Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2016 18:32:15 GMT
Gotta think that Trump will sue the NY Times for doing something illegal like posting someones tax returns like that. The corporate CEOs want someone like Clinton in the WH so that there will be no change at all. I would guess 3-5 lawsuits if he loses and if he somehow pulls it out, some stupid Patriot Act like proposal against the press or an "independent commission on media bias unbias" or something idiotic to be voted down 4-96 in the Senate. Whatever it is, Sean Hannity will be in favor of it. I wouldn't be surprised if he levies some ungodly suit of 10 billion based on losing the election. I don't like any constraints against the press, but something has to change when even fact checking (the new op-eds) has become corrupted and the media is giving money to the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, the MSM is almost dead. CNN's highest rated show in prime time is #19. Nobody buys newspapers and you can clear cookies to read all web content beyond limits.
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Oct 9, 2016 4:10:45 GMT
Had a feeling the Dumster might not even make it to election night,now a possibility .Rnc want to oust him
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 9, 2016 10:57:11 GMT
Gotta think that Trump will sue the NY Times for doing something illegal like posting someones tax returns like that. The corporate CEOs want someone like Clinton in the WH so that there will be no change at all. I would guess 3-5 lawsuits if he loses and if he somehow pulls it out, some stupid Patriot Act like proposal against the press or an "independent commission on media bias unbias" or something idiotic to be voted down 4-96 in the Senate. Whatever it is, Sean Hannity will be in favor of it. I wouldn't be surprised if he levies some ungodly suit of 10 billion based on losing the election. I don't like any constraints against the press, but something has to change when even fact checking (the new op-eds) has become corrupted and the media is giving money to the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, the MSM is almost dead. CNN's highest rated show in prime time is #19. Nobody buys newspapers and you can clear cookies to read all web content beyond limits. It is illegal to publish FEDERAL tax returns without consent. The tax returns that were published were LOCAL returns. The documents were mailed to the NYT, the NYT did not break into an office and steal them. Who sent them? You can speculate all you want, but it could have been his wife at the time and she would be completely within her legal rights to send them to the press.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 13:35:58 GMT
I would guess 3-5 lawsuits if he loses and if he somehow pulls it out, some stupid Patriot Act like proposal against the press or an "independent commission on media bias unbias" or something idiotic to be voted down 4-96 in the Senate. Whatever it is, Sean Hannity will be in favor of it. I wouldn't be surprised if he levies some ungodly suit of 10 billion based on losing the election. I don't like any constraints against the press, but something has to change when even fact checking (the new op-eds) has become corrupted and the media is giving money to the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, the MSM is almost dead. CNN's highest rated show in prime time is #19. Nobody buys newspapers and you can clear cookies to read all web content beyond limits. It is illegal to publish FEDERAL tax returns without consent. The tax returns that were published were LOCAL returns. The documents were mailed to the NYT, the NYT did not break into an office and steal them. Who sent them? You can speculate all you want, but it could have been his wife at the time and she would be completely within her legal rights to send them to the press. That's not true. This weekend, The New York Times obtained a portion of Donald Trump‘s 1995 income tax returns that seem to suggest that he could have avoided paying federal income taxes for the last 18 years. The reason? Trump reported a $916 million loss back then, which could have helped him legally avoid paying taxes for years. The story behind how the Times got a hold of the returns is even more mysterious. The three pages were apparently sent to Times reporter Susanne Craig anonymously. Even stranger, the document had a return address of Trump Tower. Trump’s attorney immediately sent a letter to the editors of the Times arguing that publishing the records is “illegal” because Mr. Trump has not authorized the disclosure of any of his tax returns.” So, is that true? Is it illegal for The Times to publish his returns? Technically, it could be. The Times will likely assert a First Amendment defense, and they may have a very strong defense. However, there is one provision in federal law that will make this difficult for the newspaper. Federal law does make it illegal for “any person” to publish an unauthorized tax return: "It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution." But anyways, I've had enough of this guy. He should withdraw from the race, but won't. Hopefully he can lose gracefully.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Oct 9, 2016 14:03:39 GMT
It is illegal to publish FEDERAL tax returns without consent. The tax returns that were published were LOCAL returns. The documents were mailed to the NYT, the NYT did not break into an office and steal them. Who sent them? You can speculate all you want, but it could have been his wife at the time and she would be completely within her legal rights to send them to the press. That's not true. This weekend, The New York Times obtained a portion of Donald Trump‘s 1995 income tax returns that seem to suggest that he could have avoided paying federal income taxes for the last 18 years. The reason? Trump reported a $916 million loss back then, which could have helped him legally avoid paying taxes for years. The story behind how the Times got a hold of the returns is even more mysterious. The three pages were apparently sent to Times reporter Susanne Craig anonymously. Even stranger, the document had a return address of Trump Tower. Trump’s attorney immediately sent a letter to the editors of the Times arguing that publishing the records is “illegal” because Mr. Trump has not authorized the disclosure of any of his tax returns.” So, is that true? Is it illegal for The Times to publish his returns? Technically, it could be. The Times will likely assert a First Amendment defense, and they may have a very strong defense. However, there is one provision in federal law that will make this difficult for the newspaper. Federal law does make it illegal for “any person” to publish an unauthorized tax return: "It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution." But anyways, I've had enough of this guy. He should withdraw from the race, but won't. Hopefully he can lose gracefully. If he brings up Bill Clinton's past indiscretions at the debate tonight, especially after this latest massive gaffe regarding the 2005 Access Hollywood revelation, then he is truly more ignorant than I thought. No pussy-footin' from Robert De Niro on Trump, henry.
