Assange speech should be going live shortly.
Printable View
Assange speech should be going live shortly.
Furthermore, I am a bit confused as to why this tax thing is such a big deal.
I mean, yeah, it doesn't look great when you're a rich guy running for President, and you probably didn't pay taxes for many years.
But where's the scandal?
Do any of you do your taxes with the intent upon giving the government as much as possible?
Every individual and every company should always take whichever legal deductions they are allowed to take. That is the right of every citizen and every business.
Only when illegal maneuvers are introduced to evade taxes does it become a problem. If the tax laws at the time allowed Trump to carry his billion dollar loss forward and avoid paying taxes for many years, so be it. You would have done the same, I would have done the same, and just about 100% of all individuals and businesses filing taxes would have done the same.
There don't seem to be any allegations of anything illegal, or Trump engaging in tax evasion. So what's the big deal?
He shouldn't have said he was "smart" to pay no taxes. That was yet another idiotic Trumpism. He should have said something like, "Each American and each business always attempts to take all available legal deductions against their taxes. I took the legal deductions which were available to me at the time, as I'm sure you have been doing with your taxes, Hillary, and as I'm sure everyone filing taxes has been doing. I don't know anyone who voluntarily pays more taxes than legally required."
The problem is that Trump has been trying to run on a platform of "I'm such a great businessman", and now this situation from 1995 came out where he lost a billion dollars, and was able to take massive tax deductions because of it over the subsequent years. So now he's either forced to claim that he was just a master manipulator and played fast-and-loose with his taxes, or admit that he hasn't been as great of a businessman as he has claimed.
I don't believe Trump is a great businessman. His record is very spotty, and he only achieved consistent success when he realized that selling the Trump name and Trump brand was basically foolproof, whereas actually running businesses was hit-and-miss, especially for him. Or as one analysis I read put it, "Trump realized that Americans wanted to buy the sizzle instead of the steak."
ok that was the most tepid, strained applause ive heard in my life.
zzzzz
this is literally an infomercial.
So is Assange saying anything of value, or he is just verbally masturbating in front of the press?
I don't feel like turning it on unless it's good.
10:00 Introduction by Sarah Harrison, WikiLeaks Journalist
10:10 10 year video
10:15 Sarah Harrison on history, propaganda attacks, lessons learnt
10:30 John Goetz, German based investigative journalist, and Stefania Maurizi, Investigative
journalist for L'Espresso, Italy, on publication model and partnerships
10:40 Assassinate Assange video
10:43 Melinda Taylor, Lawyer for Julian Assange, on legal threats and status
10:55 UN Press Conference video
11:00 Julian Assange, Founder and Publisher of WikiLeaks
11:10 Questions from press
11:30 End
uhhhhhhhh. yeah. there is fuckall there about an october surprise leak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I turned it off 5 minutes ago, its nothing but self congratulation from a bunch of total random ass journos.
ok they are attempting to skype him in
no one can get video working.
and because he hasnt been able to listen to any of the broadcast apparently, hes starting his speech by repeating whats been said about 6 times so far.
we are half way through his speech's allotted time and he has not mentioned clinton's name once.
ok he literally just said he decided not to do any major publication on clinton at 3am. 100% serious.
This reminds me of the troll job Trump pulled on the media, when he claimed he had a statement about Obama and the birther stuff, and then just spent an hour with campaign propaganda, thus getting himself free airtime.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
There were previously announced topics from which questions would be drawn. Most of those don't fall under the announced topics. They are also all irrelevant except for the deleted e-mails. Her health is relevant but there is no scandal about it, she got sick then she got better, wow big scandal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It's easy to win the 3 am time slot, you're up against the 12th re-run of Sportscenter and an infomercial for boner pills. It's sort of genius that Trump and now Assange are making such good use of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis reminds me of the troll job Trump pulled on the media, when he claimed he had a statement about Obama and the birther stuff, and then just spent an hour with campaign propaganda, thus getting himself free airtime.Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
I don't think anyone's alleging Trump did something illegal. As usual, the scandal is what's legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You answered your own question more or less. It's not a scandal on it's own. It's just more evidence that Trump is a hypocrite and a liar. Also the logic, that since he's so good at dodging taxes and bribing government officials, that he's some how better at stopping that kinda behavior vs some one that at least has some morals and is at least aware of the concept of ethics is kinda retarded. It makes sense, if you think that criminals are best at catching criminals or that prisoners are best at guarding prisoners, but if you believe that, then the only explanation is that you're a fucking retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Trump is the elite he's claiming to fight against.
