Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

Hillary also declared a frog meme racist propaganda... so there's that.

Did HRC herself say that? I only heard that the ADL declared it a hate symbol.

And while a "hate symbol" is a tad hyperbolic, the fact that it has been co-opted by the alt-right does mean the message has changed.

It means that while a Pepe the Frog t-shirt used to be shorthand to other nerds at the Con that you were into the same cultural memes that they are, it now indicates that the bearer is an incredibly sad little man who covers up his frustrations at being left behind by a changing world by railing against imagined persecutions and idolizing hateful, brutish pedagogues.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Does anyone think this tax deal actually hurts Trump? I don't think it does anymore than being and millionaire already would.

NYT is trying to pull a Harry Reid imo.

Will it hurt him? Maybe as it certainly did with Romeny.

What it should highlight, is that the wealthy and powerful has LEGAL means in the tax code to pay little or no taxes.

You think the returns are fake?

I have no idea.

If it's real, the leaker and possible the NYT broke federal laws releasing government papers.

 jmurph wrote:
Does anyone think this tax deal actually hurts Trump? I don't think it does anymore than being and millionaire already would.

I think the fact that he is a rich man who uses the existing tax laws shouldn't hurt him, because he didn't do anything illegal.

What should hurt him is that he paints himself as the defender of the poor and middle class while talking about bad rich people and corporations and telling the people at his rallies that the people use their power to lobby and use tax laws that let them get away with not paying taxes, leaving everybody else to pick up the slack because the rich don't actually care for american and are not paying taxes to support them. So he's the bad guy he keeps on complaining about.

But of course the same thing already happened when he continues to talk about how bad guy companies outsource jobs and taking them away from hardworking Americans, while having the vast majority of his Trump-marked anything manufactured in foreign markets. And that didn't hurt him either.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Does anyone think this tax deal actually hurts Trump? I don't think it does anymore than being and millionaire already would.

NYT is trying to pull a Harry Reid imo.

Will it hurt him? Maybe as it certainly did with Romeny.

What it should highlight, is that the wealthy and powerful has LEGAL means in the tax code to pay little or no taxes.

You think the returns are fake?

I have no idea.

If it's real, the leaker and possible the NYT broke federal laws releasing government papers.

Really? I could see the leaker as they must have stolen/broken in to/hacked wherever the returns were stored, but, AFAIK, it would not be illegal for the NYT to release them.

And I believe the NYT. I seriously doubt they'd make something like that up.

It's Deep Throat all over again!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Does anyone think this tax deal actually hurts Trump? I don't think it does anymore than being and millionaire already would.

NYT is trying to pull a Harry Reid imo.

Will it hurt him? Maybe as it certainly did with Romeny.

What it should highlight, is that the wealthy and powerful has LEGAL means in the tax code to pay little or no taxes.

You think the returns are fake?

I have no idea.

If it's real, the leaker and possible the NYT broke federal laws releasing government papers.

Really? I could see the leaker as they must have stolen/broken in to/hacked wherever the returns were stored, but, AFAIK, it would not be illegal for the NYT to release them.

NYT could get in real trouble as Trump isn't a government official. (whistleblower laws doesn't protect leakers of private individuals AFAIK).

But, I don't think it'll hurt his supporters... more of a play into driving a wedge between the indies.

And I believe the NYT. I seriously doubt they'd make something like that up.

NYT times doesn't have to make it up... they received something that was alledgedly Trump's tax return.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It's Deep Throat all over again!

Ha!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EDIT: but, then again... this is de jour in a crazy election season.... I recall in 2008, someone illegally released "Joe The Plumber" taxes..

So... yeah.

NYT won't be liable if it occurred the way they said.

Yes it will hurt, with independents. The concept that he could avoid paying taxes for years, if ever, is abhorrent when his employees are paying taxes-and they are paying taxes.

 whembly wrote:


Just heard on the radio this morning that Trump's company bought a building where one of the tenet was an Iranian bank that was prohibited from doing business in the US.

JFC....

And?...

More importantly, it highlights that Trump isn't as rich as he likes to believe and that hits Trump right where it hurts, in his ego. He is bound to get a little crazy around that topic.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Just heard on the radio this morning that Trump's company bought a building where one of the tenet was an Iranian bank that was prohibited from doing business in the US.

JFC....

And?...

It would be illegal at the time it occurred for said bank to be operating in the US, making the purchase of the building and the continuing operation of said bank within a Trump problem.

 Frazzled wrote:
NYT won't be liable if it occurred the way they said.

