ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [410] -- Trump Backs Up Titanic, Hits Iceberg Again

[ Posted Friday, September 30th, 2016 – 15:57 PDT ]

Our subtitle today is not original, so we've got to start by giving credit where credit is due. David French, a writer for the ultraconservative National Review (and a man once so horrified by Donald Trump's candidacy that he considered running himself), had the funniest metaphor for Trump's performance in Monday's first presidential debate:

After the first 20 minutes, it may have been the most lopsided debate I've ever seen -- and not because Clinton was particularly effective. But you don't need to be good when your opponent is bad. Why didn't he have a better answer ready for the birther nonsense? Has he still not done any homework on foreign policy? I felt like I was watching the political Titanic hit the iceberg, back up, and hit it again. Just for fun.

The extraordinary thing about this is not that a conservative is ridiculing a debate performance of the Republican candidate for president, since he's not the only one who did so this week (more on this in the talking points), and also since the list of Republicans who support Hillary Clinton is growing by the day. No, the extraordinary thing is that the author wrote this before Trump started actually fighting back against former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. French was just talking about the debate itself, but for the entire rest of the week, Trump backed his personal Titanic up again and again, and tried to just ram through the iceberg, over and over. He was even up early this morning, providing yet another day's legs for this story.

The most extraordinary thing about all of this is that Trump is so incensed at Machado, and so wrapped up in his hissy fit, that he absolutely ignored Rosie O'Donnell, who this week tweeted that Trump was nothing more than an "orange anus." Even vicious insults from Rosie didn't get a rise from Trump (which is, indeed, extraordinary -- because it likely has never happened before), because he was so focused on badmouthing Machado.

Before we get to all the debate reactions, though, there was plenty of other bad news for Trump this week. His namesake foundation is generating all sorts of bad press for Trump, and this week's harvest included the fact that Trump seems to be using his foundation to shield his own income from income taxes (which is illegal, if true), and also the bombshell that Trump failed to properly register his foundation in New York. So the Trump Foundation is looking more and more like an unlicensed slush fund Trump uses any way he sees fit. Maybe that's why he didn't bring up the Clinton Foundation in Monday night's debate?

The other bad news for Trump might hurt him in one particular battleground state that he truly needs to win if he's got any chance at all to win the election. It turns out Trump's business traveled down to Cuba a while back, because they thought U.S. relations might be thawing (this was long before Obama became president and made this dream reality, we should point out). Trump wanted to get a foot in the door, in case the chance for making money from Havana luxury hotels became possible. But in doing so, his business spent $68,000 in Cuba itself -- which is a violation of U.S. law.

Now, in most of America, this news won't generate much interest. After all, Obama started the very process Trump was preparing for -- opening up Cuba and ending the Cold War for good. So what does it matter now? Well, for most Americans, it doesn't matter. Not so for the Cuban-Americans living in Florida. Cuban-Americans are unlike most other Latinos in the United States, because they've always been staunch Republicans. Up until recently, Republicans' strong anti-Communist and anti-Castro positions have won them the support of most Cuban-Americans in Florida (and elsewhere). Spending money in the Castro regime could blunt this support more than it already has been blunted by time. Younger Cuban-Americans just want to travel to Cuba to see relatives they've never met -- they're not as concerned about the Castro brothers. But if this new revelation weakens Trump support among the older Cuban-American demographic, that could actually tip the state over to Clinton in November. So while this is a minor story for the rest of us, we'll be closely watching the Florida polling to see if Trump getting caught spending money in Cuba has an effect or not, that's for sure.

In so-common-it's-barely-news this week, another staunch Republican newspaper endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. The Arizona Republic is especially notable since it has never endorsed a single Democrat since the paper began in 1890. Donald Trump still has yet to win one single major newspaper endorsement anywhere in the country, and USA Today -- which has never endorsed any candidate -- came out with an "un-endorsement" (disendorsement?) of Trump, stating he would be too reckless and dangerous a man to elect president. In the midst of all this, Trump has still not held a press conference or appeared on any non-Fox network in over two months.

Other bad news for Team Trump: the Trump children fondly remember being introduced to capitalism when their parents provided money for a lemonade stand -- which had to be paid back (they had to turn a profit, in other words). Unfortunately for them, they set up their stand on the lawn of a Trump house in a very wealthy neighborhood's cul-de-sac, meaning there was pretty much zero foot traffic for them to pitch their wares to. Being Trumps, the kids solved their problem -- by browbeating the help into digging deep in their pockets to buy lemonade from them. No, seriously, you just can't make this stuff up. Their charming story might even have been an offering at Trump University, in fact: "How to grift those with less money than you, 101."

Since there's so much material from the campaign trail this week, we have decided we're not even going to make an attempt to run down any of the other political news -- which included Obama's first veto override and Congress actually avoiding a government shutdown (by doing the work on the Zika funding and Flint's water crisis they should have done almost a year ago, but still...). It's been that sort of week -- the campaign has just overwhelmed all the other political news. So let's move along to the awards, and then we'll have some of those conservative reactions to Trump's debate performance, as promised.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

There's really no question who won this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Hillary Clinton turned in the debate performance Democrats had been waiting for this Monday, and the rest of the week was filled with stories of Donald Trump shooting himself in the foot. That's an impressive week for a presidential candidate.

Her debate performance was seen as a clear win by the public and by the pundits, giving her a whole week of good news. The polls (the real ones, not the meaningless "vote early, vote often" internet polls) are now starting to come in, and so far they show movement towards Clinton almost across the board. Clinton's up in Nevada, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. The one we're personally waiting to see is Florida, after the aforementioned Cuba story broke. That might just change a few voters' minds about Trump in and around Miami, to put it mildly.

But back to Hillary's debate performance. Hillary, as she pointed out herself on Monday, prepared for the debate. Donald (as she amusingly called him throughout the debate) did not. It wasn't just that she knew what to say and how to say it, either. She also was ready to spring the traps she laid for Trump. While Trump has been playing the media like a fiddle for over a year now, Clinton showed she knows a thing or two about a media rollout herself. Consider the details about the prep work done by Team Clinton on the Alicia Machado story alone:

Operatives in Brooklyn had been working with Machado since the summer. They had a video featuring her story ready to go. Cosmopolitan had a photo spread of her draped in an American flag -- to go with a profile -- in the can. Machado had also conducted an interview with The Guardian that was "apparently embargoed for post-debate release," according to Vox. And the Clinton super PAC Priorities USA turned a digital ad to highlight the insults by early afternoon.

The Clinton press shop then set up a conference call for Machado to respond to what Trump said on "Fox and Friends." Speaking with reporters, Machado recounted how Trump "always treated me like a lesser thing, like garbage" and that his new words are like "a bad dream." She said in a mix of Spanish and halting English that she watched the debate with her mother and daughter and cried as Clinton recounted her story.

That is what preparation looks like, folks. Not only do you wave a red flag in front of the bull, you have a full media rollout of the red flag's history ready to go, which you know full well is just going to further enrage the bull. And it worked like a charm. Trump stepped right into the trap, Clinton snapped it shut, and Trump's been wailing and whining ever since. As the Guinness ads used to say: "Brilliant!"

Hillary Clinton used just this one Trump-baiting episode to strengthen her support among women in general, suburban women in particular, and Latinos and Latinas across the board. And that was just one of the traps Trump stepped right into Monday night. By week's end, Team Clinton was expressing outright glee over Trump's overreactions. Brian Fallon just tweeted the snarkiest comment I've seen all week: "Oh look, Trump is dominating the news cycle again. Whatever will we do." Heh. Cracking jokes like that simply wasn't possible this time last week, it bears mentioning.

So for turning around her polling slide, for clearly winning the debate, for getting under Trump's skin in a way no previous debate opponent has, for provoking gaffe after gaffe without once stumbling herself, for getting Trump to all but admit that the big secret in his tax returns is that he pays no taxes, for her overall preparation and for her stamina, Hillary Clinton is easily this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week winner. In fact (to end on a groaner of a pun), it is beyond debate.

[It is our longstanding policy not to provide contact information for political campaigns, so you'll have to find Hillary Clinton's campaign site on your own to congratulate her, sorry.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

There's a clear candidate for Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week, but after consideration, we've decided that his strong poll numbers disqualify him for the award. After all, if the voters he's trying to woo aren't disappointed in him, who are we to say otherwise?

Joe Morrissey used to be a Virginia state lawmaker. Then he got caught in an inappropriate relationship (to say the least) with his 17-year-old receptionist (Morrissey was 55 at the time). Morrissey went to jail for this relationship, after texting nude photos of her to a friend, bragging that he had had sex with her (while she was underage). Morrissey had previously raised eyebrows with other antics, "including an eight-year disbarment that prevented him from practicing law until 2011; two fistfights that resulted in jail time; brandishing an unloaded AK-47 to the alarm of legislative colleagues during a gun debate in the House of Delegates." Fun guy, right?

Well, now he's running to be mayor of Richmond (an office Tim Kaine used to hold, incidentally). And he's actually using his wife and children (he married the intern after doing his jail time, and has two children with her) on the campaign trail as the reason he's running. No, really. That takes a lot of chutzpah, but the astonishing thing is that he's leading the polls in a seven-way race. Or six, now -- one candidate just dropped out in fear that the wide field would split the vote and allow Morrissey to win.

All of that is pretty disappointing, but like Marion Barry before him, Morrissey is walking the path to redemption with the voters supporting him. Nobody would really care about his candidacy if he weren't leading the pack, to put this another way. And who are we to argue with the voters of Richmond? So his voter support has saved him from this week's MDDOTW award.

This leaves a thin field to choose from, so we're going to go ahead and hand the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award to Chelsea Clinton, who got her facts wrong about marijuana, while out on the campaign trail for her mother. We also have to thank Tom Angell, marijuana-rights crusader extraordinaire, for bringing this to everyone's attention.

Chelsea was campaigning in Ohio, and was asked about what her mom thought about the D.E.A. refusing to reclassify marijuana to a lower level (rather than Schedule I, where it currently sits). Hillary Clinton has been notably reluctant to embrace marijuana legalization in any way, although she has incrementally moved her position since she first began her run. She now "supports more research," which is a pretty Caspar Milquetoast-ish position to take in 2016, when over half the United States have already legalized medicinal marijuana and when recreational legalization will be on the ballot in multiple states this November. But Clinton has indeed stated that she now supports rescheduling marijuana -- again, a fairly weak position on the issue, considering how far the window has shifted in the general public.

But then Chelsea just started makin' stuff up, continuing a century-long streak of anti-marijuana propaganda, by stating:

But we also have anecdotal evidence now from Colorado where some of the people who were taking marijuana for [medical] purposes, the coroner believes, after they died, there was drug interactions with other things they were taking.

When challenged by ThinkProgress, a Chelsea Clinton spokesperson had to walk this statement back:

While discussing her and her mother's support for rescheduling marijuana to allow for further study of both its medical benefits and possible interactions with other medications, Chelsea misspoke about marijuana's interaction with other drugs contributing to specific deaths.

While we do appreciate the fact that she did walk her inaccurate statement back, the fact that she made it in the first place still makes Chelsea Clinton our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

Maybe this is a "teachable moment" for her mother? Let's see, Team Clinton is extremely worried that she is not generating much enthusiasm from Millennials. The young folks haven't flocked from backing Bernie Sanders over to her side, and many of them may vote for a third-party candidate or even stay home. Hmm... that's a problem. Now what could Hillary Clinton possibly do to fix that problem? How could she entice young Gary Johnson and Jill Stein voters over to her side? If only there were one simple issue -- an issue that the public has already completely shifted on -- that Hillary could champion in order to fix her problem with young voters. If only such an issue could be found... if only....

