New York Times: Tax documents show Trump businesses lost more than $1 billion in a decade

  
Via:  john-russell  •  2 months ago  •  203 comments

New York Times: Tax documents show Trump businesses lost more than $1 billion in a decade
In 1990 and 1991, Trump's core business losses were more than $250 million each year -- more than double those of the closest taxpayers in those years, the Times reports.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump's businesses reported losses of $1.17 billion from 1985 to 1994, The New York Times reported Tuesday, citing information from tax documents from those years.


It appears Trump lost more money than nearly any other individual US taxpayer year after year, the Times reports, according to the 10 years of tax information the newspaper acquired.


Trump ran for president branding himself as a self-made billionaire, touting his financial success, but he has been steadfast in his refusal to release his tax returns to the public, despite mounting pressure from Congress. On Monday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin formally denied a request from the House Ways and Means Committee for Trump's last six years of tax returns, a period not covered by the documents reported by The Times on Tuesday.



In 1990 and 1991, Trump's core business losses were more than $250 million each year -- more than double those of the closest taxpayers in those years, the Times reports.


Trump lost so much money that he avoided paying income taxes for eight of the 10 years, according to the newspaper.



The Times previously reported that Trump helped "his parents dodge taxes" in the 1990s, including "instances of outright fraud," and that he and his siblings helped his parents hide millions of dollars in gifts in a "sham corporation."


Trump, starting at the age of 3, received at least $413 million in today's dollars from his father's real estate empire, the Times previously reported.




Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago

I think eventually Trump will end up in prison, unless he runs out the clock and dies of natural causes first. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

I prefer the former but I'll take the latter.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
I think eventually Trump will end up in prison, unless he runs out the clock and dies of natural causes first. 

Well, he is a modern day Al Capone so maybe while he's in prison his syphilis will also progress and he'll die either in prison or shortly after being released to a mental hospital due to his disease ravaged brain.

The billion in losses proves Trump is not only a monumental narcissist but also one of the biggest losers in history. He's nothing but a fraud and survives not on business acumen but on lying to whoever the next investor is and suing the last investors he screwed over into silence.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

You do realize this dud of a story is about something that happened almost 30 years ago??

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    2 months ago
You do realize this dud of a story is about something that happened almost 30 years ago??

Do you realize that Trump built his entire personal on the BS in 'The Art of the Deal" which he touts ad nauseam?  

 
 
 
lib50
1.3.2  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @1.3    2 months ago

You do realize this is probably still happening right now?   Only one way to prove it, his word means nothing.  Actually if he says he did it he didn't, and vice versa.  That's how he lies.  He conned everybody (who wasn't paying attention).  Put up the proof or he's still doing it.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.3.1    2 months ago

Perhaps you missed the sequel to the Art of the Deal.   That's about as public as it gets yet you have a pandemic of media douchebags acting like it's something new.

Pretty fucking laughable by any objective standard.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.3.3    2 months ago
Perhaps you missed the sequel to the Art of the Deal. 

Though I am a bibliophile, no book with Trump's name on it will ever be on my list.

I'm reading D.H. Lawrence's The Rainbow right now. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3.5  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.3.4    2 months ago

 If you’re capable of referencing the Art of the Deal, logic dictates that you would be equally capable of being aware of the Art of the Comeback.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.3.1    2 months ago
'Do you realize that Trump built his entire personal on the BS in 'The Art of the Deal" which he touts ad nauseam?'

And now the actual author of the book thinks it should not be re-published or branded fiction.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.7  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.3.5    2 months ago
If you’re capable of referencing the Art of the Deal, logic dictates that you would be equally capable of being aware of the Art of the Comeback.

Really? How is that logical?

As I said, I'm a bibliophile but I'd never say I've read or even reviewed every book on any given subject. As an example, years ago I read Toland's 2 volume Hitler bio. It is the only Hitler bio I will ever read. 

Additionally, Trump proclaims ad nauseam that, all evidence to the contrary, he's the 'best deal maker' but I can't say that I've ever heard him say that he made the 'best comeback'. Maybe that's because he bankrupted 2 more of his casino corps. after his 'comeback'. 

 
 
 
cjcold
1.3.8  cjcold  replied to  Dulay @1.3.1    2 months ago
'The Art of the Deal"

Which he wasn't even smart enough to write.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
1.3.9  SteevieGee  replied to  Dulay @1.3.4    2 months ago
Though I am a bibliophile, no book with Trump's name on it will ever be on my list.

The only book that Trump really actually wrote is this one.

https://www.amazon.com/Whose-Boat-This-Aftermath-Hurricane-ebook/dp/B07HPFY5TM

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.3.7    2 months ago

I'll go ahead and apply the same standard to you that you apply to Trump.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.3.11  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.3.10    2 months ago
I'll go ahead and apply the same standard to you that you apply to Trump.

Well gee FW, the only 'great deal' I've ever claimed to make was an exchange for a day of landscaping for a brand new washer and dryer. 

Apply away. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dulay @1.3.11    2 months ago

Trump's casino losses and his other financial troubles were about as public as it gets yet you have a pandemic of media douchebags acting like it's something new.  And of course there are others who are woefully ignorant or choose to pretend they were unaware of such events.

Why is that?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.3.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.3.12    2 months ago
Why is that?

Do they have an agenda? //S//

Seriously, most of the brain dead posting about Trump and his taxes have no idea of GAAP or the IRS legality of loss carry forward or backward.  But then why would they as they have no idea of business operations other than cashing the check someone with much more business smarts gives them for their labor.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.4  tomwcraig  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

First there is a MASSIVE mistake here.  It talks about Trump's business taxes and then claims he lost the money.  A business only loses money due to an individual IF and only IF they are committing embezzlement.  In truth business can be successful even if losing money due to depreciation and investments and other things that are part of write-offs.  A loss on tax forms means nothing regarding profitability.  It only means that the write-offs were greater than the taxable profits./income.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.1  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.4    2 months ago
First there is a MASSIVE mistake here. It talks about Trump's business taxes and then claims he lost the money.

tom, the information is about Trump's PERSONAL taxes. He uses his 'business' losses to zero out his 'personal' income. Neither he or you can have it both ways. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.4.2  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @1.4.1    2 months ago

Did you bother reading the first line of the story?  It says Trump's businesses, then later it says Trump's personal taxes.  So, which is it that they are talking about.  You can use business losses as tax write-offs on personal taxes.

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.4.3  Don Overton  replied to  tomwcraig @1.4    2 months ago

Do you bother to read about what has been given you so you don't have to make things up

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.4  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.4.2    2 months ago
So, which is it that they are talking about.

tom, a business set up as a 'partnership'. like Trump org and the plethora of other subsidiaries, does not pay taxes, the partners pay taxes on their percentage of the business. 

As the Times article states: 

At his nadir, in the post-recession autumn of 1991, Mr. Trump testified before a congressional task force, calling for changes in the tax code to benefit his industry. “The real estate business — we’re in an absolute depression,” Mr. Trump told the lawmakers, adding: “I see no sign of any kind of upturn at all. There is no incentive to invest. Everyone is doing badly, everyone.” Everyone, perhaps, except his father, Fred Trump.
While Donald Trump reported hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for 1990 and 1991, Fred Trump’s returns showed a positive income of $53.9 million, with only one major loss: $15 million invested in his son’s latest apartment project.

See there tom. Daddy claimed a loss on his PERSONAL income taxes, for his investment in a partnership with his incompetent son's project. 

 
 
 
cjcold
1.4.5  cjcold  replied to  Don Overton @1.4.3    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
tomwcraig
1.4.6  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @1.4.4    2 months ago

Funny thing here is that a Tax Attorney/CPA stated the same points I made in an interview with Graham Ledger on The Daily Ledger Wednesday 5/8/2019.

EDIT: However, he or Graham made the additional point that these tax returns were from the 1980s with much different rules regarding losses and write-offs than we have today.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.4.7  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @1.4.6    2 months ago
Funny thing here is that a Tax Attorney/CPA stated the same points I made in an interview with Graham Ledger on The Daily Ledger Wednesday 5/8/2019.

Which is relevant how? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
Trump businesses lost more than $1 billion in a decade

and Paris Hilton made a sex tape and Bill Clinton abused an intern with a cigar, what else didn't you know.

 
 
 
lib50
1.5.1  lib50  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5    2 months ago

A squirrel run up your pants leg?  Paris Hilton and Bill Clinton?  Really?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.2  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @1.5.1    2 months ago

Really, WTF does that have to do with anything?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.2    2 months ago

In other words--this is OLD NEWS dredged up yet once again because Democrats don't really have the cojones to impeach Trump---they just want to bray about it.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5.4  gooseisgone  replied to  lib50 @1.5.1    2 months ago

As the Texan1211 put it, this is OLD NEWS, do some searching it's not hard or just continue to look like idiots.

 
 
 
lib50
1.5.5  lib50  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5.4    2 months ago

It's not old news when he claims today to be a successful businessman.  Like he did when he wrote his book.  Right in the middle of all of his losses.  Totally relevant today because a lot of people voted for him because he claimed to be so rich and successful!  And he is STILL not releasing current returns.  How did he get all those loans when he was such a loser?  What is he hiding?  He has no right to deny congress their Constitutional right to get them. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5.6  gooseisgone  replied to  lib50 @1.5.5    2 months ago
It's not old news when he claims today to be a successful businessman. 