Yes it will hurt, with independents. The concept that he could avoid paying taxes for years, if ever, is abhorrent when his employees are paying taxes-and they are paying taxes.

The analysis I'm seeing is that this doesn't really change anything, but it makes it less likely that Trump can rally in the last month. With Virginia now pretty safely for Clinton, even if Trump wins Ohio and Florida, (and all other light pink states, like Iowa, NH, NC, and Maine 2nd), he still needs Nevada, New mexico, Michigan, or Pennsylvania to break his way. I don't buy Nevada or New Mexico, even with the Gary Johnson complication, as there are too many likely voters that don't want Trump, and not enough that do. Still, what this means is that Trump needs to win over even more people in blue collar, generally democractic leaning states. That's where stories like this hurt him, in that it becomes tougher for him to fly into Pittsburgh or Detroit and talk about how he's going to help the little guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
More importantly, it highlights that Trump isn't as rich as he likes to believe and that hits Trump right where it hurts, in his ego. He is bound to get a little crazy around that topic.

And that's the catch: the Clinton campaign seems to have figured out they're not going to win this thing with logical persuasion. Instead, push his buttons and watch him go off the rails. For a guy that was basically bulletproof in the primary debates, he looked very different in that first debate. You start tying that with not paying taxes and 3am twitter feuds with beauty queens, and it paints a pretty messed up picture.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Just heard on the radio this morning that Trump's company bought a building where one of the tenet was an Iranian bank that was prohibited from doing business in the US.

JFC....

And?...

It would be illegal at the time it occurred for said bank to be operating in the US, making the purchase of the building and the continuing operation of said bank within a Trump problem.

OK. Then its a bit pre-emptive to start face palming no? Maybe Trump will kick them out?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Just heard on the radio this morning that Trump's company bought a building where one of the tenet was an Iranian bank that was prohibited from doing business in the US.

JFC....

And?...

It would be illegal at the time it occurred for said bank to be operating in the US, making the purchase of the building and the continuing operation of said bank within a Trump problem.

OK. Then its a bit pre-emptive to start face palming no? Maybe Trump will kick them out?

Whembly would have to tell us when this occurred. I don't think it would be illegal for the bank to be there now that the Iran Deal has ended most (if not all, I'm just not up to date on it) of the economic sanctions on Iran.

We'd have to know when Trump bought the building. 1990 vs 2015 makes a significant difference, especially given that Trump wants to hold the deal against Hillary and Obama as a talking point for his campaign.

Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Just heard on the radio this morning that Trump's company bought a building where one of the tenet was an Iranian bank that was prohibited from doing business in the US.

JFC....

And?...

It would be illegal at the time it occurred for said bank to be operating in the US, making the purchase of the building and the continuing operation of said bank within a Trump problem.

OK. Then its a bit pre-emptive to start face palming no? Maybe Trump will kick them out?

Whembly would have to tell us when this occurred. I don't think it would be illegal for the bank to be there now that the Iran Deal has ended most (if not all, I'm just not up to date on it) of the economic sanctions on Iran.

We'd have to know when Trump bought the building. 1990 vs 2015 makes a significant difference, especially given that Trump wants to hold the deal against Hillary and Obama as a talking point for his campaign.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-group-did-business-iranian-bank-later-linked-terror-n657636

rump inherited Bank Melli, one of Iran's largest state-controlled banks, as a tenant when he purchased the General Motors Building on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, according to public records reviewed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The Trump Organization kept the bank on as a tenant for four more years after the U.S. Treasury Department designated Bank Melli in 1999 as being controlled by the Iranian government.

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

Strangely similar to the Clinton comments about Bernie Supporters that raise a hoopla this weekend where the spin machine took out of context

If you read what she said, she was sympathizing with millenials with massive debt and worthless degrees

This whole election cycle is the worst kindof manufactured outrage over dumb things.

Some deserve criticism, others are just pointless gotchas

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

I'm not sure he's in any danger of losing the veterans vote, by my very informal straw polling. And I agree, it doesn't jump out at me as being dismissive or callous. Which is unusual, as those seem to be his normal emotions.

So 1999 to 2003-4ish. Well I guess he got rid of them eventually. You'd have to do an investigation to see how directly involved Trump was in the bank as a tenant (thought it is embarrassing). All other things being as they are, Trump's company is huge, and I honestly don't expect him to have perfect clarity on everything that goes on inside it. For all I know he had no idea that bank was there and it was all being handled by someone else.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

I'm not sure he's in any danger of losing the veterans vote, by my very informal straw polling. And I agree, it doesn't jump out at me as being dismissive or callous. Which is unusual, as those seem to be his normal emotions.

