POLITICAL THREAD

[Atrain7732]

A Mexican official has already came out & admitted there are ways for Trump to make them pay for a wall & there isn't really a damn thing they could do about it.

Every argument you seem to make against Trump pretty much mirrors everything your TV is telling you. All your posts are just completely ignoring Hillary's faults & repeating tired MSM talking points about Trump. It's almost as if Don Lemon has hacked your account.

"Who cares if Hillary is bad for small business & a detriment to the middle class, at least she doesn't tweet mean things." They're called priorities, learn them. They're not all equal. Some matter much more than others.

You know what buddy. As previously stated, I
Am done with trying to repeat myself over and over.

You keep on keeping on with the MSM conspiracies, excusing him not releasing his taxes, and just generally bending over backwards to defend an undefendable candidate. And it is especially rich to then accuse me of taking on talking points. I think u threw out every one of the Donald's verbatim in this one thread alone.

In the end we will see what the American people decide. I am assuming you don't have an issue with that, do you? After all, we live in a democracy. Even with all the media and government conspiracies, even you would acknowledge that whoever wins this election is the chosen leader of our country.

My guess--when your boy loses it stays much of the same--it is a conspiracy. Hillary rigged it, MSM conspired against the Donald, rigged system, etc etc etc. I will follow and appreciate whoever wins the Presidency. It will be interesting to see what you will do.

Let's check back in in what, 38 days? And see what each of us thinks at that point. I will take solace in that even tho anonymous message board posters disagree with me, the last 2 Rep Presidents and scores of other rational thinking republicans do understand that this man is not capable or worthy of the office he seeks.

And in the end, like always, the American people will be the true decider.

 

[goingpostal72]

Is there a single honest thing about this crooked bitch?

wouldn't and shouldn't shock anybody if this were true. I did notice that every question went first to Clinton and she kept looking down as if reading a prepared response. Way to polished of answers and every answer fit perfect into the narrative.

 

[moe_schmoe]

You keep on keeping on with the MSM conspiracies

They are no longer conspiracies when they have proven to be factually true, they are undeniable realities. The msm is basically an extension of Hillary's campaign.

If you're to brainwashed already to realize that their job is to get Hillary elected at all costs, no matter the opponent, then you're too far gone & deserve Hillary as your president.

 

[qwesley]

 

[qwesley]

I know when I'm kinda on the fence on something I like to type thousands of one-sided words and argue the other side to the death even after saying i was done.

 

[moe_schmoe]

the last 2 Rep Presidents and scores of other rational thinking republicans do understand that this man is not capable or worthy of the office he seeks.

& the entire state of Texas is threatening to secede from the United States if Hillary is elected. So your point is what?

If you think some elitist, money grubbing, power hungry politicians' opinions are supposed to carry weight... think again.

They've taken that stance not for the betterment of the country, but for the continuation of their corrupt, elitist lifestyle. They're not for Hillary or against Trump, they're only in it for themselves.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Just like I said. Of course the NYT has used the same exact loopholes as Trump & many millions of other Americans to pay as little tax as possible. It's the American way.

Let's not forget they haven't even proven Trump to be guilty of their own actions. Just that he "could have". What a bunch of hypocritical hacks.

 

[Atrain7732]

They are no longer conspiracies when they have proven to be factually true, they are undeniable realities. The msm is basically an extension of Hillary's campaign.

If you're to brainwashed already to realize that their job is to get Hillary elected at all costs, no matter the opponent, then you're too far gone & deserve Hillary as your president.

I think u may be right. I found this picture online clearly taken from the MSM secret files.

I will get back to you with a plan in short order. Just have to go get my tin foil. Await my signal. Stay strong brother. They can't read your thoughts if you don't have any. Remember that.

 

[catfaninsc]

& the entire state of Texas is threatening to secede from the United States if Hillary is elected. So your point is what?

If you think some elitist, money grubbing, power hungry politicians' opinions are supposed to carry weight... think again.

