The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Elections

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:36 AM
Fuzzy_wuzzy Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I agree about the value in highlighting the AMT.




Except this Maddow piece will not have highlighted that Trump says he will try to get rid of loopholes at the same time as getting rid of the AMT. Therefore, no-one has a damn clue what Trump's tax bill would have been if he gets his way. Instead, Maddow and Johnston simply highlighted the lowest tax bill possible for Donald Trump (with AMT repealed) and failed to mention the proposed reduction in loopholes.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 03-18-2017, 09:42 AM
Ca3799 Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
I've come to appreciate her style.

Yes, she can be slow, but she uses that to show clear lines and relationships between people and events. Sometimes it seems she is just taking baby steps and I'm used to consuming information at a much faster pace, but not everyone digests news at a fast pace.

It's because she moves so slowly, asks questions, and repeats things in different but understandable ways that the average person can follow complex stories. This Trump-Russia story is a highly complex story that requires a lot of background and detail.

Maddox does this very well.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 03-18-2017, 10:02 AM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
...



-Was this year "cherry-picked" and an atypical return? (Pointing out that this is the first joint return filed following Trump's marriage to Melania, who was not yet a US citizen. She was required to have a return for naturalization and thus the return needed to be squeaky clean.



bolding is mine

Time to challenge this assertion as it relates to a general case. Strictly speaking filing IRS returns is not required. There are other means of showing sufficient financial means so as to satisfy the government that the immigrating/naturalizing spouse will not be a financial burden on society.

I have no particular knowledge of what documents were submitted to support Melania Trump's application for naturalization and agree that submitting copies of IRS returns was likely the most straightforward means of doing so.

WARNING. Extreme pedantry follows:

SPOILER:

While submitting an IRS return is certainly the easiest way to meet certain requirements of the immigration process, it is not the only way and is not required in the general case.

Let's look at the relevant part of the USCIS documents checklist for a naturalization application:
Quote:
...
If you are applying for naturalization on the basis of marriage to a U.S. citizen, send the following 4 items:
...
Documents referring to you and your spouse:
- Tax returns, bank accounts, leases, mortgages, or birth certificates of children; or

- Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-certified copies of the income tax forms that you both filed for the past 3 years; or

- An IRS tax return transcript for the last 3 years.
To nitpick in the extreme, clearly a IRS transcript could be submitted in lieu of the IRS returns. An IRS transcript is not simply a photocopy of the IRS return thought it contains much the same data. (Any Doper parent who has recently filled out the FAFSA financial aid application may be familiar with the requirement to submit an IRS transcript.)

But moreover, this checklist assumes the American spouse has filed an income tax return. In the edge case that is not always true.

Take the case of an American citizen living abroad who has no income of his/her own and who is dependent upon the income and/or assets of his/her non-American spouse*. Without reaching the mandatory filing threshold for income the American need not file a tax return. And since the non-American spouse is not a resident of the United States yet he/she need not file an IRS return.

Should this couple decide to relocate to the United States the American citizen could sponsor the immigration and subsequent naturalization of his/her spouse by filing documents relying solely on the naturalizing spouse's assets. (pdf link Instructions for I-864 Affidavit of Support. see page 8 which states:
Quote:
If you were not required to file a Federal income tax return under U.S. tax law because your income was too low, attach a typed or printed explanation. If you were not required to file a Federal income tax return under U.S. tax law for any other reason, attach a typed or printed explanation including evidence of the exemption and how you are subject to it. Residence outside of the United States does not exempt U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from filing a U.S. Federal income tax return.
It's true that residence overseas does not relive an American from the obligation to file, but it does not mandate a filing when income is too low to otherwise require a filing.

The I-864 instruction go on to detail use of assets in lieu of evidence of qualifying income in support of an application for naturalization.
Quote:
If your total household income does not meet the requirement, you may submit evidence of the value of your assets, the sponsored immigrantís assets, and/or assets of a household member that can be used, if necessary, for the support of the intending immigrant(s). The value of assets of all of these persons may be combined in order to meet the necessary requirement.


