You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
I am shocked by Flagg... was he trolling us the entire time?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I am shocked by Flagg... was he trolling us the entire time?
Maybe he really liked pence, if you know what I mean.
Of course I wasn't trolling. I meant it when I said I participate in these forums because I want my opinions and beliefs challenged.
Both Trump and Clinton say what they think their supporters want to hear. There's a chapter in Gates' book that talks about how Clinton and Obama were very cavalier backstage talking about their stances on Iraq based on how it will appeal to voters. These are people who would let Americans die without a second thought because it resonated well with voters. I'll never forgive or forget that.
But this isn't football. I can laugh and giggle when Pittsburgh gets away with a cheap hit or a bad call goes their way. In the end we're talking about grown men running a ball down a 100 yard field. This is fucking reality. The outcomes and how the game is played really matter. And at the end of the day, Clinton making the calls is better for the world than Trump. That's all it comes down to. I can't cheer on my team this time.
I can't intelligently come to a reason to support Trump in this regard. I'm so fucking pissed at the GOP for blowing it. They could have ran Kasich or Rubio and won this hands down. The fact that this election is so close proves that to all the people who still think Clinton is a good candidate. But they didn't. They let Cruz attract the Tea Party idiots enough that Trump was able to get the sane candidates to leave.
So between sanity and insanity, I'm voting for sanity.
Re: US Politics Thread
Hillary Clinton used the same exact method as Donald Trump to pay less tax, according to her own tax returns released by her presidential campaign.
Donald Trump reportedly avoided paying federal income taxes by reporting massive losses on his 1995 tax return, which the New York Times somehow obtained before Trump himself released it.
The Wall Street Journal describes the loophole that Trump used:
The tax treatment of losses, bound to become a subject of national debate, is a typically noncontroversial feature of the income-tax system. The government doesn’t pay net refunds when business owners lose money, but it lets taxpayers use those losses to smooth their tax payments as they make money. That reflects the fact that “the natural business cycle of a taxpayer may exceed 12 months,” according to a congressional report.
Typically, for federal returns, such net operating losses can be carried backward for two years to offset past income and then kept on a taxpayer’s books for 20 years, though Mr. Trump’s losses could only qualify for a 15-year carryforward under the law at the time.
The Clinton campaign has hammered Trump on his unreleased tax returns. When pundits on cable news now refer to the “Taxes” issue, they’re usually talking about Trump’s personal “taxes” issue, not the taxes paid by American voters.
But the Zerohedge blog first noticed something that could undercut Clinton’s ability to hit Trump on his “net operating losses.”
Clinton’s 2015 tax returns reveal that Hillary Clinton also reported capital gains losses in order to lessen her tax burden through a “carryover.”
Page 17 of the tax returns show “Capital Gains and Losses” for “WILLIAM J CLINTON & HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON.”
The Clintons reported a “Long-term capital loss carryover” of $699,540.
Thus, the Clintons reported a “Net long-term capital gain or (loss)” of “-699,540.”
Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill did not immediately return Breitbart News’s request for comment.
And where did the Bill come from?
Developers Get $366-Million Tax Break in Budget Bill
WASHINGTON — Hemmed in by the deficit, White House and congressional budget negotiators have been forced to jettison or scale back many of President Clinton's domestic initiatives. But that has not stopped them from finding a few hundred million dollars for politically influential real estate developers.
Working quietly behind the scenes, the commercial real estate industry already has won from budget negotiators a lucrative tax break of $366 million over five years.
The provision, quietly approved by a House-Senate conference committee late last week, would make it possible for developers to avoid additional taxes when they are able to persuade their bankers to reduce the amount of loans that they must repay for office buildings and other commercial properties.
Such forgiven debt now is considered taxable income. But the White House and Congress have agreed to make a special exemption from that law for commercial real estate.
The revision would mean a windfall for developers from Orange County to New England who overbuilt in the 1980s and now are trying to get out from under mortgage payments for office buildings that sit empty.
Developers maintained that the provision is needed to provide stability to many of the nation's hardest hit real estate markets. Industry officials also said that they will agree to other real estate tax measures to offset the costs of this provision.
