It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court sides with Trump on taxes...more winning

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Was that post directed at you? I don't think it was, but I understand that all the bees in a hive tend to think alike so your confusion is understandable.


It's a forum pal, we're no having a private conversation.
I concur, though, you are uniformed and over emotional in your quest to get some validation for your irrelevant opinion.

edit on 18/11/2019 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps not “evidence”.

But “Probable Cause” is all that is required for a search.

The “proof” will be, as they say, “in the pudding”.

As in; what Trump be put’n in those documents and returns!


An accusation is not probable cause.
If that were the case, a jealous neighbour could accuse you of something in order to have your finances investigated.
I think not.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: network dude
there are lots of things I'd like, but they just aren't going to happen. You don't really want to see Trump's taxes, you were told you did. I can prove it.

That would be a neat trick.

Do it.
without looking, how much did Obama pay in taxes his second year as opposed to his 6th?

If you really did care, you would have looked at his and every president's taxes. But you don't know this answer, nor does the poster I was speaking to.


Nobody knows or cares.
That's because the reason some poepl want to see Trump's tax returns has zero to do with transparency or even an passing interest in what the returns say beyond fishing for something , anything, that can be spun into a headline.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Hey, I am just spiballiln here but doeesnt the irs have the presidents tax returns?
Who is supposed to look them over and see if everything is straight and narrow???


The IRS.

Have they signaled in any way ANY wrongdoing???
As the agency in charge of determining such and all.......


Not yet.

Granted, every new budget Trump slashes their funding further, so its not wild to wager a guess that they're either to short of manpower to do it, or rather too afraid of Trump abolishing the agency entirely if they look into his taxes....


Listen to yourself, FFS. You're postulating that the IRS was afraid of Trump prior to him becoming President or even announcing his run. Afraid that a businessman would shut them down.
Since he's been in office his tax returns are going to show zilch as he's not taking any income.
If there was something wrong with his tax returns the IRS would have been on him at the time - what possible reason is there for a review of his 2011 tax returns when the IRS have already reviewed them? ... in 2012!




Dude, calm down, ATS is at its heart a conspiracy forum, and I'm just thinking out loud whatever low probability conspiracy thoughts trickle down to me.

That being said, its hard to conceptualize why a totally legal and fully on the 'Up-and-Up' tax return would do anything other than both vindicate Trump and also show that he really is as fantastically wealthy as he claims. Its nothing but win-win for Trump, yet he has fought harder about keeping it secret than just about anything else he's done as president.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?


You also have to realize that Trump has a side that loves to mess with his rivals. I don't blame him, if I were in his shoes I would too. If anyone honestly believed he would turn over his tax returns at any point, they really should have thought that through. Did Trump lie about making them public? Probably. So what? I would have said it's none of your damned business, stick your request for my taxes up your rear end, but he has been playing with the Dems from the start. He knows his returns are super-scrutinized every year, he's used to that. But in the Obama/Lois Lerner IRS environment, they would have leaked it long ago so it's just another nothing-burger.

I wouldn't have lied about releasing them, but I am very happy he's screwing with the Dems. The more the better, they show their true character when he does.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
But haven't we heard from potus that he would ''gladly'' hand over his tax reports? Didn't he say this a number of times in the past? He kept saying that it was only because he was under audit that he had not done so yet. Am I imagining this?

Yet, though saying he would gladly release his tax statements, he fights it at every single turn. It has been , what now'' three years, four? .

No, it looks to me that if those were released we would know more about the fraud that Trump truly is.

He probably would if the Democrats were not interested in fabricating issues and using the MSM to attack him for non-issues. If you were Trump and Democrats were only interested in how to get political ammo and had no interest in truth would you release yours?



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
For a stay while both sides present arguments.

I can't tell if you are attempting to deliberately mislead people or if you yourself didn't read the judgement well enough....


What is there to argue?