*(If you find such a couple too hypothetical, think of a retired couple who live off the pension/savings of the non-American spouse. Upon application for immigration the non-American spouse could place a suitable amount of funds on deposit in a US bank to meet the asset requirements.)
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 03-18-2017, 12:44 PM
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
I've come to appreciate her style.

Yes, she can be slow, but she uses that to show clear lines and relationships between people and events. Sometimes it seems she is just taking baby steps and I'm used to consuming information at a much faster pace, but not everyone digests news at a fast pace.

It's because she moves so slowly, asks questions, and repeats things in different but understandable ways that the average person can follow complex stories. This Trump-Russia story is a highly complex story that requires a lot of background and detail.

Maddox does this very well.
I have come to the conclusion that she is the only long form investigative reporter on tv.

Also she may have a script and cards but it seems she wants to keep a tone of spontaneity and informality, at the same time as explaining complicated journalism. So the peanut gallery has an opinion about it? Pretty sure if she was a male it would be different.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 03-18-2017, 07:29 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy_wuzzy View Post
Except this Maddow piece will not have highlighted that Trump says he will try to get rid of loopholes at the same time as getting rid of the AMT. Therefore, no-one has a damn clue what Trump's tax bill would have been if he gets his way. Instead, Maddow and Johnston simply highlighted the lowest tax bill possible for Donald Trump (with AMT repealed) and failed to mention the proposed reduction in loopholes.
Great...So, when he releases his tax bill, I look forward to Trump walking us through his taxes and explaining how his proposed changes to the tax code would not have particularly benefited him in the past nor are likely to in the future. Oh, he is not going to do that? Well, then I think it is only fair that we get to surmise on the basis of what we have been able, no thanks to Trump, to get access to. He's not entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt when it is his own obstruction that is responsible for the uncertainty.

Personally, I think the Press was far too "responsible" in not engaging in various speculations about Trump and what might be hiding in his taxes. If they are jumping to unwarranted conclusions, then he has the power to set them straight. If he doesn't, then let's speculate until the cows come home. Trump will only releases his taxes when what everyone believes is in them is worse than what is actually in them. It is incumbent on the press, and frankly all of us, to hasten when that occurs.

Last edited by jshore; 03-18-2017 at 07:30 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:49 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by drad dog View Post
I have come to the conclusion that she is the only long form investigative reporter on tv.

Also she may have a script and cards but it seems she wants to keep a tone of spontaneity and informality, at the same time as explaining complicated journalism. So the peanut gallery has an opinion about it? Pretty sure if she was a male it would be different.
I stopped watching her when she started to habitually drag the revelation of something or another through 4 or 5 commercial breaks. The main problem with her show (I think) is that it needs to be half an hour long with occasional hour long episodes when they actually have something that warrants an hour. I think she could really benefit from a half hour show with occasional specials.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:51 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
Great...So, when he releases his tax bill, I look forward to Trump walking us through his taxes and explaining how his proposed changes to the tax code would not have particularly benefited him in the past nor are likely to in the future. Oh, he is not going to do that? Well, then I think it is only fair that we get to surmise on the basis of what we have been able, no thanks to Trump, to get access to. He's not entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt when it is his own obstruction that is responsible for the uncertainty.

Personally, I think the Press was far too "responsible" in not engaging in various speculations about Trump and what might be hiding in his taxes. If they are jumping to unwarranted conclusions, then he has the power to set them straight. If he doesn't, then let's speculate until the cows come home. Trump will only releases his taxes when what everyone believes is in them is worse than what is actually in them. It is incumbent on the press, and frankly all of us, to hasten when that occurs.
Wait, are you actually saying that the press should "speculate" Are you frikking kidding me?

