Trumps Tax Returns.

[F3SS]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Johnson is the second worst option. Heck he's the only one outta the 3 of them that admits he'd happily hand over our government to corporations. At least Hillary has enough sense to lie about that. Never mind his distain for the second amendment. Or the fact that he's an idiot. I don't understand how he can even call himself a libertarian.

I must say that Johnson is an idiot. He sucks at interviews and comes off as a pothead in a suit. Have you seen this? 

 

[Careful_perspective]

25 minutes ago, F3SS said:

I must say that Johnson is an idiot. He sucks at interviews and comes off as a pothead in a suit. Have you seen this? 

 

That was pretty embarrassing..I felt bad for him.

[F3SS]

Just now, Rinna said:

That was pretty embarrassing..I felt bad for him.

I feel worse for his running mate.

[supervike]

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

I must say that Johnson is an idiot. He sucks at interviews and comes off as a pothead in a suit. Have you seen this? 

 

It's too bad, you missed all the good things he has to say, and fall for the 'gotcha' journalism moment.  Listen to what he has to say, and not just what the media wants you to believe about him.

So, he wouldn't be good at the lightning round in a quiz show.  That disqualifies him?

 

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by supervike

[F3SS]

3 minutes ago, supervike said:

It's too bad, you missed all the good things he has to say, and fall for the 'gotcha' journalism moment.  Listen to what he has to say, and not just what the media wants you to believe about him.

So, he wouldn't be good at the lightning round in a quiz show.  That disqualifies him?

 

 

Well first of all I've heard enough of Gary besides this to come to my conclusion. I've wanted to like him but he's a knucklehead. His immigration policy sucks and is basically open boarders, he's as PC as it gets and for someone looking to lead the free world he should not only be able to come up with one name of one world leader he admires he should also have a quicker wit. Anything but basically blurting DUH. Maybe he does great behind the scenes but he sure as heck isn't doing a good job of selling himself.

[Careful_perspective]

I don't dislike Gary Johnson, he seems like a good guy, just not suited to be the President.

[White Unicorn]

On 9/29/2016 at 8:26 PM, Likely Guy said:

I think he said during the debate that because he was being audited his lawyers advised him not to release them.

He said both, the attorneys advised him not to do it was his last explanation.

[White Unicorn]

22 hours ago, Clair said:

Are you kidding? Why would I allow the media to spoil my fun? I would read and analyze Trump's returns myself.

I agree I read Hillary's and Bernie's. I found some  a little suspicious in Clinton foundation but they appear that they were legal. Poor Bernie's was really easy.

Trump's would be horribly complex to analyze and I'd just focus on transfers and business expenses at first which are more likely to reveal any  most likely violations in any business and go for details from there. It gives you a good feel of how the business is done.  It's very telling of the character of people too.

But then I'm one of those weird finance people who analyzed small businesses and larger corporate taxes and financial statements for loans for some years in my career. I found it fun and challenging with the larger businesses and foundations. 

[Frank Merton]

7 hours ago, supervike said:

I understand.  And yes, I was responding to the distortion, but I didn't mean that directed at you, I was only claryfying that I think his lawyers could be advising him so.  

If they are, he needs better lawyers.  I don't believe it --  and no one would who has any knowledge about it.  It is the standard way, though, that criminals escape liability for their crimes -- my lawyers advised me.

[Frank Merton]

1 hour ago, Rinna said:

I don't dislike Gary Johnson, he seems like a good guy, just not suited to be the President.

I have to agree with that.  The believers in fringe political movements tend to be like that -- rather unaware of reality.

[White Unicorn]

4 hours ago, F3SS said:

I feel worse for his running mate.

Weld should have been on the top of the ticket but that's what the Libertarians chose.  The other guys that ran against Johnson were worse. Johnson chose Weld and that was smart. At least Gary is honest even if not prepared.

[White Unicorn]

3 hours ago, supervike said:

It's too bad, you missed all the good things he has to say, and fall for the 'gotcha' journalism moment.  Listen to what he has to say, and not just what the media wants you to believe about him.

So, he wouldn't be good at the lightning round in a quiz show.  That disqualifies him?

 

 

I noticed that too. Media is only replaying his embarrassing moments instead of including the best moments too.

[F3SS]

5 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

I noticed that too. Media is only replaying his embarrassing moments instead of including the best moments too.