Sooner or later, Democratic politicians are going to realize that they are flat-out not being leaders on the issue of marijuana reform, and further realize the political benefits they could easily be reaping by getting out in front of the issue. Sooner or later, but not yet -- from Team Clinton, at any rate.

[Chelsea Clinton is a public political figure, but not an actual officeholder, and it is our longstanding policy not to provide contact information for private individuals, so you'll have to let the Hillary Clinton team know what you think of Chelsea's actions on your own, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 410 (9/30/16)

While most of this week's talking points are nothing more than conservative reactions to Trump's debate performance, we do have to apologize in advance for our first talking point, because we fully admit it is not only sexist, but appearance-ist (or whatever P.C. term should be used, there), and downright juvenile. Hey, it's been that sort of election, folks.

Normally, we wouldn't stoop to insults a fifth-grader might hurl on a playground here, because even if we are dedicated to the proposition that Democrats can effectively use taunting as talking points -- as effectively as Republicans, even! -- we usually try to keep at least one foot out of the gutter while doing so.

However, Donald Trump has proven this week beyond a shadow of a doubt that one of his sorest sore spots is his well-documented history of misogynistic statements. For some bizarre reason, Trump seems to want to deny that he has said any of the vast collection of put-downs against women he's used in the past. After all, who in their right mind would have thought that during the first 2016 presidential debate, there would be name-drops of Howard Stern, a former Miss Universe, and Rosie O'Donnell (who "deserved" all the things Trump said about her)? Seriously, who could have predicted any of that?

So our first talking point is specifically designed as a taunt to make Trump seethe. It's not even really necessary -- he's already boiling over about the whole Miss Universe thing. We had another talking point ready to go (Bill Kristol: "I'm not positive Hillary actually won the debate. But I'm sure Trump lost it. He choked."), but in the end we decided that getting under Trump's skin even more was a worthy enough goal for us to use language we would normally consider unworthy for these august pages. So with that caveat under our belts, let's get right to it, shall we?

 

1
   Beaten like a cheap rug

Ideally, we'd select Chris Matthews to utter this line. Somehow he seems like the most likely candidate to uncork this particular insult to Trump, don't ask us why.

"Trump got beaten up pretty badly by a girl on Monday night, and then all week long he got beaten like a big brass drum by a beauty queen. No wonder he's so upset."

 

2
   It's 3:00 A.M....

Many people are pointing this one out. It's a no-brainer, really, after this morning's tweetstorm from Trump.

"If I were giving the Republican National Committee advice, I would tell them to immediately find out who exactly gave Donald Trump his phone back? They had successfully hidden it from him for weeks, but this morning he started spewing conspiracy theories in the middle of the night, once again. It's so embarrassing even John Podesta was offering Trump advice, for when he gets up in the middle of the night: 'safety tip: don't reach for your phone.' Hillary Clinton's response should be an obvious one, since she's already got the footage ready to go -- all it would need would be about five seconds of updating. Yes, I think it's high time for Clinton to re-run her '3:00 A.M. ad' from 2008, don't you? Because Trump is -- obviously -- not the guy you'd want anywhere near a phone in the wee hours."

 

3
   20 minutes of material

The next few talking points are all from conservatives reviewing Trump's debate performance. We have to say, it's been a rather extraordinary presidential campaign, because over and over again we don't even have to create Democratic talking points, since the conservatives are offering up better ones on their own -- against their own candidate. All any of these need is a Democrat leading in with: "Did you hear what X just said about Trump?" In this case, X would be Mitt Romney's chief strategist from his 2012 campaign:

Trump brought 20 minutes of material to a 90 minute show.

 

4
   Vanity and laziness

Our next conservative debate review comes from John Podhoretz of the New York Post.

He began with his strongest argument -- that the political class represented by her has failed us and it's time to look to a successful dealmaker for leadership -- and kept to it pretty well for the first 20 minutes. Then due to the vanity and laziness that led him to think he could wing the most important 95 minutes of his life, he lost the thread of his argument, he lost control of his temper and he lost the perspective necessary to correct these mistakes as he went. By the end... Trump was reduced to a sputtering mess blathering about Rosie O'Donnell and about how he hasn't yet said the mean things about Hillary that he is thinking.

 

5
   Big mistake

Here is Charles Krauthammer on Trump's debate performance. Ah, vanity, thy name is Trump!

His great weakness is his vanity. He is temperamentally incapable of allowing any attack on his person to go unavenged. He is particularly sensitive on the subject of his wealth. So central to his self-image is his business acumen that in the debate he couldn't resist the temptation to tout his cleverness on taxes. Big mistake. The next day, Clinton offered the obvious retort: "If not paying taxes makes him smart, what does that make all the rest of us?"

 

6
   Fireworks train hits nuclear plant

To absolve him of being insensitive, we are duty-bound to point out that Michael Gerson wrote this Homer Simpson-esque metaphor before the New Jersey train derailment happened. It's a metaphor almost as good as the image of the Titanic backing up to take another shot at the berg, though.

Past debate criticism has looked for hints and signs to determine losers -- a candidate, say, looked impatiently at his watch or sighed in an off-putting way. Rhetorically, Trump drove a high-speed train filled with fireworks into a nuclear power plant. He was self-absorbed, prickly, defensive, interrupting, baited by every charge yet unprepared to refute them. During his share of a 90-minute debate, he was horribly out of his depth, incapable of stringing together a coherent three-sentence case. The postmodern quality of Trump's appeal culminated in an unbalanced rant claiming, "I also have a much better temperament than she has" -- an assertion greeted by audience laughter.

 

7
   That's the ticket!

And finally, we close with a fairly obvious observation that more people need to be saying out loud.

"It's now rumored that Chris Christie will be taking charge of the effort to prepare Donald Trump for his next debate. The next debate, I might point out, will have a 'town hall' format. So, really, what could go wrong with Chris Christie sharing his wisdom about how to cope with town halls with Trump? Christie is known for his patience with audience questions and also known for never shouting at citizens during such events or belittling them at all. Oh, wait, my mistake -- all of that is exactly what Christie is known for! Maybe Christie can play Trump some clips of Christie screaming at a teacher or telling someone to sit down and shut up -- that'll definitely help Trump keep his cool at the next debate! So I heartily encourage Donald to listen to Christie very closely and to follow Christie's example as much as possible, because who doesn't want to see Trump act like Christie during a town hall debate? I mean -- what could possibly go wrong with that?"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

220 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [410] -- Trump Backs Up Titanic, Hits Iceberg Again”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Trump was clawing his way up to a bit more than a 40% shot at winning the White House, with no end in sight, before he hit the iceberg, hit the iceberg again, and THEN took an ax to the lifeboats before throwing them over the side to lighten the load because THE SHIP IS NOT SINKING, THE ICEBERG LOST TWICE(might as well keep this metaphor going and going and going).

    There is still no sign of campaign damage control, or that Trump even understands or cares what damage control is. In fact, Trump is in the radio shack twittering that he hit the iceberg because his mic was defective. How come it worked just fine when he was interrupting Clinton for the first half hr? How could a defective mic broadcast clearly and in stereo no less, his sniffling to 84 million viewers?

    Panic is shifting over to the Republicans in 1st class. Strike up the band. Play something cheerful.... Autumn is a nice tune.

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS,

    Panic is shifting over to the Republicans in 1st class. Strike up the band. Play something cheerful.... Autumn is a nice tune.

    https://youtu.be/g73kOrhAai4?t=4s

    Autumn is so nice, and winter is coming. I do so hope that the inclement weather allows safe passage to DC for the week I have planned in mid January. :)

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Ok, assuming some technical issue with the sound system applying only to Trump, why didn't he complain to the moderator? He complained about eveything else. He is the great complainer! A simple "Excuse me, could we have a sound check?" If not Trump, why not his staff? Or the audience?

    The audience could hear him well enough to applaud/cheer the few good licks he landed on Clinton. I heard the audience distinctly on my TV. There were no reports from the press in the immediate aftermath that Trump's sound was worse than Clinton's. You would think one of the many reporters on site would have mentioned it in the after action round ups? I heard none such.

    So, now the Detate Commission muddies the water with a one sentance report stating Trump had mic issues. What were the issues? What was the evidence? Why wait 4 days to agree with Trump yet not give any details of why they agree?
    What's the chain of custody for Trump's mic?

    This mic story doesn't quite add up. Like so many things Trump.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Monica is the next stop on Donald's No Fat Chicks Tour. The Trumpthugs will love it. At least the Orange One can console himself with hater love as his con is exposed and his poll numbers max out at deplorable.

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    I have to say its been a mighty fine week for this Hillary supporter! Monday's debate was epic -- terrific performance by Hillary on multiple levels, while Trump behaved exactly as we hoped. As Chris notes, the Donald -- by this time hobbling -- bumbled right into the carefully laid trap. Then, instead of quietly extricating himself he chose to thrash wildly around ALL.WEEK.LONG. He just couldn't shut his big mouth or control his tweeting little fingers. And the image of him tweeting at 3am, working up to telling people to go watch her "sex tape" -- priceless.

    Hillary's poll numbers are rising and early voting is starting. May Trump continue to be Trump right to the bitter end!

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    As far as I can determine, Trump launched his bad mic accusation on the day following the debate.

    Here's my theory. The sound quality within the venue was not great, better in some spots than others, but generally audible. Some people did complain about the sound, it it is a common complaint in big spaces. A despondant Trump heard the buzz, and thought ah, ha, here's my cover story, my mic was bad. I can find witnesses who will agree. He goes to the press, his lawyers go to the debate commission. Debate commission takes the path of least resistance and issues a vague, and unsubstantiated report that Trump's mic had issues. In some sense, all mics have issues, so it's inherently true in at least a trivial legal sense. The press runs with the story without asking many questions - yet. Trump supporters have another strap to hang on. He's not unqualified, his mic was bad.

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    What ever happened to Carly? Wasn't she supposed to be the GOP's secret weapon against Hillary's Gender Card? She's apparently too "horrified" by Donald.

  8. [8] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-5

    Sure beats the heck out of the last 3 weeks.!

  9. [9] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "That is what preparation (H) looks like"

    You may recall... and I'm sure too many Dems have forgotten or remained in denial about it, but Hillary's campaign collaborating with the media to attack Bernie is still a sore subject for some... on other websites at least.

    I'm not sure that highlighting this tactic is wise... despite the poetic justice.

    You say "that's the kind of campaign it's been", but I'm having a little trouble with your acceptance of the less than admirable, gimmicky path to victory.

    "The young folks haven't flocked from backing Bernie Sanders over to her side"

    See above, because the insulted beauty queen angle is so far away from addressing the needs and desires of the people who are struggling and/or unhappy with the status quo. You may also want to consider that the celebration of Hillary's bump in the polls seems to actually be Trump falling rather than Hillary rising.
    Yep.
    The guy who runs beauty pageants is superficial and offensive.
    Somebody wake up the tuba player... we're marching!

    Not that long ago, some wacky guy was mentioning the possibility of the Dems retaking the House in addition to the Senate...
    ... and now Hillary's coattails don't even have the Senate in play.

    What I'm saying is that the supposed goal of incremental change that has so energized the electorate (yes, sarcasm) is going down the "Not Trump" golden toilet... and you're celebrating the plunger.

    A

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    [6] TheStig: we need to know how his mic was bad. In what way did it interfere with his ability to respond? He hasn't said. And, as you noted, the debate commission issued a pretty meaningless statement that clarifies nothing.
    I don't suppose it matters though. He's not going to be able to overturn the consensus that he lost big-time on Monday. Unless he provides specifics his complaint just sounds like excuse-making. After all, for all we know Hillary's mic could have had the same "problem" -- whatever it is. She could say her mic did the same thing but she's used to dealing with problems like that and didn't let it distract her! What could he say then? Without looking even more whiny?

