U.S. Elections: Is Keeping The SC Worth Risking A Dictatorship?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

It takes 67 Senators to actually remove a President. Good luck with that. You'll be stuck with your awful mistake if he's elected. The impeachment of Bill Clinton ended Newt's career.How well will the public take a party attempting to impeach their own president?

That's a great endorsement for your candidate, btw. Don't worry, we can impeach him!

I think much of that would depend on what you're impeaching him for. I tend to believe that Trump would be fairly likely to give them a reason at least as substantial as Watergate.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Kind of confused by this one...

 

 

 Liberal pundits are calling this Trump's own October Surprise, but doesn't this just legitimize his non-payment of taxes? Not sure why this is a good thing for Hillary necessarily.

[Altherion]

The few media outlets not overtly supporting Clinton have obtained some more of what Clinton said to donors during the primary. Among other things, she mentioned that she is "occupying from the center-left to the center-right" and, regarding young people:

Quote

Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future. I met with a group of young black millennials today and you know one of the young women said, “You know, none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college. And we don’t believe the job market is going to give us much of a chance.” So that is a mindset that is really affecting their politics. And so if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing. So I think we should all be really understanding of that and should try to do the best we can not to be, you know, a wet blanket on idealism. We want people to be idealistic. We want them to set big goals. But to take what we can achieve now and try to present them as bigger goals.

The third sentence attracted the most attention and inspired a #basementdwellers hashtag, but it's the final sentence that shows why Clinton is just as dangerous as Trump. Presenting "what we can achieve now" (i.e. the goals that can be achieved without inconveniencing political donors like the ones to whom the speech is being given) as bigger goals is what the Democrats have been doing since at least 2008. It has mostly worked so far -- there are certainly people on this board who sing praises of the Democrats to the high heavens for actions which do absolutely nothing to solve any important problems and are often actively detrimental to these. However, it will not work forever. The number of people who don't have the job they want is almost certainly not going to decrease (Clinton tacitly admits this in the speech above) and eventually it will occur to most of them (it has already occurred to many) that at least part of the cause of this consists of Clinton and her donors. Clinton refers to Sanders' movement as a political revolution, but there's a non-trivial chance that sooner or later people will show her and her donors what those words really mean.

[Mexal]

22 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Kind of confused by this one...

 

 

 Liberal pundits are calling this Trump's own October Surprise, but doesn't this just legitimize his non-payment of taxes? Not sure why this is a good thing for Hillary necessarily.

Shows he's a pretty terrible businessman.

also love the part in the story where someone from Trump tower anonymously mailed her those tax returns. Trump isn't going to be happy.

[Commodore]

no Republican can expect their tax returns to remain sealed, too many hostiles with access and there is never any consequence for leaking

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Shows he's a pretty terrible businessman.

also love the part in the story where someone from Trump tower anonymously mailed her those tax returns. Trump isn't going to be happy.

Eh, we knew that he's had his share of failures. The fact that he's still standing after that sort of loss is kind of a mixed bag, isn't it? I feel like it was more damaging to think that a man that rich paid no taxes due to some sort of nebulous loophole. This seems like a legit reason to avoid paying taxes.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Just finished the NYT article, and I'm still confused. My understanding of finance and economics is limited at best. I thought the crux of the situation regarding his casino bankruptcy was that he didn't go personally bankrupt because he was mostly playing with other peoples money. If that's so, I don't get how he can turn around and claim that loss personally. That doesn't seem like it should be legal to me.

 

/It's like The Art of Fucking up a Deal so Badly that it becomes a net gain over two decades. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 So good with the cybers. So good.

 

[Shryke]

56 minutes ago, Commodore said:

no Republican can expect their tax returns to remain sealed, too many hostiles with access and there is never any consequence for leaking

And that's why we have Romney's tax returns.

/nod

[Shryke]

38 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, we knew that he's had his share of failures. The fact that he's still standing after that sort of loss is kind of a mixed bag, isn't it? I feel like it was more damaging to think that a man that rich paid no taxes due to some sort of nebulous loophole. This seems like a legit reason to avoid paying taxes.

