Hahahaha

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

And that he might owe the IRS about 100 million.

probably closer to a bazillion

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And that he might owe the IRS about 100 million.

I hear the IRS has great payment plans. Or can fall back on the old bankruptcy schtick.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

never said he was Russian

yes there is no evidence that he's russian

[Pete F.]

"We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia...We’ve got some guys that really, really love golf, and they’re really invested in our programs. We just go there all the time." - EricTrump, 2014
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

I thought we were supposed to be all in for the global economy.

[Pete F.]

Give him a break. He couldn’t pay taxes because he has loan spurs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

these guys should start looking for the Oak Island treasure too

[detbuch]

[Pete F.]

John Bolton said he heard Trump tell Erdogan that a U.S. investigation of Turkey's state-owned Halkbank was wrong and he'd "take care of it." Was part of Trump's motive financial?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

John Bolton said he heard Trump tell Erdogan that a U.S. investigation of Turkey's state-owned Halkbank was wrong and he'd "take care of it." Was part of Trump's motive financial?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When it is not possible to know the answer, it's only necessary to ask the question to suggest the answer. It's a trick that avoids the necessity of proof.

[wdmso]

Donald Trump said he's "smart" by not paying income taxes — and argued that if he did, the money would be "squandered." 2016 debate


Trump Says NATO Allies Don’t Pay Their Share. Does he?

Trump in 2011 said lower-income Americans should have to pay taxes to 'be a part of the game' and said he paid 'a lot'

All from the orange horses's mouth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

When you send your henchman to work with Julian Assange to publish American emails hacked by Russian intelligence, it complicates the moral power of your complaints about violations of your financial privacy

Especially after you've used the pardon power to protect the henchman

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When you send your henchman to work with Julian Assange to publish American emails hacked by Russian intelligence, it complicates the moral power of your complaints about violations of your financial privacy

Especially after you've used the pardon power to protect the henchman

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ewwww . . . henchman . . . that's a bad thing.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When you send your henchman

to protect the henchman

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh good....pete pelosi

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Oh I didn't know that you're a fan, Stephen King has some great thoughts on Tweety

I'm not a fan of Stephen King, nor of most political opinions by Progressives or leftists of other stripes.

Trump supporters, explain to your children why you are supporting an adulterer, draft dodger, liar, and tax cheat. Bonus point if you avoid telling them the lie that it’s “fake news.”

Well, children, most of those accusations are either unproven or exagerations. And his opponent is no white lily of morality or honesty and supports a political agenda that will shrink your economic opportunities and weaken or remove many of your constitutional unalienable rights--all while enriching himself and his family by leveraging his political power.

Trump supporters don't believe the info about Trump's tax cheating is important, even if true. Assure them that it is true and it matters a great deal. He's a HUGE national security risk.

Actually, children, His four years in office have not shown him to be a national security risk. If anything, he has strengthened national security. Tax avoidance is not tax cheating. It is very legitimate, encouraged by the IRS, and practiced by most Americans.

Trump supporters don't wear masks because it's their way of saying "I'm with stupid."

This, my children, is an obvious lie, Pete is not really on your side. He has what is called an "agenda." That is far more important to him than guiding you with useful and honest information.

200,000 dead from COVID-19. At least 145,000 of those deaths could have been prevented if President Trump had taken decisive action. He did not, and because he did not, he does not deserve a second term.

Children, these are made up "statistics" which ignore how Trump did what the experts asked. And they imply that the President of the U.S. Has far more responsibility than the Constitution gives him. In his views of presidential and federal government powers, Pete is what they call a Progressive. Progressives don't like the Constitution. They have been trying for a long time to get rid of it, and replace your unalienable rights which it protects and replace them with the limited rights that government will grant to you.

America is suffering fires, floods and plague. If this had happened under Obama, the fundamentalists and righties would be screaming END TIMES!

Children, Pete tends to go off on conjectural fantasies that somehow are supposed to prove that Trump is an evil traitor.

[Pete F.]

Tax is the least of it. The article offers direct evidence of Trump’s impending financial liability to unknown lenders, and of pervasive conflicts of interest as president, that are of grave national security concern.

The consulting fees that Trump’s various foreign businesses paid to Ivanka Trump and others look potentially fraudulent. The Times article cites 20 percent consulting fees that foreign Trump businesses regularly deducted by reason of paying them to unnamed consultants. Some of these fees pertained to activities in which Trump’s role as an investor was ostensibly entirely passive, meaning that he wasn’t engaged in making any of the business decisions. Consulting fees also appear to have been paid to family members such as Ivanka Trump. She got consulting fees with respect to businesses for which she simultaneously worked as an executive, and thus as an employee.