  11. [11] 
    Paula wrote:

    [8] Yep!

  12. [12] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I suspect that Donald "no admission of guilt" Trump would rather talk about Miss Piggy's video than his criminal Trump Foundation scam. It couldn't hurt to have an obese serial divorcée like Newt joining in on the fat shaming!

  13. [13] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Didn't Mrs Donald do some porno?

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Like I said, it's just a strap for a Trump supporter to hang on. Or streetlamp, it doesn't shed much light, but provides some support.

    You can slice it, dice, julliane, it, Trump screwed the pooch at debate the firstt. He may well be concocting an excuse to not show at debate 2. Another debate like the last could kill his chaces. Better to appear the fool than confirm it.

  15. [15] 
    TheStig wrote:

    JFC -

    Rumor has it that the Donald is a "never nude" kind of guy. Are you referring to some Playboy stuff he did, hanging around with Bunnies and
    Heff in the '80's? Or manfully discussing the cost of sex with Howard Stern.? Good times.

    The only plausible porn involving the 2016 Trump is if Triumph the Insult Comedian Dog humps Trumps leg. It could happen.... On HuuuLuuu!

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    JFC -12

    Which foundation scam? The one made of substandard concrete? Or the one made of cash?

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    TS [15],

    I read that little Don appeared in a soft-core porno with his clothes on, but that wasn't what I was referring to. I was asking about the plagiarist, MIA Melania.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Clinton press shop then set up a conference call for Machado to respond to what Trump said on "Fox and Friends." Speaking with reporters, Machado recounted how Trump "always treated me like a lesser thing, like garbage" and that his new words are like "a bad dream." She said in a mix of Spanish and halting English that she watched the debate with her mother and daughter and cried as Clinton recounted her story.

    "He treated me like a princess but then fucked me like a bitch"
    -Alicia Machado

    This is a woman who took money to get frak'ed on live TV....

    Why am I not surprised that the Left Wingery is embracing her??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    I have to say its been a mighty fine week for this Hillary supporter!

    .......

    Ooo aw right, I'll let you have your moment... :D

    But don't say I never do anything nice for you.. :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The guy who runs beauty pageants is superficial and offensive.
    Somebody wake up the tuba player... we're marching!

    heh

    "I don't care who you are, that right thar was funny as hell, I tell yoo waat!!"
    -Larry The Cable Guy

    :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry to rain on yer parade, people....

    But the ONLY people who say Hillary won the debate are Hillary sycophants and CNN... I know, I know.. That's kinda redundant...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    You enjoyed the first twenty minutes or so of that debate!?

    On what level?

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Trump is tied with Clinton in the polls, more or less.

    On what level does that excite you?

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    [21] Michale,

    Sorry to rain on yer parade, people....

    But the ONLY people who say Hillary won the debate are Hillary sycophants and CNN... I know, I know.. That's kinda redundant...

    Scientific polling of first debate:

    CNN/ORC -- Clinton 62%, Trump 27%
    FOX -- Clinton 62%, Trump 21%
    Gallup -- Clinton 61%, Trump 27%
    NBC/SM -- Clinton 52%, Trump 21%
    Politico -- Clinton 49%, Trump 26%
    PPP -- Clinton 54%, Trump 31%

    Trump is telling everyone he won all the polls except CNN, and he loves the uneducated rubes who believe his BS... such easy marks that are so easily conned. Sad!

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Why is it that everyone here insists that I post links to substantiate my claims but no one else posts links to substantiate their claims??

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is telling everyone he won all the polls except CNN, and he loves the uneducated rubes who believe his BS...

    Yea, I know I know.. We're "deplorables".. Ya'all have made that perfectly clear.. :^/

    Bigotry at it's 'finest'....

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides.. I was talking about the grass root polls...

    The Media is simply not a reliable source for Trump because they have stated, FOR THE RECORD, that they are biased against Trump and will do anything to prevent Trump from winning the election..

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Why is it that everyone here insists that I post links to substantiate my claims but no one else posts links to substantiate their claims??

    Why do you frequently use the terms "everyone" and "no one"?

    Seriously, though? Probably because you bitch about links when they are provided, and you bitch about links when they're not provided.... so after a while of reading your shit, NO ONE gives a shit, and they either ignore your links or ignore your posts entirely by blocking you with that Tamper Monkey thing of Charlie Brown's {which totally works}.

    Just a guess. :)

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Yea, I know I know.. We're "deplorables".

    If the sheet fits... *LOL* :)

  30. [30] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Kick [28],

    I suspect that it may have something to do with transparent lies. Everyone can see them and no one believes them.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    and they either ignore your links or ignore your posts entirely by blocking you with that Tamper Monkey thing of Charlie Brown's {which totally works}.

    Apparently not.. :D

    Unfortunately, it will likely work well enough to cause some major headaches for cw.com...

    Not that any of ya'all care about that, as selfish as ya'all are..... :^/

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    If the sheet fits... *LOL* :)

    Yours seems to fit quite well, sweet cheeks.. :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/09/30/what-trump-has-in-common-with-brexit-vote.html

    Yep.....

    That's what ya'all just can't comprehend...

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is tied with Clinton in the polls, more or less.

    On what level does that excite you?

    I know, right??

    Reading the comments, these people seem to think the election is over and Hillary is President-Elect...

    They just don't get that Hillary is LOSING in practically ALL the battleground states and the fabled "Blue Wall" is non-existent...

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another debate like the last could kill his chaces.

    Oooooo Another TRUMP IS TOAST prediction..

    I think that puts us in the mid 200s for predictions from ya'all....

    I am guessing ya'all will be making TRUMP IS TOAST predictions on 20 Jan 2017 when President Trump is being sworn in... :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/hacked-recording-hillary-mocks-bernie-supporters-living-their-parents%E2%80%99-basement

    And ANOTHER 47% moment for Hillary Clinton..

    She just lost the Bernie voters AND the living in parent's basement vote... :D heh

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Paula wrote:

    [19] Michale: Noted!

    Big news!!! Hillary Clinton is coming to Akron Monday and my husband and I get to volunteer for the event!

    The news just came out -- our volunteer coordinator put out the call for volunteers this morning -- maybe because poll numbers are going up for her here they decided to squeeze in another visit.

    We're thrilled! Will write about it next week!

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hope you have fun, Paula..

    POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!! :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Paula wrote:

    [38] Michale: Thanks!

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, the polls could be wrong, Paula ... Trump could actually be in the lead. :)

    Hillary has just a month to up her game.

  41. [41] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    PAULA - Please kosmail me.

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    {41} Mopshell: Sent you a message through DailyKos -- it's late here, have been out all evening. I'll look for a reply there -

  43. [43] 
    Paula wrote:

    Came home, doing a bit of surfing, see there's this new NYTimes bombshell about Trump losing almost a billion bucks in 1996 which apparently set him up to pay no taxes forevermore, or something…

    Then saw reports Trump went really squirrelly at an appearance tonight and people started leaving the event. He really might be genuinely losing it -- not a pretty sight.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paula,

    So, you are saying that Trump did release his tax returns??

    That's great.. Whatta guy that Trump is, eh!?? :D

    Now, when is Hillary going to release her full medical history and her speech transcripts and her deleted emails??

    Michale

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    He really might be genuinely losing it -- not a pretty sight.

    Trump Is Toast Prediction #277 :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Donald, she has a name. Her name is Alicia Machado. And she has become a U.S. citizen and you can bet she is going to vote this November.”
    -Hillary Clinton

    Yes, she has a name. And she also has quite a colorful past, including having sex on live TV for money and shacking up with a drug cartel leader...

    Other people have names as well..

    Juanita Broaddrick
    Gennifer Flowers
    Paula Jones
    Kathleen Willey
    Eileen Wellstone
    Sally Perdue
    Elizabeth Gracen
    Carolyn Moffet
    Monica Lewinsky

    I would be willing to wager that they are going to vote as well...

    Trump calls some hooker a bad name and the Left Wingery goes crazy...

    Hillary brutally victimizes and tries to destroy dozens of women and the Left Wingery worships her...

    THAT is the "logic" of the Left Wingery.... :^/

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    'Sides, I am constrained to point out, considering Weigantians' treatment of Sarah Palin, Carly Fiornia and other conservative women, no Weigantian has any moral authority to condemn Trump for his treatment of women..

    I'm just sayin'...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [47]

    Attacking Sarah Palin for the idiotic comments she made or attacking Carly Fiornia for her disasterous leadership at HP were not sexist attacks. No one here attacked these women on their weight, they clothing choices, or their attractiveness. They were condemned for the positions they took or the comments they made. Their gender had nothing to do with it.

    Trump..... deserves every bit of condemnation that he receives!

  49. [49] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [47]

    Attacking Sarah Palin for the idiotic comments she made or attacking Carly Fiornia for her disasterous leadership at HP were not sexist attacks. No one here attacked these women on their weight, they clothing choices, or their attractiveness. They were condemned for the positions they took or the comments they made. Their gender had nothing to do with it.

    Trump..... deserves every bit of condemnation that he receives!

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Attacking Sarah Palin for the idiotic comments she made or attacking Carly Fiornia for her disasterous leadership at HP were not sexist attacks. No one here attacked these women on their weight, they clothing choices, or their attractiveness.

    Bullshit...

    I can point to DOZENS of comments from JFC and others who attacked Palin and Fiornia for their looks...

    Trump..... deserves every bit of condemnation that he receives!

    Of course he does.. He has a '-R' after his name..

    When he had a '-D' after his name, no one of the Left Wingery said ANYTHING bad about Trump..

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Their gender had nothing to do with it

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to make it thru the day.... :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Balthasar...

    A few days ago, Kick, JM and I were having a discussion. It's their claim that the President can unilaterally launch a nuclear strike completely and unequivocally by himself and there is nothing in our system of checks and balances that can stop the President from doing so...

    Do you want to weigh in on that???

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Came home, doing a bit of surfing, see there's this new NYTimes bombshell about Trump losing almost a billion bucks in 1996 which apparently set him up to pay no taxes forevermore, or something…

    So?? Is any of that illegal???

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LWYH [49],

    Everyone knows you are correct about this, but you're just responding to unsupported assertions meant to get you talking about something other than the Tangerine Nightmare's lies, crimes, and scams. I know you know this, but you started down the rabbit hole anyway.

    The Trump scampaign's "strategy", such as it is, it to project his (and their) hideousness on Clinton (and others). His fanboys just mimic like parrots.

    "Look at that face, would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" - Donald regarding Fiorina

    "I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said” - Carly Fiorina

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Everyone knows you are correct about this, but you're just responding to unsupported assertions meant to get you talking about something other than the Tangerine Nightmare's lies, crimes, and scams. I know you know this, but you started down the rabbit hole anyway.

    Mr Pot, meet Ms Kettle...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Look at that face, would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?" - Donald regarding Fiorina

    Which is quite tame when compared to some of the things YOU have posted about Fiorina...

    Like I said.. In the dictionary, under HYPOCRISY, there is a picture of the WPG....

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It is going to be a big and consequential mistake if Hillary doesn't start talking about the real tax issue for the country ...

    And, that means she needs to FINALLY start explaining why the Democrat tax and fiscal policy is pro-growth and why the Republican/Trump tax and fiscal policy is still a ruinous proposition for the American people.

