Here in Florida was passed a ballot initiative allowing ex felons who have served their time and were not convicted of specific crimes to be allowed to vote. The ballot measure was passed in 2016.
But aware of the ever present treachery of the Republican Party, this many people now having access to the ballot would be unacceptable, they feared that would constitute more Democrat votes.
So they employed their fascist arm to dredge up the fine print. That stating that all related fines and fees be paid, which is virtually impossible for most of these people financially. Of course, the GOP was well aware of their duplicitous objectives from the beginning. The courts ultimately ruled in their favor, returning to the status quo ante for all practical purposes to the situation that existed prior to the ballot initiative.
So now Mike Bloomberg is in Florida offering millions of dollars to pay the fines of many of those felons so there would no longer exist that impediment to their participation in the franchise.
The Republicans in response is calling for an investigation by the state AG claiming that Bloomberg could be engaging in some sort of illegal election fraud.
Bloomberg is helping people participate in the process, by giving them an. opportunity to vote by relieving them of the State's burdensome restitution requirements. So why should the Florida GOP need to stick their noses in? Bloomberg, in providing the charity, did not stipulate how the people are to use their franchise or how they were to vote as any form of compensation.
Republicans are terrorified that they could lose Florida in the Fall and they deserve it.
You all may have differing opinions in regards to this but for me the Republicans are coming off as fascist, authoritarian porkers. But again, that is just my opinion.
Here is an article for the background:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre … 623f0340ed
I'm disturbed by several things here. The first is that we're talking about buying elections. Maybe the Dems win in Florida, but to think that without an investment of $100 million from Bloomberg, they might lose, that's basically signaling the end of Democracy. Our elections are bought and sold. It doesn't matter who is buying the election. It's being bought.
Second, Republicans simply don't want people to vote. It doesn't benefit them. The more people who vote, the more likely it is they lose. So, they claim fraud. They disenfranchise. They encourage people to show up at the polls with guns to protect the vote. They simply want to discourage and scare people away who aren't going to vote for them.
It's bad for our country and our democracy.
I disagree with part of your comment, Crank.
The reality is that this is the way the political game is played. Was it not you that said that those in power get to do what they want?
Campaign finance reform has been the objective of Democrats not Republicans. Yet, progressives can no longer afford to bring a pea shooter to a gun fight. Do you not think that Republican donors don't have millions of dollars to put forth to promote their candidates and agendas?
The money is influence but ultimately my vote is my own regardless of how much money is spent to attempt to influence me.
I think that denying people of their right to participate is far more sinister and it is the tendency of Republicans to use this approach
I agree with you that it's the Republicans who have pushed the influence of unfettered money into the process, so if Bloomberg's money results in a Florida win, Republicans only have themselves to blame.
However, I just don't like it either way. Our candidates are all for sale. That's something that has to change or else the country is doomed.
Oh my Crankalicious, can you support your statement that it is the Republicans that have ". . .pushed the influence of unfettered money . . . "?
I don't disagree that "unfettered money" has become the primary influence in our elections, but I strongly disagree that it is the Republicans that are prime motivators of this. Can you point to a Republican effort similar to Bloomberg's Florida effort?
Two words: Supreme Court.
As a by-the-way, I disagree with that ruling, but it was not a Republican ruling. It should be noted that the renegrade Justice Kennedy sided with the 1st amendment interpretation of the Court's ruling. So, Democrats can like him when he breaks with the conservative justices but demonizes him when he doesn't.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Damn Cred. Your rationalizations have brought you to new lows. Does integrity mean nothing to you now? Your comments clearly show that you will accept any effort as long as the result is the one you want. Are you really comfortable holding an 'the end justifies the means' perspective?
"It ain't right, but it gets what I want,"seems to be your new perspective. Well, have at it bud, I still think integrity and values matter.
Integrity and values are fine as long at it is not applied to the Republicans, they do what they want and they always get your grudging ok.
I told you in advance about the dirty tricks regarding replacing Ginsberg seat. I say all of us, both sides, either follow the rules and respect each other or we will all descend into the abyss together.
Bloomberg is not buying votes, there is no obligation for people that have their fines paid for to vote any specific way, and the GOP can't prove otherwise.
Progressives can no longer afford to pussyfoot around with Republicans.
"Are you really comfortable holding an 'the end justifies the means' perspective?"
Our opponents are comfortable with it, and because the Dems have so long been naive about what the Republicans really represent, we now have to fight fire with fire.
LOLOLOLOL Democrats are as guilty as Republicans in using that philosophy and you know it as well as anyone. Even if you idolize Democrats, and accept anything they do as righteous and right, you still know it.
