Whatever you thought of last night’s debate, there’s no question who won the post-debate spin war. Trump and his surrogates were disorganized, defensive, incoherent, delusional, and outnumbered seemingly in the hundreds of thousands. I didn’t expect that after the first thirty minutes. In fact, after the first thirty minutes I thought that the debate would be over whether Trump’s gigantic victory would be undermined by his aggressiveness in interrupting so much. I was thinking that his numbers with women would be substantially worse than they were with men.
His initial strategy was solid. He would hit Clinton relentlessly on manufacturing job loss, NAFTA and TPP, and keep a laser focus on states in the Midwest like Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin that are theoretically winnable for him and where that message would resonate the best. He would ask her why we should trust her to fix the mess that’s been made in our gutted out factory towns when she’s been in DC for thirty years and things have only gotten worse. He’d blame her for the rise of ISIS and instability in the Middle East and point out that things really spun out of control on her watch at the State Department.
He was cutting her repeatedly and she was having difficulty forming a defense because he was so aggressive.
As I said, the interruptions and aggressiveness came with a downside, but as long as she couldn’t hit back it was working.
Alas, Trump didn’t have the stamina to sustain the attack. And eventually the debate turned to other matters, like cybersecurity, where Trump needed to demonstrate more than an ability to attack Clinton’s record.
Things really began to turn against Trump at about the hour mark. It reminded me of a boxing match where a knockout artist expends all their energy in the opening rounds but fails to put their opponent on the canvas. It happened to George Foreman against Muhammed Ali. It happened to Mike Tyson against Buster Douglas. Of course, those were two of the biggest upsets in boxing history, and last night wasn’t that, exactly. But Trump did eventually get exposed and the more skilled boxer won all the middle and late rounds, getting a solid unanimous decision in the polls and throughout the world of punditry.
Update [2016-9-27 12:8:57 by BooMan]: I got spoofed by a fake Giuliani Twitter account. It is a pretty good one, but I apologize for the error.
I was surprised that Trump’s surrogates seemed so ready to concede that he had not done well. They were clearly demoralized and low energy in the wake of Trump’s late debate collapse.
Of course, once people get some sleep and a little time to form a strategy, it’s possible to get back on track. But Trump came out of the box this morning with a flurry of self-injurious stupidity. Probably nothing was more of a roundhouse to his own face than his decision to defend his mistreatment of 1996 Miss Universe winner, Alicia Machado:
Donald Trump pushed back against criticism he received from Hillary Clinton during last night’s debate regarding his treatment of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, saying “she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem.”
Trump made his remarks on “Fox and Friends” this morning in response to Clinton pointing out that Trump called Machado “Miss Piggy” while berating the Republican nominee’s overall treatment of women.
“She was the winner, and, you know, she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem,” Trump said of Machado. “We had a real problem. Not only that, her attitude, and we had a real problem with her.”
Trump spoke about Machado’s appearance today while answering a question about whether or not Clinton had gotten under his skin. He said that she hadn’t done so, and went on to describe Machado as “the worst we ever had,” a reference to Miss Universe winners.
In addition to this bizarre effort at outreach to women and Latinos, Trump blamed his performance on his microphone and suggested it might have been sabotaged deliberately, falsely claimed to have won all the post-debate polls except for CNN‘s (which is 180° from the truth), whined about moderator Lester Holt, and claimed he wasn’t sniffling loudly throughout the debate. On the last point, his sniffling was so loud and distracting that Howard Dean speculated he was high on cocaine and #TrumpCocaine trended on Twitter. In fact, #TrumpSniffles became a classic internet meme before the debate even ended.
#debates pic.twitter.com/ZYkFwymS3q
— Kathy (@mydoggigi) September 27, 2016
@joshtpm it would be irresponsible not to speculate. But a long-form drug test result would ease the minds of people asking questions.
— Martin Longman (@BooMan23) September 27, 2016
Trump is so busy stepping on rakes that he’ll probably avoid paying a specific price for many of his substantive blunders in the debate. After all, his answer on cyberterrorism involved an explanation of his 10 year old son’s aptitude with computers, he did not seem to understand nuclear first strike policy (saying both that he was for it and against it), and he told a number of bald-faced and easy to verify lies.
Here’s a partial list of those:
We rounded up 11 of the leading misleading whoppers from the debate:
1) Trump: “I do not say” climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.
