Trump Implosion

[BriarFox]

Not unsurprisingly, Trump is coming apart at the seams, despite his team's efforts to rein him in, which his narcissism just won't allow. Check out his behavior at a rally yesterday:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/

MANHEIM, Pa. — Donald Trump's campaign announced Saturday evening that the candidate would soon deliver a nine-sentence critique of comments Hillary Clinton made months ago about many of the millennials supporting her primary rival, Bernie Sanders. It was an attempt to latch onto a new headline in hopes of finally escaping the controversies that had consumed his week.

It didn’t work.

It took Trump nearly 25 minutes to read the brief statement because he kept going off on one angry tangent after another — ignoring his teleprompters and accusing Clinton of not being “loyal” to her husband, imitating her buckling at a memorial service last month, suggesting that she is “crazy” and saying she should be in prison. He urged his mostly white crowd of supporters to go to polling places in "certain areas" on Election Day to "watch" the voters there. He also repeatedly complained about having a "bum mic" at the first presidential debate and wondered if he should have done another season of “The Apprentice.”

As Trump ranted in this rural Pennsylvania town, The New York Times reported it had anonymously received Trump’s 1995 income tax returns, which show he declared a loss of $916 million -- a loss that he could use to avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

The evening capped one of Trump's worst weeks of the campaign season, one that started with his shaky debate performance on Monday night and went on to include a public feud with a former beauty queen, a middle-of-the-night tweet storm, attacks on the Clintons' marriage and an examination of an decades-old adult film that briefly featured Trump fully clothed.

...

Eventually, Trump read a few more sentences, telling the audience that Clinton had described Sanders supporters as “living in their parents’ basements” and being trapped in dead-end jobs. Clinton made these comments more than seven months ago and seemed to sympathize with millennials who supported Sanders, although Republicans have tried to frame the remarks as an attack on young voters.

“In a really sarcastic tone because she’s a sarcastic woman,” Trump dryly said, going off-script.

He resumed his scripted spot: “To sum up…”

But he interrupted himself: “And I’ll tell you the other thing: She’s an incompetent woman. And I’ve seen it. She’s an incompetent woman.”

Halfway through the statement, Trump took a nearly 20-minute-long break to cover a range of topics, including these:

— He reflected on how his movement has “the smartest people… the sharpest people… the most amazing people.” He said the pundits — “most of them aren’t worth the ground they’re standing on, some of that ground could be fairly wealthy ground” — have never seen a phenomenon like this.

He asked that the crowd if they are proud of President Obama, and they answered with a booming: “No!”

— He told the crowd to get a group of friends together on Election Day, vote and then go to “certain areas” and “watch” the voters there. "I hear too many bad stories, and we can't lose an election because of you know what I'm talking about,” Trump said. “So, go and vote and then go check out areas because a lot of bad things happen, and we don't want to lose for that reason.”

— He declared that he won Monday night’s debate even though he had a “bum mic.” He asked the crowd if they think that “maybe that was done on purpose.” They cheered.

— He recounted how the “dopes at CNN” and “phony pundits” refused to acknowledge how well he was doing during the primaries. “Then we started getting 52 percent, 58 percent, 66 percent, 78 percent, 82 percent," Trump said, not making clear what those numbers mean. "And they just didn’t understand what was going on.”

— He said Clinton could not fight bad trade deals or Russian President Vladimir Putin because “she can't make it 15 feet to her car,” alluding to video that showed Clinton buckling as she unexpectedly left a 9/11 memorial service early. Her doctor later said she had pneumonia. Trump then imitated Clinton by flailing his arms and jostling side to side. He walked unsteadily away from the podium as if he were about to fall over. “Folks, we need stamina,” Trump said. “We need energy.”

— He claimed that he has a “winning temperament” while Clinton has “bad temperament.” Trump continued: “She could be crazy. She could actually be crazy.”

...

Trump read one more sentence of the statement and accused Clinton of saying that “most of the country is racist” because she said at the debate that “implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.”

[Two days after the debate, Trump responds to Clinton's comment on implicit bias]

“Did anybody like Lester Holt?” Trump said, naming the debate moderator as his crowd booed.

Trump read one more sentence of the statement, then brought up Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

“She should be in prison, let me tell you,” Trump said. “She should be in prison.”

The crowd cheered and chanted: “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!”

“And she’s being totally protected by The New York Times and The Washington Post and all of the media and CNN — Clinton News Network, which nobody is watching anyways so what difference does it make,” Trump said.

Trump accused Clinton of “lies and lies.”

“How many people have acid-washed or bleached a tweet?” Trump asked the crowd. “How many? That you deleted? So you deleted it but that’s not good enough. No, this is getting crazy. Our country is becoming a third-world country.”

Trump read the final sentence of the statement but by that point, he had overshadowed his campaign’s planned headline with numerous other ones. And he kept adding to the list.

Trump called Clinton a “lousy speaker” and accused her of giving away the jobs of hardworking Pennsylvanians to please her donors.

“You’re unsuspecting,” Trump said. “Right now, you say to your wife: ‘Let’s go to a movie after Trump.’ But you won’t do that because you’ll be so high and so excited that no movie is going to satisfy you. Okay? No movie. You know why? Honestly? Because they don’t make movies like they used to — is that right?”

Trump yelled at the media to show his crowd, which he said would make for “better television,” pledged to win Pennsylvania and called supporters of international trade “blood suckers.”

“Oh, I could be doing the ‘Apprentice’ right now,” Trump said at one point, seeming to harken back to a happier time in his life. “I loved it — 14 seasons. How good was that? Tremendous success. They wanted to extend — I could be doing the ‘Apprentice’ now. Somehow I think this is a little bit more important. Do we agree? Just a little bit?”

As he spoke, dozens of people left the rally early, tired from standing for hours and hoping to beat the traffic. Those who remained leaned against walls, barricades and each other. One woman rubbed her knees. Another took a phone call: “I’m still here… He started an hour and a half late… I’ll call you whenever we get out of here.”

“I didn’t need to do this, folks,” Trump said of his candidacy. “Believe me. This is tough work… This is hard work. Believe me, folks. This is hard work.”

Trump told the crowd he’s beholden to his supporters and no one else.

“Hillary Clinton’s only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself,” Trump said. “I don’t even think she’s loyal to Bill, if you want to know the truth.”

The crowd gasped and many shouted: “Ohhhhh!”

Trump shrugged.

“And really, folks,” Trump continued, “really, why should she be? Right? Why should she be?”

He questioned how the Clintons earned so many tens of millions of dollars. He told a guy in the crowd he loved him even though he’s a guy. He pursed his lips as his supporters interrupted him with another “lock her up” chant. He reminded everyone that Bill Clinton was impeached because “everyone forgets.” He accused the media of allowing Clinton to “get away with murder.” He said African Americans will vote for him because he will fix their impoverished, dangerous neighborhoods that are “worse than war zones.”

“People walk to the office, they walk to get a loaf of bread, they get shot, their child gets shot,” Trump said.

He rattled off some campaign promises —taxes, energy, coal, farms — and then paused to note the upcoming 10th anniversary of the mass shooting at an Amish schoolhouse here in Lancaster County that left five girls dead.

“Tonight when you say your prayers, I ask you to remember those five young beautiful girls and their families,” Trump said. “Another issue we’re going to deal with is in certain ways so important. But when I tell you about what I just did, that is a special group of people. So say prayers, please. Okay? Just remember those people and what they went through.”

[Parkbandit]

LOL

[Taernath]

As Trump ranted in this rural Pennsylvania town, The New York Times reported it had anonymously received Trump’s 1995 income tax returns, which show he declared a loss of $916 million -- a loss that he could use to avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

If that's true, it's pretty funny. People thought he wasn't releasing tax information because he's 'a great businessman, the best businessman', exploiting loopholes to avoid paying taxes. But really, he might have done so poorly he didn't have to pay taxes.

:lol:

[Dendum]

If that's true, it's pretty funny. People thought he wasn't releasing tax information because he's 'a great businessman, the best businessman', exploiting loopholes to avoid paying taxes. But really, he might have done so poorly he didn't have to pay taxes.

:lol:

I am no trumpet but even I wouldnt expect the guy to pay taxes he didnt have to pay in 2006...ten years before he was in an election.

Idk it seems like an effective talking point but I am just not buying into that line. It is not going to sway the trumpites and I doubt it will do anything but solidify the base.

I think at this point the most damaging thing his returns would show is that he isnt nearly as wealthy as he claimed and he would have made more money putting his dad's wealth in a mutual fund than he would have using his yuuge business skills.

[Parkbandit]

If that's true, it's pretty funny. People thought he wasn't releasing tax information because he's 'a great businessman, the best businessman', exploiting loopholes to avoid paying taxes. But really, he might have done so poorly he didn't have to pay taxes.

:lol:

"anonymously received Trump's 1995 income tax returns"...

Couldn't possibly be from the IRS.. because they are above this type of behavior and would never, ever do anything so politically motivated.

:lol:

[Kronius]

Does it make any difference to his supports? I don't think they give two shits at this point and damn near nothing will sway them.

[macgyver]

I'm voting Trump. I need something to watch on TV when I'm resting on a node.

[Parkbandit]

I'm voting Trump. I need something to watch on TV when I'm resting on a node.

Like the mighty Pheonix.. Trump rose from the ashes of 1994 and soared to incredible heights, culminating as President of the United States!!

It's an amazing story.. it'll be like we're witnessing history!

[Warriorbird]

I think he didn't give a damn about this stuff and might have leaked it himself (rather than a disgruntled employee) since it came from Trump Tower.

What he's concealing is he's less rich than he claims (which he is touchy about.) Otherwise he'd release them all now.

[Methais]

Not unsurprisingly, Trump is coming apart at the seams, despite his team's efforts to rein him in, which his narcissism just won't allow. Check out his behavior at a rally yesterday:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/

MANHEIM, Pa. — Donald Trump's campaign announced Saturday evening that the candidate would soon deliver a nine-sentence critique of comments Hillary Clinton made months ago about many of the millennials supporting her primary rival, Bernie Sanders. It was an attempt to latch onto a new headline in hopes of finally escaping the controversies that had consumed his week.

It didn’t work.

It took Trump nearly 25 minutes to read the brief statement because he kept going off on one angry tangent after another — ignoring his teleprompters and accusing Clinton of not being “loyal” to her husband, imitating her buckling at a memorial service last month, suggesting that she is “crazy” and saying she should be in prison. He urged his mostly white crowd of supporters to go to polling places in "certain areas" on Election Day to "watch" the voters there. He also repeatedly complained about having a "bum mic" at the first presidential debate and wondered if he should have done another season of “The Apprentice.”

As Trump ranted in this rural Pennsylvania town, The New York Times reported it had anonymously received Trump’s 1995 income tax returns, which show he declared a loss of $916 million -- a loss that he could use to avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.

The evening capped one of Trump's worst weeks of the campaign season, one that started with his shaky debate performance on Monday night and went on to include a public feud with a former beauty queen, a middle-of-the-night tweet storm, attacks on the Clintons' marriage and an examination of an decades-old adult film that briefly featured Trump fully clothed.

...

Eventually, Trump read a few more sentences, telling the audience that Clinton had described Sanders supporters as “living in their parents’ basements” and being trapped in dead-end jobs. Clinton made these comments more than seven months ago and seemed to sympathize with millennials who supported Sanders, although Republicans have tried to frame the remarks as an attack on young voters.

“In a really sarcastic tone because she’s a sarcastic woman,” Trump dryly said, going off-script.

He resumed his scripted spot: “To sum up…”

But he interrupted himself: “And I’ll tell you the other thing: She’s an incompetent woman. And I’ve seen it. She’s an incompetent woman.”

Halfway through the statement, Trump took a nearly 20-minute-long break to cover a range of topics, including these:

— He reflected on how his movement has “the smartest people… the sharpest people… the most amazing people.” He said the pundits — “most of them aren’t worth the ground they’re standing on, some of that ground could be fairly wealthy ground” — have never seen a phenomenon like this.

He asked that the crowd if they are proud of President Obama, and they answered with a booming: “No!”