Go ahead and laugh Wilderness, I know otherwise, with true campaign finance reform the GOP could not pull all of its dirty tricks.
Warren and Sanders attacked the issue directly, who did that on the Republican side?
Sure you do. As we watch Democrats willing to do anything they can (words from Pelosi) to stack the SCOTUS in their favor. But they don't believe in "anything that works", not at all.
So the dirty trick pull by McConnel and the GOP to stack the court "works" instead, huh?
So, it is as you say, if it works, do it, right?
Do tell us. Who on the Republican side has advocated for campaign finance reform?
Not sure what that has to do with Credence's claim that only Republicans have the "whatever it takes", or "the ends justify the means" outlook.
Can you explain a little better?
Once you can buy politicians and elections and you advocate for such, everything is for sale and you are basically admitting that money buys votes and positions and politicians and that you don't care about Democracy. So any other argument is basically moot.
Don't know about "campaign finance", but DO know that Democrats consistently refuse efforts to protect the sanctity of the vote: seems that Shumer won't even allow the Senate to hear intelligence briefings from military and intelligence officials on protecting our elections. Asked that the Senate hear from intelligence committees, Shumer replied "Reserving the right to object, because the Senate Republicans have no respect for the institution, we won't have business as usual here in the Senate. I object,”. Our liberal factions in operation; if I don't get my way the Senate will not be allowed to do it's job.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl … Z6xLGjAxC8
There's never been any major voter fraud. So says the FBI director, appointed by Trump.
No, he didn't say that - he said none had been found. Which isn't hard to understand when Democrats refuse efforts to look for it, now is it?
(But if there is no fraud in the process, what was that whole "Russian" thing about? Just hating on the president, knowing all along there was nothing to find?)
"I'm disturbed by several things here. The first is that we're talking about buying elections. Maybe the Dems win in Florida, but to think that without an investment of $100 million from Bloomberg, they might lose, that's basically signaling the end of Democracy. Our elections are bought and sold. It doesn't matter who is buying the election. It's being bought.
I completely agree with your comment Crankalicious.
Bloomberg's $100 million effort is bad enough, but it is legal. However, I don't think his felon's fine actions are legal and should be called out.
You are exactly right. Our elections are bought and sold like oranges at the market. And the worst part is that there is no longer even an effort to hide the activity. It's in our face. And that is insulting.
The Democrats castigated Buttigieg for his "wine cellar" fundraisers but are now just fine with billionaire Bloomberg's buying of votes. Geesh.
Stripped of the ridiculous and (I'm sure) intentionally inflammatory language ("ever present treachery", "fascist arm", "fascist, authoritarian porkers", there remains the question of just why the Democrats did not object as well. After all, it IS the law that the people passed, whether Democrats liked it or not.
Then there is still the question of Bloombergs efforts to subvert the wishes of the people - why are Democrats not incensed as well? Perhaps because they see those votes as coming in as Democrat votes? The people plainly approved of the provision that felons pay off their debts (not have someone else erase the debts for them) - why are Democrats not upset as well at efforts to exploit a loophole that was unintentionally left in?
Not sure you read that right. The voters passed the law to allow felons to vote. The Republican legislature then passed a law regarding them having to pay off their debts, so it would seem that it was the Republican legislature attempting to thwart the will of the voters.
Welllll . . . you might be right Crankalicious. I have taken a similar position in the past—that the voters' perception of the issue was "time served" was then the fulfilment of the law's requirements.
I still hold that thought, but, it is hard to argue with the legitimacy of the legislators' determination that completing their sentence also included the monetary requirements as well.
So, even if it is a Republican effort, and I have to admit it is a legitimate one. As such, I see their determinations as much more legitimate than Bloomberg's. No matter how you slice it, I think Bloomberg is illegally buying votes.
I don't see him telling anyone how to vote. He certainly doesn't know how those felons intend to vote and some of them may be Republicans.
In all honestly, this sort of thing is like watching Democracy crumble before our eyes. In my view, Republicans have always advocated for more money in politics and more corporate wealth. They've always pushed corporate wealth and then pushed for corporations to be able to use that power to fund and elect whoever they want. Democrats have certain done their part to push and pursue money as well. I just don't think quite as much.
But it doesn't matter. If money is the only thing that talks in politics, then everything and everyone is for sale no matter their political affiliation and then only the super-wealthy really get a voice.
Obviously, my response, and it is only an observation, would be that if I paid your bills you would probably want to show gratitude. I will hold to my view that Bloomberg's effort in this instance is one of buying votes.
However, to this point:
"But it doesn't matter. If money is the only thing that talks in politics, then everything and everyone is for sale no matter their political affiliation and then only the super-wealthy really get a voice."
