Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

And more misogynistic and shady Trump business stuff:

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-trump-women/#nt=oft12aH-1la1

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I may need to consider Cthulhu at this point.

[pilferk]

I may need to consider Cthulhu at this point.

The Cthulhu/Godzilla 2016 ticket is picking up steam!!

[GeorgeSteele]

A good read.  I admit that  I'm not necessarily on board with his views on immigration and trade, but we do need a viable 3rd party so we dont get stuck again with 2 choices, which to me are one not that great and the other quite worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/gary-johnson-take-a-deep-breath-voters-there-is-a-third-way.html?_r=0

Gary Johnson: Take a Deep Breath, Voters. There Is a Third Way.


By GARY JOHNSON    SEPT. 28, 2016


Gary Johnson, the governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, is the Libertarian Party nominee for president.

And last night, in an interview, when asked to name a World Leader he admired...he could not think of a single name, until his VP jumped in to rescue him.

In the midst of his hemming and hawing he admitted to having another "Aleppo moment".

Even the Libertarians can't manage to field a respectable, knowledgeable, decent candidate.....I would KILL for Romney vs Obama, again.

Cthulhu 2016.

Yeah, this dude's not exactly a viable choice.  Same thing with the alternative candidate on the left, Jill Stein, who's an anti-vax, anti-GMO and general pseudo-science nut. 

[TheBaconman]

Hilary seems to be putting on weight

[Dr. Blutarsky]

[pilferk]

Trumps greatest hits keep on coming. Also interesting....the reporter these were sent to claims they apparently were sent by someone from within trump tower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trumps greatest hits keep on coming. Also interesting....the reporter these were sent to claims they apparently were sent by someone from within trump tower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

If anything was done illegally by him to save on paying taxes, he should be prosecuted. And harshly.

If what he did was legal, then I dont see what the problem is. Who wants to pay more than they legally have to in taxes?

And consider what the government is doing with record tax revenues? Adding to record debt!

 

[pilferk]

Trumps greatest hits keep on coming. Also interesting....the reporter these were sent to claims they apparently were sent by someone from within trump tower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

If anything was done illegally by him to save on paying taxes, he should be prosecuted. And harshly.

If what he did was legal, then I dont see what the problem is. Who wants to pay more than they legally have to in taxes?

And consider what the government is doing with record tax revenues? Adding to record debt! 

1) I don't think it was illegal.  It was, by looks, an unintendedly LARGE use of a loophole he was taking advantage off, and he was writing off close to A BILLION dollars in one tax year (more on that in a bit) on his PERSONAL taxes (when, in fact, he did not actually shell out that billion dollars from his pockets...again, loopholes). But this is the kind of thing the rich guy has over the little guy: The ability to rape the tax code...which, then, puts a pretty large burden on the middle class.

2) You don't see a problem with reaping the advantages of federal aid, programs, etc...and not actually doing anything to pay for them? See...I do.  Not that he's doing anything wrong, but the SYSTEM is wrong.  And this guy is actually proposing the CUT MORE TAXES for the people in his tax bracket in his policy.

3) Given his decreased tax burden, you do realize that the size of his company (direct employees) actually SHRUNK, post 2002.  So that whole trickle down thing he's espousing in his policy...he sure isn't a very good example of it.  'Cause guess what it looks like he did with that tax savings? Not paying taxes doesn't make him smart. It's not a vote of protest over the way the government is using money. It makes him a leech on the middle class.  And not one who has been, since 2002, particularly good at creating jobs or reinvesting in the middle class to a point that it offsets his leeching.  If he couldn't afford his tax burden, that's a different conversation.....he can.  He just chooses to exploit every means possible to not meet it.  It's not illegal.  It is, to me, distasteful.  ESPECIALLY in light of his questionable charitable history.  This guy seems like he makes money to pad his own pocket.  He is, at the end of the day, a GREAT example of greed.  And all that makes you question his motives for wanting to be president.

4) To that last point...PART OF THE DEBT PROBLEM IS A REVENUE ISSUE. Not just spending.  And here you have a great example of why that is: Those at the top, earning the most, are increasing their net worth substantially...and not actually paying "their fair share" in taxes. The incomes that have seen growth are precisely the incomes that are paying the smaller % of taxes (if they are paying at all).  If your point is that we should never pay taxes because the government is spending it on things "you don't like"...welcome to life.  That's true, at any given moment, of about 50% of the taxpayers (looking at the party splits)....You can't just shirk your responsibilities based on that.  That's why you get to VOTE...not why you pay taxes.