    I think Tim Geithner may have SOME spare time on his hands ... she should call him up and take some good advice for a change, since her "explainer-in-chief" husband is having a hard time touching her campaign with a 10-foot pole without sabotaging it. :)

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    WITNESSING THE FINAL DEMISE OF “MAINSTREAM” MEDIA
    If this year’s presidential election has a silver lining, it is the final demise of “mainstream media.” Which is not to say that liberal media are going away; they aren’t, of course. But liberal media’s claim to being mainstream–reliable, objective, fair, unlike fringe or partisan news sources–is gone forever. That is a good thing.

    No one could follow this year’s campaign without understanding that the media formerly known as mainstream (sorry, Prince) have jettisoned any pretense of neutrality, or even of journalistic integrity, in their desperation to preserve the status quo by electing Hillary Clinton president. Fair enough. We know where they stand.

    One of the last vestiges of liberal media’s pretense to authority is its legion of “fact checkers.” “Fact checkers” like PolitiFact, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler and others purport to rule judiciously on claims made by candidates of both parties. In fact, as those who pay attention have long known, “fact checking,” in pretty much all cases, is just liberal activism under another name.
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/witnessing-the-final-demise-of-mainstream-media.php

    Yep.....

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    , since her "explainer-in-chief" husband is having a hard time touching her campaign with a 10-foot pole without sabotaging it. :)

    heh :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    I've thought, since the beginning of his campaign, that Donald Trump had no intention of winning the Republican primary process, let alone winning the presidential election.

    But, his plan has been wildly more successful than even he could possibly imagine and the prospects of him becoming the next POTUS are very real.

    However, I continue to believe that being president of the United States of America is the absolute last thing he would ever wish to be. He's riding a wave that he started and that he has energized and rode for all it is worth.

    My thinking now is that, should he win this thing - however unlikely that may appear to be to some - he will find a way to avoid taking the oath of office.

    Are there any precedents/processes for presidents-elect not taking the oath of office.

    As hard as I've tried, I just cannot imagine a serious Trump administration. I just can't ...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, his plan has been wildly more successful than even he could possibly imagine and the prospects of him becoming the next POTUS are very real.

    Yes... Yes they are...

    As hard as I've tried, I just cannot imagine a serious Trump administration. I just can't ...

    You need to prepare for that very eventuality...

    Ironically enough, there is a similar situation of a Washington outsider that recently had to set up an Administration.. :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    neilm wrote:

    EM [60]

    Dear {insert name here}

    Donald can't come to the White House this term. He has a insert illness here, but not anything bad as I'm in the best health of anybody, everybody says so. He gave Mike his homework so he can present his assignment for the day. Really truly you can ask anyone. Mike won't do as good a job as Donald would have done, Donald would have been the best ever. The. Best. Ever. But what with the <insert symptoms here, but not anything disgusting, I mean my next wife might read this it would be unfair to America not to have the best Donald in the White House, Donald is just that great a guy.

    Signed,

    put your name here and tell them it took hours to write this note if you are asked

    P.S. Donald is right about Rosie McDonnell

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Illegal who killed 12 yr old girl was Obama amnesty recipient -- with prior drug arrest...
    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2016/09/15/part-lopez-aguilar-immigration-history-released/90436320/

    The responsibility for Lea Phann's death can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of President Obama and Democrats....

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    EM [60]

    Dear {insert name here}

    Donald can't come to the White House this term. He has a insert illness here, but not anything bad as I'm in the best health of anybody, everybody says so. He gave Mike his homework so he can present his assignment for the day. Really truly you can ask anyone. Mike won't do as good a job as Donald would have done, Donald would have been the best ever. The. Best. Ever. But what with the <insert symptoms here, but not anything disgusting, I mean my next wife might read this it would be unfair to America not to have the best Donald in the White House, Donald is just that great a guy.

    Signed,

    put your name here and tell them it took hours to write this note if you are asked

    P.S. Donald is right about Rosie McDonnell

  65. [65] 
    neilm wrote:

    EM [60]

    Dear {insert name here}

    Donald can't come to the White House this term. He has a insert illness here, but not anything bad as I'm in the best health of anybody, everybody says so. He gave Mike his homework so he can present his assignment for the day. Really truly you can ask anyone. Mike won't do as good a job as Donald would have done, Donald would have been the best ever. The. Best. Ever. But what with the insert symptoms here, but not anything disgusting, I mean my next wife might read this it would be unfair to America not to have the best Donald in the White House, Donald is just that great a guy.

    Signed,

    put your name here and tell them it took hours to write this note if you are asked

    P.S. Donald is right about Rosie McDonnell

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Got the tags right eventually :)

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    P.S. Donald is right about Rosie McDonnell

    I know, right!??? :D

    Michale

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ooooohh Listen???

    Remember how you said before that you were TOTALLY against using information that is illegally obtained...???

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/02/trump-campaign-new-york-times-illegally-obtained-tax-records/

    I guess that is only the case when the information is used against Hillary...

    As I said at the time, you wouldn't have a problem if illegally obtained information was used against Trump..

    And here we have the proof that what I said was dead on ballz accurate...

    "It's an industry term.."
    -Marissa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's interesting..

    Now that we discover that Alicia Machado is a hooker and was shacking up with a drug lord....

    NO ONE on the Left wants to talk about her or defend her..

    Funny, iddn't it... :D

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You need to prepare for that very eventuality...

    I suppose you're right, Michale ... how does one pack for an expedition to Mars. Of course, I may need to secure a loan, first ... :(

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I suppose you're right, Michale ... how does one pack for an expedition to Mars. Of course, I may need to secure a loan, first ... :(

    heh....

    It's gonna be a shock for many a Weigantian, I tell ya...

    But, like I said.. There is a very real possibility that Trump might be the greatest President since Reagan......

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Ironically enough, there is a similar situation of a Washington outsider that recently had to set up an Administration.. :D

    There's no irony there. Ahem.

    Seriously, Michale, there is next to nothing that is the same between Obama and Trump and how they would set up an administration.

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, Michale, there is next to nothing that is the same between Obama and Trump and how they would set up an administration.

    You may be right...

    But my point that they are both outsiders is a valid point..

    Michale

  74. [74] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Are there any precedents/processes for presidents-elect not taking the oath of office?"

    Not that I know of and he's less likely to get the chance to set one every day. The electoral college is not his friend and the No Fat Chicks campaign is making it more unfriendly.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thank God for small miracles JFC. :)

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    The electoral college is not his friend

    Despite ALL the *FACTS* the the contrary...

    Florida (29)
    Ohio (18)
    Pennsylvania (20)
    North Carolina (15)
    Colorado (9)
    Nevada (6)
    Minnesota (10)
    Wisconsin (10)
    Michigan (16)
    Iowa (6)
    New Hampshire (4)
    Maine (2)
    Arizona (11)
    Georgia (16)

    All of those are TOSSUP states and Trump is ahead in practically all of them...

    But why confuse your Party slavery with FACTS, eh? :D

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    and the No Fat Chicks campaign is making it more unfriendly.

    Yea and you and the WPG would never appearance-shame anyone, right?? :^/

    Once again, in the dictionary under HYPOCRISY, there is a picture of the WPG....

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [75],

    I'm not a fan of the EC, so I'll pass on thanking an invisible, tyrannical, racist, misogynistic mythical being for building a big, beautiful blue wall to keep out the racist, misogynistic orange juggalo. Why would he create such a monster in the first place?

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    But of course, it's perfectly acceptable to appearance-shame people who have a '-R' after their name.....

    If it weren't for double standards ya'all would have no standards at all.. :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC[58]

    great

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gonna be a fun week...

    http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters/14L/imagery/rb_lalo-animated.gif

    John M.... Batten down the hatches!!!! :D

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/hillary-and-the-rodeo-queens/article/2004640

    I challenge you to read that and then state that Hillary deserves to be President..

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [57]

    "It is going to be a big and consequential mistake if Hillary doesn't start talking about the real tax issue for the country"

    I can't agree. Who would notice? In an election with a Clinton involved, it is bizarre to consider how little attention the media pays to her. Donald's big, giant head simply cannot tolerate the media taking its focus off The Donald Show. It doesn't matter to him if she's get positive or negative attention, much less what kind of attention he's getting. He doesn't seem to notice that each of them does better when the focus is on the other. She should do what she can to help him keep the focus on himself if she wants to win.

    I know you're talking big picture, but she has to win first.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sanders admits being bothered by Clinton's depiction of young voters who backed him

    Bernie Sanders on Sunday acknowledged being bothered by Hillary Clinton’s unflattering perception of the young Americans who backed his longshot primary bid against Clinton, saying their campaigns still have “real differences,” despite their joint effort to defeat Donald Trump.

    “Of course it does,” Sanders, a Vermont senator, told CNN’s “State of the Union,” in response to a question about whether Clinton’s remarks at a fundraiser amid their hotly contested Democratic primary bothered him. “We have real differences.”

    Clinton characterized the young voters -- impassioned by Sanders' populist message and who still have yet to embrace Clinton -- as “living in their parents’ basement” and disenfranchised about the future, according to a 49-minute audiotape of the February fundraiser, purportedly found in a hacked email, then given to The Washington Free Beacon, which first reported the story.

    If you’re feeling like you’re consigned to being a barista . . . then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing," Clinton also says in the audio tape, describing her thoughts after talking to a young African-American voter.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/02/sanders-admits-being-bothered-by-clintons-depiction-young-voters-who-backed-him.html

    Between the "Deplorables" comment and this comment, one thing is clear...

    If you are not whole-heartedly and unequivocally in Hillary's camp, you are denigrated and attacked...

    These off the record remarks will likely cost Hillary the election..

    Michale

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    She does have to win first. But, what I'm saying is that she may not win first if Trump starts sticking to his TeleprompTer again, for the next month or so and suddenly refrains from resorting to his natural antics - it could happen!

    Then, all of sudden he starts sounding 'smart' on taxes to enough people who are just fed up with politics in general and want to send a message to the political 'elite'.

    And, lo and behold, Clinton doesn't win.

    Of course, this assumes, wrongly in my opinion, that Trump actually wants to be president.

  86. [86] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    He doesn't get a TelePrompTer at debates and his short little fingers can't resist tweeting when Rosie O'Donnell trolls him.

  87. [87] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    He just melted down in front of a very large audience. He didn't just lose. The ratings were fabulous. I think it's a little too late to pivot.

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, why then does Trump remain tied within the margin of error with Clinton in the major polls and not 20 points behind her - electoral college map, notwithstanding?

  89. [89] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you may be right about it being too late to pivot - Hillary may have run out the clock on that one. Heh.

  90. [90] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "why then does Trump remain tied within the margin of error"

    Tribalism of Republican ideological slaves.

    Please keep in mind that Rmoney looked a lot more formidable at this point four years ago than Donald does now and it was a horse race mirage.

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tribalism of Republican ideological slaves.

    Well, if that's all it is, then there shouldn't be a problem.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    He doesn't get a TelePrompTer at debates and his short little fingers can't resist tweeting when Rosie O'Donnell trolls him.

    Whatever ya have to tell yerself to make it thru the day... :D

    Michale

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [68]

    If they were stolen, then I don't believe that they should be used. I have yet to hear that the IRS had their computers hacked, so as of now, there is nothing pointing to the releases being stolen. Trump said they were stolen, but Trump also said that he didn't support the Iraqi War and that he has a better tempermant than Hillary. Tomorrow he'll claim that he released his tax returns, and by the end of the week he will have flip/flopped as to whether he released them or if they were stolen dozens of times until we just give up on caring what the truth actually is!

  94. [94] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Lucky for her, the GOP nominated somebody as repellent to black people as BHO is attractive to them. It doesn't hurt her cause that he hates Mexicans, either.