2) Trump to Clinton: “You’ve been fighting ISIS your whole life.”
3) Trump claimed to have not called women “pigs, slobs, and dogs.”
4) Trump said he was endorsed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement border patrol agency.
5) Trump said he did not support the Iraq War.
6) Trump: I only got a “very small” business loan from my father.
7) Trump denied that he claimed to not care if Asian countries got nukes.
8) Trump claimed he released the “most extensive” financial review in political history.
9) Trump blamed the “birther” conspiracy theories on Clinton allies.
10) Trump claimed American manufacturing is in decline.
11) Trump: NATO focuses on terrorism because of me.
Of course, some out of work father in Steubenville, Ohio might not be going to Vox to verify Trump’s claims. It’s still possible that he will continue to advance in the polls. He did score some points in the debate.
But there is absolutely no question that he’s taking a pummeling over his performance this morning and that his response isn’t helping him recover.
Sadly, that’s a Giuliani spoof account.
Oops. Odd how easy it is to spoof those that should know better than not to run with something that looks too good to be true.
That’s a very cleverly disguised Twitter account that becomes obvious upon close inspection, but that mixes plausible with implausible tweets.
It caught the news networks last night when it tweeted that Trump might not attend future debates.
The best clue is always the content. A few weeks ago Billmon did a RT that left me scratching my head because it sounded off. Sure enough, he’d been punked.
Excusing a lapse because other pros also fell for a fake is like journalists citing Judith Miller when they are caught doing steno journalism based on untruths.
Own that you fell for a fake and vow to do better in the future.
Wow. you’re practically trolling me now by comparing me to your personal Jesus. It’s cognitively dissonant.
Yep, it got play on MSNBC’s post debate coverage. It is easy to get burned on Twitter. What gets me is how many people I know who are so easily duped by entire stories which they see on the internet. My dad is one of those who is always bringing up something he has read online that is so obviously wrong. But it doesn’t matter to him. It fits with what he wants to be true. My usual response is, “Wow, dad! Yes, that WOULD be absolutely awful…..if it was actually true”.
No big deal, no matter what the more sanctimonious members here think.
That’s because the point you were originally making is true. Giuliani IS saying Trump should skip the other debates, and that IS a sign that not even his more ardent supporters believe he did not do well in the debate.
.
She’s a professional, he is not. Professionals prepare. They know what to do. They have the talking points before the debate is performed.
My wife made an excellent point. After the debate, families came up. The Clintons, who are 36 year vets of political process, were all shaking hands. No one in that camp was talking to each other. They were talking to the public, the press, the audience. They were shaking hands.
Trump’s family moved to the highest point in the stage, and talked to each other. They won no votes that way. They created the impression of being above it all. As if The Donald was The King (Donald is Scottish is a title of a ruler, and he apparently is fully convinced of that).
The spin doctors should know what to say and who to say it to. The Trump people were unprepared, and lost the post-debate debate.
very good catch on the post-debate stuff
professionalism vs lack of seemed a very big part of this debate. Hillary was prepared, as we knew she would be, and was relaxed. Trump was winging it and throwing random talking points.
I’ll note that to my wife. I agree, good catch on her part.
Another non-professional issue is the “finish the last point and don’t discuss this point” thing. Trump was unprepared, so did not know how to concisely handle a point. So, he ran over. This led to him discussing the last point in the next space. Once you start that, you seem incoherent, because you are incoherent. It’s helpful to prepare because we all say too much without preparation.
Her comment, also clearly prepared, that she had prepared for the debate as she is preparing for the presidency, was very good, and a clearly scripted zinger. She just looked for that opening, and because she was prepared, knew that it was coming.
His excuse will be, “well, I didn’t SAY global warming was a Chinese hoax. I tweeted it. Totally different.”
Donald Trump is a bumbler but otherwise an absolutely normal, average, ordinary Republican candidate. All Republicans running for president have called women pigs, slobs and dogs, threatened to extort money out of NATO allies, and expressed a lack of concern about nuclear weapons proliferation. I wish people would quit pretending Trump is some sort of wannabe autocrat.
P.S. Your quip about the long-form drug test result is priceless.
You write:
Yup.
Precisely.
I wonder if he’ll retire from the ring and open a ministry in Texas, claiming that he had an out-of-body experience when they carried him to his dressing room.