Add to that the fact that, again, it's not just the act of not paying taxes, it's the cover up, and the fact that he won't share his tax returns. This is likely ample evidence as to why that is: What the American voter sees might be pretty unflattering, both of his business acumen and as evidence of his greed (and regard for those left to pay the bills).

AND, of note, this guy running on the platform of his business acumen just admitted that he wrote down A BILLION DOLLARS in one single tax year.  Either that was some very creative accounting, and is bothersome when taking into account his policy pitches, OR its legit, in which case it's a bothersome knock on his business acumen.  I tend to think both...considering 7 years later he basically ceased being a real estate developer and became a license granter (of his name).

[GeorgeSteele]

^Basically, he 'lost' about a $1B in one year, but as you said, he never really lost anything close to that.  Yet, he still gets a government handout of approximately $400M representing the tax benefit of that loss.

Here's how that happens:

 - In a given year, his businesses incur expenses exceeding his revenues by $1B.  But he never actually pays those expenses in cash, the expenses were paid on credit and increased his debt.

 - The business' debt becomes too much and so it causes the businesses to become insolvent.  So Trump files bankruptcy for those businesses and the debts are discharged.

 - OK, so the huge $1B loss should be offset by the debt forgiveness income because, under our tax laws, a discharged debt is considered to be taxable income.  Right?  Wrong, there's a loophole that states that any debts discharged in a federal bankruptcy are not included in taxable income.

 - So, end result, in addition to screwing over all the creditors who carried Trump's debt, he gets a $400M bonus is the form of a government tax handout. 

You would think, at a minimum, even though he made out like a bandit, he would at least forever carry the burden of being known as a deadbeat (which he is with US banks, none of them will lend him a dime), an incompetent businessman, and an overall fraud.  But, in this country it doesn't work that way.  If you say you're a great businessman and say it with enough conviction, then I guess you're a great businessman and can be fucking President!

 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trump may have lost about a billion dollars, but Hillary lost more.

We have a bad choice and a worse choice this year. (And the good choice is 3rd party so he has no chance.)

 

 State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report

 By Adam Kredo ? The Washington Free Beacon -
Friday, April 4, 2014

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a ?significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department?s contract actions,? according to the report.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/

[pilferk]

Trump may have lost about a billion dollars, but Hillary lost more.

We have a bad choice and a worse choice this year. (And the good choice is 3rd party so he has no chance.)

 

 State Dept. misplaced $6B under Hillary Clinton: IG report

 By Adam Kredo ? The Washington Free Beacon -
Friday, April 4, 2014

The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, according to a newly released Inspector General report.

The $6 billion in unaccounted funds poses a ?significant financial risk and demonstrates a lack of internal control over the Department?s contract actions,? according to the report.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/

FYI: That's a conservative meme gone bad/viral.

Fact checkers have put that claim at "pants on fire".  She didn't (nor did the state department) "lose" 6 billion dollars.

The money was appropriated correctly and used correctly.

The documentation just sucked (and it wasn't that the money was completely unaccounted for, either...it was that the accounting for it was not complete):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/about-the-state-depts-missing-6-billion/2014/04/13/a6130790-c194-11e3-9ee7-02c1e10a03f0_story.html?utm_term=.8b0ddee7c48b


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/michael-cohen/pants-fire-trump-lawyer-tweets-meme-accusing-clint/

Basically, the pencil pushers didn't fill out all the right forms, dot all the right i's, and fill out all the proper requisiitions required. Not great, but also not really a big deal, and while yes, the buck stops with HRC in her state department...the audit before her arrival and after her departure has shown similar things.  The administrative arm seems lacking (and it's not partisan....those folks tend to stay on between administrations and new Secretaries), for sure.

She's done enough stupid shit for real.  This one is a snopes level urban legend...

Rant time (aka not really directed at you!):

Trump "really" (quotes because the loss wasn't out of his own pocket..he didn't actually LOSE anything of value) lost that billion dollars, as George describes above, via passthrough income laws.  And his tax plan? He wants to cut the passthrough rate from 45% to 15%.  THATS the heart of his tax plan. To cut revenue even more amongst the wealthy (who would see FAR more of a cut than, say, mom and pop running a sole proprietorship, DBA, or limited partnership). 

So he, and many of his ilk, can continue to do with that extra money what they've done historically: Put. it. in. their. pockets.

Again, Trumps DIRECT business (Trump Enterprises) SHED employees post 2002, when he went from an actual developer (which he sucked at, by most accounts) to, basically, a licensor of his name and likeness.  He did not take a dime of that billion dollars/400 million tax credit and turn it into "jobs". 

