Us Election 2016: Trump 'a Genius' If He Paid No Taxes - Allies

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37533263

We have been hearing for months now, that Trump is a very wealthy and successful business.

But now we are being told that he has lost so much money, over the last 18 years, that he hasn't made enough profit to any taxes !

You couldn't make it up !

[Khandro]

He has done nothing illegal, he was able to show losses for those years in which he was exempted from paying federal tax (different from state tax) just like millions of others, the only difference to the norm being in his case the numbers are higher, but so are the stakes he played for.

[anneasquith]

Re JJ post I like the fifth entry, died mysteriously with a heart attack.heart attacks tend to be sudden :-)

[joggerjayne]

They do tend to be, Anne.

But, in this case, he was injected with a urinatory drug ... supposedly ... but not at the time or place that such drugs were usually administered ... then taken away ... and was "reported" to have died of a heart attack ... although he was fit and healthy.

Conveniently, that meant he couldn't testify.

Probably pure coincidence.

Like all 46 odd "convenient" deaths in the Clinton mysterious death file.

Pure coincidence.

As the Clintons have lied, cheated, and deceived their way through business and politics, almost everyone who threatened to expose them has died prematurely.

Just coincidence.

But incredibly lucky for Hillary.

[jim360]

It's true that Clinton isn't perfect, and it's also true that the first part of this sentence was an understatement. But by the same measure Trump is off the scale. In the debate for example, Clinton made maybe four or five statements that were deemed to be outright lies. Trump made over 30.

I mean, unless we're going with the whole "Trump is at least consistently a liar so I'm perfectly comfortable with never trusting anything he says, whereas Clinton may or may not be telling the truth and I can never know which and can't stand the uncertainty" argument... how can you compare the two? You can't.

As for JJ's stuff, I can't even be bothered to refute what is basically just meaningless insinuation.

[joggerjayne]

"meaningless insinuation" is the usual "defence" to statements that are factually accurate, but which we dearly wish were not true, because they unsettle a comforting status quo.

As in ...

"MPs have been fiddling their expenses for years"

"That's just meaningless insinuation"

"Jimmy Savile is a serial sex pest"

"That's just meaningless insinuation"

"The England Manager would help break the FA rules if you paid him enough"

"That's just meaningless insinuation"

Etc ...

[anneasquith]

JJ. what evidence or site did you get this information from ?

[vulcan42]

I had a friend, a retired prison officer. He cycled several hundred miles a week, would go for a fifteen mile walk just "to pass the time". He was supposedly "fit and healthy" when he died of a heart attack in his sleep.It does happen.

[-Talbot-]

anneasquith
JJ. what evidence or site did you get this information from ?




The people are real, their deaths are real ... The links to the Clinton's all coincidental?

Possibly.

[anneasquith]

A urinatory drug ?

[joggerjayne]

You'll need to look up each of the deceaseds separately.

It's NOT a "fact" that the Clintons have been involved.

Is IS a fact that a lot of people have died prematurely (murder, suicide, curious looking heart attack, killed in a robbery, etc) when they were about to testify against the Clintons.

But, once again ... It's NOT a "fact" that the Clintons have been involved.

The likelihood is that they are just very, very, very lucky.

[joggerjayne]

Furosemide, sold under the brand name Lasix among others ... a medication used to treat fluid build-up ... in other words, to cause the patient to urinate.

[anneasquith]

JJ.did these suspicious deaths occur just prior to them going to court to testify again the Clinton's.

[douglas9401]

A diuretic then.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Trump is at least consistently a liar so I'm perfectly comfortable with never trusting anything he says, whereas Clinton may or may not be telling the truth and I can never know which and can't stand the uncertainty" argument//

You say you know he’s lying and therefore, from that point of view, you must know where you stand. In Clinton’s case you know she lies but you don’t know which are lies and which are not. Therefore she’s the more dangerous option.

[Khandro]

It sounds as is if Hillary is about to get a (metaphorical) shafting by Assange;
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/717196/Hillary-is-done-warning-Julian-Assange-WikiLeaks-major-announcement

[jim360]

I genuinely can't tell if you are being serious or not in that last post, Naomi. Are you saying that you took my satirical argument seriously?!

Meanwhile, more meaningless insinuation from jj, only even more so. If we are going to draw analogies I think the best way of putting it is that all I can see is the same effect as the Curse of Tutankhamen -- trying to invent a cause where there is none.

Thankfully all of this is likely to be hypothetical, as Trump is enjoying a post-debate slump of his own making, but it's scary how seriously people take a serial liar orders of magnitude worse than any previous candidate and whose only objective is to make himself great again.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Are you saying that you took my satirical argument seriously?!//

Yes, I did take what you said seriously. Why wouldn’t I? Despite her dubious track record, you haven't been exactly reticent in your condemnation of him so nothing you say about either of them surprises me.

[joggerjayne]

1. Hillary secures the Democratic nomination.

2. Julian Assange, who is in hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy, says he has information that will be harmful to Hillary's campaign.

3. An intruder is apprehended, trying to scale the walls and enter the Ecuadorian Embassy, in an apparent murder attempt against Julian Assange.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ecuador-blasts-british-security-forces-8688626

Again ... nothing to do with the Clintons ... just a coincidence.

Again ... VERY convenient for Hillary, if he'd succeeded.

I so much want it to be just a coincidence. I want to live in a world where politicians don't do bad things, and don't lie to us. I really, really do want to live in a world where highlighting a succession of curious fact about politicians truly is "meaningless insinuation".

I want to live in a world where the President does not have sex with interns and then lie about it. Where the President's wife does not threaten to "destroy" two girls who came forward with sexual harassment claims about her husband. Where presidential candidates don't say "I will never allow same sex marriage" and then claim to support equal sex rights. Where the money from the Clinton Foundation actually got paid to the people for whom it was donated. Where people who challenged the Clintons did not so regularly die. I truly want it to be that way. So I truly hope that I am wrong about Hillary.

Show me that none of this is true. I will be SO happy if I'm wrong. I want to be proved wrong.

But when, instead of information or facts, I'm just told that my facts are meaningl as insinuation, I think ... oh no, I'm actually right.

Ironically, the only "meaningless insinuation" is the suggestion that my posts are "meaningless insinuation".

You see my problem.

ps. I presume that the, err "fact" that Hillary's husband had a (not very) secret (and totally illegal - the investigator meeting with a person associated with the subject of the investigation) meeting with the Attorney General on a private aircraft, the day before the AG decided that the Justice Department were going to drop the criminal investigation against Hillary is also ... meaningless insinuation?

[-Talbot-]

Have you actually bothered to take the time to investigate and consider whether the meaningless insinuations against the Clintons have any merit, Jim?

I don't mean by looking at conspiracy websites btw.

[cassa333]

Too long a thread to read it all but the losses might not really be losses. They could just as easily be very good accounting to show a loss.

I would be looking to see I for all his planes, homes and such like are company losses rather than part of his personal wealth? Appearances of wealth are much more effective than actual wealth.