Please don’t mention Reagan in the same breath as this clown.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:40 am

I think if you're someone who thinks that partial birth abortion is "killing newborn babies" then you should remain quiet on any issue remotely related to abortion.

So what is partial birth abortion? Answer that or keep quiet.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:40 am

Please don’t mention Reagan in the same breath as this clown.

Suddenly, Reagan is a great President! Pity you were n't saying that at the time when the left was demonizing him.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:40 am

Typical of much of the inaccurate comment about Trump on this board. The NY Times article was about federal income tax. People also pay state income tax and other local taxes.

Ah, I wondered what route his apologists might take. I don't actually believe at this point that anyone hasn't realised he's a an abhorrent human being with sociopathic tendencies.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:56 pm

For those who aren't aware, there's no such thing as a "states rights issue". Federal law is supreme. "states rights" don't exist outside of that.

Wrong again. According to the 10th amendment "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". You need a civics course.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:41 am

So what is partial birth abortion? Answer that or keep quiet.

Intact dilation and extraction is a surgical procedure that removes an intact fetus from the uterus. The procedure is used both after miscarriages and for abortions in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_ ... extraction

willsclarets wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:47 am

Ah, I wondered what route his apologists might take. I don't actually believe at this point that anyone hasn't realised he's a an abhorrent human being with sociopathic tendencies.

I do realise how inconvenient it must be when someone points out the facts for you.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:40 am

Typical of much of the inaccurate comment about Trump on this board. The NY Times article was about federal income tax. People also pay state income tax and other local taxes.

Yep, $750 on a $400k salary at a federal tax rate of 30%+. That all sounds perfectly reasonable. Presumably whatever state tax he paid will be calculated on the same income that came to the answer $750 for the federal tax and, given state taxes are lower than federal ones, might generate another couple of hundred dollars. My point stands.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:44 am

Suddenly, Reagan is a great President! Pity you were n't saying that at the time when the left was demonizing him.

We can only measure Regan by the standards set by his predecessors.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:53 am

Intact dilation and extraction is a surgical procedure that removes an intact fetus from the uterus. The procedure is used both after miscarriages and for abortions in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_ ... extraction

Here's a description of what partial birth abortion can involve:

... dilating the woman's cervix, then pulling the fetus through it feet first until only the head remained inside. Using scissors or another sharp instrument, the head was then punctured, and the skull compressed, so it, too, could fit through the dilated cervix.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:57 am

Yep, $750 on a $400k salary at a federal tax rate of 30%+. That all sounds perfectly reasonable. Presumably whatever state tax he paid will be calculated on the same income that came to the answer $750 for the federal tax and, given state taxes are lower than federal ones, might generate another couple of hundred dollars. My point stands.

Wrong again. On a number of counts The report refers to his taxes BEFORE he became President. The $450 K salary is therefore irrelevant. Secondly, state income tax varies around the country but more importantly the NYT article says nothing about thus.
Do keep up.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:59 am

We can only measure Regan by the standards set by his predecessors.

You mean like Nixon?

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:51 am

Wrong again. According to the 10th amendment "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". You need a civics course.

Article VI, clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This is the supremacy clause. Its not an amendment, it is literally in the original text of the constitution.

Anyway, the 10th amendment actually supports my point and disproves yours.

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The United States federal government decided that with Roe v Wade that an outright ban on abortion by any state is unconstitutional. That means the constitution does not allow it. The supreme court decided that. That is why no state in the Union has a complete ban on abortion.

So because the ban is "prohibited by [the constitution] to the States" it is, as it stands, unconstitutional. And because of the supremacy clause which explicitly states that U.S. law is supreme where state law and federal law conflict there are no actual enforcable state laws that ban all abortions.

This will be proven to you because when this religious nut is appointed, and one of these laws is challenged, when it gets to the supreme court the anti-choicr argument won't be about state law trumping federal laws (because that is a dead loss immediately) it will be "personhood". Their argument will be that all fertilised human eggs are people.