It doesn't matter if it's legal. This shit is usually legal. It still pisses alot of people the fuck off. The system is rigged and the rich can get away with anything and all that.

Included along the pissed off it appears, is Trump who was apparently particularly unhinged tonight. And quite late. He's fucking losing it.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The few media outlets not overtly supporting Clinton have obtained some more of what Clinton said to donors during the primary. Among other things, she mentioned that she is "occupying from the center-left to the center-right" and, regarding young people:

The third sentence attracted the most attention and inspired a #basementdwellers hashtag, but it's the final sentence that shows why Clinton is just as dangerous as Trump. Presenting "what we can achieve now" (i.e. the goals that can be achieved without inconveniencing political donors like the ones to whom the speech is being given) as bigger goals is what the Democrats have been doing since at least 2008. It has mostly worked so far -- there are certainly people on this board who sing praises of the Democrats to the high heavens for actions which do absolutely nothing to solve any important problems and are often actively detrimental to these. However, it will not work forever. The number of people who don't have the job they want is almost certainly not going to decrease (Clinton tacitly admits this in the speech above) and eventually it will occur to most of them (it has already occurred to many) that at least part of the cause of this consists of Clinton and her donors. Clinton refers to Sanders' movement as a political revolution, but there's a non-trivial chance that sooner or later people will show her and her donors what those words really mean.

You are so transparently full of shit.

That whole quote is her expressing sympathy and understanding for young people who have been shit on by the economy because of when they were born and came of age and why they would find the idea of revolution appealing in the face of a very bad looking future in the job market. And saying that we (her, the Democratic Party, etc) need to show them how gains now lead to the big ideals they have for the future and do so without dampening their idealism.

The fact that you this rather solid and warm bit of understanding as making her "just as dangerous as Trump" is manifestly stupid. But really, we should expect no less of you considering your continued attempts to defend your support of a narcissistic, thin-skinned, authoritarian, bigoted, misogynistic, unstable bully.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Kind of confused by this one...

 

 

 Liberal pundits are calling this Trump's own October Surprise, but doesn't this just legitimize his non-payment of taxes? Not sure why this is a good thing for Hillary necessarily.

Because declaring that you personally lost a billion dollars of business is a pretty big knock on the 'being awesome at business' thing. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Because declaring that you personally lost a billion dollars of business is a pretty big knock on the 'being awesome at business' thing. 

But we already knew that. He's had a string of highly publicized failed businesses. He's good at one thing basically, and that's Real Estate Development. The casino business is arguably one of the hardest businesses to lose money in. He managed to do that. He started a mortgage company at the worst possible fucking time, like two years prior to the 2008 Housing Bubble bursting. Trump Airlines turned a successful shuttle service between New York and Boston into a complete bust. The list goes on and on. 

He has been remarkably successful at promoting that image, granted, but I don't think anyone other than his most rabid supporters actually buy into it. 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But we already knew that. He's had a string of highly publicized failed businesses. He's good at one thing basically, and that's Real Estate Development. The casino business is arguably one of the hardest businesses to lose money in. He managed to do that. He started a mortgage company at the worst possible fucking time, like two years prior to the 2008 Housing Bubble bursting. Trump Airlines turned a successful shuttle service between New York and Boston into a complete bust. The list goes on and on. 

He has been remarkably successful at promoting that image, granted, but I don't think anyone other than his most rabid supporters actually buy into it. 

 

People who were willing to look into it knew that. People who were willing to check things out knew that. But there was never a $916 MILLION loss listed. Being able to say "Trump listed that he lost $916m" is the kind of soundbite that really can harm in a way that other things cannot. 

This directly harms that image in a quick and simple way. It also speaks nicely to people's anger about the bailouts - if the reason he hasn't been paying taxes is because the US has been covering his billion dollar loss, that's gonna make people mad.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But we already knew that. He's had a string of highly publicized failed businesses. He's good at one thing basically, and that's Real Estate Development. The casino business is arguably one of the hardest businesses to lose money in. He managed to do that. He started a mortgage company at the worst possible fucking time, like two years prior to the 2008 Housing Bubble bursting. Trump Airlines turned a successful shuttle service between New York and Boston into a complete bust. The list goes on and on. 