The most likely thing in Trump's tax returns is that he isn't nearly as rich as he claims and he has taken a bunch of shady deductions in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:51 AM
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think she could really benefit from a half hour show with occasional specials.
But would MSNBC benefit? Her show has the highest ratings MSNBC has ever had in the 9:00 PM slot.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 03-20-2017, 12:58 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 34,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore
Great...So, when he releases his tax bill, I look forward to Trump walking us through his taxes and explaining how his proposed changes to the tax code would not have particularly benefited him in the past nor are likely to in the future. Oh, he is not going to do that? Well, then I think it is only fair that we get to surmise on the basis of what we have been able, no thanks to Trump, to get access to. He's not entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt when it is his own obstruction that is responsible for the uncertainty.
There isn't any uncertainty. The idea that Trump cheated on his taxes is faith-based, and not subject to falsification.

It's the standard approach.
  • Assume that Trump (or Romney, back in 2012) cheated on his taxes.
  • If Trump (or Romney) doesn't prove he didn't, that proves he's guilty of cheating on his taxes.
  • Maddow gets hold of an illegally obtained copy of one of Trump's returns.
  • MS/NBC schedules a whole news program wherein she proves pretty clearly that Trump didn't cheat on his taxes.
  • Repeat the assumption that Trump cheated on his other tax returns, and try again.
This is like a conspiracy theory. The lack of evidence proves there really is a conspiracy. Therefore, the more evidence that is discredited, the more that proves the conspiracy.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:21 PM
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There isn't any uncertainty. The idea that Trump cheated on his taxes is faith-based, and not subject to falsification.

It's the standard approach.
  • Assume that Trump (or Romney, back in 2012) cheated on his taxes.
  • If Trump (or Romney) doesn't prove he didn't, that proves he's guilty of cheating on his taxes.
  • Maddow gets hold of an illegally obtained copy of one of Trump's returns.
  • MS/NBC schedules a whole news program wherein she proves pretty clearly that Trump didn't cheat on his taxes.
  • Repeat the assumption that Trump cheated on his other tax returns, and try again.
This is like a conspiracy theory. The lack of evidence proves there really is a conspiracy. Therefore, the more evidence that is discredited, the more that proves the conspiracy.

Regards,
Shodan
Why is cheating on a tax return not subject to falsification? People do it, get caught, get penalized all the time. Is it different for orange?

But you did say the return proves something.(?) It proves he didn't cheat? But it was two pages of a massive return.

You are incomprehensible today. But if you say conspiracy enough maybe you can distract someone. The problem is the only people who could be distracted by this kind of thing are already trump voters. Sad.
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 03-20-2017, 01:41 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There isn't any uncertainty. The idea that Trump cheated on his taxes is faith-based, and not subject to falsification.

It's the standard approach.
  • Assume that Trump (or Romney, back in 2012) cheated on his taxes.
  • If Trump (or Romney) doesn't prove he didn't, that proves he's guilty of cheating on his taxes.
  • Maddow gets hold of an illegally obtained copy of one of Trump's returns.
  • MS/NBC schedules a whole news program wherein she proves pretty clearly that Trump didn't cheat on his taxes.
  • Repeat the assumption that Trump cheated on his other tax returns, and try again.
This is like a conspiracy theory. The lack of evidence proves there really is a conspiracy. Therefore, the more evidence that is discredited, the more that proves the conspiracy.

Regards,
Shodan
I think there might be a difference between 1) didn't pay any taxes, and 2) cheated on his taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:12 PM
SingleMalt SingleMalt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
I think there might be a difference between 1) didn't pay any taxes, and 2) cheated on his taxes.
I'm not sure where there was any claim of cheating on Trump's taxes. The larger concerns are where his income came from, and where he owes money. Without knowing whom he's beholden to, we can't predict where his conflicts lie.

Where'd the accusation of cheating come from?
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:20 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingleMalt View Post
Where'd the accusation of cheating come from?
From Shodan, who needed an easier target to argue against than the one people are actually making.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:22 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
I doubt if you can figure out who Trump owes money to from looking at his tax forms, even including all schedules.

