[POLITICS] Trump Admits Tax Fraud

[Agema]

Even people born in privilege can do worse than Trump. Bush jr is typical New England elite and he was a stumbling alcoholic who was a disaster in his old man's oil company and didn't find a purpose in life until he 'found the lord', became president and invaded Iraq.

Trump atleast build a real estate empire from a family fortune that other rich kids would snort through their nose or live passively from.

Trump didn't build a real estate empire - he inherited one and expanded it. Secondly, no-one deserves special merit just for not leading a dissolute life. I will certainly grant that Trump was successful, and probably more than many of his rich kid peers who lived comfortably on their wealth without much building on it. On the other hand, how successful was he, with wider context?

We know Trump effectively got ~$400 million from his father (in today's money). If this $400M were invested in the stock market from when Trump started in the 70s, with average annual real terms returns of ~4-5%, it'd be worth $2.5-3 billion today. Simply owning chunks of New York over a similar period, average annual growth in land value has been 5.1%, coming to ~$3B... plus of course should have earned rent from that land too. So that should really form a sort of baseline. Bearing in mind someone living on investments would use some for personal expenditure, it'd be less. Call it $2 billion.

So how much is Trump worth? He's famous for constantly inflating his wealth (he even lost a court case suing someone who said he was worth less thanhe claimed), but Forbes and Bloomberg estimate he's worth ~$3 billion. Plus whatever his personal expenditure was all those years, I'm guessing hundreds of millions at least.

Thus it's quite hard to see that Trump has done particularly well overall - surely more in the "modestly above average" bracket than superstar.

 

[CaitSeith]

Never ask 'Is it legal?', ask 'Is it Just?'

It doesn't matter what Trump does is legal or not, anything 'legal' he has done should not be legal, for he is an evil terrorist tyrant, and should be overthrown.

If the law is evil, then fuck the law.

That corrupt business is legal is a failing of Capitalism and Government. Basically, copy/paste the 'Eat the Rich' topic.

Sorry. I didn't get where you were going because "Tax fraud" sounds like something that has less to do with injustice and more with breaking the tax law.

 

[Saelune]

Never ask 'Is it legal?', ask 'Is it Just?'

It doesn't matter what Trump does is legal or not, anything 'legal' he has done should not be legal, for he is an evil terrorist tyrant, and should be overthrown.

If the law is evil, then fuck the law.

That corrupt business is legal is a failing of Capitalism and Government. Basically, copy/paste the 'Eat the Rich' topic.

Sorry. I didn't get where you were going because "Tax fraud" sounds like something that has less to do with injustice and more with breaking the tax law.

Well one, he lied, two tax fraud is not legal, and three, even if it is legal, we shouldn't be justifying it by going 'It was legal, lets not bother'.

Both Clintons got in more trouble for less. Nixon also got in more trouble for less.

 

[stroopwafel]

You are terribly mistaken on the Russia investigation, if you had actually paid attention to what had happened you would see that Clinton's server was never breached, it was Podesta's and according to the Mueller report the day that Trump publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton they actually tried pretty damn hard to do so. Trump's own son did collaborate with Russia to try to get dirt on Clinton and was working with Wikileaks to obtain illegally obtained documents. Trump's campaign chair was on Russia's payroll according to a ledger in the Ukraine and was paid to help elect the guy who actually gave part of his own country ( Ukraine) to Russia. It doesn't look like you have even familiarized yourself with the material you are trying to argue falsely claiming he was not guilty when Mueller and the people who wrote the report are arguing that Barr misrepresented the report's findings. According to Mueller and his team, the report did not say Trump was not guilty, and I think they would know considering they were the one's who wrote it. Why do you think Trump is trying to prevent Mueller from testifying and refused to allow the Judiciary Committee access to the full report?

If you are going to argue these things, it would help if you actually bothered to review the content.

None of those claims were ever substantiated and Trump's campaign team isn't suddenly guilty of treason b/c some Ukrainian ledger said so. There is also lots of reason for alterior motives. The Democrats want Trump out. Ukraine wants sanctions on Russia for obvious reasons. Didn't know of any rape charges but no doubt there was a fortune in settlements. His competitors want to damage his reputation, but if his unwillingness to pay his suppliers(if even true) was structural instead of incidental do you honestly believe any company wants to still do business with him? No, the opposite is true.


I never said Clinton's server was breached I said her emails leaked, and that was the initial reason for the whole investigation. The Democrats tried to deny the investigation was politically motivated but if one of the leaked emails was about the Benghazi fiasco that Hilary was personally responsible for by splitting the security division of the CIA annex from the embassy she directly put the lives of those diplomats at risk. Worse even since she was briefed of an imminent attack. That is negligence at best and fatally incompetent at worst. Neither bode well for a presidential candidate, espescially one that is already painfully self-righteous. Also interesting to note that she herself pushed for the removal of Kadhaffi making her indirectly responsible for the refugee crisis.