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Tribalism of Republican ideological slaves.

    Well, if that's all it is, then there shouldn't be a problem.

    But it's not all it is..

    As ya'all have made perfectly plain.... Trump is hated by "republican ideological slaves" as much as he is hated by Democrat ideological slaves..

    This is not *MY* point... It's ya'alls...

    So, since it's well documented by ya'all that "republican ideological slaves" are not a factor here, what explains the closeness of the election???

    I know the answer, but just want to see if ya can get it... :D

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    If they were stolen, then I don't believe that they should be used. I have yet to hear that the IRS had their computers hacked, so as of now, there is nothing pointing to the releases being stolen.

    Tax records are always private and confidential.. By definition, they would have HAD to be stolen for them to be in the wild...

    Trump said they were stolen, but Trump also said that he didn't support the Iraqi War and that he has a better tempermant than Hillary. Tomorrow he'll claim that he released his tax returns, and by the end of the week he will have flip/flopped as to whether he released them or if they were stolen dozens of times until we just give up on caring what the truth actually is!

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to justify your hypocrisy...

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I think Trump himself could be the anonymous tax tipster.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lucky for her, the GOP nominated somebody as repellent to black people as BHO is attractive to them.

    That's your claim..

    It is unsupported by facts...

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale,

    I think Trump himself could be the anonymous tax tipster.

    Based on what evidence??

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Based on no evidence, whatsoever.

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Aside from all of the evidence that appears to reveal that he is trying to lose this thing.

  102. [102] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "I think Trump himself could be the anonymous tax tipster."

    Seems pretty likely, no? He says he's smart because he buys politicians who write laws that enable him to pay no taxes and we know that he likes to brag about how smart he is.

  103. [103] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Even Trek is against Trump...

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Based on no evidence, whatsoever.

    Can't knock you for your honesty... :D

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even Trek is against Trump...

    "Now yer just being nasty!!"
    -Indiana Jones

    :D

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, as we have seen, Hollywood is in the bag for Hillary..

    So, it's not such a huge revelation...

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:
  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all scoffed at illegals voting???

    http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bombshell-1000-illegal-votes-cast-eight-virginia-localities/

    He who laughs last (that's me) laughs best.. :D

    Michale

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Trek...

    Anyone see the new STAR TREK 90210 yet??

    Going to watch it tomorrow.....

    I have to say that I am extremely disappointed with this penchant the new generation of Trek has with destroying the Enterprise.....

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya gotta remember... 98% of Hollywood are milquetoast hate-america globalists...

    I would be shocked if they WEREN'T all in for Hillary....

    Michale

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the OCTOBER SURPRISE goes, I don't think it's going to be the administration's success in Mosul...

    Russia warns against US attack on Syrian forces
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b1dff53fa4664a28ad9fbd6d4949fe71/russia-warns-against-us-attack-syrian-forces

    I think it's going to be Russian fighters shooting down American fighters....

    Trump, by a landslide.....

    Michale

  112. [112] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Tax records are always private and confidential.. By definition, they would have HAD to be stolen for them to be in the wild...

    Wrong, wrong, wrong... as you so often are. These tax returns would not necessarily have to have been stolen. As rightly pointed out already, Trump himself could have mailed these pages to the New York Times. Assuming that someone stole these documents from the IRS is mere speculation because lots of people outside the IRS have had access to these returns. Trump has sued and has been sued so many times by so many people that his tax returns would have to have been produced many times in the discovery process. That means lawyers, secretaries, clerks, etc. have had access to these documents. Keep in mind also that this tax return is also the tax return of Marla Maples Trump.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

    If you will note on the signature page of the tax document at the link above, the copy includes a signature flag that was not removed when the copy was made. For anyone who has never seen or used these flags, they are usually bright yellow tags with arrows that point to the place on documents where a person is to place their signature. Note that this copy of the tax return has a signature flag that was NOT removed before the copy was made. That signature flag is pointing to the signature block for Marla M. Trump, while the signature flag for Donald Trump has already been removed.

    Documents aren't filed with the IRS with signature flags still hanging on them; it just isn't done by any reputable firm. This copy most likely didn't come from the IRS.

    I'm merely speculating here, but I think this document actually most likely came from either Marla herself or someone dealing with her who had access to it, any number of people like lawyers, secretaries, etc.

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. <-- Anybody want to argue THAT FACT?

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. <-- Anybody want to argue THAT FACT?

    Oh, I'd like to take a stab at that one.

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm kidding!

    :-)

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. <-- Anybody want to argue THAT FACT?

    Oh, I'd like to take a stab at that one.

    I'm certainly not trying to demean women with that statement {since I'm one of them}, but my point here was that a woman scorned BY TRUMP might just decide to get a little revenge by having her tax return released (while, of course, denying that she had anything at all to do with it if she was asked about it). She also might be thinking that should her ex-husband become president that it wouldn't be in her daughter's best interest (for whatever reason). :)

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    These returns are also NOT federal returns. They are all 1995 state returns:

    New York Resident Return
    Connecticut Nonresident Return
    New Jersey Nonresident Return

  117. [117] 
    apophis wrote:

    Will Clinton win in a landslide?

    It is possible. The S&P 500 as risen above 4% since July. This has not happened since 1984 when Reagan won by a landslide. Statistics taken over 7 decades of elections tells us that when the market is rising in the last 3 months of the election that the party that holds the WH wins 82% of the time.

    1968 and 1980 were exceptions. There was a strong 3rd party candidate in those years.

    If Johnson remains strong then this will be a close election. If he fades like all 3rd party candidates have since 1980, then it could be a Clinton landslide.

    As with gamblers, stock investors have a lot of skin in this election. They're not betting on Trump for the win...

    ~Phil~

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm merely speculating here, but I think this document actually most likely came from either Marla herself or someone dealing with her who had access to it, any number of people like lawyers, secretaries, etc.

    Yes, sweet cheeks. You are merely speculating...

    Tax returns are private and confidential.. If they were not released by Trump, their release was unauthorized..

    Which is close enough to stolen for mine and Listen's discussion..

    I'm certainly not trying to demean women with that statement {since I'm one of them},

    Of course you are.. At least the women that have an '-R' after their name.. :D

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will Clinton win in a landslide?

    It is possible.

    Of course it's possible..

    Just as it's possible that Trump will win in a landslide..

    Not that anyone here will acknowledge that... :D

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [112]: ah, the missing signature. Sure giveaway. Nice way for Marla to get at him without becoming the issue herself.

    Was seated last night next to a Republican from Indiana. I was regaled for much of the evening with scenarios that would result in Pence as the chief executive. He also thinks Priebus will be out as RNC chair no matter which way the election goes.

    I voiced the opinion that the post-election carnage will be historic no matter who wins, and he agreed with me on that and (after many drinks) reminded me that the GOP establishment is still in charge in Washington: "Trump'll never get to the White House," he slurred, "the establishment GOP won't allow it, and they control both houses of Congress, and they can pick from a million things that Trump said or did to get him with. Get ready for President Pence."

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    You are merely speculating...

    ECHOOOOO, Echoooo, echo. *LOL*

    Tax returns are private and confidential.. If they were not released by Trump, their release was unauthorized..

    Which is close enough to stolen for mine and Listen's discussion..

    It's "close enough to stolen." Utter bullshit, snowflake. You're moving the goalposts again because in your post you didn't even mention the fact that Trump may have actually released these state returns himself, and you said that "by definition they would have HAD to be stolen."

    "Unauthorized release" and "stolen" are two totally different things. We don't expect you to admit you were wrong, snowflake. :D

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Of course you are.. At least the women that have an '-R' after their name.. :D

    Wrong again, snowflake. I have neither a "D" or an "R" after my name. I will say I do have a title after my name, but neither of those are it. :p

  123. [123] 
    rdnewman wrote:

    Shinah Tovah!

    [I'm not Jewish, but I like to celebrate every new year I can!]

  124. [124] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Well, I don’t mind sacrificing for the country to be honest with you. But you know, you do have a problem because half of the people don't pay any tax" - Donald

    Unlike Rmoney's 47-percenter video, this one was on the fake news channel and at least Willard paid a little tax.

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    [120] Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [112]: ah, the missing signature. Sure giveaway. Nice way for Marla to get at him without becoming the issue herself.

    She actually did sign it, and then someone copied or scanned it with the signature flag still attached. This is a clue that this copy was most likely made before its filing with the State of New Jersey.

    Was seated last night next to a Republican from Indiana. I was regaled for much of the evening with scenarios that would result in Pence as the chief executive. He also thinks Priebus will be out as RNC chair no matter which way the election goes.
    Yes, Poor Reinhold is most likely out of there. It's the unwritten two-man rule. Lose twice... pay the price. *LOL*

    I've had very similar conversations along the lines that regardless who wins the presidency, the GOP will be looking to have them impeached and that the GOP will have to split into two parties eventually or weed out the baggers in lieu thereof. If Trumpism wins, they own it.

    I don't think we have to worry about a President Pence or Trump because:

    *****PENNSYLVANIA*****

    There is still time, of course. :)

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Just as it's possible that Trump will win in a landslide..

    Not that anyone here will acknowledge that... :D

    Wrong again, snowflake.

    I will acknowledge that it's possible that Trump could win in a landslide. It depends on whose definition of landslide, but it's not likely that he would win in a landslide but nevertheless a possibility.

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Little known fact: President Obama actually has the authority to have Donald Trump's federal tax return released to him.

    Section 6103g of the Internal Revenue Code explicitly states:

    (g) Disclosure to President and certain other persons

    (1) In general Upon written request by the President, signed by him personally, the Secretary shall furnish to the President, or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate by name in such request, a return or return information with respect to any taxpayer named in such request. Any such request shall state—

    (A) the name and address of the taxpayer whose return or return information is to be disclosed,

    (B) the kind of return or return information which is to be disclosed,

    (C) the taxable period or periods covered by such return or return information, and

    (D) the specific reason why the inspection or disclosure is requested.

  128. [128] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz
    57

    Pretty sure this isn't what you are talking about...

    Our tax code allows this legal tax avoidance by the rich and it reflects very poorly on both Repubs and Dems in the establishment... and, by poorly, I mean it exposes them as corrupt Big Money coddlers sticking it to the little guy.

    It is part of the pattern of regulated or legalized criminality that one percenters have legislated for themselves in everything from pollution to campaign finance, taxes to contracting.

    It is one of many issues this shallow campaign pitting two corrupt establishment insiders against each other isn't addressing.

    Hillary and Trump both have shell corporations set up in Delaware to evade taxes... you know... Biden's home state that has more corporations than people.

    Avoiding talking about the existing tax policies that are blowing a massive hole in our budget with bipartisan support amounts to deceiving voters.

    The best pro-growth tax and fiscal policy would be to have the rich and corporations pay their fair share.

    This election guarantees that's not going to happen.

    A

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    The tax and fiscal policies of the Democrats are not the same as those of the Republicans.

    You just have to examine the historical record of the past few decades to understand that and to discern between the strategies of the two parties with respect to tax and fiscal policy. One is pro-growth and one is decidedly not.

    Beware the pitfalls of false equivalencies.

  130. [130] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The best pro-growth tax and fiscal policy would be to have the rich and corporations pay their fair share.

    Of course. That's where the equivalency game ends, because good luck finding a single republican who would ever support that proposition.

    The great champion of ending the 'Delaware Loophole' was the recently-retired Michigan Democrat Carl Levin, who must have realized at some point that Michigan would have been one of America's richest states if Ford, Chrysler, GM, etc. had paid their taxes in the same state where their corporate offices were located.