This was 30 years ago.  Many, many, many successful businessmen fail and rebuild. Hell....Trump made money on his failure.

https://magamedia.org/2019/05/09/the-art-of-the-comeback/

http://www.ontheissues.org/Art_of_Comeback.htm

 
 
 
lib50
1.5.7  lib50  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5.6    2 months ago

Lol, the point is, you STILL don't know if he is successful!  He lied in the past.  Of course he is still lying.  If he wasn't, he would be able to prove it!  These tax returns are the most pertinent we have so far, although looks like some more current state returns might be released.  He is the most unsuccessful businessman.  Until he proves it.  We don't take liars at their word.  It matters, and its shocking how many republicans are defending this con. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.5.8  MrFrost  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5    2 months ago
what else didn't you know.

That trump raped a 13 year old girl in front of at least three witnesses. Well, I knew that one, maybe you didn't. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.5.9  MrFrost  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5    2 months ago
and Paris Hilton made a sex tape and Bill Clinton abused an intern with a cigar

Paris Hilton also has a new perfume coming out next year, it's called, "Essence of Ho". 

Bill Clinton? Does this mean you won't be voting for him ~30 years ago? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.10  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.5.8    2 months ago

Prove it. Where are the charges?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.11  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @1.5.8    2 months ago

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

logo.svg

Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Alexander Acosta is grilled over plea deal at budget hearing | Miami Herald

LATEST NEWS

Jeffrey Epstein prosecutor Alexander Acosta is grilled over plea deal at budget hearing

APRIL 03, 2019 08:37 PM, UPDATED APRIL 05, 2019 06:16 PM
Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, despite sexually abusing dozens of underage girls according to police and prosecutors. His victims have never had a voice, until now. BY EMILY MICHOT | JULIE K. BROWN
WASHINGTON

Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta faced congressional scrutiny Wednesday over whether he is able to safeguard children from illegal labor practices and combat human trafficking, as several lawmakers grilled him over a lenient plea deal he gave to a wealthy New York businessman suspected of operating a child sex trafficking ring.

1134736534
Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta testifies Wednesday, April 3, 2019, in Washington during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Labor Department budget for Fiscal Year 2020. He was also questioned on the Jeffrey Epstein case involving sex abuse of underage girls. He handled the case while U.S. attorney for Southern Florida. Al Drago GETTY IMAGES

Acosta, in his first appearance before lawmakers since the scandal over the plea intensified after a series of articles in the Miami Herald called Perversion of Justice, appeared before a budget appropriations subcommittee, ostensibly to testify about the Labor Department’s 2020 budget. The budget calls for a 10 percent cut in programs affecting millions of American workers, as well as rollbacks in protections for those suffering from disabilities, a reduction in prison re-entry programs and an easing of restrictions on corporations that fail to pay minimum wages.

Acosta defended the cuts, saying the department’s agenda provides “greater investment in programs that work, eliminates programs that do not, and generally bolsters opportunities for working Americans through common-sense reforms.’’

Democratic lawmakers were concerned about a number of program cuts. Among them: a significant decrease in programs that combat human trafficking.

That opened the door for several of them to question Acosta about a sex-trafficking case he handled when he was a federal prosecutor in Miami a decade ago.

“This is not the first time you have ignored human trafficking,’’ said Massachusetts Democrat Katherine Clark.

0405_clark-01-1000x640.jpg
Katherine Clark is a Democratic U.S. representative from Massachusetts.

Acosta, while U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, helped orchestrate an unusually light plea deal with Jeffrey Epstein, a politically connected New York hedge fund manager accused in 2005 of molesting and sexually assaulting dozens of girls, mostly ages 13 to 16, at his mansion in Palm Beach.

Instead of going to prison like most sex offenders in Florida, Epstein was given federal immunity and was allowed to plead guilty to two prostitution charges in state court. A number of other people involved in his operation were also immunized and never charged.

He served 13 months in the county jail. But had Acosta prosecuted him on sex-trafficking charges, Epstein could have gone to prison for the rest of his life.

In February of this year, a federal judge ruled that the deal that Acosta arranged was improper because federal prosecutors failed to comply with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act. It is not clear what happens next.

Frankel%20Headshot%20Hi%20Res.jpg
Lois Frankel, a U.S. representative from West Palm Beach, said at a congressional subcommittee hearing on April 3, 2019, in Washington that many in her community are upset with Alexander Acosta’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

The deal, signed in 2007, was done in secret, and it was sealed so that no one could know how many girls Epstein abused or who else was involved in his scheme. Moreover, Acosta’s staff agreed to demands by Epstein’s lawyers that the victims not be made aware of the federal non-prosecution agreement until after it was signed and executed.

“The judge found you broke the law, Mr. Acosta, when you chose not to tell the victims about this deal and you gave them the impression that the investigation was ongoing,’’ said Clark at the hearing. “Was the judge right?’’

Acosta attempted to pivot, but Clark continued. “I asked you a yes or no question,’’ she demanded.

Rep. Lois Frankel, a Democrat whose constituents are in Palm Beach, quizzed Acosta about how it was that a sex abuser got off so easy.

“Many people in my community are upset that you allowed a sexual predator on the loose,’’ Frankel said. She is among a group of lawmakers who have asked for Acosta to resign. The Department of Justice is investigating the case to determine whether Acosta and other prosecutors committed any wrongdoing.

Acosta has never said why the deal was kept under wraps. At the hearing Wednesday, Acosta told lawmakers what he has repeatedly said for years: The deal ensured Epstein went to jail and had to register as a sex offender.

1134736564
U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Washington Republican, questions Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta as he testifies Wednesday in Washington during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the Labor Department budget. Al DragoGETTY IMAGES

“Let me just say I understand the frustration, but if the state prosecuted him, he was going to get off entirely …it was the work of our office that resulted in him going to jail and it was the work of our office that made it so the world was put on notice that he is a sex offender.’’

One person involved in the case, who didn’t get the notice, however, was Palm Beach Sheriff Ric Bradshaw, who ran the jail. In his first comments on the controversial case, Bradshaw, in a wide-raging interview on Miami’s WLRN last week, said Epstein met the criteria for a liberal work release program, which meant he spent very little time in jail.

He was allowed to leave the county jail six days a week, and have his private driver take him to his office in downtown West Palm Beach, where he spent up to 12 hours a day.

“All we did was house him,’’ Bradshaw told Luis Hernandez, host of the station’s Sundial program. “He met the criteria for work release. He was not adjudicated as a violent sex offender — he wasn’t even adjudicated as a sex offender.’’

At the end of the congressional hearing, Republican Tom Cole, the ranking member of the committee, commended Acosta for the work he has done as labor secretary.

“You’re a person of great integrity and great skill…you have more than done your job,’’ Cole said.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.12  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @1.5.8    2 months ago

Why Is this Being Hidden From Us? Trump Has Admitted Close Ties To Pedophile Jerry Epstein And The CFR

EpsteinMugShotSexOffender-420x272.pnghttp://aun-tv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EpsteinMugShotSexOffender-150x97.png 150w, http://aun-tv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EpsteinMugShotSexOffender.png 627w" sizes="(max-width: 420px) 100vw, 420px" >

Before notorious pedophile Jerry Epstein was convicted and imprisoned for having sex with underage girls, Donald Trump went on the record that he has been a friend of Epstein for 15 years and was very aware of his penchant for females who are young. Trump said  he and Epstein had things in common in terms of their tastes for the opposite sex.

We discovered this while researching the recent rape charges against Trump that named Epstein and Trump as being involved in the rape of a 13 year old girl. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-rejects-categorically-false-charges-raping-teen-girl-article-1.2618137 

We can not verify the rape charges, they may be totally bogus,  but we found a New York Magazine article in which Trump gave an interview about his long term friend Jerry Epstein.  Here is the key part of that article.

Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery:

He’s pals with a passel of Nobel Prize–winning scientists, CEOs like Leslie Wexner of the Limited, socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, even Donald Trump.

Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

The same article describes Epstein as follows:  He spends an hour and fifteen minutes every day doing advanced yoga with his personal instructor, who travels with him wherever he goes. He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commision and the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

Not only does Trump’s friend Jerry Epstein have a high opinion of the the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), Trump himself has gone on the record on TV that he has a very high regard for the president of the CFR, Richard Haas:

Haass_l_2015.jpgCFR President Haas

TrumpAloneSpeakingNarrow.pnghttp://aun-tv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TrumpAloneSpeakingNarrow-135x150.png 135w" sizes="(max-width: 195px) 100vw, 195px" >

 

 

 

 

Donald Trump

Mr. Trump made a laudatory statement about Mr. Haass in an appearance Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“I respect Richard Haass, who’s on your show a lot,” Mr. Trump said. “And I like him a lot. I have a few people that I really like and respect.’

The CFR is considered the epicenter of the “Establishment” in America. The New York Times has reported that all major presidential candidates have had “private briefing sessions” with CFR president Haas, with only two exceptions, Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz.

Mr. Haass, as president of an independent nonpartisan organization, cannot make an endorsement in the presidential race, Ms. Zoric’s statement said. She said that he had offered to hold briefings with all candidates from both parties, and that so far Senator Marco Rubio, Jim Webb, Hillary Clinton, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and Jeb Bush had made appearances at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ms. Zoric added that the Trump-Haass meeting was held in August.  http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/03/donald-trump-held-briefing-with-richard-haass-head-of-council-on-foreign-relations/

Whereas Ted Cruz has publicly denounced the CFR, his wife Heidi has been a member of the CFR!  That is out in the open, most curious and that has been talked about a lot. The Trump-CFR connection is out in the open but not talked about in the media.  Why?