Not the biggest Trump fan but when all is said and done he still paid more taxes than 99% of people.

Except for all those years when the losses he reported in his tax return meant that he didn't have to pay taxes at all, of course.

That's not even true. As is mentioned in the NYT article he still paid 1,4 million in income tax with the buyout of the construction contract of the Taj Mahal fiasco and 124k of alternative minimum tax at a time he was investing at a loss.

I love that selective reading you did there. The article specifies that in 8 out of the 10 years they investigated he did not pay any taxes, but you hold on to the two years that he did. That's what we call a Texas Sharpshooter in the logical fallacy business.

The same article also mentions that in other years his losses were so severe that there is no other explanation but his dad's fortune being responsible for his luxurious lifestyle. Accoring to his leaked tax returns of 2005 he already paid 38 million in taxes. I'm not denying here Trump isn't an unlikeable, pompous show-off with a delusional amount of bravado but that is not the same as malicious which, for example, the neocons and PNAC were during the Bush administration.

Trump is basically the 'fake it till you make it' archetype. You don't get to marry your high-class escort, own a huge plane with T R U M P on it or wear an orange comb-over with confidence by being a timid shut-in. If even half of the accusations were true Trump would not be the real estate tycoon he is today.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You are terribly mistaken on the Russia investigation, if you had actually paid attention to what had happened you would see that Clinton's server was never breached, it was Podesta's and according to the Mueller report the day that Trump publicly asked Russia to hack Clinton they actually tried pretty damn hard to do so. Trump's own son did collaborate with Russia to try to get dirt on Clinton and was working with Wikileaks to obtain illegally obtained documents. Trump's campaign chair was on Russia's payroll according to a ledger in the Ukraine and was paid to help elect the guy who actually gave part of his own country ( Ukraine) to Russia. It doesn't look like you have even familiarized yourself with the material you are trying to argue falsely claiming he was not guilty when Mueller and the people who wrote the report are arguing that Barr misrepresented the report's findings. According to Mueller and his team, the report did not say Trump was not guilty, and I think they would know considering they were the one's who wrote it. Why do you think Trump is trying to prevent Mueller from testifying and refused to allow the Judiciary Committee access to the full report?

If you are going to argue these things, it would help if you actually bothered to review the content.

None of those claims were ever substantiated and Trump's campaign team isn't suddenly guilty of treason b/c some Ukrainian ledger said so. There is also lots of reason for alterior motives. The Democrats want Trump out. Ukraine wants sanctions on Russia for obvious reasons. Didn't know of any rape charges but no doubt there was a fortune in settlements. His competitors want to damage his reputation, but if his unwillingness to pay his suppliers(if even true) was structural instead of incidental do you honestly believe any company wants to still do business with him? No, the opposite is true.


I never said Clinton's server was breached I said her emails leaked, and that was the initial reason for the whole investigation. The Democrats tried to deny the investigation was politically motivated but if one of the leaked emails was about the Benghazi fiasco that Hilary was personally responsible for by splitting the security division of the CIA annex from the embassy she directly put the lives of those diplomats at risk. Worse even since she was briefed of an imminent attack. That is negligence at best and fatally incompetent at worst. Neither bode well for a presidential candidate, espescially one that is already painfully self-righteous. Also interesting to note that she herself pushed for the removal of Kadhaffi making her indirectly responsible for the refugee crisis.

Not the biggest Trump fan but when all is said and done he still paid more taxes than 99% of people.

Except for all those years when the losses he reported in his tax return meant that he didn't have to pay taxes at all, of course.

That's not even true. As is mentioned in the NYT article he still paid 1,4 million in income tax with the buyout of the construction contract of the Taj Mahal fiasco and 124k of alternative minimum tax at a time he was investing at a loss.

I love that selective reading you did there. The article specifies that in 8 out of the 10 years they investigated he did not pay any taxes, but you hold on to the two years that he did. That's what we call a Texas Sharpshooter in the logical fallacy business.

The same article also mentions that in other years his losses were so severe that there is no other explanation but his dad's fortune being responsible for his luxurious lifestyle. Accoring to his leaked tax returns of 2005 he already paid 38 million in taxes. I'm not denying here Trump isn't an unlikeable, pompous show-off with a delusional amount of bravado but that is not the same as malicious which, for example, the neocons and PNAC were during the Bush administration.

Trump is basically the 'fake it till you make it' archetype. You don't get to marry your high-class escort, own a huge plane with T R U M P on it or wear an orange comb-over with confidence by being a timid shut-in. If even half of the accusations were true Trump would not be the real estate tycoon he is today.

Yes, the claims were substantiated. Every single thing I listed above was actually substantiated. I specifically listed things that were substantiated. The people making the accusations were not his competitors, they were his friends, supporters, partners and people who have known him a very long time.