They've taken that stance not for the betterment of the country, but for the continuation of their corrupt, elitist lifestyle. They're not for Hillary or against Trump, they're only in it for themselves.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

"Simply put, the answer is no. Historical and legal precedents make it clear that Texas could not pull off a Texit — at least not legally.

“The legality of seceding is problematic,” said Eric McDaniel, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues.”

Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was also defeated, according to McDaniel. The Union’s victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede.

Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836 and spent the next nine years as its own nation. Whilethe young country's leaders first expressed interest in becoming a state in 1836, the Republic of Texas did not join the United States until 1845, when Congress approved the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States.

This resolution, which stipulated that Texas could, in the future, choose to divide itself into "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas" is often a cause of confusion about the state’s ability to secede. But the language of the resolution is clear: Texas can split itself into five new states. It says nothing of splitting apart from the United States."

Although I guess they could. And then see if their passports would let them travel outside of the state.

 

[Atrain7732]

I know when I'm kinda on the fence on something I like to type thousands of one-sided words and argue the other side to the death even after saying i was done.

Haha. I am done arguing anything. Just having fun at this point. But, nowhere did I ever even come close to saying I was on the fence. Saying I sometimes wished I could see things the way the opposition does is not saying I am on the fence. Not sure where that came from.

I think, if anything else, my views on Trump should be pretty self evident at this point.

 

[moe_schmoe]

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/

"Simply put, the answer is no. Historical and legal precedents make it clear that Texas could not pull off a Texit — at least not legally.

“The legality of seceding is problematic,” said Eric McDaniel, associate professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. “The Civil War played a very big role in establishing the power of the federal government and cementing that the federal government has the final say in these issues.”

Many historians believe that when the Confederacy surrendered at Appomattox in 1865, the idea of secession was also defeated, according to McDaniel. The Union’s victory set a precedent that states could not legally secede.

Texas declared independence from Mexico in 1836 and spent the next nine years as its own nation. Whilethe young country's leaders first expressed interest in becoming a state in 1836, the Republic of Texas did not join the United States until 1845, when Congress approved the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States.

This resolution, which stipulated that Texas could, in the future, choose to divide itself into "New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas" is often a cause of confusion about the state’s ability to secede. But the language of the resolution is clear: Texas can split itself into five new states. It says nothing of splitting apart from the United States."

Although I guess they could. And then see if their passports would let them travel outside of the state.

Never said they were going to be able to do it. Just that they're threatening to do it.

Was clearly using Texas as an example to show that Trump isn't the only candidate with masses threatening some form of idiocy over him being elected. I see it went way over your head.

 

[moe_schmoe]

I think u may be right. I found this picture online clearly taken from the MSM secret files.

I will get back to you with a plan in short order. Just have to go get my tin foil. Await my signal. Stay strong brother. They can't read your thoughts if you don't have any. Remember that.

The real conspiracy here is you blindly excusing the msm, thinking they purposely don't control the narrative & report only facts. It's clear as ever at this point. They're not even trying to hide it anymore.

They're literally cutting tape & editing out things that make Hillary look bad. Free Press has long been dead, 2016 is just the year they decided to dig their graves.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Btw, lost in this whole dumb tax debate is that all they have is he lost a bunch of money that year and for some reason he shouldn't be allowed to use it as a shelter like everyone else.

110% of everyone reading this post would (or have already) done the the same.

 

[oldsports_]

I know when I'm kinda on the fence on something I like to type thousands of one-sided words and argue the other side to the death even after saying i was done.

He is done arguing, Done! Typical lying liberal, full blown denial that they are liberals, and type 100000 words of liberal gibberish. I'm done!

 

[warrior-cat]

I am the last one to talk PC. I will name call at Trump and anyone else who I feel like doing so towards. I have no issue with Trump name calling either, if that were the extent of it. Clearly, you don't have an issue with it either.

