Post by: Little Joe on October 02, 2016, 09:30:55 AM
Is that a fair and reasonable trade?
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2016, 09:52:41 AM
Trump said he would release his tax returns when Hillary releases her missing email.
Is that a fair and reasonable trade?
Hillary isn't going to release any emails, period. The only ones to get released are what is found in chains and other servers. I highly doubt she has them stashed anywhere.
The whole tax returns deal is a ruse. Hillary can't run on a record of achievement because she has none, and she can't cite policies because there are none of those either.
She is using the old Clinton technique of gutter politics. It's all she's got.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 02, 2016, 10:06:25 AM
Trump said he would release his tax returns when Hillary releases her missing email.
Is that a fair and reasonable trade?
It's incredibly stupid.
Nobody subpoenaed his returns.
of course, if his tax returns would reveal illegal behavior, then equating his returns with her emails makes perfect stupid.
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2016, 10:20:16 AM
It's incredibly stupid.
Nobody subpoenaed his returns.
of course, if his tax returns would reveal illegal behavior, then equating his returns with her emails makes perfect stupid.
Look at it this way. If Trump has done something illegal in filing his tax returns, I guarantee you the Obama IRS would have found it and exposed it.
And no doubt Mr. Trump has a team of CPA's and tax attorneys preparing his filings and using every available regulation to lessen the obligation. However the Hillary For President Communications Department (also known as the MSM) will distort those filings to make it look as if something nefarious is or was going on.
Post by: asechrest on October 02, 2016, 11:57:43 AM
Post by: JeffDG on October 02, 2016, 03:41:31 PM
NY Times article out today about Trump's taxes and his potential $0 tax liability for the past 18 years. To be clear, no suggestion of illegality.However, they did imply that he was a crappy businessman...losing nearly a billion dollars will lead to that conclusion.
Post by: lowtimer on October 02, 2016, 03:54:48 PM
Post by: Little Joe on October 02, 2016, 04:09:32 PM
However, they did imply that he was a crappy businessman...losing nearly a billion dollars will lead to that conclusion.If you want to win big, you have to risk big. He lost big. Twenty years ago.
And that could have been a tax driven situation.
Our tax code sucks. He knows that. He took advantage of that.
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2016, 05:53:41 PM
Quote
Well this is a little awkward. With the leaked 1995 Trump tax returns 'scandal' focused on the billionaire's yuuge "net operating loss" and how it might have 'legally' enabled him to pay no taxes for years, we now discover none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton utilized a $700,000 "loss" to avoid paying some taxes in 2015.
Post by: Mase on October 02, 2016, 06:20:51 PM
Post by: JeffDG on October 02, 2016, 06:35:51 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump)So, your point is that Trump lost 1,300x as much as Clinton, and that qualifies him for the Presidency?
Post by: Little Joe on October 02, 2016, 06:48:46 PM
So, your point is that Trump lost 1,300x as much as Clinton, and that qualifies him for the Presidency?I don't think that was his point at all.
And neither do you.
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2016, 06:53:09 PM
I don't think that was his point at all.
And neither do you.
Jeff is playing his usual buffoonery. If he had the smallest understanding of business and taxes he would realize what an idiotic statement he has made.
Oh well, every forum has their asshat.
Post by: Little Joe on October 02, 2016, 06:57:39 PM
Jeff is playing his usual buffoonery. If he had the smallest understanding of business and taxes he would realize what an idiotic statement he has made.He knows.
Oh well, every forum has their asshat.
He just considers us idiots.
Post by: JeffDG on October 02, 2016, 07:16:45 PM
He knows.I do consider Lucifer an idiot, evidence is overwhelming on that score.
He just considers us idiots.
Post by: JeffDG on October 02, 2016, 07:17:13 PM
Jeff is playing his usual buffoonery. If he had the smallest understanding of business and taxes he would realize what an idiotic statement he has made.Yeah, not like I have a business degree or anything like that...oh wait, I do.
Oh well, every forum has their asshat.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 02, 2016, 07:21:06 PM
Post by: JeffDG on October 02, 2016, 07:34:29 PM
The real story here is how did the NY Times get this tax return?They may have gotten it legally.