While these schedules sometimes require names of entities, the issue with Trump's debt (to the extent that there is one - and I'm skeptical) is that many companies of this sort have very obscure ownership which is hard to pin down. To the extent that this is the problem, the tax schedules are not going to shed any light at all.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:24 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There isn't any uncertainty. The idea that Trump cheated on his taxes is faith-based, and not subject to falsification.
(1) As others have noted, I didn't talk at all about cheating on his taxes. The part that you quoted was in regards to how changes in tax laws that he proposes might benefit him personally.

(2) In the paragraph you did not quote, I also discussed the question of what he is trying to hide by not releasing his taxes. It is hardly a conspiracy theory to conclude that there is something that he wants to hide. After all, his excuse for not releasing them is clearly a ruse and he has claimed no higher principle, nor can I imagine what such a higher principle might be, nor is he known to be a person who stands on high moral principles. It is pretty much obvious to anyone who is honest with themselves that he is hiding something.

(3) If Donald Trump does not like the various speculations or assumptions that people are making, then it is entirely within his power to refute them. It is only because he is engaging in behavior that flouts tradition and ought to be illegal (by refusing to release his taxes) that we are left to speculate and make assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi
Wait, are you actually saying that the press should "speculate" Are you frikking kidding me?
Absolutely, I think it is entirely within the right...and in fact the obligation...of the press to consult with experts and discuss the various possible reasons why Donald Trump is not releasing his taxes and to continually remind the public of this incredible betrayal of the public trust and why it is so important. No action Donald Trump takes should be discussed without reference to what possible hidden motives he might have that we are not privy to.

Last edited by jshore; 03-20-2017 at 02:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:43 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
The only thing I'm aware of that anyone is saying is that Trump has something in his tax returns that he doesn't want the public to see. This is not faith-based, but deductive reasoning. Trump refuses to release his taxes to the public. Doing so would shut up some of his critics, and Trump hates being criticized. It thus makes sense to conclude there's something he's hiding.

The claim that someone is doing something factual is not faith based. It can be proven or disproven with evidence.

And, finally, mocking "faith-based" when you are a Christian seems a bad idea.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:52 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
I don't think there's much in that.

I myself don't share my tax forms and there's nothing illegal or shady in them. Just not any of anyone's business.

In Trump's case, I imagine it's even more than that. There's virtually nothing that Trump could possibly release that wouldn't just give rise to further speculation. His tax forms are undoubtedly extremely complicated, with all sorts of tantalizing bits of info such as might be found on a tax form, but without enough detail to conclusively settle anything about any of the myriad negative things people are speculating about. I don't see anything for him to gain in releasing them.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 03-20-2017, 02:55 PM
Fuzzy_wuzzy Fuzzy_wuzzy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
Great...So, when he releases his tax bill, I look forward to Trump walking us through his taxes and explaining how his proposed changes to the tax code would not have particularly benefited him in the past nor are likely to in the future. Oh, he is not going to do that? Well, then I think it is only fair that we get to surmise on the basis of what we have been able, no thanks to Trump, to get access to. He's not entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt when it is his own obstruction that is responsible for the uncertainty.

Personally, I think the Press was far too "responsible" in not engaging in various speculations about Trump and what might be hiding in his taxes. If they are jumping to unwarranted conclusions, then he has the power to set them straight. If he doesn't, then let's speculate until the cows come home. Trump will only releases his taxes when what everyone believes is in them is worse than what is actually in them. It is incumbent on the press, and frankly all of us, to hasten when that occurs.
You are simply looking for an excuse to defend Maddow and have a go at Trump. Until we get more detail on his tax proposals(and details of what he can pass through Congress) any conclusion as to the tax benefits to Trump isn't worth a bucket of warm piss. Maddow and Johnston did come to a conclusion. At no point did they mention the reduction in tax loopholes. Anyone giving Trump a reasonable hearing would have mentioned the previously mentioned closing of tax loopholes. They only considered one part of the proposed tax changes. It was a half assed piece of analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:09 PM
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There isn't any uncertainty. The idea that Trump cheated on his taxes is faith-based, and not subject to falsification.