What he did was become exactly what he rails against: A consumer of federal grants, subsidies, and resources who seemingly paid absolutely nothing into the system.  And that's not an esoteric procedural meme gone wrong.  He looks to have became a bloated leach on the ass of America.

Which ignores the fact that part of our debt crisis is a REVENUE issue.  You literally can not cut spending enough, and continue to operate our government (meaning just the basic parts of it like the military, embassies, medicare, social security, etc) without going into debt.  To do this right, there has to be a balanced approach. Trump's policies, even though he says "I'm gonna fix it", actually (via independent audit) DECREASE revenue and INCREASE spending. By how much is a topic of debate, and which independent auditor's numbers you believe..but it ranges from A LOT to WTF ARE YOU INSANE levels.

We agree that we have two terrible major party candidates (and I don't think the 3rd party candidates are much better).  But one is MUCH worse than the other, and their name rhymes with Rump (which seems exceedingly appropriate).

[pilferk]

^Basically, he 'lost' about a $1B in one year, but as you said, he never really lost anything close to that.  Yet, he still gets a government handout of approximately $400M representing the tax benefit of that loss.

Here's how that happens:

 - In a given year, his businesses incur expenses exceeding his revenues by $1B.  But he never actually pays those expenses in cash, the expenses were paid on credit and increased his debt.

 - The business' debt becomes too much and so it causes the businesses to become insolvent.  So Trump files bankruptcy for those businesses and the debts are discharged.

 - OK, so the huge $1B loss should be offset by the debt forgiveness income because, under our tax laws, a discharged debt is considered to be taxable income.  Right?  Wrong, there's a loophole that states that any debts discharged in a federal bankruptcy are not included in taxable income.

 - So, end result, in addition to screwing over all the creditors who carried Trump's debt, he gets a $400M bonus is the form of a government tax handout. 

You would think, at a minimum, even though he made out like a bandit, he would at least forever carry the burden of being known as a deadbeat (which he is with US banks, none of them will lend him a dime), an incompetent businessman, and an overall fraud.  But, in this country it doesn't work that way.  If you say you're a great businessman and say it with enough conviction, then I guess you're a great businessman and can be fucking President!

 

First, I agree with everything you just wrote.  And looking at his tax plan...this isn't stuff he's looking to "clean up". It's stuff he's looking to expand and perpetuate.  Again, going to the whole "conflict of interest" thing and the fact he seems to want to be president to further his own interests (no matter how much he says "I'll be working for you, not Trump").

But, outside of Trump specifically, in general, it just amazes me.  This is why there should be, at above a certain income level, a tax floor. In other words...if you make money...say, above 300k (it's an arbitrary number...set it where you're comfortable)...after all the deductions, etc...you can not go below a 10% tax rate.  It doesn't matter what your previous losses were. It doesn't matter what "charitable" contributions you've made (say...to your own foundation to buy paintings and Tebow helmets). It doesn't matter how many hoops and loops and circus tents you manage to wade through.  10% is your floor on everything over that amount. Period

So if you're making 400k....you can wipe out everything you owe on the first 300k, but on that last 100k...you're paying 10k, at least. And so on through the upper limits of income. 

[GeorgeSteele]

^ First, thanks on the fact check with the whole "Hillary lost $6B" nonsense; as you noted, that has been debunked several times over, but sadly, many still believe that and roll with it.

And I agree on your point regarding a minimum tax for income up to a certain dollar amount.  I think the major loophole, however, is offshore income.  Here's what Apple has done, which is a blueprint for what all big corporations now do:

 - Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak developed all Apple products and other intellectual property in the U.S.  Those are U.S. assets.

 - At some point, those assets, and all subsequent inventions, were transferred to Apple subsidiaries in low or no tax jurisdictions, such as Ireland. 

 - Since Apple Ireland now owns the IP, Apple US pays a huge royalty to Apple Ireland for the right to use the IP in Apple products.  These payments are a tax deductible expense for Apple US and so they substantially decrease the taxable income of Apple US.

 - Bottom line, effectively most of Apple's income is transferred to low-tax jurisdictions at foreign companies that are basically shell companies with practically no employees.

Fixing this loophole would be simple.  Senator Carl Levin from Michigan introduced a bill for the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (http://www.uspirg.org/news/usp/senator-levin-introduces-bill-crack-down-tax-haven-abuse), but sadly, it's gone nowhere.

[tim_m]

^ First, thanks on the fact check with the whole "Hillary lost $6B" nonsense; as you noted, that has been debunked several times over, but sadly, many still believe that and roll with it.

And I agree on your point regarding a minimum tax for income up to a certain dollar amount.  I think the major loophole, however, is offshore income.  Here's what Apple has done, which is a blueprint for what all big corporations now do:

 - Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak developed all Apple products and other intellectual property in the U.S.  Those are U.S. assets.