We have found a video that starts off with Trump naming CFR head Haas as the first person that he would get his foreign policy from, during a debate!  After 3:30 mark the video is obviously biased in favor of Cruz, but it does have significant video of Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz talking about the CFR before that. It is good source material in regard to CFR but leaves out the Heidi connection.

This iframe is not allowed

Why is this being hidden from us? Both the CFR and Epstein connections?

The Epstein friendship was revealed in a major magazine that Trump once tried to buy.  Yet even though Trump has attacked Bill Clinton for being involved with Epstein, the record shows that Trump is even more involved with Epstein than Clinton is!

 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.12    2 months ago
We can not verify the rape charges, they may be totally bogus

Tada !

Now you know why this isn't a "Headliner" !

Besides, if you were able to find it, the hiding spot musta sucked ! jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.14  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.13    2 months ago

There's lots more where that came from but I'm unable to post.  

There's lots of underage girls who have submitted complaints and they were all uniform.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.15  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.14    2 months ago
There's lots of underage girls who have submitted complaints and they were all uniform.  

Bill Clinton Syndrome ?

he was AOK though. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

"There's lots more where that came from but I'm unable to post."

More possibly "Unconfirmed" stuff ?

Just asking. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.16  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.15    2 months ago

Bill Clinton doesn't have a history of being fond of/raping underage girls like the turd Rump 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.5.17  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.16    2 months ago
Bill Clinton doesn't have a history of being fond of/raping underage girls

No. The left has a history of turning a blind eye to the rapist in chief Bill Clinton and his enabling wife...

ormer President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” -- even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known

You can view pervy Clinton on the flight manifest..

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.18  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.16    2 months ago
Bill Clinton doesn't have a history of being fond of/raping underage girls like the turd Rump 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Lolita Express !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.19    2 months ago

You should do your homework.

The suit has been dropped.

Where are the CURRENT SUITS?

Where are the INDICTMENTS?

Where are the CONVICTIONS?

Without ANY of those three things, there is NOTHING< NADA< ZIP< ZILCH.

Try again with something a little more accurate next time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.21  Tessylo  replied to  KDMichigan @1.5.17    2 months ago
Per Dulay:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310835987/Donald-Trump-Lawsuit

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen

When you find any lawsuits against Bill Clinton for raping/passing around to his freak pervert friends - 3 year olds, please cite them.  

Ivanka was also a model for John Casablanca - and he has a history of also raping children - I wonder if Casablanca and Rump shared Ivanka?

Kim_13_small.jpg?1502509576
Me, age 13. I had no idea what I was "selling" in this picture.

Two weeks ago I wrote a diary/blog (hereinafter “story”) for Daily Kosabout writers who wrote about Trump Model Management’s alleged sex trafficking, and Donald Trump’s alleged personal abuse of under-aged girls.  Specifically, I wanted to know why many of the writers and journalists stopped writing and reporting on this topic after the election.  I began searching for and reaching out to these people.  Swedish Jew Fish (“Rebecca”), a Daily Kos writer, published a well-researched, thorough story about Trump Model Management (“TMM”) and other modeling agencies that abused under-aged girls called, “We All Knew About the Trafficking (Part 1)

Rebecca continued to write after the election and, while her other stories were related to “We All Knew . . .Part 1,” part two was never published.  In the comments after one such late-2016 offering Rebecca said, “This doesn’t change my intentions to continue the series and just to clarify this is NOT part 2.”  By the end of 2016, Rebecca appeared stopped writing on this topic altogether.  Other writers and outspoken critics of TMM also seemed to go quiet at the end of 2016.  Quotes like this and similar feelings expressed by others were disconcerting:

“I’ve been destroyed by the things I’ve researched and written about Trump. And bear in mind there are so many things I couldn’t even publish because of the backlash, the threats, the harassment, stalking and abuse I got in response to my second diary.” ~Swedish Jew Fish (Rebecca), November, 2016, “A Place for Heartbroken Democrats” Comment Section

Prior to my first story, I reached out to Rebecca via Daily Kos, on Twitter and via FaceBook for comment as to why she stopped writing about TMM after the election.  I did not hear from her then, but I am very happy that Rebecca responded to my story in the “Comments” section, saying:

“No worries I'm alive and well. I was going through a lot in my personal life while I was writing that series and honestly just had to take a break. Obviously the election results came as a shock too and made me re-evaluate what I was willing to put out there...it's one thing when you are writing about a clown candidate who you presume is going down in history as the butt of a joke, quite another when that person has some serious power. Also I got a lot of blowback  from that post, basically a bunch of reddit/4chan trolls, but it was jarring and scary.

I do have quite a bit more written and may publish it in the future. Thanks for caring- both about me and this story”

~Swedish Jew Fish (Rebecca) 7/30/2017 In Reply to Justice for Jane Does

Rebecca’s response also garnered grateful responses from her supporters and followers like as Matt Z (who gave me permission to use his heart-felt, sensitive comment):

“Swedish Jewfish, I want to let you know how much your last two diaries on feeling suicidal after the election meant to me. Part of why I’m still alive is because you gave me and others who felt like killing ourselves a place to grieve and be heard. I will be forever grateful for that.” ~Matt Z

I feel passionately about exposing the sexploitation of children through modeling because I lived it. In the 1980s, I was a child model for Donald Trump’s buddy, fellow-exploiter and accused pedophile, (the late) John Casablancas.  As they say, “You're known by the company you keep,” and Donald Trump has kept company with — to use his words — some “bad hombres,” and  John Casablancas was one of the worst.  At age thirteen, I joined John Casablancas/Elite (“JCE”) in a small-ish market and started modeling bathing suits and lingerie.

trump-lisa-boyne-up-skirts-1476396854-coThe late John Casablancas and Donald Trump, Getty Images

I had experiences — and observed other models’ experiences — at JCE that were similar to those exposed by Rebecca, other writers, journalists and by model advocates like RACHEL BLIAS.  The picture below is from the JCE catalog, taken when I first joined the agency.  Although it was shot within the same twelve month period as the title picture above, the light in the eyes of the girl going into JCE gave way to a certain darkness that often covers the faces of girls who have been exploited.

Kim_smaller.jpg?1502516394

Writers and journalists who expose the modeling industry’s insipid practices are sometimes the victims’ only champions, as many child sex abuse victims find it too embarrassing or too painful to come forward and speak out, even as adults.  The cultural belief that girls “ask for it” by looking seductive also drives victims into hiding.  

I communicated with a prolific writer who was and is an inspiration to me, and who has spoken out against model abuse for years.  He told me that stopped writing about Trump Model Management because he felt he had aired everything verifiable that he'd learned through his reporting on the issue and said that it would be “difficult, if not impossible, to convince any of Donald Trump’s victims to go on the record.”  He said he was “also disgusted by the propensity of Trump fans to accept, and even cheer, his behavior however outrageous, disgusting or even illegal.”  The writer requested to remain anonymous.  

Kim_2_smaller.jpg?1502509337

When society turns a “deaf ear” to those who speak out against sexual exploitation and abuse, engages in victim blaming or gives credence to the erroneous belief that men “can’t help themselves,” it compounds the horror that is child sex abuse.  When a man like Donald Trump — who openly and overtly harasses women — is elevated to (and is allowed to maintain) the position of President of the United States, it gives tacit permission for others to engage in this behavior, and that is unconscionable.  Sex Trafficking-disguised-as-modeling and used to lure young girls into sexual servitude is a malevolent practice perpetrated by men (and a few women) in the highest and lowest echelons of society and by some of the most powerful people in our country; one of them may even be the President.  To this former child model, it is entirely conceivable. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.22  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.21    2 months ago
When you find any lawsuits against Bill Clinton, please cite them. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/bill-clinton-facing-four-sexual-assault-lawsuits-fresh-allegations/

"Bill Clinton facing four sexual assault lawsuits after fresh allegations made against former president "

Oldie....But a GOODY !

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had 'regular' orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.23  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.21    2 months ago

Why are you and Dulay citing a case which has been DROPPED?

No merit to it.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5.24  gooseisgone  replied to  Tessylo @1.5.16    2 months ago
Bill Clinton doesn't have a history of being fond of/raping underage girls

You should watch what you wish for.

https://freebeacon.com/politics/billclintonflewonpedophileplane/

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.25  Texan1211  replied to  gooseisgone @1.5.24    2 months ago

Notice how quiet it is now that a couple of links have been provided, as asked for?

Notice how someone has to drag Ivanka-who has nothing to do with this--into the picture?

Notice how the only thing they can drag up on Trump is some stupid-ass lawsuit that was DROPPED? The poor girl could not even get a freaking low-life attorney to take her stupid-ass case!

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.5.26  Split Personality  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.22    2 months ago

Sorry, no lawsuits in first article. You would think something must have happened since November 2017, but there are no follow up articles, it appears.

The four women currently taking action are hoping to secure substantial payouts in return for their silence, according to an official who served in Mr Clinton's administration.

However if their attempt at a payout fails they are said to be ready to go public with their allegations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/bill-clinton-facing-four-sexual-assault-lawsuits-fresh-allegations/

Maybe they were paid off quietly ?

Oldie....But a GOODY !

Yes it is, from 2014, but again, not a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, he's just identified as a frequent visitor along with Katie Curic, Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Courtney Love, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and uber-lawyer Alan Dershowitz among many others, all of whom denied seeing anything illegal.

As Tessy said

When you find any lawsuits against Bill Clinton, please cite them. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.5.27  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.25    2 months ago
Notice how the only thing they can drag up on Trump is some stupid-ass lawsuit that was DROPPED?

