The Trump Files

This whole thing is a non-issue. So Trump lost a lot of money, deducted it and strung out the deduction when he had income to match it against. So what? That's in the basic book I have on filing your income taxes and there is nothing wrong, illegal or immoral about it.

It's simply how tax accounting is done.

Was the original deduction fake or was it real?

Apparently it was real. He really did lose almost a billion dollars. (I find the fact that someone who bases his candidacy on his 'business acumen' lost so much money pretty funny. You would have to stand on a corner and hand out $1,000 bills all day for the whole year to lose that much money.)

But that's not what is being talked about.

There is follow-up required ... if circumstances changed and some of the loss was subsequently reversed he would have needed to file a revised form and maybe pay some additional tax...but I haven't seen anything that would indicate this to be the case.

This does of course contribute to the suspicion surrounding his refusal to release his tax returns but again this is not what is being talked about.

People seem to have jumped on this non-issue simply out of hate for Trump.

Now I can understand the hate (I dislike him myself) but that has no bearing on this situation.

People are in fact acting a little Trumpish by jumping on nothing and calling Trump names for the hell of it.

I DO have criticism of the New York Times. It is illegal to copy someone's tax returns without their permission. The Times, in order to preserve public integrity should NOT have published this illegally obtained information no matter how juicy. Illegal is illegal.
 
Last edited:
oldnemesis said:
People seem to have jumped on this non-issue simply out of hate for Trump.
More...
Perhaps they are using it as a gambit to smoke out his tax returns.

And even assuming that he carried forward the losses in a proper manner, there is the small matter of his complaining that half the country isn't paying any taxes while the national debt is mounting. Regardless of circumstances, optics dictate that he can't have it both ways. And let's not forget that while he's been stiffing the American tax payer with presumably legitimate deductions for almost two decades, he stiffed all manner of contractors out of their rightful payment, as well as other stakeholders, while claiming to be a good businessman. That doesn't make him a good businessman, it just makes him an oily one who barely escaped disaster himself. Whatever else he can say about that episode, he shouldn't get to brag about it. And yet he does. And his celebrity culture reality show fan base eats it all up. And they will vote for this tumor.

oldnemesis said:
I DO have criticism of the New York Times. It is illegal to copy someone's tax returns without their permission. The Times, in order to preserve public integrity should NOT have published this illegally obtained information no matter how juicy. Illegal is illegal.
More...

And the executive editor of NYT is prepared to pay the price:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trouble-to-publish-donald-trumps-tax-return/
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:
And let's not forget that while he's been stiffing the American tax payer with presumably legitimate deductions for almost two decades
More...

No. To say he 'STIFFED' the taxpayers with 'legitimate deductions' is a basic contradiction in terms. If the deductions were legitimate then no one was 'STIFFED'. You are using emotional language to produce an impression without any facts to back it up. As far as we know no one was stiffed. He took legitimate deductions.

His stiffing of contractors etc. are a completely different matter and is not what is being discussed here. You are taking a page right from the Donald book of bull shit.

BTY: 'optics dictate' is not a meaningful phrase. I am not aware of optics dictating anything.

I am also not aware that he brags about THAT specific episode. I'm pretty sure he doesn't.
 
Last edited:
oldnemesis said:
I DO have criticism of the New York Times. It is illegal to copy someone's tax returns without their permission. The Times, in order to preserve public integrity should NOT have published this illegally obtained information no matter how juicy. Illegal is illegal.
More...

The editor said it was as a service to the nation and he is willing to face the consequences.
Don't forget many are with relish waiting for dirt of Hillary from Assange.
 
oldnemesis said:
No. To say he 'STIFFED' the taxpayers with 'legitimate deductions' is a basic contradiction in terms. If the deductions were legitimate then no one was 'STIFFED'. You are using emotional language to produce an impression without any facts to back it up. As far as we know no one was stiffed. He took legitimate deductions.
More...
I referred to the matter of optics in my post. Trump is all about optics and no substance, and so I choose to address it on his terms. The deductions may have been legitimate, but in the same breath he said that half the population is also not paying taxes while the debt mounts. I'm assuming that these other Americans are also largely going about their business legally. Trump is complaining that others are not paying any taxes (legally) while he is not any paying taxes (legally). Presumably. And you see nothing wrong with this picture? (Think hypocrisy.) Trump is suggesting that half of Americans are getting away with paying no taxes (presumably legally), implying that they're stiffing the country.

oldnemesis said:
His stiffing of contractors etc. are a completely different matter and is not what is being discussed here. You are taking a page right from the Donald book of bull shit.
More...
It is completely relevant when taken against the narrative that he is a brilliant businessman who knows how to get things done when, in fact, he leaves a trail of misery and almost became a smudge on that trail himself, as evidenced by the loss we are discussing. If he can conflate to his advantage, then I can throw the shit right back into his cage.
 
Last edited:
Spike Trader said:
The editor said it was as a service to the nation and he is willing to face the consequences
More...
Such thinking undermines an orderly society. If something is illegal and you don't like it get the law changed...don't disobey it.

I hate the guy who lives next door to me and I would like to shoot him and I think the neighborhood would benefit from his demise...but it's against the law. I could run outside and yell "I'm doing the neighborhood a service...I'll take the consequences" and blow him away. While this might be justified in my mind, I don't do it and obey the law in order to preserve an orderly society. The Times should do likewise.
 
Last edited:
Covertibility said:
At least with Donald we know where his money came from, with the Clintons it's a story the liberals don't want to talk about.
More...

False: most Americans do not know where Trump money comes from.
They only know how the money was used, how it was introduced in the financial system, not from it originated. For instance, when one of Trump casino was going bankrupt, his dad pour around 3million at the time - toay's value would be at least 15million- in a type of illegal loan, by buying betting chips and not using these. If not for the judicial system, people could have believed this money was from customers, and in fact it came from his dad; and it could have came from any type of person with more shaddy backgrounds.
Trump is right to fully resist releasing his tax returns : here they are highlighting mega losses, but, from McMullin statements, his tax returns would reveal stuff Americans are unsuspecting of.

The Clintons: Politicians are not stupid, they are politicians and were well aware to tidy up all their finances. That's why they released their taxes, and have released them over the last 15 years. They are well prepared. Business people who go into politics would do well to study well this election: Trump is just one example as many before him of business people who are "discovering" that politicians prepare decades before for elections. They don't leave anything to chance.
 
Frederick Foresight said:
It is completely relevant when taken against the narrative that he is a brilliant businessman who knows how to get things done when, in fact, he leaves a trail of misery and almost became a smudge on that trail himself. If he can conflate to his advantage, then I can throw the shit right back into his cage.
More...

He also made a lot of money simply by suing people.:D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top