Based on what the article says, several different types of fraud may have been involved here. Fees paid to family members who did not provide services in return would be improper deductions. Fees paid to “consultants” who were employees might be properly deductible by the business – as salary – but would potentially trigger 3.8 percent payroll tax liability by the recipient under the so-called Medicare payroll tax. Fees that were actually gifts to family members were not properly deductible, and also may have generated gift tax liability on Trump’s part that the mislabeling helped to conceal.
There is an old saying that one can never detect tax fraud purely on the face of a tax return – but this comes closer than usual. – Even wholly fraudulent tax returns generally do not proclaim their fraudulence on their face. The Trump returns presumably are no exception, and much of the evidence suggesting possible fraudulence was developed in the Times article through the use of other sources. Nonetheless, with that aid, the Times article makes a powerful initial case, clearly meriting investigation, that substantial tax fraud may have occurred.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Tax is the least of it. The article offers direct evidence of Trump’s impending financial liability to unknown lenders, and of pervasive conflicts of interest as president, that are of grave national security concern.

You mean 400 million+ in PERSONAL liability is a cause for concern? Something I haven't seen reported, isn't this supposed to be listed on Trump's yearly financial disclosure form?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Tax is the least of it. The article offers direct evidence of Trump’s impending financial liability to unknown lenders, and of pervasive conflicts of interest as president, that are of grave national security concern.

The consulting fees that Trump’s various foreign businesses paid to Ivanka Trump and others look potentially fraudulent. The Times article cites 20 percent consulting fees that foreign Trump businesses regularly deducted by reason of paying them to unnamed consultants. Some of these fees pertained to activities in which Trump’s role as an investor was ostensibly entirely passive, meaning that he wasn’t engaged in making any of the business decisions. Consulting fees also appear to have been paid to family members such as Ivanka Trump. She got consulting fees with respect to businesses for which she simultaneously worked as an executive, and thus as an employee.

Based on what the article says, several different types of fraud may have been involved here. Fees paid to family members who did not provide services in return would be improper deductions. Fees paid to “consultants” who were employees might be properly deductible by the business – as salary – but would potentially trigger 3.8 percent payroll tax liability by the recipient under the so-called Medicare payroll tax. Fees that were actually gifts to family members were not properly deductible, and also may have generated gift tax liability on Trump’s part that the mislabeling helped to conceal.
There is an old saying that one can never detect tax fraud purely on the face of a tax return – but this comes closer than usual. – Even wholly fraudulent tax returns generally do not proclaim their fraudulence on their face. The Trump returns presumably are no exception, and much of the evidence suggesting possible fraudulence was developed in the Times article through the use of other sources. Nonetheless, with that aid, the Times article makes a powerful initial case, clearly meriting investigation, that substantial tax fraud may have occurred.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is amazing how you are able to transform "may have" into what seems like certainty.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is amazing how you are able to transform "may have" into what seems like certainty.

There’s a reason Tweety has to hide his returns, it would be so easy to just release them and disprove all the claims. But he can’t because he is a conman. His main con is to present himself as a winner. “I am a successful businessman,” is one of his most successful lies, and it is upon that lie that he built his political career. In fact—as has been widely reported—he declared bankruptcy multiple times, and squandered the fortune his father built through bad business ventures. Now, thanks to new reporting from the Times, we have even greater insight into how his finances are under stress.

It’s also been widely reported that Trump got where he is by cheating, but his supporters either don’t care or don’t read or believe the reports that document Trump’s misdeeds. Trump’s fans think he is a winner because he accumulated wealth (and it doesn’t matter how), he fights with their enemies (liberals, the “elites,” Democrats, and immigrants they perceive are stealing their jobs), and he breaks rules. Anti-democratic movements are generally marked by cynicism and the belief that everyone lies and cheats, so the winner is the one who is best at cheating.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s a reason Tweety has to hide his returns, it would be so easy to just release them and disprove all the claims. But he can’t because he is a conman. His main con is to present himself as a winner. “I am a successful businessman,” is one of his most successful lies, and it is upon that lie that he built his political career. In fact—as has been widely reported—he declared bankruptcy multiple times, and squandered the fortune his father built through bad business ventures. Now, thanks to new reporting from the Times, we have even greater insight into how his finances are under stress.

