Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 40
 
 
2016-05-06 5:58 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Sorry, Tony, but, as usual, you've posted questionable sources and a dishonest account of what your links actually are: I haven't watched the video, so I'll have to review that later. The first link is probably the best one, but it isn't that she "can't" name any of her accomplishments, it's that she chose to answer the question differently. The last two are ridiculous, and I'm being generous. I used the word dishonest because you can see clearly as soon as you open them that a) they're highly-questionable, far-right wing sources that are CLEARLY on a mission to smear her from the first paragraph, and b) and most significantly, neither of them are even interviews with Hillary. In fact, Hillary isn't even quoted in either of the last two articles. Here's how one one of the articles begins: "How many accomplishments are on Hillary Clinton’s resume? According to Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton’s former Counsel and troubleshooter: 0 When asked on Hugh Hewitt’s show to list Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments the man couldn’t list one. Hmmm, he could have just said…the killing of 4 Americans over in Benghazi." (btw, Hugh Hewitt, on whose radio show the interview took place, is the author of "The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second 'Clinton Era'") So, yeah...I'm gonna go ahead and guess that he doesn't have an elephant hugging a donkey on his desk. The other article is from a Pro-abortion website called "LifeNews" that quotes an interview with Diane Feinstein, not Hillary, where she was asked to name Hillary's "signature accomplishment as Senator": "Feinstein said, 'Golly, I forget what bills she’s been part of or authored,' Feinstein told the newspaper’s editorial board. Feinstein, who recently endorsed Clinton for president, told the newspaper that she was caught off guard by the question. “I didn’t really come prepared to discuss this,” she said. “But she’s been a good senator. There are things outside of bills that you can do, and I know that she’s done them for her state.” So, just to recap, two of the four links you posted aren't even what you claim they are. One of them is at best debatable. I'll have to watch the video later. I think my Google works fine. I think maybe your Google Search skills, or maybe your objectivity is broken.

You're so funny.  Liberal logic 101, when you can't defend it then you attack the source.  /rollseyes

You blame Trump for not disavowing somebody at the first possible moment and pick apart every tweet and picture he posts because you think he's an idiot.  Yet your choice to lead the country can't even name an accomplishment and you're totally cool with that.  I mean, as long as you can attack the source it's like the conversation never happened.

It doesn't matter what Hillary says or does (or doesn't say) you are going to defend her blindly because of her ideology.

 



2016-05-06 6:17 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Sorry, Tony, but, as usual, you've posted questionable sources and a dishonest account of what your links actually are: I haven't watched the video, so I'll have to review that later. The first link is probably the best one, but it isn't that she "can't" name any of her accomplishments, it's that she chose to answer the question differently. The last two are ridiculous, and I'm being generous. I used the word dishonest because you can see clearly as soon as you open them that a) they're highly-questionable, far-right wing sources that are CLEARLY on a mission to smear her from the first paragraph, and b) and most significantly, neither of them are even interviews with Hillary. In fact, Hillary isn't even quoted in either of the last two articles. Here's how one one of the articles begins: "How many accomplishments are on Hillary Clinton’s resume? According to Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton’s former Counsel and troubleshooter: 0 When asked on Hugh Hewitt’s show to list Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments the man couldn’t list one. Hmmm, he could have just said…the killing of 4 Americans over in Benghazi." (btw, Hugh Hewitt, on whose radio show the interview took place, is the author of "The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second 'Clinton Era'") So, yeah...I'm gonna go ahead and guess that he doesn't have an elephant hugging a donkey on his desk. The other article is from a Pro-abortion website called "LifeNews" that quotes an interview with Diane Feinstein, not Hillary, where she was asked to name Hillary's "signature accomplishment as Senator": "Feinstein said, 'Golly, I forget what bills she’s been part of or authored,' Feinstein told the newspaper’s editorial board. Feinstein, who recently endorsed Clinton for president, told the newspaper that she was caught off guard by the question. “I didn’t really come prepared to discuss this,” she said. “But she’s been a good senator. There are things outside of bills that you can do, and I know that she’s done them for her state.” So, just to recap, two of the four links you posted aren't even what you claim they are. One of them is at best debatable. I'll have to watch the video later. I think my Google works fine. I think maybe your Google Search skills, or maybe your objectivity is broken.

You're so funny.  Liberal logic 101, when you can't defend it then you attack the source.  /rollseyes

You blame Trump for not disavowing somebody at the first possible moment and pick apart every tweet and picture he posts because you think he's an idiot.  Yet your choice to lead the country can't even name an accomplishment and you're totally cool with that.  I mean, as long as you can attack the source it's like the conversation never happened.

It doesn't matter what Hillary says or does (or doesn't say) you are going to defend her blindly because of her ideology.

 




I see, so in your bizarro world, anyone who publishes anything on the Internet is of equal value in terms of truthfulness and reliability? I guess, given your previous posts, that's how you think. Bernie Sanders' campaign manager says that Bernie's going to win, so it must be true! A right wing nutjob who published a book entitled "Hillary is Satan" (I'm paraphrasing) says "Hillary is incompetent"? Good enough for Tony! Someone who isn't Hillary says, "I can't really remember what bills Hillary sponsored" and you claim that as evidence that Hillary can't remember any of her accomplishments. No wonder you like Trump so much. You have a similar understanding of the truth.

