  (Where's the NYTimes on this one? Hypocrites)
• Obama lost $1B on just two green energy companies (he lost way more than that all told).

So where's the beef?

Crane 4, NYTimes 1, Obama -1, barfo 0.

Ezra Klein of the left wing Vox says:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/2/13137604/trump-tax-return

Here’s the thing I can’t get over about the New York Times’s bombshell story on Donald Trump’s tax returns: they don’t actually know what’s in his tax returns.

Look at their headline again. “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.” The word “could” is doing a lot of work there.

Reread the first sentence. “Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.” “Could” is doing all the work there, too. It’s also possible that Trump paid taxes in all of those years!

All the Times has is three pages of Trump’s records from 1995. Everything else is informed speculation, extrapolation, and the word “could,” which appears again and again through the article.

 

[Denny Crane]

Snopes' take on Trump's bankruptcies.

They talk about how Trump actually lost $900M+ in 1994 or 1995. That's $900M of his personal money that he put up.

Sorry barfo, but a guy who takes a few $million from anyone, his father or anyone else, and turns it into $billions, or $900M to invest in a property like a casino, did pretty well.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/

So how are we to rate Donald Trump's business acumen in relative terms? Is the cautious businessman who minimizes risk, rarely fails, and shows a moderate return better than the brash businessman who often takes on highly risky pursuits, strikes out a lot, but also hits his share of grand slams? That's too subjective a question for us to answer, and the few numbers offered in this trope aren't very informative.

It's an oft-cited statistic that Donald Trump "has" 515 companies, but a number of those businesses are only connected to him in tangential ways (e.g., through licensing agreements) and aren't owned or directly controlled by him.

It's also an oft-cited statistic that about 80-90% of businesses fail within the first year to eighteen months, but such numbers typically refer to startups and small businesses, while much of Donald Trump's business empire involves expanding and building on existing large business lines and ventures.

...

The most important takeaway from this trope might be that you can't sum up the world of big business. much less any presidential candidate's qualifications, with a couple of numbers devoid of explanation or context.

 

[Sedatedfork]

Giuliani: Trump is an economic genius, which is better than a woman. Weird comments.

 

[Denny Crane]

Giuliani: Trump is an economic genius, which is better than a woman. Weird comments.

I'm embarrassed for Giuliani. He's looked like an idiot this campaign, but he's a much better person than shows.

 

[Sedatedfork]

I didn't know where else to stick this so I put this here. Maybe it's worthy of its own thread.

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had some news pieces about local and state efforts to obtain Trump's tax returns. For example New York is considering the TRUMP Act (Tax Return Uniformly Made Public) by literally passing an act that appears to only affect Trump. I will give New York points for being clever, but this just seems a little too shady to me. Basically this is all pretextual. Here's an article about what I heard on NPR.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ce-trump-reveal-tax-returns-article-1.3045289

 

[MarAzul]

Trump's Tax Return?

I thought sweet cheeks Rachel took care of that one?
Oh well.

 

[Denny Crane]

I didn't know where else to stick this so I put this here. Maybe it's worthy of its own thread.

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had some news pieces about local and state efforts to obtain Trump's tax returns. For example New York is considering the TRUMP Act (Tax Return Uniformly Made Public) by literally passing an act that appears to only affect Trump. I will give New York points for being clever, but this just seems a little too shady to me. Basically this is all pretextual. Here's an article about what I heard on NPR.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ce-trump-reveal-tax-returns-article-1.3045289

That's unconstitutional in so many ways.

For one you can't target a single person with a law. For two, you can't pass an ex post facto law.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

 

[Lanny]

Again not sure what the big deal is. He took big enough losses to counter paying tax. It happens all of the time with business owners. Our family takes advantage of this too, albeit its a smaller scale so we still end up paying some tax.

It's not that, it's his lies about that.

 

[Lanny]

If he used the tax law to avoid paying taxes I could care less. Why? Because it was legal to do so. He contributed to the economy in other ways big time. I am not sure I see a huge problem with him not paying taxes on his losses.

Again:
"Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions."



You're right. We don't know, yet here it is front page insinuating a bunch of bullshit.


I'm not going to spell out his tax plan; if you don't know go read it.


I am against taxes regardless of who you are so you'll never see me advocating people paying tax. Hell I don't even want Hillary paying and I can't stand that wench.

His charitable contributions are a proven fraud.