Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Lenonis]

Do I fact check every single thing I read? Of course not. You don't either.

I kind of suspect we are looking at different figures here but, I must confess I do not know enough about economics to sort it out without spending a lot of time on it, which I don't really care to do.

Nobody else's figures match those so, I don't know where you are getting that.

You can't even stay consistent in your defense when you are shown to be wrong. Which is it -- you know that no one else matches those figures because you've fact checked it or you haven't fact checked it because you don't want to spend the time?

C'mon -- at least try to post in good faith.

[Breccia]

The claim that he didn't pay taxes for 17 years, as evidenced by stolen documents they illegally printed that don't actually support the claim in any way.

*ahem*

Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found

Emphasis mine. Hilarity also mine.

The article is very specific that US law does, in fact, let you use losses 3 years behind and 15 years ahead.

Fact. Not slander, not libel.

EDIT: Remember the part where you didn't read the story? Now I get to say you didn't read the headline.

[Wildtree]

The Times used stolen documents to make a slanderous claim.

Can you point to the slanderous portion?


Pro tip: Don't use legal terms, if you don't understand the law...

[Tijuana]

You can't even stay consistent in your defense when you are shown to be wrong. Which is it -- you know that no one else matches those figures because you've fact checked it or you haven't fact checked it because you don't want to spend the time?

C'mon -- at least try to post in good faith.

I tried to fact check it, after being told I was wrong. But, I can find records of both figures, and I lack the expertise to say where the figures vary, or why one or the other would be a better figure.

You are quoting me out of order, in an attempt to make me look inconsistent. If you simply put them in the right order, you can see that I later agreed that I could not sort out the difference.

I'm glad you have time for this. I certainly am running out of it.

[jdbond592]

The claim that he didn't pay taxes for 17 years, as evidenced by stolen documents they illegally printed that don't actually support the claim in any way.

"The paper of record"....lawl

Well then. Trump can bring NYT to court and show all his tax records!

Oh wait It is only a libel when you can prove it otherwise. I actually love how NYT has grabbed Trump by his balls.

Only thing he has got is this law that says you can't release someone federal taxes without their permission.

[Noxx79]

I'm not upset. I just don't know why this person is quoting me, and then not saying what their point is.

The two things are not in conflict. The Times used stolen documents to make a slanderous claim. The documents are real, the accompanying claim is not true.

Why is that hard to understand? I don't see why you guys are confused. Why not just ask me a question if you seek an answer?

Have you read the article? It doesn't accuse Trump of not paying taxes. It says that's it's possible that it he wasn't because of that loss.

And it's not slander if it's true. The NYT didn't accuse Trump of anything illegal. In fact, the first sentence of the article says that he could have done this legally.

How is Trump LEGALLY not paying taxes slander anyway?

[Tijuana]

Can you point to the slanderous portion?


Pro tip: Don't use legal terms, if you don't understand the law...

I make no claims to being a lawyer. I am an upstanding person.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then. Trump can bring NYT to court and show all his tax records!

Oh wait It is only a libel when you can prove it otherwise. I actually love how NYT has grabbed Trump by his balls.

Only thing he has got is this law that says you can't release someone federal taxes without their permission.

Of course you love this. Authoritarians love it when the law is violated in their favor. Libel, slander, or not, they breached his confidentiality with stolen documents. I am no lawyer but I'm reasonably certain this results in a day in court for them. If not, holy shit what kind of society do we live in? It's just ok to steal confidential documents and print them with no recourse? Surely this is not how it works.

[Nfinitii]

She brings up a scandal, he responds with a scandal, what is wrong with that? Tit for tat. If she shuts up and plays nice so will he.

The problem with it is that's exactly where Clintons wants to be, they r used to fighting in the mud. If trump can stay on message he will crush her, just like the first 30 mins of the debate before holt started asking questions about trump scandals moving away from US issues, which is fine if he hit on some of Hillary's also but he didn't. Trump just needs to learn how to pivot and some debate techniques, he hasn't been doing this for years so learning a few tricks could go a long way.

[Breccia]

Also, as long as we're talking about the taxes, bear in mind, this is hardly the only year Trump lost money. He could have chained his major losses in a row and ended up not paying taxes pretty much ever...or even losing his own money, potentially.

It is wrong to assume that Trump's nearly billion-dollar loss came from his own money. Trump is the self-proclaimed "king of debt." Much of sophisticated tax planning has always involved getting tax breaks from "other people's money," a phrase of which Trump is fond. Banks, other lenders or investors could well have put up the money generating the losses that Trump is claiming on his own tax returns.

And I think we all know what will make people from saying "could have" and "potentially". Trump releasing his tax returns. He won't. Until then we can accuse him of basically anything we want.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh wait It is only a libel when you can prove it otherwise. I actually love how NYT has grabbed Trump by his balls.

Oh, they're not done. How about this First Amendment protected opinion piece?

This man is a brat whose money has stunted his maturation.

He shouldn’t be ushered into the White House; he should be laughed into hiding. His querulous nature shouldn’t be coddled; it should be crushed.