And later…the Donald Trump Grill!!!
I thought he’d stomp all over her. I have never been so happy to be wrong. My thought now is that next time he…and his amateur handlers… won’t realize the importance of the split screen and neglect to insist on full body stage cameras.
If so, he’s sunk.
Scylla wins!!!
AG
Good thing we didn’t “bet on it,” huh?
Yup.
Ain’t over yet, though…
Bet on that!!!
AG
AG, do you realize I’ve lost thousands of dollars over the last several years thanks to you?
Stay poor. It’ll keep you young.
AG
I am reproducing most of a comment left by a NY Times reader in response to the Times’ Editorial today:
“My mom — almost 100 now — is Chinese from a generation taught to defer to men and view unfavorably women who achieve prominence. In her mind and from her culture there’s a natural order and women aren’t part of it. That’s despite her degree from St. John’s University in Shanghai, regarded as the “Harvard of China.” Despite being a single immigrant woman, raising two sons while employed as a translator and journalist at Chinese publications where she was the only woman.
“By virtue of his gender alone Trump would win my mom’s support. I watched tonight with her. She smiled when Trump talked and knitted her brow when Hillary spoke. Five minutes in, when Trump grew obnoxious, my mother began to look irritated and soon contemptuous. “What kind of man is he? He insults his parents with his behavior. He humiliates them with such low class manners.”
“Hillary? Maybe it was her lucky (for Chinese) red pantsuit but “This is an educated woman from a good family. You can see that in the proper way she speaks and her bravery to speak forcefully to that man. I feel sorry for that man’s wife but she must be a stupid girl to have married him.”
“Trump had my mom by default. In 90 minutes he broke 100 years of deeply ingrained male bias. At her age she uses an absentee ballot. After the “debate” she went looking for it. She had seen and heard enough.”
My thought going in was the press had set the bar so low for Trump, all he had to do was not act like a lunatic and he’d be seen to have won. I figured Clinton would try to goad him into lashing out and he wouldn’t take the bait.
Can’t say how pleased I am to have been wrong. First, that the press didn’t give him a free pass on his lies. Fact checking became a theme of the night. Second, that he couldn’t help but take the bait again and again and again.
After Obama screwed the pooch in debate 1 of 2012, one knew he would step back, figure out what didn’t work, and make a gallant effort to be more effective in debate 2. Trump may be different in debate 2 but it’s hard to imagine him being more effective.
Debate 1 looked like an amateur hour contestant winner trying to sing with Pavarotti in his prime at the Met. What could Trump do to be more effective going forward? Study up? Oh please! Stay narrowly focused on his issues and otherwise stand on stage like a potted plant? That’s what his advisers will be going for. In my view, no way he pulls it off.
I don’t know whether future moderators will go back to issues like tax returns and the birther thing. They’ll probably press Clinton on her foundation. But that of course leaves Trump open on his. Besides which Clinton will have no problem steering the conversation. Last night, one could see her calculating how much to say and which direction to go. Several times, she had numerous options and had to choose just one on the fly. I’m not sure she always made the best choice but it was clear she was making an effort to keep it simple. People like us tend to like maximal takedowns but I think it’s often best to dumb it down for an audience that doesn’t pay close attention. On that score, she did really well.
Think about the number of places where voting has already begun. Dems do well if people vote early.
Viewership did not noticeably drop over the course of the debate like usual. Viewers watched from beginning to end.
That’s good news for Clinton.
She sure seemed to enjoy herself. I noticed that at the Benghazi hearing, she seemed amused and quite content. Same last night.
.
So here is the payoff:
Should be good for between 3 and 5 points.
Here is the summary of as of this morning. In purple states the margin is smaller – so that is a worry. Still I show her up 2.5, and there is good national poll and state poll agreement.
So hopefully she is up 5-7 in 72 hours. Which gets me in shouting distance of the 10 I think she will win by.
The thing I noticed was how fun it became to watch–which is something I would have said sober or buzzed (and I was buzzed). Yeah yeah, infotainment and dumbing-down and insubstantial blah blah which is all true, but at some point the No Fun Club needs to realize what a relief that is after this horrible two-year slog of 360-degree-unlikeability.
Joking about cocaine and shimmys and stuff is fun and I don’t care how civically irresponsible that may seem. Pence/Kaine won’t be this fun, and I doubt the future Trump/Clinton debates will be this fun either. I just really enjoy feeling the superficial dread lift, if for only 90 minutes (plus spin cycle).