It's the standard approach.
  • Assume that Trump (or Romney, back in 2012) cheated on his taxes.
  • If Trump (or Romney) doesn't prove he didn't, that proves he's guilty of cheating on his taxes.
  • Maddow gets hold of an illegally obtained copy of one of Trump's returns.
  • MS/NBC schedules a whole news program wherein she proves pretty clearly that Trump didn't cheat on his taxes.
  • Repeat the assumption that Trump cheated on his other tax returns, and try again.
This is like a conspiracy theory. The lack of evidence proves there really is a conspiracy. Therefore, the more evidence that is discredited, the more that proves the conspiracy.

Regards,
Shodan
Nobody is saying he cheated. Nice try.

What they are speculating on is the information revealed in the schedules and other items and what they show.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 03-20-2017, 03:35 PM
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy_wuzzy View Post
You are simply looking for an excuse to defend Maddow and have a go at Trump. Until we get more detail on his tax proposals(and details of what he can pass through Congress) any conclusion as to the tax benefits to Trump isn't worth a bucket of warm piss. Maddow and Johnston did come to a conclusion. At no point did they mention the reduction in tax loopholes. Anyone giving Trump a reasonable hearing would have mentioned the previously mentioned closing of tax loopholes. They only considered one part of the proposed tax changes. It was a half assed piece of analysis.
The "moving party" in this is donald who has gone against custom and refused to be transparent about his tax returns, while at the same time acting unstably and suspiciously, both by himself and through his associates.

If he hadn't done this then you might have some point. But without that you are analyzing backwards.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:25 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
The only thing I'm aware of that anyone is saying is that Trump has something in his tax returns that he doesn't want the public to see. This is not faith-based, but deductive reasoning. Trump refuses to release his taxes to the public. Doing so would shut up some of his critics, and Trump hates being criticized. It thus makes sense to conclude there's something he's hiding.

The claim that someone is doing something factual is not faith based. It can be proven or disproven with evidence.
The exact same could have been said about Obama and his birth certificate, no?
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:26 PM
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,263
Obama produced the birth certificate, no?

Last edited by JohnT; 03-20-2017 at 06:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:35 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Maybe in two years Trump will too.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:48 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
The exact same could have been said about Obama and his birth certificate, no?
Is it typical for presidential candidates to release their long form birth certificates, like it is for tax returns?
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-20-2017, 06:55 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Maybe in two years Trump will too.
Obama actually released his birth certificate in 2008, before he was elected. So....Trump needs a time machine to catch up.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 03-20-2017, 07:29 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Is it typical for presidential candidates to release their long form birth certificates, like it is for tax returns?
Neither are required, and I'm sure you know that. It's only in the last forty years that candidates have released their tax returns. It's a relatively new phenomenon.

What isn't typical is a person to go along with saying they're born in Kenya and only later when it's convenient (and they're a presidential candidate) to say they weren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Obama actually released his birth certificate in 2008, before he was elected.
The short form.

Kind of like Trump and his 'short form' taxes.

Neither did (or is doing) much to quell the opposition.
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 03-20-2017, 08:59 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Neither are required, and I'm sure you know that. It's only in the last forty years that candidates have released their tax returns. It's a relatively new phenomenon.
Only 40 years!? Why, that's no time at all.

Quote:
What isn't typical is a person to go along with saying they're born in Kenya and only later when it's convenient (and they're a presidential candidate) to say they weren't.
Cite that Obama said he was born in Kenya.

Quote:
The short form.
Oh, you mean the same form that everyone has?

