Who thinks Trump will win?

bobbyy gee

Like guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/27/new-york-times-publishes-donald-trumps-tax-returns-election

Outlaw Pete

dark crystal wrote: »

I'm curious, why doesn't Trump sue all these publications, if indeed they are spreading demonstrable lies?

He does but this "news" articles are actually opinion pieces when you look closely and there is very little you can do apart from sue on grounds of defamation but if a liberal propaganda outlet like the NYT says that they based their "opinions" on what sources told them, then it's very hard to win such a case.

Here's some examples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/true-danger-trump-campaigns-libel-lawsuits/607753/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/06/donald-trump-campaign-cnn-lawsuit-russia-election

gozunda

dark crystal wrote: »

I'm curious, why doesn't Trump sue all these publications, if indeed they are spreading demonstrable lies?

In the US such 'claims' are frequently covered by the First Amendment.

In the run up to the forthcoming election - what can be thrown will be thrown on both sides. Sit back - grab the popcorn and watch the words fly - but remember don't forget to deploy the bs force shield first

dark crystal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He does but this "news" articles are actually opinion pieces when you look closely and there is very little you can do apart from sue on grounds of defamation but if a liberal propaganda outlet like the NYT says that they based their "opinions" on what sources told them, then it's very hard to win such a case.

He's some examples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/true-danger-trump-campaigns-libel-lawsuits/607753/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/06/donald-trump-campaign-cnn-lawsuit-russia-election

But the amount he paid (or in this case didn't pay) in taxes isn't an opinion, it's a fact. A fact that could be easily disputed by simply releasing his tax returns for the years in question.

It's an easy fix for him, isn't it?

bobbyy gee

Federal court

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/fight-trump-tax-returns-appeals-court-73233601

Outlaw Pete

dark crystal wrote: »

But the amount he paid (or in this case didn't pay) in taxes isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

I thought you were referring to my list of previous nothing burgers and asking why doesn't he sue over some of that, but even so, that latest tax article is not just facts, it's a complete hit piece on him and the inference from how it is written is that Trump is a crook and con man. They might not come right out and say it but it's what they're deliberately suggesting to the reader and their objective is clear: to damage him just in time for Nov 3rd.

A fact that could be easily disputed by simply releasing his tax returns for the years in question. It's an easy fix for him, isn't it?

Sure but just because he has paid a small amount of tax does not mean he has done anything illegal but the left would spin such a confirmed revelation as if he had. So might be best for him to just ride it out.

Based on my two days alone in this thread, I am absolutely confident Trump will win the election.

circular flexing

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sure but just because he has paid a small amount of tax does not mean he has done anything illegal but the left would spin such a confirmed revelation as if he had. So might be best for him to just ride it out.

Sure there's nothing illegal in the NYT article but it's also not a great look for a sitting president to be in dispute with IRS around a $70 million tax credit that he maybe wasn't entitled to and also to have $300 million of personally guaranteed loans coming due during his (potential) second term.

Manic Moran

In the drive-through line for BBQ today, we saw our first Biden bumper sticker. So at least I can scratch that anomaly off the list.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the drive-through line for BBQ today, we saw our first Biden bumper sticker. So at least I can scratch that anomaly off the list.

Looks Like there may be some truth in the silent majority concept. Trump flags a lot more visible in a lot of locations.
Lets see if it translates to votes.

bobbyy gee

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I thought you were referring to my list of previous nothing burgers and asking why doesn't he sue over some of that, but even so, that latest tax article is not just facts, it's a complete hit piece on him and the inference from how it is written is that Trump is a crook and con man. They might not come right out and say it but it's what they're deliberately suggesting to the reader and their objective is clear: to damage him just in time for Nov 3rd.



Sure but just because he has paid a small amount of tax does not mean he has done anything illegal but the left would spin such a confirmed revelation as if he had. So might be best for him to just ride it out.

Tax audit

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/02/28/michael-cohen-explains-the-real-reason-trump-is-hiding-his-tax-returns/

circular flexing

circular flexing wrote: »

Sure there's nothing illegal in the NYT article but it's also not a great look for a sitting president to be in dispute with IRS around a $70 million tax credit that he maybe wasn't entitled to and also to have $300 million of personally guaranteed loans coming due during his (potential) second term.

In terms of him taking a legal case if he wished to, there's plenty there. Except things like discovery that come into play at that point. So it's pretty clear why he never sues.

baaba maal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He does but this "news" articles are actually opinion pieces when you look closely and there is very little you can do apart from sue on grounds of defamation but if a liberal propaganda outlet like the NYT says that they based their "opinions" on what sources told them, then it's very hard to win such a case.