I mean, is it really such a sin to become emotionally invested if you know that’s exactly what’s happening? Verily I say unto thee it is not.
Well, one of HRC’s key tasks was to close the enthusiasm gap and she performed quite well in that regard last night. It’s not something to be ashamed of to be more enthusiastic.
It’s not, but I always have to remind myself to not fall over the emotional-investment line. I failed that badly in 2004 with Dean & Kerry, especially since election day that year was on my birthday. At least I could scarf chocolate-mint cake to dull the pain.
At the risk of bringing the approbation of some here on my childish and immature comment not meeting their standards, I would like to say,
Chocolate Mint anything makes most issues bearable.
.
Ned Lamont debacle cured me of that forever.
Oh man, if anything says “2006” it’s “Ned Lamont”
It really was fun – watched with my sons 12 and 16 and tried hard to shush them to listen to the content, but laughed at their many comments on Trump’s behavior – the many grimaces, “upfrowns,” “get him a breathe right”. Maybe I’m used to seeing her debate, but I couldn’t take my eyes off him with the continuous split screen.
I agree with that. I pre-drank a Guinness and had another on standby, but it was not needed after the 30-minute mark or so.
. . . workers is an American billionaire’s prerogative.”
digby:
I thought Clinton Allies WERE the first ones who brought up birtherism, that woman in Texas, but were immediately dumped because it was racist lies. That’s not Blumenthal though.
The origins have been traced to some right-wing fever swamp that pushed it out to Free Republic. The tracing of the origins showed that the Democrats got it from the right-wing emails that were being circulated out of the fever swamps as chain emails.
Blumenthal denies the story. Anyone have proof other than the hearsay of one politician?
I’ve heard the rumor that one of Clinton’s “people” suggested it as a possible line of attack on Obama, but that Clinton shot it down in flames. Neither Clinton, nor any of her surrogates, ever used in 2008. Allegedly, though, it was a Clinton operative/advisor who first suggested it.
There have been suggestions that the PUMAs used it as a line of attack, but that this was NOT approved of or endorsed by Clinton.
I have no idea if either rumor is true, and I don’t have time to go search it out.
I do know that the main Birther movement was spearheaded by conservatives like Orly Taitz, Pam Geller and Donald Trump.
Attempting to deflect blame on Clinton is sheer barking nonsense, but of course, Trump’s fan will joyfully latch onto as if Moses delivered it from Mt. Sinai.
And so forth…
Not true.
It came from a troll at mydd.
It then went to a PUMA site.
Is there a Snopes on this?
Joe Cannon provides some little known early history of birtherism. Not my favorite blogger, but what he says here checks out: The earliest birthers were not PUMAS, they were RW disinformationists like TechDude (= Adam Fink)
http://scratchpad-for-stray-comments.blogspot.com/2010/12/barackryphal-commentary-regarding.html
trolling PUMAs, some of whom were stupid enough and desperate enough to believe them. “Texas Darlin'”, Linda Starr and Phil Berg, who happened to be Hillary supporters — but also more than a little nuts — are the best known of these.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2016/09/again-with-birther-bs.html
Here’s a highly informative site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/birthers-from-a-to-z/
Shorter Trump: “I became the national leader of birtherism for five years thanks to the convincing documentation produced by researchers like Linda Starr, Phil Berg, and Orly Taitz.” Give me a f-king break.
the possibility that the original lie came from a Democrat doesn’t change the fact that the republicans and especially Trump continued driving the lie for the next several years.
the mention last night of Blumenthal was pure nonsense. how many people watching had any idea what that was about?
He tied Clinton to a very Jew-y name. I imagine they got that idea, at least.
Sure but he, as well as Clinton, also went and kissed Netanyahu’s ring and heiney. But maybe that wasn’t advertised on rightwing tv/radio?
Pro-Netanyahu antisemites are as common as anti-Netanyahu antisemites. Might as well say that Trump isn’t a misogynist because he’s had three wives.
He loves women so much that one wife wasn’t enough for him.
Not according to a mcClatchy reporter.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102828747.html
There are two overlapping audiences for the debates — the persuadables and the motivatables.
What has slipped in recent weeks for Clinton are the undecideds who became persuaded that Clinton was their choice at least tentatively. What Get Out The Vote works on is those who can be motivated to act on their opinion at the polls during early voting (preferable) or on election day.
