One of those exceptions is if the taxpayer “willfully attempted to evade tax,” in which case there is *no *statute of limitations. I suspect Trump may have reason to worry.
Isn’t a corporate mogul with bankruptcies sorta like a soldier who gets captured? I mean, in Trumpland.
First, FDR’s handlers accomplished that 80 years ago. Second, the medical device shown in the link is a vagus nerve stimulator. It has multiple uses. It was originally developed for people who had seizures that don’t respond to medication. The device has a magnetic switch, and when a seizure is impending, using a magnet to turn it on and send a pulse through the vagus nerve can arrest a seizure. It has turned out to also help some people with migraines that do not respond to medication, and was at one time showing some promise for use in treating depression, but I haven’t heard about that in a while, so maybe it didn’t pan out. It’s use in Parkinson’s is news to me, but I wouldn’t be shocked by anything.
The device sits below the collarbone, not in the middle of the back. It would be useless in the middle of the back, where the wearer couldn’t reach it to turn it on.
I have worked with three different people who had these devices, so I’m very familiar with it. I have been to medical appointments with someone who had one, in order to have it explained to me in detail, and basically gone through the same training that a person getting the device would get. I’ve even had occasion to be the one to switch one on for one client who was a low-functioning autistic with seizures, and needed staff people to use it whenever he showed a sign of an impending seizure. Yes, he had external signs-- the seizures didn’t come out of nowhere. The thing was amazing.
Anyway, what Clinton is wearing looks like a mic transmitter, or possibly battery. I’ve seen plenty of stage plays and musicals where actors wore similar devices. It looks nothing like a VNS.
Obviously, I didn’t see the debate, since I started the thread, but what I’ve seen of him so far, he is very easy to bait. She wouldn’t necessarily even need to be trying to do it just by the fact of being an adversary.
I’ve heard that before.
[QUOTE=Michael Corleone]
Tom, don’t let anybody kid you. It’s all personal, every bit of business. Every piece of shit every man has to eat every day of his life is personal. They call it business. OK. But it’s personal as hell. You know where I learned that from? The Don. My old man. The Godfather.
[/Quote]
It’s pretty clear he’s hoping for the misfortune of others, because it’ll make him money.
Sure, that’s business. That’s cutthroat, shitty human being business.
[/QUOTE]
He shows honesty here as well.
More cunning people bad mouth the stock or commodity they want to buy till the price comes down. They wouldn’t straightaway tell that they want to buy it.
Good to know that Trump was always honest. Honest as a businessman and honest as a politician.
:dubious:
You mean except for all the times he lies, right? Where should we begin?
Not likely, Tax fraud is really hard to prove. Especially if your return is prepped by a CPA firm. In that case, pretty much impossible.
More likely Trump agreed to extend, rather than go to Tax Court. Appeals is kinder than Tax Court- usually.
Could be substantial omission, with a six year SOL.
Um… buying a stock when the price goes down is not analogous to buying up houses that have gone down in price because people have lost/been evicted from them. Do YOU see those two things as comparable? When Apple stock goes down, does that mean a now-homeless family is sitting on the curb surrounded by their furniture?
Anyway you have to be pretty darned *cunning *to influence the price of a stock just by bad-mouthing it. :rolleyes:
Because that house wasn’t their’s.
The hell? How did I link to the wrong clip? I didn’t even look at the French taunter scene!
See this Washington Post article about Trump routing income through his charitable foundation. If the transactions occurred as described, that’s criminal tax fraud. And the statute of limitations won’t help him.
Do you actually think your posts in this thread - or anywhere else on this board - are insightful, intelligent or informative? Because they’re not. At all.
And there is no fucking apostrophe in the word theirs.
Apparently Hillary’s assertion that murders have continued to go down in NY was wrong. You kind of saw it at the time though, as when challenged on it she looked unsure and changed the subject.
Of course pretty tame compared to everything Donald says.
I’ve met lots of people who think they know everything because they are old and/or rich and are forceful enough to just make others back down in arguments, facts be damned.
I think don just looked like a random such person picked out of the audience, discovering for the first time how hard debates are when your opponent knows what they’re talking about and you’re not allowed to shout them down.
Could you give the source for that? The last I saw was stuff in June, when it definitely was still going down. And Huffpo claims this is still true as of August.
If it’s not still going down, that just sounds like out of date numbers. But I suspect she’s right. It was 2015 when murders went up, but this is widely seen as an anomaly.
Most salient, concise, “spot on, Chris!” post on the debate:
(and buttressed by post 58)
After the gong show I settled with watching the PBS pundits, and even they bothered me when concurring that Hillary was on the defensive for about the first ten minutes (WTF?) so I had to vapourize them into another dimension.
Seemed a tie in pro-Clinton/Trump crowd :rolleyes: cheers.
After one of Trump’s particularly boneheaded rants you gotta love that little shimmy Hillary did. (IIRC she said “ooooooo Donald!”) (it made my mind go places it shouldn’t have)
(this means I was thinking about them fucking, in case there might be any confusion on that point)
Hopefully in the next debates there’ll be someone interesting moderating them like Jeff Ross or a totally pcp-addled Crispin Glover.
That Guiliani turd-pillow might be on to something with this whole “run away! run away!” thing.
I could be wrong, I heard it on a TV show.
I think it was the distinction between shootings and murders and Clinton said both were still going down and actually only one is.
American media division is crazy. This picture lists all the Trump-supportive media where voting viewers thought Trump had won the debate.
I guess everyone else thought differently.
I bet I know what happened. Sometime fairly recently, YouTube decided that when the video you’re watching ends, it’ll punt you into another similar clip. And when it does that, the URL of the new clip is up top.
So if you opened the Black Knight scene on YouTube, but you waited until after you composed your post here to copy the URL from YouTube, the Black Knight scene must’ve finished and been replaced by the French taunters. And if you just grabbed the URL without looking at what was playing, you’d grab the French taunters’ URL.
Maybe if I praise your favourite candidate, you will find my posts insightful, intelligent or informative. I don’t really care. I don’t think Trump was at fault hoping (out of his conviction) for real estate bubble burst because bubbles are meant to burst.
But you can assume anything to make yourself feel happy.
The Economist (sorry if that’s behind a paywall) says that Trump started out well, and then
The big turning point was this exchange:
It was all downhill (but not downHill) for Trump from there.
Good on the Economist. I thought the same thing. I knew that, when the subject came up, Trump would have nowhere to go, nowhere to hide. His birtherism is so puerile, so insane, so racist, such a childish, idiotic waste of everyone’s time…and it was his entree into the big-time political world.