I completely agree. Money is the only thing that talks in our modern politics.I am reminded of a line in the modern version of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, the new Senator was offered money for whichever stance he took on an issue.
My colorful metaphors as most appropriate for the kinds of people Republicans are and games that they play. But, like I said, it is just my opinion.
Their debts are being PAID, Wilderness, not erased. Republicans subvert the will of the people rountinely. Their donors provide millions for their campaigns, yet we cannot? The Republican is free to "put a sock in it, at both ends"
So, what is good for the goose....
What are the wishes of the people? Our corrupt Republican legislature interpreted that as being that ex-felons have to pay before voting. Well, the debts are being paid, so what is your beef? What do you care as to the source?
What don't you just come out and say you want to disenfranchise democrat leaning voters, it would be more honest.
Credence, did you happen to see the headline on Fox News today? It's Thursday, Sept. 24. You should go look. Maybe you could guess? What do you think their headline is about? What's the most important thing to Fox News right now? Try to guess before you go look.
Crank, i see Pelosi deciding not to go thru another impeachment process with Trump. Can you give me a hint?
Just about everything that I associate with Fox News is biased and negative, which one of the 64 crayolas In their box do I pick?
When I went there to foxnews.com, the headline was about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. At this moment, that's what's important to them. That's news.
"What do you care as to the source?"
Do you really believe that rationalization Cred? Am I nuts to imagine your outrage if a Republican donor did the same thing?
I support felons that have completed their sentence regain the Right to vote. I don't support Democrats buying that vote by paying their bills.
That you do is very telling. Your political philosophy seems to be whatever it takes, regardless of whether it is right or wrong—and that is just plain wrong. That is a major problem in our politics and rather than decry it you support it.
You have become a partisan bud. And that isn't a good thing.
Yeah, GA, so what? What do you think Republican donors have been doing. There is no consideration expected by Bloomberg paying those fines for those ex felons. Who knows how they choose to vote, once they are able to? Republicans say votes are being bought but can't prove it. With all the skullduggery these days coming from Republicans and the Right, I couldn't care less what they think. I don't care about they way the GOP legislature twisted the meaning of that ballot initiative. Republicans pull this kind of crap all of the time and you excuse it, well I don't. As far as I am concerned in regards to the Republicans, the gloves are off.
So, yes, I am partisan and have distinct preferences and Republicans remain firmly on my $hit list right now.
By the way, in actuality you are much more partisan then you let on, and though you may be accused of fence sitting, it is always on the Right side of the fence.
I make clear my preferences without equivocation, one party is far more problematic than the other, IMHO.
"Their debts are being PAID, Wilderness, not erased."
While it may be popular to politicians, I don't much like word games. The debts are gone and nothing will be owed, without any action by the felons to pay their debt. They are "erased" whether you appreciate the term or not.
"Our corrupt Republican legislature interpreted that as being that ex-felons have to pay before voting."
Good thought. So which felons will pay their debts? Answer: none of them - someone else will pay them instead.
How is it any concern of yours how the debts are paid as long as they are paid?
I do believe the law requires that they complete their sentence. Which includes fines, penalties, restitution, etc. - things that someone else will do FOR them.
But of course, if it works then do it, right?
So what, their brother, sister, son, daughter or uncle could DO it for them. What is the difference?
Just more GOP disenfranchising bull$hit, and it certainly will not be welcome in all corners.
Money talks, right, and if it works can buy people out of lots of things. (We also see rioters being bailed out by gofundme pages and other donations: more criminals that don't have to pay the cost of their misdeeds). Whatever works!
Just liberal bull$shit, working to get around the intent of the law by exploiting every possible loophole, ethical or not.
Interesting. If Trump were forced to pay for the cost of his bankruptcies, would he be able to vote?
Would any of the half the population that have also gone bankrupt?
(Do you know what kind of people make up the list of those that have gone bankrupt? The list includes Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Ulysses S. Grant, P.T. Barnum, Abraham Lincoln and Buffalo Bill. Pretty eclectic list, isn't it - President Trump has some pretty good company!)
Not sure what that has to do with the law in Florida law, and whether it is reasonable to require felons to fulfill their entire sentences as the voters required, or just a part of them. Can you make that a little clearer, please?
Oh lordy, lordy Cred. There is no way you can be naive enough to really believe what you said.
A guy promises to pay thousands or tens of thousands of dollars of your debt and you wouldn't be in any way grateful? And it is so easy to show your gratitude, just vote Democrat. Is that such an unreasonable far-fetched thought?
I want felons that have served their time to have the Right to vote. I am conflicted about the requirement to pay the monetary debt also. I think that serving the time should be the benchmark. But . . . if paying those bills is legitimately part of the deal, so be it.