Even so, the tax break has been approved at a time when many other tax incentives have been stripped out of the budget by congressional negotiators seeking to enhance government revenues to meet the Administration's deficit targets and to fund other Administration programs.
The tax break was sought by a powerful coalition of real estate developers and bankers, including the National Realty Committee, the National Assn. of Realtors and the American Bankers Assn.
Indeed, the success of the real estate industry in a period of such fiscal austerity offers a glimpse of how some special interests are able to get what they want in Washington.
Tax experts here said that the Clinton White House agreed to the tax break to win the influential commercial real estate industry's support for the rest of the budget. Clinton, facing tight votes on the budget in both House and Senate, has been scrambling for support from an array of groups and has shown a willingness to compromise on many elements of his budget in return.
Re: US Politics Thread
Cramer wrote:Smoking Guns wrote:Gambler?
Cars, stocks, real estate...
Edit: Although I did win $580 on penny slots a couple of months ago. Two bucks in for the win!
Then why are you working? Take $2k and turn it into 8 million.
I am working...for myself and that's essentially what I do day in and day out. My money invested monthly/annually and then I work my conversions to reach a higher ROI. When I was younger I took much larger risks, leveraging large sums of money, but I also didn't really have anything to lose. I was never greedy, never lost my ass, and never had to declare bankruptcy.
Millions of Americans do this everyday, it doesn't mean you're special, just that you're willing to take risk.
I also didn't start out with a multi million dollar "loan" from my Daddy. I'd bet my overall % ROI is higher than Trumps once I think about it.
Re: US Politics Thread
Another Republican says adios....
Chairman Cuzzone:
We come together in political parties to magnify our influence. An organized representative institution can give weight to our will in ways we could not accomplish on our own. Working with others gives us power, but at the cost of constant, calculated compromise. No two people will agree on everything. There is no moral purity in politics.
If compromise is the key to healthy politics, how does one respond when compromise descends into complicity? To preserve a sense of our personal moral accountability we must each define boundaries. For those boundaries to have meaning we must have the courage to protect them, even when the cost is high.
Almost 30 years ago as a teenager in Texas, I attended my first county Republican convention. As a college student I met a young Rick Perry, fresh from his conversion to the GOP, as he was launching his first campaign for statewide office. Through Associated Republicans of Texas, I contributed and volunteered for business-friendly Republican state and local candidates.
From his fairy-tale wall to his schoolyard bullying and his flirtation with violent racists, Donald Trump offers America a singular narrative: a tale of cowards.
Here in DuPage County, I’ve been a precinct committeeman since 2006. Door to door I’ve canvased my precinct in support of our candidates. Trudging through snow, using a drill to break the frozen ground, I posted signs for candidates on whom I pinned my hopes for better government. Among Illinois Republicans I found an organization that seemed to embody my hopes for the party nationally. Pragmatic, sensible and focused on solid government, it seemed like a GOP Jurassic Park, where the sensible, reliable Republicans of old still roamed the landscape.
At the national level, the delusions necessary to sustain our Cold War coalition were becoming dangerous long before Donald Trump arrived. From tax policy to climate change, we have found ourselves less at odds with philosophical rivals than with the fundamentals of math, science and objective reality.
The Iraq War, the financial meltdown, the utter failure of supply-side theory, climate denial, and our strange pursuit of theocratic legislation have all been troubling. Yet it seemed that America’s party of commerce, trade, and pragmatism might still have time to sober up. Remaining engaged in the party implied a contribution to that renaissance, an investment in hope. Donald Trump has put an end to that hope.
From his fairy-tale wall to his schoolyard bullying and his flirtation with violent racists, Donald Trump offers America a singular narrative: a tale of cowards. Fearful people, convinced of our inadequacy, trembling before a world alight with imaginary threats, crave a demagogue. Neither party has ever elevated to this level a more toxic figure, one that calls forth the darkest elements of our national character.