But this isn't about dodging taxes or bringing government officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmickYou answered your own question more or less. It's not a scandal on it's own. It's just more evidence that Trump is a hypocrite and a liar. Also the logic, that since he's so good at dodging taxes and bribing government officials, that he's some how better at stopping that kinda behavior vs some one that at least has some morals and is at least aware of the concept of ethics is kinda retarded. It makes sense, if you think that criminals are best at catching criminals or that prisoners are best at guarding prisoners, but if you believe that, then the only explanation is that you're a fucking retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Trump is the elite he's claiming to fight against.
This is about Trump utilizing a legal tax deduction based upon a massive business loss he took in 1995.
Everyone always seeks to pay the least taxes legally possible. In fact, you would be foolish not to do this.
If Trump were caught engaging in illegal tax evasion (or even if there was a gray area to where it resembled tax evasion, though not criminally prosecutable), I would understand.
Instead, the left is all, "LOL Trump didn't pay taxes! He lost money in 1995 and then got to carry over those losses for many years, so he paid no tax! Shame, shame!"
And I'm sitting here thinking, "Would any of these people have paid taxes if they had legal ways to avoid doing so? They'd all have done the exact same thing."
I think it's just a dumb thing to use to attack him. Perhaps it's effective in that it might piss off some of his blue-collar followers who don't fully understand the situation, but from an intellectually honest standpoint, there is no story here.
Where were these previously announced topics? Can I see a list of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerThere were previously announced topics from which questions would be drawn. Most of those don't fall under the announced topics. They are also all irrelevant except for the deleted e-mails. Her health is relevant but there is no scandal about it, she got sick then she got better, wow big scandal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Are you telling me that there was a list of topics which only included areas critical of Trump, but not of Hillary? I doubt that.
I don't see how you can say the above topics are irrelevant. All of the above topics are far more relevant and important to discuss than whether or not Trump started the Obama birther conspiracy.
:nooseQuote:
so assange patted himself on the back for being in business for 10 years and plugged a new book?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/and-t...utely-nothing/Quote:
The Wikileaks founder was outright asked by a journalist in the room if the future publications were likely to spell the end of the Hillary Clinton campaign in the United States. Assange admitted sheepishly, “There’s been a lot of misquoting of me and Wikileaks publications.”
Did Dan Druff just complain that there were no questions about Benghazi at the debate? This is one of the great problems in America. He is one of the more serious, level headed Republicans and he is even a conspiracy loon. What would a good question be? "Secretary Clinton, do you think the 9 investigations into the incident in Benghazi prove that the Republicans are incapable of governing or does it prove they are corrupt?"
I agree with pretty much everything you said but especially the bolded part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I love when liberals say "Hey, if you just would have nominated anyone other than Trump you would have won". That is such utter bullshit and they know it.. They would have attacked and slandered the Republican nominee just as hard as Trump. The only difference here is that Trump is not a career politician whose background has been carefully manicured, so there is more material to dig through. Plus Trump is a shoot from the hip guy so the press can manufacture more scandal.
But the real culprit here is that the Mainstream Media and Liberals are in bed together and will always attempt to control the conversation and destroy the Republican nominee. Think about it, all these "journalists" graduated from liberal colleges where they are indoctrinated to think that Republicans and/or conservatives are just a bunch of assholes. They went to school and sat around for years and watched shit like the Daily Show skewer Republicans, willingly brainwashed.
Lets face it, Democrats are just better at playing the ridicule game through Hollywood and the compliant MSM.
But….there are plenty of people left in this country who see through this charade and want to fight back. Hence the rise of Trump, whatever you may think of him. Now we just have to hope there are enough people in America who can see what's going on and come out on election day.
We don't know if it's legal or illegal creative accounting. What we do know is that Trump never lost more than 900 million dollars in cash before 1995. It's a paper loss and we don't know exactly how scummy it is. From past experience with Trump it's likely extra special scummy with amateur hour execution. Large majority of the tax exemptions and loop holes that exist for the likes of Trump only exist because of corruption. Very rarely are they super secret accounting magic tricks that outwit the IRS in their own game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffBut this isn't about dodging taxes or bringing government officials.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmick
This is about Trump utilizing a legal tax deduction based upon a massive business loss he took in 1995.
