'Murica! (264 Viewers)

Post Ironic

Senior Member
Feb 9, 2013
42,253
And more Donald Trump news. First major party candidate since 1976 to refuse to disclose his income tax returns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/donald-trump-ducks-tax-disclosure.html

As Donald Trump’s tweets pile one atop another, generating sensational headlines, issues of true substance are tending to get lost in the shuffle. None is more important for voters to keep in mind than the failure of Mr. Trump to disclose his full income tax returns, something he is not likely to do by Election Day.

He is the first major party candidate since 1976 — since Watergate, essentially — to deny voters that vital measure of credibility. It is not required by law that candidates furnish their returns. But Americans have come to expect it.

The interest in Mr. Trump’s case is particularly high. He is running for the White House partly as a business wizard, but is he really as rich and talented as he boasts? Is he as philanthropic as he claims with his reputed billions? Has he truly no conflicts of interest in Russia, whose computer hackers he has bizarrely invited to spy on Hillary Clinton, his campaign rival?

These questions are of Mr. Trump’s own making, and a timely release of his tax returns would provide some answers. “There’s nothing to learn from them,” he tried to insist in May, arguing that he would not make the returns public until after an Internal Revenue Service audit is complete.

But the I.R.S. says Mr. Trump is free to release the returns at any time and to defend their accuracy, just as President Richard Nixon did while he was undergoing an audit.
In the past, Mr. Trump has not hesitated to attack the I.R.S. as “very unfair,” but now he stands before the voters using the agency as a shield against disclosure.

We can only imagine how livid the Trump tweets would be if Mrs. Clinton were failing to meet this standard of campaign transparency. She has posted eight years of tax returns on her campaign website for all to see.

Mr. Trump’s contention that there’s nothing to learn from his tax returns should be a red alert to voters. Four years ago, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, resisted disclosure, and Mr. Trump was among those pressing him to release his returns. When Mr. Romney finally complied, voters were surprised to discover that his effective tax rate was 14 percent — well below the official 35 percent rate for those in his top bracket. When asked about his own tax rate, Mr. Trump snapped: “None of your business.”

Appearing last week on Fox TV, Mr. Trump looked back and rued the Romney disclosure, declaring, “He might have lost the election over that.” Might Mr. Trump be worried about how his own returns would look to voters? He brags that he aims to pay as little in taxes as possible under the law, which probably means claiming tax breaks that ordinary voters do not exercise. In 1981, a report by New Jersey gambling regulators showed Mr. Trump had not paid any taxes for two years in the 1970s because he could report negative income as a developer.

The voters deserve to know what Mr. Trump is hiding, particularly considering his history of bankruptcies, the government investigations of Trump University and other dodgy parts of his branded universe. As the campaign rolls toward the fall, pressure will grow on Mr. Trump to be far more transparent than he has been. Responding with another pithy tweet won’t do.
:lol:

Yeah. So honest.

- - - Updated - - -

Donald Trump's refutation of mocking a disabled reporter:

“They do the commercial, like I’m mocking a person with disability. I’m not, I’m not,” the businessman told supporters.

“I spend millions a year, or millions of dollars on ramps, and get rid of the stairs and different kinds of elevators all over and I’m gonna mock? I would never do that,” he continued.

“Number one, I have a good heart. Number two, I’m a smart person.”
:rofl:

SO, you are forced to comply with federal laws requiring disabled access in your buildings, yet you're trying to suggest it's a voluntary and charitable thing from you, and means you love disabled people. That ego.

It's like the man who says he's not a racist because he knows a few black people.

Even more amusing is that Trump isn't even being honest here...

People with disabilities have successfully sued a Trump property company and production firm in recent years for unfair treatment that violated the ADA.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,945
Ask the people of Crimea.
I asked for the specifics for us. We should not be involved with Crimea regardless of the situation; that is for Europe to figure out. We should not be the world police.

Dont worry, we dont have to get it, everything will magically change when he gets elected, he doesnt have to have an answer to ANYTHING, but somehow he will just snap a finger and solve anything basic he cant answer for $#@!.


@Bjerknes, still got your vote?


7 months ago an interview was linked here where we discussed how the candidate to world leader can possibly NOT have any clue about any details about the power players of ME, differences between Iran/Syrian/Shia/politican factions, the journo was even asking soft questions just to get him going, while Trump went COMPLETELY retarded in how he justified his utter ignorance. You were fairly ok with this level of stupid bravado then, I hope for your sake the alarm bells are ringing loudly by now.


Its truly one of the most bizzare things in a while if he gets elected, satire into reality, since it would be real life version of the dumb ass movie Idiocracy.
I don't exactly recall, but I have never said Trump is an ideal candidate. I'm certainly less than enthralled with him overall and disagree with a lot of what he says. The last hope (I hate that word) would be that Trump surrounds himself with people who have knowledge on foreign affairs. That may not happen.