I'm not even defending Hillary, but that doesn't mean it's ok to just make stuff up and not expect to be called out for it. You do it all the time.
2016-05-06 6:46 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Sorry, Tony, but, as usual, you've posted questionable sources and a dishonest account of what your links actually are: I haven't watched the video, so I'll have to review that later. The first link is probably the best one, but it isn't that she "can't" name any of her accomplishments, it's that she chose to answer the question differently. The last two are ridiculous, and I'm being generous. I used the word dishonest because you can see clearly as soon as you open them that a) they're highly-questionable, far-right wing sources that are CLEARLY on a mission to smear her from the first paragraph, and b) and most significantly, neither of them are even interviews with Hillary. In fact, Hillary isn't even quoted in either of the last two articles. Here's how one one of the articles begins: "How many accomplishments are on Hillary Clinton’s resume? According to Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton’s former Counsel and troubleshooter: 0 When asked on Hugh Hewitt’s show to list Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments the man couldn’t list one. Hmmm, he could have just said…the killing of 4 Americans over in Benghazi." (btw, Hugh Hewitt, on whose radio show the interview took place, is the author of "The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second 'Clinton Era'") So, yeah...I'm gonna go ahead and guess that he doesn't have an elephant hugging a donkey on his desk. The other article is from a Pro-abortion website called "LifeNews" that quotes an interview with Diane Feinstein, not Hillary, where she was asked to name Hillary's "signature accomplishment as Senator": "Feinstein said, 'Golly, I forget what bills she’s been part of or authored,' Feinstein told the newspaper’s editorial board. Feinstein, who recently endorsed Clinton for president, told the newspaper that she was caught off guard by the question. “I didn’t really come prepared to discuss this,” she said. “But she’s been a good senator. There are things outside of bills that you can do, and I know that she’s done them for her state.” So, just to recap, two of the four links you posted aren't even what you claim they are. One of them is at best debatable. I'll have to watch the video later. I think my Google works fine. I think maybe your Google Search skills, or maybe your objectivity is broken.

You're so funny.  Liberal logic 101, when you can't defend it then you attack the source.  /rollseyes

You blame Trump for not disavowing somebody at the first possible moment and pick apart every tweet and picture he posts because you think he's an idiot.  Yet your choice to lead the country can't even name an accomplishment and you're totally cool with that.  I mean, as long as you can attack the source it's like the conversation never happened.

It doesn't matter what Hillary says or does (or doesn't say) you are going to defend her blindly because of her ideology.

 

I see, so in your bizarro world, anyone who publishes anything on the Internet is of equal value in terms of truthfulness and reliability? I guess, given your previous posts, that's how you think. Bernie Sanders' campaign manager says that Bernie's going to win, so it must be true! A right wing nutjob who published a book entitled "Hillary is Satan" (I'm paraphrasing) says "Hillary is incompetent"? Good enough for Tony! Someone who isn't Hillary says, "I can't really remember what bills Hillary sponsored" and you claim that as evidence that Hillary can't remember any of her accomplishments. No wonder you like Trump so much. You have a similar understanding of the truth. I'm not even defending Hillary, but that doesn't mean it's ok to just make stuff up and not expect to be called out for it. You do it all the time.

Your simple line of thinking works ok when it's an opinion piece, but it falls flat when they're directly quoting Hillary.  The source is Hillary!  
You notice how you've yet to address what Hillary actually said and choose to continue down the distraction tunnel.  "Look biased site..."

If she was simply unprepared on multiple occasions to answer the most basic of questions then I'm sure there are plenty of quotes of her touting her accomplishments in public service you can point me to.
I mean, She has a lifetime of public service right?

2016-05-06 7:35 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Trump

In 1995, Hillary led the U.S. delegation to Beijing to attend the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, despite being told by some officials not to go. She gave a groundbreaking speech, declaring that “human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights once and for all”—inspiring women around the world.

In 2000, Hillary was elected to the U.S. Senate.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary pushed the Bush administration to secure $20 billion to rebuild New York and fought to provide health care for responders who were  at Ground Zero. Hillary worked across the aisle to expand TRICARE, giving members of the Reserves and National Guard and their families better access to health care.

After eight years of Bush foreign policy, Hillary was instrumental in the effort to restore America’s standing in the world. Even former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said she “ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.”

She built a coalition for tough new sanctions against Iran that brought them to the negotiating table and she brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that ended a war and protected Israel's security. She was a forceful champion for human rights, internet freedom, and rights and opportunities for women and girls, LGBT people, and young people all around the globe.

During her term, Clinton used her position to make women's rights and human rights a central talking point of U.S. initiatives. She became one of the most traveled secretaries of state in American history, and promoted the use of social media to convey the country's positions. She also led U.S. diplomatic efforts in connection to the Arab Spring and military intervention in Libya.