America is in need of a leader, not a puerile, sophomoric sniveler who is too easily baited and grossly ill-behaved.

Go to your gilded room, Donald. The adults need to pick a president.

[Orbitus]

Something something Glass Steagall was neutered under the Clinton administration.

I don't know if that's relevant but I heard it on the internet so maybe it's true that it caused the recession?

Something something, Glass-Steagal was partially repealed by a veto proof majority bill made by 3 Republicans. If you are going to blame someone, blame them and the people that voted on it. Called the Graham-Leach-Bliley act if you want to use the old Google to look it up.

[Breccia]

Libel, slander, or not, they breached his confidentiality with stolen documents. I am no lawyer but I'm reasonably certain this results in a day in court for them.

Maybe. But not for slander or libel. Because nobody's accusing them of that.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

You can't even stay consistent in your defense when you are shown to be wrong. Which is it -- you know that no one else matches those figures because you've fact checked it or you haven't fact checked it because you don't want to spend the time?

C'mon -- at least try to post in good faith.

The problem is that the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Analysis are posting slightly different numbers. Yet even by the Department of Commerce numbers, which are lower, the Obama administration is still not the worst, as he repeatedly claimed.

[Orbitus]

Play nice with Vyxn's alt.

Oh that's Vyxn? No wonder they don't make any sense and they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about.

[Tijuana]

Also, as long as we're talking about the taxes, bear in mind, this is hardly the only year Trump lost money. He could have chained his major losses in a row and ended up not paying taxes pretty much ever...or even losing his own money, potentially.

It is wrong to assume that Trump's nearly billion-dollar loss came from his own money. Trump is the self-proclaimed "king of debt." Much of sophisticated tax planning has always involved getting tax breaks from "other people's money," a phrase of which Trump is fond. Banks, other lenders or investors could well have put up the money generating the losses that Trump is claiming on his own tax returns.

And I think we all know what will make people from saying "could have" and "potentially". Trump releasing his tax returns. He won't. Until then we can accuse him of basically anything we want.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh, they're not done. How about this First Amendment protected opinion piece?

This man is a brat whose money has stunted his maturation.

He shouldn’t be ushered into the White House; he should be laughed into hiding. His querulous nature shouldn’t be coddled; it should be crushed.

America is in need of a leader, not a puerile, sophomoric sniveler who is too easily baited and grossly ill-behaved.

Go to your gilded room, Donald. The adults need to pick a president.

And Hillary wants to make no major changes to the tax code.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe. But not for slander or libel. Because nobody's accusing them of that.

You just said earlier that Trump did and I was quoting him. Which is it?

[NED funded]

Something something Glass Steagall was neutered under the Clinton administration.

I don't know if that's relevant but I heard it on the internet so maybe it's true that it caused the recession?

It's false.

[Breccia]

You just said earlier that Trump did and I was quoting him. Which is it?

Uh...when? Are you talking about this?

Wow. I mean, you threaten to sue a newspaper for publishing factually true information about you one time three times, and they fucking go POSTAL on you. Literally!

His first two lawsuits never materialized, so their charge is not relevant. He has not threatened to sue for libel, or slander, this time. And I really don't think I said he did. In fact, "publishing factually true information" is kind of the opposite of libel.

EDIT: Look, even if I did say it -- and I don't think I did -- but even if I did, my opinion isn't the one that matters. Trump has threatened to sue and called the forms illegally obtained. Neither he, nor his campaign staff, have yet to call them false. There is no slander or libel lawsuit threat for this case.

By the way, the other two were Sept 17th and May.

[Kujako]

And Hillary wants to make no major changes to the tax code.

So her web page, speeches and policy papers are all lies?

[Wildtree]

I make no claims to being a lawyer. I am an upstanding person.

Not all lawyers are shady.

Libel, slander, or not, they breached his confidentiality with stolen documents.

Let's assume that the documents were stolen (we'd need proof or at least evidence for that to be the case though)...
The Times still didn't breach a damn thing.
They've done their journalistic duty, which is granted in the first amendment, and with that did not break any law.

Did the Guardian face ramifications for reporting Snowdon's whistle blowing?
Think again here.
If a newspaper does not face any consequences for releasing sensitive federal information, that relates to national security, do you really believe a newspaper faces consequences for reporting about a narcissistic monkey's tax returns?

[Orbitus]

The claim that he didn't pay taxes for 17 years, as evidenced by stolen documents they illegally printed that don't actually support the claim in any way.

"The paper of record"....lawl

Again, it is only slander if it isn't true. If it isn't true, then the documents are fake. If the documents are fake then they weren't illegally obtained. The only way he can fix this, is if he releases his tax returns. If he doesn't, then the documents were true until proven otherwise.

[Breccia]

So her web page, speeches and policy papers are all lies?

I'm fairly sure she wants to raise taxes on herself.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/pf/t...clinton-taxes/

The top 1% of households -- defined as bringing in more than $730,000 a year -- would see their tax burden go up by more than $78,000 on average, according to an analysis of Clinton's original tax plan from the Tax Policy Center.

I'm reasonably sure I don't need to cite a source to say Clinton is in the top 1%.