 - At some point, those assets, and all subsequent inventions, were transferred to Apple subsidiaries in low or no tax jurisdictions, such as Ireland. 

 - Since Apple Ireland now owns the IP, Apple US pays a huge royalty to Apple Ireland for the right to use the IP in Apple products.  These payments are a tax deductible expense for Apple US and so they substantially decrease the taxable income of Apple US.

 - Bottom line, effectively most of Apple's income is transferred to low-tax jurisdictions at foreign companies that are basically shell companies with practically no employees.

Fixing this loophole would be simple.  Senator Carl Levin from Michigan introduced a bill for the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act (http://www.uspirg.org/news/usp/senator-levin-introduces-bill-crack-down-tax-haven-abuse), but sadly, it's gone nowhere.

It's really incredible the things people will believe especially on facebook. My mother actually believed President Obama had a Muslim prayer curtain and that he signed an executive order banning the pledge in government places such as schools etc. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

In last night's VP debate, Kaine played the role of Donald Trump and lost the debate. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/04/winners-and-losers-from-the-vice-presidential-debate/

Winners and losers from the vice-presidential debate

By Chris Cillizza October 4 at 10:49 PM

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine stood toe-to-toe for 90 minutes in the lone vice presidential debate of the 2016 election. I watched, tweeted and took some notes on the best and the worst of the night that was. There was a lot more bad than good.

My picks are below.

Winners

* Mike Pence: From the very beginning, Pence was the more comfortable of the two men on the debate stage. Pence repeatedly turned to the camera when he answered questions, making clear he understood that the real audience wasn't in the room but watching on TV. The Indiana governor was calm, cool and collected throughout ? a stark contrast to the fast-talking (and seemingly nervous) Kaine. Did Pence respond to Kaine's dozens of attacks on Donald Trump? Only sort of.  What Pence seemed to be doing was making the case for Pence-ism, a, dare I say it, compassionate conservatism ? a case for Pence 2020 or 2024. Regardless, Trump will very much take it, as Pence's performance will offer a reset of sorts for a campaign that is scrambling badly due to self-inflicted wounds from the nominee. Win or lose next month, Pence did himself real good in the eyes of the Republican world on Tuesday night.

* Orioles vs. Blue Jays: For most of the 95 minutes or so that the debate lasted, it was borderline unwatchable. There was so much cross talk and so little actual question-answering that it felt like watching two kids throw mashed potatoes at each other. (Actually, watching two kids throw mashed potatoes at each other would have been a heck of a lot more entertaining.) If you could (and I couldn't), searching for something else to watch seemed like a pretty good option.  Enter the American League wild card game.

* People who want to end VP debates: I am not actually sure if these people existed before tonight but I can assure you they will exist after it. Remember that there wasn't even a vice presidential debate until 1976, and even after that there was no vice presidential debate in 1980! We could Make America Great Again by going back to the way things were back then.

* Joe Biden: Uncle Joe, he of the last two VP debates, had to be watching this whole sordid affair and thinking: "Man, I could run circles around these guys." And, if he wasn't thinking it, I was.

Losers

* Tim Kaine: Someone must have told the Virginia senator he needed to always be on his front foot in the debate, always be the aggressor. It didn't work. Kaine started the debate talking so quickly and trying to load so many Trump attacks into every answer that it made it virtually impossible to grasp any one attack. In the middle of the debate, Kaine seemed to relax into it ? delivering an effective attack on Trump's comments on women. But that Kaine was the exception, not the rule. When he wasn't trying to stuff 10 pounds of attack in a five-pound bag in his answers, he was relentlessly interrupting Pence.  Every single time Pence started to level an attack against Hillary Clinton, Kaine immediately began to talk over him. I'm not sure if that was on purpose or not, but it didn't come across well ? at all. One glaring example: As Pence was recounting his personal experience on Sept. 11, 2001, Kaine interrupted to say, "I was in Virginia." Um, okay. Not a good look.

* Elaine Quijano: I root for the moderators in these debates because they have a next-to-impossible job. But Quijano lost control of the debate within minutes of it starting and never really got it back. She seemed to dole out 20 seconds here and 30 seconds there for Pence or Kaine or both to respond to each other with no rhyme or reason. She never was able to get Kaine or Pence to, well, stop talking. Then there was the fact that she didn't seem to follow the flow of the debate; Kaine and Pence would be feuding about, say, tax returns, and Quijano, after getting the two men to stop talking, would say something like, "Let's talk about North Korea."