In my view Bloomberg is not being an altruistic philanthropist, he is buying votes. His actions meet every mark of violating election laws and is clearly an illegal effort. No matter what the 'bleeding hearts' say, this is not about empowering the vote, it is all about expanding the Democrat vote.
Word games and compassionate considerations be damned, this is an illegal acgtion that needs to be called out.
He is spending $100 million in the state—legally, he shoulodn't be allowed to get away with this move.
Who was it that decried billionaires buying elections? Yep, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Pete Butigeig, and most Democrat pundits. I think I even recall you arguing against such actions. Yet, here we are, Bloomberg blatantly buys votes and the Democrats, (and you Progressives), are fine with it.
Damn bud, the hypocrisy was already bad enough, and now when we are all neck-deep in it from both parties you support even more of it.
". . . helping people participate in the process . . . " my ass. He is buying votes and you know it as well as I do.
Yes, you would be grateful, but that has no contractual binding on the recipient of that money, their gratitude and their choices are theirs to make. So stop treating adults like children.
I don't care what Rightwinger call it. Gratitude does not have any legal standing, this is not contractural arrangement. The Republicans have been pulling every stunt to disenfranchise people who won't vote for their loathsome candidates and policies.
And we ALL know that the GOP has proven to be the most resistant on the topic of campaign finance reform. But now when their routine practices are employed against them by the Democrats, it's brings the house down.
Like I said before until there is meaningful reform applicable to both parties, Democrats can no longer afford to expect civility from Republicans no more than you can expect a bear to use the toilet.
I will give them absolutely nothing....
Bloomberg bought the elections in Virginia, which resulted in the need for over ten thousand people to descend on Richmond to explain to the purchased politicians that you can buy an election but that doesn't mean the tax passing citizens will lay down for you to stomp on them.
I don't doubt his efforts in Florida will elicit anything other than the same outcome. Democrats stealing what is not rightfully theirs, by law abiding citizens understanding of decency and fair play, and decent people peacefully ensuring the ill gained outcome doesn't gain the traction he hoped to gain with the money spent.
This is one reason I am frequenting these forums less and less. I don't know if people are just obtuse or willfully blind to the ignorance of the power hungry, senile, geriatrics in power on the left. Either way, it is disgusting to read the ill informed opinions of those who allow their emotions to over ride the good sense they, hopefully, otherwise possess.
You elected a guy who charged the American taxpayer $70,000 to take care of his hair and paid more for sex than he paid in income tax in the last two decades and you want to lecture us about being ignorant?
Further, you have a President who gathers his followers indoors without masks in contradiction to all available science while his followers laugh, cheer, and ridicule those who don't wear masks and you want to lecture about ignorance?
LOL Can you possibly expect anyone (outside of those automatically believing anything bad about Trump) to believe such ridiculous claims? Trump hit taxpayers 70K for haircuts? He paid more for sex than he did in taxes for the past 20 years (you drove the taxi taking him to the prostitutes for 20 years, right?)?
You can get really comical at times.
Why? Was it you driving the taxi and then reporting to Crank?
While I have little doubt that liberals are simply drooling at the idea that Trump frequented prostitutes in the last 20 years, showing it to be true is a different matter. Were you the taxi driver, taking him to the red light district?
I wasn't referring to that. His payment to Stormy Daniels exceeds all the taxes he's paid in the last two decades.
OMG! His tax records include sex payments? Which line item was that on? What were his reciepts—used condom wrappers?
Ha! No. We do know he paid Stormy Daniels $130k though. And I think he paid Karen McDougal something as well.
But, but, but . . . I thought he paid those monies to keep quiet about the sex, not for the sex itself.
If not, then my 'don't be a Neanderthal' tripwire kicks in and I can't even get close to the proper male comment about the properties of a capitalistic exchange; value for value . . .
For the record, I don't care that much about who Trump pays to have sex with or who urinates on him. It mostly makes for a fun response.
For the record, I don't care that much about who Trump pays to have sex with or who urinates on him. It mostly makes for a fun response, particularly when the religious right who support him have railed about such things for so many years and whose moral code supposedly determines their life choices.
Which "bubble" is more accurate, the one that claims Pres. Trump charged the American taxpayers $70,000 to take care of his hair, (he didn't, he followed the tax laws and deducted that amount from gross income), or the one that sees that same claim as just following the tax laws?
But wait, wait, I certainly agree that $70,000 seems to be a ridiculous sum for hair care, but until it is found to a fake number I don't see that action as anything more than just following the IRS rules for itemized deductions.
