Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[Wedgebuster]

So New York has requested the Trump Foundation stop fundraising in the state...


https://www.yahoo.com/news/ny-attorney- ... 04778.html

[Bronco]

-
Not surprised...

Exclusive: Clinton charities ignore law requiring them to disclose millions from foreign donors

NewsNet5 ABC Cleveland ^ | September 6, 2016 | By Mark Greenblatt

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has the power to force the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative to publicly disclose the names of foreign governments and the millions they donate each year to the charities but he’s not doing it, a Scripps News investigation has found. Schneiderman’s failure to require compliance with New York law and written instructions from his own office keeps the public in the dark about whether the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton charities also had special access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state

[JohnStOnge]

Watching a CNN babe skewer that New York Congressman Trump mouth piece. Trump had gotten up and said that he had a loss when the real estate market was doing terribly and he heroically came back from it. The CNN babe is pointing out that, actually, the real estate market was in a big rebound that year and doing very well. So was the entire economy. The recession was over.

Shocker: Trump was lying again.

Trump mouth piece was finally forced to say "Who cares? It was 20 years ago."

Point is he claims he's a business genius and he lost almost a billion dollars when the economy was doing great and now he's trying to act like he lost the money because the economy was doing poorly then. Continuously lying sack of shit that he is.

[JohnStOnge]

Just to follow up:

Trump's out there now saying he had his losses because of "the recession" and he was just BRILLIANT in bringing it back. That was a 1995 tax return. The previous recession ended in 1991. See http://econhist.econproph.net/2014/12/a ... the-1990s/.

Trump is such a rube. Why on EARTH would he go out in public and say he lost a billion dollars in 1995 because of the recession when the recession ended in 1991? And, again, you people who buy this guy's crap should be ashamed of yourselves.

[CAA Flagship]

Just to follow up:

Trump's out there now saying he had his losses because of "the recession" and he was just BRILLIANT in bringing it back. That was a 1995 tax return. The previous recession ended in 1991. See http://econhist.econproph.net/2014/12/a ... the-1990s/.

Trump is such a rube. Why on EARTH would he go out in public and say he lost a billion dollars in 1995 because of the recession when the recession ended in 1991? And, again, you people who buy this guy's crap should be ashamed of yourselves.

Will you wake up. He took the loss in 95. The damage was done earlier.
Do you realize that business and real estate tax law is a tad more complex than the EZ Form?

[JohnStOnge]

Just to follow up:

Trump's out there now saying he had his losses because of "the recession" and he was just BRILLIANT in bringing it back. That was a 1995 tax return. The previous recession ended in 1991. See http://econhist.econproph.net/2014/12/a ... the-1990s/.

Trump is such a rube. Why on EARTH would he go out in public and say he lost a billion dollars in 1995 because of the recession when the recession ended in 1991? And, again, you people who buy this guy's crap should be ashamed of yourselves.

Will you wake up. He took the loss in 95. The damage was done earlier.
Do you realize that business and real estate tax law is a tad more complex than the EZ Form?

You're the one that needs to wake up. A recession that ended in 1991 is not an adequate excuse for losing nearly a billion dollars in 1995. No way. No how. He is, once again, full of crap.

And this thing about him being a "genius." Like he did his own tax returns. Right.

[JohnStOnge]

And let me say that I am getting SO sick of this mantra about how Trump created a bunch of jobs as though that means something with respect to managing the economy on the government level. It has nothing to do with it. The idea that you owned a business so you hired people means you comprehend the macro economy is absurd.

I will say that I have always said that we shouldn't elect Presidents on the basis of the economy anyway. But if you're going to do that, thinking that a real estate developer is qualified to manage the macro economy because he hired people for his real estate business is just plain stupid.

[JohnStOnge]

I have my fingers crossed that someone in the next debate will ask Trump a complex question about tax law. That's because that buffoon said he understands the tax laws better than anyone and we all know that all he's done is hire people to do his taxes. I would LOVE to see someone ask him a question that would require a detailed knowledge of tax law to answer. Please, please, please let that happen in the next debate.

[JohnStOnge]

Just saw someone point out that Trump said that the real estate market in 1995 was worse than it was when we had the big crash thing in 2008. Had video of him saying that. Had him saying it was worse in 1995 and "it's not even close." Now THAT is absolutely ridiculous. You people who believe ANYTHING that guy says need to seriously re-assess yourselves.