— He told the crowd to get a group of friends together on Election Day, vote and then go to “certain areas” and “watch” the voters there. "I hear too many bad stories, and we can't lose an election because of you know what I'm talking about,” Trump said. “So, go and vote and then go check out areas because a lot of bad things happen, and we don't want to lose for that reason.”

— He declared that he won Monday night’s debate even though he had a “bum mic.” He asked the crowd if they think that “maybe that was done on purpose.” They cheered.

— He recounted how the “dopes at CNN” and “phony pundits” refused to acknowledge how well he was doing during the primaries. “Then we started getting 52 percent, 58 percent, 66 percent, 78 percent, 82 percent," Trump said, not making clear what those numbers mean. "And they just didn’t understand what was going on.”

— He said Clinton could not fight bad trade deals or Russian President Vladimir Putin because “she can't make it 15 feet to her car,” alluding to video that showed Clinton buckling as she unexpectedly left a 9/11 memorial service early. Her doctor later said she had pneumonia. Trump then imitated Clinton by flailing his arms and jostling side to side. He walked unsteadily away from the podium as if he were about to fall over. “Folks, we need stamina,” Trump said. “We need energy.”

— He claimed that he has a “winning temperament” while Clinton has “bad temperament.” Trump continued: “She could be crazy. She could actually be crazy.”

...

Trump read one more sentence of the statement and accused Clinton of saying that “most of the country is racist” because she said at the debate that “implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.”

[Two days after the debate, Trump responds to Clinton's comment on implicit bias]

“Did anybody like Lester Holt?” Trump said, naming the debate moderator as his crowd booed.

Trump read one more sentence of the statement, then brought up Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

“She should be in prison, let me tell you,” Trump said. “She should be in prison.”

The crowd cheered and chanted: “Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!”

“And she’s being totally protected by The New York Times and The Washington Post and all of the media and CNN — Clinton News Network, which nobody is watching anyways so what difference does it make,” Trump said.

Trump accused Clinton of “lies and lies.”

“How many people have acid-washed or bleached a tweet?” Trump asked the crowd. “How many? That you deleted? So you deleted it but that’s not good enough. No, this is getting crazy. Our country is becoming a third-world country.”

Trump read the final sentence of the statement but by that point, he had overshadowed his campaign’s planned headline with numerous other ones. And he kept adding to the list.

Trump called Clinton a “lousy speaker” and accused her of giving away the jobs of hardworking Pennsylvanians to please her donors.

“You’re unsuspecting,” Trump said. “Right now, you say to your wife: ‘Let’s go to a movie after Trump.’ But you won’t do that because you’ll be so high and so excited that no movie is going to satisfy you. Okay? No movie. You know why? Honestly? Because they don’t make movies like they used to — is that right?”

Trump yelled at the media to show his crowd, which he said would make for “better television,” pledged to win Pennsylvania and called supporters of international trade “blood suckers.”

“Oh, I could be doing the ‘Apprentice’ right now,” Trump said at one point, seeming to harken back to a happier time in his life. “I loved it — 14 seasons. How good was that? Tremendous success. They wanted to extend — I could be doing the ‘Apprentice’ now. Somehow I think this is a little bit more important. Do we agree? Just a little bit?”

As he spoke, dozens of people left the rally early, tired from standing for hours and hoping to beat the traffic. Those who remained leaned against walls, barricades and each other. One woman rubbed her knees. Another took a phone call: “I’m still here… He started an hour and a half late… I’ll call you whenever we get out of here.”

“I didn’t need to do this, folks,” Trump said of his candidacy. “Believe me. This is tough work… This is hard work. Believe me, folks. This is hard work.”

Trump told the crowd he’s beholden to his supporters and no one else.

“Hillary Clinton’s only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself,” Trump said. “I don’t even think she’s loyal to Bill, if you want to know the truth.”

The crowd gasped and many shouted: “Ohhhhh!”

Trump shrugged.

“And really, folks,” Trump continued, “really, why should she be? Right? Why should she be?”

He questioned how the Clintons earned so many tens of millions of dollars. He told a guy in the crowd he loved him even though he’s a guy. He pursed his lips as his supporters interrupted him with another “lock her up” chant. He reminded everyone that Bill Clinton was impeached because “everyone forgets.” He accused the media of allowing Clinton to “get away with murder.” He said African Americans will vote for him because he will fix their impoverished, dangerous neighborhoods that are “worse than war zones.”

“People walk to the office, they walk to get a loaf of bread, they get shot, their child gets shot,” Trump said.

He rattled off some campaign promises —taxes, energy, coal, farms — and then paused to note the upcoming 10th anniversary of the mass shooting at an Amish schoolhouse here in Lancaster County that left five girls dead.

“Tonight when you say your prayers, I ask you to remember those five young beautiful girls and their families,” Trump said. “Another issue we’re going to deal with is in certain ways so important. But when I tell you about what I just did, that is a special group of people. So say prayers, please. Okay? Just remember those people and what they went through.”

Well golly, since you put it that way I guess I'll just go vote for Hillary now.

Is that the response you were hoping for?

[Parkbandit]

I think he didn't give a damn about this stuff and might have leaked it himself (rather than a disgruntled employee) since it came from Trump Tower.

What he's concealing is he's less rich than he claims (which he is touchy about.) Otherwise he'd release them all now.

Not really, since Trump is already forced to give his Personal Financial Disclosure to the FEC and has done so for the past 2 years.

[Warriorbird]

Not really, since Trump is already forced to give his Personal Financial Disclosure to the FEC and has done so for the past 2 years.

Then what do you think he's hiding?

[Tisket]

He urged his mostly white crowd of supporters to go to polling places in "certain areas" on Election Day to "watch" the voters there.

Well, I guess that's one good thing about being a registered voter in Washington state...we don't have polling places.

In your face, Donald!

[Tisket]

Of course, it could mean his supporters will be milling around post offices instead :(

[BriarFox]

Well golly, since you put it that way I guess I'll just go vote for Hillary now.

Is that the response you were hoping for?

That would make me happy, since she's by far a more qualified and saner choice. I'm continually baffled as to why Trump is as popular as his racist, misogynistic, bombastic, narcassistic, authoritarian self is.

[macgyver]

Well, I guess that's one good thing about being a registered voter in Washington state...we don't have polling places.

In your face, Donald!

I predict Ohio, NC, Florida, Arizona, Iowa, and Pennsylvania will go for Trump. If this will be enough? Close, going to be very close.

[Androidpk]

That would make me happy, since she's by far a more qualified and saner choice. I'm continually baffled as to why Trump is as popular as his racist, misogynistic, bombastic, narcassistic, authoritarian self is.

Trump supporters are delusional.

Clinton supporters are just as delusional.

[time4fun]

Trump supporters are delusional.

Clinton supporters are just as delusional.

LOL. PK calling someone else delusional.

[Taernath]

Well, I guess that's one good thing about being a registered voter in Washington state...we don't have polling places.

In your face, Donald!

Pierce county has/had voting locations. It's how I voted in 2000.

[Androidpk]

LOL. PK calling someone else delusional.

you are so easily baited

[Astray]

I would rather be shot by Hillary's hit-men than vote for Trump. And I would rather eat a dozen Trump steaks than vote for Hillary.

[Warriorbird]

I would rather be shot by Hillary's hit-men than vote for Trump. And I would rather eat a dozen Trump steaks than vote for Hillary.

Johnson is honest and honestly a complete idiot. And thus the election.

[macgyver]

Johnson is honest and honestly a complete idiot. And thus the election.

Paddy Power has 5/2 odds on Trump, but I think this is mostly the "I can't believe this is happening" factor he's polling well in rural states like Iowa and Ohio. Hm, anyone want to start bets on the election, in silvers?

[Warriorbird]

Paddy Power has 5/2 odds on Trump, but I think this is mostly the "I can't believe this is happening" factor he's polling well in rural states like Iowa and Ohio. Hm, anyone want to start bets on the election, in silvers?

I'm pretty sure it'll be done again this year... though usually closer to the election.

[Astray]

Johnson is honest and honestly a complete idiot. And thus the election.

Johnson, for your other white needs.

[Tisket]

Pierce county has/had voting locations. It's how I voted in 2000.

That was sixteen years ago. Pierce (and all other counties) have been vote by mail since 2011.

[Tisket]

Pierce county has/had voting locations. It's how I voted in 2000.

There are still unmanned ballot boxes for those who don't have stamps though. Speaking of stamps, this presidential election will cost a whopping .68 to mail in. It's a hefty ballot with lots of shit on it.

[Methais]

That would make me happy, since she's by far a more qualified and saner choice. I'm continually baffled as to why Trump is as popular as his racist, misogynistic, bombastic, narcassistic, authoritarian self is.

Probably because not everyone is a media sheep.

[Methais]

There are still unmanned ballot boxes for those who don't have stamps though. Speaking of stamps, this presidential election will cost a whopping .68 to mail in. It's a hefty ballot with lots of shit on it.

That's so racist! How do they expect minorities to afford that?!?!?!

[Astray]

That's so racist! How do they expect minorities to afford that?!?!?!

With looting, duh.

[Tisket]

Johnson is honest and honestly a complete idiot. And thus the election.

I don't believe that we, the American electorate, still expect honesty from our politicians. We do expect them to be able to answer questions about current events even if the honest response would be an admission of ignorance. "I don't know" isn't palatable in our leaders.

Oh, and we expect that they not get caught in their lies. I think we dislike that more than the actual lying.

[Clunk]

I don't believe that we, the American electorate, still expect honesty from our politicians. We do expect them to be able to answer questions about current events even if the honest response would be an admission of ignorance. "I don't know" isn't palatable in our leaders.

Oh, and we expect that they not get caught in their lies. I think we dislike that more than the actual lying.

I partially agree. I no longer expect honesty from an establishment politician (Republican or Democrat). It is nice to see the third parties try to bring it back, even if it will be a failed effort. Truth matters.

[Tisket]

I agree, Clunk. Truth does matter however, it's in very short supply in political circles. And something that doesn't help a politician get elected is easily discarded.


Pierce county has/had voting locations. It's how I voted in 2000.

I had to come back to this because it's funny.

In 1920 you could only get to polling places by horse. And it was all uphill in a snowstorm!

lol Taernath.

[Taernath]

That was sixteen years ago. Pierce (and all other counties) have been vote by mail since 2011.

That's a shame. Dealing with surly election volunteers and standing in a small cubicle is an American institution.

Thanks, Obama!

[Dendum]

Party platforms have become so complex I dont see how you can be honest...I remember Romney talking about lowering the Debt and building more aircraft carriers and lowering taxes...all part of the republican platform not all simultaneously possible unless you go Roman old school and use those carriers to pillage other countries.

Or in 08 Hill and Obama both talking about a universal health care without some kind of new tax burden, green policy that doesnt hurt coal workers and unions.

[macgyver]

Those dreaded words coming out of Blitzer's mouth in November... "This just in, CNN is now projecting Donald Trump to be the winner of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election."

[Tgo01]

Trump has been doing pretty well with his long drawn out tangents talking about everything every which way. Why would it suddenly hurt him now?

[Fallen]

No one will care what he says this far into the election. It's team Red versus team Blue. Too late in the game for anyone to be changing sides.

[Archigeek]

Trump has been doing pretty well with his long drawn out tangents talking about everything every which way. Why would it suddenly hurt him now?

Because it reinforces his image as unhinged when he can't even stay on message for 9 sentences, and doesn't broaden his appeal beyond his narrow base?

[Tgo01]

Because it reinforces his image as unhinged when he can't even stay on message for 9 sentences, and doesn't broaden his appeal beyond his narrow base?

There you go talking about his "narrow base" again. If Trump has such a "narrow base" yet is within the margin of error with Hillary in some polls, then what does this say about Hillary?

Why isn't Hillary up 50 points in the polls?!

I really do love the liberal logic this time around. At least it somewhat worked when Obama was running, he was relatively clean (scandal/gaff wise) for a politician. But here you have Hillary who laughed about getting a child rapist off by making the victim sound like a slut, helped silence her husband's rape/sexual assault victims, email scandal that is still FRESH this election cycle (it wasn't years ago or anything), Benghazi (again fresh), her health scare not too long ago and not to mention her health in general going back several years, her foundation/racketeering operation, her and the DNC colluding to push Sanders out, her calling a quarter of the voting public "deplorable", the rise of ISIS under her watch as secretary of state and not to mention her other failures while secretary of state, her being against gay rights while she was a sitting senator. And that's all just off the top of my head.