Which bubble does that thought put me into?
One quibble out of three.
No comment on the other two assertions?
I say you're in the Minor Quibble Bubble that compels you to pick out something to defend Trump for. ;-)
Quibble? Pointing out a lie by a factor of at least 100 is a quibble?
You care about lies now? lol
In any case, I consider it an overstatement made for dramatic impact but, yes, it was false. Pants on fire. I notice you are also not commenting on the other two assertions.
Yes, it was false. Right to the core (the US taxpayer paid not a single penny for any of his haircuts then), which rather makes it just another outright lie from the leftist radicals and/or Trump haters.
He deducted the cost on his taxes. He didn't pay taxes. Who paid for those haircuts? What about charging the Secret Service $600/night to stay at his properties while he's President? The taxpayers certainly paid for that.
Here's a sobering fact. You paid more in federal income tax than Trump.
That was a limp reply PrettyPanther. I addressed the only claim I could check out.
If I don't know anything about what Trump has paid for sex then how can I address the claim he paid more than he did in Federal taxes? From past boasts, I had the perception that he got it for free just for being Trump. Do you know otherwise? Do you know how much he has paid for sex? Without knowing that detail, can any possible position, (Crankalicious' or yours), be driven by anything more than just partisan perception?
And the mask thing . . . I didn't have an argument with that one. Does that mean I must add an affirmative 'high-5'?
I don't see those reasonings as quibbling when I addressed the only point that could be factually contested. *(Technically I think the "masks" point—as stated by Crankalicious, could also be argued, but I think it would be fruitless to do so.)
Of course, you can say I picked the only point that could be challenged in order to defend Pres. Trump, but I can also claim I wasn't defending Trump, I was only challenging a partisan claim. That's just a matter of correct or incorrect, not one of defense.
So here, I will hit all three points for you:
1. The haircuts - a falsely stated claim not supported by reported facts.
2. The sex - from the claimant's position, this is an unsupportable slander.
3. The masks - technically incorrect, but true in essence. (my opinion)
Possibly one out of three claims being accurate? That doesn't seem a strong position.
Amusing. Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130k, more than he paid in federal income tax during a number of years.
What was the 130k for, exactly, do you think? But yes, I'll readily admit that it's not possible to connect the dots on that claim other than through hearsay. No worse than the doctored videos Trump uses to claim Biden used a teleprompter because he's too slow to respond normally. I guess if you're going to be able to dish it out, you have to be able to take it.
Really, the hyperbole is just meant to highlight what a complete failure and fraud Trump is. And what a con job he's pulled on all the regular people who voted for him.
"Really, the hyperbole is just meant to highlight what a complete failure and fraud Trump is. And what a con job he's pulled on all the regular people who voted for him."
Are you saying you need to use hyperbole to sell that point? Shouldn't you be able to do that with facts instead of needing hyperbole?
As a side note, was that " not possible to connect the dots on that claim" another nod to the error of the second claim?
No, because facts don't matter. If people can't even agree on using masks or the fact there's more CO2 in the atmosphere because of how we behave, facts don't seem to have much relevance.
That's precisely the problem. It used to be we agreed on the facts but not the interpretation of them. Now, people just claim that facts are not facts and that what some scientist claims can be countered by some random dude on the internet.
So might as well use hyperbole.
"No, because facts don't matter."
"So might as well use hyperbole."
But facts do matter to reasonable folks, and it turns out the facts weren't on your side this time. So, it appears "hyperbole" seems to be your rationalization.
And further, look how reasonable the conversation became when the facts of your claims were discussed instead of the hyperbole of your original comment.
For instance; instead of arguing about Trump charging the taxpayers for his haircuts as your hyperbole claimed, we elevated the discussion to the facts of the claim, which were that it was a business deduction from a specific legitimate business expense during his years on the Apprentice TV show.
*Just as an aside, this is a pretty standard deal. My favorite game show host Steve Harvey gets to deduct his wardrobe expenses as a business expense of his shows. Given how nattily he dresses I would suspect that he deducts more over the same number of years than Trump does. Is Mr. Harvey cheating the American taxpayer for using this legitimate income deduction?
Then we elevated the hyperbole of your claim that he paid more for sex—can there be any other first impression than that was for the sex act, than he paid in Federal taxes, received, to the facts that the payment of one thing, (the hush money payments), was conflated to mean the same as paying for another thing, (sex).
Deducting for personal expenses is not considered a legitimate deduction. I also believe he deducted a payment to Ivanka for something, which was not legal.
Also, by many measures, the tax information shows Trump to be a bad businessman and a fraud.
He has over $300 million in debt/loans to Deutche Bank and there is evidence that those loans were funded by the Russian mafia.