The fact he cannot control himself during a debate or on twitter is one of several issues that concern me. Add to the fact that he has no policy besides MAGA is a bit disconcerting. The fact that he was a liberal his entire life until he saw the "birther" political opportunity is another red herring.

I could keep going but let's be honest. Neither of us is gonna convince the other. You can name call at me and I am good with it. I have voted Rep more than I have Dem. Just so happens I think the current Rep nominee is a crazy person who I wouldn't trust to do anything other than increase his own "brand".

Name calling? Not much except insinuations here but, you seem a bit thinned so I guess that is how you see it. Typical Hillary supporter, has no problems calling names but seems to call foul when thinking it is happening to them. Yeah, I can see where you would have a problem with a successful business man and political outsider over the status quo. Corruption and dishonesty are the orders of the day and Hillary fits right in.

 

[anon_l8pbkn96tg3j6]

Is any average joe citizen saying "ya know, I would vote for Trump, but I haven't yet had a chance to comb through his tax returns"? NOBODY CARES. Do you ever look at your own taxes ever again unless you are audited? Absolutely not. Nobody cares about this, yet it is a story every 4 years.

The argument for this tax nonsense is usually: well we have to know if you are bought and paid for by a foreign dictator. I'm sure "payment from Vlad E. Putin for hacking the DNC" is just going to be a line on his 1099. This is the dumbest conversation, I hate it, and I hate the media for bringing it up every 4 years.

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

Somehow the grievances of a former beauty queen who may or may not have been an accomplice to murder is emblematic of Donald's Trump misogyny towards poor innocent HRC.

Even if Trump were potentially in bed with the Ruskis it is far better who the HRC may be in bed with.

 

[warrior-cat]

I'm a small business owner as well, just curious how you can view HC over DT through the business owner lense? I mean, her freaking opening statement in the debate was about "encouraging" businesses to "share" their profits more.

How do you like someone that has zero (0) clue what we go through saying that? I don't know about you, but my first inkling would be to tell her to get pumped. The disdain she (and the left) has for evil business owners is palpable.

This is what I was thinking too when reading his post. Completely made no sense. Should not be surprised though, he has not made sense yet.

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/


Although I guess they could. And then see if their passports would let them travel outside of the state.

SOmetimes I read something so stupid on this board I simply can't resist responding.

Civil wars are always illegal. That doesn't stop them from happening. You stupid idiots who know nothing of war, only see it on TV like it's some sport. I pity your relatives.

Some times you have to do what you have to do. Some times doing nothing is immoral.

 

[cat_chaser]

So our newest poster is yet another independent...... Voting for hilldawg??? Flipping amazing how all Paddock independents are voting that way. Especially considering Donald has a wide lead with that particular group.

Yeah...... Independent.

 

[jamo0001]

The q4 years secessionists are just as adorable as the q4 years Hollywood "ILL MOVE TO NEW ZEALAND" starlets

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Never said they were going to be able to do it. Just that they're threatening to do it.

Was clearly using Texas as an example to show that Trump isn't the only candidate with masses threatening some form of idiocy over him being elected. I see it went way over your head.

Ignoring your imaginary nonsense about something that will never happen with a Texit, what you'd actually best be concerned with in the real world is the collapse of the US stock market if Trump gets elected. I can't wait for you yowling fools to get a look at your 401Ks if that babbling moron somehow manages to sneak into office.

 

[CATSrock]

I agree completely. It makes me sick when HRC talks about small business and how important it is. She is clearly pandering and the first chance she gets, she will prolly raise the taxes on them.

But, I just can't believe Trump has any more credit that HRC. Even tho I really want to believe him, especially considering the SB tax cuts he is proposing, I just watch the guy and listen to what he says and I just see someone who is just telling everyone what they want to hear. I mean no one, Trump included, thinks he is building a wall. But he continues to loudly proclaim it. Even when faced with reality that it is essentially impossible and would cost in the trillions to do so.