Oh but Trump goes off on long tangents so he's not fit to be president.

This is the mindset people are going into the voting booths with. They have been so brainwashed by the Democrat party and the liberal media that they actually look at this and say "Yup, Trump does seem worse doesn't he!"

[Tgo01]

I give up posting political stuff for a while and you're still heavy with the "But Democrats!"

Yes, when someone uses Hillary's line of attack almost verbatim against Trump I'm going to go ahead and throw Hillary's failures in their face.


You don't want to acknowledge that though, so you're deflecting.

Except I have time and time again said Trump has done some fucked up things and that I don't think he would make a good president and his ONLY saving grace is he's better than Clinton.

That's like literally all he has going for him in my opinion.

I'll defend him on the stupid shit Democrats are throwing at him, like expecting Trump to pay more in taxes than he's legally required to do. But I'll call him out on the stupid shit he does, like getting too defensive during the debate. Shit, I even said in the debate that I thought Hillary did well.

But you see Democrats don't do this. Democrats don't say "Yeah Hillary fucked up on the email scandal, but I still want her instead of Trump."

No. They defend Hillary using Hillary's campaign's own lame arguments.

Benghazi? What difference does it make!

Hillary's bad health? It's sexist to talk about a woman's health!

Then they engage in fear mongering that would make Hitler himself blush. (And no this isn't Godwin, look up Godwin's law since I know someone out there doesn't understand it.) If you vote for Trump then literally the world will end! We NEED Hillary in office because if Trump gets to pick supreme court justices it will set women's rights and civil rights back 60 years! If you're black and don't support Hillary than you're a traitor to your race! If you're gay and don't support Hillary than you're a traitor to the LGBTQ+ community! Trump wants to send ALL Hispanics to Mexico! Trump is going to round up all Muslims and kick them out!!!

This shit is just mind boggling. What's more mind boggling is you claiming I'm no different than someone like time4fun, which is absolutely hilarious.

[Archigeek]

There you go talking about his "narrow base" again. If Trump has such a "narrow base" yet is within the margin of error with Hillary in some polls, then what does this say about Hillary?

Why isn't Hillary up 50 points in the polls?!

I really do love the liberal logic this time around. At least it somewhat worked when Obama was running, he was relatively clean (scandal/gaff wise) for a politician. But here you have Hillary who laughed about getting a child rapist off by making the victim sound like a slut, helped silence her husband's rape/sexual assault victims, email scandal that is still FRESH this election cycle (it wasn't years ago or anything), Benghazi (again fresh), her health scare not too long ago and not to mention her health in general going back several years, her foundation/racketeering operation, her and the DNC colluding to push Sanders out, her calling a quarter of the voting public "deplorable", the rise of ISIS under her watch as secretary of state and not to mention her other failures while secretary of state, her being against gay rights while she was a sitting senator. And that's all just off the top of my head.

Oh but Trump goes off on long tangents so he's not fit to be president.

This is the mindset people are going into the voting booths with. They have been so brainwashed by the Democrat party and the liberal media that they actually look at this and say "Yup, Trump does seem worse doesn't he!"

You ramble just like him, no wonder you like him so much!

[Jeril]

There are still unmanned ballot boxes for those who don't have stamps though. Speaking of stamps, this presidential election will cost a whopping .68 to mail in. It's a hefty ballot with lots of shit on it.

Maybe if you'd quit pooping in those packages they wouldn't have shit on them and you wouldn't have to spend so much on stamps.

[Warriorbird]

Yes, when someone uses Hillary's line of attack almost verbatim against Trump I'm going to go ahead and throw Hillary's failures in their face.



Except I have time and time again said Trump has done some fucked up things and that I don't think he would make a good president and his ONLY saving grace is he's better than Clinton.

That's like literally all he has going for him in my opinion.

I'll defend him on the stupid shit Democrats are throwing at him, like expecting Trump to pay more in taxes than he's legally required to do. But I'll call him out on the stupid shit he does, like getting too defensive during the debate. Shit, I even said in the debate that I thought Hillary did well.

But you see Democrats don't do this. Democrats don't say "Yeah Hillary fucked up on the email scandal, but I still want her instead of Trump."

No. They defend Hillary using Hillary's campaign's own lame arguments.

Benghazi? What difference does it make!

Hillary's bad health? It's sexist to talk about a woman's health!

Then they engage in fear mongering that would make Hitler himself blush. (And no this isn't Godwin, look up Godwin's law since I know someone out there doesn't understand it.) If you vote for Trump then literally the world will end! We NEED Hillary in office because if Trump gets to pick supreme court justices it will set women's rights and civil rights back 60 years! If you're black and don't support Hillary than you're a traitor to your race! If you're gay and don't support Hillary than you're a traitor to the LGBTQ+ community! Trump wants to send ALL Hispanics to Mexico! Trump is going to round up all Muslims and kick them out!!!

This shit is just mind boggling. What's more mind boggling is you claiming I'm no different than someone like time4fun, which is absolutely hilarious.

Edit candidate names out. Reverse ideological arguments. Add some actual sources. Go back and look at your post.

You are her (and I don't mean Hillary.)

Added note: I consistently called Hillary a bad candidate and you all just said "BUT YOU DON'T REALLY MEAN IT." so that's pretty weak.

[time4fun]

Edit candidate names out. Reverse ideological arguments. Add some actual sources. Go back and look at your post.

You are her (and I don't mean Hillary.)

Added note (I consistently called Hillary a bad candidate and you all just said "BUT YOU DON'T REALLY MEAN IT.")

Um. I realize you've been stuck in PC's politics folder for a while, but use of "actual sources" isn't an insignificant difference.

[Warriorbird]

Um. I realize you've been stuck in PC's politics folder for a while, but use of "actual sources" isn't an insignificant difference.

They're Republicans. The only sources they have are blogs, Fox, and Washington Times/WorldNet. We even have one that thinks Reddit and RedState work (it'd be like citing the PC). Is it really fair to expect them to use sources?

Their worldview either prevents them from reading what you post or accepting it if they do.

[Parkbandit]

Then what do you think he's hiding?

My guess would be his charitable giving.

[Parkbandit]

Oh, and we expect that they not get caught in their lies. I think we dislike that more than the actual lying.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/imageedit_285_6536840923.jpg

[Kembal]

My guess would be his charitable giving.

That's a possibility, though I kind of doubt it. $916 million is too big of a loss for him to actually sustain - he had way too much leverage on all his businesses back then to believe that he lost that much in personal capital. And since the campaign is not disputing the assertion that he hasn't paid federal income taxes, that means that debt forgiveness didn't cancel out those net operating losses.

Two possibilities exist then, as far as I've seen reported:

1. Congress did pass an exception in 1993 allowing for owners of some real-estate investments to be able to claim the losses even if they have debt forgiven, because they are financially insolvent. That'd mean a) the losses came from his real estate developments and not his casinos and other businesses (which I personally doubt, but without his full tax return have no way of knowing) and b) he was financially insolvent personally (which he'll never cop to.). However, this is obviously completely legal.

2. He "parked" the debt. He got his creditors to agree to sell the debt to a new tax entity formed (likely offshore) at cents on the dollar, as opposed to straight up forgiving the debt. He controls the new entity indirectly. He gets to claim the operating losses and the entity never demands the face value of the debt back (although the debt still technically exists). Legality of this is questionable - if it's shown that he has any real control over the entity, it's illegal tax avoidance. Of course, no proof of this exists yet, and it may be that he did do this, but was able to show he has no control over the new entity, which would then be probably legal.

BTW, PB, on your earlier post about whether the IRS leaked it - as far as I understand, the three pages were from three different state tax returns, so the IRS would not normally have copies of those. The most likely possibility of who leaked it? Marla Maples. She can legally do so, after all - those returns are hers, too.

[Geijon Khyree]

He was kidding. They are the biggest trolls here. Even these political threads are for their enjoyment.

The first two rules of the internet are dont stand in fire and dont feed the trolls. They just get giddy when people break the first two rules for them.

35 days and this election will be over. They will still be trolls.

[ClydeR]

My guess would be his charitable giving.


Yes, that's almost certainly it. His characteristic humility prevents him from broadcasting the extent of his generosity.

Or it might be that he does not want to appear to be bragging about his genius with the tax laws. After all, as he said in the debate, anybody who makes millions and doesn't pay taxes is smart. It would be unseemly to rub it in that he's so much smarter than the rest of us. You know he would never do that.

[Tisket]

Yes, that's almost certainly it. His characteristic humility prevents him from broadcasting the extent of his generosity.

Don't be willfully ignorant. PB's statement implied that Trump is probably hiding the fact that he isn't as generous as he's let on. Nobody would accuse Donald of humility.

[Ashliana]

Scandals

Republicans have nobody but yourselves to blame. Republican over-zealousness with regard to the Clintons has repeatedly backfired; going all the way back to the 1990's and the hypocritical obsession with Bill's sex life. There are plenty of things to dislike the Clintons about, but the right has always seized upon totally nonsensical conspiracy theories, like "HILLARY MURDERED VINCE FOSTER!" and, most importantly, what you mentioned:


Benghazi

Benghazi was a total non-event (much worse happened under Dubya with nary a peep from Democrats -- and far, far worse happened under Reagan) and Republicans blathered on hyperbolically for literally YEARS. The Republican-led committees that "investigated" it, who came up with nothing, buried their conclusions Thanksgiving weekend in 2014, having wasted millions of dollars and come up with bupkis.

Perhaps if Republicans hadn't squandered all their political capital railing about a non-existent scandal, they would've had the oxygen they desperately needed to leverage the classified e-mail scandal against her, which was legitimate, but the GOP couldn't make anybody actually care about.

The other concerns that you delusionally believe Democrats should care about would require you ignoring any contextual knowledge about politics. Quickly:


Rise of ISIS

This requires you ignore the reality under which ISIS rose; as a result of the withdrawal that Dubya's administration negotiated with the government of Iraq, al-Maliki's unwillingness to modify that agreement, and the circumstances (i.e., Republican-created circumstances) that sent us to Iraq and destabilized the Middle East to start with.


Gay rights

You may think you've got some brilliant "Gotcha! You didn't used to support gay rights!" apologia for Republicans by pointing out Clinton's past, but that doesn't change anything. You aren't going to be able to convince the LGBT community that it's Republicans--who have fought tooth-and-nail against the recognition of the most basic dignities for LGBT citizens, for decades--when the other side oversaw the lightning-quick expansion of LGBT rights. Do yourself a favor and don't delude yourself into thinking you've got even the semblance of a persuasive argument there.


Clinton's health

It's legitimate to have an interest in the general constitution of a presidential candidate, but having pneumonia for a moment doesn't equal "unfit to be president," and she looked just fine during the debate she smashed Trump in.


DNC colluding to push Sanders out

Except you have no evidence of that. You've got a tiny smattering of e-mails which discuss potential arguments one could use to smear Bernie, which were never used by anyone. It's an indefensible leap to bound from some dumbass floating "You could imply he's Jewish or Atheist!" as an idea to the "we're stuffing the nomination ballots for Clinton!," the conclusion you so obviously reached.


Clinton foundation

This is where you start getting into confirmation bias and motivated reasoning; you're willing to believe anything that's alleged, so long as it comports to your preexisting assumptions about the Clintons. The reality is that you have no evidence, and organizations which monitor charities rate the Clinton foundation favorably -- and in order to not be a hypocrite, you also need to care about Trump's so-called charity, which, starting in 2007, almost exclusively only takes credit for other organization's giving, not any of Trump's.


Laughing about child rapist]

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ (also see above: confirmation bias and motivated reasoning)


Silence her husband's rape/sexual assault victims

It would help if your only other legitimate "argument" wasn't 20+ years old and already obsessively covered by generations of Republicans.

[time4fun]

Tgo just got served.