You're just dead wrong. But I'm sure you are still without doubt that you're right.

You remain 100% wrong. Federal law is only supreme in those areas where it has a specific competence and mandate. Even Biden has admitted that he could not as President mandate the wearing of masks.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:07 am

Wrong again. On a number of counts The report refers to his taxes BEFORE he became President. The $450 K salary is therefore irrelevant. Secondly, state income tax varies around the country but more importantly the NYT article says nothing about thus.
Do keep up.

You’re the one not keeping up.

‘The president “paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency”, the paper reported, adding that “in his first year in the White House, he paid another $750’

But I assume you think this is all ‘fake news’ anyway so why the reported facts would bother you I don’t know.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:08 am

You mean like Nixon?

Yep, like Nixon. Or ‘the second most dishonest president in history’ as he will be known as from now on.

He has n't earned a salary since he entered the White House because he's donated to various veteran charities! Give it up, pal. You're out of your depth.

It really doesn't matter whether or not he paid the full amount of state taxes. If it is true that he only paid $750 in federal taxes, he is still avoiding paying what he should do. Hardly an example of the type of civic responsibility to be expected of a President. That line of defence would be equivalent to saying, 'Yes, he did avoid paying income tax, but it's alright because he paid his Council Tax'. It's no defence at all.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:50 am

He has n't earned a salary since he entered the White House because he's donated to various veteran charities! Give it up, pal. You're out of your depth.

Well if you think it reasonable that a self proclaimed successful business man and multi-billionaire only pay £750 income tax then there’s no point in arguing with you really. Any reasonable person would think that very unfair, even if he hasn’t broken the law (and I don’t know whether he has or he hasn’t) and certainly not from ‘the leader of the free world’. The fact he’s sought to hide this from people speaks volumes about how he thought it would look to people.

Many business people don't pay income tax because they are taxed on their profits anyway. Just another hit job on Trump because he's going to win again. Looking forward to Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation. She's an excellent choice, a judge who does n't invent rights to things like abortion when they are not even mentioned in the constitution.

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:00 am

Well if you think it reasonable that a self proclaimed successful business man and multi-billionaire only pay £750 income tax then there’s no point in arguing with you really. Any reasonable person would think that very unfair, even if he hasn’t broken the law (and I don’t know whether he has or he hasn’t) and certainly not from ‘the leader of the free world’. The fact he’s sought to hide this from people speaks volumes about how he thought it would look to people.

If he is not earning an income then he does n't pay income tax you numpty. The clue is in the name INCOME tax.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:15 am

If he is not earning an income then he does n't pay income tax you numpty. The clue is in the name INCOME tax.

You really think he has no income? How does he live?

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:12 am

She's an excellent choice, a judge who does n't invent rights to things like abortion when they are not even mentioned in the constitution.

Do you agree with some in Texas who think women that have an abortion should be executed?

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:23 am

You remain 100% wrong. Federal law is only supreme in those areas where it has a specific competence and mandate. Even Biden has admitted that he could not as President mandate the wearing of masks.

No. Of course not, because presidents can't mandate ****. The federal government can though, by passing laws mandating the wearing of items to cover up certain parts of the body. Why do you think no one walks around New York naked for too long?

Spijed wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:27 am

Do you agree with some in Texas who think women that have an abortion should be executed?

He doesn't know. He'll have to wait until Trump declares his opinion before saying so.

He comes across as completely unhinged. The crazy allegations: “They (Democrats) will destroy the American dream. They will destroy America.” It’s all very similar to the Tory attacks on Labour in the last election. No evidence, just conspiracy theory level slurs that their supporters swallow whole and repeat ad nauseam on social media. Just like Johnson, no matter how much you point out how unfit he is for the job - on virtually every level - they just chalk it down as fake news, or say; “yeah, but he’d be fun to go drinking with.”

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:15 am

If he is not earning an income then he does n't pay income tax you numpty. The clue is in the name INCOME tax.

