Dante Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 We get what we deserve. Yup. As I pointed out earlier there is tangible stuff going down right now and people are to stupid to realize the significance. Like the handing over of the internet to a foreign body so they can regulate what we have access to. I don't disagree with much of what you're saying (though I'm a Scott Walker kinda guy long before Cruz or Rubio). The larger point is my original point: you, like many, offer suggestions for improvement like "He needs to be more disciplined" or "He needs to sound presidential." And that's just not going to happen because we are all witnessing the very best Trump can be. He will not get better at anything for any amount of time that will matter because he inherently must respond to every single thing thrown at him, which is a loser's game and we both know it. There is no chance of him winning. There is only the chance that HIllary may lose. Is it possible that he could be better if he really wanted to? I mean, watching the debate I thought Hilary left all kinds of holes in her D that Trump didn't exploit. I was puzzled and frustrated why he didn't. I really hope he isn't tanking by design.
Joe Miner Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Yup. As I pointed out earlier there is tangible stuff going down right now and people are to stupid to realize the significance. Like the handing over of the internet to a foreign body so they can regulate what we have access to. Is it possible that he could be better if he really wanted to? I mean, watching the debate I thought Hilary left all kinds of holes in her D that Trump didn't exploit. I was puzzled and frustrated why he didn't. I really hope he isn't tanking by design. The alternative to him tanking on purpose is that he's actually this incompetent. You really hope he not tanking. Are you sure that you actually prefer the other alternative in your candidate?
Prickly Pete Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) So we can all see the big fat liar that he is. Apparently, they both lie. But while Trump evades discussing how much he has paid in taxes, Hillary lies about exposing classified information to foreign countries while Secretary of State. How the !@#$ can you even compare the two? Edited October 3, 2016 by HoF Watkins
Magox Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) Apparently, they both lie. But while Trump evades discussing how much he has paid in taxes, Hillary lies about exposing classified information to foreign countries while Secretary of State, and accepting money in return. How the !@#$ can you even compare the two? I find both to be horrible candidates, and I would never on my own free will vote for either of the two. However, if someone put a gun to my head and said vote for one, I'd vote for the entitled, lying corrupt crook over the egotistical, lying, corrupt, narcissistic know-nothing. He is absolutely a disgusting piece of dog ****. Edited October 3, 2016 by Magox
GG Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Apparently, they both lie. But while Trump evades discussing how much he has paid in taxes, Hillary lies about exposing classified information to foreign countries while Secretary of State. How the !@#$ can you even compare the two? Two completely separate topics. And why didn't Trump highlight this distinction in the debate, when presented with a golden opportunity to do so?
Azalin Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) Like the handing over of the internet to a foreign body so they can regulate what we have access to. ICANN isn't involved in content or regulation. It is an independent entity that is not directly tied to any government (in an official capacity), and exists to provide IP addresses and web addresses in each country, instead of the rest of the world depending on the US to provide them. Chances are that ICANN would not have been given this authority if Snowden's leaks hadn't shown potential US government involvement in internet spying. I posted a link to a very good article on the subject by cnet.com over in the MSM thread. Edited October 3, 2016 by Azalin
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Agree 100%. 2 things on this: 1. He didn't break any laws. I thought the standard in this election was if you weren't convicted of anything it was all good. No harm no foul. 2. Hillary was in the Senate for 8 years. Why didn't she do something about it then? I don't think it's good for billionaires to be able to legally pay no taxes. But don't blame them, change the freakin' law. Somehow I suspect that Hillary's supporters (Wall Streeters who pay her a quarter mile per sprach) won't support this, so she won't either. Ok I want to address the bolded part to clarify some things regarding capital loss carry forward. A capital loss can only be carried forward to offset a capital gain. Like for like. Short term for short, long term for long. You can only offset income by $3,000 per year. So if he had any earned income he could only deduct $3,000. People do this all the time and some every year. Tax loss selling is selling an asset at a loss (realizing it) to offset any realized gains for that year. And yes it's smart. Very smart.
GG Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Ok I want to address the bolded part to clarify some things regarding capital loss carry forward. A capital loss can only be carried forward to offset a capital gain. Like for like. Short term for short, long term for long. You can only offset income by $3,000 per year. So if he had any earned income he could only deduct $3,000. People do this all the time and some every year. Tax loss selling is selling an asset at a loss (realizing it) to offset any realized gains for that year. And yes it's smart. Very smart. The deduction is not for capital losses, but for Other Income which includes business income/loss that's not reported on Schedule C. I imagine it's for direct investment losses, which are unlimited and can be carried forward/back for 20 years (2 yrs max back).