On top of that, he appears to be unable to practice any type of restraint. And that is the most important characteristic to be Prez IMO. Even more important to me than someone who may or may not lower my taxes as a small business owner. Bc my small business paying less taxes is unimportant if the Prez can't control his temperament and demeanor and just does whatever he feels is best in the moment.

Just where I keep coming back to. It is not where I want to be. But I have to follow my gut, and vote for who I think is the lesser of two evils. I will hope that my small business will not be effected. But, I do not trust that Trump cares or has any intention to help me either. So that being equal I have to go to what I feel is the safer bet. I am not willing to blow the whole thing up and trust that it ultimately comes back together again.

Trillions to build the wall? Trump says 8-12 Billion, other estimates at 25 billion - NOWHERE near a trillion...

 

[anon_l8pbkn96tg3j6]

To add to my outrage above, Trump took a billion dollar loss in 96. Wasn't the whole tax return thing about trying to make Trump look stupid because he isn't as rich as he claims? Telling the IRS you lost a billion dollars either requires balls the size of the universe, or billions of dollars.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Ahh the old stock market/401K football being tossed around. Bush in office, stock market is the devil's casino work, Obama in office he's looking out for the little guys's 401K.

Must be nice to get judged by that standard *and* concurrently have the Fed keep interest low and 4 years of quantitative easing to help prop up said benchmark.

 

[CATSrock]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...dation_got_rich_off_poor_haitians_387335.html

Why is there no outrage about this? This is stuff that matters and is exactly what the Clintons are all about. Power, Washington elitist dealings that help make them rich. Love how the Dems say Trump is only interested in what helps his business. Pot meet kettle...

 

[warrior-cat]

So I suppose it is not important to you that your boy is up at 3am talking about porn videos and fat chicks.

Well I suppose I have more trophies than your sorry ass bc this is important to me. It is not he end all be all, but taken together with all of his other flaws, it is just icing on the cake.

It shows at least he can function at 3am and could at least take a phone call and not just sleep through a crises. You are really bad at this.

 

[SomeDudeCRO]

I wouldn't be surprised if the wall never gets built or doesn't materialize until very late.

Markets would rebound during and after ISIS was defeated.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Btw, all you good folks giving Trump grief over being a bad businessman losing all that money are quick to forget that the good ole US of A takes a big fat Miss Piggy loss every damn year and it doesn't bother you in the slightest.

 

[moe_schmoe]

If it's so wrong for Trump to "could have" dodged paying taxes, then Hillary will surely disavow & return donations from these proven tax dodgers.

http://usuncut.com/politics/each-of-the-top-10-corporate-tax-dodgers-donate-to-hillary-clinton/

 

[warrior-cat]

So our newest poster is yet another independent...... Voting for hilldawg??? Flipping amazing how all Paddock independents are voting that way. Especially considering Donald has a wide lead with that particular group.

Yeah...... Independent.

They are closet liberal democrats who don't have the courage to admit it. They know their candidate is a habitual liar and a cheat but that does not matter as long as their side wins. Remember, "We won the election deal with it". UNC, UL type mentality, win at all cost.

 

[krazykats]

To add to my outrage above, Trump took a billion dollar loss in 96. Wasn't the whole tax return thing about trying to make Trump look stupid because he isn't as rich as he claims? Telling the IRS you lost a billion dollars either requires balls the size of the universe, or billions of dollars.

With the projects that he builds I'd assume that is nothing really despite what it sounds like to you personally.

Also just so you know, losing a billion in one year does not mean he doesn't make money hand over fist. It means he had a bad year and spread that loss for years negating his future profits allowing for no tax.

That is the law.

 

[warrior-cat]

Ignoring your imaginary nonsense about something that will never happen with a Texit, what you'd actually best be concerned with in the real world is the collapse of the US stock market if Trump gets elected. I can't wait for you yowling fools to get a look at your 401Ks if that babbling moron somehow manages to sneak into office.

It is going collapse no matter who gets elected. The next president is going to inherit a big mess coming down the pike. Thank you Obama and Hillary.