    Hopefully, E. Warren will pick it up as one of the many tax fairness causes she's daily urged to address. She'd have a steep climb to get anything into law, though: in all of the years that Levin tried, he could never get the bill out of committee. The most vocal opponent of changing the law, surprisingly, is the National Association of Secretaries of State, a politically powerful group, according to a 2012 NYT article on the subject. According to the Times, Levin introduced bills to end Delaware's tax haven status three times after 2000, one co-sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama.

    Beware the pitfalls of false equivalencies - Liz

  131. [131] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @newman,

    thank you for the new years wishes.

    JL

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Unauthorized release" and "stolen" are two totally different things.

    Yea.. Just like the President can unilaterally launch a nuclear strike completely on his own..

    You were wrong then, yer wrong now, honey bunch.. :D

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    I will acknowledge that it's possible that Trump could win in a landslide.

    I stand corrected, sweet cheeks.. :D

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong again, snowflake. I have neither a "D" or an "R" after my name.

    Unless you are not a US citizen, I highly doubt that....

    Regardless, it's not even close to being my point...

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think we have to worry about a President Pence or Trump because:

    *****PENNSYLVANIA*****

    Is that the same *****PENNSYLVANIA***** where Hillary blew a 10 point lead down to TOSS UP status?? :D

    Michale

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Hillary's OCTOBER SURPRISE is coming on Tuesday...

    WikiLeaks is set to do it's promised Hillary Email Dump... :D

    Michale

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Little known fact: President Obama actually has the authority to have Donald Trump's federal tax return released to him.

    I would LOVE to see Odumbo do that..

    It would GUARANTEE a Trump victory...

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    . You're moving the goalposts again because in your post you didn't even mention the fact that Trump may have actually released these state returns himself,

    That's because there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support such a theory except the wishful thinking of those en.... namored by Party ideology...

    But no one answered my question.

    Did Trump do anything illegal?? Yes or No??

    Michale

  139. [139] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Did Trump do anything illegal?? Yes or No??

    Illegal? Still investigating, but looks promising.

    Immoral? Well, there's that term again. If Trump hasn't paid Taxes since the 1990's, then how can he ever justify, as president, any tax cut or tax increase? By acting antisocially, he has lost the Moral Authority to do the job he's seeking, like a governor who accepts lavish gifts can't then prosecute public officials for corruption, can he? If he's acted contrary to the way he expects others to act, he's lost the ability to conduct his job properly.
    If he expects everyone not to pay taxes (as he does), who will fund the government? Where will the money for his Yuge dreamy projects come from?

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Illegal? Still investigating, but looks promising.

    Immoral? Well, there's that term again. If Trump hasn't paid Taxes since the 1990's, then how can he ever justify, as president, any tax cut or tax increase? By acting antisocially, he has lost the Moral Authority to do the job he's seeking, like a governor who accepts lavish gifts can't then prosecute public officials for corruption, can he? If he's acted contrary to the way he expects others to act, he's lost the ability to conduct his job properly.
    If he expects everyone not to pay taxes (as he does), who will fund the government? Where will the money for his Yuge dreamy projects come from?

    OK... OK...

    Now, what do you say about the fact that Hillary Clinton DID THE EXACT SAME THING

    "HA!!! BOOBY!!!"
    -Lucy, DESPICABLE ME 2

    :D

    For the record, even the NY TIMES concedes that Trump didn't do anything illegal..

    A very wise Weigantian once said you can't knock someone for legally gaming the system to their financial advantage..

    Apparently, that only applies with DEMOCRATS legally game the system...

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, what do you say about the fact that Hillary Clinton DID THE EXACT SAME THING

    "Oh... well... uh.... It's OK when a person with a '-D' after their name does it..."

    or

    "NUUU UUHHHHH!!!!"

    Take yer pick, Balthasar... :D

    Michale

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Immoral? Well, there's that term again. If Trump hasn't paid Taxes since the 1990's, then how can he ever justify, as president, any tax cut or tax increase? By acting antisocially, he has lost the Moral Authority to do the job he's seeking, like a governor who accepts lavish gifts can't then prosecute public officials for corruption, can he? If he's acted contrary to the way he expects others to act, he's lost the ability to conduct his job properly.

    Immoral? Well, there's that term again. If Hillary didn't pay Taxes in 2015, then how can she ever justify, as president, any tax cut or tax increase? By acting antisocially, she has lost the Moral Authority to do the job she's seeking, like a governor who accepts lavish gifts can't then prosecute public officials for corruption, can he? If she's acted contrary to the way she expects others to act, she's lost the ability to conduct her job properly.
    -Balthasar

    So, we are in complete agreement... By avoiding taxes, Hillary simply cannot be elected president...

    :D

    Do me a favor, Balthy.. Send me a screen shot of the look on your face... :D

    http://tinyurl.com/zbv8nwx

    Bet it looks something like that.. :D

    Michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awwww com'on, Balthasar...

    Don't go away mad..... :^D

    Michale

  144. [144] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM [57],

    http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2016/10/03/Hillary-Clinton-to-speak-today-in-Toledo.html

    This is supposed to be a speech about the economy and taxes. She will also call out Wells Fargo and the practices of Donald Trump and the Trump Organization. Maybe she'll throw you a bone.

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    You see, this is what happens when you let Party slavery make all your decisions for you..

    You get yer balls in a vice while hoisted by yer own Picard... OUCH

    :D

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://twitter.com/danney_williams/status/670756876250935296

    I guess black lives DON'T matter when they are the illegitimate son of Bubba Clinton...

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Donald would end civilization as we know it, but what about the children? Please think about the children.

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald would end civilization as we know it, but what about the children? Please think about the children.

    Well, I am sure glad the WPG didn't stoop to blatant fear-mongering... :^/

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Yer a Gary Hart fan..

    Hillary doesn't get it...
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/gary-hart-politics

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Now, what do you say about the fact that Hillary Clinton DID THE EXACT SAME THING

    I would say that you've been spending too much time in the right wing blogosphere, which has been desperately trying to create a false equivalence between the Clintons' one-time deduction and Trump's lifetime of tax dodging.

    In 2015, the Clintons, despite taking the deduction that the right is biting into like a juicy steak, paid $3.24 million in federal income taxes, paying an effective rate of 30%.

    Of course we don't know what Donald Trump paid in income taxes in 2015, or for the twenty years prior to that, since he hasn't released any tax returns for that period. The Clintons, by comparison, have released over 30 years worth of tax returns, all showing a pattern of hefty charitable giving, and tax payments in line with their income.

    Trump, by comparison, does his charitable giving by using other people's money as if it were his own.

    Besides, didn't Giuliani say yesterday that using that deduction was a 'genius' move? Wouldn't, by the same reasoning, Clinton be a 'genius' for using that same deduction? Or did she just have a very good accountant?

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would say that you've been spending too much time in the right wing blogosphere, which has been desperately trying to create a false equivalence between the Clintons' one-time deduction and Trump's lifetime of tax dodging.

    In other words... "UUUHHH UHHH!!!"

    It's right there in Clinton's tax returns..

    Michale

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, didn't Giuliani say yesterday that using that deduction was a 'genius' move? Wouldn't, by the same reasoning, Clinton be a 'genius' for using that same deduction? Or did she just have a very good accountant?

    Yes to both...

    Just as the NY TIMES had a very good accountant who got them a 3.4million dollar deduction in 2014, even though they had a 30 million profit that year..

    The simple fact is, it's not illegal despite your "promising" claims...

    And like Joshua said before, you can't knock someone for doing legal tax stuff to serve their bottom line...

    Michale

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    Supreme Court rejects rehearing in Obama deportation amnesty case
    The Supreme Court shot down the administration's effort to kick-start President Obama's deportation amnesty, refusing Monday to grant a rehearing in a case the court deadlocked on just a few months ago

    Yo... Odumbo... What part of *NO* do you not understand??

    Michale

  154. [154] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Your claims originate from a story posted on Zero Hedge, a populist-right website with a typically bleak outlook, and writers who question each other's sanity. No wonder your assertions were link-less.

  155. [155] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Yo... Odumbo... What part of *NO* do you not understand?

    The part that puts otherwise useful lives in legal limbo? It was worth a shot.

  156. [156] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The simple fact is, it's not illegal despite your "promising" claims...

    Over-valuing otherwise junk property for tax purposes is illegal, but as I said, they're still looking at the trail of bread crumbs...

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    The part that puts otherwise useful lives in legal limbo?

    The problem is, ya'all consider thugs, criminals, rapists and murderers lives "useful"...

    Oh, that's right. They are "useful" because they vote Democrat...

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    My claims originated from the facts..

    And do you know how we KNOW they are facts?

    Because Camp Clinton has dropped they attacks on Trump's stolen tax returns...

    Over-valuing otherwise junk property for tax purposes is illegal, but as I said, they're still looking at the trail of bread crumbs...

    They can look all they want.. But unless they are going to prosecute Clinton and the NY Times... It will be for naught...

    Ya lost on this one.. Take your lumps and move on... :D

    Michale

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘They Keep Finding Bodies’: Gang Violence in Long Island Town Fuels Immigration Debate
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/nyregion/they-keep-finding-bodies-gang-violence-in-long-island-town-fuels-immigration-debate.html?_r=0

    Those are the people you call "useful lives", Balthy...

    They are the ones that take INNOCENT American lives indiscriminately..

    But, of course, who cares about that. As long as they vote Democrat, it doesn't matter how many innocent Americans are raped and killed and attacked.. :^/

    Michale

  160. [160] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    They can look all they want.. But unless they are going to prosecute Clinton and the NY Times... It will be for naught.

    Can't prosecute Clinton, and she had nothing to do with the partial release of one tax return from long ago. Her preference, I'm sure would be for him to release filings for, let's say, the last five years.
    I'm with the folks who speculate that the Trump campaign might be essentially throwing meat over the wall hoping to distract the starving villagers away from the door.

    As for the NYT, nah. We'll leave it at that.

    But wait! A restraining order arrives, saying that Trump can't hold any more bogus 'fund raisers', like the one that he did on the night of the Fox Debate (more meat over the wall) during the primaries, filed by the Atty General of the State of New York served this morning!

    So much for Trump's Plan B for the next debate.

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe she'll throw you a bone.

    You mean, maybe she'll help her campaign ...

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Thanks for the gh tip!

    I'm sure I'll have some further comment after I find time to read it ...

  163. [163] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "You mean, maybe she'll help her campaign"

    Nope. That's what Donald is for. I was under the impression that she was stressing you out (or at least piling on).

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Off topic...

    Just watched the new Star Trek 90210...

    Was pretty good. The tribute to Leonard Nimoy was awesome! And it wasn't just a tack-on to the movie, but an integral part of it...

    The tribute to Anton Yelchin was pretty good as well, albeit a bit confusing...

    All in all, a good movie... Recommend..

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Off topic...

    Just watched the new Star Trek 90210...

    Was pretty good. The tribute to Leonard Nimoy was awesome! And it wasn't just a tack-on to the movie, but an integral part of it...

    The tribute to Anton Yelchin was pretty good as well, albeit a bit confusing...

    All in all, a good movie... Recommend..

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    You think US tax and fiscal policy is stressing me out!?

    Are you kidding me!? I talk about that to relieve the stress. Have you checked what's happening out in the world, lately?

  167. [167] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    No, I thought her campaign strategy was stressing you out. The tight horse race.

  168. [168] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    If she fails, you might have to move to Canada or something.

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    If she fails, you might have to move to Canada or something.

    Uh... Liz already LIVES in Canada, ya doofus...