|
|
|
Post by RichHillOntario on Oct 9, 2016 14:15:25 GMT
What form do you expect from him tonight, henry? A more consistently poised, consistently disciplined Trump, reminiscent of his first 15 or so minutes last time or defiant, frequently interrupting, scatter-gun Trump? At this point, you might not give a shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 14:17:31 GMT
That's not true. This weekend, The New York Times obtained a portion of Donald Trump‘s 1995 income tax returns that seem to suggest that he could have avoided paying federal income taxes for the last 18 years. The reason? Trump reported a $916 million loss back then, which could have helped him legally avoid paying taxes for years. The story behind how the Times got a hold of the returns is even more mysterious. The three pages were apparently sent to Times reporter Susanne Craig anonymously. Even stranger, the document had a return address of Trump Tower. Trump’s attorney immediately sent a letter to the editors of the Times arguing that publishing the records is “illegal” because Mr. Trump has not authorized the disclosure of any of his tax returns.” So, is that true? Is it illegal for The Times to publish his returns? Technically, it could be. The Times will likely assert a First Amendment defense, and they may have a very strong defense. However, there is one provision in federal law that will make this difficult for the newspaper. Federal law does make it illegal for “any person” to publish an unauthorized tax return: "It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution." But anyways, I've had enough of this guy. He should withdraw from the race, but won't. Hopefully he can lose gracefully. If he brings up Bill Clinton's past indiscretions at the debate tonight, especially after this latest massive gaffe regarding the 2005 Access Hollywood revelation, then he is truly more ignorant than I thought. No pussy-footin' from Robert De Niro on Trump, henry. Yeah, I'm off the Trump Train. I supported Rubio in the primary because he's electable and other circular arguments, but enough is enough out of this guy. He had a few good weeks after his convention when everything spiraled out of control for Hillary because of the DNC emails, but he's shown that he doesn't have the capacity to grow into the Presidency. He keeps making simple, unforced errors with everything on the line. He's gone through thrrr campaign staffs. Any supporter for Trump with half a brain has a tacit acknowledgement that he's going to need to lean on a cabinet, but I doubt he'll even listen to them. His only real qualification is not being Hillary Clinton. Trump isn't one of us...not trying to excuse his behavior, but his policy stances are mostly liberal with a few conservative takes thrown in for good measure. He's far left of Hillary on trade and foreign intervention. Conservatism isn't on the ballot, which was my justification for voting Trump, but I'm not interested in four years of idiotic and divisive comments like Paul LePage in Maine. I'm going to research the write-in laws for Flords because Gary Johnson is yet another idiot in this election...and really, they're all idiots this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 14:19:48 GMT
What form do you expect from him tonight, henry? A more consistently poised, consistently disciplined Trump, reminiscent of his first 15 or so minutes last time or defiant, frequently interrupting, scatter-gun Trump? At this point, you might not give a shit. I expect a half hearted apology and him to spend half his time clumsily trying to relitigate Bill Clinton's indiscretions. A decisive loss, and maybe a few YouTube moments. I think he'll be totally rattled. People might even boo.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 9, 2016 14:47:06 GMT
Meanwhile liberal mainstream media won't discuss Billary's wall st. speech transcripts that were just released.