[Ivytalk]

Just saw someone point out that Trump said that the real estate market in 1995 was worse than it was when we had the big crash thing in 2008. Had video of him saying that. Had him saying it was worse in 1995 and "it's not even close." Now THAT is absolutely ridiculous. You people who believe ANYTHING that guy says need to seriously re-assess yourselves.

Three anti-Trump posts in 6 minutes, 4 in half an hour? You're the one who needs to re-assess. In psychology, they call it "significant scatter."

[UNI88]

Just saw someone point out that Trump said that the real estate market in 1995 was worse than it was when we had the big crash thing in 2008. Had video of him saying that. Had him saying it was worse in 1995 and "it's not even close." Now THAT is absolutely ridiculous. You people who believe ANYTHING that guy says need to seriously re-assess yourselves.

Three anti-Trump posts in 6 minutes, 4 in half an hour? You're the one who needs to re-assess. In psychology, they call it "significant scatter."

Hunters and biologists call it "significant scat."

[Ivytalk]

I have my fingers crossed that someone in the next debate will ask Trump a complex question about tax law. That's because that buffoon said he understands the tax laws better than anyone and we all know that all he's done is hire people to do his taxes. I would LOVE to see someone ask him a question that would require a detailed knowledge of tax law to answer. Please, please, please let that happen in the next debate.

For that matter, ask Hildabeast a "complex question of tax law" about the continued 501(c)(3) status of the Klinton Foundation. And while you're at it, impeach Koskinen.

All Trump did was take advantage of loss carry forwards. Perfectly legitimate.*He may have his faults, but this was an obvious troll by the Joo York Times.

*I've done it myself, but not to the tune of $195 million!

[GannonFan]

I have my fingers crossed that someone in the next debate will ask Trump a complex question about tax law. That's because that buffoon said he understands the tax laws better than anyone and we all know that all he's done is hire people to do his taxes. I would LOVE to see someone ask him a question that would require a detailed knowledge of tax law to answer. Please, please, please let that happen in the next debate.

For that matter, ask Hildabeast a "complex question of tax law" about the continued 501(c)(3) status of the Klinton Foundation. And while you're at it, impeach Koskinen.

All Trump did was take advantage of loss carry forwards. Perfectly legitimate.*He may have his faults, but this was an obvious troll by the Joo York Times.

*I've done it myself, but not to the tune of $195 million!

That's the funny and sad thing here. What Trump did was completely legal. What he did is what millions of rich people have been doing to reduce their tax burdens for decades. If you're not rich, you probably don't do what they do and you end up paying a much bigger tax burden percentagewise than the rich do. Neither Trump nor Clinton pretend in anyway that they are going to fix any of this. Trump says he's going to shake things up (but not fix this) and Clinton just ignores it (because the status quo candidate just wants to keep the status quo). In the end, rich people like Clinton and Trump will continue to hoard loads of money and pay a scant amount in taxes. Yay.

[HI54UNI]

Anybody want to bet that Trump sent this to the NY Times himself? Gets the major loss out there to show why he hasn't paid taxes in recent years in case he has to release more recent tax returns. Plus he knew that Hillary and probably the NY Times took the exact same deduction.

[CAA Flagship]

Will you wake up. He took the loss in 95. The damage was done earlier.
Do you realize that business and real estate tax law is a tad more complex than the EZ Form?

You're the one that needs to wake up. A recession that ended in 1991 is not an adequate excuse for losing nearly a billion dollars in 1995. No way. No how. He is, once again, full of crap.

And this thing about him being a "genius." Like he did his own tax returns. Right.

You don't know what you are talking about. He didn't lose all of the money in 1995. He took the tax loss in 1995.
Why do you insist on twisting the story? There are plenty of truthful information to bash Trump on. Stop making things up in order to bash him.

[CAA Flagship]

For that matter, ask Hildabeast a "complex question of tax law" about the continued 501(c)(3) status of the Klinton Foundation. And while you're at it, impeach Koskinen.

All Trump did was take advantage of loss carry forwards. Perfectly legitimate.*He may have his faults, but this was an obvious troll by the Joo York Times.

*I've done it myself, but not to the tune of $195 million!

That's the funny and sad thing here. What Trump did was completely legal. What he did is what millions of rich people have been doing to reduce their tax burdens for decades. If you're not rich, you probably don't do what they do and you end up paying a much bigger tax burden percentagewise than the rich do. Neither Trump nor Clinton pretend in anyway that they are going to fix any of this. Trump says he's going to shake things up (but not fix this) and Clinton just ignores it (because the status quo candidate just wants to keep the status quo). In the end, rich people like Clinton and Trump will continue to hoard loads of money and pay a scant amount in taxes. Yay.