Everyone always seeks to pay the least taxes legally possible. In fact, you would be foolish not to do this.
If Trump were caught engaging in illegal tax evasion (or even if there was a gray area to where it resembled tax evasion, though not criminally prosecutable), I would understand.
Instead, the left is all, "LOL Trump didn't pay taxes! He lost money in 1995 and then got to carry over those losses for many years, so he paid no tax! Shame, shame!"
And I'm sitting here thinking, "Would any of these people have paid taxes if they had legal ways to avoid doing so? They'd all have done the exact same thing."
I think it's just a dumb thing to use to attack him. Perhaps it's effective in that it might piss off some of his blue-collar followers who don't fully understand the situation, but from an intellectually honest standpoint, there is no story here.
It's about 99% that large majority of that 900 million is completely imaginary dollars created to avoid paying future taxes in very real dollars. And no none of this is something i would have done in Trumps position.
Obv. Trump can very easily prove all of this wrong by just releasing his tax returns, but before that happens we are allowed to assume the worst every single time his taxes are mentioned.
There were 3 broad themes that were announced ahead of time. One was "achieving prosperity," another was "securing America," and the other one escapes me at the moment. I think most news stories posted prior to the debate would mention them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffWhere were these previously announced topics? Can I see a list of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkonger
Are you telling me that there was a list of topics which only included areas critical of Trump, but not of Hillary? I doubt that.
I don't see how you can say the above topics are irrelevant. All of the above topics are far more relevant and important to discuss than whether or not Trump started the Obama birther conspiracy.
I don't know but I would lay 3000 to 500 that it was, that I can tell youQuote:
Originally Posted by hongkongerHow do you know it was done on purpose? If it was, how do you know who did it?Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
AND BIG SHOUT OUT TO ASSANGE LAST NIGHT ON NO LEAKS, WE MUST GIVE MIKE PENCE THE RESPECT & ATTENTION HE DESERVES
Druff, there is literally a zero percent chance that any of these moderators will bring up Benghazi. Trump should have been skilled/prepared enough to do so, but no way Lester Holt would bring it up.
Also, Trump made a huuuuge mistake by not releasing his tax returns in May/June after he locked up the Rep nom. Unless he never intends to release them, which may very well have been his plan all along. To have to do it now, just 30+ days before the election, is political malpractice. And while there are no doubt legit business reasons for whatever his tax returns show, those reasons only play well with those who are already on the Trump train. The Clinton and Obama machines are focused and pandering to the undecided/anti-Trumps at this point.
Alex Jones Rips ‘Hillary Butt-Plug’ Julian Assange After Disappointing WikiLeaks Announcement
http://www.mediaite.com/online/alex-...-announcement/
roflQuote:
“You said it would get her indicted!” Jones fumed. “He was promising this damning evidence and he doesn’t release it now 34 days out and now he’s saying he’ll release it by the end of the year, so that smacks of a sell-out.”
Yeah pay attention to Pence. Even the people in his own state are sick of him. I happen to be one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedishI don't know but I would lay 3000 to 500 that it was, that I can tell youQuote:
Originally Posted by hongkonger
AND BIG SHOUT OUT TO ASSANGE LAST NIGHT ON NO LEAKS, WE MUST GIVE MIKE PENCE THE RESPECT & ATTENTION HE DESERVES
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...nant/91492758/
Trump rented space to an Iranian bank with ties to terrorism and Iran's nuclear program.
This is worse than anything the Clinton Foundation ever did, particularly since Trump profited directly from this while the Clintons never made a dime from their Foundation.
Is Trump really in bed with a terrorist Iranian bank? No. He rents space to those who will pay for it. The point is that if you have extensive connections and experience in financial or political or whatever world, you're bound to make some acquaintances who later turn out to be unsavory. Everything the Trumpets are trying to stick to Clinton falls into this category of "nothing there, but easy to imply something scandalous is happening."
Benghazi wasn't a legal issue, it came down to a judgement call and people died because of her judgement call. Nothing illegal about that, but it speaks to her judgement, now doesn't it? Not your kid, I know you don't give a fuck about who died.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
The issue becomes a moral one when her judgement call, no doubt co-signed by the President, was motivated by continuing a false narrative that ISIS was defeated and the Middle East was under control. To that end, they both met with families of the survivors and concocted a story that some rube made a youtube video and the gathering outside the Embassy was spontaneous; when in fact she knew all along that it was a terrorist attack that had been coordinated and planned upon ahead of time.