Weren't these stupid arguments eight years ago?
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:24 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Kind of like Trump and his 'short form' taxes.
Trump didn't release any form of his taxes, unless you assume he is the one who leaked the 2005 1040 and/or 1995 NY State Form.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:49 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Only 40 years!? Why, that's no time at all.
Out of 239 years that we've been a country, yes, it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Cite that Obama said he was born in Kenya.
I don't know if he, personally, ever said that, but his surrogates did.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...rs/booklet.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Oh, you mean the same form that everyone has?
I dunno, but do you have two forms? I don't. Only a few have forms that are incomplete, or lacking details. Kind of like Trump's 1040.

But it doesn't stop you from wanting more. Like back then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Weren't these stupid arguments eight years ago?
Yes, they were (and this is exactly the point I'm making). I was as interested in Obama's birth certificate as I am Trump's taxes - that is, not a whole lot. Out of curiosity I wonder.

But what differentiates that from now is how you react to such a thing. Back then when it's Obama questions about where he was born it was mocked, criticized, ignored, and used as a tool to question the other sides motivation (hell, even now it's used as a prerogative by some on the left). Yet you turn around and do the same thing you criticized them of doing then. You're no better than the people you criticize. In many ways it's worse - you have the media that supports it.

Last edited by HeweyLogan; 03-20-2017 at 09:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 03-20-2017, 09:52 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore View Post
Trump didn't release any form of his taxes, unless you assume he is the one who leaked the 2005 1040 and/or 1995 NY State Form.
A point without much meaning, in my opinion. They're still out there.
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:06 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Out of 239 years that we've been a country, yes, it is.
Oh, and you think we've been filing tax returns in America for 239 years? Gosh, tell me more about history.


Quote:
I don't know if he, personally, ever said that, but his surrogates did.
OK, so...you were utterly and completely wrong in your claim that, and I quote:
"a person to go along with saying they're born in Kenya and only later when it's convenient (and they're a presidential candidate) to say they weren't."
Just completely wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.


Quote:
I dunno, but do you have two forms? I don't.
Uh, yeah, I do. Like many Americans. Which state were you born in?

Quote:
Only a few have forms that are incomplete, or lacking details. Kind of like Trump's 1040.
Do you know what a short form birth certificate is?


Quote:
Yes, they were (and this is exactly the point I'm making). I was as interested in Obama's birth certificate as I am Trump's taxes - that is, not a whole lot. Out of curiosity I wonder.
Why should anyone care how interested you are? What matters is how interested the AMerican people are. And they're pretty fucking interested.

Quote:
But what differentiates that from now is how you react to such a thing. Back then when it's Obama questions about where he was born it was mocked, criticized, ignored, and used as a tool to question the other sides motivation (hell, even now it's used as a prerogative by some on the left). Yet you turn around and do the same thing you criticized them of doing then. You're no better than the people you criticize. In many ways it's worse - you have the media that supports it.
Oh, I'm much better than the people I criticize. For example, I know what a short form birth certificate is. I know that Obama didn't ever claim to have been born in Kenya. I know that Americans haven't filed tax returns for the last 239 years. Basically, I'm not ignorant. That makes me better.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:29 PM
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,263
Where you from, HL? You got the country's age wrong, you got the income tax info wrong, and this:

"I dunno, but do you have two forms? I don't. Only a few have forms that are incomplete, or lacking details. Kind of like Trump's 1040."

Makes it sound as if you never filled out an American tax form as your wording is complete gibberish.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:39 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Oh, and you think we've been filing tax returns in America for 239 years? Gosh, tell me more about history.
You tell me. You apparently have a better grasp of the history of the United States. When did we first start paying taxes, and how does that jibe with what I said?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
OK, so...you were utterly and completely wrong in your claim that, and I quote (about where Obama was born)
I don't see where I was wrong. When he's selling a book he doesn't correct the surrogates that say he born in Kenya. When he's running president, he does.