I have 3 questions for you.

If I'm applying for a loan should I be allowed to inflate the value of my property in order make myself appear more capable of affording that loan?

If I'm completing my tax returns should I be allowed to undervalue that same property in order to make it appear to the taxman that I have made less money and therefore owe less in tax?

And if I do both of those things for the same property, in the same tax year, should I be prosecuted for tax fraud and/or other financial crimes?


Single word answers are acceptable.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:50 am

He has n't earned a salary since he entered the White House because he's donated to various veteran charities! Give it up, pal. You're out of your depth.

How come then that The Trump Organisation's Legal Officer said - "Over the past decade, President Trump has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015," ???

I open those questions to everyone. Please weigh in.

AndrewJB wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:56 am

He comes across as completely unhinged. The crazy allegations: “They (Democrats) will destroy the American dream. They will destroy America.” It’s all very similar to the Tory attacks on Labour in the last election. No evidence, just conspiracy theory level slurs that their supporters swallow whole and repeat ad nauseam on social media. Just like Johnson, no matter how much you point out how unfit he is for the job - on virtually every level - they just chalk it down as fake news, or say; “yeah, but he’d be fun to go drinking with.”

Yeah exactly like what the Tories did, except we've all seen the mess left by the last Labour gov, we are still suffering the aftereffects of the policies of the last Labour gov.
We all knew free Internet for all wasn't a viable option, just like en masse privatisation etc.
Punching holes in the Labour manifesto wasn't difficult.

Apart from that, it's exactly the same.

My eyes have never rolled so hard.

People will say the New York Times article makes Trump look bad, but surely nobody could be expected to pay for taxes as well as hush money to a pornstar that they allegedly cheated on their pregnant wife with.

Leisure wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:04 am

How come then that The Trump Organisation's Legal Officer said - "Over the past decade, President Trump has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015," ???

With the term “personal taxes,” however, Mr. Garten appears to be conflating income taxes with other federal taxes Mr. Trump has paid — Social Security, Medicare and taxes for his household employees. Mr. Garten also asserted that some of what the president owed was “paid with tax credits,” a misleading characterization of credits, which reduce a business owner’s income-tax bill as a reward for various activities, like historic preservation.

The article then goes on to explain how even the tax credits he earns for 'Historic Preservation' are bogus.

Mr. Trump instead found a way to reap tax benefits from the estate. He took advantage of what is known as a conservation easement. In 2015, he signed a deal with a land conservancy, agreeing not to develop most of the property. In exchange, he claimed a $21.1 million charitable tax deduction.
Mr. Trump classified the Seven Springs estate as an investment property, not a personal residence, allowing for certain tax savings. Meanwhile, Eric Trump has called it a “home base,” and the Trump Organization website describes it as a “retreat for the Trump family.”

So some of those millions he said he 'paid' are actually tax credits he claimed from the government, on a property he claims is not a personal property but his own family and organization says it's used by him.

He's either guilty of tax fraud, a terrible businessman, or the US has the most corrupt tax code in the world"

Why not all three.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:57 am

I have 3 questions for you.

If I'm applying for a loan should I be allowed to inflate the value of my property in order make myself appear more capable of affording that loan?

If I'm completing my tax returns should I be allowed to undervalue that same property in order to make it appear to the taxman that I have made less money and therefore owe less in tax?

And if I do both of those things for the same property, in the same tax year, should I be prosecuted for tax fraud and/or other financial crimes?


Single word answers are acceptable.

What if he used 1 name for question 1 and then a different name for question 2, making question 3 irrelevant as it was 2 different people.

Would you be against someone using more than 1 name ?

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:04 am

I open those questions to everyone. Please weigh in.

Yes because you're floundering.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:49 am

No. Of course not, because presidents can't mandate ****. The federal government can though, by passing laws mandating the wearing of items to cover up certain parts of the body. Why do you think no one walks around New York naked for too long?