* The American public: I am not big on declaring that this or that thing was bad for the electoral process and/or democracy. After all, America has weathered a lot in our time as a nation. But, holy cow, was that debate a) hard to watch and b) super depressing. Constant interruptions ? especially by Kaine. A total refusal to answer questions. Unsubstantiated statements galore ? especially by Pence. I found myself wishing it were over about 10 p.m. ? and I love this stuff more than anyone I know. What must the average voter have been thinking?

Republican National Committee press office: Ninety minutes before the debate actually started, the RNC posted ? presumably accidentally ? a blog post declaring Pence the winner. Of course they were going to declare him the winner no matter what, but watching how the sausage gets made is never the sort of thing people like to do.

* The debate stage background (again): Look. Am I the only one who finds the Declaration of Independence ? in cursive no less! ? behind the candidates' heads as they debate distracting?  I can't be the only one.  I take it as my personal mission to rid the debate stage of this blight before the final two debates commence.

[pilferk]

Pence definitely won, but not by a wide margin (CERTAINLY not by as wide a margin as Trump did in Debate #1).  Both sides hit strong body blows, and Kaine was effective at putting Pence on the hook for all the stupid things Trump has said. Pence was knowledgeable, personable, and conveyed his points much better than Kaine did...Kaine was WAY too aggressive by half.

Pence did a much better job than Trump at addressing issues, and pointing out the anti-establishment POV of the ticket. He addressed trade and foreign policy pretty well (better than Trump ever has, IMHO). He had some losers on the truth side in terms of the economy and taxes (which, given the topic of discussion this week...he sorta was left with no bullets in the gun).  His denial of Trumps own words, time after time, was amusing, at least.   I think, though, choosing to push Pro-life as his last issue was risky.  It doesn't, by any stretch, lose him the debate (he argued it quite well), but it's going to lose him voters, IMHO. He did a good job at attacking Clintons positions all night, but bringing up the foundation (and Kaine pounced on this...maybe one of his finest moments of the debate..with Trumps business dealings, and specifically the NY AG decision this week) was a bad idea. It was probably the campaigns one shot at using it, though, considering Trump bringing it up directly would probably lead to an uncomfortable moment.

Kaine tried to counter punch and pivot too much, and he was not elegant about it.  In some cases, you could tell he was just trying to get through the talking points and throw them out there, even when they had zero relation to the questions.  It felt disjointed. he constantly interrupted (Pence did some of this too, but Kaine set the tone, early).  He attacked Trumps temperment well, but halfheartedly on their policy.  He presented Clintons policy ideas well, but not enough of them. He was effective, for sure, and won points here and there, but not enough of them, and not consistently enough.

I'd peg Pence as the winner 53-47...and say he made a pretty good case for his presidential run in 20 or 24.  I think disavowing, or denying, Trumps own quotes might come back to haunt him, and I can actually see Trump being a little ticked off, because Pence, on 2 or 3 occasions, said stuff like "You know he's not going to actually do that"..walking back stuff Trump has been pretty firm on.  We'll see.

Given it was relatively close.....I'd say it might staunch the Trump bleeding (til Sunday night..then we'll see), but I doubt it moves the polls at all.  It was a solid performance by both guys, IMHO. Pence's was definitely better.

[GeorgeSteele]

I thought Kaine beat Pence on substance, as Pence either refused to defend anything Trump said or just lied by denying Trump ever said such things.  But Pence had him by a mile on style and tone; it struck me as a HS debate between the knowledgable, honest, but flustered nerd against the smooth BMOC who is liked even if what he says is BS.  And there's no denying that the "you whipped out that Mexican thing again" line was hilarious.

Word is that Trump is furious that the media takeaway was that Pence far outperformed Trump (and refused to defend most of his platform) and that Pence's style is the blueprint for Trump to follow.  I think this may cause Trump to double-down on his insanity. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Trump could learn from Pence's debate performance last night & he totally outperformed Trump if you compare the two.

If Trump just toned it down a little he'd be better off with the 2nd debate worth a slightly more reserved and humble approach. He still can be stern, but not a big mouth blowhard. Guess we'll see what happens.

Hopefully I can actually be able to watch the next debate, will depend on if have electricity and a roof on my house still when Sunday rolls around.....

[tim_m]

Trump could learn from Pence's debate performance last night & he totally outperformed Trump if you compare the two.

If Trump just toned it down a little he'd be better off with the 2nd debate worth a slightly more reserved and humble approach. He still can be stern, but not a big mouth blowhard. Guess we'll see what happens.

Hopefully I can actually be able to watch the next debate, will depend on if have electricity and a roof on my house still when Sunday rolls around.....

Stay safe there!