I didn’t say that linking was helpful. I said I was trying to be helpful by answering a question someone asked. As for no one caring, on that we agree. If by “no one”, you mean you.
We’re talking about somebody who repeatedly went broke running a casino, which is the business equivalent of getting lost inside a phone booth.
Yes.
It’s long been my assumption that when someone says ‘I voted for Trump because he’s such a great businessman,’ either they are completely checked out and know nothing whatsoever about Trump’s record, or they are actually saying ‘I voted for Trump because he elevates my race above other races and I really love that but can’t admit it in public so I’ll trot out the Great Businessman rationalization.’
I’m not sure if you were addressing me, but I simply mean that if a business success is one who makes money in business, then Trump qualifies/qualified due to his licensing deals. I’m not saying it’s admirable by any means, when it’s done based on deception.
He buys some land for about 10 million, then donates it back to the State for something like 200 million of value because he ‘could have developed it’ and realized that much from it, and gets a tax deduction for the full donation and his name on that ‘park land’ which is more like a ghost town forever ablazened on a popular commuting route to NYC.
Trump not paying taxes goes along with his long habit of not paying contractors who do work for him.
The difference is that the investigations into Clinton’s pre-Presidential conduct turned up jack squat*, while the investigations into Trump’s pre-Presidential conduct are turning up enough skeletons to remake Jason and the Argonauts.
*He did have some trouble over a misdeed committed while he was President, namely, lying under oath about l’affiare Lewinsky
What is “this stuff”? The media trying to find stuff out about Trump? Democrats in Congress exercising their oversight powers and actually trying to discover (and prevent!) wrongdoing by the executive branch? Those seem like pretty normal and reasonable things, which aren’t going to (and shouldn’t) stop.
For varying definitions of “donate”.
Now you’re getting it! That shows how great he is. Not sure why you are singling him out when everyone does it. At least he’s trying to HELP America, not like Obama.
Of course, that’s why you asked for a cite.
Why, I, too, will ask for a cite about things I remember quite well.
I never claimed we can reach Trump followers. They can’t be reached. However, I think focusing on policy, rather than Trump’s inept business practices is a more effective way to persuade the independents to vote blue.
Trump is a businessman like a shoplifter is an exporter of goods.
According to my sources (good sources, reliable sources!) he did indeed reverse his previous losses by developing (i.e.: having some lawyer develop for him) a new franchise that tapped into the market for laundering Russian dirty money.
Most people think he has a reason for not disclosing his tax returns. They are wrong: he has at least two. The first one is because he was such a bad businessman. The second is because he suddenly became a successful one.
You are smarter than that. I clearly requested a cite for Mittens referring to people as evil and lazy.
Perhaps the most intriguing part of the NYT story is that mysterious $52.9 million in what’s claimed to be interest income:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-08/trump-interest-income-taxes
The thing is, what’s the source? If he made a huge loan to someone and the $52.9 million is interest that someone was paying on the loan, there’s be an indication of that in the tax transcripts. And Trump isn’t known for making huge loans. He’s known for taking out huge loans.
So the question remains: what’s the source of that big chunk of income?
If I misunderstood, I apologize.
Uh, okay. Why are you telling me this?
Pedantic here.
Your request stems from a statement which typifies Romney’s comments as referring to people who don’t pay taxes as evil and lazy, but it did not quote him doing so.
Given that his actual words describe these people as those “who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it,” that “These are people who pay no income tax.” and that “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives”, I think it’s a fair description of his view of those people (e.g. by saying that they don’t take personal responsibility or care for their lives, he has characterized them as plainly lazy, and the clear implication is that it is bad (or, if you want, ‘evil’) to be so lazy).
You may reasonably disagree, but, again, it was not a quote that you were challenging, but a description.
Absolutely. He described people who don’t take personal responsibility, calling them “takers,” calling them unnecessarily dependent on government (i.e. government paid for by the “makers”), people who have a sense of entitlement. It’s easy to connect the dots to lazy. Evil might be a shade hyperbolic but Mitt’s words were definitely not saying that those people were virtuous or honorable or any other antonyms of evil, and were definitely pejoratively stated.