That's true but I wouldn't call the questions he's goofed on gotcha questions. Honestly I didn't know what Aleppo was but after finding out it is certainly something a candidate should know of and the Matthews question was so simple and typical of that type of interview for a candidate that it kind of defies logic that he couldn't come through. That's something that could very likely be asked during a debate. But you're right. At least he's honest but any politician worth his salt has the gift of gab. BS your way out of it man.

[Arbenol]

Judging by a past president's knowledge of foreign things, Gary Johnson seems more than qualified.

I know it's a golden oldie, but any excuse to trot out this little classic!

[Frank Merton]

It's kinda naive to think the media should report the good things balanced with the bad, when the bad things are so outrageous.  Of course that is what gets the attention, and whining about reality because of one's peculiar political biases are not being followed is a good sign of political prejudice.

[supervike]

3 hours ago, Rinna said:

I don't dislike Gary Johnson, he seems like a good guy, just not suited to be the President.

Really?  Was the governor of a state for 8 years, successfully.  Couldn't run for a third term, due to term limits.  Left the state with a large surplus in the budget.  Cut taxes 14 times.  Never raised them once.  Limited the size and scope of the Government.  Oversaw Major changes to the health care of the state, as well as major road upgrades.

Was a successful business man, growing his own one man construction company to a 1000 person corporation.

He runs marathons, triathalons,  he's climbed all of the seven summits.

He's succeeded in his personal, business, and political life.  How is any of that not suitable?  

Meanwhile, the people 'suited' to be President is a guy who used his Daddy's money to own (and bankrupt) countless companies.  The man uses a gaggle of lawyers to bully and shut up critics.  He wakes up at 3 in the morning, to tweet insults to a former Mrs Universe.  Has zero respect for women.

The other one, who has been drummed as the 'candidate' for decades, despite the public not wanting her.  Has been accused of everything from fraud to treason, never really accomplished anything in her time in the senate, had an arguably disastrous run as Sec. of State.  

 

Johnson is NOT a perfect candidate.  He's got flaws, maybe some inexperience on the international level, but he represents absolute real change to our country.  He also doesn't come with the cringe factor that Trump has or the baggage that Clinton carries.   And, unfortunately, he doesn't stand a chance because of the machine that runs our two party system, and American's ability to see anything beyond that.

It's too bad that we can't take a chance on a more positive future.   So ultimately, I know I'm throwing my vote away.  But my real hope is that my vote, and those that vote with me, will help a third option solidify.  Maybe someday we can break this two party stranglehold and have real change.

 

 

[GlitterRose]

4 hours ago, Rinna said:

I don't dislike Gary Johnson, he seems like a good guy, just not suited to be the President.

I feel the same way. I felt a bit sorry for him over the Aleppo gaffe. I mean...the guy could have just been nervous being interviewed. He doesn't get much coverage. When it dawned on him, he did know about Aleppo. But the other stuff now has just showed him not to be president material. I never agreed with the Libertarian platform, but I thought he was a likable guy who actually does believe in what he's proposing. But the market doesn't have a soul, folks. We know what it was like without any regulations. It's easy to look back and see. It's just that as a nation, we have collective amnesia. 

[GlitterRose]

26 minutes ago, supervike said:

Really?  Was the governor of a state for 8 years, successfully.  Couldn't run for a third term, due to term limits.  Left the state with a large surplus in the budget.  Cut taxes 14 times.  Never raised them once.  Limited the size and scope of the Government.  Oversaw Major changes to the health care of the state, as well as major road upgrades.

Was a successful business man, growing his own one man construction company to a 1000 person corporation.

He runs marathons, triathalons,  he's climbed all of the seven summits.

He's succeeded in his personal, business, and political life.  How is any of that not suitable?  

Meanwhile, the people 'suited' to be President is a guy who used his Daddy's money to own (and bankrupt) countless companies.  The man uses a gaggle of lawyers to bully and shut up critics.  He wakes up at 3 in the morning, to tweet insults to a former Mrs Universe.  Has zero respect for women.

The other one, who has been drummed as the 'candidate' for decades, despite the public not wanting her.  Has been accused of everything from fraud to treason, never really accomplished anything in her time in the senate, had an arguably disastrous run as Sec. of State.  