2016-05-06 10:36 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Sorry, Tony, but, as usual, you've posted questionable sources and a dishonest account of what your links actually are: I haven't watched the video, so I'll have to review that later. The first link is probably the best one, but it isn't that she "can't" name any of her accomplishments, it's that she chose to answer the question differently. The last two are ridiculous, and I'm being generous. I used the word dishonest because you can see clearly as soon as you open them that a) they're highly-questionable, far-right wing sources that are CLEARLY on a mission to smear her from the first paragraph, and b) and most significantly, neither of them are even interviews with Hillary. In fact, Hillary isn't even quoted in either of the last two articles. Here's how one one of the articles begins: "How many accomplishments are on Hillary Clinton’s resume? According to Lanny Davis, Bill Clinton’s former Counsel and troubleshooter: 0 When asked on Hugh Hewitt’s show to list Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments the man couldn’t list one. Hmmm, he could have just said…the killing of 4 Americans over in Benghazi." (btw, Hugh Hewitt, on whose radio show the interview took place, is the author of "The Queen: The Epic Ambition of Hillary and the Coming of a Second 'Clinton Era'") So, yeah...I'm gonna go ahead and guess that he doesn't have an elephant hugging a donkey on his desk. The other article is from a Pro-abortion website called "LifeNews" that quotes an interview with Diane Feinstein, not Hillary, where she was asked to name Hillary's "signature accomplishment as Senator": "Feinstein said, 'Golly, I forget what bills she’s been part of or authored,' Feinstein told the newspaper’s editorial board. Feinstein, who recently endorsed Clinton for president, told the newspaper that she was caught off guard by the question. “I didn’t really come prepared to discuss this,” she said. “But she’s been a good senator. There are things outside of bills that you can do, and I know that she’s done them for her state.” So, just to recap, two of the four links you posted aren't even what you claim they are. One of them is at best debatable. I'll have to watch the video later. I think my Google works fine. I think maybe your Google Search skills, or maybe your objectivity is broken.

You're so funny.  Liberal logic 101, when you can't defend it then you attack the source.  /rollseyes

You blame Trump for not disavowing somebody at the first possible moment and pick apart every tweet and picture he posts because you think he's an idiot.  Yet your choice to lead the country can't even name an accomplishment and you're totally cool with that.  I mean, as long as you can attack the source it's like the conversation never happened.

It doesn't matter what Hillary says or does (or doesn't say) you are going to defend her blindly because of her ideology.

 

I see, so in your bizarro world, anyone who publishes anything on the Internet is of equal value in terms of truthfulness and reliability? I guess, given your previous posts, that's how you think. Bernie Sanders' campaign manager says that Bernie's going to win, so it must be true! A right wing nutjob who published a book entitled "Hillary is Satan" (I'm paraphrasing) says "Hillary is incompetent"? Good enough for Tony! Someone who isn't Hillary says, "I can't really remember what bills Hillary sponsored" and you claim that as evidence that Hillary can't remember any of her accomplishments. No wonder you like Trump so much. You have a similar understanding of the truth. I'm not even defending Hillary, but that doesn't mean it's ok to just make stuff up and not expect to be called out for it. You do it all the time.

Your simple line of thinking works ok when it's an opinion piece, but it falls flat when they're directly quoting Hillary.  The source is Hillary!  
You notice how you've yet to address what Hillary actually said and choose to continue down the distraction tunnel.  "Look biased site..."

If she was simply unprepared on multiple occasions to answer the most basic of questions then I'm sure there are plenty of quotes of her touting her accomplishments in public service you can point me to.
I mean, She has a lifetime of public service right?




Tony, did you even read what you posted? Two of the links don't even feature a quote from Hillary. The other two are duplicative and, as I said, I don't think anyone with a shred of objectivity would see her response as a stinging indictment of her record as Sec of State. It's not that she can't name any of her accomplishments--she says that she chooses to view her the role of Sec of State as a whole rather than as a collection of "accomplishments" to be ranked as good or bad.

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-05-06 10:40 PM
2016-05-06 10:37 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by dmiller5

In 1995, Hillary led the U.S. delegation to Beijing to attend the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, despite being told by some officials not to go. She gave a groundbreaking speech, declaring that “human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights once and for all”—inspiring women around the world.

In 2000, Hillary was elected to the U.S. Senate.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Hillary pushed the Bush administration to secure $20 billion to rebuild New York and fought to provide health care for responders who were  at Ground Zero. Hillary worked across the aisle to expand TRICARE, giving members of the Reserves and National Guard and their families better access to health care.

After eight years of Bush foreign policy, Hillary was instrumental in the effort to restore America’s standing in the world. Even former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said she “ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.”

She built a coalition for tough new sanctions against Iran that brought them to the negotiating table and she brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that ended a war and protected Israel's security. She was a forceful champion for human rights, internet freedom, and rights and opportunities for women and girls, LGBT people, and young people all around the globe.

During her term, Clinton used her position to make women's rights and human rights a central talking point of U.S. initiatives. She became one of the most traveled secretaries of state in American history, and promoted the use of social media to convey the country's positions. She also led U.S. diplomatic efforts in connection to the Arab Spring and military intervention in Libya.




Yeah, but still.


2016-05-09 11:44 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
It's a pointless argument, but I do feel some need to respond to your, IMO, baseless claim that she has accomplished nothing as SoS and, more absurdly, can't recall or recount anything that she's done.

Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is crowdsourced, I think this is a pretty accurate summation of her tenure in the role, and is in line with her response to the question she was asked in the link you provided.