If she looked you in the eye and told you your kid died because of some dude on youtube and you found out she lied; how do you feel about someone capable of doing that, and for those reasons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hongkonger
:lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsBenghazi wasn't a legal issue, it came down to a judgement call and people died because of her judgement call. Nothing illegal about that, but it speaks to her judgement, now doesn't it? Not your kid, I know you don't give a fuck about who died.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
The issue becomes a moral one when her judgement call, no doubt co-signed by the President, was motivated by continuing a false narrative that ISIS was defeated and the Middle East was under control. To that end, they both met with families of the survivors and concocted a story that some rube made a youtube video and the gathering outside the Embassy was spontaneous; when in fact she knew all along that it was a terrorist attack that had been coordinated and planned upon ahead of time.
If she looked you in the eye and told you your kid died because of some dude on youtube and you found out she lied; how do you feel about someone capable of doing that, and for those reasons?
You're not correct. Nice, "It's not your kid line, though". 4 people died and congress spent more money investigating it than on Watergate, Iran Contra and the 9/11 commission. If you wingnuts think there's still gold in the mine, you are, amazingly, less informed than I even imagined. Which is saying something, because I think you are truly clueless when it comes to politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
shill much??
and LOL @ el gallo's green rep "this"
How bout u bring it up cuz 100m ppl are watching compared to 1m? at her hearing, the debate's main goal is to inform voters moron
No, it means you have no moral compass. It means you don't care about others as long as you get your goodie bag. This is either actually about a trial to convict her on something or you actually read the first couple of sentences of what I posted saying that in the voters eye, that's not what Benghazi stands for. You literally cannot read the words and process them. It deflects off of your brain like it has hardened armor suffered by decades of mind numbing abuse at the hands of newspeakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenQuote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
You're not correct. Nice, "It's not your kid line, though". 4 people died and congress spent more money investigating it than on Watergate, Iran Contra and the 9/11 commission. If you wingnuts think there's still gold in the mine, you are, amazingly, less informed than I even imagined. Which is saying something, because I think you are truly clueless when it comes to politics.
And i'm not the least bit surprised.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsNo, it means you have no moral compass. It means you don't care about others as long as you get your goodie bag. This is either actually about a trial to convict her on something or you actually read the first couple of sentences of what I posted saying that in the voters eye, that's not what Benghazi stands for. You literally cannot read the words and process them. It deflects off of your brain like it has hardened armor suffered by decades of mind numbing abuse at the hands of newspeakers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOven
And i'm not the least bit surprised.
:hof
Im fairly certain Ecuador yanked Assange's chain and said there were limits to their good graces, especially considering the most obvious effect of him tanking Clinton's campaign would be the cessation of all immigration into the United States.
His body language was really interesting last night, he seemed unbelievably uncomfortable, constantly fidgeting, very disorganized. I mean, this from a guy who had more or less the worlds eyes on him, and he's up there in a t-shirt, fumbling with books and talking about how he cant hire more people if they dont turn a profit.
Either someone told him to cool it or the 'big story' he got turned out to be fugazi.
I don't want to get into a long Benghazi debate here, because that's straying from the point I was trying to make. Benghazi was one of several possible "tough" debate questions which could have been posed to Hillary, and none were. They didn't even ask her about the e-mail which was unbelievable, given the way that has dominated headlines for the past year and a half (plus her proven wrongdoing and coverup of the situation).Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenQuote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
You're not correct. Nice, "It's not your kid line, though". 4 people died and congress spent more money investigating it than on Watergate, Iran Contra and the 9/11 commission. If you wingnuts think there's still gold in the mine, you are, amazingly, less informed than I even imagined. Which is saying something, because I think you are truly clueless when it comes to politics.
Clinton supporters keep falling back on the "she was investigated for XXXXX and nothing came of it" excuse for all of her scandals. That doesn't equate to innocence, and as 4D pointed out, it was more of a judgment issue than a legal issue.
The nonsensical statement about the YouTube video was either a bad attempt at a lie/cover-up or was an indication that Hillary had no clue what the fuck was going on. Either way, it wasn't a good look.
Since Hillary was "cleared" for her role in it, the left has seized upon that to loudly scoff at anyone who dares utter the word "Benghazi" these days. They equate you with an Obama birther type conspiracy nut.
In reality, Hillary screwed it up badly, and there's no way to explain it truthfully which puts her in a positive light.