Trump's ex-wife is also a party to the return and could have legally given them to the NYT for example.
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2016, 07:39:27 PM
The real story here is how did the NY Times get this tax return?
Well, let's see....Obama has had the IRS targeting conservative groups. The tax return was mailed anonymously to the Times, and it's a federal offense to publish an unauthorized tax return. So we have Obama's IRS, and of course the FBI will investigate.......oh wait.
Post by: asechrest on October 02, 2016, 08:47:25 PM
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump
"But Hillary!"
Post by: acrogimp on October 02, 2016, 10:14:41 PM
The real story here is how did the NY Times get this tax return?^^^ This ^^^
But again, who really cares, this is the Clinton Crime Family we are talking about.
'Gimp
Post by: JeffDG on October 03, 2016, 04:03:12 AM
Well, let's see....Obama has had the IRS targeting conservative groups. The tax return was mailed anonymously to the Times, and it's a federal offense to publish an unauthorized tax return. So we have Obama's IRS, and of course the FBI will investigate.......oh wait.Why, then, if the IRS did this did the NYT not get Trump's federal return, but state returns?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 03, 2016, 04:49:27 AM
Why, then, if the IRS did this did the NYT not get Trump's federal return, but state returns?
What better way to deflect blame?
:-)
Post by: Anthony on October 04, 2016, 01:51:33 AM
Post by: JeffDG on October 04, 2016, 03:43:03 AM
Why is this news? Corporations use the tax code every day. That's why there are tax laws. Did Trump adhere to the laws?The news, to me, is more about how this "successful businessman" lost nearly a billion dollars in one year.
Here's the thing...had Trump released his returns, he could have shaped the narrative of the release. Instead, he
Post by: Little Joe on October 04, 2016, 05:19:21 AM
Oftentimes, people sell at a loss to take advantage of the tax code. I do this almost every year (on an infinitely smaller scale).
Post by: Lucifer on October 04, 2016, 05:26:49 AM
He lost nearly a billion dollars twenty years ago. And he is still a billionaire. So he must not be a complete financial idiot.
Oftentimes, people sell at a loss to take advantage of the tax code. I do this almost every year (on an infinitely smaller scale).
Warren Buffett has written down larger losses, where is the outrage? The Clintons themselves used the tax code in the same manor ($700,000 loss) to offset taxes, where is the outrage? Major US corporations have written down even bigger losses, where is the outrage?
And yes, I'm guilty as well of taking a loss and writing it down to lower my taxes. It's in the tax code, and it's LEGAL.
Post by: Anthony on October 04, 2016, 07:30:47 AM
The news, to me, is more about how this "successful businessman" lost nearly a billion dollars in one year.
Trump owns many corporations. Corporations can lose money. It happens. At the time a lot of corporations lost a lot of money. Many never recovered. Trump's corporations did.
Jeff, you just have no credibility at this point.
Post by: Little Joe on October 04, 2016, 07:32:29 AM
The news, to me, is more about how this "successful businessman" lost nearly a billion dollars in one year.That is exactly what Hillary said.
Post by: Lucifer on October 04, 2016, 07:37:00 AM
That is exactly what Hillary said.
More appropriate, how come we don't hear about the $6 BILLION that the State Department LOST under the Hillary regime?
Post by: nddons on October 04, 2016, 09:17:54 AM
Trump owns many corporations. Corporations can lose money. It happens. At the time a lot of corporations lost a lot of money. Many never recovered. Trump's corporations did.Jeff has credibility with respect to Trump's utter failure to forestall this fake controversy by not addressing it in the primary be releasing his fucking returns. Now, Hillary has the momentum and Trump is on the defense with respect to this issue.
Jeff, you just have no credibility at this point.
And whether it's fake or not is irrelevant to the low information Hillary voter and the sycophants in the press.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 04, 2016, 09:44:07 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 04, 2016, 09:45:33 AM
Post by: acrogimp on October 04, 2016, 09:47:46 AM
That this story is about information Trump wrote about in Art of the Comeback, and is fully legal, and is instead not about how the NYT was able to illegally acquire and illegally publish tax return info from a private citizen, and why the FBI and DOJ are not all over this trying to prosecute what appears to be several gross violations of the law, just shows how successfully the Left has weaponized every aspect of our failing culture.