She dropped it twice citing harassment from Trump lawyers, (Cohen?) and multiple death threats.

That doesn't seem insignificant. or stupid-assed.

It's certainly close to Cohen's MO and why Trump hired him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.28  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.5.27    2 months ago
She dropped it twice citing harassment from Trump lawyers, (Cohen?) and multiple death threats.

Gosh, a smart girl that can file a lawsuit on her own is surely smart enough to press charges, isn't she? Did she? Any police reports to verify her claims? Any investigation on it done by police?

And surely some ambulance-chasing lawyer type would GLADLY take such a case against a rich client on a contingency basis. But none did?

LOL!

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.29  It Is ME  replied to  Split Personality @1.5.26    2 months ago

They both fit well with the anti-links provided above. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.30  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.5.27    2 months ago
She dropped it twice citing harassment from Trump lawyers, (Cohen?) and multiple death threats.

How about we deal with facts instead of fantasy?

The suit in California was dropped by the court--not the woman who filed it. And gee, if she was so worried about threats, why would she ever file, never mind filing TWICE? That makes NO sense, and usually when things don't make sense, it is because someone is lying.

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.5.31  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.30    2 months ago
The suit in California was dropped by the court--not the woman who filed it

Ok, so she dropped the suit in NY due to increased harassment and death threats. 

That makes NO sense, and usually when things don't make sense, it is because someone is lying.

Well, that's quite a generalization.  Good for you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.5.32  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @1.5.27    2 months ago

'Sorry, no lawsuits in first article. You would think something must have happened since November 2017, but there are no follow up articles, it appears.

The four women currently taking action are hoping to secure substantial payouts in return for their silence, according to an official who served in Mr Clinton's administration.

However if their attempt at a payout fails they are said to be ready to go public with their allegations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/bill-clinton-facing-four-sexual-assault-lawsuits-fresh-allegations/

Maybe they were paid off quietly ?

'Oldie....But a GOODY !'

'Yes it is, from 2014, but again, not a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, he's just identified as a frequent visitor along with Katie Curic, Prince Andrew, Donald Trump, Courtney Love, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and uber-lawyer Alan Dershowitz among many others, all of whom denied seeing anything illegal.'

'As Tessy said

When you find any lawsuits against Bill Clinton, please cite them.' 

Thanks for your follow-ups SP and the actual truth!

I was busy doing some work! 

Close to quitting time and wanted to check in.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.33  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @1.5.31    2 months ago
The suit in California was dropped by the court--not the woman who filed it

Good to see we can at least agree on the FACTS and not fantasy.

Well, that's quite a generalization. Good for you.

Do things that make no sense often turn out to be true in your experience?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.34  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.20    2 months ago
You should do your homework.

You should recognize when your question is answered Tex.

Your question: 

Prove it. Where are the charges?

You question wasn't about CURRENT SUITS, INDICTMENTS or CONVICTIONS was it Tex? 

Without ANY of those three things, there is NOTHING< NADA< ZIP< ZILCH.

Except of course EXACTLY what you asked for. 

Try again with something a little more accurate next time.

Try refraining from moving the goal posts and posting supercilious bullshit. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.35  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.34    2 months ago
ou question wasn't about CURRENT SUITS, INDICTMENTS or CONVICTIONS was it Tex?

Gee, I should have specified criminal charges.  My mistake.

Now, where are those charges?

Please keep your other comments to yourself.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.36  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.35    2 months ago
Now, where are those charges?

I posted links to the charges and after reading them they sound pretty criminal to me. 

Please keep your other comments to yourself.

That's not how that this shit works Tex. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.38  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.36    2 months ago
I posted links to the charges and after reading them they sound pretty criminal to me.

Well, then you should ensure that those charges are pressed instead of being dropped, as they were.

Doesn't sound like much when the alleged "victim" can't be bothered to show up for court and have her day DESPITE filing the original charges in a civil suit. Well, before she DROPPED them, of course. Heck she even could have the great Gloria Alred in her corner and blew her off.

A lot of bull and no substance.

This is why CONVICTIONS are what matter--not someone accusing someone with no evidence.

We still assume innocence until proven guilty--well, some of us do anyways. The people who like the way our legal system works.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.39  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.38    2 months ago
Well, then you should ensure that those charges are pressed instead of being dropped, as they were.

Why, allegations seem to work just fine nowadays...

Did you hear that Kerry is telling Iran what to do now?  

Oh, who are 'we' Tex? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.40  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.39    2 months ago
Why, allegations seem to work just fine nowadays...

Only for people ignorant of the law, and uncaring about the Constitution.

Did you hear that Kerry is telling Iran what to do now?

WTF does that have to do with this? Just deflecting again?

Oh, who are 'we' Tex?

I made it clear. Did you not understand these words:

well, some of us do anyways. The people who like the way our legal system works.

Tell me which ones you don't understand and if I have time, I'll try to help you out.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.41  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.39    2 months ago

That poor, poor "victim" is a farce. Waste of time filing suits she had no intention whatsoever of going through with.

I hope they made her pay court costs for dropping the suit so abruptly and not following through.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.42  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.39    2 months ago
Did you hear that Kerry is telling Iran what to do now?

Are you ignorant of the fact that Kerry HAS met with Iranians? That he did so as a private citizen?

Do you believe that is legal?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.43  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.40    2 months ago
Only for people ignorant of the law, and uncaring about the Constitution.

Oh a bunch of people who know plenty about the law make unfounded allegations for their own gain nowadays. 

WTF does that have to do with this?

It's an example of how BS allegations get play nowadays Tex. 

Just deflecting again?

No, haven't deflected on anything. 

Tell me which ones you don't understand and if I have time, I'll try to help you out.

Oh I understood every word. I didn't think you were being serious. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.44  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.42    2 months ago
Are you ignorant of the fact that Kerry HAS met with Iranians?

No. 

Are you ignorant of the timing of the last time he did so? 

That he did so as a private citizen?

Yes. 

Do you believe that is legal?

Absolutely. Private Americans citizens meet with people of every foreign nation all the time Tex.

Hell,  former US government official do so all the time. 

What caused you to ask such a silly question? 

BTW, is there an up charge per reply to the same comment? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.45  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.43    2 months ago
Oh a bunch of people who know plenty about the law make unfounded allegations for their own gain nowadays.

Feel free to do so then. Hope you gain something nice for yourself.

It's an example of how BS allegations get play nowadays Tex.

Except they aren't bullshit as far as your example of Kerry goes. It's a real thing.

https://www3.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/05/04/kerry-quietly-seeking-salvage-iran-deal-helped-craft/2fTkGON7xvaNbO0YbHECUL/amp.html?arc404=true

No, haven't deflected on anything.

Bullshit. We were talking about some lawsuit against Trump over sexual assaults and you dragged Kerry onto it. Own it.

Oh I understood every word. I didn't think you were being serious.

Then you should act like it.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.46  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.45    2 months ago
Feel free to do so then. Hope you gain something nice for yourself.

Perhaps you can explain your unending need to make every fucking thing personal Tex. 

Except they aren't bullshit as far as your example of Kerry goes. It's a real thing.

So is the DATE on the article you linked Tex. It may behoove you to review the DATE that Trump pulled out of the framework and then find some evidence that Kerry did anything AFTER that. 

Bullshit. We were talking about some lawsuit against Trump over sexual assaults and you dragged Kerry onto it. Own it.

You and I are talking about unsubstantiated allegations being thrown around and I gave an example. That's how this shit works Tex. 

Then you should act like it.

What would you suggest Tex? I'm not much for posting 'LOL' or emojis. 

The claim of a positive view of the way our legal system works got a chuckle out of me. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.5.47  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.5.46    2 months ago
So is the DATE on the article you linked Tex. It may behoove you to review the DATE that Trump pulled out of the framework and then find some evidence that Kerry did anything AFTER that.

Once Kerry left office, once Trump was elected President, Kerry had NO business whatsoever negotiating ANYTHING with a foreign country. Or do you think just any US Citizen can negotiate on the behalf of the US?

You and I are talking about unsubstantiated allegations being thrown around and I gave an example. That's how this shit works Tex

Except for the fact that I proved that the allegations against Kerry weren't false. You did nothing.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.48  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.47    2 months ago
Once Kerry left office, once Trump was elected President, Kerry had NO business whatsoever negotiating ANYTHING with a foreign country. Or do you think just any US Citizen can negotiate on the behalf of the US?

Once you can give evidence that Kerry was 'negotiating', I'll address that scenario. 

Except for the fact that I proved that the allegations against Kerry weren't false.

You did? Where? 

Trump's allegation is that Kerry violated the Logan act. Where did you prove that Tex? 

You did nothing.

You're talking about Kerry aren't you? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.49  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @1.5.47    2 months ago

According to John Kerry. He just "Spoke" to Iranians at an international "Security" meeting

Kerry is exonerated of any wrong doing. jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

KERRY is now windsurfing some fucking where, having a great time.

Jeff Sessions "Spoke" to Russians at a party.

Jeff's DAMNED....for LIFE

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.5.50  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dulay @1.5.48    2 months ago
Once you can give evidence that Kerry was 'negotiating', I'll address that scenario. 

I think it's just a case of poor reading comprehension. The article states "the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating" so it's easy to see how someone not reading carefully might get the mistaken impression that he was negotiating. Of course, when reading it correctly and having the basic understanding that someone who has zero ability to make policy change or agree to anything has no ability to negotiate, it changes the entire premise of those making erroneous claims based on it.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.51  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.50    2 months ago
"the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating"

Did Kerry get permission to do that ?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.5.52  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.49    2 months ago
Jeff Sessions "Spoke" to Russians at a party.