The initial investigation was started by a leaks within Trump's campaign itself, not over the email hacking, that was initially an unrelated investigation that was tied into Trump's campaign by Trumps' mouth, Trump's son and stone's actions later . Whatever was going on with Clinton has no bearing on what has been going on with Trump and his inner circle for a very long time now. Trump chose to put a foreign agent in charge of National security. Trump chose to have a foreign agent as his campaign chair. No one made him do that, it was his personal choice to do so. BTW, the ledger was only a small part of the information they had on Manafort, did you read the Mueller report? Manafort has a long history of bad activity with foreign governments. You are acting as if the ledger was all they had, US and allied intelligence has had issues with him for a while now.

EDIT: why would you think he would not be who he is today with the claims being accurate? That is how he got to where he is, and yes the claims are true. They are what made him who he is. The same people who support him are not the same people who he has done business with. He bullied people to get where he is, and even worse many of the attorneys he used to do this with said he didn't pay them as well. He got where he is by self promotion and connections, not by having a good record. ALSO: Trump isn't what he claims to be. He has been proven a liar.

 

[stroopwafel]

Yes, the claims were substantiated. Every single thing I listed above was actually substantiated. I specifically listed things that were substantiated. The people making the accusations were not his competitors, they were his friends, supporters, partners and people who have known him a very long time.

People will turn on you on a dime when money is involved, and that includes business partners. If you are such a heavy investor as Trump was you are bound to step on some toes. Or to quote a Rumsfeld rule: ''if you are never criticized you probably aren't doing much.''

Fact remains that you don't build a real estate empire without a reputation for success, meaning he delivered much more than he disappointed.

The initial investigation was started by a leaks within Trump's campaign itself, not over the email hacking, that was initially an unrelated investigation that was tied into Trump's campaign by Trump's son and stone's actions later . Whatever was going on with Clinton has no bearing on what has been going on with Trump and his inner circle for a very long time now. Trump chose to put a foreign agent in charge of National security. Trump chose to have a foreign agent as his campaign chair. No one made him do that, it was his personal choice to do so. BTW, the ledger was only a small part of the information they had on Manafort, did you read the Mueller report? Manafort has a long history of bad activity with foreign governments. You are acting as if the ledger was all they had, US and allied intelligence has had issues with him for a while now.

EDIYT: why would you think he would not be who he is today with the claims being accurate? That is how he got to where he is, and yes the claims are true. They are what made him who he is.

Manafort advised more Republican candidates so it's unlikely he was hand picked and his lawsuits pertained foreign lobby work that was unrelated to Trump. You sound like one those conspiracy theorists with all your paranoia how Putin's agents infiltrated the White House instead of just poor human resource management of a president with zero political experience or connections. None of this even gave him any benefit with Manafort's controversy in particular only being detrimental. Who would shoot himself in the foot for no reason? Fact is many staff vacancies remained unoccupied for a long time being further proof the Trump administration struggled to find suitable candidates. No bonkers reason that there was some kind of deliberate intent for 'Russian infiltration'.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Yes, the claims were substantiated. Every single thing I listed above was actually substantiated. I specifically listed things that were substantiated. The people making the accusations were not his competitors, they were his friends, supporters, partners and people who have known him a very long time.

People will turn on you on a dime when money is involved, and that includes business partners. If you are such a heavy investor as Trump was you are bound to step on some toes. Or to quote a Rumsfeld rule: ''if you are never criticized you probably aren't doing much.''

Fact remains that you don't build a real estate empire without a reputation for success, meaning he delivered much more than he disappointed.

The initial investigation was started by a leaks within Trump's campaign itself, not over the email hacking, that was initially an unrelated investigation that was tied into Trump's campaign by Trump's son and stone's actions later . Whatever was going on with Clinton has no bearing on what has been going on with Trump and his inner circle for a very long time now. Trump chose to put a foreign agent in charge of National security. Trump chose to have a foreign agent as his campaign chair. No one made him do that, it was his personal choice to do so. BTW, the ledger was only a small part of the information they had on Manafort, did you read the Mueller report? Manafort has a long history of bad activity with foreign governments. You are acting as if the ledger was all they had, US and allied intelligence has had issues with him for a while now.

EDIYT: why would you think he would not be who he is today with the claims being accurate? That is how he got to where he is, and yes the claims are true. They are what made him who he is.

Manafort advised more Republican candidates so it's unlikely he was hand picked and his lawsuits pertained foreign lobby work that was unrelated to Trump. You sound like one those conspiracy theorists with all your paranoia how Putin's agents infiltrated the White House instead of just poor human resource management of a president with zero political experience or connections. None of this even gave him any benefit with Manafort's controversy in particular only being detrimental. Who would shoot himself in the foot for no reason? Fact is many staff vacancies remained unoccupied for a long time being further proof the Trump administration struggled to find suitable candidates. No bonkers reason that there was some kind of deliberate intent for 'Russian infiltration'.