[Tgo01]

There are plenty of things to dislike the Clintons about

You then go on to defend her about some of the biggest scandals that involve her and her husband. So what are some of these "legitimate" reasons to dislike the Clintons? I mean honestly, what's left? That Travelgate thing? I'm sure you have a defense for that too.

My favorite parts of your response: you give Obama credit for getting us out of Iraq but you blame Bush for the rise of ISIS. Un. Fucking. Believable.

You apparently have no problem with a potential future president helping silence a previous president's rape/sexual assault victims. Do you know how much of a pathetic disgusting human being this makes you?

You rely on Snopes, SNOPES! To tell you that Hillary isn't an evil bitch in regards to that rape case. Why don't you just fucking listen to the audio for yourself instead of needing someone to tell you Hillary is perfect?

Fuck that! Even with Snopes' obvious zeal to carry Democrat's water they STILL reveal everything about Hillary.


She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off"

Oh right, she just laughed about him passing a polygraph test and that it "forever destroyed her faith" in polygraphs. Now HMM! Why would it "destroy her faith" in polygraphs unless SHE KNEW THE PIECE OF SHIT WAS GUILTY AS SIN, but hell she still laughed about it.

What about calling the little girl a slut in an attempt to get the rapist off? Oh right! The rapist didn't get off, he served what like a whole 2 months in jail? My bad!


That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense's expense) to determine the validity of that information:

I mean honestly LAUGHING. OUT. LOUD.

Shit like this why I don't take Snopes seriously anymore. They used to be my "go to" place for debunking conspiracy theories, now they invent their own conspiracy theories! Oh poor misunderstood Hillary! She didn't accuse the little girl of lying about being raped and that she sought out older men, she merely filed an affidavit in court stating "other people" have told her these things and thus Hillary thinks the little girl should be ordered to take a psychiatric exam. You really buy into this bullshit distinction? Who are these "other people"? I can't help but notice the court documents Snopes is relying on doesn't mention these names, and even if they did it's a pretty safe bet that Hillary/other defense lawyers hired these "experts" in the first place. Oh but the defense offered to pay for the exam, so they're the good guys!

But don't worry Ashliana, you can sleep well tonight knowing what an evil bitch you'll probably be voting for because Snopes cleared your conscience!

[Tgo01]

Tgo just got served.

It's funny how your idea of "being served" is someone just basically saying "NUH UH!" a bunch of times. But when I go into details about how fucking utterly wrong you Democrats are I get shit from Archigeek like you talk too much.

I'll try dumbing down my posts from now on to see if they resonate better with the low attention span of Democrats.

Ashliana: Nuh uh times infinity!!!

[Androidpk]

Snopes is getting money from David Brock so no surprise they've been so zealous in defending Clinton this election cycle.

[Parkbandit]

Snopes is getting money from David Brock so no surprise they've been so zealous in defending Clinton this election cycle.

Snopes is a site dedicated to the TRUTH and there is NO WAY it would be unbiased.

What's next.. you think PolitiFACT isn't FACTS?!

[Parkbandit]

Or in 08 Hill and Obama both talking about a universal health care without some kind of new tax burden, green policy that doesnt hurt coal workers and unions.

When did they say it wouldn't hurt coal workers? I thought they both were like "HAHAH, FUCK YOU COAL WORKERS!"

[time4fun]

So more fun to Trump's bad week. Let's break it down:

Totally bombed the first debate in a huge way, which could have been rebounded from if not for...


NY Attorney General orders the Trump Foundation to stop fundraising because it's not legally allowed to do so (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/politics/trump-foundation-cease-and-desist/)

This comes shortly after it was discovered that Trump used his charity to take care of over $250,000 in legal fines (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html), and of course that came shortly after it was discovered that the Foundation had been fined by the IRS for illegal campaign contributions to the Florida AG who was investigating Trump at the time.

Turns out Trump violated the Cuba Embargo (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/14/donald-trump-cuban-embargo-castro-violated-florida-504059.html) in the late 80s and apparently again in 2012/2013. (http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-donald-trump-golf-cuba/)

Mr Make The Steel Industry Great Again has been using Chinese steel in 2 of his last 3 major construction projects (http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717).

Mr "I'm the best businessman ever!" claimed almost $1b in losses in 1995 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0), which effectively wiped out his tax liability for up to 18 years. (Oh, and his new tax plan doesn't deal with any of the loopholes he is able to exploit for that)

Trump did his best impression of a manic episode (http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-s-late-night-tweets-stir-controversy-1.12392516) and went on a late night tweet rant about Machado, during which he encouraged everyone to check out her (nonexistent) "sex tape". The next day, ironically, it's discovered that Trump played a bit part in a softcore porn (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-playboy-porn_us_57eee2fbe4b0c2407cde0fd2).


And then today, not to be outdone by Past Trump, he decided to offer his wisdom on Military suicides by blaming the victims for not being strong enough.
(http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/03/politics/donald-trump-ptsd-suicide/index.html)

Most of this happened in the last few days, all of it happened (and more) within the last week and a half or so. This, friends, is what we call a meltdown.

[time4fun]

It's funny how your idea of "being served" is someone just basically saying "NUH UH!" a bunch of times. But when I go into details about how fucking utterly wrong you Democrats are I get shit from Archigeek like you talk too much.

I'll try dumbing down my posts from now on to see if they resonate better with the low attention span of Democrats.

Ashliana: Nuh uh times infinity!!!

Those are called facts. Not "Nuh Uh"s. You've also been given facts around all of those talking points throughout the last year in various threads.

I know it's hard for you to tell what a fact is. it's okay. Just keep trying. One day it'll come.

[Tgo01]

Mr Make The Steel Industry Great Again has been using Chinese steel in 2 of his last 3 major construction projects (http://www.newsweek.com/how-donald-trump-ditched-us-steel-workers-china-505717).

So pathetic. I mean on your part. Practically all of our manufacturing has moved to China but we're gonna give Trump shit for doing the same. Bullshit argument.


Mr "I'm the best businessman ever!" claimed almost $1b in losses in 1995 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0), which effectively wiped out his tax liability for up to 18 years.

DURR! Reading? How do it work?

From the article you quoted:


Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

Notice those magical words "could have"? I could have been a billionaire by now if I just invented Google.

And once again, who gives a flying fuck? YOU wouldn't take advantage of the tax code to lower your tax burden? You would literally be the only person in the history of this country, time4fun. You are so patriotic!

As to the rest of your bullshit all I have to say is: NUH UH!

[Tgo01]

Those are called facts. Not "Nuh Uh"s. You've also been given facts around all of those talking points throughout the last year in various threads.

I know it's hard for you to tell what a fact is. it's okay. Just keep trying. One day it'll come.

Facts. Right. Let's see what do I do...listen to the audio recording and read the court documents myself to ascertain the truth...or just read some blatantly biased website that tells me what the "truth" is.

Oh right, you're the "Politifact means FACT!" person, you need someone to tell you what the "truth" is, you need your marching orders because thinking for yourself is too difficult and too scary.

Also, NUH UH!

[Warriorbird]

Let's see what do I do...listen to the audio recording and read the court documents myself to ascertain the truth...

Or just claim you did and refer to it unspecifically.

[Tgo01]

Or just claim you did and refer to it unspecifically.

Huh? Use your words.

[Warriorbird]

Huh? Use your words.

You claim you listened to the recording and read the court documents but don't actually cite them because you didn't do it and it makes a convenient rebuttal when you're called out.

[Ashliana]

So what are some of these "legitimate" reasons to dislike the Clintons?

1) She's a "just a toe in the water" Democrat. She isn't progressive and has no real vision for America. She's a standard-bearer for the Democrats, nothing more. She's the personification of the status quo. Doesn't want to rock any boats, just wants to be president, apparently, for its own sake. To be the first female president, to be the first couple to both be president, I can't tell you. Perhaps just for her own vanity. Similar to Trump, without the "firsts." Besides, first in a long time with absolutely no history of public service.

2) The classified e-mail scandal doesn't reflect well on her. Americans probably would have cared more, again, if the GOP hadn't spent years and millions of dollars flushing their own credibility down the toilet with Benghazi.

3) Clinton is owned by special interests, especially big banks.

4) Clinton has neoconservative, interventionist foreign policy roots.

5) Clinton has repeatedly supported the TPP, to the point where her currently stated opposition is meaningless.

6) Clinton has uncritically accepted a lot of Black Lives Matter's rhetoric, much of which is misleading or demonstrably false.

7) Clinton doesn't support the decriminalization of marijuana or other drugs.


you give Obama credit for getting us out of Iraq

Where, precisely, did I do that? The post hasn't been edited -- unlike the majority of my posts, which I edit for grammar -- so feel free to point it out. I commented on the fact that the timeline was set by negotiations between the George W. Bush administration and the previous administration of Iraq. Around the time we withdrew (and for years previous), relations had soured as collateral deaths from the US presence there had changed Iraqi politics to be more hostile to the US. Oversimplifying Iraqi politics isn't going to "win" you this argument.


blame Bush for the rise of ISIS

Your distaste for history doesn't magically change it. The Bush administration got us into the war with Iraq and set the timetable for withdrawal. If your suggestion for how to have prevented ISIS is "unilaterally keep US forces in Iraq, violating our good-faith agreements with the Iraqi government," then I can't even begin to tell you how poorly informed you are on geopolitics.


You rely on Snopes, SNOPES! To tell you that Hillary isn't an evil bitch in regards to that rape case.

Presented without additional comment.


------

Ultimately, the reason to cast your vote for someone doesn't happen in a vacuum. It depends on who the other person is running, depends on the party the person represents, and depends on whether or not you're a pragmatist or an idealist. This fall, I won't be voting "for" Hillary.

I'm voting against Trump and against the GOP, and the unbelievable slew of terrible policies that the GOP stands for -- the GOP platform is a laundry list of bad policy. You couldn't pick out more extreme anti-scientific, anti-LGBT, anti-common sense policy positions if you were actively trying.

The GOP has been in a death spiral since Obama was elected and they made their mission priority to make the government as dysfunctional as possible. Although, one could convincingly argue that even that started in 2004, with Karl Rove's ugly, cynical LGBT demonization campaign in dozens of states.

[Parkbandit]

Notice those magical words "could have"? I could have been a billionaire by now if I just invented Google.

And once again, who gives a flying fuck? YOU wouldn't take advantage of the tax code to lower your tax burden? You would literally be the only person in the history of this country, time4fun. You are so patriotic!

As to the rest of your bullshit all I have to say is: NUH UH!

Everyone knows.. only good people in business show a profit every single year.

[Tgo01]

You claim you listened to the recording and read the court documents but don't actually cite them because you didn't do it and it makes a convenient rebuttal when you're called out.

Uh...I did cite them...hence you referring to them saying I didn't cite them. I even mentioned the specific parts you should look out for while listening/reading.

If you need me to actually cite the audio recording? I mean really? You haven't listened to it by now? Keep burying your head in the sand and relying on Snopes.

As far as the court documents; they're right there on Snopes' page. Go look for yourself.

[Tgo01]

1) She's a "just a toe in the water" Democrat. She isn't progressive and has no real vision for America. She's a standard-bearer for the Democrats, nothing more. She's the personification of the status quo. Doesn't want to rock any boats, just wants to be president, apparently, for its own sake. To be the first female president, to be the first couple to both be president, I can't tell you. Perhaps just for her own vanity. Similar to Trump, without the "firsts." Besides, first in a long time with absolutely no history of public service.

2) The classified e-mail scandal doesn't reflect well on her. Americans probably would have cared more, again, if the GOP hadn't spent years and millions of dollars flushing their own credibility down the toilet with Benghazi.

3) Clinton is owned by special interests, especially big banks.

4) Clinton has neoconservative, interventionist foreign policy roots.

5) Clinton has repeatedly supported the TPP, to the point where her currently stated opposition is meaningless.

6) Clinton has uncritically accepted a lot of Black Lives Matter's rhetoric, much of which is misleading or demonstrably false.

7) Clinton doesn't support the decriminalization of marijuana or other drugs.

Shit, people have been hammering away on her for those points too! I even talked about her flip flopping of support of gay rights depending on how the political wind was blowing and you said 'NUH UH!' I don't even know what you want anymore.