And no one gave a shit about him speaking to Russians. They did, however, give a shit that he chose to publicly lie about several of those encounters.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.5.53  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.51    2 months ago
Did Kerry get permission to do that ?

He doesn't have to get permission as a private citizen to "strategize" with whoever the fuck he wants. Why is this extremely simple concept apparently so hard for some to understand?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.5.54  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.51    2 months ago

The AG is currently investigating. I suspect Kerry might washing the uni bomber's balls soon.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.55  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.53    2 months ago
He doesn't have to get permission as a private citizen to "strategize" with whoever the fuck he wants.

How WRONG you are !

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.5.56  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.5.54    2 months ago
I suspect Kerry might washing the uni bomber's balls soon.

But wouldn't that just be taking one more job from a loyal Trump supporter?

Besides, there's nothing illegal in what Kerry did, so no matter how much conservatives and their chief cocksucker Barr fantasize about fascism they have no power to do shit to him while the constitution still stands.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.5.57  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.55    2 months ago
How WRONG you are !

Boy, that sure showed me. I mean with 'wrong' capitalized like that, it's all the evidence a conservative needs to prove his guilt... /s

Is he being paid by Iran? Has he "conspired" with them to attack the United States or even accepted their illicit help so he could win an election? Just curious as to why you would imagine a private citizen can't express their opinion to whoever they want.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.5.58  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.56    2 months ago

Just think, on Tuesdays the former sec of state can shave the uni bomber's back in shower hour, or salsa dancing with El Chapo.

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.59  It Is ME  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.5.54    2 months ago
I suspect Kerry might washing the uni bomber's balls soon.

Wild investigations are great. It's gonna bite the Democrats right where it hurts the most.....ummmm….. hang on ….. still looking…… ummmmmm….Sorry.....forgot.....Democrats don't give a SHIT…… so nothing hurts on them.

BOTOX must Great ! jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.60  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.57    2 months ago

If you'd put the "Goal Post" in your yard....I'd be sooooo happy right now.

Read your own comment back to yourself …… If you dare !

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.61  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.52    2 months ago
And no one gave a shit about him speaking to Russians.

Whatever you have to tell yourself in order to feel good. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.5.62  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.57    2 months ago

Is he being paid by Iran? Has he "conspired" with them to attack the United States? 

Have you read the Logan act? You seem completely unfamiliar with what constitutes a violation.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.5.63  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @1.5.60    2 months ago
If you'd put the "Goal Post" in your yard....I'd be sooooo happy.

? what supposed "goal post" was moved? Someone erroneously claimed Kerry was negotiating with Iran. I metaphorically slapped that idea out of their mouth with facts. Then someone else claimed that he had to get permission to even "strategize" yet they offer zero facts to back up their ridiculous assertion. I once again point this out and am accused of moving goal posts. I get that some like to troll by being intentionally obtuse, but this is just ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.5.64  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.5.62    2 months ago
Have you read the Logan act? You seem completely unfamiliar with what constitutes a violation.

I have read it and I don't think it applies in this case. You'd have to prove he was specifically trying to "defeat the measures of the United States" and the fact is the Iran deal still exists and was ratified by more than just the United States.

"Following Trump's denial of the deal, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, said the JCPOA was a firm decision and that no single country could break it. She proposed a "collective process" to preserve the deal, saying, "This deal is not a bilateral agreement ... The international community, and the European Union with it, has clearly indicated that the deal is, and will, continue to be in place."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.5.65  It Is ME  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.63    2 months ago
I metaphorically slapped that idea out of their mouth with facts.

You did no such thing.

YOUIR COMMENT:

"The article states "the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating" so it's easy to see how someone not reading carefully might get the mistaken impression that he was negotiating."

How does one "salvage" something without some "Negotiation" ?

Can you explain that to me ?

What did he Promise Iran ?

Did he pat them on the back and say …. "There, There, It will be okay" !

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.66  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.50    2 months ago
I think it's just a case of poor reading comprehension.

It's nice of you to give the benefit of the doubt DM.

Perhaps I do jump to the conclusion that some are being intentionally obtuse in a failed attempt at bolstering an ideology. 

I will say in my defense that I have never claimed to be nice and I have suggested on multiple occasions that it would help if sources were read more carefully before posting a comment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.67  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.5.62    2 months ago
Have you read the Logan act? You seem completely unfamiliar with what constitutes a violation.

So tell me Sean, what has Secretary Kerry done that constitutes said violation? Please be specific. 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.68  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.63    2 months ago
Then someone else claimed that he had to get permission to even "strategize" yet they offer zero facts to back up their ridiculous assertion.

All of which was done BEFORE Trump walked away from the agreement. 

Even if that weren't true, Kerry has every right as a private citizen to 'strategize' with the still existing signatories in support of the framework. 

Every single one of the recent Secretaries of State traveled abroad, attended international meetings, set up 'strategic planning' partnerships and even serve on boards of think tanks that specialize in foreign affairs strategy. 

I can't imagine that Colin Powell asks for 'permission' to make contact with anybody he damn well pleases. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.5.69  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.64    2 months ago
You'd have to prove he was specifically trying to "defeat the measures of the United States" and the fact is the Iran deal still exists and was ratified by more than just the United States.

I really suggest you check your "facts" next time.

The United States did NOT, allow me to repeat that so that there is no confusion about the word, NOT ratify any deal with Iran.  

Obama signed the deal himself as he knew it would never pass Congressional approval and be ratified by the Senate as a Treaty.  That was mostly due to the fact it was a bad deal from the start and essentially did nothing to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, it just slowed them down a little bit.

The particular manner in which President Obama crafted the Iran deal paved the way for President Trump to withdraw from it.  Obama made the deal on his own presidential authority, in the face of significant domestic opposition, without seeking or receiving approval from the Senate or the Congress.  He was able to do this, and to skirt constitutional requirements for senatorial or congressional consent, because he made the deal as a political commitment rather than a binding legal obligation. As Curt Bradley and I recently explained, a political commitment “imposes no obligation under international law,” a nation “incurs no state responsibility for its violation,” and thus “a successor President is not bound by a previous President’s political commitment under either domestic or international law and can thus legally disregard it at will.”
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.5.70  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.5.64    2 months ago
You'd have to prove he was specifically trying to "defeat the measures of the United States" and the fact is the Iran deal still exists and was ratified by more than just the United States

Your point  might be valid if the EU and Iran were trying to change the JPCOA and the Trump Administration wanted it  kept  as is.  Except, of course, from the moment Trump was sworn in he was pressing for changes or simply ending it. And what matters for purposes of the Logan Act is the position of the US govt on the issue at the time the private citizen is speaking.  It's whole purpose is to ensure America speaks with one voice through it's government. 

The only way your defense would be valid is if Kerry was 100% in line with the Trump Administration's position on the JPCOA, during these meetings with foreign governments.  No one can argue that with a straight face.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.71  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.5.70    2 months ago
And what matters for purposes of the Logan Act is the position of the US govt on the issue at the time the private citizen is speaking.  It's whole purpose is to ensure America speaks with one voice through it's government. 

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. 

If only those who made kneejerk allegations against Kerry checked on the DATES of those events. 

The article that was so helpfully linked in 1.5.45 was posted on May 4, 2018. It states that Kerry met  at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif 'on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago'. 

So that's about April 22nd

Now I don't know about you but Trump throwing shit at the wall doesn't equate to 'position' ESPECIALLY since he changes it, sometimes on the same fucking day. 

Trump didn't pull out of the agreement until May 8, 2018. Up until that date, the position of the US government was as a signatory of the framework agreement. 

There isn't one iota of evidence that Kerry has met with the Iranians since that date. 

Based on YOUR statement on 'what matters', that PROVES that Kerry didn't violate the Logan Act. 

IF Barr is investigating, he's wasting taxpayer funds. 

Thanks for playing. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.5.72  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.5.71    2 months ago

you don't seem to understand how this works.

The Trump administration had publicly demanded changes to the JPCOA well in advance of April 2018(use Google, it's your friend).  I said earlier that no one could argue with a straight face that Kerry was acting in line with the CURRENT Trump administration.  I guess I needed to add "honest" as a preface.

 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.5.73  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.5.72    2 months ago
you don't seem to understand how this works.

What lead you to that unfounded conclusion Sean. 

The Trump administration had publicly demanded changes to the JPCOA well in advance of April 2018(use Google, it's your friend). 

Perhaps you can provide a link to a policy paper that enumerates those changes Sean. A news release, a statement a tweet. SOMETHING that actually cites a position other than 'change it'. 

One would have to DOCUMENT what they were in April before one could PROVE that Kerry was violating the Logan Act back then. Oh and you'd also have to be able to PROVE that Kerry spoke in opposition to them too. 

Please proceed. 

I said earlier that no one could argue with a straight face that Kerry was acting in line with the CURRENT Trump administration. 

It seems that YOU don't understand how this works Sean. There is no demand in the Logan Act that anyone act in line with the CURRENT Administration. 

Prove that Kerry's intent at 'intercourse' with Iran was to 'defeat the measures of the United States'. 

I guess I needed to add "honest" as a preface.

Are you claiming that I am being less than honest Sean? Please cite where. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.5.74  gooseisgone  replied to  lib50 @1.5.7    2 months ago
These tax returns are the most pertinent we have so far

When you look at his tax returns, what portion is going to determine if he is SUCCESSFUL.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.6  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago

Everything Trump has ever touched, he has ruined.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.7  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 months ago
 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  seeder  JohnRussell    2 months ago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/08/five-takeaways-trumps-b-reported-loss/

There are five takeaways from the report and Trump’s reaction.

First, Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen testified that Trump would undervalue properties for tax purposes and overvalue them when seeking bank credit. Was he engaged in tax, insurance and/or bank fraud? New York state officials are investigating, but Congress has more reason than ever to review his tax returns in conjunction with Cohen and testimony from the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s refusal to produce the returns as required by law becomes more outrageous given the serious concerns raised about the president’s finances. Congress should use all means at its disposal to obtain the returns and should hold Mnuchin in contempt as a deterrent to future treasury secretaries.

Second, the report should cause Democrats to redouble legislative effort to force Trump and all future presidents to follow the practice of recent presidents regarding release of their tax returns. State ballot provisions requiring the president to disclose his taxes are of unclear constitutionality. Congressional legislation is necessary. The House could decide to attach a provision requiring disclosure to must-pass legislation including appropriations bills, thereby forcing Republicans to defend Trump’s financial coverup.

Third, the emoluments litigation brought by about 200 members of Congress may proceed to discovery soon, unless Trump’s attorneys are able to stay proceedings and get the D.C. Circuit to intervene. That should allow the plaintiffs to get a range of financial information, including tax returns. It seems likely that, one way or another, Trump will lose his ability to conceal his financial history.

Fourth, the extent of his tax losses revives the question about how Trump got out of his debt and where his money came from in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Post reports:

Until now, Trump’s early career in real estate was believed to have reached a peak in the late 1980s, when Trump wrote the “The Art of the Deal” — and then collapsed into loss and debt in 1990 and 1991.

The Times story shows, however, that Trump’s losses began earlier. In 1985, the future president reported $46.1 million in losses from his casinos, hotels and other businesses, according to the report.

Those losses got worse in 1990 and 1991, as Trump’s big bets on casinos, hotels and an airline all went bad.

Did foreign banks or investors help bail him out? This, too, should be a top concern for the House.

“The story not only explodes the myth of Donald Trump as a successful businessman. It also shows how skilled he is at perpetuating a lie,” Max Bergmann of the Moscow Project tells me. “For more than 30 years he convinced everybody — the press, banks, investors, the stock market and the American public — that Donald Trump was this great business success, when in fact he was losing money at a truly shocking rate.” He adds, “It shows he is an incredible con man able to live two lives. He is someone who can never be taken at his word, and this means examining his taxes and financial records is an urgent national security imperative.”

Finally, do not expect the revelations to dim the Trump cult’s reverence for its leader. If he isn’t really as rich as he said, they will commend him for pulling a fast one (even on voters). If the story is false, it’s one more bit of evidence for their media paranoia. Sadly, the Fox News and talk-radio crowd long ago jettisoned any concerns that they’ve invested their hopes in a con man, someone who has lied and finagled his way through life and into the White House. To admit that would be to recognize they were dupes, victims of another Trump scam. That, they will never do.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 months ago

Trump has never been convicted or any crime, nor has the IRS ever accused him of not paying his taxes.

 
 
 
Don Overton
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.1    2 months ago

Do post a link for where Trump was indicted for tax fraud.

If you CAN.

LOL!

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.3  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    2 months ago
Do post a link for where Trump was indicted for tax fraud.

We'll have to wait for the NY AG investigation to be completed.  We already know his charity was a fraud, as was his bogus university.  So it's not a great leap to assume that he's perfectly willing to commit tax fraud as well, although it's too soon to say for sure that he did - or didn't - commit tax fraud.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @2.1.3    2 months ago

Yes, yes, yes. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Like we had to for the Mueller "bombshell" report?

LOL!

There is a good chance that Trump won't ever be indicted for tax fraud.

Hell, he might be dead of natural causes before that ever happens.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.5  Dulay  replied to  katrix @2.1.3    2 months ago

I'm pretty sure that the second that the Cuomo signs the law, the House Committee Chairs will issue subpoenas for Trump's NY taxes. Remember that they already have information on his loan submissions to banks. If they don't match up, it would be bank fraud, one of the charges Manafort went down for. 

There is one more YUGE avenue for information, Trump Org's CFO, Allen Weisselberg. He was given limited immunity. If they dig up more dirt that he participated in, a good bet, he either cooperates of gets prosecuted. I lean toward cooperates. How long before Trump starts to attack him? 3,2,1...

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.6  katrix  replied to  Dulay @2.1.5    2 months ago

Yep.  Things will move pretty quickly. 

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Don Overton @2.1.7    2 months ago

Why post such nonsense that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP'S TAXES??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.9  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 months ago

Pretty sure that trump will be charged with obstruction of justice soon.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  cjcold @2.1.9    2 months ago
Pretty sure that trump will be charged with obstruction of justice soon.

And who exactly will be doing that?

Oh, weren't you also sure he would be indicted by Mueller?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3  It Is ME    2 months ago

"In 1990 and 1991, Trump's core business losses were more than $250 million each year"

It's like no one with that kind of financials, EVER lost money.

I hear Buffett has lost now and again. Bet Mr. Buffett USES the tax codes too, but that wouldn't be prudent to find out. jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/warren-buffett-lost-11-billion/

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/02/09/warren-buffett-has-lost-11.2-billion-in-1-week.aspx

"Warren Buffett Has Lost $11.2 Billion -- in 1 Week
The Oracle of Omaha has lost an 11-figure sum during this correction, but it probably doesn't bother him much.

How 'bout's that richy rich New York Times Family huh ? What have they Lost/Gained/Abused ? jrSmiley_38_smiley_image.gif

This is just another one of those "Stupid" articles that tries to paint Trump as a Loser.

His uuuuuge Jet and helicopter are Pretty. jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

320

320

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3    2 months ago
It's like no one with that kind of financials, EVER lost money.

Lost money, yes it happens.  Lost that much money, that consistently, no.  Trump is a level of loser never before seen, he is tops in his (loser) field.

I hear Buffett has lost now and again. Bet Mr. Buffett USES the tax codes too, but that wouldn't be prudent to find out. http://fortune.com/2015/09/03/warren-buffett-lost-11-billion/

From your own link:

Of course, there are some major caveats here. Buffett or Berkshire didn’t really lose $11 billion or possibly even a dollar in the market downturn. Just like you didn’t either. These are all paper losses.

Not to mention that if you want to compare, you would have to show him losing money year after year after year.

This is just another one of those "Stupid" articles that tries to paint Trump as a Loser.

He is a loser.  You are trying to compare Trump who loses hundreds of millions of dollars every year, to others who have had A loss.

It's like comparing someone who has a single drink once a week, to a full time alcoholic.  It's not the same.  Apples and bicycles.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    2 months ago
From your own link:

You are saying Trump lost actual cold hard "Cash" ?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1    2 months ago
He is a loser.  You are trying to compare Trump who loses hundreds of millions of dollars every year, to others who have had A loss.

Note to mention the fact that the link cites Berkshire's losses, which is publicly traded corporation, NOT Buffet's. 

The article is about Trump's losses, NOT the Trump Org's, a 'partnership' which doesn't pay taxes, losses. 

So in reality, Trump's taxes only document a PERCENTAGE of the losses by Trump Org. 

Oh and BTW, the pretty plane and helicopter are owned by Trump Org., NOT Trump. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.1    2 months ago
You are saying Trump lost actual cold hard "Cash" ?

No, you are.  I never mentioned cash.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.3    2 months ago
I never mentioned cash.

You sure did ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Re-read your own typing's.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.4    2 months ago
You sure did !

I did not use the word "cash" anywhere in my comment. jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

Re-read your own typing's.

My own "typing's"....what?

Are you trying to say for me to re-read my own comment?  Re-read what I typed?  Re-read the words I used in my comment?

Your Google translate doesn't seem to be working correctly.

But anyway, I did re-read it and can confirm that "Cash" is absolutely nowhere in my comment.  Is this just another blatant lie by you to try and make your fake point?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.5    2 months ago
I did not use the word "cash" anywhere in my comment.

Luv Madness methods. jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

Soooo, he didn't lose cash/Money, but like Buffett, it was just on paper ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

"Of course, there are some major caveats here. Buffett or Berkshire didn’t really lose $11 billion or possibly even a dollar in the market downturn. Just like you didn’t either. These are all paper losses."

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.6    2 months ago
Soooo, he didn't lose cash/Money, but like Buffett, it was just on paper !

Wow, so utterly pathetic.  You can't support your own point, so you are backtracking and spinning as fast as you can.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.7    2 months ago

Did Trump Lose money just on Paper too ?

Or was it cold hard cash ?

Is it only those you like, that when they lose, it is only paper ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.8    2 months ago
Did Trump Lose money just on Paper too ?

Or was it cold hard cash ?

Is it only those you like, that when they lose, it is only paper ?

Go away and take your pathetic deflection attempt with you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.9    2 months ago
Go away and take your pathetic deflection attempt with you.

Stumped ya huh. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.10    2 months ago
Stumped ya huh.

Yup, stumped on on why you even bother to butt into other people's conversations with nothing but pathetic and ignorant attempts to to hijack or deflect from the subject of the conversation.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.11    2 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Was Trumps loses on PAPER like Buffett's, or was Trumps loses in cold hard cash ?

Did the article note any Trumps Positive gains so we could compare it to their "Zealous" Loss rantings ?

Honest people would want to know stuff like that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.12    2 months ago

When you're proven wrong time and time again you just keep digging your heels in and jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.14  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.13    2 months ago
When you're proven wrong time and time again

You should read Comment # 3.3.10 before ASSuming !