We are doomed.
'Gimp
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 04, 2016, 09:50:39 AM
Post by: Lucifer on October 04, 2016, 09:56:42 AM
What I like is how Hillary has taken these three pages and turned it into, "Trump hasn't paid taxes in two decades"
Her campaign media arm (known as the MSM) is all to happy to twist and promote such utter bullshit.
At least the Trump campaign has brought to light just how far involved the media is involved with the leftist progressive agenda. For that I applaud Trump for standing up against them.
Post by: JeffDG on October 04, 2016, 12:45:13 PM
He lost nearly a billion dollars twenty years ago. And he is still a billionaire. So he must not be a complete financial idiot.He's still an alleged billionaire.
Oftentimes, people sell at a loss to take advantage of the tax code. I do this almost every year (on an infinitely smaller scale).
Post by: Anthony on October 04, 2016, 01:45:14 PM
Jeff has credibility with respect to Trump's utter failure to forestall this fake controversy by not addressing it in the primary be releasing his fucking returns. Now, Hillary has the momentum and Trump is on the defense with respect to this issue.
And whether it's fake or not is irrelevant to the low information Hillary voter and the sycophants in the press.
Agree. Again, I think many people on this board would be a better candidate.
Post by: nddons on October 04, 2016, 02:40:03 PM
As I and others have said before, releasing tax returns is a lose-lose proposition for the Republicans. If Trump simply refuses he loses, if he releases he loses, if someone illegally acquires, shares and prints his return he loses - no win. Same thing Dingy Harry Reid did to Romney (and which Romney then dutifully did to Trump, loser).I don't disagree. It is a lose-lose. However, it is outside of Trump's control as to whether the left uses it as an issue - we ALL knew it would become an issue within the final weeks of the campaign.
That this story is about information Trump wrote about in Art of the Comeback, and is fully legal, and is instead not about how the NYT was able to illegally acquire and illegally publish tax return info from a private citizen, and why the FBI and DOJ are not all over this trying to prosecute what appears to be several gross violations of the law, just shows how successfully the Left has weaponized every aspect of our failing culture.
We are doomed.
'Gimp
But by releasing them a year ago, this would have been pre-historic news, and any resurrecting of it by Hillary would have been little more than a blip. Now, it consumed probably 10% of a debate in which he was leading on policy, and hours of coverage since the debate - stupid, stupid, stupid.
Post by: nddons on October 04, 2016, 02:41:50 PM
What I like is how Hillary has taken these three pages and turned it into, "Trump hasn't paid taxes in two decades"Exactly.
Post by: nddons on October 04, 2016, 02:44:02 PM
Agree. Again, I think many people on this board would be a better candidate.That's it. I'm writing in "Anthony" for president.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 04, 2016, 03:38:54 PM
The next person who says the phrase "fair share" is going to get their ass kicked by me, personally.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 04, 2016, 03:44:52 PM
Since when is it some sort of crime to take full advantage of the tax code that is imposed on all of us to pay the absolute minimum? Don't we collectively spend billions on tax accountants? I'm fucking sick up and fed with the likes of hypocrite Dumbocrats who rail against someone who is only playing by the rules.Exactly. It is, in fact, a respected and time-honored practice to pay as little in taxes as you can.
The next person who says the phrase "fair share" is going to get their ass kicked by me, personally.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 04, 2016, 03:45:37 PM
Post by: Gary on October 04, 2016, 04:05:20 PM
Since when is it some sort of crime to take full advantage of the tax code that is imposed on all of us to pay the absolute minimum? Don't we collectively spend billions on tax accountants? I'm fucking sick up and fed with the likes of hypocrite Dumbocrats who rail against someone who is only playing by the rules.
The next person who says the phrase "fair share" is going to get their ass kicked by me, personally.