With three decades invested in the Republican Party, there is a powerful temptation to shrug and soldier on. Despite the bold rhetoric, we all know Trump will lose. Why throw away a great personal investment over one bad nominee? Trump is not merely a poor candidate, but an indictment of our character. Preserving a party is not a morally defensible goal if that party has lost its legitimacy.
Preserving a party is not a morally defensible goal if that party has lost its legitimacy.
Watching Ronald Reagan as a boy, I recall how bold it was for him to declare ‘morning again’ in America. In a country menaced by Communism and burdened by a struggling economy, the audacity of Reagan’s optimism inspired a generation.
Fast-forward to our present leadership and the nature of our dilemma is clear. I watched Paul Ryan speak at Donald Trump’s convention the way a young child watches his father march off to prison. Thousands of Republican figures that loathe Donald Trump, understand the danger he represents, and privately hope he loses, are publicly declaring their support for him. In Illinois our local and state GOP organizations, faced with a choice, have decided on complicity.
Our leaders’ compromise preserves their personal capital at our collective cost. Their refusal to dissent robs all Republicans of moral cover. Evasion and cowardice has prevailed over conscience. We are now, and shall indefinitely remain, the Party of Donald Trump.
I will not contribute my name, my work or my character to an utterly indefensible cause. No sensible adult demands moral purity from a political party, but conscience is meaningless without constraints. A party willing to lend its collective capital to Donald Trump has entered a compromise beyond any credible threshold of legitimacy. There is no redemption in being one of the “good Nazis.”
I hereby resign my position as a York Township Republican committeeman. My 30-year tenure as a Republican is over.
Sincerely,
Chris Ladd
Postscript: Needless to say, the response to the letter has been stunning and overwhelming. I want to express my gratitude to the people who have shared so many kind thoughts. It was my intention to reply to each of the emails I’ve received, but I was snowed under by late last night and they keep piling up.
Some of the warmest regards have come from right here in suburban Chicago. When I posted this letter I was prepared to face some anger here at home from fellow Republicans. Nothing of the kind has materialized. The only official response from the local GOP so far has been support, for which I am immensely grateful. It gives me hope. We may all come out of this debacle in better condition.
Re: US Politics Thread
Just as reference; the EU referendum was staged as a ploy for the conservative party here in the UK to win votes. They argued for one, then most of them decided to campaign to remain afterwards. Most of them never actually expected leave to win.
The person (Boris Johnson) who lead the campaign was a buffoon who made outrageous promises that he has since backtracked on. The idea was likely for him to be the joyful loser who lead a losing campaign, but won himself more support as a result. He didn't believe in most of the stuff he said. He never actually expected to win.
Almost every politician from the right/left (except the far right) in this country/expert and of course the celebrities campaigned against leaving. Leave still won, partly because people expected remain would win and the turnout in pro remain areas wasn't great. The areas where people generally don't vote in high numbers turned out a protest vote.
Do not underestimate Trump, regardless of polls.
Re: US Politics Thread
The Atlantic endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on Wednesday, marking the magazine’s third presidential endorsement in its 159-year history.
The magazine’s editors said they were motivated to make the endorsement because Donald Trump is perhaps “the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.”
“We are confident that [Clinton] understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work,” reads the endorsement. “Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself.”
The magazine emphasized that the decision to endorse came not because of Clinton’s qualifications but because of Trump’s lack thereof.
“If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement,” the editors wrote.
The Washington, D.C.-based publication previously endorsed Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Both men were successful in their presidential bids.
The Atlantic is the latest in a string of publications to make high-profile endorsements this election cycle, all of them in reaction to the possibility of a Trump presidency.
Last week, USA Today ? one of the nation’s most popular newspapers ? took a stand on the race for the first time in its history, calling on readers to vote against Trump.
“Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue,” read the editorial. “By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.”
The Arizona Republic and the Cincinnati Enquirer both endorsed Clinton, breaking century-long streaks by both newspapers of only endorsing Republicans. The Dallas Morning News has also endorsed the former secretary of state, making her the first Democratic candidate backed by that paper since World War II. And while five daily newspapers have backed Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, no major ones have endorsed Trump.