You seriously want to pretend that Trump picked so many people with insider connections to Russia by coincidence? Yea, I don't think even you believe that one for a second. He saw their Russia connections as a bonus because improving relations with Russia was a core concern of Trumps because he was actively trying to have a Trump Tower Moscow built that was being hindered by US sanctions. Hell it was even the woman who organized Trumps 2013 pageant in Russia who announced his presidential campaign in 2015. The same woman who is in Agalarov's inner circle, you know the guys who arranged the Trump tower meeting for Eric Trump to get dirt from Russians on Clinton? Trump's friends? The Russian money laundering guys? None of this is coincidental. It is also not coincidental that Trump's long time Russia business dealings seem to keep popping up throughout this entire mess. This goes into more detail about each of the contacts here:
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

It is not a "conspiracy" that Trump wanted a Trump tower Moscow pretty bad, he has been trying to do that forever and has discussed it publicly, it is not some secret conspiracy. How is any of Trump's Russian agenda conspiracy? He has had business deals with them forever, it isn't like this is somehow new news. It could be considered a conflict of interests however. The fact that Trump attempted to hide it and lied about it is more of an issue than the fact he had business dealing there. But then again, it isn't like he doesn't lie about everything all the time anyways so I am not sure why him lying about this is any different tbh. He should have been deemed unfit for presidency due to him being a pathological liar as it was, let alone all of the other terrible things he has done.

EDIT: ALSO, there are many wealthy people with horrific reputations, Trump just happens to be one of them. He had a bad reputation in the 80's and 90's and it only got worse from there. This isn't new news.

 

[stroopwafel]

You seriously want to pretend that Trump picked so many people with insider connections to Russia by coincidence? Yea, I don't think even you believe that one for a second. He saw their Russia connections as a bonus because improving relations with Russia was a core concern of Trumps because he was actively trying to have a Trump Tower Moscow built that was being hindered by US sanctions. Hell it was even the woman who organized Trumps 2013 pageant in Russia who announced his presidential campaign in 2015. The same woman who is in Agalarov's inner circle, you know the guys who arranged the Trump tower meeting for Eric Trump to get dirt from Russians on Clinton? Trump's friends? The Russian money laundering guys? None of this is coincidental. It is also not coincidental that Trump's long time Russia business dealings seem to keep popping up throughout this entire mess. This goes into more detail about each of the contacts here:
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

It is not a " conspiracy" that Trump wanted a Trump tower Moscow pretty bad, he has been trying to do that forever and has discussed it publicly, it is not some secret conspiracy. How is any of Trump's Russian agenda conspiracy? He has had business deals with them forever, it isn't like this is somehow new news.

No one is denying Trump has business interests in Moscow but you are willing to argue Trump sold out national security to Russia in a treasonous attempt to secure those interests, which I said is the kind of conspiracy thinking that has zero proof. Quite the contrary, as the Mueller investigation also reported no findings of deliberate exchanges between Trump's campaign team(let alone Trump himself) and Russian sources that would undermine U.S. democracy. An incompetent campaign team, recruitment problems and political subterfuge by the Democrats are not not proof of a deliberate attempt by Trump to sell the U.S. out to Putin so he can have yet another Trump tower.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You seriously want to pretend that Trump picked so many people with insider connections to Russia by coincidence? Yea, I don't think even you believe that one for a second. He saw their Russia connections as a bonus because improving relations with Russia was a core concern of Trumps because he was actively trying to have a Trump Tower Moscow built that was being hindered by US sanctions. Hell it was even the woman who organized Trumps 2013 pageant in Russia who announced his presidential campaign in 2015. The same woman who is in Agalarov's inner circle, you know the guys who arranged the Trump tower meeting for Eric Trump to get dirt from Russians on Clinton? Trump's friends? The Russian money laundering guys? None of this is coincidental. It is also not coincidental that Trump's long time Russia business dealings seem to keep popping up throughout this entire mess. This goes into more detail about each of the contacts here:
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

It is not a " conspiracy" that Trump wanted a Trump tower Moscow pretty bad, he has been trying to do that forever and has discussed it publicly, it is not some secret conspiracy. How is any of Trump's Russian agenda conspiracy? He has had business deals with them forever, it isn't like this is somehow new news.

No one is denying Trump has business interests in Moscow but you are willing to argue Trump sold out national security to Russia in a treasonous attempt to secure those interests, which I said is the kind of conspiracy thinking that has zero proof. Quite the contrary, as the Mueller investigation also reported no findings of deliberate exchanges between Trump's campaign team(let alone Trump himself) and Russian sources that would undermine U.S. democracy. An incompetent campaign team, recruitment problems and political subterfuge by the Democrats are not not proof of a deliberate attempt by Trump to sell the U.S. out to Putin so he can have yet another Trump tower.