    HELLO!!! McFLY!!!!! :^/

    Michale

  170. [170] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Forget about the icebergs. Metaphorically speaking, the entire land mass of Greenland landed on the wreck of the Trumptanic last weekend. The mainstream press sharks are circling. They have picked up the scent of blood in their mailboxes. They are closing in, heedless of law suits. Trump's very bad week is about to be replaced by a much worse this week. They say that charrity starts at home, but it stops when your home states shuts your charity down for fraud.

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    s. Trump's very bad week is about to be replaced by a much worse this week.

    Trump Is Toast prediction #284... :D

    It's so laughably cute how ya'all think, "THIS time it's for real!!!" every single time.. :D

    Michale

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    Between Bubba's illegitimate black son and WikiLeaks body slam tomorrow...

    It's clear that Hillary is going to have her worst week ever...

    Michale

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, do you think she'll get through it, Michale? I mean, what are the chances? :)

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JFC,

    Her campaign strategy should be stressing her out. :)

    If she fails, you might have to move to Canada or something.

    I could try. Heh.

  175. [175] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, do I sound stressed out to you?

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, do you think she'll get through it, Michale? I mean, what are the chances? :)

    Go thru with what?? There are so many different threads here.. :D

    Michale, do I sound stressed out to you?

    Hardly... You sound like your normal chipper, peachy-keen wonderful self.. :D

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's clear that Hillary is going to have her worst week ever...

    So, Michale, do you think she'll GET through it? I mean, what are the chances? :)

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hardly... You sound like your normal chipper, peachy-keen wonderful self.. :D

    Whew. I am so good. :)

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Michale, do you think she'll GET through it? I mean, what are the chances? :)

    Ahhh... Oh yea, personally, she'll "get through it." She's a Clinton after all.... A teflon queen... She has millions of supporters who could see her kill a young unarmed black kid on national TV and they would still support her...

    Whether her campaign survives intact is another story... You just KNOW she has to be sweating bullets over what WikiLeaks has on her...

    Michale

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    John M,

    Looks like MATTHEW might be making a westward wobble..... Doesn't look good for the home team..

    Michale

  181. [181] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Between Bubba's illegitimate black son and WikiLeaks body slam tomorrow.

    Sorry, the 'illegitimate black son' story was discredited back in 1992.

    The Wikileaks thing hasn't hurt Hillary a bit so far, and seems to have a backlash effect for Trump, as folks are again reminded that the KGB are working on his behalf...

  182. [182] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig [170] Well said!

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, the 'illegitimate black son' story was discredited back in 1992.

    Translation: Clintons TRIED to bury it and hoped it would stay buried..

    SURPRISE... Heee'ssss baaack... :D

    The Wikileaks thing hasn't hurt Hillary a bit so far, and seems to have a backlash effect for Trump,

    Yea, it hurt him so bad, he is beating Hillary in majority of battleground states and challenging Hillary's "Big Blue Wall"....

    Yea.. Trump is toast... :D

    Michale

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    as folks are again reminded that the KGB are working on his behalf...

    "The 1980s are calling.. They want their foreign policy back."
    -Barack Obama

    heh :D

    You DO know that the KGB doesn't exist, right???

    It's the FSB...

    Gods, deliver me from ignorant people who read something on a website and think they're experts... :^/

    Michale

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ct3PfuUVUAAaYmb.jpg

    The same eyes, the same ears, the same nose....

    Yea, that's Bubba's offspring...

    Of course, Clinton could clear it all up with a DNA test...

    Why won't Bubba submit to one.. What's he hiding??

    Michale

  186. [186] 
    Kick wrote:

    [170] TheStig,

    I love it!

    "Trumptanic" *LOL*

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    According to documents obtained from the State Department, Hillary confidant Marie Slaughter sent a memo to "H" suggested legal and "nonlegal" means to get rid of Julian Assange... It's reported that Hillary was considering suggesting a drone strike to kill Assange...

    Your thoughts??

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    Kick wrote:

    [140] Michale,

    OK... OK...

    Now, what do you say about the fact that Hillary Clinton DID THE EXACT SAME THING

    I'd say the uneducated rubes that get their talking points from right-wing media propaganda trying to defend Trump with false equivalency bullshit don't realize what a bunch of stupid fools they sound like when they rush to post utter false information like this. Did you even bother to look at the Clinton's 2015 tax return before you posted this bullshit or did you just believe the dumb Right Wingery propaganda calling it the "EXACT SAME THING" and run with it?

    The Clinton's 2015 Federal 1040 Schedule D line 16 shows a capital gains loss carryover for $699,540 for which they can take the same maximum deduction as you or I on their federal income tax in the amount of .......... drum roll .......... $3,000 ..... repeat $3,000 ..... in losses in order to reduce their tax burden. If people had bothered to look at the Clinton's 2015 return, you can easily see Schedule D with this information regarding the maximum of $3,000 and then the deduction of $3,000 entered on line 13 of Form 1040. It's not rocket science to figure capital gains and losses on investments.

    It takes a special kind of stupid to compare a $3,000 capital gains loss on a tax return to a $900+ million net operating losses of failed businesses. The right-wing propaganda machine is counting on their gullible rubes and their brainless stupidity in order to spread their false equivalency lies, and they rarely disapoint. They love the uneducated. Is there any doubt why they love the brainless minions that spew their propaganda as if it were truth?

    Only in the right-wing bubble is an almost $1 billion in business operating losses and a $3,000 capital gains loss considered the "EXACT SAME THING." What is it like to be so programmed that you believe the mindless party propaganda without even bothering to verify that you're being spoon fed utter bullshit?

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S.-Russia Ties Crumble Under Weight of Syria, Nuclear Pact

    Ties between Russia and the U.S. deteriorated further after the Obama administration proclaimed bilateral peace talks over Syria dead and Moscow suspended a 16-year-old treaty meant to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-03/u-s-russian-ties-crumble-under-weight-of-syria-nuclear-pact

    Under Odumbo and the Demcorats, relations with Russia are worse than any time since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan...

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Clinton's 2015 Federal 1040 Schedule D line 16 shows a capital gains loss carryover for $699,540 for which they can take the same maximum deduction as you or I on their federal income tax in the amount of .......... drum roll .......... $3,000 ..... repeat $3,000 ..... in losses in order to reduce their tax burden. If people had bothered to look at the Clinton's 2015 return, you can easily see Schedule D with this information regarding the maximum of $3,000 and then the deduction of $3,000 entered on line 13 of Form 1040. It's not rocket science to figure capital gains and losses on investments.

    Yea??? And like your HILLARY WON THE DEBATES claims, you provide absolutely NO SUBSTANTIATION for your claims...

    Funny how that always is, with you, eh sweetheart... :D

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Dumb *flake* too lazy to look up information on Clinton's 2015 Federal 1040 mindlessly spews back Right Wingery utter bullshit false equivalency propaganda with no substantiation whatsoever now whining that I won't substantiate my claims regarding same tax return. Priceless!

    Dumb *flake* spewing propaganda still too lazy to look up Clinton's 2015 Federal 1040? Sad!

    https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

    Schedule D Capital Gains Losses maximum deduction of $3,000 written on Form 1040 line 13 is not quite the EXACT SAME THING as nearly $1 billion in net business operating losses, wouldn't you say, lazy *flake*?

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, it's a question of numbers, eh??

    Hillary is OK because it's just a little "immoral"....

    Like I said.. You can argue what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..

    But the FACT is, Hillary did the same thing that Trump did. Game the tax rules to their advantage...

    But it's only "illegal" and "immoral" when the person with the '-R' after their name does it... At least, according to ya'all..

    Face it, sweet cheeks.. You lost on this one. AGAIN... :D

    Michale

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Answer one question..

    Did Trump do anything ILLEGAL??

    No, he did not....

    He did the exact same thing that every 1%'er INCLUDING Hillary Clinton, EVERY taxpayer in this country does...

    They legally gamed the system to their tax advantage...

    You are only huffing and puffing because someone with a '-R' after their name did it...

    That's all it is...

    Michale

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    "It's not really fair to knock someone who simply uses the legal rules to their advantage"*
    -NYpoet22

    Michale

    *this is the best recollection I can make of NY's quote.. JL, please feel free to correct me if I got it wrong, but I think the gist is intact...

  195. [195] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    So, it's a question of numbers, eh??

    Hillary is OK because it's just a little "immoral"....

    When did I say ANYTHING like that? Capital gains losses are usually buying a stock that didn't perform so you lose money and take a loss on your tax return. I don't see anything "immoral" about anyone losing money on the stock market. There is a cap on the amount that can be deducted in the amount of $3,000 per year. It's the false equivalency of comparing actual investment losses to an almost $1 billion business operating deduction... that was my issue. It's simply propaganda for the righties to make a false equivalency that those items are the "EXACT SAME THING."

    "Did Trump do anything ILLEGAL??"

    I have no idea, and really that wasn't my point. He won't release his tax returns in full so it's hard to say.

    But it's only "illegal" and "immoral" when the person with the '-R' after their name does it... At least, according to ya'all..

    I never said anything like that. Again you're always ready to argue something I never said... moving the goal posts and arguing the straw man.

    You are only huffing and puffing because someone with a '-R' after their name did it...

    That's a new one! *LOL* Wrong again.

    Again, *flake*, it's the false equivalency of claiming a $3,000 deduction for a capital gains loss is the "EXACT SAME THING" as a writeoff of nearly $1 billion in business NOL. Capital gains losses where you lose your own money and take a small capped deduction being compared to business net operating losses that could have been caused by many activities that have no cash flow effect like depreciation on leveraged assets, casinos/hotels not requiring an actual cash outlay that are not remotely the "EXACT SAME THING."

  196. [196] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    My response didn't post again.

    I don't care about all the bullshit you raised about immorality, and again you're arguing the straw man as usual. My issue was the propaganda of the right in comparing actual capital gains losses that have a capped small deduction on HRC's return with nearly $1 billion in business net operating losses that could have been caused by many activities that have no cash flow effect... like depreciation expenses on extremely leveraged assets such as casinos/hotels that don't require a cash outlay.

    Saying these are the "EXACT SAME THING" is a lie.

    The remainder of your post is your same old move the goalposts and argue the straw man and cut and paste bullshit that have nothing to do with my point.

  197. [197] 
    Kick wrote:

    Okay, I give up... two posts now that won't post.

    Later. :)

  198. [198] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did you try my suggestions???

    Michale

  199. [199] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    So, it's a question of numbers, eh??

    Hillary is OK because it's just a little "immoral"....

    Oh, the straw man argument. #Shocker I have no issue with morality and taxes.

    Like I said.. You can argue what the definition of 'is' is until the cows come home..

    Cut and paste and still stupid.

    But the FACT is, Hillary did the same thing that Trump did. Game the tax rules to their advantage...

    No, a $3,000 deduction for capital gains losses is not exactly gaming the system, but that was not my point.

    But it's only "illegal" and "immoral" when the person with the '-R' after their name does it... At least, according to ya'all..

    Cut and paste and still stupid.

    Face it, sweet cheeks.. You lost on this one. AGAIN... :D

    How sad that you think a capped deduction for a capital gains loss and a nearly $1 billion business net operating loss are the "EXACT SAME THING." That was my point, snowflake, the false equivalency propaganda of the righties in defense of Trump. I don't care about the amounts or the morality or whatever bullshit you want to throw in to defend the con, just the bullshit false equivalency of comparing two totally unrelated items on a tax return in order to defend Trump.

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/30/california-police-show-videos-fatal-shooting-black-man.html

    And another justified police shooting that Left Wingers use as an excuse to riot and destroy... :^/

    Michale

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-case-for-trump/article/2004680

    Tis sad, tis true.... Tis true, tis sad....