Hillary is one of the most corrupt candidates of our lifetime, but corruption is prevalent in almost all democracies. Mental illness is a completely other thing. Trump has no control over his emotions, sleeps 3 hours a night at 70 years old, is clearly suffering from dementia, etc...

You have to understand, the president of the US is not a dictator, nor an emperor. In Europe leaders are more involved, but that's not how USA is. (Sanders wanted to turn the US into a more European system) The job of the president is not to massively $#@! up, ensure stability and get out of the way. Trump does not only not understand the role of the president, but he is clearly unstable mentally.
That's quite clearly not what most people think of the role of the President nowadays. If so, the Democratic party wouldn't stand a chance. Instead, they want the President to be a dictator. They want them to use executive orders and shape the discussion. Just look at the rhetoric on gun control -- they blame the President for not doing enough. That's why I consider them more authoritarian than Liberal.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,780
And more Donald Trump news. First major party candidate since 1976 to refuse to disclose his income tax returns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/donald-trump-ducks-tax-disclosure.html



:lol:

Yeah. So honest.

- - - Updated - - -

Donald Trump's refutation of mocking a disabled reporter:



:rofl:

SO, you are forced to comply with federal laws requiring disabled access in your buildings, yet you're trying to suggest it's a voluntary and charitable thing from you, and means you love disabled people. That ego.

It's like the man who says he's not a racist because he knows a few black people.

Even more amusing is that Trump isn't even being honest here...

People with disabilities have successfully sued a Trump property company and production firm in recent years for unfair treatment that violated the ADA.
You have to be a complete dumbass to find anything appealing in what that gorilla says, voting for him is a self admission of intellectual dishonesty and or deficiency.
 

Hængebøffer

Senior Member
Jun 4, 2009
25,185
I asked for the specifics for us. We should not be involved with Crimea regardless of the situation; that is for Europe to figure out. We should not be the world police.



I don't exactly recall, but I have never said Trump is an ideal candidate. I'm certainly less than enthralled with him overall and disagree with a lot of what he says. The last hope (I hate that word) would be that Trump surrounds himself with people who have knowledge on foreign affairs. That may not happen.



That's quite clearly not what most people think of the role of the President nowadays. If so, the Democratic party wouldn't stand a chance. Instead, they want the President to be a dictator. They want them to use executive orders and shape the discussion. Just look at the rhetoric on gun control -- they blame the President for not doing enough. That's why I consider them more authoritarian than Liberal.
You are (and should be) involved everywhere else, cause that's how the world functions. Unless you're advocating plan economy (I know you aren't), you agree with me. The free market capitalistic society is build this way. I know a lot of Ancap's are showing these days, but that way of living is not possible.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,945
You have to be a complete dumbass to find anything appealing in what that gorilla says, voting for him is a self admission of intellectual dishonesty and or deficiency.
According to you, but others are sick and tired of the same old establishment lies dictating their lives, saying they'll be fine and then low and behold their situation gets perpetually worse. You act this way probably because you're doing fine. If you weren't, then perhaps you'd have a different view and take a chance on someone else. I'm doing fine myself, but the argument makes sense to me and is certainly not based on intellectual dishonesty.

Just look at the big players supporting Hillary. Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Soros... great company there. I'm sure they're supporting her because she says she'll raise taxes in the rich. :rolleyes:

You are (and should be) involved everywhere else, cause that's how the world functions. Unless you're advocating plan economy (I know you aren't), you agree with me. The free market capitalistic society is build this way. I know a lot of Ancap's are showing these days, but that way of living is not possible.
Free market capitalism was not built on invading random countries. That's globalism more than anything else.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,780
According to you, but others are sick and tired of the same old establishment lies dictating their lives, saying they'll be fine and then low and behold their situation gets perpetually worse. You act this way probably because you're doing fine. If you weren't, then perhaps you'd have a different view and take a chance on someone else. I'm doing fine myself, but the argument makes sense to me and is certainly not based on intellectual dishonesty.

Just look at the big players supporting Hillary. Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Soros... great company there. I'm sure they're supporting her because she says she'll raise taxes in the rich. :rolleyes:



Free market capitalism was not built on invading random countries. That's globalism more than anything else.
Wait are you telling me politics are keeping people from doing good for themselves in the US? That is the baloney that idiot trump is punting but we both know that is not the case.

If the US had it so bad we wouldn't have an immigration problem, so the same dude who is saying record numbers of immigrants wanna come in, is saying this is the worst we've been in a while? Come on even the lamest idiot can spot the contradiction.

I say don't vote for either, give your vote value, only give it when it is deserved, not out of spite or lesser evil or even to one you like but know he won't win.
 

Hængebøffer

Senior Member
Jun 4, 2009
25,185
According to you, but others are sick and tired of the same old establishment lies dictating their lives, saying they'll be fine and then low and behold their situation gets perpetually worse. You act this way probably because you're doing fine. If you weren't, then perhaps you'd have a different view and take a chance on someone else. I'm doing fine myself, but the argument makes sense to me and is certainly not based on intellectual dishonesty.