If the 2016 electorate is remotely anywhere normal (a testable proposition), this debate should create a small uptick in persuadables for Clinton causing an uptick in here margins and predicted state wins.
The real job is the organization of as much geography as possible to get all of those who have been persuaded to actually vote. And to set up a way of engaging many new supporters should Trump crater in the second or third debate (not that he will but it helps to be ready to exploit this). That means that there better be organization in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. What is at stake is a possible downticket win, something the Clinton campaign has not seemed interested in to this point.
wouldn’t all her downticket fundraising say she has been interested in it?
She is funneling money through state parties but the state parties are keeping little:
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-leak-clinton-team-deflected-state-cash-concerns-226191#ixz
z4LVO8UwCQ
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
where do we think money from the DNC goes? Democratic candidates right? I don’t see the distinction
It goes to pay consultants in DC and ads mostly.
I could not be more cynical about the DNC and money
it’s not going to the downballot races, although it is represented as such.
would be great if the $ did go to downballot races
I have to believe that your hypothetical Steubenville man would have heard Trump’s brazen lies about why he doesn’t release his tax returns and understood it for what it was.
Don’t count on it w/Trump supporters. They don’t seem to give a rats patoot what Trump does or doesn’t do. The fact that Trump claimed he was “smart” for not paying any fed income tax in some years will be clapped and cheered and wildly approved of by his supporters. I don’t expect any of them to “get” something about Trump from these debates. They’re locked in.
Undecideds/not motivateds are a different story.
Trump supporters not relevant to Trump not releasing his tax returns. It’s the may still change/undecideds/DK folks that will consider this. Trump’s hard-core support is still south of 40% (and HRC’s isn’t much higher).
The percentage of voters for whom not releasing tax returns is decisive is probably small, but it’s enough to swing the election in very close states. It’s a loser for Trump unless something of equivalent, and easy to understand, value is disclosed about HRC.
Re: HRC’s lucky (for Chinese) red pantsuit – also a good choice re: visuals on her height issue. draws the eye to her, dignified, good planning
OK, Trump has stated that he is smart to pay no taxes. Clinton has alleged that he pays no taxes.
I pay taxes. However, I scour the tax information to reduce my taxes. Every single possible reduction that I or my wife can find, we use. If this would allow me to reduce my taxes to zero, I would do that.
The whole point of paying taxes is that LEGAL TAX REDUCTION is LEGAL. Illegal tax EVASION is not legal. He is a guy in a business which allows him lots of ways to reduce his taxes.
This is the whole point of the AMT. To get rich assholes to pay something.
If he reduced his taxes to 0, he is simply clever.
In ways, clever. If I was him, and planning on running, I would have NOT aggressively reduced my taxes to 0. I would have paid something to get this issue neutralized. It’s again, the “too clever by half” part of his character.
He’s supposed to be a billionaire with hundreds of millions of annual income. And you’re okay with him paying zero taxes because you’d happily pay nothing yourself?
Do you know how much some should pay at Trump’s supposed income and how much gets added to either your taxes or the deficit to make up for him not paying the tens of millions of dollars he owes each year?
You outdo yourself in cluelessness, honestly. If you can reduce your taxes, that is perfectly reasonable to do.
Do you own your own home and take the homeowner deduction? If so, quit this pretense of shock. You aren’t that stupid, and it’s clumsy and artificial to pretend at stupidity.
Last year, my taxes were initially approximately my first year salary after my Ph.D. I used all deductions that I could to reduce those taxes legally. That is what deductions are for. If you do not choose to use the deductions, fine. Just don’t get all sanctimonious. It’s embarrassing to watch.
The AMT was created for Trump and those like him. The tax code is complicated. Rich people with a lot of businesses can reduce their taxes.
You are “supposed to pay” what the tax code says you are supposed to pay. I reduced my tax obligation by taking travel expenses as deductions, mortgage interest, and several other deductions. They were all legal. I have no problem in reducing my taxes in a legal manner. If Trump can use the tax code to reduce his taxes to 0, the problem is the tax code, not Trump.
You are so far off.