"Clinton visited 112 countries during her tenure, making her the most widely traveled secretary of state[373][nb 14] (Time magazine wrote that "Clinton's endurance is legendary").[342] The first secretary of state to visit countries such as Togo and Timor-Leste, she believed that in-person visits were more important than ever in the virtual age.[376] As early as March 2011, she indicated she was not interested in serving a second term as Secretary of State should Obama be re-elected in 2012;[343] in December 2012, following that re-election, Obama nominated Senator John Kerry to be Clinton's successor.[362] Her last day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013.[377] Upon her departure, analysts commented that Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs as some other Secretaries of State had,[332][333] and highlighted her focus on goals that she thought were less tangible but would have more lasting effect.[378]"

The articles cited in the Wiki are here:
332:Richter, Paul (January 28, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's legacy at State: Splendid but not spectacular". Los Angeles Times.
333:Packer, George (February 11, 2013). "Long Engagements". The New Yorker
378: Refers to an article for which I couldn't find the original citation among the 400+ sources cited by the Wiki page, but it's there if you want to look for it.


Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-05-09 11:46 AM
2016-05-09 12:47 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn It's a pointless argument, but I do feel some need to respond to your, IMO, baseless claim that she has accomplished nothing as SoS and, more absurdly, can't recall or recount anything that she's done. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is crowdsourced, I think this is a pretty accurate summation of her tenure in the role, and is in line with her response to the question she was asked in the link you provided. "Clinton visited 112 countries during her tenure, making her the most widely traveled secretary of state[373][nb 14] (Time magazine wrote that "Clinton's endurance is legendary").[342] The first secretary of state to visit countries such as Togo and Timor-Leste, she believed that in-person visits were more important than ever in the virtual age.[376] As early as March 2011, she indicated she was not interested in serving a second term as Secretary of State should Obama be re-elected in 2012;[343] in December 2012, following that re-election, Obama nominated Senator John Kerry to be Clinton's successor.[362] Her last day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013.[377] Upon her departure, analysts commented that Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs as some other Secretaries of State had,[332][333] and highlighted her focus on goals that she thought were less tangible but would have more lasting effect.[378]" The articles cited in the Wiki are here: 332:Richter, Paul (January 28, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's legacy at State: Splendid but not spectacular". Los Angeles Times. 333:Packer, George (February 11, 2013). "Long Engagements". The New Yorker 378: Refers to an article for which I couldn't find the original citation among the 400+ sources cited by the Wiki page, but it's there if you want to look for it.

Dave actually did a great job of pointing out some of her accomplishments and I can certainly nit pick here and there of how important they are but that's not the issue.

The issue I was merely addressing is that she and her supporters were unable to point out any of her accomplishments on more than one occasion which is of course a shallow political jab, but it's also an interesting thing.  Politicians do one thing well and that is to boast about their accomplishments.  They probably have thumb drives in their pockets with 100 page powerpoints of everything they take credit for because that's what politicians do.
Hillary seems to, for whatever reason, be running from her actual record in political office and choosing to run on a "breaking the glass ceiling" campaign.  (aka I'm a woman, so vote for me)

Of course she has accomplishments and I'm sure there are some that I even agree with as being good things, but why isn't she running on them?

2016-05-09 2:20 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn It's a pointless argument, but I do feel some need to respond to your, IMO, baseless claim that she has accomplished nothing as SoS and, more absurdly, can't recall or recount anything that she's done. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is crowdsourced, I think this is a pretty accurate summation of her tenure in the role, and is in line with her response to the question she was asked in the link you provided. "Clinton visited 112 countries during her tenure, making her the most widely traveled secretary of state[373][nb 14] (Time magazine wrote that "Clinton's endurance is legendary").[342] The first secretary of state to visit countries such as Togo and Timor-Leste, she believed that in-person visits were more important than ever in the virtual age.[376] As early as March 2011, she indicated she was not interested in serving a second term as Secretary of State should Obama be re-elected in 2012;[343] in December 2012, following that re-election, Obama nominated Senator John Kerry to be Clinton's successor.[362] Her last day as Secretary of State was February 1, 2013.[377] Upon her departure, analysts commented that Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs as some other Secretaries of State had,[332][333] and highlighted her focus on goals that she thought were less tangible but would have more lasting effect.[378]" The articles cited in the Wiki are here: 332:Richter, Paul (January 28, 2013). "Hillary Clinton's legacy at State: Splendid but not spectacular". Los Angeles Times. 333:Packer, George (February 11, 2013). "Long Engagements". The New Yorker 378: Refers to an article for which I couldn't find the original citation among the 400+ sources cited by the Wiki page, but it's there if you want to look for it.

Dave actually did a great job of pointing out some of her accomplishments and I can certainly nit pick here and there of how important they are but that's not the issue.

The issue I was merely addressing is that she and her supporters were unable to point out any of her accomplishments on more than one occasion which is of course a shallow political jab, but it's also an interesting thing.  Politicians do one thing well and that is to boast about their accomplishments.  They probably have thumb drives in their pockets with 100 page powerpoints of everything they take credit for because that's what politicians do.
Hillary seems to, for whatever reason, be running from her actual record in political office and choosing to run on a "breaking the glass ceiling" campaign.  (aka I'm a woman, so vote for me)

Of course she has accomplishments and I'm sure there are some that I even agree with as being good things, but why isn't she running on them?