Just look at the big players supporting Hillary. Bloomberg, Warren Buffett, Soros... great company there. I'm sure they're supporting her because she says she'll raise taxes in the rich. :rolleyes:



Free market capitalism was not built on invading random countries. That's globalism more than anything else.
Free market doesen't exist in its pure form. Righ of ownership can only function, if we give away some of the law of ownership to the state. Who invades random countries? No one. You think China and Russia are pacifist countries?

Globalism and capitalism goes hand in hand. Don't know why you mention it as a bad term.
 

Quetzalcoatl

It ain't hard to tell
Aug 22, 2007
66,753
Wait are you telling me politics are keeping people from doing good for themselves in the US? That is the baloney that idiot trump is punting but we both know that is not the case.

If the US had it so bad we wouldn't have an immigration problem, so the same dude who is saying record numbers of immigrants wanna come in, is saying this is the worst we've been in a while? Come on even the lamest idiot can spot the contradiction.

I say don't vote for either, give your vote value, only give it when it is deserved, not out of spite or lesser evil or even to one you like but know he won't win.
It could be that it's just not as bad as where they're migrating from, no?
 

Hængebøffer

Senior Member
Jun 4, 2009
25,185
Wait are you telling me politics are keeping people from doing good for themselves in the US? That is the baloney that idiot trump is punting but we both know that is not the case.

If the US had it so bad we wouldn't have an immigration problem, so the same dude who is saying record numbers of immigrants wanna come in, is saying this is the worst we've been in a while? Come on even the lamest idiot can spot the contradiction.

I say don't vote for either, give your vote value, only give it when it is deserved, not out of spite or lesser evil or even to one you like but know he won't win.
You don't have an immigration problem.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,945
Wait are you telling me politics are keeping people from doing good for themselves in the US? That is the baloney that idiot trump is punting but we both know that is not the case.

If the US had it so bad we wouldn't have an immigration problem, so the same dude who is saying record numbers of immigrants wanna come in, is saying this is the worst we've been in a while? Come on even the lamest idiot can spot the contradiction.

I say don't vote for either, give your vote value, only give it when it is deserved, not out of spite or lesser evil or even to one you like but know he won't win.
You're familiar with the concept of rent seeking. Certain firms receive special benefits from lobbying in Washington, which most of the time stems from connections on Wall Street. As you know, this knocks off competition. This is especially a problem for small businesses and even moderately large firms. It's also a big problem in no-bid contracts in the defense industry, overseas contracts and the scam that is the Federal Reserve. All of this creates a rather stagnant economic environment, which is absolutely based on government intrusion into markets. But that is what people like Hillary and Buffett want as they can centralize the reward and socialize the risk.

I have no idea how anyone can say the US is doing well economically or socially compared to periods in the past. We have a immigration problem because our neighbors are worse off and we have a government that fails to deal with it. The goal is to not strive to become third-world.
 

Ronn

Mes Que Un Club
May 3, 2012
20,865
Gary Johnson is consistently polling in single digits. Isn't he supposed to be the closest candidate to Ron and Rand Paul? Why don't their supporters run to him?
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,780
You're familiar with the concept of rent seeking. Certain firms receive special benefits from lobbying in Washington, which most of the time stems from connections on Wall Street. As you know, this knocks off competition. This is especially a problem for small businesses and even moderately large firms. It's also a big problem in no-bid contracts in the defense industry, overseas contracts and the scam that is the Federal Reserve. All of this creates a rather stagnant economic environment, which is absolutely based on government intrusion into markets. But that is what people like Hillary and Buffett want as they can centralize the reward and socialize the risk.

I have no idea how anyone can say the US is doing well economically or socially compared to periods in the past. We have a immigration problem because our neighbors are worse off and we have a government that fails to deal with it. The goal is to not strive to become third-world.
Nobody said the system is perfect, far from it, but the doom and gloom talk is crazy nonsense, late 70s early 80s and all of 00s are much worse times. We defo need to curb govt intrusions but I see that more as a legal issue than an electoral one. As for big time contracts that mafia shit is everywhere, can't stop it can only manage it.

- - - Updated - - -

Where do I sign up??
Get an engineering degree

Gary Johnson is consistently polling in single digits. Isn't he supposed to be the closest candidate to Ron and Rand Paul? Why don't their supporters run to him?
Coz they hate Hillary more than they like ron and rand?
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
115,945
Free market doesen't exist in its pure form. Righ of ownership can only function, if we give away some of the law of ownership to the state. Who invades random countries? No one. You think China and Russia are pacifist countries?

Globalism and capitalism goes hand in hand. Don't know why you mention it as a bad term.
Globalism and capitalism are not synonymous. Free market capitalism is supposed to be based on governments not intruding on business or being connected at all. All of the money made in various wars are from contracts awarded by government; not the other way around. So the clear issue we have is that when governments become involved with corporations, you're more likely to see corruption -- obviously, since the government is supposed to be the lawmakers.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 18, Guests: 221)