Personally, the tax thing isn't that big of an issue. The Donald has the best and brightest tax accountants available. If there was an issue, the IRS would be all over it in a heartbeat. But all that being said, it was, IMHO, a strategic mistake for the Donald to not release them. As mentioned by another poster, it was a no-win on taxes, but he could have controlled the message far better and got it out of the way instead of leaving it out there that he can't release them due to audit - which is complete BS. So, the Dems have another avenue to attack him, one that could have been avoided.
I'd be happy to mention "fair share" and risk having my ass kicked by you, personally. My problem with "fair share" is it is completely un-definable, and it is getting annoying that it is brought up so often.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 04, 2016, 06:00:11 PM
Since when is it some sort of crime to take full advantage of the tax code that is imposed on all of us to pay the absolute minimum? Don't we collectively spend billions on tax accountants? I'm fucking sick up and fed with the likes of hypocrite Dumbocrats who rail against someone who is only playing by the rules.
The next person who says the phrase "fair share" is going to get their ass kicked by me, personally.
"fair share"
"fair share"
"fair share"
"fair share"
:)
Post by: Anthony on October 05, 2016, 04:28:38 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 05, 2016, 04:58:36 AM
I guarantee that Hillary and every other Democrat minimizes their taxes by using the tax code. What is "fair share"? Hillary probably thinks it is 90% of YOUR income, then she shelters her income in a foundation. What a joke.
In Taxachusetts, the state income tax form has a check box to select an optional (slightly) higher tax rate (5.2% vs 5.85%).
Very few people pay the higher rate. Among the tax tax tax hounds that don't pay the optional higher rate is lizzy warren.
Post by: Little Joe on October 05, 2016, 05:14:37 AM
Now, if he lied or cheated on his returns, that would be another matter.
What is the statute of limitations on tax fraud?
Post by: pilot_dude on October 05, 2016, 05:51:58 AM
Exactly. It is, in fact, a respected and time-honored practice to pay as little in taxes as you can.It's our duty to do so.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 05, 2016, 05:55:40 AM
"fair share"
"fair share"
"fair share"
"fair share"
:)
OK, get in line.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 05, 2016, 05:56:38 AM
What is the statute of limitations on tax fraud?
There isn't one.
Post by: Anthony on October 05, 2016, 06:11:49 AM
Post by: bflynn on October 05, 2016, 07:23:11 AM
Trump's income is described at 380 million/year. At that rate, a carry over loss of 980 million would mean that he might have avoided taxes for 2 years and paid less on year 3. Did you even stop and think rationally?
No, you listened to the liberal media tell you that "it's possible Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years" and you bought it without thinking. The NY Times is lying to you, what they said was untrue and could not be true. It is IMPOSSIBLE that Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years unless he didn't file taxes. And since he gets audited, we know that he did.
If this is the level of critical thinking in our country then it's already gone.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 05, 2016, 07:44:58 AM
Wow, so many of you have fallen for this. Do you realize that not only is there no actual proof that Trump didn't pay taxes, but also that at his income that 980 million carry over loss doesn't go more than 2-3 years?
Trump's income is described at 380 million/year. At that rate, a carry over loss of 980 million would mean that he might have avoided taxes for 2 years and paid less on year 3. Did you even stop and think rationally?
No, you listened to the liberal media tell you that "it's possible Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years" and you bought it without thinking. The NY Times is lying to you, what they said was untrue and could not be true. It is IMPOSSIBLE that Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years unless he didn't file taxes. And since he gets audited, we know that he did.
If this is the level of critical thinking in our country then it's already gone.
Not to mention all the other taxes he still had to pay regardless, one being the employer share of FICA which the "D" tell us all the time counts as taxes.
Post by: Little Joe on October 05, 2016, 08:55:59 AM
Wow, so many of you have fallen for this. Do you realize that not only is there no actual proof that Trump didn't pay taxes, but also that at his income that 980 million carry over loss doesn't go more than 2-3 years?I'm hoping to be corrected here, but I thought you could only carryover $3,000 in losses each year. What details have I forgotten, or what am I overlooking?
Trump's income is described at 380 million/year. At that rate, a carry over loss of 980 million would mean that he might have avoided taxes for 2 years and paid less on year 3. Did you even stop and think rationally?