In order for anything you’re saying to even be relevant Trump would need to have taxable income, but he almost certainly arranges things so that he has no income whatsoever. There’s no record of him ever paying a dime of income tax and proof that he paid no income tax whatsoever in 1978, 1979, 1992, and 1994.. He makes almost no charitable contributions and prefers to use other people’s money (through his fake foundation) to make the few he does make.
He runs fraudulent enterprises, cheats contractors as a standard of practice, uses litigation constantly to bully and ruin people, files bankruptcy once ever five years (on average) to avoid paying people, and has no visible taxable income at all.
So the IRS should take him to Tax Court.
All of this faux outrage is ridiculous. OK, he’s a rich guy, and rich guys can arrange things as they wish. I would imagine he has a number of tax attorneys on his payroll. Has he ever been fined? I don’t know if that is public record or not.
But you keep saying that he “should do this” or “should do that”. Mark Cubin, who is probably more wealthy than Trump due to his cable investments, does not agree with Trump. But he is on record as saying that he takes deductions that are available.
You state “he almost certainly arranges things so that he has no income whatsoever.” Your reference fully backs up my comments when it says ” These experts explained to Stewart that the federal tax code is so generous to real-estate developers–so stuffed with deductions, credits, and loopholes they can exploit–that it may well have allowed Trump to bring his taxable income down to nothing, or next to nothing. Which might help explain why he is so reluctant to release his tax returns.” But, in point of fact, although you THINK you know what Trump is paying, you have no fucking idea; you are just making crap up to sound like you know something, which you do not.
Your complaint is not with Trump. It is with the tax code, and with the AMT which should require that he pay something.
As I noted in the original post which you ignored in your rant, I consider Trump to be not intelligent in this matter. Were I Trump, I would have paid the US Government $10 mil per year, simply to get the tax issue off the table.
Let’s say it’s true that Trump made about $65 million a year for Celebrity Apprentice. That’s been hotly disputed, but let’s say it’s true.
He should owe, before deductions, $25 million on that income per year. So, that’s just one source of income for him. He has hotels and casinos and high-end rentals and licensing agreements all over the place, and little (mostly failing) business enterprises.
His income should be substantially higher than $65 million.
And yet, he doesn’t pay people he owes money to. He’s in debt over a half a billion dollars to banks. He launders money through his foundation and then uses the money on his personal expenses in order to look philanthropic and to avoid taxes.
And, meanwhile, you follow the law, pay your debts, pay your taxes, and make excuses for this guy who goes around crowing about how rich he is and how smart he is to avoid contributing a dime to our society. The lady who sells you a Big Mac pays more in taxes than this guy, and she doesn’t cheat to do it.
I’m not talking about using clever tax attorneys to avoid paying more than you’re obligated to pay. I’m talking about having people pay you by donating to your charity and then using that as an excuse to give away charitable donations under your own name when the money wasn’t supposed to be yours in the first place.
Yeah, it’s hard to prove because he can always argue that he thought it was legal or he just followed bad tax advice. But we’re not idiots, dataguy, and there’s a huge difference between what he does to avoid taxes and what you and most other people do.
And it matters a lot more, too, because our taxes don’t amount to much in the bigger picture, but $25 million a year (minimum) is a lot of money.
And then he cries about the deficit!
I don’t disagree with you. However, the tax code allows this. We all know why.
This is why the AMT was created. Does it work? Clearly not.
I am not sure what the answer is. Everyone should pay tax. The tax code should ensure that all contribute. I agree with you on this. I also agree that a man of this kind of money should pay a lot.
But the tax code allows him not to pay.
What is your solution?
If he loses the election don’t be surprised if it turns out that the tax code doesn’t allow him to do a lot of what he’s been doing.
We already had him pay a fine for using his foundation to make a political donation to the Attorney General of Florida.
We already know that he’s been self-dealing from his foundation.
Now there’s evidence he’s been laundering income through the foundation.
He’s in court in a couple of months to answer for the rampant scam that was Trump University.
You keep assuring me that he’s legit. I don’t see it, and I highly doubt he’s been following the tax laws of our country.
Honestly, I have no idea why it is necessary to distort what I say. To be very clear:
I have said, over and over, that reducing your taxes by using deductions, loopholes, and other such techniques is appropriate and morally correct. I have said, over and over, that rich people have many ways to do this.
I have not told you that what Trump DOES is legal. I have said that his WORDS are correct. I don’t do his taxes. I have no idea if he is doing anything wrong – I certainly have read the stories which say that his actions are reprehensible, morally wrong, legal but not ethical.