He has been remarkably successful at promoting that image, granted, but I don't think anyone other than his most rabid supporters actually buy into it. 

 

 His entire public image is literally based on the idea that he's a rich and successful businessman. 

Even his appeal is partially based on this.

[all swedes are racist]

Also lays into the idea that he had no tax burden "no, that means [he's] smart" but not too sure how many people will actually hear that

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Rhllor's void lobster said:

Also lays into the idea that he had no tax burden "no, that means [he's] smart" but not too sure how many people will actually hear that

Well that statement was spun as a net negative to begin with. He's proud of not paying taxes? Fuck that guy.

[DraculaAD1972]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

You are so transparently full of shit.

That whole quote is her expressing sympathy and understanding for young people who have been shit on by the economy because of when they were born and came of age and why they would find the idea of revolution appealing in the face of a very bad looking future in the job market. And saying that we (her, the Democratic Party, etc) need to show them how gains now lead to the big ideals they have for the future and do so without dampening their idealism.

The fact that you this rather solid and warm bit of understanding as making her "just as dangerous as Trump" is manifestly stupid. But really, we should expect no less of you considering your continued attempts to defend your support of a narcissistic, thin-skinned, authoritarian, bigoted, misogynistic, unstable bully.

Narcissistic? Thin skinned? Authoritarian? Bigoted? Misogynistic? Unstable bully? 

Thats a pretty good description of Hillary Clinton. 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

It looks like Clinton hit the nail on the head, when she guessed that Trump had not paid federal income taxes in a while.

 

I'll just leave the opening paragraphs here. Click me for the full article

Quote

It took less than a day for October to produce an "October surprise."

Donald Trump reported a nearly $1 billion loss on his 1995 tax returns and could therefore have avoided paying federal income taxes for almost two decades, the New York Times reported on Saturday, putting another unexpected exclamation point on what had already been one of the worst weeks for any presidential nominee in recent memory.

Story Continued Below

 

The Times, which hired tax experts to analyze the records, determined that “tax rules that are especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period” -- more than $50 million a year.

Times reporter Susanne Craig received the documents, which the paper describes as “three pages from what appeared to be Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns,” in the mail from an unknown source. The documents were sent last month and postmarked New York City, with a return address of Trump Tower -- the real estate mogul’s headquarters.

A statement from Trump’s campaign neither confirmed nor denied that he filed a $916 million loss in his 1995 tax returns, but charged that the documents were “illegally obtained” in what it said was “a further demonstration that the New York Times, like establishment media in general, is an extension of the Clinton Campaign, the Democratic Party and their global special interests.”

[...]

On the other side, you really have to wonder  why Bernie's millennials are not flocking to her.

Of course it's nowhere near as horrible as Trump, but it has certain Romneyesque 47% vibe to it.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Regarding the how playing with the houses money can engender a tax liability or losses, I look at it like this. A clown called Tramp creates a series of shell corporations. He makes himself an officer in those organizations and thusly the organizations compensate Tramp in his capacity as that officer. With said compensation Tramp aquires and invests in real estate. Tramps real estate has a depreciation schedule, deductible expenses, net losses on sales and so and so forth to the point where Tramp can show he has suffered losses, personal losses, even though that original compensation came from the shell entity that Tramp created and made himself officer of (the House Money). 

There's also the vampire aspect to it , where Tramp could use one of the shell entities and suck all the blood out of a asset ( like its cash or equipment or any asset of value) once that asset is stripped out, the Shell entity can declare itself unable to pay the debt on the original loan to buy the asset ( a casino, or resort ,etc ) and declare itself bancrupt. Tramp as officer of the bancrupt shell entity would often partner with other investors and structure cash infusions to the shell along the way ( more house money ) but the way these things end is usually these partners are left holding the bag, they only recieve pennies on the dollar for there original investments on the Tramp ventures. 

Tramp has repeated this cycle most of his career. Its also why Vegas will not issue Tramp a casino license for his hotel there. Tramp sees no problem with this methodology for doing business and believes it makes him taller by several inches, also less obese and very manly, he will tell ya.