No, you listened to the liberal media tell you that "it's possible Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years" and you bought it without thinking. The NY Times is lying to you, what they said was untrue and could not be true. It is IMPOSSIBLE that Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years unless he didn't file taxes. And since he gets audited, we know that he did.
If this is the level of critical thinking in our country then it's already gone.
Post by: nddons on October 05, 2016, 09:08:27 AM
All those so-called loop holes are there because politicians, for some reason, thought they were a good idea. Why would they be there if they didn't think they should be used.But the use of net operating losses is not a "loophole" (a term I despise and will argue doesn't exist, and I've been a tax CPA for over 30 years), it is pure economics. Nothing political about it.
Now, if he lied or cheated on his returns, that would be another matter.
What is the statute of limitations on tax fraud?
If your business lost $100,000 in year 1, and made $125,000 in profit in year 2, should you be paying taxes on the $125,000, or $25,000 after subtracting the prior year loss?
Post by: nddons on October 05, 2016, 09:10:22 AM
Wow, so many of you have fallen for this. Do you realize that not only is there no actual proof that Trump didn't pay taxes, but also that at his income that 980 million carry over loss doesn't go more than 2-3 years?I don't think any of us bought what the NYT was selling. Where did you get that?
Trump's income is described at 380 million/year. At that rate, a carry over loss of 980 million would mean that he might have avoided taxes for 2 years and paid less on year 3. Did you even stop and think rationally?
No, you listened to the liberal media tell you that "it's possible Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years" and you bought it without thinking. The NY Times is lying to you, what they said was untrue and could not be true. It is IMPOSSIBLE that Trump didn't pay taxes for 18 years unless he didn't file taxes. And since he gets audited, we know that he did.
If this is the level of critical thinking in our country then it's already gone.
Post by: nddons on October 05, 2016, 09:20:05 AM
I'm hoping to be corrected here, but I thought you could only carryover $3,000 in losses each year. What details have I forgotten, or what am I overlooking?That's only for long-term capital loss carry forwards. Such losses can offset 100% of capital gains in a carry forward year, plus $3,000. So if you had $50,000 of capital loss carry forwards, and had $40,000 in gains the next year, your Schedule D would show a net capital loss of $3,000, with $7,000 of the capital loss carry forward remaining for future years. (50-40-3=7)
A "net operating loss" is a different thing, and represents an "ordinary income" loss carry forward. (Actually, an NOL can be carried back 2 years, and carried forward 20 years.). It can offset ordinary income earned in those years, without a dollar limitation.
Post by: Little Joe on October 05, 2016, 05:04:02 PM
That's only for long-term capital loss carry forwards. Such losses can offset 100% of capital gains in a carry forward year, plus $3,000. So if you had $50,000 of capital loss carry forwards, and had $40,000 in gains the next year, your Schedule D would show a net capital loss of $3,000, with $7,000 of the capital loss carry forward remaining for future years. (50-40-3=7)Thanks.
A "net operating loss" is a different thing, and represents an "ordinary income" loss carry forward. (Actually, an NOL can be carried back 2 years, and carried forward 20 years.). It can offset ordinary income earned in those years, without a dollar limitation.
That's why I never regretted paying my CPA.
Although I do admit, I did resent the complexity of the tax code that required me to pay a good CPA.
Post by: Witmo on October 17, 2016, 10:25:49 AM
It's incredibly stupid.
Nobody subpoenaed his returns.
of course, if his tax returns would reveal illegal behavior, then equating his returns with her emails makes perfect stupid.