Okay, answer me this:

1) Why did Trump select a foreign agent to head up National Security?
2) Why did Trump want to give Russia US Cyber security intelligence (repeatedly)?
3) Why did Trump tell Russia to give him Clinton's hacked emails?
4) Why did Trump discuss classified information with Russian Amabassador Sergey Kislyak?
5) Why did Trump tell the Russian Ambassador that firing Comey took pressure off of them?
6) Why did Trump take the interpreters notes from his meeting with Putin? (other administrations did not do this)
7) Why did Trump hide his content of meetings with Putin from his own officials? (other administrations did not do this)
8) why are there no transcripts of Trumps meetings with Putin on record? (other administrations did not do this)
9) Why did Trump lie publicly about his business dealings with Russia?


Do you really think none of this is remotely related?

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/9/14868680/trump-adviser-michael-flynn-foreign-agent-turkey-lobby
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/16/trump-putin-russia-cybersecurity-689470
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-find-clintons-emails-on-or-around-the-same-day-russians-targeted-her-accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump%27s_disclosures_of_classified_information
https://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-told-russian-diplomats-that-1495223961-htmlstory.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/13/trump-putin-meetings-interpreter-notes/2565471002/
https://splinternews.com/trump-took-extraordinary-steps-to-keep-his-conversation-1831714333

 

[Silvanus]

People will turn on you on a dime when money is involved, and that includes business partners. If you are such a heavy investor as Trump was you are bound to step on some toes. Or to quote a Rumsfeld rule: ''if you are never criticized you probably aren't doing much.''

Right. We're past "unsubstantiated", then, and into the territory of "I don't believe in the evidence and substantiation offered".

Which is fine, if that's your position, but you cannot possibly then argue that Lil devil x is touting conspiracy theories and rumours. The mountain of indictments and guilty pleas stand as evidence, and you're the one expecting us to disregard it on this shaky, presumptuous basis. To believe you rather than the people who've professionally investigated it.

Fact remains that you don't build a real estate empire without a reputation for success, meaning he delivered much more than he disappointed.

Tortuously circular logic. He must be successful, because he has a reputation for success... and he must have a reputation for success because he's successful? Gibberish.

Besides, he didn't build it. He was given it, and expanded it, whilst experiencing frequent failures and bankruptcies, and engaging in various underhanded methods to do so, such as refusing to pay employees and contractors. Sorry to say, no, it doesn't take a good businessman to accomplish that.

Regarding the earlier claim that he may have been unaware of people going unpaid: Trump has personally boasted of it, for Bast's sake. He has made it explicit: he doesn't give a shit, and I find it astounding the lengths to which people will go to justify this dismissive, elitist, exploitative behaviour, so utterly ruinous to the very people he purports to represent.

 

[stroopwafel]

1) Why did Trump select a foreign agent to head up National Security?
2) Why did Trump want to give Russia US Cyber security intelligence (repeatedly)?
3) Why did Trump tell Russia to give him Clinton's hacked emails?
4) Why did Trump discuss classified information with Russian Amabassador Sergey Kislyak?
5) Why did Trump tell the Russian Ambassador that firing Comey took pressure off of them?

Is there actually quantifiable evidence Trump did any of these things? Espescially that he did any of those things deliberately with the intent of harming democratic process to further his own personal interests? I have yet to see anything more than hollow accusations.

6) Why did Trump take the interpreters notes from his meeting with Putin? (other administrations did not do this)
7) Why did Trump hide his content of meetings with Putin from his own officials? (other administrations did not do this)
8) why are there no transcripts of Trumps meetings with Putin on record? (other administrations did not do this)

You kind of answered your own questions here: inexperience. Trump never ran for any kind of public office or had any kind of political connections he could trust(and in hindsight for good reason).

9) Why did Trump lie publicly about his business dealings with Russia?

Do you have a source for this? Or was it a misunderstanding about the details?

Do you really think none of this is remotely related?

Yes. There is a pattern of inexperience, distrust, incompetence and political attacks but I have yet to see any convincing evidence this was all part of some kind of nefarious scheme. If all he wanted was to serve his business interests in Moscow(according to you) it seems there are easier ways than becoming president.

 

[stroopwafel]

People will turn on you on a dime when money is involved, and that includes business partners. If you are such a heavy investor as Trump was you are bound to step on some toes. Or to quote a Rumsfeld rule: ''if you are never criticized you probably aren't doing much.''

Right. We're past "unsubstantiated", then, and into the territory of "I don't believe in the evidence and substantiation offered".

Which is fine, if that's your position, but you cannot possibly then argue that Lil devil x is touting conspiracy theories and rumours. The mountain of indictments and guilty pleas stand as evidence, and you're the one expecting us to disregard it on this shaky, presumptuous basis. To believe you rather than the people who've professionally investigated it.