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, the straw man argument. #Shocker I have no issue with morality and taxes.

    Yer right.. You don't.. But ONLY when it's the person with a '-D' after their name who is doing the immoral...

    Cut and paste and still stupid.

    Cut and paste and STILL ignorant and irrelevant..

    No, a $3,000 deduction for capital gains losses is not exactly gaming the system, but that was not my point.

    That's EXACTLY what it is and that is EXACTLY my point. Your perceptions are different for Clinton because she has a '-D' after her name..

    You slam Trump because he has an '-R' after his name...

    It's really THAT simple...

    Cut and paste and still stupid.

    Cut and Paste and STILL ignorant and irrelevant..

    ." That was my point, snowflake, the false equivalency propaganda of the righties in defense of Trump.

    It's an EXACT equivalency...

    Both Trump and Hillary gamed the tax system to their financial advantage...

    The fact that Trump did it with $XXX and Hillary did it with $XX is completely irrelevant to the main point...

    Let me dumb it down for ya, sweet cheeks..

    If you rob a bank and steal $1000, it's JUST as serious and JUST as bad as if you robbed a bank and stole $1,000,000... The crime is EXACTLY the same.. Only the amount is different..

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Michale wrote:

    Okay, I give up... two posts now that won't post.

    Later. :)

    Apparently, you DIDN'T give up...

    So.. You lied.... :D

    Michale

  204. [204] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    Apparently, you DIDN'T give up...

    So.. You lied.... :D

    I gave up, made myself some coffee, came back later and tried again. Spin that however you want to. :)

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    I gave up, made myself some coffee, came back later and tried again. Spin that however you want to. :)

    "So, obviously, it takes you 5 minutes to make breakfast.."
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D heh

    Michale

  206. [206] 
    Kick wrote:

    [200] Michale,

    Yer right.. You don't.. But ONLY when it's the person with a '-D' after their name who is doing the immoral...

    Still wrong.

    That's EXACTLY what it is and that is EXACTLY my point. Your perceptions are different for Clinton because she has a '-D' after her name..

    No. It has nothing to do with morality, just the false equivalency of comparing capital gains losses with business operating losses. Nothing more than that.

    You slam Trump because he has an '-R' after his name...

    I got news for you, I also slammed Trump when he had a "D" after his name and also when he was running as Reform Party.

    It's an EXACT equivalency...

    Both Trump and Hillary gamed the tax system to their financial advantage...

    I guess the whole false equivalency thing just goes right over your head, right? I'm not complaining about morality or gaming any system. I talking about the false equivalency of the right to compare a tax deduction for a capital gains loss with a tax deduction for a business net operating loss as if they are the same thing.

    A capital gains loss is money that you have actually lost, money that you invested and lost. No matter how much money you actually lose, you get to write off $3,000 of your actual loss.

    A business net operating loss is not the same as an actual cash loss and can be caused by many activities that have no cash flow effect... depreciation expenses on leveraged assets such as casinos/hotels... tax expenses that don't require a cash outlay.

    So a capped $3,000 deduction for actual monetary losses of $699,540 of real dollars versus almost $1 billion in business net operating losses of phantom expenses like depreciation on leveraged assets equals a false equivalency that is not the "EXACT SAME THING" no matter how you spin it. The righties are holding up the Clinton's tax returns and saying "look they took an exact same deduction," and they're lying.

    Now... later, later. :)

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW....

    Denver Police Running Out Of Space For Confiscated Marijuana
    http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/10/03/denver-police-running-out-of-space-for-confiscated-marijuana/

    Can ya help Denver PD out??? :D

    Michale

  208. [208] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    129

    "The tax and fiscal policies of the Democrats are not the same as those of the Republicans"

    Did I say that anywhere in my comment?
    Come on straw woman.

    Both D's and R's are responsible for the current system that allows the rich to legally evade taxes... and electing Hillary is NOT going to change that.

    In no way, shape or form is that a false equivalency.

    If you want to engage on the content of my comment instead of what you want my comment to be saying, I will be happy to participate.

    A

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    This elite media was beside itself through the weekend, confident that The New York Times had finally fashioned a silver bullet if not an A-bomb, and the Donald would be destroyed once and for all, restoring civility, good table manners, peace in our time, free pot and soothing silence to the fractious land. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the newspaper, was celebrated as a particular hero because he promised to go to jail to get the story in print. Bob Woodward, an editor at The Washington Post, said he would have printed it and wants to go to jail, perhaps to share a cell with Mr. Baquet.
    The story collected considerable tarnish over the next few hours, however, with the news that The New York Times had avoided paying taxes on a pre-tax profit of $30 million, with a nearly identical legal exploitation of the same tax laws. (That was “different,” of course.) The Times not only got to delay paying its taxes, but through another loophole discovered by its million-dollar lawyers, it got a $3.5 million dollar refund. (Note to everybody else: “Don’t try this at home.”)

    You see, that's the problem with ya'all's double standards...

    They usually became apparent to everyday Americans relatively quickly...

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:
  211. [211] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    130

    "That's where the equivalency game ends, because good luck finding a single republican who would ever support that proposition."

    See my reply to Liz on the equivalency bit, but most Dems in Congress and Hillary don't support that proposition.

    Once elected president, Obama didn't either.
    His failed proposal to reform corporate taxes was "revenue neutral".
    That's quoting him.
    And, it means that corporations would not have paid a larger share... let alone anywhere near a fair share.

    At some point, I hope you and other Dem voters actually expect results rather than being satisfied with "champions" who never win.
    It's easy to fight for a cause so long as losing is acceptable to those you claim to be fighting for.
    And, when a pattern fitting that description across a wide range of policies emerges, you may want to consider they are just empty promises being made to con you.

    A

  212. [212] 
    Michale wrote:

    At some point, I hope you and other Dem voters actually expect results rather than being satisfied with "champions" who never win.
    It's easy to fight for a cause so long as losing is acceptable to those you claim to be fighting for.

    DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER....

    That is EXACTLY what these Left Wingery voters want..

    They don't want someone to actually FIX the system..

    They just want someone who will talk the talk...

    Michale

  213. [213] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale,

    You see, that's the problem with ya'all's double standards...

    I haven't looked at the tax return for the New York Times, but I would wager that the deduction NYT used to reduce their tax burden probably did have more in common with a business net operating loss of depreciable assets than a simple capital gains loss that anyone can claim... but I did not look at it, as I said.

    Defending a nearly $1 billion business net operating loss of the phantom expense of depreciable assets and passive losses [real estate tax loopholes] by saying it is the "EXACT SAME THING" as a deduction of $3,000 for an actual monetary loss in the stock market is going to always be a false equivalency.

    I couldn't care less about the morality or immorality of tax deductions or even the amounts that Trump wrote off in order to lower his tax burden. If Trump didn't do anything wrong, there's really no need to justify what he "didn't do wrong" by saying the Clinton's did the "EXACT SAME THING" when they took a $3,000 capital gains loss. :)

    Trump has criticized hedge fund managers, Wall Street executives, and carried interest: There's your double standard. Trump has been pointing at everyone else as to why the system is "rigged," and now he finds himself and his real estate loopholes under fire because of the release of only 3 pages of his tax returns. Add to that, Trump's tax plan does nothing to change the real estate loopholes from which he is benefiting. He says he's an expert and he "alone can fix it," but the fact is that he's proposed absolutely zero in his tax plan that would eliminate a single one of his own loopholes.

    You want to see an actual "double standard"? Trump criticizing Wall Street and hedge fund managers and the carried interest tax loophole while exempting his own loopholes is your double standard.

    People justifying these real estate loopholes by saying that Trump has nothing to do with them is also utter rubbish.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ie4Z56Z1LY

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    I haven't looked at the tax return for the New York Times, but I would wager that the deduction NYT used to reduce their tax burden probably did have more in common with a business net operating loss of depreciable assets than a simple capital gains loss that anyone can claim... but I did not look at it, as I said

    Of course you didn't and of course you would say that..

    Because the NYT is a standard water carrier for the Left Wingery and you can't be bothered to look at the FACTS that might force you to condemn the actions of a Left Wingery Water Carrier...

    Then, true to form, with absolutely (by your OWN admission) NO FACTS WHATSOEVER, you proceed to DEFEND the LWWC, simple BECAUSE they are the LWWC....

    Your blind devotion to Party is EXACTLY the problem I am pointing out.. And you just proved it once again...

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonkatz/2016/10/04/nfls-monday-night-football-keeps-dropping-in-ratings/#4485871765b8

    Who could have predicted that true patriotic Americans would tune out the NFL because they condone I HATE AMERICA stances on national television???

    Oh... wait....

    Michale

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    I couldn't care less about the morality or immorality of tax deductions or even the amounts that Trump wrote off in order to lower his tax burden. If Trump didn't do anything wrong, there's really no need to justify what he "didn't do wrong" by saying the Clinton's did the "EXACT SAME THING" when they took a $3,000 capital gains loss. :)

    Except for the fact that Clinton sycophants (like the WPG) are claiming Trump DID do something wrong, so pointing out that Clinton did the EXACT SAME wrong thing is not only logical and rational, but dead on ballz accurate to boot...

    Michale

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    Exclusive: Yahoo secretly scanned customer emails for U.S. intelligence - sources
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yahoo-nsa-exclusive-idUSKCN1241YT

    And the outcry from the Left Wingery over this gross invasion of privacy committed by the Obama Administration??

    {{ccchhhiiirrrrpppppp}} {{{cchhhhiiiirrrrpppppp}}}

    Hypocrisy, thy name is Left Wingery.....

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another comment with FACTS that ya'all claim I never have and another comment that the WPG is powerless to address....

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    “You’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care, and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half and it’s the craziest thing in the world.

    On the other hand, the current system works fine if you’re eligible for Medicaid, if you’re a lower-income working person. If you’re already on Medicare or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your health care.

    “But the people getting killed in this deal are the small-business people and individuals who make just a little bit too much to get any of these subsidies.”
    -Bill Clinton On TrainWreckCare...

    I guess Bubba is one of those secret Trump supporters I told ya'all about.. :D

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Kick wrote:

    Of course you didn't and of course you would say that..

    Because the NYT is a standard water carrier for the Left Wingery and you can't be bothered to look at the FACTS that might force you to condemn the actions of a Left Wingery Water Carrier...

    No, it's not like when you didn't look at the Clinton's tax return before you posted your right-wing propaganda lies that the Clintons did the "EXACT SAME THING" as Trump when they took a small capital gains loss that's available to everyone. I didn't look at the New York Times tax return for the simple reason that it's not posted online that I could find. If anyone can find it, I'd be happy to look it over and see if they did the "EXACT SAME THING." I doubt that the NYT took passive losses known as real estate tax loopholes, but I would wager the NYT deduction for millions (if it is even true, BTW) would be more similar to the loopholes Trump used.

    Then, true to form, with absolutely (by your OWN admission) NO FACTS WHATSOEVER, you proceed to DEFEND the LWWC, simple BECAUSE they are the LWWC....

    Oh, that same old cut-and-paste argument again? #Shocker Boring.

    It's like watching the same old paid commercial over and over and over. If you want people to actually read your tedious repetitive and unimaginative posts, you're going to have to step it up and have some original ideas, get yourself some new material... branch out beyond the same old phone-it-in lame Ctrl+V worn out utter bullshit. :)

    Your blind devotion to Party is EXACTLY the problem I am pointing out.. And you just proved it once again...

    Blah, blah, blah... cut-and-paste. SOS... BORING.

    Monkey, monkey...

Comments for this article are closed.