It's not a bad question. I think the answer is in her response to the question, and also in the quote from the article that's referenced in the wiki page. "Upon her departure, analysts commented that Clinton's tenure did not bring any signature diplomatic breakthroughs as some other Secretaries of State had,and highlighted her focus on goals that she thought were less tangible but would have more lasting effect."

You can spin that in whatever way you'd like, and we can certainly also debate the degree to which an openly hostile Republican congress impeded her ability to achieve as much, perhaps, as she'd have liked to.

When the House Majority leader openly admits, "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping." I think it's fair to at least ask the question whether it's appropriate to, on the one hand, support a GOP congress that openly admits trying to smear her, while on the other hand, demanding from her a list of her accomplishments. Perhaps, had she not had to spend what must have been hundreds and hundreds of hours preparing for and testifying in hearings that, by the GOP's own admission, served no purpose other than to distract her and hobble her politically, she might have been able to accomplish more. It's not out of the question, certainly.

Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-05-09 2:24 PM
2016-05-11 10:39 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
2801
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Trump
Trump is such a lying sack o crap. From an interview with the AP...

In a reversal, Donald Trump no longer appears eager to release his tax returns before the November election.

Trump said in a Tuesday interview with The Associated Press that an ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit was his primary reason for not releasing documents. But he also said he didn’t think voters would care.

“There’s nothing to learn from them,” he said.

Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has for months declined to release his tax returns, citing an audit. However, the billionaire developer previously indicated that he wanted to disclose his records, a traditional practice during presidential campaigns.

“As far as my return, I want to file it,” he said during a February debate. “I will absolutely give my return, but I’m being audited now for two or three years, so I can’t do it until the audit is finished, obviously,” he added.

He also told the Syracuse Post-Standard in April, “I actually look forward to giving the tax returns, but as soon as the audit is complete.”


From the IRS back in Feb:

In a statement Friday, the IRS said that federal privacy rules prohibit the agency from discussing individual tax matters, but “nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.”

While not citing Trump by name, the IRS also disputed the businessman's suggestions that he is being audited for political reasons or because he is a Christian.

“The IRS stresses that audits of tax returns are based on the information contained on the taxpayer’s return and the underlying tax law — nothing else,” the agency said. “Politics and religion do not factor into this. The audit process is handled by career, non-partisan civil servants, and we have processes in place to safeguard the exam process.”
2016-05-11 11:12 AM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by ejshowers Trump is such a lying sack o crap. From an interview with the AP... In a reversal, Donald Trump no longer appears eager to release his tax returns before the November election. Trump said in a Tuesday interview with The Associated Press that an ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit was his primary reason for not releasing documents. But he also said he didn’t think voters would care. “There’s nothing to learn from them,” he said. Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, has for months declined to release his tax returns, citing an audit. However, the billionaire developer previously indicated that he wanted to disclose his records, a traditional practice during presidential campaigns. “As far as my return, I want to file it,” he said during a February debate. “I will absolutely give my return, but I’m being audited now for two or three years, so I can’t do it until the audit is finished, obviously,” he added. He also told the Syracuse Post-Standard in April, “I actually look forward to giving the tax returns, but as soon as the audit is complete.” From the IRS back in Feb: In a statement Friday, the IRS said that federal privacy rules prohibit the agency from discussing individual tax matters, but “nothing prevents individuals from sharing their own tax information.” While not citing Trump by name, the IRS also disputed the businessman's suggestions that he is being audited for political reasons or because he is a Christian. “The IRS stresses that audits of tax returns are based on the information contained on the taxpayer’s return and the underlying tax law — nothing else,” the agency said. “Politics and religion do not factor into this. The audit process is handled by career, non-partisan civil servants, and we have processes in place to safeguard the exam process.”

I think Hillary is cheering this news because she has yet to release hers as well.  This will give her ammunition to refuse to release them and keep the skeletons hidden.  (said with tongue in cheek for those who missed it)

On a serious note I always think the 'tax return' game is kind of a joke.  Nobody is going to put illegal stuff in their returns, so it's all about "how much did he give to charity', and 'how much money did she make'. 
I give Donald the benefit of the doubt because the IRS has no requirement for him not to release it in an audit, but his attorneys absolutely could be requiring that he doesn't due to the potential impact to the audit.  I obviously have no idea why he's not releasing them, but I'm not sure where he's lying.  He said he would release them when the audit was done and that he can't release them while he's being audited.  Just because the IRS says he can doesn't mean his lawyers agree.

 



2016-05-11 11:15 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Interesting take on Trump.  This will make you guys want to vote for him.  lol

Hillary: The Conservative Hope

 

2016-05-11 11:17 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
6993
50001000500100100100100252525
Chicago, Illinois
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

On a serious note I always think the 'tax return' game is kind of a joke.  Nobody is going to put illegal stuff in their returns, so it's all about "how much did he give to charity', and 'how much money did she make'.  




I disagree. A lot of people put illegal stuff on there. That is how they put people like Al Capone away. If they launder money correctly it would not appear illegal and taxes paid.

Part of my thinking comes from high school career day the IRS guy said you want to work for us because everyone fears us. They bring down some the toughest criminals and most criminals will still pay there taxes no mater what.
2016-05-11 11:29 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
2801
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Trump
Tony, do you EVER check your facts before posting???