What he was able to do has little to do with rich or poor. It has to do with the way money was "put to work". It can be 100 dollars, or it can be a million dollars. The tax law is the same.

And Clinton supposedly paid a healthy amount of taxes. Not sure why you say "scant amount" for her. She paid a lot in taxes because she risked nothing in order to earn income. That usually means that there are no tax breaks.

[BDKJMU]

This is much ado by the libtards and liberal mainstream media about nothing. Trump hasn't been shown to have broken any tax laws in filing his taxes. Yet you have liberals whining about it as if Trump should volunteer to pay more than the tax laws says he should pay. I don't see any of these libtards volunteering to pay Uncle Sam extra..

[Skjellyfetti]

It's got nothing to do with it being legal or illegal.

Those 47% that y'all were bitching about in 2012? Trump and other wealthy people are a part of that 47%. Poor people that don't pay taxes are pieces of shit. Wealthy people who don't pay taxes are "smart." That's it.

It's hypocrisy. Not legality.


The "ohhh.... well, it's not illegal" defense is absolute bullshit for someone running for President. It's horseshit to defend Hillary and it's horseshit to defend Trump.

Here's Trump bitching about Obama "only" paying 20.5% tax rate:

Here's Trump bitching about people not paying income taxes:

Here's Trump bitching about a billionaire avoiding taxes:

Here he is bragging about how much he pays in taxes.

[Ibanez]

With each passing day, I'm starting to wonder/believe if Trump is running only to get Hillary elected.

[Skjellyfetti]

You think Trump is humble enough to put his brand on the line for someone else?!


He's running for himself and his brand. Win or lose - he'll now have a rabid base of followers to gobble up whatever shit he decides to peddle next.

No way he has any interest in actually governing (he told Kasich that he could have full reign of foreign and domestic policy if he'd be his VP ). But, he hasn't been working this past year+ for anyone else. He's doing it for his brand.

[Ivytalk]

With each passing day, I'm starting to wonder/believe if Trump is running only to get Hillary elected.

JSO wants to be POTUS more than Trump does.

[CAA Flagship]

It's got nothing to do with it being legal or illegal.

Those 47% that y'all were bitching about in 2012? Trump and other wealthy people are a part of that 47%. Poor people that don't pay taxes are pieces of shit. Wealthy people who don't pay taxes are "smart." That's it.

It's hypocrisy. Not legality.


The "ohhh.... well, it's not illegal" defense is absolute bullshit for someone running for President. It's horseshit to defend Hillary and it's horseshit to defend Trump.

Why? So business people can't run for President?

I don't think you understand the economic need for people to put their money "at risk". It is absolutely critical. And it does not happen without some safety nets (loss offsets, loss carry forwards, etc.).

[kalm]

It's got nothing to do with it being legal or illegal.

Those 47% that y'all were bitching about in 2012? Trump and other wealthy people are a part of that 47%. Poor people that don't pay taxes are pieces of shit. Wealthy people who don't pay taxes are "smart." That's it.

It's hypocrisy. Not legality.


The "ohhh.... well, it's not illegal" defense is absolute bullshit for someone running for President. It's horseshit to defend Hillary and it's horseshit to defend Trump.

Why? So business people can't run for President?

I don't think you understand the economic need for people to put their money "at risk". It is absolutely critical. And it does not happen without some safety nets (loss offsets, loss carry forwards, etc.).

So you're for government manipulation of the free market?

Fucking libtard...

[CAA Flagship]

Why? So business people can't run for President?

I don't think you understand the economic need for people to put their money "at risk". It is absolutely critical. And it does not happen without some safety nets (loss offsets, loss carry forwards, etc.).

So you're for government manipulation of the free market?

Fucking libtard...

How so?

[Ibanez]

You think Trump is humble enough to put his brand on the line for someone else?!


He's running for himself and his brand. Win or lose - he'll now have a rabid base of followers to gobble up whatever shit he decides to peddle next.

No way he has any interest in actually governing (he told Kasich that he could have full reign of foreign and domestic policy if he'd be his VP ). But, he hasn't been working this past year+ for anyone else. He's doing it for his brand.

It's odd but this is some, weird side show. Trump has eschewed conventional wisdom yet he won the nomination and is legitimately giving Clinton a run for her money (which just goes to show you how bad of a choice she is). He cares only for his brand, that much is true. However, what's his true motivation? It certainly isn't to "make America Great Again." You'd think his brand would suffer with all the shit he's spouting.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk