NYT Bomb: Trump Inherited $413 million - Committed Tax Fraud

[_Some Schmo]

3. President Donald Trump rallies a cheering mob in Mississippi while mocking a victim of sexual assault.

I just saw the video of this. Holy “F”, what a prick. No wonder his sheep take that route. The crowd actually cheered.

Christ, some of the people in the damned country.

[_canpakes]

Did I miss anything?

Well, Drumpf did have time to mention this was a scary time for men, what with the thousands of false accusations of sexual assault floating around.

I’m still waiting for some bright-eyed Trump supporter to tell me how a vote for either Republicans or Trump saves us from that fate. As if.

Geez, these people are both lemmings, and stupid enough to believe that non-Trumpers believe their bullshyte.

[Guest]

3. President Donald Trump rallies a cheering mob in Mississippi while mocking a victim of sexual assault.

I just saw the video of this. Holy “F”, what a prick. No wonder his sheep take that route. The crowd actually cheered.

Christ, some of the people in the damned country.

These guys are making up for the lost time when society frowned upon their tendency to act like obnoxious, self-pitying twits. Disadvantaged White Guys against the World; Brown People and Nazi Feminists are out to Get Us!, all that good stuff.

Snowflakes gotta snowflake. Now is their time.

[_EAllusion]

This day in Trump's America

1. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, US ambassador to NATO, just threatened Russia with a preemptive strike - an act that would all but assure WW III and the end of human civilization.

2. The New York Times releases a bombshell report detailing how President Donald Trump committed tax fraud for years for his father's empire which he coopted and took $413 million from him instead of just the $1 million he had always claimed. The myth of the self made billionaire exposed as a fraud.

3. President Donald Trump rallies a cheering mob in Mississippi while mocking a victim of sexual assault.

4. Just two days after refusing to answer under oath whether he was "Bart" Kavanaugh in High School, the New York Times releases a letter written by him in 1983 signed "Bart," wherein in claims he and his friends are "loud obnoxious drunks."

Did I miss anything?

The EPA is going with crank science on the saftey of radiation exposure that is going to lead to regs that expose people to more radiation. That story feels 4th tier today.

[_canpakes]

The EPA is going with crank science on the saftey of radiation exposure that is going to lead to regs that expose people to more radiation. That story feels 4th tier today.

Hey, that’s kinda like the Administration’s argument about how average temperatures will probably rise 7 degrees over the next century, so we may as well enact policies that will speed up that trend. Because idiocy.

Leave it to the intellectually-bereft, marriage-cheating, tax-dodging three-time bankrupt casino operator to promote these things, and his morally-indignant ‘fundamentalist’ toadies to hoist themselves upon a pike to defend them.

[_canpakes]

It would be a narrative mainstream media will go along with because it's on brand for her. This will contrast significantly with Clinton who somehow managed to get covered as the candidate of financial corruption in contrast to Trump. That was insane then and continues to be in hindsight.

The Trump Base won’t care that he ripped off as much cash as a quarter-million SNAP recipients receive in a whole year and that his graft means that they pay the difference from their own pockets. They’ll just guffaw over stale Trump jokes about ‘Pocohontas’, then proceed to shove their heads up their asses and pull the lever for him in the voting booth.

Who needs principles or integrity, anyway? Certainly not Trump voters in 2020.

[_EAllusion]

It would be a narrative mainstream media will go along with because it's on brand for her. This will contrast significantly with Clinton who somehow managed to get covered as the candidate of financial corruption in contrast to Trump. That was insane then and continues to be in hindsight.

The Trump Base won’t care that he ripped off as much cash as a quarter-million SNAP recipients receive in a whole year and that his graft means that they pay the difference from their own pockets. They’ll just guffaw over stale Trump jokes about ‘Pocohontas’, then proceed to shove their heads up their asses and pull the lever for him in the voting booth.

Who needs principles or integrity, anyway? Certainly not Trump voters in 2020.

The Trump base, people who seem to really like Trump, is smaller than the % of votes Hoover got against FDR and Warren or another Democrat doesn't need to win a single one of them to win an election comfortably. Expand to Trump voters in general and it's still not a daunting chunk of the population. Shore up Stein voters and a few Democratic leaning Johnson voters and that's ballgame even if every single Trump voter votes Trump again. That said, I disagree here in that I think some of Trump's appeal came in the form of the irrational belief that he would be incorruptible because of what need does a wealthy man like him need for more wealth? He campaigned in favor of reinstating Glass-Steagall, putting the screws to Goldman Sachs, etc. He tried to mine some of the still burning contempt for Wall Street. This likely had some appeal on its own, but was effective as a contrast to Clinton who was busy being covered by mainstream media sources with themes that made it easy to see her as likely corrupt and possibly the finance industry's pawn.

Trump not making good on this campaign posture does have some potential to lose some votes, especially if he's up against a candidate that presents a stark contrast. Not every Trump voter was Ajax.

[_canpakes]

The Trump base, people who seem to really like Trump, is smaller than the % of votes Hoover got against FDR and Warren or another Democrat doesn't need to win a single one of them to win an election comfortably. Expand to Trump voters in general and it's still not a daunting chunk of the population. Shore up Stein voters and a few Democratic leaning Johnson voters and that's ballgame even if every single Trump voter votes Trump again.

I’m having a little fun with my characterizations, but I’m not sure that I can be as much of an optimist as you. Pride in being Ignorant, Indignant and Injured is in vogue amongst far too many of my countrymen these days, and there are times when an otherwise rational electorate somewhere is swept up into stupid voting trends that last decades. There are more than a few historical examples to draw from.

That said, I disagree here in that I think some of Trump's appeal came in the form of the irrational belief that he would be incorruptible because of what need does a wealthy man like him need for more wealth?

Were this premise based more in fact than optimism, I suppose we’d see far fewer millionaires and billionaires, given that they’d have decided long before reaching those income levels that they already had enough in their bank accounts.

Trump not making good on this campaign posture does have some potential to lose some votes, especially if he's up against a candidate that presents a stark contrast. Note every Trump voter was Ajax.

I suspect that he could lose several thousand potential voters from his Base, but only because most of that number will have succumbed to beer and opioid overdoses.

[_subgenius]

1) Everything is an impeachable offense legally. It's only norms and political expediency that keep it from being used in that manner. But assuming you willing to talk about what reasonably ought to be the case then,

Everything? Not according to Article II Section 4.

2) The intended basis for impeachable offenses is a serious abuse of the public trust, of which this has a pretty strong case of being an example. It depends on where you come down on the debate of whether violations of the public trust have to relate to conduct in the current office. For me, if the president committed serious crimes in the past and is found out later on, that's enough even if it's not related to their presidential actions. One of the things Nixon was going to potentially go down on was tax evasion, though he assured us he was not a crook. Trump is a crook.

Public trust is not impeachable offense, get thee to a Constitution. See Article II Section 4.

3) Did you even read the evidence? Like, when you wrote the, "I don't know - super hard to prove guys" line, did it even occur to you to read what evidence exists as of right now?

I did browse evidence and it appears that Trump's father may have cause for concern, but even though evidence may suggest Trump may have assisted his family commit fraud, it looks difficult to even prove that he did.
But we know you guys' current modus operandi of allegation=guilt, so why are you even pretending to "discuss" anything?

[_Chap]

I did browse evidence and it appears that Trump's father may have cause for concern, but even though evidence may suggest Trump may have assisted his family commit fraud, it looks difficult to even prove that he did.

We are not the jury in a criminal trial of Donald Trump for tax fraud.

So the question before us is not 'Has it been proved, beyond a reasonable doubt. that the defendant Donald Trump committed tax fraud?'.

We are people living a world where it seems possible, even perhaps likely, that the man in charge of the largest military and the largest economy in the world may have been involved in massive tax fraud and lied about it repeatedly.

An appropriate question might then be:

'On the basis of what we know today, does the possibility that Trump committed tax fraud seem worthy of further and deeper investigation?'

Um ... yes, it does, doesn't it?