Hillary releases 8 years of tax returns

By Josh Gerstein
| 07/31/15 06:21 PM EDT
| Updated 08/02/15 06:07 PM EDT


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton made almost $28 million last year and paid about $10 million or 36% of that in federal taxes, according to tax returns her campaign released Friday.

The Clinton campaign made public eight years of returns — covering 2007 to 2014, essentially filling in the public record since she ran for president unsuccessfully eight years ago. As a result of the earlier campaign and her husband’s political career, the couple’s returns back to 1977 are now public.


Also, the IRS stated that the public release would not impact the audit, so what would the legal issue/stand be from his attorneys?
2016-05-11 12:49 PM
in reply to: ejshowers

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by ejshowers Tony, do you EVER check your facts before posting??? Hillary releases 8 years of tax returns By Josh Gerstein | 07/31/15 06:21 PM EDT | Updated 08/02/15 06:07 PM EDT Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton made almost $28 million last year and paid about $10 million or 36% of that in federal taxes, according to tax returns her campaign released Friday. The Clinton campaign made public eight years of returns — covering 2007 to 2014, essentially filling in the public record since she ran for president unsuccessfully eight years ago. As a result of the earlier campaign and her husband’s political career, the couple’s returns back to 1977 are now public. Also, the IRS stated that the public release would not impact the audit, so what would the legal issue/stand be from his attorneys?

I even spelled it out that my tongue was in my cheek.  man, I can't win.  Obviously she has provided numerous tax returns.  She hasn't released her full 2015 yet and that's what I was referring to.  lighten up francis.   

 

2016-05-11 1:47 PM
in reply to: chirunner134

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
I don't think it's so much that he's going to put illegal stuff in there, but, he's definitely running on a populist platform-- sticking up for the rights of the middle class, and acting as the "friend of the little man".

Hillary is a career politician, and, as such, has always known that her tax returns could become public record at any time, and so I'm sure she's been very careful to ensure that it doesn't look as though she's using too many loopholes or any legal-but-shady accounting to avoid paying her "fair share".

Trump, on the other hand, decided to run for president right after Obama made fun of him at the WHCD five years ago (or so the story goes), so who knows what his returns show, prior to 2011 or so.

If he's got all kinds of tax loopholes or offshore holdings, or, thanks to capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and other creative accounting, has paid less in taxes per year than the average coal miner in WV or waitress in Tallahassee, it's not going to be a good look for him.

His followers tend to be pretty forgiving-- most of his hypocritical double talk, (like railing against Chinese imports and exporting jobs, all while selling a line of Chinese-made shirts bearing his name) tend to roll right off of him. People give the "Hey, he's just taking advantage of a flawed system" excuse. So, even if his tax returns look like Al Capone's, I doubt too many of his supporters will even care, but it still wouldn't look good. As I've been saying for a while, you'd have to be a pretty starry-eyed optimist to assume that a guy who'd been working the system as effectively as Trump has been is going to be the guy to change it.


2016-05-11 1:49 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

 lighten up francis.   

 




Dude...

1982 called and it wants its catchphrase back.

2016-05-11 2:11 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
2801
2000500100100100
Minnetonka, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Trump
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by ejshowers Tony, do you EVER check your facts before posting??? Hillary releases 8 years of tax returns By Josh Gerstein | 07/31/15 06:21 PM EDT | Updated 08/02/15 06:07 PM EDT Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband former President Bill Clinton made almost $28 million last year and paid about $10 million or 36% of that in federal taxes, according to tax returns her campaign released Friday. The Clinton campaign made public eight years of returns — covering 2007 to 2014, essentially filling in the public record since she ran for president unsuccessfully eight years ago. As a result of the earlier campaign and her husband’s political career, the couple’s returns back to 1977 are now public. Also, the IRS stated that the public release would not impact the audit, so what would the legal issue/stand be from his attorneys?

I even spelled it out that my tongue was in my cheek.  man, I can't win.  Obviously she has provided numerous tax returns.  She hasn't released her full 2015 yet and that's what I was referring to.  lighten up francis.   

 




Sorry, I thought the tongue in cheek was just for the last "skeletons in the closet" phrase.
2016-05-11 3:02 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I don't think it's so much that he's going to put illegal stuff in there, but, he's definitely running on a populist platform-- sticking up for the rights of the middle class, and acting as the "friend of the little man". Hillary is a career politician, and, as such, has always known that her tax returns could become public record at any time, and so I'm sure she's been very careful to ensure that it doesn't look as though she's using too many loopholes or any legal-but-shady accounting to avoid paying her "fair share". Trump, on the other hand, decided to run for president right after Obama made fun of him at the WHCD five years ago (or so the story goes), so who knows what his returns show, prior to 2011 or so. If he's got all kinds of tax loopholes or offshore holdings, or, thanks to capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and other creative accounting, has paid less in taxes per year than the average coal miner in WV or waitress in Tallahassee, it's not going to be a good look for him. His followers tend to be pretty forgiving-- most of his hypocritical double talk, (like railing against Chinese imports and exporting jobs, all while selling a line of Chinese-made shirts bearing his name) tend to roll right off of him. People give the "Hey, he's just taking advantage of a flawed system" excuse. So, even if his tax returns look like Al Capone's, I doubt too many of his supporters will even care, but it still wouldn't look good. As I've been saying for a while, you'd have to be a pretty starry-eyed optimist to assume that a guy who'd been working the system as effectively as Trump has been is going to be the guy to change it.