I certainly hope that he does end up in court. I hope he goes to jail. Because I agree with you that he appears, from the scanty evidence that we have, that he has done both morally and legally wrong things.
But, to go back to my original point that started this whole thing, he is right in that reducing your taxes legally is both morally, ethically, and legally appropriate. That is a general statement. I have no idea if he is cheating, and have never seen his taxes, nor have I ever said that he is doing things correctly. What he says is correct. What he does, I have no idea. I am not his accountant, lawyer, or wife.
One other point: I agree with Trump on a number of issues. He is right on immigration, on outsourcing, on NAFTA, on the ability of a person to use deductions to reduce his taxable income.
That doesn’t make him fit for the office. I don’t support him.
I don’t support Hillary either. She will sign the TPP. She will give away millions of US jobs. She will throw the borders open, and take Obama’s permiso and make it law. She will be a horrible president, and will lead to a Democratic debacle in 4 years. I have no doubt she will be elected. Not with my help though.
I’m voting for the Duckster. Donald Duck.
Why rich people paying zero taxes is a tell
What he is doing is having people who owe him money ‘donate’ that money to his foundation. Then he uses foundation money for personal expenses.
Illegal in how it goes in, and how it comes out. And if the people who ‘donated’ it deducted it a a charitable contribution, that is illegal. The Feds could eventually do a deal with those people for their testimony and Trump will go to jail for tax evasion.
So Trump Jr will have a lot in common with the Trump son in law. Both will have tax convicts for fathers.
.
And why would anyone agree to this unless they DID use the deduction?
Long term, he’s dead. It’s unlikely to effect the election, but,
Jesus, what a disgusting human being.
.
All of that is interesting, and if true, could be real trouble for Trump. That would be grand. The guy is an idiot, and is doing damage on multiple fronts to certain causes.
For instance, the issue of immigration limitation and restriction, which I support, is going to be badly damaged by Trump. Annoying.
If you break tax law, like Al Capone, you should go to jail. Perhaps Trump will. However, there is the matter of the legal issue. None of this has been shown to be legal fact. Until it is, it’s just speculation.
What’s the PROOF of any of this? You know, documents, etc.?
Until you have that, you got nothing.
There’s a simple way to let the American public know whether Trump is engaging in tax avoidance or tax evasion. He should release his tax returns.
The politics is that it looks really bad for wealthy people to pay near $0 in income taxes. Since Donald refuses to release his returns its also reasonable to infer that he’s hiding something… perhaps evading taxes. This is the tack Harry Reid took with Mitt Romney.
My guess is that Trump doesn’t want people to know 1) his actual yearly income, 2) sources/nature of income), 3) back taxes paid after adjustments, and 4) actual amounts of charitable giving.
Ya think?
Here’s a bold prediction: On Nov. 9, we will still have no idea what Trump’s sources of income, tax bill or deductions are. We won’t know this, because he won’t release them.
Just a wild-ass guess.
Yeah, no shit. That’s why its an issue and people will keep talking about it.
The headline in my local paper this morning:
“Trump and Clinton drop gentility for hostility”
And it started out “So much for Trump being subdued. So much for Clinton being above the fray…”
(and WTF does that even mean? ‘above the fray’?? She’s running for the most powerful elected office on the planet not president of the tea society.)
The other article on the front page included gems such as “The Republican championed the ‘stop and frisk’ tactics to achieve a drop in crime, while the Democrat said that this was ineffective and unconstitutional”
No REALITY says it is ineffective and the SUPREME COURT said it was unconstitutional.
“Opinons on the shape of the earth differ.”
And so it went.
No Trump didn’t “lose” a bit.
He’s STLL going to get all the free air time he wants; he’s going to continue to be allowed to lie with impunity, and the media will continue to put their thumbs, feet and cartoon 1000-pound weights on the scales against Clinton because “There MUST BE A HORSE RACE!”
Couldn’t tell you whether Strongman Trump is a cocaine user, or perhaps a legal amphetamine user. That said, extra stamina for about half an hour, along with narcissism and incoherence are pretty much hallmark signs of cocaine.
Nothing is stopping Strongman Trump from crushing up some adderall and snorting it to get a little extra short term stamina. And totally legal.
And wasn’t the debate live the entire time? That means no short trips to the bathroom for a bump.