Convenient, in the absence of contradictory evidence. If you have any, please enlighten me. I'm always up for learning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Uh, yeah, I do. Like many Americans. Which state were you born in?
Iowa. You?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Do you know what a short form birth certificate is?
I do. Do you? Go ahead and explain. I doubt it's any different than what I said above. One's abbreviated and the other isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Why should anyone care how interested you are? What matters is how interested the AMerican people are. And they're pretty fucking interested.
The American people were interested in Obama's birth certificate. No? Why is now different than then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Oh, I'm much better than the people I criticize.
Actually, you're not. You're the exact same as those you criticize. Only you (or some on your side) take it to the extreme that you're morally just and intellectually superior. To those of us who are independent (which I am) it doesn't make any side better or worse. It's all the same.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:43 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Where you from, HL? You got the country's age wrong, you got the income tax info wrong:
How old is the US in your opinion?
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:51 PM
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 18,263
2017-1789=228

Your number of 239 puts the date at 1778, which no American would ever claim as being the founding date of the country: it's either 1776 (241 years) or 1789 (228 years). Some, not thinking about it, might answer 1783 (end of Rev War, 234 years). No one would say 1778.

239?

Last edited by JohnT; 03-20-2017 at 10:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:10 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Good lord. We're splitting hairs over a couple of years?

My point was and is that for the majority of that period the tax returns of presidential candidates weren't released.

That's all I said. And it's true.

Last edited by HeweyLogan; 03-20-2017 at 11:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:12 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
You tell me. You apparently have a better grasp of the history of the United States. When did we first start paying taxes
Have you tried googling it? What did google tell you? What sites did you read?


Quote:
I don't see where I was wrong.
OK then.

Quote:
Actually, you're not. You're the exact same as those you criticize. Only you (or some on your side) take it to the extreme that you're morally just and intellectually superior.
Not being ignorant about basic facts is an extreme opinion?
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:12 PM
drad dog drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Good lord. We're splitting hairs over a couple of years?

My point was and is that the for the majority of that period the tax returns of candidates weren't released.

That's all I said.
Thanks for sharing. Maybe we'll rethink the custom. But this time we need to see the returns. It looks like this time might be under subpoena, anyway so no need for us to fight here..

Last edited by drad dog; 03-20-2017 at 11:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:14 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Good lord. We're splitting hairs over a couple of years?

My point was and is that for the majority of that period the tax returns of presidential candidates weren't released.

That's all I said. And it's true.
When do you think Americans first started filing income tax returns (Hint: try googling it)
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:24 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
I don't see where I was wrong. When he's selling a book he doesn't correct the surrogates that say he born in Kenya. When he's running president, he does.
How the hell do you come up with the false equivalency that not legitimizing charges in a book is the same as 'going along with' the birther fantasies?

You want to believe it, is all. Absolutely no basis in fact.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:25 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Have you tried googling it? What did google tell you? What sites did you read?
It could be more it could be less. We could argue that it started long before we declared our independence (the Boston tea part and all that). It could be argued that it's shorter.

Does it really make a difference in what I was getting at?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Not being ignorant about basic facts is an extreme opinion?
You're "basic facts" (which I'm curious what you mean by that) are different than others "basic facts", if I'm understanding your meaning correctly.

The fact that you're side takes the morally authority and intellectually superiority side of things, in my opinion, makes you look more foolish than the other side.
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:28 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
How the hell do you come up with the false equivalency that not legitimizing charges in a book is the same as 'going along with' the birther fantasies?

You want to believe it, is all. Absolutely no basis in fact.
So do you, right? There's no bases in fact that Trump has lied, misled, or exaggerated his tax returns, are there?

Yet you want to believe.

And regarding Obama and his book promotion.... seriously? Someone's promoting your work as coming from a person born in Kenya and as the author of the book you don't say anything to correct it?

Come now.

Last edited by HeweyLogan; 03-20-2017 at 11:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:35 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
So do you, right? There's no bases in fact that Trump has lied, misled, or exaggerated his tax returns, are there?