The problem is that it basically makes the assertion that vets without ptsd are strong, and those who do have it are weak.

How does he know that the vets in the room aren't suffering? And if they are, well, now they can't try to seek out help, because they're then admitting they're weak.

And, you know, this is coming from the guy who talked about avoiding STDs as his own personal Vietnam, and called himself a "great and very brave soldier."

 LordofHats wrote:
So 1999 to 2003-4ish. Well I guess he got rid of them eventually. You'd have to do an investigation to see how directly involved Trump was in the bank as a tenant (thought it is embarrassing). All other things being as they are, Trump's company is huge, and I honestly don't expect him to have perfect clarity on everything that goes on inside it. For all I know he had no idea that bank was there and it was all being handled by someone else.

You're defending Trump!?!?!*


*okay... you might have a point that this is an unfair attack on Trump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

Strangely similar to the Clinton comments about Bernie Supporters that raise a hoopla this weekend where the spin machine took out of context

If you read what she said, she was sympathizing with millenials with massive debt and worthless degrees

This whole election cycle is the worst kindof manufactured outrage over dumb things.

Some deserve criticism, others are just pointless gotchas

You mean her #BasementDweller speech?

The big takeaway of that speech, to me, is that she's arguing for policies of incrementalism, rather than the whole shebang that Sanders advocated for...

Oh... and also that she'll continue Obama's economic policies that created these #BasementDwellers in the first place.

But, alas... I didn't think it was that outrageous.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
So 1999 to 2003-4ish. Well I guess he got rid of them eventually. You'd have to do an investigation to see how directly involved Trump was in the bank as a tenant (thought it is embarrassing). All other things being as they are, Trump's company is huge, and I honestly don't expect him to have perfect clarity on everything that goes on inside it. For all I know he had no idea that bank was there and it was all being handled by someone else.

You defending Trump!*


*okay... you might have a point that this is an unfair attack on Trump.

It's not so much a defense (or an unfair attack, I mean come on it's kind of silly to profit from sanction violations for 4 years and rail against the sitting President for making a Deal to end them) so much as a recognition. We like to blame people at the top for everything that goes on under their roof when there is a reality that many organizations are simply too big for anyone to really have a complete grasp of what's going on inside them. It's why conglomerates are so difficult as legal entities to regulate, why corruption in large government structures can flourish absent the President's knowledge, or how the CIA can get away with spying on Congress once a decade. The bigger things become, the more absurd it is to expect 1 person to be responsible for it.

Maybe Trump knew, which wouldn't surprise me, but maybe he didn't. Someone would have to look hard into the matter to make that determination.

infinite_array wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

I'm not sure he's in any danger of losing the veterans vote, by my very informal straw polling. And I agree, it doesn't jump out at me as being dismissive or callous. Which is unusual, as those seem to be his normal emotions.

The problem is that it basically makes the assertion that vets without ptsd are strong, and those who do have it are weak.

How does he know that the vets in the room aren't suffering? And if they are, well, now they can't try to seek out help, because they're then admitting they're weak.

I guess I just consider that such a universally misunderstood aspect of mental health that I wouldn't connect it to veterans. But I would consider it a remark that shows little insight, not that is mean.

I have my problems with the remarks, which I think are pretty representative of his superficial understanding of much of the world, but trying to spin them into arguing that Trump was mean to vets is dumb and counterproductive.

 Polonius wrote:

infinite_array wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

I'm not sure he's in any danger of losing the veterans vote, by my very informal straw polling. And I agree, it doesn't jump out at me as being dismissive or callous. Which is unusual, as those seem to be his normal emotions.

The problem is that it basically makes the assertion that vets without ptsd are strong, and those who do have it are weak.

How does he know that the vets in the room aren't suffering? And if they are, well, now they can't try to seek out help, because they're then admitting they're weak.

I guess I just consider that such a universally misunderstood aspect of mental health that I wouldn't connect it to veterans. But I would consider it a remark that shows little insight, not that is mean.

I have my problems with the remarks, which I think are pretty representative of his superficial understanding of much of the world, but trying to spin them into arguing that Trump was mean to vets is dumb and counterproductive.

Actually, I haven't seen any news outlets calling Trump "mean" because of these remarks; that seems to be Frazzled's own words. I've seen them calling him out for perpetuating a line of thinking that causes more harm.