Where, precisely, did I do that?

You aren't one of the people who has given Obama credit for "pulling out" of Iraq on these forums? I find that very hard to believe but I honestly don't care enough to go digging through your posts to find it so I'll just take your word for it.

WINK.


Presented without additional comment.

Really? You have no defense to you needing your "facts" spoon fed to you by an obviously biased website because you're too fucking lazy to look up the facts on your own? You're right, no additional comment required. It's not often someone admits something like that.


Ultimately, the reason to cast your vote for someone doesn't happen in a vacuum. It depends on who the other person is running, depends on the party the person represents, and depends on whether or not you're a pragmatist or an idealist. This fall, I won't be voting "for" Hillary.

I'm voting against Trump and against the GOP, and the unbelievable slew of terrible policies that the GOP stands for -- the GOP platform is a laundry list of bad policy. You couldn't pick out more extreme anti-scientific, anti-LGBT, anti-common sense policy positions if you were actively trying.

The GOP has been in a death spiral since Obama was elected and they made their mission priority to make the government as dysfunctional as possible. Although, one could convincingly argue that even that started in 2004, with Karl Rove's ugly, cynical LGBT demonization campaign in dozens of states.

Right right. If Trump is elected he will start a nuclear world war, the world will end, gay and civil rights will be set back 60 years, NASA will cease to exist, the world will warm up 20 degrees in a matter of months. Blah blah blah. Fear mongering. Blah blah blah. The world hangs in the balance. Blah blah blah.

I've heard all of the bullshit before, you're not saying anything new.

[Ashliana]

Tgo01Shit, people have been hammering away on her for those points too! I even talked about her flip flopping of support of gay rights depending on how the political wind was blowing and you said 'NUH UH!' I don't even know what you want anymore.

Clinton doesn't have to be perfect to be a better choice than Trump (or a better choice than any Republican). If McCain or Romney were running again -- on their actual political history, NOT the GOP platform they were forced to adopt in order to get the nomination -- they would probably destroy Clinton, given all her problems. The GOP couldn't beat Obama's cult of personality, but outright decided to throw this election away. One can only hope the GOP finally dies and conservatives make some less profoundly shitty replacement.

And I told you: You can stop bringing up Clinton's past on gay rights. One of the few consistent positions the GOP has had is their tooth-and-nail opposition to gay rights. You are never, ever going to convince anyone who cares strongly about gay rights to vote Republican over Democrat. It doesn't help that your candidate is promising to nominate justices to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and US v. Windsor.


You aren't one of the people who has given Obama credit for "pulling out" of Iraq on these forums? I find that very hard to believe but I honestly don't care enough to go digging through your posts to find it so I'll just take your word for it.

WINK.

You're trying to score "points" while ignoring history. Bush got us into Iraq; the GOP knew during the first war with Iraq that invading Baghdad would be an unwinnable "quagmire" (Cheney's words). Bush decided to leave America with the choice: either commit the US to permanent war (increasingly untenable with the war-weary US population and runaway budget crisis) or withdraw, collateral damage be damned. ISIS is that collateral damage. That collateral damage is the reason Cheney warned invading Baghdad would be a mistake.

And for the record, yes, withdrawing (even risking the creation of a group like ISIS, needing to be dealt with later) would have been better than the only alternative: unilaterally violating our agreement with Iraq, illegally occupying their nation permanently. It would have resulted in the same eternal insurgency that they were already dealing with, intensified further as their fears about occupation were realized.


Really? You have no defense to you needing your "facts" spoon fed to you by an obviously biased website because you're too fucking lazy to look up the facts on your own? You're right, no additional comment required. It's not often someone admits something like that.

Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are powerful things. By all means, keep uncritically accepting what the Drudge Report and Breitbart tell you about the world.

[Parkbandit]

Clinton doesn't have to be perfect to be a better choice than Trump (or a better choice than any Republican). If McCain or Romney were running again -- on their actual political history, NOT the GOP platform they were forced to adopt in order to get the nomination -- they would probably destroy Clinton, given all her problems. The GOP couldn't beat Obama's cult of personality, but outright decided to throw this election away. One can only hope the GOP finally dies and conservatives make some less profoundly shitty replacement.

And I told you: You can stop bringing up Clinton's past on gay rights. One of the few consistent positions the GOP has had is their tooth-and-nail opposition to gay rights. You are never, ever going to convince anyone who cares strongly about gay rights to vote Republican over Democrat. It doesn't help that your candidate is promising to nominate justices to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and US v. Windsor.



You're trying to score "points" while ignoring history. Bush got us into Iraq; the GOP knew during the first war with Iraq that invading Baghdad would be an unwinnable "quagmire" (Cheney's words). Bush decided to leave America with the choice: either commit the US to permanent war (increasingly untenable with the war-weary US population and runaway budget crisis) or withdraw, collateral damage be damned. ISIS is that collateral damage. That collateral damage is the reason Cheney warned invading Baghdad would be a mistake.

And for the record, yes, withdrawing (even risking the creation of a group like ISIS, needing to be dealt with later) would have been better than the only alternative: unilaterally violating our agreement with Iraq, illegally occupying their nation permanently. It would have resulted in the same eternal insurgency that they were already dealing with, intensified further as their fears about occupation were realized.



Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are powerful things. By all means, keep uncritically accepting what the Drudge Report and Breitbart tell you about the world.

Trump doesn't have to be perfect to be a better choice than Clinton (or a better choice than any Democrat). If Gore or Kerry were running again -- on their actual political history, NOT the DNC platform they were forced to adopt in order to get the nomination -- they would probably destroy Trump, given all his problems. The DNC couldn't beat Trump's cult of personality, but outright decided to throw this election away. One can only hope the DNC finally dies and liberals make some less profoundly shitty replacement.

Also, Bush couldn't go into Iraq without the strong support from people like Hillary Clinton giving it a big enthusiastic thumbs up.

[Tgo01]

And I told you: You can stop bringing up Clinton's past on gay rights. One of the few consistent positions the GOP has had is their tooth-and-nail opposition to gay rights. You are never, ever going to convince anyone who cares strongly about gay rights to vote Republican over Democrat. It doesn't help that your candidate is promising to nominate justices to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges and US v. Windsor.

You aren't even making an argument. This is so fucking pathetic so I'll just say "NUH UH!"


Bush got us into Iraq

So clearly EVERYTHING that follows is Bush's fault, even 8 years later. I guess going by this piss poor logic then social security hurting for money lately is the fault of Roosevelt, after all Roosevelt got us into Social Security! Medicare hurting for money too? Well that's Johnson's fault for getting us into Medicare!

Not enough money for food stamps? Well shit that's Johnson's fault too for getting us into food stamps! I don't ever want to hear you bitch about Republicans cutting funding for food stamps or anything like that, that's all the fault of your boy Johnson for getting us into food stamps to begin with!

Man, I can take this pathetic argument to the moon. But something tells me it's different when the tables are turned on your Democrat politicians, right?


Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are powerful things. By all means, keep uncritically accepting what the Drudge Report and Breitbart tell you about the world.

Oh the fucking irony. When have I ever cited Drudge Report or Breitbart for anything? Just because I can read and listen to things for myself you insist I'm getting my facts from biased sources to cover up the fact that you yourself linked to a biased source.

This is all kinds of sad and pathetic. Where is time4fun to say you just got served? Oh right. I need to dumb it down for her so she can understand it.

NUH UH!

[Wrathbringer]

You aren't even making an argument. This is so fucking pathetic so I'll just say "NUH UH!"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[Tgo01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

I totally forgot about that skit, but yeah, that's pretty much time4fun and Ashiliana.

NUH UH! Then they pat each other on the back for making a good argument.

[Ashliana]

Trump doesn't have to be perfect to be a better choice than Clinton (or a better choice than any Democrat). If Gore or Kerry were running again -- on their actual political history, NOT the DNC platform they were forced to adopt in order to get the nomination -- they would probably destroy Trump, given all his problems. The DNC couldn't beat Trump's cult of personality, but outright decided to throw this election away. One can only hope the DNC finally dies and liberals make some less profoundly shitty replacement.

Funny. Except I sincerely doubt you like anything about Gore or Kerry's history, whereas I could at least tolerate Romney as he governed in Mass., or at least periods of McCain when he wasn't trying to shore up his neocon credentials.


Also, Bush couldn't go into Iraq without the strong support from people like Hillary Clinton giving it a big enthusiastic thumbs up.

This is true. The Democrats who supported the war, and the media that uncritically accepted the Bush administration's lies without question are similarly to blame -- Hillary included. Sadly, Trump doesn't have the moral authority to criticize anyone when he also supported it. Nor does he have any credibility with regard to slimming down the military -- which he wants to do the opposite of.



You aren't even making an argument. This is so fucking pathetic so I'll just say "NUH UH!"

... said with zero self-awareness. You never made an argument.

The choice for LGBT Americans is between:

A) a party that evolved from opposition of gay rights, to tolerance of the notion gay rights, to tepid support for gay rights, to full support of gay rights
B) a party which has consistently done everything in its power to stop, or delay (when stopping was impossible) the realization of gay rights

Your entire position is "Clinton used to oppose (X)" and you're sitting here, scratching your head like a fucking retard as to why people would vote for her over Trump WRT: gay rights.

To quote you: "Un. Fucking. Believable."

In fact, your position is so incredibly dumb, I'm again left with the choice of either considering you A) trolling for its own sake, or B) so incredibly stupid that you aren't worth talking to.


So clearly EVERYTHING that follows is Bush's fault, even 8 years later.

Everything that's happened in Iraq -- good or bad, is ultimately the responsibility of the Bush administration. The buck stops with "the decider," as Bush called himself. Some of it can also be attributed to others who have influenced the process, including Obama. The choice of withdrawal, however, was almost completely decided by two people: George W. Bush and Nouri al-Maliki.


I guess going by this piss poor logic then social security hurting for money lately is the fault of Roosevelt, after all Roosevelt got us into Social Security! Medicare hurting for money too? Well that's Johnson's fault for getting us into Medicare!

The key issue is "to what degree." Social Security was perfectly aligned when it was created -- the fundamental issue isn't with the program that was created back then, it's how the demographics of the US population have changed since then. The "blame" lies with lawmakers who haven't modified Social Security as required due to the political blowback, and that's the fault of both parties.


Oh the fucking irony. When have I ever cited Drudge Report or Breitbart for anything? Just because I can read and listen to things for myself you insist I'm getting my facts from biased sources to cover up the fact that you yourself linked to a biased source.

Play dumb all you want. Have fun peddling your "But Snopes isn't fair!" narrative. Best of luck selling it.

[Tgo01]

Play dumb all you want. Have fun peddling your "But Snopes isn't fair!" narrative. Best of luck selling it.

:clown2:

I risk injuring my brain by replying too much to your shit so I'm going to have to cut back on the amount of bullshit I subject myself to.

It's funny because even if you want to believe Snopes isn't biased (LOL!) it's the fact that you are taking an OPINION ARTICLE and using it as "facts" for your argument. You aren't citing anything from the audio tape that we all have access to to support your argument, you aren't citing anything in the court documents that we all have access to. No. You're literally citing an OPINION ARTICLE and saying "See? Says right there this is a non-issue for Hillary."

This is almost as sad as time4fun saying "Of course Politifact isn't baised! It has the word FACT right in their name!"

[Geijon Khyree]

GG. Trump just said we're dropping bombs and missing. The truth is we're basically killing all of their leadership. This guy isn't right on anything.

This is your guy Republicans? Lawl dude.

[Geijon Khyree]

GG. Trump just said we're dropping bombs and missing. The truth is we're basically killing all of their leadership. This guy isn't right on anything.

This is your guy Republicans? Lawl dude.

First.

[Androidpk]

GG. Trump just said we're dropping bombs and missing. The truth is we're basically killing all of their leadership. This guy isn't right on anything.

This is your guy Republicans? Lawl dude.

some != all

[Kembal]

Notice those magical words "could have"? I could have been a billionaire by now if I just invented Google.