I'd be willing to bet that Trump's tax returns would not indicate anything illegal. What they would probably show is that he is not the brilliant businessman he portrays himself to be. Yes, he is smart enough to hire tax attorneys to take advantage of our convoluted tax laws and minimize his tax burden based on the hundreds of millions he's lost being a poor businessman. He's probably not the philanthropist he would like people to believe and this would be proven by his charitable deductions (or lack thereof). You have to ask yourself why he refuses to release tax returns that comply with the laws which I'm sure they do. They paint him in a light he doesn't want shed on his "public" persona. His willingness to release his returns provided HRC release emails that no longer exist just shows he'll never release his tax returns because they paint him in a lesser light than the Trump image he sells to the public. The IRS could announce the audit is over tomorrow and Trump would find some other excuse(s) not to release his tax returns.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 17, 2016, 10:43:54 AM
I'd be willing to bet that Trump's tax returns would not indicate anything illegal. What they would probably show is that he is not the brilliant businessman he portrays himself to be. Yes, he is smart enough to hire tax attorneys to take advantage of our convoluted tax laws and minimize his tax burden based on the hundreds of millions he's lost being a poor businessman. He's probably not the philanthropist he would like people to believe and this would be proven by his charitable deductions (or lack thereof). You have to ask yourself why he refuses to release tax returns that comply with the laws which I'm sure they do. They paint him in a light he doesn't want shed on his "public" persona. His willingness to release his returns provided HRC release emails that no longer exist just shows he'll never release his tax returns because they paint him in a lesser light than the Trump image he sells to the public. The IRS could announce the audit is over tomorrow and Trump would find some other excuse(s) not to release his tax returns.
It's such fun to make claims about other people without actual, ya know, evidence.
Having fun with strawmans are ya?
Post by: Witmo on October 18, 2016, 11:53:44 AM
Post by: Number7 on October 18, 2016, 08:28:54 PM
Hilary Clinton got filthy rich off of corruption and selling out the state department to high bidders.
The Clinton Campaign funneled money through the DNC to pay for thugs to commit violent acts against Trump supporters at Trump rallies and the head of the snake herself, Hilary had the gall to blame Trump and denounce the violence.
The hypocrisy of a progressive calling out Donald Trump for TRYING is as dishonest as the progressives who brag about the crimes they are getting away with.
Post by: Witmo on October 19, 2016, 09:40:49 AM
Post by: Number7 on October 19, 2016, 09:54:29 AM
Nothing new here.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 19, 2016, 10:19:48 AM
It's a matter of degree. Neither party is squeaky clean but Trump takes corruption and institutionalizes it. He publicly brags of bribing officials. He takes money from his foundation and illegally contributes to a State Attorney General who decides to look the other way in the Trump University controversy. He publicly incites followers to commit violent acts and then attacks the Democratic party for some fringe element doing the same and tries to connect this fringe element by innuendo to the main stream. He's a hypocrite who can't STFU no matter the consequences. He's taken lying to a whole new level. It's ludicrous to dismiss his level of lying by comparing it to the opposition--it's several orders of magnitude worse.
Are you on drugs?
Post by: bflynn on October 19, 2016, 10:25:06 AM
He publicly brags of bribing officials. He takes money from his foundation and illegally contributes to a State Attorney General who decides to look the other way in the Trump University controversy. He publicly incites followers to commit violent acts and then attacks the Democratic party for some fringe element doing the same and tries to connect this fringe element by innuendo to the main stream. He's a hypocrite who can't STFU no matter the consequences. He's taken lying to a whole new level. It's ludicrous to dismiss his level of lying by comparing it to the opposition--it's several orders of magnitude worse.
WTF are you on? You say that Donald is bribing officials because he donated money to the Democrat party? You know that would make those officials, INCLUDING HILLARY, guilty of taking bribes....right?
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 19, 2016, 10:44:22 AM
EVEY time a progressive loses an argument about Trump versus Hilary, the immediate fallback position is to claim both sides are guilty to try and hold some high ground.Stop calling these people "progressives." They are Totalitarians.
Nothing new here.
Post by: Anthony on October 19, 2016, 10:52:51 AM
Stop calling these people "progressives." They are Totalitarians.
Or in Italian, FASCISTI.
Post by: asechrest on October 19, 2016, 11:04:06 AM
Stop calling these people "progressives." They are Totalitarians.
Pretty soon, ya'll will run out of names and will have to start calling standard issue Democrats aliens. No other worldly label will be available.
[Edit] - Waiting for the illegal aliens joke. Walked right into it.