It’s also been widely reported that Trump got where he is by cheating, but his supporters either don’t care or don’t read or believe the reports that document Trump’s misdeeds. Trump’s fans think he is a winner because he accumulated wealth (and it doesn’t matter how), he fights with their enemies (liberals, the “elites,” Democrats, and immigrants they perceive are stealing their jobs), and he breaks rules. Anti-democratic movements are generally marked by cynicism and the belief that everyone lies and cheats, so the winner is the one who is best at cheating.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This all sounds very familiar. Old news?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This all sounds very familiar. Old news?

Nothing new about Trump, he’s been running a con his whole life
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You have once again claimed the ability to read minds and determine opinions.
And then rationalized the comparison of Clinton’s BJ with the actions of the current occupant of the White House.
Good luck with that

And think about this

Seven members of George W. Bush’s cabinet have endorsed Biden.

So have more than 70 former Republican national security officials.

So have seven former GOP governors, four former GOP senators, and more than two dozen former GOP House members.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You have once again claimed the ability to read minds and determine opinions.
And then rationalized the comparison of Clinton’s BJ with the actions of the current occupant of the White House.
Good luck with that

And think about this

Seven members of George W. Bush’s cabinet have endorsed Biden.

So have more than 70 former Republican national security officials.

So have seven former GOP governors, four former GOP senators, and more than two dozen former GOP House members.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SO let's recap Pete.

When Bill Clinton was POTUS, the democrats said his ethics didn't matter, what mattered were his results. The Republicans attacked his character.

Today, the democrats attack Trumps character, and the Republicans now say that character doesn't matter but results do.

Try to follow along here, this is where you have trouble keeping up...

BOTH SIDES are saying the opposite of what they said before (just like they flip flopped on the supreme court nominations in election years). Even according to your own post, BOTH SIDES are flip-flopping, saying whatever suits them based on whoever is in power at that time.

I can call out the hypocrisy on both sides. To deny that, would be to deny reality.

You, as always, go the "deny reality" route.

Not just Clintons affair. But the emphatic way he lied to us about it, which takes a special kind of scumbag to do with a straight face (Trump could easily pull it off). And the way he used his wife to claim the GOP was framing him, and the way she attacked his victims on national TV.

You want to split hairs, fine. Between the two of us, I am the one who can admit hypocrisy on my side. I've never seen you do it. I don't think you can.

Here, let's try. When Bush was POTUS, Biden said no SC nominations should be made in an election year, and that if a president made a nomination, the senate should refuse to vote. That's exactly what the GOP did in 2016, but Biden had flip-flopped 180 degrees, and was no saying the president could make a nomination, and that the senate had a duty to vote.

You tell me if that's consistent logic, or if its naked hypocrisy.

Were all ears, buddy.

[Got Stripers]

Recap Bill balanced our budget and Trump has put our country into debt and the economy in ruin, does that basically sum it up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Recap Bill balanced our budget and Trump has put our country into debt and the economy in ruin, does that basically sum it up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as i said, i think clinton was a good president! also a scumbag. but all the democrats said his character didn’t matter. i thought they made a good point. i still think they had a good point.

i give trump poor grades in debt. funny that if all the metrics you can use to judge a president’s economic performance, you chose the one he gets a bad grade on. if you look at his entire economic record, before covid, it was very good. cherry pick all you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

as i said, i think clinton was a good president! also a scumbag. but all the democrats said his character didn’t matter. i thought they made a good point. i still think they had a good point.

i give trump poor grades in debt. funny that if all the metrics you can use to judge a president’s economic performance, you chose the one he gets a bad grade on. if you look at his entire economic record, before covid, it was very good. cherry pick all you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did Trump, or Clinton, do to the debt?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Recap Bill balanced our budget and Trump has put our country into debt and the economy in ruin, does that basically sum it up?

No it doesn't. The congressional "budget" and the national debt are two different things. Congress, during Clinton's tenure, added to the national debt. The Congresses following Clinton to now added progressively larger amounts to the national debt. So Congress, not Trump, has put our country into debt.

And I'll give the Congress a break on the economy supposedly being in ruin. The worldwide economic destruction caused by the covid pandemic is responsible for that. Although the large stimulus that Congress passed sure did add a lot to the debt, but possibly kept the economy from being totally destroyed.

Congress, not the President is responsible for the budget. And Congress has not passed an annual budget since 2008, but has just passed continuing resolutions.

According to CSN news, "Many leading Democrats in Washington these days like to point to the fact that the federal budget was balanced for part of the time that President Bill Clinton was in office. What they do not mention is that those balanced budgets occurred only when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. [ergo, in fact, the Republicans were responsible for the balanced budgets, Clinton merely signed them.]

In fact, according to the historical data published by the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama White House, no Congress in which the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate has balanced the federal budget since fiscal 1969--more than 40 [now 50] years ago."