No. The campaign would've denied it and said he paid federal income taxes at some point. The campaign has not made that assertion in their responses. Therefore, it's clear that he didn't pay federal income taxes.

Been reading more analyses of how he could've pulled it off.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/03/art-of-the-steal-this-is-how-trump-lost-916m-and-avoided-tax.html

Worth reading the securities disclosure documents from Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts documents now, based on the analysis linked above.

[Parkbandit]

Funny. Except I sincerely doubt you like anything about Gore or Kerry's history, whereas I could at least tolerate Romney as he governed in Mass., or at least periods of McCain when he wasn't trying to shore up his neocon credentials.

I actually liked Bill Clinton / Al Gore when they were Democrats and held believes like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNy4ixHFrdI


This is true. The Democrats who supported the war, and the media that uncritically accepted the Bush administration's lies without question are similarly to blame -- Hillary included. Sadly, Trump doesn't have the moral authority to criticize anyone when he also supported it.

Please tell me you aren't still using the Howard Stern quote... because he actually is more like "I guess so" instead of being a very convicted supporter of her Yes vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

In before your weak ass "OMG BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED bullshit excuse


Nor does he have any credibility with regard to slimming down the military -- which he wants to do the opposite of.

Wait.. you think he wants to make more cuts to the military?

[Parkbandit]

No. The campaign would've denied it and said he paid federal income taxes at some point. The campaign has not made that assertion in their responses. Therefore, it's clear that he didn't pay federal income taxes.



If he had 900 million in business losses and the US tax code dictates that he could use that loss against future profits... what is your problem with that again?

What big company pays extra in taxes when they don't have to as part of their business strategy?

Stop being stupid.. you're trying too hard at this point.

[Androidpk]

The Clintons have written off millions in tax losses yet you don't see liberals crying over that.

[time4fun]

The Clintons have written off millions in tax losses yet you don't see liberals crying over that.

*facepalm*

You know what's REALLY awesome? Trump's loss was mostly other peoples' money. He lost investor money, settled for pennies on the dollar with them (so they got screwed), and then he got to turn around and through real estate loopholes was able to both deduct the loss in its entirety (even though it wasn't his loss) and to avoid counting the forgiven debt as income.

That's why he's the "King of Debt". And that's why he's in real estate.

He's a leech. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Androidpk]

But Trump!

[Tgo01]

No. The campaign would've denied it and said he paid federal income taxes at some point.

Nuh uh!

[time4fun]

But Trump!

Sorry, no one is going to indulge the notion that that a $3,000 loss taken in 2015 compares to almost $1b in 1995, especially given that the Clintons were actually paying mostly normal people taxes while Trump was likely not paying anything at all. (which we know because they released their taxes...ahem)

If you think ANYONE is going to buy- even for a second- that Trump didn't make full use of that loss to offset as much in taxes as humanly possible, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[Tgo01]

You know what's REALLY awesome? Trump's loss was mostly other peoples' money. He lost investor money, settled for pennies on the dollar with them (so they got screwed)

lol

What the fuck are you even talking about? Sources or links for, like, ANY of this bullshit you are spewing. Trump's first "bankruptcy" actually cost him personally a lot.

You do know the difference between chapter 7 and chapter 11 bankruptcies, right? To my knowledge Trump's businesses that filed for bankruptcy have all been chapter 11. This isn't to say that some investors and creditors didn't lose money, but I'd love to see the source that they all "settled for pennies on the dollar" or that Trump's supposed 900 million in losses has anything at all to do with anything you are even talking about right now.

Or in other words; nuh uh!

[Tgo01]

If you think ANYONE is going to buy- even for a second- that Trump didn't make full use of that loss to offset as much in taxes as humanly possible, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

That's the point, you God damned dipshit.

Who WOULDN'T legally lower their tax burden as much as possible?

You supposedly make more than any 10 members on the PC combined, right? Surely you have an accountant who does your taxes for you and ensures you pay as little as you are legally required to pay, right?

Or do you just say "FUCK IT! I'm so liberal I bleed BLUE! I'm going to pay 35% of my income in federal taxes."

You're either completely ignorant and a giant hypocrite, or fucking stupid. Honestly I'm not sure which is worse at this point.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, no one is going to indulge the notion that that a $3,000 loss taken in 2015 compares to almost $1b in 1995, especially given that the Clintons were actually paying mostly normal people taxes while Trump was likely not paying anything at all. (which we know because they released their taxes...ahem)

If you think ANYONE is going to buy- even for a second- that Trump didn't make full use of that loss to offset as much in taxes as humanly possible, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Who is making that argument?

That would be his job to make sure that he made full use of that loss to offset as much in taxes as humanly possible.

Serious question: Are you a fucking retard?

[time4fun]

Tgo's inability to handle basic reading comprehension aside-

Looks like Trump gave 10x the legal donation limit in 2005 to the Florida AG at the time. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-donations-charlie-crist_us_57f2e982e4b0703f75909bb3)

Looks like these donations were all from Trump companies (attached), all but one of which showed up on Trump's financial disclosures. (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2178529/trump-searchable.pdf)

Looks like around 3 laws broken. Go Trump Go!

8165

[Tgo01]

Tgo's inability to handle basic reading comprehension aside-

That sure it a weird way to admit you were acting like a complete tool bag, but I'll take it.


Looks like around 3 laws broken. Go Trump Go!

First of all, LOL at using a HuffPost opinion article as a source when you routinely give people shit for providing biased sources. This is like pure comedy gold right here, you should take this act on the road and charge 20 bucks a head.

I mean just look at the "editor's note" they put at the end of EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ARTICLE that deals with Donald Trump:


Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

They put that editor's note on actual "news" articles too...which is really stretching things because HuffPost is just one giant opinion piece.

Fuck off.

Oh yeah, and second of all, no laws have been broken until the FBI recommends indictment, remember?

[time4fun]

That sure it a weird way to admit you were acting like a complete tool bag, but I'll take it.



First of all, LOL at using a HuffPost opinion article as a source when you routinely give people shit for providing biased sources. This is like pure comedy gold right here, you should take this act on the road and charge 20 bucks a head.

I mean just look at the "editor's note" they put at the end of EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ARTICLE that deals with Donald Trump:



They put that editor's note on actual "news" articles too...which is really stretching things because HuffPost is just one giant opinion piece.

Fuck off.

Oh yeah, and second of all, no laws have been broken until the FBI recommends indictment, remember?

ROFL. And the reading comprehension issues continue.

It's not an opinion article, it's research along with evidence. You remember what that is, I assume? See the difference between this and your insane Clinton allegations is that there's actual evidence of wrongdoing as opposed to 'Breibart reports that unnamed sources tell them Clinton is headed to jail any second now!"

In this case, we have the actual records which show multiple donations from multiple Trump companies to the same person on the same day, in excess of what's legally allowed. And we know they're Trump companies because they show up on his financial disclosure forms.

I literally linked the disclosure forms, attached the donation records, and tied it up in a bow for you. And you still think it's an opinion piece. Not surprising you can't tell the difference.

[Tgo01]

It's not an opinion article, it's research along with evidence.

Wait, HuffPost is actually trying to pass this off as some sort of well written news piece? As I said HuffPost is just one giant opinion piece that it's hard to tell.

LOL if that's true.


See the difference between this and your insane Clinton allegations is that there's actual evidence of wrongdoing as opposed to 'Breibart reports that unnamed sources tell them Clinton is headed to jail any second now!"

How do you reconcile the fact that the FBI hasn't recommended indictment yet?


In this case, we have the actual records which show multiple donations from multiple Trump companies to the same person on the same day, in excess of what's legally allowed. And we know they're Trump companies because they show up on his financial disclosure forms.

I'm still not seeing the FBI indictment yet. Do you have a link to said indictment?


literally linked the disclosure forms, attached the donation records, and tied it up in a bow for you.

I'll ask again, source for the indictment? This isn't difficult, I'm just asking for one source.

[Tgo01]

The last 17 stories from this same "news reporter" have all been negative stories about Trump, with one of them being about how Hillary "destroyed" Trump.

The 18th story is praising Hillary for being in good health and her health records show it (LOL!) and at the same time criticizing Trump for not releasing the amount of medical records that Hillary has. Again LOL.

Then after that it's just more and more negative hit stories on Trump.

Yeah. "News" reporter. As I can can't put enough quotation marks around the word "news" so I'm not even going to try.

This is the type of shit you get your "news" from. The scary part is, you're legally allowed to vote.

[time4fun]

The last 17 stories from this same "news reporter" have all been negative stories about Trump, with one of them being about how Hillary "destroyed" Trump.

The 18th story is praising Hillary for being in good health and her health records show it (LOL!) and at the same time criticizing Trump for not releasing the amount of medical records that Hillary has. Again LOL.

Then after that it's just more and more negative hit stories on Trump.

Yeah. "News" reporter. As I can can't put enough quotation marks around the word "news" so I'm not even going to try.

This is the type of shit you get your "news" from. The scary part is, you're legally allowed to vote.

Sweetie, we're talking about evidence now- not the past publications of the author.

Public campaign contribution records that match up with his financial disclosure forms- showing 9 donations in one day, each at the maximum allowable for an individual. He had previously given in his own name that year as well. That's 10 contributions from one person in violation of campaign finance laws- including, but not limited to, a Florida law that prohibits using shell companies as a way to bypass contribution limits.

[Tgo01]

Sweetie, we're talking about evidence now- not the past publications of the author.

Oh shit, the irony is getting so deep in here I'm afraid we all might drown in a sea of shit.


Public campaign contribution records that match up with his financial disclosure forms- showing 9 donations in one day, each at the maximum allowable for an individual. He had previously given in his own name that year as well. That's 10 contributions from one person in violation of campaign finance laws- including, but not limited to, a Florida law that prohibits using shell companies as a way to bypass contribution limits.

Link to FBI indictment?

[BriarFox]

It looks like Clinton's debate bump has put her a bit more comfortably in the lead. She's up by around 4 points in the latest 538 analysis: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-big-is-hillary-clintons-lead/

[Wrathbringer]

Who is making that argument?

That would be his job to make sure that he made full use of that loss to offset as much in taxes as humanly possible.

Serious question: Are you a fucking retard?

:lol:

[ClydeR]

That's a possibility, though I kind of doubt it. $916 million is too big of a loss for him to actually sustain - he had way too much leverage on all his businesses back then to believe that he lost that much in personal capital. And since the campaign is not disputing the assertion that he hasn't paid federal income taxes, that means that debt forgiveness didn't cancel out those net operating losses.

Two possibilities exist then, as far as I've seen reported:

1. Congress did pass an exception in 1993 allowing for owners of some real-estate investments to be able to claim the losses even if they have debt forgiven, because they are financially insolvent. That'd mean a) the losses came from his real estate developments and not his casinos and other businesses (which I personally doubt, but without his full tax return have no way of knowing) and b) he was financially insolvent personally (which he'll never cop to.). However, this is obviously completely legal.

2. He "parked" the debt. He got his creditors to agree to sell the debt to a new tax entity formed (likely offshore) at cents on the dollar, as opposed to straight up forgiving the debt. He controls the new entity indirectly. He gets to claim the operating losses and the entity never demands the face value of the debt back (although the debt still technically exists). Legality of this is questionable - if it's shown that he has any real control over the entity, it's illegal tax avoidance. Of course, no proof of this exists yet, and it may be that he did do this, but was able to show he has no control over the new entity, which would then be probably legal.

BTW, PB, on your earlier post about whether the IRS leaked it - as far as I understand, the three pages were from three different state tax returns, so the IRS would not normally have copies of those. The most likely possibility of who leaked it? Marla Maples. She can legally do so, after all - those returns are hers, too.



Thank you for such a thorough explanation, Kembal. It's clear that you know what you're talking about. I wonder, though..

I wonder if it is really correct for people to say that Trump lost $900 million. He had investors in this enterprise. If his investors put money into the venture, and Trump, as the promoter, got an ownership interest disproportionately large compared to his personal investment, then might some of the $900 million loss be from money invested by other people, instead of a loss of money invested by Trump? And if the tax loss was based on OPM, then isn't Trump a better businessman than people are saying, since he wouldn't really have lost $900 million?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D53-kO9dE1E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D53-kO9dE1E

[Kembal]

If he had 900 million in business losses and the US tax code dictates that he could use that loss against future profits... what is your problem with that again?