 

Johnson is NOT a perfect candidate.  He's got flaws, maybe some inexperience on the international level, but he represents absolute real change to our country.  He also doesn't come with the cringe factor that Trump has or the baggage that Clinton carries.   And, unfortunately, he doesn't stand a chance because of the machine that runs our two party system, and American's ability to see anything beyond that.

It's too bad that we can't take a chance on a more positive future.   So ultimately, I know I'm throwing my vote away.  But my real hope is that my vote, and those that vote with me, will help a third option solidify.  Maybe someday we can break this two party stranglehold and have real change.

 

 

And why don't they want her? Residual sexism is a part of it. Then there's the fact that Ken Starr and the alt-right have been attacking her relentlessly for like 25 years. And in all of that, there's still nothing they can actually pin on her. That tells me she's pretty clean...or at least isn't doing anything they don't wanna nail her to the wall for...because they know they do it, themselves, and that would make them vulnerable. As for this disastrous yet do nothing run as Sec. of State...that's a Trump-ism. She had a really decent approval rating as Sec. of State. 

I still see her as the only way to avoid a Trump presidency, which to me would mean quite possibly the end of the free world. He's just got so many nefarious connections and owes money all over town...in the parlance of our times (sorry, broke into Lebowski there), but seriously...he'd be running the biggest protection racket ever in the history of the world. Our allies would need to pay up if they wanted us to honor treaties...omfg. It's shaking down the local grocer for protection money on a global scale. And I just can't understand how the religious right can stand there next to the guy who was gonna let Gaddafi hold a ritual sacrifice on his property (and might even have, for all we know). The stench of corruption off his business dealings, foundation and "university" is staggering. But he's got that accuse Hillary first if you know you did it thing going for him, so everyone's looking at her foundation when they didn't take a cent. Ugh...I could go on. No use. Those who can't see it just can't see it. I hope you will. 

[Zalmoxis]

Anyone in the election is going to get a hard bout of scrutiny. It isn't like Trump went and did something so terrible that we must ridicule him with the world's most advanced telescopes. Look at it like this: his tax record might not be perfect but he has paid millions upon millions of more taxes than all of us on this board combined several times over. So... really, who can complain about this? If percentages are more important than totals then f.u.c.k! I should've worked only 1 hour, paid my thirty cent tax then I could tell everyone I'm better than them because my tax record is perfect! Get it?

[GlitterRose]

This is just one more example of how Trump thinks the rules and expectations of civilized society just simply don't apply to him. He expects over-the-top transparency from everyone else, when he won't even do the bare minimum of what is expected. Sure, it's not a law, but when everyone else has released their tax returns since the 70s...what are ya hidin', Donald? We know you're hiding something. 

You expect the sitting president to release his long form birth cert and his transcripts. You expect Hillary to tell us about every sniffle she has. Where are your tax returns?

And this is not a negotiation. The voters have a right to know. It's not oh...release the auto-deleted emails that you don't have anymore and I'll do what you've already done. That's bs. There's only one reason why you're not releasing them. There's only one reason why your lawyers are advising  you not to release them. You're hiding something. You don't want America to know that the rest of us are the saps paying all the taxes while you skate free and collect money meant for small businesses after 9/11. What a total scumbag. 

[GlitterRose]

6 minutes ago, Zalmoxis said:

Anyone in the election is going to get a hard bout of scrutiny. It isn't like Trump went and did something so terrible that we must ridicule him with the world's most advanced telescopes. Look at it like this: his tax record might not be perfect but he has paid millions upon millions of more taxes than all of us on this board combined several times over. So... really, who can complain about this? If percentages are more important than totals then f.u.c.k! I should've worked only 1 hour, paid my thirty cent tax then I could tell everyone I'm better than them because my tax record is perfect! Get it?

How do you know? The only tax returns we can access show him paying none, and he actually admitted it in the debate. He said that makes me smart. Lol. So that makes the rest of us dumb ***** for actually supporting our infrastructure and our military. 

Remember Leona Helmsley and that "only the little people pay taxes" statement? 

Why anyone thinks that Trump is for the average working class Joe is beyond me. He sits there in his gilded chair and proclaims that wages are too high, while he doesn't pay his workers, and he uses other people's donations to pay off judges so lawsuits against him don't see the light of day. What a piece of human excrement he is. 