What 'shaky, presumptuous' basis? It's the Mueller report itself that acquitted Trump of any of those charges. The only convictions were unrelated to Trump, like Manafort's conviction for evidence tampering of his Ukranian lobby work.

Fact remains that you don't build a real estate empire without a reputation for success, meaning he delivered much more than he disappointed.

Tortuously circular logic. He must be successful, because he has a reputation for success... and he must have a reputation for success because he's successful? Gibberish.

Not gibberish, perfectly reasonable. No company or financer wants to do business with a real estate developer who structurally underperforms and don't pay his suppliers. That's not how the market works. The media zooms in at periods his investments took a dive not when they did well.

Besides, he didn't build it. He was given it, and expanded it, whilst experiencing frequent failures and bankruptcies, and engaging in various underhanded methods to do so, such as refusing to pay employees and contractors. Sorry to say, no, it doesn't take a good businessman to accomplish that.

I disagree. Trump could not have known in advance NYC property would boom decades later at the time he made those risky investments at a huge loss. He even said so himself to the congressional task force that property investment was 'unsustainable'. Sure, he might have had access to family wealth but still he is the one who multiplied it. How many other rich people have done the same?

Regarding the earlier claim that he may have been unaware of people going unpaid: Trump has personally boasted of it, for Bast's sake. He has made it explicit: he doesn't give a shit, and I find it astounding the lengths to which people will go to justify this dismissive, elitist, exploitative behaviour, so utterly ruinous to the very people he purports to represent.

More insinuations that are irreconcilable with the amount of people who voted for him and the companies wanting to still do business.

Again, I'm not even a Trump fan but all these accusations how Trump is some kind of anti-christ while there were way worse presidents is kind of ridiculous.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

1) Why did Trump select a foreign agent to head up National Security?
2) Why did Trump want to give Russia US Cyber security intelligence (repeatedly)?
3) Why did Trump tell Russia to give him Clinton's hacked emails?
4) Why did Trump discuss classified information with Russian Amabassador Sergey Kislyak?
5) Why did Trump tell the Russian Ambassador that firing Comey took pressure off of them?

Is there actually quantifiable evidence Trump did any of these things? Espescially that he did any of those things deliberately with the intent of harming democratic process to further his own personal interests? I have yet to see anything more than hollow accusations.

6) Why did Trump take the interpreters notes from his meeting with Putin? (other administrations did not do this)
7) Why did Trump hide his content of meetings with Putin from his own officials? (other administrations did not do this)
8) why are there no transcripts of Trumps meetings with Putin on record? (other administrations did not do this)

You kind of answered your own questions here: inexperience. Trump never ran for any kind of public office or had any kind of political connections he could trust(and in hindsight for good reason).

9) Why did Trump lie publicly about his business dealings with Russia?

Do you have a source for this? Or was it a misunderstanding about the details?

Do you really think none of this is remotely related?

Yes. There is a pattern of inexperience, distrust, incompetence and political attacks but I have yet to see any convincing evidence this was all part of some kind of nefarious scheme. If all he wanted was to serve his business interests in Moscow(according to you) it seems there are easier ways than becoming president.

Yes there is ample evidence he did these things I simply asked you to give me the reason you think he did them. It isn't a " hollow accusation" when I just provided you with the evidence in the post you responded to. The links were put there for a reason.
1) Michael Flynn was an admitted foreign agent and Trump was aware of his public with Putin and Russian connections prior to bringing him on board. Trump chose him as his head of National Security regardless of this. Flynn already claimed he told Trump's team that he was a foreign agent prior to Trump appointing him to head up National Security.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flynn-told-trump-team-he-might-register-as-a-foreign-agent/2017/03/10/7e30713a-05cb-11e7-b9fa-ed727b644a0b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1cf74aad8622

1)Why did Trump choose him to head up his National Security when he was already aware that Flynn needed to register as a foreign agent?

2)If you read the links I listed in the post you responded to, you would see that Trump is the one who repeatedly publicly proposed sharing Us Cybersecurity intel after his meeting with Putin. His own officials ridiculed him over this terrible idea. Trump tweeted his support for this himself.

2) Why do you think Trump repeatedly proposed sharing cybersecurity with Russia after he was informed by US intel that Russia had repeatedly hacked the Department of Defense, US election systems, US government officials, the US electrical Grid, US hospitals and others?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/
https://www.dw.com/en/hackers-breach-us-defense-department-travel-records/a-45871523
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/29/a-decade-after-russia-hacked-the-pentagon-trump-unshackles-cyber-command-961103
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-russia/russians-impersonating-u-s-state-department-aide-in-hacking-campaign-researchers-idUSKCN1NL2BG
https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-hospital-pays-55000-to-ransomware-operators/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsn-on-assignment-hackers-targeting-medical-industry-hospitals/
To name a few. there are so many many more.

3) Again, read the links in the post you responded to. Trump is who publicly asked for Clinton's emails, this is well known and there are numerous videos of it out there. Why are you suggesting there is no evidence when him publicly doing these things was recorded by the masses?
3)So, again, why do you think he asked Russia for Clinton's hacked emails?

4)Please read the wiki article above, it has all the resources linked. Trump shared classified Israeli Intel with a Russian Ambassador, this was well documented. It is not a "hollow accusation", it is a known fact.

4.)4) Why did Trump discuss classified information with Russian Amabassador Sergey Kislyak?

5)Do you think that calling facts " hollow accusations" makes them suddenly no longer facts? This was documented and well know to have happened. Please answer the questions instead of attempting to defect.
5) Why did Trump tell the Russian Ambassador that firing Comey took pressure off of them?
------------------------------------
As for the ones you did address:
6) Trump's inexperience has nothing to do with it. HE started hiding it after he found out they were supposed to be on record.
He took the interpreters notes because he worried that they could be used against him. He is doing this intentionally and defiantly. What is he trying to hide?

9) My source for this is Trump himself vs himself.
https://thinkprogress.org/timeline-trump-denials-russia-business-cohen-admission-putin-campaign-d2c8872a633b/
https://theweek.com/speedreads/810185/8-times-trump-denied-doing-business-russia
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46403247


So instead of deflecting and pretending that these things are not real, please actually answer the questions in good faith. It does not appear you really answered any of them honestly. I just want to know why you think he did these things.

Covering your ears and eyes does not make realty disappear.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Fact remains that you don't build a real estate empire without a reputation for success, meaning he delivered much more than he disappointed.

He didn't build it, his father did and gave it to him. There is a difference. Then he tried to use the fact that his father's empire existing validates him.

Not gibberish, perfectly reasonable. No company or financer wants to do business with a real estate developer who structurally underperforms and don't pay his suppliers. That's not how the market works. The media zooms in at periods his investments took a dive not when they did well.

Except he got out of that business due to consistent failing and instead sells his name using what his father built as examples of his success.

I disagree. Trump could not have known in advance NYC property would boom decades later at the time he made those risky investments at a huge loss. He even said so himself to the congressional task force that property investment was 'unsustainable'. Sure, he might have had access to family wealth but still he is the one who multiplied it. How many other rich people have done the same?

No he didn't multiply it, he lost it. His father dying and leaving him his wealth is what saved him.

More insinuations that are irreconcilable with the amount of people who voted for him and the companies wanting to still do business.

That isn't even what the word insinuation means. It cannot be an insinuation if it is a recorded fact. The fact people voted for him has nothing to do with Trump boasting about not paying people what he owed them. He thought it was "smart" to shortchange people. You really should actually listen to what has come out of the man's mouth more. It seems everyone else already has.

EDIT: Name even one thing stated thus far that didn't actually occur.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

FACTS:
Out of the Horse's mouth:

On July 27, 2016, Trump called on Russia to find presidential Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's missing emails. "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump proclaimed. He added, "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/01/02/trump-broke-law-russia-clinton-emails-hold-him-accountable-column/2449564002/

One of the more startling moments in Monday night's presidential debate was the one where Donald Trump appeared to admit that one of his business secrets is an unsavory one: He stiffs his contractors.

That Trump frequently follows such a practice has long been alleged in the press, with Trump issuing muddled responses?half denial, half admission. But what many Americans may not realize is that the prospect of a businessman systematically reneging on his promises as a negotiating strategy?known as ?selling out one?s goodwill??is a recognized danger of the way our contract law works. Fortunately, it's one that few business people actually exploit, for several reasons.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/30/donald-trump-stiff-contractors/

President Trump revealed "highly classified information" to two top Russian officials during a controversial Oval Office meeting last week, according to a report from The Washington Post.

The Post, citing current and former U.S. officials, reported Monday evening that the information relayed by the president to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak "jeopardized a critical source of intelligence" on ISIS:

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/15/528511980/report-trump-gave-classified-information-to-russians-during-white-house-visit

None of this is " hollow accusations" or "insinuation", it is simply what happened. Name even one of the things discussed thus far that didn't actually happen.

 

[Agema]

Not gibberish, perfectly reasonable. No company or financer wants to do business with a real estate developer who structurally underperforms and don't pay his suppliers. That's not how the market works. The media zooms in at periods his investments took a dive not when they did well.

Indeed. So are you aware that banks stopped lending money to Trump businesses in the 90s, precisely because of his failures, thousands (literally) of lawsuits and shady business practices? That's why he mostly uses foreign banks - notably Deutsche Bank, who he's tried to bizarrely scam too [https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/business/05norris.html].

You can exploit a lot of people for a substantial time before the word gets around widely enough - it is only eventually that you run out of suckers who haven't heard or don't believe the news. Maybe it's no surprise he's so interested in overseas ventures these days: lots of people got savvy to him in the States.