On his tax return stuff I tend to agree with you.  I don't suspect there's anything illegal on there, but I do suspect he's been taking advantage of every tax loophole imaginable and as you suggested I don't really have a problem with that.
Another thought I had was that it could be related to how much money he is actually making.  With an empire like his, he could be doing really well or only so so well.

Either way, it's a bit of a political issue for him if he decides to not release them but I don't think it's a major one.

2016-09-16 12:36 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Trump

What's the logic behind Trump not admitting Obama was born in the US? His campaign says he now believes it, his son says he believes it, but he refuses to come out and say it. 

If he wants to move past this and turn the focus on his platform, then just say it and get it over with. He'll take like one day of chit for it and then the story dies. By refusing to answer the question, it gives the impression that he's still a birther and allows the press to keep nagging him on it. Is there some benefit for him staying quiet?  Does it play to his supporters somehow? I really don't get it. 

2016-09-16 1:18 PM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

What's the logic behind Trump not admitting Obama was born in the US? His campaign says he now believes it, his son says he believes it, but he refuses to come out and say it. 

If he wants to move past this and turn the focus on his platform, then just say it and get it over with. He'll take like one day of chit for it and then the story dies. By refusing to answer the question, it gives the impression that he's still a birther and allows the press to keep nagging him on it. Is there some benefit for him staying quiet?  Does it play to his supporters somehow? I really don't get it. 

I'm not 100% sure, but my speculation is that he used it for another 30 minutes of free airtime on every cable outlet.  He let it build a little and didn't go too far down the rabbit hole.  Then he let the campaign contradict him a little and said he'd have a "big announcement" today.
Every cable news outlet cut to him live and he spent 30 minutes having veterans endorse him and tell america how great he was and then at the end with a dagger to the heart he mentions that Hillary started the birther movement (which is true) and he finished it.
Now the media is spinning full time trying to say that Hillary didn't start the birther movement.

Being heavily involved in the birther controversy was a negative for Trump, but I think he figured out a way to throw it back on Hillary and make it hard for her to use it against him.  Just my opinion of course, so we'll see how it plays out.



2016-09-16 1:50 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

What's the logic behind Trump not admitting Obama was born in the US? His campaign says he now believes it, his son says he believes it, but he refuses to come out and say it. 

If he wants to move past this and turn the focus on his platform, then just say it and get it over with. He'll take like one day of chit for it and then the story dies. By refusing to answer the question, it gives the impression that he's still a birther and allows the press to keep nagging him on it. Is there some benefit for him staying quiet?  Does it play to his supporters somehow? I really don't get it. 

I'm not 100% sure, but my speculation is that he used it for another 30 minutes of free airtime on every cable outlet.  He let it build a little and didn't go too far down the rabbit hole.  Then he let the campaign contradict him a little and said he'd have a "big announcement" today.
Every cable news outlet cut to him live and he spent 30 minutes having veterans endorse him and tell america how great he was and then at the end with a dagger to the heart he mentions that Hillary started the birther movement (which is true) and he finished it.
Now the media is spinning full time trying to say that Hillary didn't start the birther movement.

Being heavily involved in the birther controversy was a negative for Trump, but I think he figured out a way to throw it back on Hillary and make it hard for her to use it against him.  Just my opinion of course, so we'll see how it plays out.

There's plenty to attack Hillary on, starting the birther movement is not one of them. Come on, a fan of Trump should recognize the difference between a supporter of a candidate and the campaign staff of a candidate *cough* David Duke *cough*. Until Assange finds emails showing Hillary spread the rumors, I have to believe this is one time she's innocent.

2016-09-16 2:02 PM
in reply to: Bob Loblaw

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

What's the logic behind Trump not admitting Obama was born in the US? His campaign says he now believes it, his son says he believes it, but he refuses to come out and say it. 

If he wants to move past this and turn the focus on his platform, then just say it and get it over with. He'll take like one day of chit for it and then the story dies. By refusing to answer the question, it gives the impression that he's still a birther and allows the press to keep nagging him on it. Is there some benefit for him staying quiet?  Does it play to his supporters somehow? I really don't get it. 

I'm not 100% sure, but my speculation is that he used it for another 30 minutes of free airtime on every cable outlet.  He let it build a little and didn't go too far down the rabbit hole.  Then he let the campaign contradict him a little and said he'd have a "big announcement" today.
Every cable news outlet cut to him live and he spent 30 minutes having veterans endorse him and tell america how great he was and then at the end with a dagger to the heart he mentions that Hillary started the birther movement (which is true) and he finished it.
Now the media is spinning full time trying to say that Hillary didn't start the birther movement.

Being heavily involved in the birther controversy was a negative for Trump, but I think he figured out a way to throw it back on Hillary and make it hard for her to use it against him.  Just my opinion of course, so we'll see how it plays out.

There's plenty to attack Hillary on, starting the birther movement is not one of them. Come on, a fan of Trump should recognize the difference between a supporter of a candidate and the campaign staff of a candidate *cough* David Duke *cough*. Until Assange finds emails showing Hillary spread the rumors, I have to believe this is one time she's innocent.