I can see her laughing as she was discussing the "middle class". Her Illinois conservatism has never left.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Oct 9, 2016 15:23:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2016 15:47:24 GMT
Well...because frankly Garbage Johnson is an obstructionist simpleton who would rather smoke a fat doob than spend twentry minutes learning the names of critical world leaders.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Oct 9, 2016 16:00:11 GMT
Well...because frankly Garbage Johnson is an obstructionist simpleton who would rather smoke a fat doob than spend twentry minutes learning the names of critical world leaders. Yeah, i don't think he needs a fat doob either, when a little spliff would suffice. No need to overdo it, or overdoob it! Hahaha!
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Oct 9, 2016 17:26:49 GMT
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon Going to the candidates' debate Laugh about it, shout about it When you've got to choose Every way you look at this you lose
|
|
|
Post by neelycam on Oct 9, 2016 18:06:54 GMT
Thing is he was lying scum bag before this video (more to follow) why jump ship now ,don't see what's changed
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 0:11:09 GMT
Welp, Trump spent his afternoon in a press conference with the Clinton victims. We could be in store for a grudge match style debate. Maybe Trump thinks his only hope is to give Hillary a heart attack or cause her to faint. I wouldn't even watch, but I'm on a plane and have nothing better to do. Expect RNC funding to be diverted to House and Senate races as early as next week.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 10, 2016 0:36:18 GMT
Kochs already put their money back into the freedom caucus and the toss up Senate races.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 0:53:04 GMT
Get her Donald!😸
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 1:01:15 GMT
Kochs already put their money back into the freedom caucus and the toss up Senate races. That Freedom Caucus is like a windup toy for the Koch's. That's the game, though. They need money to stay in power. They need to pass campaign finance reform.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Oct 10, 2016 4:08:21 GMT
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon Going to the candidates' debate Laugh about it, shout about it When you've got to choose Every way you look at this you lose You must vote so your voice will be heard so make your choice between a douche and a turd....
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Oct 10, 2016 4:09:40 GMT
Welp, Trump spent his afternoon in a press conference with the Clinton victims. We could be in store for a grudge match style debate. Maybe Trump thinks his only hope is to give Hillary a heart attack or cause her to faint. I wouldn't even watch, but I'm on a plane and have nothing better to do. Expect RNC funding to be diverted to House and Senate races as early as next week. If they haven't already done this, they're dumber than I thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 6:01:19 GMT
Welp, Trump spent his afternoon in a press conference with the Clinton victims. We could be in store for a grudge match style debate. Maybe Trump thinks his only hope is to give Hillary a heart attack or cause her to faint. I wouldn't even watch, but I'm on a plane and have nothing better to do. Expect RNC funding to be diverted to House and Senate races as early as next week. If they haven't already done this, they're dumber than I thought. He's bringing in all the dough...
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 10, 2016 12:47:29 GMT
Jailing your political opponent? One new low after another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 13:21:41 GMT
Jailing your political opponent? One new low after another. Taken out of context. He said he would appoint a special prosecutor them zinger her with a "you would be in jail if I were President." I don't care for it. After the election he should be running the country instead of settling scores with old bags. Trump won the debate decisively, and in fact, I haven't seen a more one sided debate in my life. But, we've seen this before. He says something or some outragus accusation comes up and he tanks/dominates the news cycle for a few days. Then he gets on track and back in the game, but he's alwaus been losing, and barring some unknown revelation or health issue from Hillary, will lose in three weeks.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 10, 2016 14:23:06 GMT
Jailing your political opponent? One new low after another. Taken out of context. He said he would appoint a special prosecutor them zinger her with a "you would be in jail if I were President." I don't care for it. After the election he should be running the country instead of settling scores with old bags. Trump won the debate decisively, and in fact, I haven't seen a more one sided debate in my life. But, we've seen this before. He says something or some outragus accusation comes up and he tanks/dominates the news cycle for a few days. Then he gets on track and back in the game, but he's alwaus been losing, and barring some unknown revelation or health issue from Hillary, will lose in three weeks. To appoint a special prosecutor is to find guilt, not innocence, it is exactly saying "I will find someone to get you." He won the debate? I will grant he did significantly better than the first debate, but I wouldn't call it decisive as a matter of fact the scientific CNN poll had it about 60-40 Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 10, 2016 14:43:26 GMT
There should be some laws enacted to up the requirements for running for president, releasing their tax returns is one thing I can think of. Or hopefully both Donald and Hillary are an aberration that we will never see again. No matter how you slice it, this election is an all time low for the United States. Somehow or other this must be avoided in the future.
|
|