Donald Trump

[Tom]

Originally Posted by onefast99

Tom are these statistics accurate? LOL

Could be 50% by now.....

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by barahona44

I get the impression there's little controversial in her Wall St. speeches or it would have gotten out by now.Somebody who attended (and that would be easy to prove, there has to be an invitation somewhere) could contact the media if there was anything inflammatory said.Obama's "clinging to guns and God" and Romney's 47 percent remarks were made at private fundraisers;Clinton should know enough to assume that recordings may be made and confidentiality statements are worthless.This is strictly a bargaining chip to be opened when needed.She always has a little smirk on her face when she says her "I'll release the transcripts when others..." line.

If there's nothing harmful in the tapes (i.e., they make her look totally disingenuous), she would have already released them. The base won't like what they hear on the tapes. I suspect indy's and Reps won't care as much.

[Greyfox]

She earned $225,000 for each of 92 speeches.
What idiot would pay her that much if they weren't expecting something back some day?
Why would Goldman Sachs pay her that if nothing but her speech is being purchased??

[garyscpa]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I'd rather see ALL of her emails than his taxes, but I'd bet a decent amount that he's radically overstated his donations to charity, especially vet groups, which says something about his character (we already know Hill's character).

So since you'd bet a decent amount that he's radically overstated his donations, that says something about his character?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by garyscpa

So since you'd bet a decent amount that he's radically overstated his donations, that says something about his character?

If someone (I'm absolutely speculating) brags about making large donations to vet groups and it turns out to be false (speculation), yes it says a lot about their character. You can't see that? Wow.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I'm not jealous of him. If Mark Cuban ran for president (I'm assuming he's a Republican), I could see supporting him.

You oppose Sanders? Does that make you jealous of the fact that he was elected to the US Senate? I think not.

Too late, but I wish Mark Cuban had run and so do others...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...f9a_story.html

Love the line: "he (Trump) could come after me all he wanted, but he knows I'd put him in his place."

[Greyfox]

Some rich people make anonymous charitable donations and do not declare it on taxes.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Some rich people make anonymous charitable donations and do not declare it on taxes.

Now I've heard everything from Trump supporters.

Some wealthy people make anonymous donations (that means the recipient charity doesn't disclose who donated). Why on earth would they not take the tax deduction? Plus, humble people make anonymous donations. That isn't Trump.

Again, I'm speculating on the donations. I hope Trump has given tens of millions to vets orgs and continues to do so.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Again, I'm speculating on the donations. I hope Trump has given tens of millions to vets orgs and continues to do so.

The truth be told, even if you see Trump's tax returns, "Charitable Donations" will likely lumped as one amount and you will not be able to determine which organizations he's specifically donated to.
So you're really up a gum tree saying that you want to know whether or not he's donated to the Vets. You'll never know.
Frankly, I could a damn about his returns.
The question is Can he do the job at the White House? is all I'd ever be concerned with.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The truth be told, even if you see Trump's tax returns, "Charitable Donations" will likely lumped as one amount and you will not be able to determine which organizations he's specifically donated to.
So you're really up a gum tree saying that you want to know whether or not he's donated to the Vets. You'll never know.
Frankly, I could a damn about his returns.
The question is Can he do the job at the White House? is all I'd ever be concerned with.

I agree that is the key question, but character matters to me. My tax return lists my charitable donations by the charity's name, but maybe candidates don't traditionally release that part of the return? I don't know.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I agree that is the key question, but character matters to me. My tax return lists my charitable donations by the charity's name, but maybe candidates don't traditionally release that part of the return? I don't know.

If you give a donation... and expect to have it returned thru tax manipulation, Can one still claim to be Charitable?

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Now I've heard everything from Trump supporters.

Some wealthy people make anonymous donations (that means the recipient charity doesn't disclose who donated). Why on earth would they not take the tax deduction? Plus, humble people make anonymous donations. That isn't Trump.

Again, I'm speculating on the donations. I hope Trump has given tens of millions to vets orgs and continues to do so.

When I give a donation... I'm giving it. I do not expect others to supplement my dissension to give. You can search if you like I've stated that position on here in the past. If I feel this way why not others... including Trump.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

If you give a donation... and expect to have it returned thru tax manipulation, Can one still claim to be Charitable?

When I give a donation... I'm giving it. I do not expect others to supplement my dissension to give. You can search if you like I've stated that position on here in the past. If I feel this way why not others... including Trump.

Tax manipulation? It's MY money. It reduces my tax bill; it isn't like the government refunds the amount donated. Let's say someone donates $10,000 to the Salvation Army. The $10,000 becomes part of that person's itemized deductions (which are limited by income levels and certainly limited at Mr. Trump's level). As a result, the donor PAYS the federal government about $3,000 to $4,000 less in taxes (probably less given the phase-out for high-income earners) from THEIR hard-earned money.

If you itemize and you aren't including your charitable deductions, you're just feeding the federal government. That's your business; I won't do it. To be truly altruistic, one can make a donation anonymously, meaning tell the charity to never disclose your name on a donor list.

If someone has kids, should they take a deduction for them? Doesn't that mean the federal government is paying for the kids (an extension of your logic, not mine)?

And I don't need to search your past posts - I have no reason to not believe you.

[onefast99]

Several previous IRS agents on talk shows in recent days stating the IRS recommends you discuss your tax liability with your attorney and CPA only during an audit, one individual who worked in Newark NJ for 14 years said any media reporting the IRS wants you to disclose your taxes to anyone during an audit never worked for or at the IRS. So it seems this story isn't gaining much ground with the press so they moved onto 1991 and the Donald self interview!

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I agree that is the key question, but character matters to me. My tax return lists my charitable donations by the charity's name, but maybe candidates don't traditionally release that part of the return? I don't know.

This is the same guy that was at the forefront of the birther movement. Pot meets kettle.

[rastajenk]

"Pot meets kettle". "Sheeple". Those are great, can I use them sometime, too? What else you got? Seems like you've been around the internet a few times, is that right?