Here's some examples:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/true-danger-trump-campaigns-libel-lawsuits/607753/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/mar/06/donald-trump-campaign-cnn-lawsuit-russia-election

Seeing as you were able to spend hours parsing a seemingly vital revelation in a radio interview, with much emphasis on the word "now", how about digging through that NYT article and eviscerating it's inexactitudes before our very eyes?

astrofool

baaba maal wrote: »

Seeing as you were able to spend hours parsing a seemingly vital revelation in a radio interview, with much emphasis on the word "now", how about digging through that NYT article and eviscerating it's inexactitudes before our very eyes?

The Trumpistas will be working over time today doing everything except reading the article.

Girly Gal

If the Democrats were really serious about defeating Trump, they should have picked a better candidate than Joe Biden, they had almost 4 years to find alternative candidates and they ended up with two old guys in their late seventies in Biden and Saunders, surely there was better candidates in their fifties and sixties who would have a more energetic campaign, new ideas and connect better with middle age and younger voters.

mcmoustache

astrofool wrote: »

The Trumpistas will be working over time today doing everything except reading the article.

It's nearly time for that daily chopped up video of Biden though isn't it?

ThunbergsAreGo

Biden to win is free money.

Just cannot see how Trump wins when everything is stacked against him.

People say Biden isnt great. He is not as dis-likable as Clinton, that is all he has to be.

ELM327

who cares what taxes he paid? He's smart. It's a smart move to minimize your tax bill.

ThunbergsAreGo

ELM327 wrote: »

who cares what taxes he paid? He's smart. It's a smart move to minimize your tax bill.

Americans who pay their taxes wont see it like that

ELM327

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Biden to win is free money.

Just cannot see how Trump wins when everything is stacked against him.

People say Biden isnt great. He is not as dis-likable as Clinton, that is all he has to be.

quoted for reference in case of a dirty delete


Lets come back here in ~5 weeks.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

who cares what taxes he paid? He's smart. It's a smart move to minimize your tax bill.

Except the reason he didn't pay taxes appears to be because he's losing money hand over fist. Spinning this as him being smart is ignoring the reality.

ELM327

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Americans who pay their taxes wont see it like that

Trump has always said it's smart to minimize your tax bill. He's already said he took advantage of bankruptcy law several times for a lower tax bill.


I can't see why this would be any different.

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Except the reason he didn't pay taxes appears to be because he's losing money hand over fist. Spinning this as him being smart is ignoring the reality.

If that's the reality he presents to the taxman it may not be the actuality.
Very easy to make paper profits or paper losses when it suits.

When he goes bankrupt again, his supporters are totally gonna call it great business acumen...

relax carry on

ELM327 wrote: »

who cares what taxes he paid? He's smart. It's a smart move to minimize your tax bill.

The structures that enable societies to function are funded by tax receipts. As Trump is supposed to be the leader of a society funded by tax; how does it make sense that the leader of the society pays feck all tax?
Also considering how massively in debt Trump is; just how compromised is he?

Igotadose

ELM327 wrote: »

who cares what taxes he paid? He's smart. It's a smart move to minimize your tax bill.

The analysis the Times came up with, left out one thing: By my reading of the numbers, no taxes paid on essentially $400 million in earnings in 10 years running the Apprentice, shows that this man's not a billionaire by any stretch of the imagination. That's chump-change earnings compared to high-end billionaires. Lawyers in the US make that.

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

The analysis the Times came up with, left out one thing: By my reading of the numbers, no taxes paid on essentially $400 million in earnings in 10 years running the Apprentice, shows that this man's not a billionaire by any stretch of the imagination. That's chump-change earnings compared to high-end billionaires. Lawyers in the US make that.

It reads very much like those debts could break him.

dwayneshintzy

ELM327 wrote: »

If that's the reality he presents to the taxman it may not be the actuality.
Very easy to make paper profits or paper losses when it suits.

Then he's not being "smart", he's committing tax fraud

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

It reads very much like those debts could break him.

Also, there's good analysis of his dubious dealings in Turkey and the Philippines, dodgy contractors and how his business buddies end up in WH or other senior government positions.

It's a lot more than just taxes, this is what I think the #IMPOTUS is afraid of. That and the obvious fact he's no billionaire. One line in one of the articles was that Trump's businesses have lost the most money in the US in the period that they analyzed. So I suppose he's #1 at something.

ELM327

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Then he's not being "smart", he's committing tax fraud

It's not tax fraud if it's legal.