On the subject of the haircuts, it would not be deductible if he was getting a salary from the show. What I suspect he did was deduct the haircuts as part of his self-employment income, which would be illegal because he's assigning the deduction to something it's not for. In other words, if I have two jobs - one main job while also having a side job where I claim self-employment income, I can only deduct travel expenses directly related to my self-employment income. I cannot deduct the travel expenses from my main job.
Here's the Russian money link:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/21/ho … -business/
"He has over $300 million in debt/loans to Deutche Bank and there is evidence that those loans were funded by the Russian mafia"
Are you now twisting even media reports into what they did not say? Your link very plainly states that Trump appears to have loans from wealthy people from Russian and the free world (conveniently neglecting to mention relative percentages).
The "Russian mafia", though, is pure Crankalicious, even pretending that you ignoring the second source of loans was an error; that it was not intentional that you failed to give the rest of the story.
"Are you saying you need to use hyperbole to sell that point? Shouldn't you be able to do that with facts instead of needing hyperbole?"
This would be ideal, wouldn't it? Which politician has taken hyperbole over facts to a new level? When people embrace that hyperbole over facts (the mask issue is a good example), do you think it effective to simply keep repeating the facts, without also appealing to their emotions with some well-placed hyperbole?
Humans are, at their core, emotional as well as intellectual. To be truly persuasive with certain types of people, a little hyperbole works wonders.
Yes, yes, yes, GA.
I don't feel like arguing over the level of sleaze. That's all we do with this lovely fellow. Maybe we can agree it's just more evidence of Trump sleaze?
It does seem that no amount of valid information will change opinion. Just look at the number of reputable people who have worked with the guy who say he lacks the empathy, intelligence, and skill to be President. It's not a short list, but apparently every one of them is disgruntled and a liar.
Oh, I dunno, GA - 13 years of high dollar haircuts for the star of the show only comes to $100 per week. I'd bet long odds that those stylists, serving the stars, earn far more than that for a haircut and style.
Probably of more note is just what a fraud he is and how much his businesses are failing and how his success has mostly been on the back of the American taxpayer.
But I certainly agree. The expense deductions when you run a business cover just about everything and are given wide latitude.
Hopefully, that is a bit of a nod to the hyperbole of your original claim.
As for the "fraud" thought relative to the published business information, that could be an interesting thread discussion of its own. For example, just a small taste;
Pick your favorite billionaire that you think is most honest. Now, recognize that their business income is from a dozen different enterprises. Now ask, if 11 of those businesses lose money, but their contributions, along with the profitability of the 12th business allow that billionaire to make a profit each year—is that billionaire the same type of fraud you are claiming Trump is for those same reasons?
When addressing some claims, quibbles, like Tribbles, abound.
I still say that the biggest takeaway from the release of Trump's tax returns is just more evidence that he is a sleazy con man.
Nothing new there.
It looks like we are back to "claims" again.
My understanding was the cost was listed as business expenses, not personal expenses. My perception of the magnitude of accounting and tax services he must have had working for him, I feel confident that it was legitimate for him to claim that deduction. I am not motivated to dive into researching that answer, so I am not confident enough to bet the farm. (but maybe the garage ;-) )
As for Ivanka's payment. . .I read that techniclly it was a payment made to her consulting company. Whether that company was just Ivanka is a legal issue that probably skirts the spirit of the rules, but does adhere to the letter of the rules. So is it a fact that it was not legal, or a claim that it wasn't? Did you check around to see if it was legal, or is it a "claim" based on your interpretation of the article.
The Deutche Bank thing . . . I read your link. Whether facts may emerge that prove the claims about nefarious illegal activities, the charge is still an unproven claim. So, do we read the link as a map laying out paths and probabilities that certainly lead to facts, or as a collection of on-going investigations, and extrapolations that—at this point—can only be considered as opinions, i.e. "claims." My opinion is that there is fire beneath all that smoke, but, I can't see it, feel it, or hear it, yet. So considering the years of constant 'get Trump' efforts, I am keeping my powder dry on this one.
Say whatever you want. It's fraud.
The payment to Ivanka for about $750k was a deduction taken by Trump's company for consulting fees paid to his daughter who was working as an officer of the company, managing those very projects. It's just flat-out tax fraud.
I will say, in Trump's defense, that while it's fraud, it's not like other people aren't doing it. They wouldn't be doing this if they couldn't get away with it. It's part of the tax code allowing too much flexibility for business deductions and not enough specificity. What's sad is that he claims to be so patriotic. I guess if being patriotic means cheating, he's doing a good job.