What big company pays extra in taxes when they don't have to as part of their business strategy?

Stop being stupid.. you're trying too hard at this point.

PB, maybe you should read both of the posts I've written on the matter instead of automatically resorting to insults. My company files as an S-corp as well, I (along with the other partners) do the exact same thing if I take a tax loss one year in terms of my personal income (such as this year, actually). I'm pretty familiar with the basics of the tax code as they apply to Trump's situation, outside of the special carve-outs that real estate developers get. (you also need to remember the difference between S-Corp and C-Corp here....I don't remember if you've said which way your company filed - you were doing solar installations for a bit, right?)

The point is, without his tax returns, we can't see as to whether he actually sustained those capital losses, or if he used a tax shelter or other accounting maneuvers of questionable legality. We do know he (and his businesses) were highly leveraged in the early 90s and that the debtors also had to take fairly big haircuts in the bankruptcies, which is why I find it highly suspicious that he was able to report that type of capital loss without any offset due to debt forgiveness.

The link in the last post indicates that on a tax basis, he would've been legal had he done those maneuvers....but on a securities law basis, it'd be interesting to know whether he disclosed that the real estate for the casinos could not use depreciation to offset taxable income. Of course, the casinos lost so much money that they probably never paid taxes as a C-corp to begin with, but had he done those maneuvers, it was still a material disclosure to make at the time of the public offering.

Again, no idea as to what exactly happened, because he hasn't released his tax returns.

[time4fun]

Thank you for such a thorough explanation, Kembal. It's clear that you know what you're talking about. I wonder, though..

I wonder if it is really correct for people to say that Trump lost $900 million. He had investors in this enterprise. If his investors put money into the venture, and Trump, as the promoter, got an ownership interest disproportionately large compared to his personal investment, then might some of the $900 million loss be from money invested by other people, instead of a loss of money invested by Trump? And if the tax loss was based on OPM, then isn't Trump a better businessman than people are saying, since he wouldn't really have lost $900 million?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D53-kO9dE1E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D53-kO9dE1E

This is almost assuredly what happened. Back then he could claim losses invested by others without having to claim forgiven debt as income.

The returns don't have enough information to tell us he did, but we know he had to settle with his investors in 1995. It's almost unthinkable that he decided to claim the forgiven debt as income.

[time4fun]

It looks like Clinton's debate bump has put her a bit more comfortably in the lead. She's up by around 4 points in the latest 538 analysis: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-how-big-is-hillary-clintons-lead/

Up 9 in PA this morning as well.

[Kembal]

PB, maybe you should read both of the posts I've written on the matter instead of automatically resorting to insults. My company files as an S-corp as well, I (along with the other partners) do the exact same thing if I take a tax loss one year in terms of my personal income (such as this year, actually). I'm pretty familiar with the basics of the tax code as they apply to Trump's situation, outside of the special carve-outs that real estate developers get. (you also need to remember the difference between S-Corp and C-Corp here....I don't remember if you've said which way your company filed - you were doing solar installations for a bit, right?)

The point is, without his tax returns, we can't see as to whether he actually sustained those capital losses, or if he used a tax shelter or other accounting maneuvers of questionable legality. We do know he (and his businesses) were highly leveraged in the early 90s and that the debtors also had to take fairly big haircuts in the bankruptcies, which is why I find it highly suspicious that he was able to report that type of capital loss without any offset due to debt forgiveness.

The link in the last post indicates that on a tax basis, he would've been legal had he done those maneuvers....but on a securities law basis, it'd be interesting to know whether he disclosed that the real estate for the casinos could not use depreciation to offset taxable income. Of course, the casinos lost so much money that they probably never paid taxes as a C-corp to begin with, but had he done those maneuvers, it was still a material disclosure to make at the time of the public offering.

Again, no idea as to what exactly happened, because he hasn't released his tax returns.

Good WaPo article about the 1995 tax losses: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trumps-tax-mystery-points-toward-the-dealings-around-his-rst-bankruptcies/2016/10/03/6e217ba4-8975-11e6-bff0-d53f592f176e_story.html

[Parkbandit]

PB, maybe you should read both of the posts I've written on the matter instead of automatically resorting to insults. My company files as an S-corp as well, I (along with the other partners) do the exact same thing if I take a tax loss one year in terms of my personal income (such as this year, actually). I'm pretty familiar with the basics of the tax code as they apply to Trump's situation, outside of the special carve-outs that real estate developers get. (you also need to remember the difference between S-Corp and C-Corp here....I don't remember if you've said which way your company filed - you were doing solar installations for a bit, right?)

The point is, without his tax returns, we can't see as to whether he actually sustained those capital losses, or if he used a tax shelter or other accounting maneuvers of questionable legality. We do know he (and his businesses) were highly leveraged in the early 90s and that the debtors also had to take fairly big haircuts in the bankruptcies, which is why I find it highly suspicious that he was able to report that type of capital loss without any offset due to debt forgiveness.

The link in the last post indicates that on a tax basis, he would've been legal had he done those maneuvers....but on a securities law basis, it'd be interesting to know whether he disclosed that the real estate for the casinos could not use depreciation to offset taxable income. Of course, the casinos lost so much money that they probably never paid taxes as a C-corp to begin with, but had he done those maneuvers, it was still a material disclosure to make at the time of the public offering.

Again, no idea as to what exactly happened, because he hasn't released his tax returns.

I hate to quote Hillary at this point.. but "what difference does it make"?

Clearly he did something that any CEO would do.. he's not doing anything illegal, he's using the tax code to his/his company's benefit. You and I would do the exact same thing.

There are many, many companies that "pay no taxes" that do nothing wrong. It's not the fault of Trump.. that is the fault (if there is any) of the US Tax Code.

The reason I "ZOMG RESORTED 2 INSULTS!!!!" was because even though by your admission you don't know anything about his taxes or his subsequent returns from 1995 onwards.. you automatically assume he's doing something illegal.. or at the very least using mechanisms of "questionably legality". That makes you stupid... you are trying too hard. We used to call this type of "thinking" as the "Backlash Zone" but I think we should rename it in favor of time4fun now since she' seems very adapt at picking up the retard slack.

[Kembal]

I hate to quote Hillary at this point.. but "what difference does it make"?

Clearly he did something that any CEO would do.. he's not doing anything illegal, he's using the tax code to his/his company's benefit. You and I would do the exact same thing.

There are many, many companies that "pay no taxes" that do nothing wrong. It's not the fault of Trump.. that is the fault (if there is any) of the US Tax Code.

The reason I "ZOMG RESORTED 2 INSULTS!!!!" was because even though by your admission you don't know anything about his taxes or his subsequent returns from 1995 onwards.. you automatically assume he's doing something illegal.. or at the very least using mechanisms of "questionably legality". That makes you stupid... you are trying too hard. We used to call this type of "thinking" as the "Backlash Zone" but I think we should rename it in favor of time4fun now since she' seems very adapt at picking up the retard slack.

1. Because he didn't lose $916 million of his own money, and whatever was done to reduce his debt, it was not counted as income for tax purposes. That's not a tax loophole accessible to most people, even most people who own S-corps.

2. The proposals he has made in terms of tax policy appear to be designed to benefit him as opposed to closing the tax loopholes that it appears he's taking advantage of. (15% tax rate for S-corp income, for example. I mean, it sounds nice for me personally, but S-corps already get a ton of advantages as opposed to C-corps. C-corp income tax policy is the real problem, not S-corp.)

3. He should be disclosing his tax returns. The Presidency is an office of public trust. The tax returns give us a window into whether he'd (or any other candidate, via their tax returns) misuse it for personal benefit.

[time4fun]

I hate to quote Hillary at this point.. but "what difference does it make"?

Clearly he did something that any CEO would do.. he's not doing anything illegal, he's using the tax code to his/his company's benefit. You and I would do the exact same thing.

There are many, many companies that "pay no taxes" that do nothing wrong. It's not the fault of Trump.. that is the fault (if there is any) of the US Tax Code.

The reason I "ZOMG RESORTED 2 INSULTS!!!!" was because even though by your admission you don't know anything about his taxes or his subsequent returns from 1995 onwards.. you automatically assume he's doing something illegal.. or at the very least using mechanisms of "questionably legality". That makes you stupid... you are trying too hard. We used to call this type of "thinking" as the "Backlash Zone" but I think we should rename it in favor of time4fun now since she' seems very adapt at picking up the retard slack.

Well, for one, he repeatedly lambasted other people for doing exactly what he himself has done (and we'd be hard pressed to find many other people who've abused the tax code to this extent), and has made it a minor campaign issue. Secondly, his own tax plan- which was presumably going to cut tax loopholes- magically doesn't address any of the loopholes he used that are still in play today. A convenient oversight not to address any of the real estate loopholes in the tax code, wouldn't you say?

Third, it eats into his whole "I'm a great businessman" theory and sheds a ton of light on his "King of Debt" statements. He's not a great businessman, he's a leech. He stiffs his workers and contractors, he stiffs his investors, and he makes a business model out of abusing the tax code so he walks out a winner while everyone else ends up in pain.

And all of this just boils down to one big question- does anyone here really think that Trump is going to change the same system that he's been effectively living off of? A tax system that is giving him back billions? Given his current tax plan doesn't address any of these issues and would actually lower his taxes (AHAHAHAHAHAHA), the answer is clearly no.

Oh, and PB honey, there's not a single person on this board who gives what you say any real credence. I'm not sure I'd be insulting anyone else's intelligence if I were you.

[Wrathbringer]

As someone who doesn't pay taxes, I couldn't care less whether trump/clinton paid taxes.

[Androidpk]

The Presidency is an office of public trust.

And Hillary should release her Wall Street transcript speeches and her 30,000 plus deleted e-mails.

[Parkbandit]

1. Because he didn't lose $916 million of his own money, and whatever was done to reduce his debt, it was not counted as income for tax purposes. That's not a tax loophole accessible to most people, even most people who own S-corps.

2. The proposals he has made in terms of tax policy appear to be designed to benefit him as opposed to closing the tax loopholes that it appears he's taking advantage of. (15% tax rate for S-corp income, for example. I mean, it sounds nice for me personally, but S-corps already get a ton of advantages as opposed to C-corps. C-corp income tax policy is the real problem, not S-corp.)

3. He should be disclosing his tax returns. The Presidency is an office of public trust. The tax returns give us a window into whether he'd (or any other candidate, via their tax returns) misuse it for personal benefit.

Wait.. are you really saying the Presidency is an office of public trust.. and you are going to vote for someone who completely broke that trust because she's a paranoid lunatic who believes no one but her will determine if they know what she sends and receives?

Really?

LOL.

[Tgo01]

Wait.. are you really saying the Presidency is an office of public trust.. and you are going to vote for someone who completely broke that trust because she's a paranoid lunatic who believes no one but her will determine if they know what she sends and receives?

Really?

LOL.

It's like I said earlier; Hillary has all of these real scandals, most of which happened while she was a politician.

But people always hark back to "Well Trump once called Rosie fat so...that's the game changer..."

Now it's "Trump might not have paid federal taxes for a few years because of perfectly legit and legal accounting practices that each and every single American would take advantage of if they could." And that's the actual problem.

[Whirlin]

It's like I said earlier; Hillary has all of these real scandals, most of which happened while she was a politician.

But people always hark back to "Well Trump once called Rosie fat so...that's the game changer..."

Now it's "Trump might not have paid federal taxes for a few years because of perfectly legit and legal accounting practices that each and every single American would take advantage of if they could." And that's the actual problem.
Only because of accounting practices in the mid-90s. Keep in mind, accounting post-Enron is a very different environment with more specific valuation requirements and stringent regulations on arms-length transactions between related legal entities. In the 90s, it was possible to book perceived gains/losses on contracts immediately, prior to delivering the required goods/services or payment being issued.

Failures in the mid 90s may not be applicable under today's accounting code.

Furthermore, the statute of limitations on an audit of an individual's tax returns is 7 years unless there has been adequate justification to require to go back up to 15 years in time. This additional statute provision is only utilized once there has been a defined violation of tax code in an audit of the most recent 7 years and is used to assess additional liability identified.