 
 
 
luther28
3.2  luther28  replied to  It Is ME @3    2 months ago
It's like no one with that kind of financials, EVER lost money.

True, but it makes Mr. Trump what he loathes most, A LOSER!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  luther28 @3.2    2 months ago

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.2  It Is ME  replied to  luther28 @3.2    2 months ago
True, but it makes Mr. Trump what he loathes most, A LOSER!

Maybe if one concentrates on just the loses, and leaves out all the gains.

Do his loses outweigh his gains ?

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.3  lib50  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.2    2 months ago

No.  If they did I'm sure he'd want to prove it.  Instead, just more lies.  The biggest loser is leading the country. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.4  It Is ME  replied to  lib50 @3.2.3    2 months ago
If they did I'm sure he'd want to prove it. 

Why should he placate to idiots ?

I don't.....do you ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.2    2 months ago

Which gains?

The Russian money laundering?

The NRA/Russian money laundering?

Which is why he won't release the last 5-10 years.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    2 months ago

So why hasn't the IRS come looking for him?

The look at ALL his tax and financial information.

Apparently he has paid all taxes that were due.

So once again, what's the point of 30 year old information?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.4    2 months ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.6    2 months ago
So once again, what's the point of 30 year old information?

The whole point is the Great and Wondrous Mueller didn't do what they wanted---give them a reason to impeach Trump, so now they will simply throw a bunch of crap at walls and see if anything sticks.

 
 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @3    2 months ago

So Warren Buffett had a period of losses in the stock market in 2015. 

The article about Trump is not referring to stock value dropping, it is referring the inability of properties Trump owned to produce enough revenue to put him in the black. Two different things. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.3.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3    2 months ago
it is referring the inability of properties Trump owned to produce enough revenue to put him in the black.

it says no such thing. Ya gotta have both "Positives" and "Negatives" to prove that idiotic point. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.3.1    2 months ago
Ya gotta have both "Positives" and "Negatives" to prove that idiotic point.

Then perhaps you would like to point out the POSITIVES

Which Trump ventures made money (note: you cannot include his illegal ones), and how much did they make?  You can't show them as being positive unless you can show them as making enough money to put them in the black.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.2    2 months ago

Losses aren't taxable.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.3.4  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.2    2 months ago
Then perhaps you would like to point out the POSITIVES

Trump is President ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

The rest of your statement is just avoiding the FACT the article didn't do that, so I guess in your mind, someone MUST ?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3.5  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.3.4    2 months ago
Trump is President !

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, as usual.

giphy.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @3.3.3    2 months ago

Losses aren't taxable.

So the one positive you could come up with is that Trump was a freeloader. 

giphy.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.3.7  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.5    2 months ago
Then perhaps you would like to point out the POSITIVES.

Then be more specific if you don't like my response to your SIMPLE non-specific question.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3.8  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.3.7    2 months ago
Then be more specific if you don't like my response to your SIMPLE non-specific question.

How can I be more specific?  IT WAS YOUR CLAIM THAT THERE ARE POSITIVES!!  When I asked for an example, the only thing you came up with to support YOUR CLAIM was to state that is allowed Trump to be a freeloader , a welfare queen (in other words).  You consider that as a POSITIVE???

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.3.9  It Is ME  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.8    2 months ago
IT WAS YOUR CLAIM THAT THERE ARE POSITIVES!!

I claimed no such thing. 

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3.10  Ozzwald  replied to  It Is ME @3.3.9    2 months ago
I claimed no such thing. 

You are correct, you did not CLAIM such, but you ARE the one that brought POSITIVES into this conversation about Trump's failures.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.3.12  Don Overton  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3.5    2 months ago

flag him

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.4  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @3    2 months ago
"In 1990 and 1991, Trump's core business losses were more than $250 million each year"

Yep, all good businessmen lose 250 million a year..... All good businessmen also file for bankruptcy at least 5 times

1) Bill Gates - 0.

2) Tim Cook - 0.

3) Ted Turner - 0. 

4) Warren Buffet - 0.

5) Paul Allen - 0. 

Hmm....gotta be one rich guy out there that has filed for bankruptcy at least 5 times....

Oh yea...

6) Donald J. Trump - 5. 

Never mind. 

 
 
 
 
 
MrFrost
3.4.3  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @3.4.1    2 months ago

Did he file for bankruptcy? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.4.4  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @3.4.2    2 months ago

Yep, and we all know that Amazon and Bezos are completely broke, and filed for bankruptcy... Right? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.4.5  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @3.4    2 months ago

# 4 Did lose ……. Billions for that matter. Didn't you read the link I provided ?

No one ever loses "Zero" in their lifetime.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.4.6  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @3.4.3    2 months ago

https://empirenews.net/bill-gates-files-for-chapter-7-bankruptcy/

"Bill Gates Files For Chapter 7 Bankruptcy"

“Minor setback, no big deal,” Said Gates. “I might not have billions of dollars laying around anymore, but I am sure I won’t be going hungry any time soon, don’t worry.”

Buffett ain't no saint either:

https://nypost.com/2015/11/02/even-warren-buffett-isnt-making-money-on-energy-future-holdings/

"KKR, TPG Capital, Goldman Sachs and other co-investors bought the utility in 2007 for $45 billion — at the time the biggest buyout in US history — but lost a total of $8.3 billion after it was forced to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April 2014.
Even Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway wrote off nearly $1 billion in loans to the company as it went broke."

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.4.7  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @3.4.5    2 months ago

Did they file for bankruptcy? Pretty simple question.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.4.8  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @3.4.7    2 months ago

Seems Gates did. Didn't you read the link ?

Buffett just wrote off billions per the "Tax Code" allowances.

Now what is it Trump did that Broke the law again ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.4.9  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @3.4.8    2 months ago
Seems Gates did. Didn't you read the link ?

5 times? What was his net worth at the time? 

Now what is it Trump did that Broke the law again ?

Did I say he broke any laws? Pretty sure I didn't. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.4.10  MUVA  replied to  MrFrost @3.4.7    2 months ago

Did they lose over 250 million dollars in a year?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.4.11  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @3.4.9    2 months ago
What was his net worth at the time? 

The response was to "Bankruptcies, not net worth.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4  FLYNAVY1    2 months ago

......GOP Mantra: Profits are private, losses are public...

Got to wonder how all our Trumpers here feel about having to support Trump through their taxes.

Seems to fit well given Trump's line...... "Other people's money?"

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @4    2 months ago

“.....GOP Mantra: Profits are private, losses are public...”

The first thing that came to my mind when reading that was Solyndra. 

http://fortune.com/2015/08/27/remember-solyndra-mistake/

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.1  lib50  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1    2 months ago

Which you and other republicans brought up constantly as a bad thing.  Now Trump doing it is a good thing? 

Oh, look the market is taking another shit today. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  lib50 @4.1.1    2 months ago

I don’t know what you are talking about I’m opposed to all government guaranteed loans and cronyism. That half a billion of taxpayers money lost on Solyndra never should have left the taxpayers pockets. Trump has been working at keeping that money in the taxpayers pocket so government can’t waste it like they did with Solyndra. 

 
 
 
lib50
4.1.3  lib50  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1.2    2 months ago

No, all of the tax codes and laws are written to protect and defend the wealth at the top.   They buy the politicians and get their protections passed.  Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.  THAT is what we see Trump doing, what the average American doesn't get to choose. Trump isn't doing jack to change anything that jeopardizes that benefit for himself and his cronies.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1    2 months ago
The first thing that came to my mind when reading that was Solyndra. 

"In 2011, solar panel company Solyndra defaulted on a $535 million loan guaranteed by the Department of Energy. The agency had a few other high-profile bankruptcies, too — electric car company Fisker and solar company Abound among them. But now that loan program has started turning a profit.

Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black."

"There was an FBI raid on Solyndra's headquarters and an investigation but, so far, no prosecutions. Now that the loan program is turning a profit, those critics are silent. "

https://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit

Now that the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has published complete energy statistics for 2016, the public can evaluate the effect of President Barack Obama’s energy policies and the market conditions they encouraged. These data provide a baseline for charting future progress—and obstacles to that progress—along several important dimensions, including:

  • The share of clean technologies in the U.S. electricity mix
  • The size of the U.S. government commitment to research, development, and demonstration for clean energy
  • The use of tax policy and other financial incentives to lower the cost of deploying clean energy technologies
  • The use of other government authorities to encourage deployment such as procurement and promoting renewable energy projects on public lands
  • The development of updated product standards and the encouragement of voluntary actions to improve the energy efficiency of the U.S. economy
  • Actions to facilitate job growth and understand employment trends in the clean energy industry.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2017/06/29/435281/americas-clean-energy-success-numbers/

If only everyone was able to read, comprehend and accept the facts here. Sadly, either poor reading comprehension, illiteracy, or just seething hatred for a black President will keep some from accepting the truth. 

 
 
 
freepress
5  freepress    2 months ago

This is a pattern of behavior for Trump. This is why he refused to release 5 or 10 years of tax returns. He never really believed he would win the election, so on the campaign trail he made false promises saying he would release his returns. He never believed he would win and never believed he would have to release them. So instead of being transparent, he lies, refusing to inform the American people by releasing them. His returns will reveal at the very least, he is guilty of tax fraud.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
5.1  Greg Jones  replied to  freepress @5    2 months ago
His returns will reveal at the very least, he is guilty of tax fraud.

Oh bullshit!