Post by: nddons on October 19, 2016, 11:23:11 AM
It's a matter of degree. Neither party is squeaky clean but Trump takes corruption and institutionalizes it. He publicly brags of bribing officials. He takes money from his foundation and illegally contributes to a State Attorney General who decides to look the other way in the Trump University controversy. He publicly incites followers to commit violent acts and then attacks the Democratic party for some fringe element doing the same and tries to connect this fringe element by innuendo to the main stream. He's a hypocrite who can't STFU no matter the consequences. He's taken lying to a whole new level. It's ludicrous to dismiss his level of lying by comparing it to the opposition--it's several orders of magnitude worse.Wow. Good thing the DNC talking points aren't copyrighted, or you'd be in trouble.
Post by: nddons on October 19, 2016, 11:28:47 AM
Pretty soon, ya'll will run out of names and will have to start calling standard issue Democrats aliens. No other worldly label will be available.Given that Hillary said that "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and OPEN BORDERS..." when speaking to a South American bank for a $225,000 fee, calling Democrats "Aliens" will likely be entirely appropriate, without the need to go to Area 51 for a definition of the term.
Post by: asechrest on October 19, 2016, 11:34:11 AM
Given that Hillary said that "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and OPEN BORDERS..." when speaking to a South American bank for a $225,000 fee, calling Democrats "Aliens" will likely be entirely appropriate, without the need to go to Area 51 for a definition of the term.
That assumes "Democrats" agree with her. Not necessarily a good assumption.
Post by: nddons on October 19, 2016, 11:41:22 AM
That assumes "Democrats" agree with her. Not necessarily a good assumption.Ha! You think it matters what "every day" democrats will think once Hillary gets elected and gets her open borders wet dream?
You will be as much of a bystander as a Tea Party Conservative like me.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 19, 2016, 11:52:26 AM
Pretty soon, ya'll will run out of names and will have to start calling standard issue Democrats aliens. No other worldly label will be available.
[Edit] - Waiting for the illegal aliens joke. Walked right into it.
It's not a name, it's an apt description. Look it up.
Post by: Anthony on October 19, 2016, 11:55:13 AM
That assumes "Democrats" agree with her. Not necessarily a good assumption.
But they will vote for her, en masse.
Post by: JeffDG on October 19, 2016, 12:46:33 PM
EVEY time a progressive loses an argument about Trump versus Hilary, the immediate fallback position is to claim both sides are guilty to try and hold some high ground.Every time someone points out what a despicable human being Trump is, Trumpalumpas instantly point out how a non-candidate (Bill) did the same thing.
Nothing new here.
Post by: Mase on October 19, 2016, 01:34:19 PM
Stop calling these people "progressives." They are Totalitarians.
They're STATISTS.
Post by: Number7 on October 19, 2016, 04:11:06 PM
Every time someone points out what a despicable human being Trump is, Trump fans instantly point out how a non-candidate (Bill) did the same thing.
Can't argue with that.
Post by: Little Joe on October 19, 2016, 04:17:20 PM
Every time someone points out what a despicable human being Trump is, Trumpalumpas instantly point out how a non-candidate (Bill) did the same thing.No, we point out how the potential future 1st man and co-President, did worse.
Post by: Anthony on October 20, 2016, 02:20:52 AM
No, we point out how the potential future 1st man and co-President, did worse.
We also point out how Hillary tried to cover up Bill's illegal activity, and then promoted it, and smeared the female victims.
Hey Jeff, it is not only about Bill, it is what HILLARY DID TO COVER IT UP, then PROMOTE IT, and SUPPORT IT, AND WHAT SHE DID TO THE VICTIMS. But you refuse to acknowledge that.
Post by: nddons on October 20, 2016, 08:55:24 AM
We also point out how Hillary tried to cover up Bill's illegal activity, and then promoted it, and smeared the female victims.I'd rather have Orange Julius in the Oval Office than Orange Jumpsuit.
Hey Jeff, it is not only about Bill, it is what HILLARY DID TO COVER IT UP, then PROMOTE IT, and SUPPORT IT, AND WHAT SHE DID TO THE VICTIMS. But you refuse to acknowledge that.