The federal government cannot pass a law in an area over which it has no authority. Those areas are specified in the constitution. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:42 pm

The federal government cannot pass a law in an area over which it has no authority. Those areas are specified in the constitution. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

Oh, well, if the caps lock is on then you must be right.

I notice you didn't bother answering my 3 easy questions. We're they too hard?

martin_p wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:23 am

You really think he has no income? How does he live?

Dear me, it's like debating with kids. Many businessmen live off the profits they have made. This is not classes as "income" in the sense that it is subject to income tax. However, it will be taxed in other ways eg corporation tax.

Leisure wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:04 am

How come then that The Trump Organisation's Legal Officer said - "Over the past decade, President Trump has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015," ???

Because there are other personal taxes besides income tax! It's like debating with Joe Biden!

For the more capable students in the class, the reason I asked those three specific questions is because Trump did all three. He reported an inflated property value to get a loan, and then when it came to paying his taxes he claimed a massive valuation loss (something like $55m iirc) on his tax return. So he's committed fraud at least one way just with that specific lie, probably both ways.

Eeww Noble knows he can't answer my question ns without either a) saying people should be allowed to lie on official financial applications and tax documents, or 2) accepting that Trump is a fraud.

I wonder if Hunter Biden paid taxes on the millions he was given by Chinese and Russian government officials? Or does that not fit the narrative?

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:45 pm

Dear me, it's like debating with kids. Many businessmen live off the profits they have made. This is not classes as "income" in the sense that it is subject to income tax. However, it will be taxed in other ways eg corporation tax.

Nah. What Trump does is get loans and then doesn't repay them. And launder money through his properties on behalf of the Russian oligarchs who own him. They own you too, apparently. Although I imagine you're doing it for free.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:50 pm

For the more capable students in the class, the reason I asked those three specific questions is because Trump did all three. He reported an inflated property value to get a loan, and then when it came to paying his taxes he claimed a massive valuation loss (something like $55m iirc) on his tax return. So he's committed fraud at least one way just with that specific lie, probably both ways.

Eeww Noble knows he can't answer my question ns without either a) saying people should be allowed to lie on official financial applications and tax documents, or 2) accepting that Trump is a fraud.

That has not been proved in a court of law although I know that facts are not your strong point . Have you enrolled on an American civics class yet?

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:53 pm

Nah. What Trump does is get loans and then doesn't repay them. And launder money through his properties on behalf of the Russian oligarchs who own him.

Now you're getting desparate, Pete!

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:53 pm

That has not been proved in a court of law although I know that facts are not your strong point . Have you enrolled on an American civics class yet?

Lol. The last ditch "It's only true if the courts said its true" defence.

When it's about trump.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:53 pm

That has not been proved in a court of law although I know that facts are not your strong point . Have you enrolled on an American civics class yet?

When it's about anyone else.

Uwe Noble wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:51 pm

I wonder if Hunter Biden paid taxes on the millions he was given by Chinese and Russian government officials? Or does that not fit the narrative?

see above for the perfect example of irony

Uwe Noble. You know we're laughing at you, right? The entire left is laughing at you. Sometimes we stop to pity you, but then we get back to laughing at you.

Keep supporting your oppressors. We've stopped trying to help you long ago because it's just funny at this point.

PeterWilton wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:50 pm

For the more capable students in the class, the reason I asked those three specific questions is because Trump did all three. He reported an inflated property value to get a loan, and then when it came to paying his taxes he claimed a massive valuation loss (something like $55m iirc) on his tax return. So he's committed fraud at least one way just with that specific lie, probably both ways.

Eeww Noble knows he can't answer my question ns without either a) saying people should be allowed to lie on official financial applications and tax documents, or 2) accepting that Trump is a fraud.

Incidentally, Pete, now that you've appointed yourself as a guru for the more capable, perhaps you should go back to school and bone up on American government and politics? You're understanding of the American constitution is particularly weak.