So if Trump is the candidate of David Duke is Hillary also a KKK candidate?  Will Quigg is the KKK Grand Master of CA and he openly endorses Hillary.  However, Hillary hasn't disavowed him yet so we can only assume she supports the endorsement.  (you see how this game works)

The birther movement is complex and has many parts to it.  Some of it was actually started by Obama and his publicist because they promoted him being from Kenya because they thought it would sell more books, but they changed the language shortly before announcing his presidential run. 
Then Hillary and her supporters took the reigns by suggesting Obama didn't have American ties and that he was a Muslim.  They didn't directly bring up the birth certificate itself, but it was all part of the same line of attack that he "wasn't American enough".  The actual birth certificate portion came later and I think that one did originate in conservative circles.
Here's a CNN article speaking of such http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-claims-that-hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/index.html

Here's a conservative spin on essentially the same information: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/

There's no question that Trump was involved in the Birther stuff, but it wasn't until many years later.

The irony of this whole situation is that Hillary's contribution to the birther movement is far more damaging than Trumps.  I'm listening to the radio and looking at news sites and every one of them has articles trying to defend that Hillary didn't start the birther movement which is brilliant chess by Trump.

 

2016-09-16 2:13 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Trump

Just saw this one too:

In 2008 the UK Guardian reported:

Barack Obama's campaign team today accused Hillary Clinton's beleaguered staff of mounting a desperate dirty tricks operation by circulating a picture of him in African dress, feeding into false claims on US websites that he is a Muslim.

Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, described it as "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election". Obama has had to spend much of the campaign stressing he is a Christian not a Muslim and did not study at a madrassa.

2016-09-16 2:46 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Trump

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Bob Loblaw

What's the logic behind Trump not admitting Obama was born in the US? His campaign says he now believes it, his son says he believes it, but he refuses to come out and say it. 

If he wants to move past this and turn the focus on his platform, then just say it and get it over with. He'll take like one day of chit for it and then the story dies. By refusing to answer the question, it gives the impression that he's still a birther and allows the press to keep nagging him on it. Is there some benefit for him staying quiet?  Does it play to his supporters somehow? I really don't get it. 

I'm not 100% sure, but my speculation is that he used it for another 30 minutes of free airtime on every cable outlet.  He let it build a little and didn't go too far down the rabbit hole.  Then he let the campaign contradict him a little and said he'd have a "big announcement" today.
Every cable news outlet cut to him live and he spent 30 minutes having veterans endorse him and tell america how great he was and then at the end with a dagger to the heart he mentions that Hillary started the birther movement (which is true) and he finished it.
Now the media is spinning full time trying to say that Hillary didn't start the birther movement.

Being heavily involved in the birther controversy was a negative for Trump, but I think he figured out a way to throw it back on Hillary and make it hard for her to use it against him.  Just my opinion of course, so we'll see how it plays out.

There's plenty to attack Hillary on, starting the birther movement is not one of them. Come on, a fan of Trump should recognize the difference between a supporter of a candidate and the campaign staff of a candidate *cough* David Duke *cough*. Until Assange finds emails showing Hillary spread the rumors, I have to believe this is one time she's innocent.

So if Trump is the candidate of David Duke is Hillary also a KKK candidate?  Will Quigg is the KKK Grand Master of CA and he openly endorses Hillary.  However, Hillary hasn't disavowed him yet so we can only assume she supports the endorsement.  (you see how this game works)

The birther movement is complex and has many parts to it.  Some of it was actually started by Obama and his publicist because they promoted him being from Kenya because they thought it would sell more books, but they changed the language shortly before announcing his presidential run. 
Then Hillary and her supporters took the reigns by suggesting Obama didn't have American ties and that he was a Muslim.  They didn't directly bring up the birth certificate itself, but it was all part of the same line of attack that he "wasn't American enough".  The actual birth certificate portion came later and I think that one did originate in conservative circles.
Here's a CNN article speaking of such http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/06/politics/fact-check-donald-trump-claims-that-hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/index.html

Here's a conservative spin on essentially the same information: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/

There's no question that Trump was involved in the Birther stuff, but it wasn't until many years later.

The irony of this whole situation is that Hillary's contribution to the birther movement is far more damaging than Trumps.  I'm listening to the radio and looking at news sites and every one of them has articles trying to defend that Hillary didn't start the birther movement which is brilliant chess by Trump.

 

I didn't do a very good job explaining my point. There is zero, absolutely zero, proof that Hillary or her camp had anything to do with the birther movement. Supporters of Hillary sent out emails saying that, but you cannot find a single video, quote, tweet, or email linking Hillary to the birthers. Even the Breitbart article you linked to doesn't have any proof, despite the headline "Washington Post confirms Hillary Clinton started the birther movement." No proof. They found proof she ran with the rumor of him being a Muslim, but Muslims can be born in the US.

My point about David Duke is that he's a supporter of Trump. And he says a lot of stupid, racist stuff. But you cannot take anything Duke says and contribute it to Trump. He's not on Trump's campaign staff, he's not Trump, he's a supporter of Trump. 

Maybe someday dcleaks will find the emails from Hillary or her camp showing that she spread the rumors of Obama being a Kenyan. But for now, it's just a baseless accusation by Trump.

And the birth of the birther movement was a man named Andy Martin, who started it back in 2004. 

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Trump Rss Feed  
 
 
of 40