Edited October 1, 2016 by ChaosRose

[Careful_perspective]

8 hours ago, supervike said:

Really?  Was the governor of a state for 8 years, successfully.  Couldn't run for a third term, due to term limits.  Left the state with a large surplus in the budget.  Cut taxes 14 times.  Never raised them once.  Limited the size and scope of the Government.  Oversaw Major changes to the health care of the state, as well as major road upgrades.

Was a successful business man, growing his own one man construction company to a 1000 person corporation.

He runs marathons, triathalons,  he's climbed all of the seven summits.

He's succeeded in his personal, business, and political life.  How is any of that not suitable?  

Meanwhile, the people 'suited' to be President is a guy who used his Daddy's money to own (and bankrupt) countless companies.  The man uses a gaggle of lawyers to bully and shut up critics.  He wakes up at 3 in the morning, to tweet insults to a former Mrs Universe.  Has zero respect for women.

The other one, who has been drummed as the 'candidate' for decades, despite the public not wanting her.  Has been accused of everything from fraud to treason, never really accomplished anything in her time in the senate, had an arguably disastrous run as Sec. of State.  

 

Johnson is NOT a perfect candidate.  He's got flaws, maybe some inexperience on the international level, but he represents absolute real change to our country.  He also doesn't come with the cringe factor that Trump has or the baggage that Clinton carries.   And, unfortunately, he doesn't stand a chance because of the machine that runs our two party system, and American's ability to see anything beyond that.

It's too bad that we can't take a chance on a more positive future.   So ultimately, I know I'm throwing my vote away.  But my real hope is that my vote, and those that vote with me, will help a third option solidify.  Maybe someday we can break this two party stranglehold and have real change.

 

 

As I said, I think he's a good guy, and as you have so eagerly demonstrated, a good Governor. Governing a state and being a good athlete isn't the same as being President. And I really do honestly like him, if it was him versus Hillary I would be throwing all my weight behind him. But I like Trump as well, I also think he's a good guy, for the sake of being pragmatic, I am going to support the good guy who has the best chance of taking out the bad woman.

[Lilly]

Honestly, I don't care all that much how *good* a politician is at this point. What I care about is mess the economy is in and the 20 trillion of debt the country is in. If it takes a sneaky * so and so* to get us out of debt and bring business back to our shores, I can tolerate them for a few years.

[Big Jim]

8 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

This is just one more example of how Trump thinks the rules and expectations of civilized society just simply don't apply to him. He expects over-the-top transparency from everyone else, when he won't even do the bare minimum of what is expected. Sure, it's not a law, but when everyone else has released their tax returns since the 70s...what are ya hidin', Donald? We know you're hiding something. 

You expect the sitting president to release his long form birth cert and his transcripts. You expect Hillary to tell us about every sniffle she has. Where are your tax returns?

And this is not a negotiation. The voters have a right to know. It's not oh...release the auto-deleted emails that you don't have anymore and I'll do what you've already done. That's bs. There's only one reason why you're not releasing them. There's only one reason why your lawyers are advising  you not to release them. You're hiding something. You don't want America to know that the rest of us are the saps paying all the taxes while you skate free and collect money meant for small businesses after 9/11. What a total scumbag. 

You're letting imagination pass for knowledge.  In your very next post you ask Zalmoxis "How do you know?"  Every person's tax situation is unique.  Anybody's return doesn't have to meet with the approval of the masses, only the IRS.  As in most cases of dealing with the law, we get all the justice we can afford.  The outcome of similar cases between someone with a public defender and someone with a top flight lawyer is expected to be different.  So it is with taxes.  If I do my own and you go to H&R Block and Trump has 3 floors of accountants and lawyers I may end up paying the most but that doesn't make it unfair. We're not in a race with each other.  Taxes are not voluntary.  There is no honor in paying more than one's share, as determined by the IRS.  If, in the complexities and overlaps of running many multinational companies, Trump manages to pare his taxes down to nothing, I don't hold that against him.  In fact he's right, he is smart.  Not humble, but smart.  As much as he is audited if there were any discrepancies or illegalities we would have known it by now.

We have had income taxes for a little over a century.  We've changed Presidents 5 times since 1980.  So while sharing one's taxes with the public as a prerequisite for getting elected may be a recent custom it has hardly risen to the status of a long standing tradition.

[supervike]

2 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

  As much as he is audited if there were any discrepancies or illegalities we would have known it by now.

 

But again, the rate he pays, discrepancies, or illegalities aren't the big issues.