 

[jamo0001]

They are closet liberal democrats

 

[moe_schmoe]

The New York Times has published part of the tax returns of a private citizen in an effort to score political points for a candidate they endorse, Hillary Clinton. That should be the real headline people pause and think about.

The front pages of the tax returns themselves are essentially a non-issue, representing the 1995 gross business loss incurred by candidate Donald Trump who operates a massive conglomeration of business entities.

The anti-Trump political angle is easily identifiable within the extensive article use of: “could have”, “might be”, “may have”, phrases used throughout the woven narrative. Journalistic “narratives” are rarely based on facts.

The identified $916 million single year operating income loss is no different than current losses of Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and a host of other corporations and businesses.

Actually, Donald Trump’s 1995 loss is smaller than the operating loss the New York Times reported when it sold the Boston Globe in 2013 for a net loss of $1.03 billion.

The Times purchased the Boston Globe in ’93 for $1.1 billion and sold it in 2013 for $70 million, a loss of $1.03 billion. However, for some reason it’s doubtful the Times will publish their own 2013 tax returns. That doesn’t meet the political need.

Despite the best protestations of the Hillary Clinton campaign, there’s nothing dramatic about the Donald Trump tax returns. The only thing illegal or unethical is the illegal nature and unethical mindset of the media outlet who published them.

Against the backdrop of weaponized federal governmental agencies already admitting they have targeted private citizens they considered political opponents, the gleeful willingness of the Clinton campaign to push the New York Times Trump-tax non-story is brutally tone deaf and most likely to backfire.

Just imagine what a Hillary Clinton administration would do to their political opposition with a weaponized cabinet filled with intensely unstable and rabid ideologues.

The vast majority of Americans just don’t like, appreciate or condone the publication of legally bound private information, especially tax filings. The willingness of the New York Times to publish them, and the willingness of the Clinton campaign to exploit them, says more about the ideology of those entities than it does about Donald Trump’s business interests.

The Trump Campaign Responds:

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Yeah, didn't think of that.....wonder if the NYT has ever released private tax info before? And is that criminal to do so?

I'm sure the watchdogs will be all over it. After all, what was in the leaked HC and DNC emails wasn't important, how they got them was paramount.

And just remember regarding private citizen info.....if they can do it to one person, they can do it to you. Not something to celebrate, frankly.

 

[jamo0001]

Yeah, didn't think of that.....wonder if the NYT has ever released private tax info before? And is that criminal to do so?

I'm sure the watchdogs will be all over it. After all, what was in the leaked HC and DNC emails wasn't important, how they got them was paramount.

And just remember regarding private citizen info.....if they can do it to one person, they can do it to you. Not something to celebrate, frankly.

I forget exactly who it was, but one of the chief editors of the Times was at a Harvard event earlier this year and told the audience that he was "willing to go to jail, if necessary" to publish Trump's tax returns.

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

^ good for him, if illegal to do so I hope his dreams come true.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Now the left is coming out & speaking against Kaepernick, but not because of the reason(s) you would think. It has noting to do with the fact that he refuses to stand for the anthem. They couldn't care less about that.

According to Maher, Silverman, their cronies & fan boys/girls, Kaepernick is no longer a righteous voice standing up to oppression. Instead he's now a "****ing idiot".

Why the all of a sudden change of heart you ask? Well, because he dared to insinuate that Hillary isn't a good choice for President. Now he is the enemy, who will be shown no mercy. Imagine that.

 

[bigblueinsanity]

I forget exactly who it was, but one of the chief editors of the Times was at a Harvard event earlier this year and told the audience that he was "willing to go to jail, if necessary" to publish Trump's tax returns.

No msm bias though. Right dems?

Even worse, as another poster noted, the nyt used that net operating loss to hypothesize trump hasn't paid income tax in years.

That may well be true, but it sure isn't a fact as they misleadingly imply. It's just as likely that nol was eaten up in a few years. Either way, I assume his tax liability is fairly low considering all things. And that should be entirely irrelevant unless he's doing something illegal