You do understand that you don't get the make the definition of "fraud" - that congress has done so and you cannot change it at your whim? Not even to make Trump look bad?
That's the very definition of fraud. It's illegal to deduct "consulting fees" for your own daughter who works for the company making the deduction. Whether the IRS catches it is another case, but I do know what's legal for business deductions and that's not legal. Thus, fraudulent. Further, he doesn't identify on the form who the consultant is because if Ivanka were identified, it would be flagged.
And just as an aside, I paid about 70k in federal taxes last year. I think that's more than Trump paid in the last 20 years.
"I will say, in Trump's defense, that while it's fraud, it's not like other people aren't doing it. They wouldn't be doing this if they couldn't get away with it. It's part of the tax code allowing too much flexibility for business deductions and not enough specificity."
There is a perspective I can agree with—if we accept a concept of legal fraud.
Nick Akerman thinks so too.
Nick Akerman, who served on the prosecution team during the 1970s Watergate investigation, said Tuesday he believed President Trump would likely face tax fraud charges upon leaving the White House.
Akerman pointed to the Times’ reporting that Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka was paid $747,622 in consulting fees. “There is no legitimate reason for her to get those consulting fees since she was being paid already as a Trump employee,” he said.
"The only possible reason for doing this was to somehow move money around so that it wouldn't be taxed to Donald Trump but would in effect go on Ivanka Trump's tax return, who probably had certain losses that she could take against it,” he added.
“So in the end, the government gets zero dollars."
Gotta love the way he makes assumptions - "who probably had certain losses that she could take against it" - in order to try and give credence to an otherwise unsupportable argument, an argument he has no proof of at all.
But they do have proof. It's outlined in the article. The exact amount is shown on Trump's tax form and on Ivanka's (I might have that slightly wrong). It's the exact same amount. That's illegal. You can't deduct a "consulting fee" to somebody who works for you and gets a salary. She was an officer of the company.
Can you quote where the article shows (not gives an opinion of the probability) that Ivanka Trump had "certain losses that she could take against it"?
And yes, in spite of you ridiculous opinion to the contrary, you certainly CAN pay a consulting fee to someone you are already paying a salary. There is no law in this country that says a person can hold only one job, even if for the same company. I myself have been paid above and beyond my salary for extra work done for a company that had me on the payroll.
If you still disagree, please quote the law, giving the number designation, of any law that prohibits holding more than one job at a time.
Well, let me put it another way. You cannot deduct somebody's salary as a consulting fee. I think that's what's at dispute. Here's the explanation from the piece:
"Ms. Trump had been an executive officer of the Trump companies that received profits from and paid the consulting fees for both projects — meaning she appears to have been treated as a consultant on the same hotel deals that she helped manage as part of her job at her father's business."
Again, quote the law that says you cannot do two jobs, and receive two separate compensations, for the same country.
I've done it, my wife has done it. In fact, every employee at one location I worked at did it. If it's illegal then we both should have been charged, along with the companies that we worked for.
I refer you to this article:
https://www.vox.com/21459231/trump-tax- … sion-fraud
No law there that you can't receive two payments from the same employer. Only comments that something could be wrong, that it might have been illegal, that if something was not satisfied, it was wrong, etc.
In other words, not a single word to support your claim that earning two different wages from a single employer is illegal.
Try again? This time with reference to a specific law instead of a bunch of wishes and maybe's?
Seems naive to me.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I believe there are $26 million in deductions for "consulting fees" where the consultant is not identified.
Of course it seems naïve to you; it doesn't "convict" Trump of wrongdoing.
At the same time it seems naïve to me that you would simply assume that anyone reading your complaint would automatically assume that your exaggerations and lies are true. Particularly when real life experience says they're not.
Can you provide ANY example where the officer of a company is also paid as a consultant?
Here's another link for you:
https://www.insider.com/trump-paid-ivan … ays-2020-9
It's illegal if they can't show that the work was done, it was necessary. It's a common tax avoidance scheme in family businesses. But when we say "illegal", it would just mean he owes money to the IRS. Also, is it so surprising coming from a guy who inflated his net worth by $4 billion?
Here's another article on the family tax practices to avoid paying appropriate taxes:
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/3 … mes-expose
You made the claim that it is illegal. YOU support your claim, don't ask me to prove it isn't true.
That's how it works. If you don't like being called on your false statements, research them for truth before you make them.
Well, when I say it's illegal, I'm saying "all reasonable evidence points to it being an illegal deduction" but neither I nor the IRS can prove it's illegal just yet. But if you take all we know about Trump, his father, and past evidence, every possible thing points to it being an illegal deduction. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose that's your right.
What I am saying is that it's illegal to deduct the salary of your corporate officer as a "consulting fee".