[Tgo01]

Only because of accounting practices in the mid-90s. Keep in mind, accounting post-Enron is a very different environment with more specific valuation requirements and stringent regulations on arms-length transactions between related legal entities. In the 90s, it was possible to book perceived gains/losses on contracts immediately, prior to delivering the required goods/services or payment being issued.

Failures in the mid 90s may not be applicable under today's accounting code.

Furthermore, the statute of limitations on an audit of an individual's tax returns is 7 years unless there has been adequate justification to require to go back up to 15 years in time. This additional statute provision is only utilized once there has been a defined violation of tax code in an audit of the most recent 7 years and is used to assess additional liability identified.

I don't understand what you're getting at to be honest.

Are you implying Trump cheated but the IRS can't do anything about it because it happened so long ago? Like the IRS didn't notice Trump cheated but some dipshit at the NYT "caught" trump 20 years later because he looked at Trump's supposed tax returns?

[Wrathbringer]

I don't understand what you're getting at to be honest.

Are you implying Trump cheated but the IRS can't do anything about it because it happened so long ago? Like the IRS didn't notice Trump cheated but some dipshit at the NYT "caught" trump 20 years later because he looked at Trump's supposed tax returns?

I thought you quit?

[Tgo01]

I thought you quit?

I thought you quit, started playing again, quit again, then started playing again?

[Methais]

The Presidency is an office of public trust.

Why are you voting for Hillary then?


Trump taxes

I like how everyone who's ripping on Trump over the tax thing ignores the question every single time they're asked about if they would willingly pay more taxes than they were legally obligated to.

Also, I assume all of these people who hav sold GS silvers or items at any point in time paid their appropriate taxes on that income too, right? Right? Hello?


:lol:

:lol:

[Tgo01]

For the lulz.


Our combined household income puts us in the top 1% of the country, and both me and my boyfriend disagree with this statement vehemently. Taxes are crucial for the well being of this country and those in it. People like us pay too little, and we both vote for politicians who would increase our taxes- because we'd rather see free college tuition, universal health care, and the eradication of hunger in this country than us getting one more vacation every year.

This country was at its best when our tax rates were higher on top income earners. People who treat taxes like they're some immoral burden are short-sighted fools who value money over the things that really matter. We pay more in taxes than most of the folks on this forum take home in income every year, and you won't ever catch us complaining about the high tax rates. So unless you're in the lower 50% of income earners in this country, you shouldn't be complaining either.

Why time4fun I am shocked and outraged! You mean to say you use legal DEDUCTIONS AND WRITE OFFS to lower your tax burden?

This is obscene! This is disgusting! I sure as fuck hope you turned in your Democrat card for not voluntarily paying more in taxes than you are legally required to do!

I...I...I just can't. I can't believe someone with your moral high standing would stoop to such lows...

[Methais]

For the lulz.



Why time4fun I am shocked and outraged! You mean to say you use legal DEDUCTIONS AND WRITE OFFS to lower your tax burden?

This is obscene! This is disgusting! I sure as fuck hope you turned in your Democrat card for not voluntarily paying more in taxes than you are legally required to do!

I...I...I just can't. I can't believe someone with your moral high standing would stoop to such lows...

What's even better is she really believes that paying more in taxes will do things like end hunger, as if we just didn't have enough money to do this already or even 50 years ago.

"But by golly if we just give more of our money to the government, the politicians will get it right this time, for real!"

Meanwhile, people get arrested for giving a homeless person a sandwich. Who's arresting those people? The government!

[Neveragain]

People who treat taxes like they're some immoral burden are short-sighted fools who value money over the things that really matter.

I took the prerogative and removed all the "I think there for I am" bullshit out of your reply and refined it down to the very essence of reality.

If the value of money is lesser than the things that really matter....why do you insist on confiscating more money to supply people with the things that really matter? The answer is simple, you're a racist and a sexist.

P.S. Or it could be you don't have the slightest clue what currency is.

[Parkbandit]

Only because of accounting practices in the mid-90s. Keep in mind, accounting post-Enron is a very different environment with more specific valuation requirements and stringent regulations on arms-length transactions between related legal entities. In the 90s, it was possible to book perceived gains/losses on contracts immediately, prior to delivering the required goods/services or payment being issued.

Failures in the mid 90s may not be applicable under today's accounting code.

Furthermore, the statute of limitations on an audit of an individual's tax returns is 7 years unless there has been adequate justification to require to go back up to 15 years in time. This additional statute provision is only utilized once there has been a defined violation of tax code in an audit of the most recent 7 years and is used to assess additional liability identified.

Yes, yes.. thankfully our Government has straightened up the tax code so companies like Trump Worldwide has to pay "their fare share!"...

oh wait....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3822095/Apple-named-biggest-corporate-tax-avoider-US.html

Like I said when this first became a "story"... it's not Trump's fault... it's not Apple's fault.. it's our tax code's fault and the scumbag lawyer/politician/accountants that keep adding to it. It's fucking bullshit.

[Parkbandit]

Also, I assume all of these people who have sold GS silvers or items at any point in time paid their appropriate taxes on that income too, right? Right? Hello?

Flaming hypocrites.

[Methais]

Flaming hypocrites.

ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THEY HAVEN'T?!!?!?

[Wrathbringer]

I think it's high time time4fun released his/her tax returns, amirite?

[Parkbandit]

Well, for one, he repeatedly lambasted other people for doing exactly what he himself has done (and we'd be hard pressed to find many other people who've abused the tax code to this extent), and has made it a minor campaign issue.

Then stick to calling him a hypocrite.. you would look less retarded than saying "derp, derp.. he needs to pay his taxes derp, derp.."


Secondly, his own tax plan- which was presumably going to cut tax loopholes- magically doesn't address any of the loopholes he used that are still in play today. A convenient oversight not to address any of the real estate loopholes in the tax code, wouldn't you say?

Not at all. I don't think you understand the term "loophole" very well. Add that to the list.


Third, it eats into his whole "I'm a great businessman" theory and sheds a ton of light on his "King of Debt" statements. He's not a great businessman, he's a leech. He stiffs his workers and contractors, he stiffs his investors, and he makes a business model out of abusing the tax code so he walks out a winner while everyone else ends up in pain.

He started with 2 million and is worth billions today. I wouldn't consider him a failure.


And all of this just boils down to one big question- does anyone here really think that Trump is going to change the same system that he's been effectively living off of? A tax system that is giving him back billions? Given his current tax plan doesn't address any of these issues and would actually lower his taxes (AHAHAHAHAHAHA), the answer is clearly no.

I have no doubt there are many, many things Trump says he's going to do that won't get done... whether it's just appeasing constituents, talking out his ass, Congress won't pass it, etc... I still trust him 10000% more than I trust Hillary.


Oh, and PB honey

Please never, ever use that term with me. I like smart, good looking women.. not whatever you actually are in real life. :puke:


there's not a single person on this board who gives what you say any real credence. I'm not sure I'd be insulting anyone else's intelligence if I were you.

Really? I didn't know you speak for everyone here. Good to know stupidity isn't your only basic trait... over inflated ego too. Fantastic.

[time4fun]

For the lulz.



Why time4fun I am shocked and outraged! You mean to say you use legal DEDUCTIONS AND WRITE OFFS to lower your tax burden?

This is obscene! This is disgusting! I sure as fuck hope you turned in your Democrat card for not voluntarily paying more in taxes than you are legally required to do!

I...I...I just can't. I can't believe someone with your moral high standing would stoop to such lows...

Incorrect.

[Tgo01]

Incorrect.

Nuh uh!

[Whirlin]

I don't understand what you're getting at to be honest.

Are you implying Trump cheated but the IRS can't do anything about it because it happened so long ago? Like the IRS didn't notice Trump cheated but some dipshit at the NYT "caught" trump 20 years later because he looked at Trump's supposed tax returns?
Nah, implying that any reason he's attempting to leverage to not release his tax returns is likely due to IRS identifying instances of additional tax liability, because otherwise the statute of limitations of an audit would only be 7 years, enabling him to release tax returns for years 8-15.

Additionally, I'm uncertain why this is a desirable and defensible trait. It's akin to glorifying Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, or Martin Shkreli because they leveraged accounting and regulatory loopholes for personal gain.

[Candor]

I know some libbie is going to consider this to be a stupid question, but what is my "fair share" of taxes supposed to be anyway?

[Tgo01]

Nah, implying that any reason he's attempting to leverage to not release his tax returns is likely due to IRS identifying instances of additional tax liability, because otherwise the statute of limitations of an audit would only be 7 years, enabling him to release tax returns for years 8-15.

I'll just come right out and say I think Trump's reasoning for not releasing his tax returns are bullshit. On the other hand I think the whole "tradition" of candidates releasing tax returns is stupid as shit to begin with. On the other other hand, why would Trump release tax returns of up to 15 years ago? Most candidates only release the previous few years worth.


Additionally, I'm uncertain why this is a desirable and defensible trait. It's akin to glorifying Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, or Martin Shkreli because they leveraged accounting and regulatory loopholes for personal gain.

Didn't Madoff and Kenneth Lay go to prison for what they did? Sure, if Trump did something illegal in regards to his taxes then I wouldn't be defending him. But that's not what Hillary or her cronies are even implying, they are going after him for not "paying his fair share" and shit.

I'm not aware of what Martin Shkreli did in regards to this.

But yes, in general, I have no problem with people legally paying as little in taxes as they are required to do. Aren't you an accountant? Do you ever recommend to clients that they should pay more in taxes than they are legally required to pay?

[drauz]

On the other other hand, why would Trump release tax returns of up to 15 years ago? Most candidates only release the previous few years worth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlqKFlU7YAs

[time4fun]

Nuh uh!

Today's episode of Tax Street is brought to you by the word: Phase-outs.

[Archigeek]

I'll just come right out and say I think Trump's reasoning for not releasing his tax returns are bullshit. On the other hand I think the whole "tradition" of candidates releasing tax returns is stupid as shit to begin with. On the other other hand, why would Trump release tax returns of up to 15 years ago? Most candidates only release the previous few years worth.

And in a rare historical moment, we agree on something in the politics folder. I think tax returns are personal and no one's business but the filer. Then I also think 911 calls should be confidential, so there's that.

[drauz]

And in a rare historical moment, we agree on something in the politics folder. I think tax returns are personal and no one's business but the filer. Then I also think 911 calls should be confidential, so there's that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46UtFFWPPp0

[Kembal]

Didn't Madoff and Kenneth Lay go to prison for what they did? Sure, if Trump did something illegal in regards to his taxes then I wouldn't be defending him. But that's not what Hillary or her cronies are even implying, they are going after him for not "paying his fair share" and shit.

Ken Lay died before he went to prison. Heart attack.

[Parkbandit]

Ken Lay died before he went to prison. Heart attack.

Sounds like a Hillary hit.

[Kembal]

Sounds like a Hillary hit.

LOL. In this case, no, I happen to know he was under treatment for heart-related issues, since he was seeing the same doctor my father was seeing at the time. I met him a couple of times in the waiting room there, after all of Enron happened and he was one of the two most hated guys in Houston.

[Parkbandit]

LOL. In this case, no, I happen to know he was under treatment for heart-related issues, since he was seeing the same doctor my father was seeing at the time. I met him a couple of times in the waiting room there, after all of Enron happened and he was one of the two most hated guys in Houston.

Oh sure.. make excuses for her!

You sicken me.

[Geijon Khyree]

Tumblin Tumbling down down down.

[Latrinsorm]

No one will care what he says this far into the election. It's team Red versus team Blue. Too late in the game for anyone to be changing sides.There are an unusually high number of undecideds / third party voters for this point in the campaign, though. The way Hillary's lead keeps growing and shrinking is another indicator that nothing is fixed.
Even with Snopes' obvious zeal to carry Democrat's waterHave you considered the possibility that this and other fact checkers actually are neutral and you're the one who is biased?

[Tgo01]

Have you considered the possibility that this and other fact checkers actually are neutral and you're the one who is biased?

Have you considered you're wrong?