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 The deduction is not for capital losses, but for Other Income which includes business income/loss that's not reported on Schedule C. I imagine it's for direct investment losses, which are unlimited and can be carried forward/back for 20 years (2 yrs max back). Ok I have not seen the tax return. Is it even available and all I heard was it was page one of his federal return which doesn't give much to work on and doesn't show the calculations behind cap gains/losses and business income/losses. I just assumed it was capital loss.
GG Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Ok I have not seen the tax return. Is it even available and all I heard was it was page one of his federal return which doesn't give much to work on and doesn't show the calculations behind cap gains/losses and business income/losses. I just assumed it was capital loss. It's three pages of NYS return. No supporting docs.
Chef Jim Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 It's three pages of NYS return. No supporting docs. Thanks. I obviously have not followed this too closely mainly because I don't give a ****. This election is a train wreck and that's an insult to train wrecks.
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 So we can all see the big fat liar that he is. Not that anyone needs to see his taxes to know what a liar he is. The guy doesn't even have the decency to hide his lies. Two completely separate topics. And why didn't Trump highlight this distinction in the debate, when presented with a golden opportunity to do so? Two reasons, none of them conspiratorial (sorry Deranged): (1) He was so worked up over the small knocks to his reputation Hillary had already made that his priority was getting even on that score and not discussing the issues. (2) He's stupid. Really really stupid.
Prickly Pete Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Not that anyone needs to see his taxes to know what a liar he is. The guy doesn't even have the decency to hide his lies. Two reasons, none of them conspiratorial (sorry Deranged): (1) He was so worked up over the small knocks to his reputation Hillary had already made that his priority was getting even on that score and not discussing the issues. (2) He's stupid. Really really stupid. Yet, he is running for president, and you are snarking about politics on a Buffalo Bills site.
ExiledInIllinois Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 In a George Patton kind a way? https://news.google.com/news/ampviewer?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nydailynews.com%2Famp%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ftrump-suggests-vets-ptsd-aren-strong-article-1.2815752#pt0-928989 Even than, Patton took flak for slapping the shellshockef soldier. Make America great Donald! Yet, he is running for president, and you are snarking about politics on a Buffalo Bills site. Exactly what the real funky Ben Franklin would have wanted. Somewhere he is smiling!
B-Man Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 The Bonfire of the Inanities by Jonah Goldberg The response to the New York Times story about Trump’s taxes may mark peak stupid in this election season — and that’s saying something. As I wrote yesterday in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/03/donald-trump-income-tax-debate-jonah-goldberg-column/91464072/ there’s nothing wrong with paying what you owe in taxes and nothing more. Virtually no liberal screaming bloody murder over the last two days disagrees with this — at least not when it comes to their own taxes. The Clinton campaign’s effort to make it sound like Trump dodged his taxes is understandably dishonest and cynical (neither campaign observes any meaningful standards of honesty or decency). But the media’s reckless parroting of this nonsense, particularly on Twitter, is just embarrassing. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
dpberr Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Democrats are outraged by what Trump says. Democrats ignore what Hilary Clinton does. It's a great story for Scandal but in real life, you put Clinton in the White House and you're going to have a President who'll be impeached in the first term. If she's done all of this just to get in the White House, what do you think she's going to do once she's in there?
IDBillzFan Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Spotted Ozy and his friend at a Trump rally.
Deranged Rhino Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Democrats are outraged by what Trump says. Democrats ignore what Hilary Clinton does. It's a great story for Scandal but in real life, you put Clinton in the White House and you're going to have a President who'll be impeached in the first term. If she's done all of this just to get in the White House, what do you think she's going to do once she's in there? She'll do exactly what she's told. Which is why she's the Deep State's choice. The coronation will not be denied. Buckle up for more war, more turmoil, and the continued economic shakedown of the middle class.
Keukasmallies Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 I find both to be horrible candidates, and I would never on my own free will vote for either of the two. However, if someone put a gun to my head and said vote for one, I'd vote for the entitled, lying corrupt crook over the egotistical, lying, corrupt, narcissistic know-nothing. He is absolutely a disgusting piece of dog ****. Thanks for sticking that pronoun in there; it's the only way I know who you're talking about at the moment.
Magox Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Thanks for sticking that pronoun in there; it's the only way I know who you're talking about at the moment. I do what I can.
Recommended Posts