Yet you want to believe.

And regarding Obama and his book promotion.... seriously? Someone's promoting your work as coming from a person born in Kenya and as the author of the book you don't say anything to correct it?

Come now.
Read this quote from Miriam Goderich:
Youíre undoubtedly aware of the brouhaha stirred up by Breitbart about the erroneous statement in a client list Acton & Dystel published in 1991 (for circulation within the publishing industry only) that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me ó an agency assistant at the time. There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.
So a blurb circulated to publishing insiders, which was not seen or reviewed by Obama, said that he was born in Kenya. Figuring this out is a little more difficult than figuring out how old America is, but not really that much more difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:49 PM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
So a blurb circulated to publishing insiders, which was not seen or reviewed by Obama, said that he was born in Kenya. Figuring this out is a little more difficult than figuring out how old America is, but not really that much more difficult.
Tell that to Hillary.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ne-did-start-/
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:57 PM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
That article has no relation whatsoever to any of the preceding posts. Also. you shouldn't get your news from the Washington Times.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:04 AM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
That article has no relation whatsoever to any of the preceding posts.
Sure it does. Clinton used it as an attack against Obama. She may not have been the first to bring it up but are you denying she ever did?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Also. you shouldn't get your news from the Washington Times.
Tell me which news I should get my information from. I'd love to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:11 AM
Evil Economist Evil Economist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
Sure it does. Clinton used it as an attack against Obama. She may not have been the first to bring it up but are you denying she ever did?
Quote the bit of that article that you think says that.

Quote:
Tell me which news I should get my information from. I'd love to hear.
Maybe for now start with a basic American history book?
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:15 AM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeweyLogan View Post
So do you, right? There's no bases in fact that Trump has lied, misled, or exaggerated his tax returns, are there?

Yet you want to believe.

And regarding Obama and his book promotion.... seriously? Someone's promoting your work as coming from a person born in Kenya and as the author of the book you don't say anything to correct it?

Come now.
False equivalency #2.

Fact: Trump refuses to release his tax returns.
Fact: His excuse that he can't because he's under an audit is a proven lie.

Reasonable and logical conclusion, based on ACTUAL, NOT MANUFACTURED, FACTS: Trump has something to hide. Else why would he not only refuse but lie about it?

But wait, there's more:
Fact: A number of Trump associates have been tied to Russia.
Fact: Trump and team removed the anti-Russian plank from the Republican Party platform.
Fact: At least one Trump associate has provably lied about his connections to Russia, and was fired over it.
Fact: Others who have been fired for similar reasons have not been interviewed by the investigation yet, in which they may yet be proven to have lied.

A quite logical motivation for the first part above.

Your assertion is based on no facts whatsoever, in the face of being presented with actual facts refuting your position.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:29 AM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Economist View Post
Quote the bit of that article that you think says that.
Since the Washington Times doesn't work for you, how about this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...upporters.html

I'm not going so far as to say I think she started it, only that she used it (or her supporters at the time) to discredit him.

The only point I'm making is this is that it wasn't strictly a Republican 'made up' question. It was questioned by both sides.

A lot like Trump and his taxes now. Like I think I said earlier I'm not denying it's an issue of contention, I'm just not saying one is better than the other.

The hypocrisy of the 'elite' superior intellect crowd isn't lost on us "deplorable's".
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 03-21-2017, 12:38 AM
HeweyLogan HeweyLogan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Reasonable and logical conclusion, based on ACTUAL, NOT MANUFACTURED, FACTS: Trump has something to hide. Else why would he not only refuse but lie about it?
That's the metric? Tell us everything we want to know otherwise it's a lie?

We're right back to why Obama didn't release his full birth certificate.

No?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Ace View Post
Your assertion is based on no facts whatsoever, in the face of being presented with actual facts refuting your position.
Neither are yours, I'm afraid to say.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.