If he was cheating on his taxes, the IRS would have been, and still would be, all over his butt.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @5.1    2 months ago

Interesting since he has said himself he has been under audit for the last 4 years, and that's why he can't release his taxes... Which is, of course, a lie. 

512

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2  Texan1211  replied to  freepress @5    2 months ago

So the IRS, with a veritable army of tax experts, audited Trump and what were the results?

Hear about any indictments?

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2    2 months ago
So the IRS, with a veritable army of tax experts, audited Trump and what were the results?

If trump would release them, we would know, right? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.1    2 months ago
If trump would release them, we would know, right?

Trump is under no obligation to release them just to satisfy you.

And I don't see how anyone can honestly think that if something were seriously wrong with his taxes that it wouldn't have leaked by now.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    2 months ago
Trump is under no obligation to release them just to satisfy you.

Oh but the IRS is and the eventually will. 

And I don't see how anyone can honestly think that if something were seriously wrong with his taxes that it wouldn't have leaked by now.

Did you READ the seeded article? IT LEAKED! Sheesh.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.2    2 months ago

So that's a yes, thanks. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.3    2 months ago
id you READ the seeded article? IT LEAKED! Sheesh.

Yes, Dulay, I did.

Please link any info you have that proves Trump cheated on his federal income tax returns.

I await your proof.

Please don't do us like Rachel did, either. All that excitement just to be monumentally let down.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @5.2.4    2 months ago
So that's a yes, thanks.

You are welcome.

Do you really need to be told that if you looked at Trump's returns, you would know what was in them?

But you can't make Trump release them to you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.3    2 months ago

And you know something else hilarious?

All the people who were screaming that the Russians hacked Democratic emails and what a national emergency that was because (GASP_ they published STOLEN material.

I notice the same folks are mighty quiet when it comes to someone publishing stolen material because they think it shows Trump did something wrong--which, of course, no has had the common decency to prove.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.5    2 months ago
Please link any info you have that proves Trump cheated on his federal income tax returns.

I never stated that I had such information so why ask me? 

I await your proof.

What do you want proof of Tex? What you imagined I said? 

Please don't do us like Rachel did, either. 

Us WHO Tex? 

All that excitement just to be monumentally let down.

If you're excited, you brought it on by your own fantasies. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.8    2 months ago
I never stated that I had such information so why ask me?

I didn't say you did, but I asked because it seems like you get kind of worked up over Trump's taxes for some reason or other.

What do you want proof of Tex? What you imagined I said?

I thought I made it clear with this:  "Please link any info you have that proves Trump cheated on his federal income tax returns."

Are you unclear as to what I asked? Do I need to explain it to you? I've got time if I really need to explain THAT sentence to you.

Us WHO Tex?

Us as in anyone not batshit crazy over Trump's taxes.

If you're excited, you brought it on by your own fantasies.

Sue me. I must have been swept up in the rampant hysteria created by the release of Trump tax returns showing he paid taxes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.3    2 months ago
Trump is under no obligation to release them just to satisfy you.
Oh but the IRS is and the eventually will.
And I don't see how anyone can honestly think that if something were seriously wrong with his taxes that it wouldn't have leaked by now.
Did you READ the seeded article? IT LEAKED! Sheesh.

So what was wrong with Trump's taxes?

Anything at all, or are folks just all worked up over NOTHING again?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.7    2 months ago
And you know something else hilarious?

What was the first thing that was hilarious? 

All the people who were screaming that the Russians hacked Democratic emails and what a national emergency that was because (GASP_ they published STOLEN material. I notice the same folks are mighty quiet when it comes to someone publishing stolen material because they think it shows Trump did something wrong--which, of course, no has had the common decency to prove.

So you think it's hilarious to equate Russians hacking Americans for WHATEVER reason to a leak of 30 year old IRS materials about Trump. Wow, you've got a unique sense of humor Tex. 

BTW, the thing that Trump did wrong that is proven by the IRS material is that he's been LYING for decades. I know that's become normalized in Trump world, but in MY world, lies are STILL wrong. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.11    2 months ago
What was the first thing that was hilarious?

I found your reply to be hilarious.

So you think it's hilarious to equate Russians hacking Americans for WHATEVER reason to a leak of 30 year old IRS materials about Trump. Wow, you've got a unique sense of humor Tex.

That whooshing noise you might be hearing is the point going over your head.

BTW, the thing that Trump did wrong that is proven by the IRS material is that he's been LYING for decades. I know that's become normalized in Trump world, but in MY world, lies are STILL wrong.

Yes, your hatred of Trump is well established.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.13  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.10    2 months ago
So what was wrong with Trump's taxes?
Anything at all, or are folks just all worked up over NOTHING again?

This isn't about what is wrong with Trump's taxes Tex. It's about what is wrong with Trump. He is a con man and a LIAR. The leaked documents PROVE that he's been lying about his success for decades. 

But hey Tex. If you accept that Trump is a galactic liar and don't give a shit, so be it.

I don't and won't. 

Oh and please save me the tired old bullshit that 'they all lie'. Any thinking person can recognize that Trump's shit is on a level never before seen in this country.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.12    2 months ago
I found your reply to be hilarious.

Is that why you replied to it TWICE? 

That whooshing noise you might be hearing is the point going over your head.

So your point wasn't to equate the two? Oh please, do explain it so even I can understand your cogent point Tex. 

Yes, your hatred of Trump is well established.

You mistake disgust for hatred. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.13    2 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.15    2 months ago

You've met my expectations. Well done. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.14    2 months ago
Is that why you replied to it TWICE?

No, I was laughing so hard I hit my send button by accident!

So your point wasn't to equate the two? Oh please, do explain it so even I can understand your cogent point Tex.

See? I knew you didn't get it!

My POINT was that the same folks all up in arms over STOLEN emails have NO PROBLEM with stolen tax returns.

I hope that isn't too hard for you to grasp.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.16    2 months ago
You've met my expectations. Well done.

You're welcome!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.17    2 months ago
No, I was laughing so hard I hit my send button by accident!

That is obviously false Tex? 

My POINT was that the same folks all up in arms over STOLEN emails have NO PROBLEM with stolen tax returns.

Oh my bad. You just think it's hilarious to COMPARE the Russians hacking Americans to leaked 30 year old IRS documents about Trump. 

Wow, that's SO MUCH BETTER. /s

Thanks so much for clarifying it Tex.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @5.2.19    2 months ago
That is obviously false Tex?

Why are you asking me?

Oh my bad. You just think it's hilarious to COMPARE the Russians hacking Americans to leaked 30 year old IRS documents about Trump

At this point, I just have to assume you are being obtuse.

Thanks so much for clarifying it Tex.

I wish that were true--I really do. 

Perhaps had I done a better job, you would see the point I made.  (/S)

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.2.21  Don Overton  replied to  Dulay @5.2.11    2 months ago

Dulay, you will never satisfy some people and they will just keep on with their bs.  Two ways of tuning them out:  Hit your avatar and ignore them or flag them for trolling or whatever.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Don Overton @5.2.21    2 months ago
Dulay, you will never satisfy some people 

It's good that I don't care if I satisfy anyone then isn't it? 

and they will just keep on with their bs.

We all need a hobby. 

Two ways of tuning them out: Hit your avatar and ignore them or flag them for trolling or whatever.

I don't ignore members, I'm not here to be in an echo chamber. 

In fact, there are some that I count on for my daily dose of belly laughs. 

I do flag yet most of my flags are for violations on replies that aren't even addressed to me. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.23  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.20    2 months ago
Why are you asking me?

Why are you posting obviously false comments? 

At this point, I just have to assume you are being obtuse.

Did you compare those two things or not Tex? 

Perhaps had I done a better job, you would see the point I made.

Oh I got your 'point' just fine Tex. I merely pointed out that it is a false equivalency which is in no way funny, much less hilarious. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    2 months ago

So, for Democrats its all about the money?  Notice the Democratic emphasis on financial performance subject to taxation rather than on jobs, business creation, or impact on communities.  The Democratic Party has become nothing more than promoters of finance and crony capitalism.

1990-91 marked a recession followed by a jobless recovery.  The jobless recovery provided Ross Perot a forum for an independent Presidential campaign.  Bill Clinton won the 1992 election in the midst of the jobless recovery on promises of free trade, globalization, and strengthening the financial sector.  Clinton did not receive anywhere near a majority of the popular vote; Clinton won on electoral votes.  Bill Clinton transformed the Democratic Party into a party of finance.

Since Clinton, Democrats have focused their political efforts on bolstering financial profits that can be subjected to taxes.  Since Clinton, Democrats have not been friendly towards manufacturing or job creation in producing sectors of the economy.  Democrats politically favor technology, automation, and free trade to replace jobs and increase financial profitability.  Democrats have told working America that the jobs are gone and are not coming back.  

The Democrats' interest in Donald Trump's financial performance is a legacy of Clinton politics.  For Democrats its all about the money, nothing else matters.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    2 months ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8  Paula Bartholomew    2 months ago

Maybe this is why Trump is pushing for Ivanka to head the world bank, a new source of money for good ole dad to buy more paintings of himself like he did with campaign funds.

 
 
 
MrFrost
9  MrFrost    2 months ago

Trump, is a con man, always has been, always will be, this we know. 

Here is the bad news...

If you believe a con man? You're the mark. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
10  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 months ago
President Donald Trump's businesses reported...

So the "tax documents" is nothing more than a company report to a newspaper and not actual tax documents.  

Not a real reliable source either.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
11  1stwarrior    2 months ago

320

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @11    2 months ago

LOL!!!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc
Raven Wing
Freefaller
cjcold
GregTx


52 visitors