 Polonius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Trump being accused of being mean to vets again:
""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over and you're strong and you can handle it but a lot of people can't handle it. They see horror stories, they see events you couldn't see in a movie, nobody would believe it," Trump said Monday, during a panel interview at the Retired American Warriors PAC, in Herndon, Virginia. "

BUT if you read what he said, that sounds right and as much as I hate to say it, sounds like he's feeling for them.

I'm not sure he's in any danger of losing the veterans vote, by my very informal straw polling. And I agree, it doesn't jump out at me as being dismissive or callous. Which is unusual, as those seem to be his normal emotions.

Agreed on all points.

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
So 1999 to 2003-4ish. Well I guess he got rid of them eventually. You'd have to do an investigation to see how directly involved Trump was in the bank as a tenant (thought it is embarrassing). All other things being as they are, Trump's company is huge, and I honestly don't expect him to have perfect clarity on everything that goes on inside it. For all I know he had no idea that bank was there and it was all being handled by someone else.

You defending Trump!*


*okay... you might have a point that this is an unfair attack on Trump.

It's not so much a defense (or an unfair attack, I mean come on it's kind of silly to profit from sanction violations for 4 years and rail against the sitting President for making a Deal to end them) so much as a recognition. We like to blame people at the top for everything that goes on under their roof when there is a reality that many organizations are simply too big for anyone to really have a complete grasp of what's going on inside them. It's why conglomerates are so difficult as legal entities to regulate, why corruption in large government structures can flourish absent the President's knowledge, or how the CIA can get away with spying on Congress once a decade. The bigger things become, the more absurd it is to expect 1 person to be responsible for it.

Maybe Trump knew, which wouldn't surprise me, but maybe he didn't. Someone would have to look hard into the matter to make that determination.

It also doesn't help that Trump claims that his direct involvement and talent are what makes his business successful. He acts like his hands keep them great, which makes it hard for him to hide behind the "I didn't know" curtain.

That's probably a fair attack XD

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
So 1999 to 2003-4ish. Well I guess he got rid of them eventually. You'd have to do an investigation to see how directly involved Trump was in the bank as a tenant (thought it is embarrassing). All other things being as they are, Trump's company is huge, and I honestly don't expect him to have perfect clarity on everything that goes on inside it. For all I know he had no idea that bank was there and it was all being handled by someone else.

You defending Trump!*


*okay... you might have a point that this is an unfair attack on Trump.

It's not so much a defense (or an unfair attack, I mean come on it's kind of silly to profit from sanction violations for 4 years and rail against the sitting President for making a Deal to end them) so much as a recognition. We like to blame people at the top for everything that goes on under their roof when there is a reality that many organizations are simply too big for anyone to really have a complete grasp of what's going on inside them. It's why conglomerates are so difficult as legal entities to regulate, why corruption in large government structures can flourish absent the President's knowledge, or how the CIA can get away with spying on Congress once a decade. The bigger things become, the more absurd it is to expect 1 person to be responsible for it.

Maybe Trump knew, which wouldn't surprise me, but maybe he didn't. Someone would have to look hard into the matter to make that determination.

Not really, ask any general, admiral, or captain of an aircraft carrier. The buck stops there. I can't see trump being the type to let others make decisions for his companies, he comes across as a micro manager.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Not really, ask any general, admiral, or captain of an aircraft carrier. The buck stops there.

Comparative to a multi-national corporation or a US Department, all of these things are actually quite small relatively, but even then we'd never hold an Admiral responsible for a sailor who murders another sailor just because the former sailor was under his command. We'd hold him responsible only for the things that he actually ordered, or things that he really should have known about. For example the recent Wells Fargo controversy, which was so pervasive that it's impossible for anyone to think that the people running the bank didn't know about it. You don't fire thousands of employees in such a short time for defrauding your customers and not notice it. On the other hand, it's not that much of a stretch to think that Trump doesn't personally track every tenant paying rent.

I would think the New York AG's office ordering the Trump Foundation to cease collection activities would be more troubling. The bank thing seems like a nonstarter.

His comments to the veteran's group, while inarticulate, have to be taken grossly out of context to be viewed as an insult. And he has repeatedly shown he knows how to insult.

 jmurph wrote:
I would think the New York AG's office ordering the Trump Foundation to cease collection activities would be more troubling. The bank thing seems like a nonstarter.

His comments to the veteran's group, while inarticulate, have to be taken grossly out of context to be viewed as an insult. And he has repeatedly shown he knows how to insult.

Good for NY AG...

Now do the Clinton Foundation.