I guess here's the question: in what situation can a corporation assign a corporate officer a responsibility for which they pay them a salary while simultaneously also paying that officer a consulting fee for which they claim a deduction?
From your earlier post:
"You can't deduct a "consulting fee" to somebody who works for you and gets a salary."
I don't see anything there about the IRS not being to prove something is illegal just yet, I don't see anything about Trump, his father or past evidence.
Just a bald statement that something I've done multiple times, that my wife has done and that an entire shop of people have done (in my personal experience) is illegal. I disagreed with your statement that such activity is illegal.
Now - now you want to change it to a law somewhere that a corporate officer cannot also be hired as a consultant. Fine: provide that law then, or give it up. I'm unaware of any situation where a corporate officer cannot be hired as a consultant on the side, paid a separate fee for that action, and which is then deducted as a consulting fee. If you are, list and quote the law.
It's easier to provide people even more informed about the tax law than I am to provide the explanation:
https://truthout.org/articles/trump-pay … rosecutor/
Here's the IRS response:
The Internal Revenue Service said for consulting fees to be deducted as an expense, they must be an "ordinary and necessary" part of running a business, and the recipient must still pay income tax.
While that's vague, it would not be considered "ordinary" to pay your daughter a deductible consulting fee while also paying her a company salary to do the very thing you're paying her to do as a company employee. She's not an independent contractor.
Here's the IRS instruction:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-bu … s-expenses
The first sentence from your first link:
"A former prosecutor in the Watergate investigation believes that revelations from a recent report on President Trump’s tax returns over the past several years may result in legal troubles related to allegations of tax fraud for the president once he leaves office."
Not only is this not a link to the law you were asked to provide, if you will look at the bolded words it isn't even an opinion by someone (expert or not) that there IS a problem.
As far as your second assumption, it is almost laughable. While it may not be ordinary (meaning half the nation does it), hiring a consultant, and paying them, IS an "ordinary and necessary" part of a great many businesses. You're trying to make a big thing that he hired his grown, experienced and useful daughter for the project, but people hire their relatives every day. Plus, of course, this too is not the law you're trying claim was violated - it is a very general guideline from the IRS intended for those not conversant with the law. I'll add that you have zero idea of what her job was OR what the "consulting" she performed was. You just want to claim they were the same and thus illegal (though that wouldn't be true either, for the IRS does not set wages for employees, and if Trump wants to double her compensation and deduct it as a business expense that's his business). She'll have to declare it, of course, as income and pay taxes on it, but that's her problem, not Trump's.
Try again, this time with a law that says it is illegal to be hired for two different jobs, with two different compensations, for a single company? Want to try for a company that builds two different widgets, with two different contracts and payments, as well? I keep asking, but all you're providing is opinions on what may have been illegal and with your own opinions, which are worth nothing.
Being hired and paid to perform two different jobs is not at issue. What is at issue is being paid as an officer of a company and having your employer write off your salary as a "consulting fee".
You can't consult on the very responsibility the company is paying you to perform.
This is a common form of tax avoidance and sometimes fraud done by family businesses and one in which the Trump family has been shown to do a lot.
Certainly, we will not resolve it here, so we'll probably have to wait until it's investigated by the IRS.
Oh? Then his daughter did not draw two separate checks from the company? This is not what you keep saying - did she get more than one check or not? And what gives YOU the right to assign job labels to his company?
Yes, it will be resolved by the IRS. The same IRS that has audited every tax filing he has made.
by Readmikenow 12 months ago
I have been confused as to exactly how to handle a Biden presidency. I consider him a babbling old fool who got rich selling out the United States and his vice president as a female who is a socialist/communist and had to sleep her way into a career. My opinion of both is extremely...
by Readmikenow 15 months ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
by Scott Belford 3 years ago
The following list is just a small selection of the many ways conservatives are trying to suppress minority voting. From https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/opinions … ndex.html:1 - "In rural Randolph County, Georgia, the local board of elections (all two members -- a third recently...
by Credence2 3 years ago
I been hearing "things" about Pence regarding his continued usefulness for Trump and the GOP. Trump,having little loyalty, was considering Nikki Haley of South Carolina for VEEP in 2020. If Trump is nothing else, he is expedient, this might help the GOP with so many disaffected female...
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with the last statement, I won't go so far as calling it a win. Instead, I call...
by Jack Lee 5 years ago
Bloomberg was right. Trump is a con man. The question is which will you prefer? A con man or a liar?It is odd that this election cycle has given us two flawed candidates. You have the former mayor of NYC calling Trump a con man, yet he endorse the DNC hand picked Hillary Clinton - a proven liar....
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|