I disagree. Trump could not have known in advance NYC property would boom decades later at the time he made those risky investments at a huge loss. He even said so himself to the congressional task force that property investment was 'unsustainable'. Sure, he might have had access to family wealth but still he is the one who multiplied it. How many other rich people have done the same?

Trump's career demonstrates some vast failures. I mean, some ventures always fail, but Trump has some particularly large, notable and sustained ones. People who have looked into them reveal something quite remarkable: Trump's very good at getting creditors, government and unpaid employees to swallow plenty of his failure. That is success... in a way. It certainly takes a sort of skill to fob off one's losses onto others. But it's really not the sort of success of entrepreneurs who mostly got it right in the first place. His other great success, of course, is self-promotion, which has also allowed him to make quite a lot of money. It has been pointed out that since 1990 he'd have made more money in a bog standard stock market linked investment fund than he did from his business interests, which suggests 30 years of poor performance when he should have been at his peak.

 

[CaitSeith]

Never ask 'Is it legal?', ask 'Is it Just?'

It doesn't matter what Trump does is legal or not, anything 'legal' he has done should not be legal, for he is an evil terrorist tyrant, and should be overthrown.

If the law is evil, then fuck the law.

That corrupt business is legal is a failing of Capitalism and Government. Basically, copy/paste the 'Eat the Rich' topic.

Sorry. I didn't get where you were going because "Tax fraud" sounds like something that has less to do with injustice and more with breaking the tax law.

Well one, he lied, two tax fraud is not legal, and three, even if it is legal, we shouldn't be justifying it by going 'It was legal, lets not bother'.

It's the last part where you didn't get me. I never said 'lets not bother'; it's an issue with American tax laws that needs to be fixed.

 

[stroopwafel]

I just want to know why you think he did these things.

I could easily turn that around. You posted an entire laundry list of accusations but you still fail to mention the motive. Again do you honestly believe this was all part of some elaborate scheme to secure construction of another Trump tower in Moscow? And if not that, then what?

More likely the reasons would be inexperience and lack of connections, including having no background in politics let alone the executive branch. Most of these were just dumb beginner mistakes of which he misunderstood the ramifications. Political blunder isn't evidence for malicious intent. I'll take your first example Michael Flynn. You make it sound like he was some kind of Russian infiltrator who Trump deliberately provided clearance to the highest levels of government. When that couldn't be further from the truth. Flynn was merely an adviser for a company with connections to Erdogan at the time Flynn was still active in the private sector, and a law made after WW2 then dictates he should register as a 'foreign agent'. Basically this is nothing more than to prevent the suggestion of any conflict of interest.

Sure, maybe a blunder as someone more politically savvy or someone even aware that such a law exist could have prevented, but quite a stretch to call it evidence of some pro-Russian agenda. A similar pattern extends to all those accusations.

edit: I read some more about Inovo(the Dutch company Flynn supposedly did PR work for that mandated him to register as a 'foreign agent') and the director elaborates only an insignificant amount was for lobby work and he even denies any direct links to Ankara:

https://www.quotenet.nl/nieuws/a192940/neder-turk-ik-heb-helemaal-geen-530000-betaald-voor-anti-guelen-lobby-192940/

The director of Inovo also explains the only reason Flynn reported this was to prevent any accusations of lobbying for Russian interests and that American lawyers overreacted due to Flynn's integrity wanting to exclude any false reporting in the media.

 

[Saelune]

Never ask 'Is it legal?', ask 'Is it Just?'

It doesn't matter what Trump does is legal or not, anything 'legal' he has done should not be legal, for he is an evil terrorist tyrant, and should be overthrown.

If the law is evil, then fuck the law.

That corrupt business is legal is a failing of Capitalism and Government. Basically, copy/paste the 'Eat the Rich' topic.

Sorry. I didn't get where you were going because "Tax fraud" sounds like something that has less to do with injustice and more with breaking the tax law.

Well one, he lied, two tax fraud is not legal, and three, even if it is legal, we shouldn't be justifying it by going 'It was legal, lets not bother'.

It's the last part where you didn't get me. I never said 'lets not bother'; it's an issue with American tax laws that needs to be fixed.

My initial post was at multiple people, hence why I did not quote any single person.

 

[Agema]

More likely the reasons would be inexperience and lack of connections, including having no background in politics let alone the executive branch. Most of these were just dumb beginner mistakes of which he misunderstood the ramifications.

That's the problem with Trump, though, isn't it? Defending him always ends up damning him with faint praise. "He wasn't evil, just incompetent: not only did he know nothing, he appointed a load of people who didn't know anything either, so of course they made mistakes".

So, he's a) ignorant, b) a poor judge of character, c) poor at selecting the right candidates for the job, etc.? Great! Just who we want in the highest office in the land.