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Even better. Too bad Trump's campaign manager threw that possibility out the window with the Citizen's United ruling. But who cares about that? He worked for Trump so he (David Bossie) is a man of outstanding character and virtue! Right?


I'm fairly certain the Supreme Court is who ruled on that and well before Trump was a thought for POTUS. Bossie isn't on that court. And no, I couldn't say anything about Bossie except he seemed to know more about campaigning than that other persons campaign manager....oh....and that he wasn't Trumps campaign manager....just the deputy so....



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Ah, so Bossie had no part in the ruling even though he's the one who fought for the ruling that was given? Sure, keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep at night. 🤣

The media has turned Trump into a martyr so anything he or anyone associated with him does is vindicated or justified. He and his associates can do no wrong even when their clear history of corruption and/or crusade against the average American is pointed out.

It's like saying Johnnie Lee Cochran had no part in the not guilty verdict for the OJ case. It's obviously a case of your cognitive dissonance getting in the way of your logic and reason.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Ah, so Bossie had no part in the ruling even though he's the one who fought for the ruling that was given? Sure, keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep at night. 🤣

The media has turned Trump into a martyr so anything he or anyone associated with him does is vindicated or justified. He and his associates can do no wrong even when their clear history of corruption and/or crusade against the average American is pointed out.

It's like saying Johnnie Lee Cochran had no part in the not guilty verdict for the OJ case. It's obviously a case of your cognitive dissonance getting in the way of your logic and reason.


Attorneys and their clients argue in courts every single day....this one happened to be the Supreme Court. And Obama's Supreme Court ruled in their favor....

I get the distinct feeling you just hate laws/rulings that don't work in the favor of whatever political party you deem worthy.

Do you think the Supreme Court was in on it? Are they biased for Trump? Were they biased for him when the ruling happened? Are they from the future?
edit on 11/18/19 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: UKTruth

A civilized country would not have elected a moron and crook like Trump.




In Europe they still make racist noises at football players from African countries. Have had a Pedo grooming gang that reached all the way to parliament in the UK that was hushed up. And the governments determines whether or not you, as the parent, are allowed to seek outside help for your brain damaged child.

What is civilized?

edit on 18-11-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

When you cry wolf at every turn people stop caring, Democrats and their media allies have only themselves to blame.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I get the distinct feeling you just hate laws/rulings that don't work in the favor of whatever political party you deem worthy.


Pot, meet kettle. 🤡

Funny because if Obama's Supreme Court made the ruling then obviously it was in his handlers' favor, yet here I am saying it was a tragedy.

Your arguments aren't very well thought out. 🤣



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Hey, I am just spiballiln here but doeesnt the irs have the presidents tax returns?
Who is supposed to look them over and see if everything is straight and narrow???


That would be Hillery, they found a bunch IRS returns in the whitehouse



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: network dude

Trump gave himself a permanent tax break. No conflict of interest there though right? Trump can do no wrong.


Your argument would have merit, if he was the only one in the entire country that would benefit from it, which he is not.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Cry wolf? How's that whole email thing coming along? Has she been locked up yet? 🤣

The fact that you guys are defending an obviously corrupt Supreme Court ruling is hilarious, especially seeing as how it was underneath Obama's administration. 🤣
edit on 11/18/2019 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Ah ok, so since he's not the only one to benefit that means it's cool? Hilarious logic you've got going on there.

It's obviously a case of the elite getting their way while at the same time benefiting Trump. It's a win win for those in power.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Vasa Croe



I get the distinct feeling you just hate laws/rulings that don't work in the favor of whatever political party you deem worthy.


Pot, meet kettle. 🤡

Funny because if Obama's Supreme Court made the ruling then obviously it was in his handlers' favor, yet here I am saying it was a tragedy.

Your arguments aren't very well thought out. 🤣


You are the only one here arguing against long time laws and court rulings.

You can say it's a tragedy all you want. You just wanted to tie Bossies ruling to being Trunps deputy campaign manager when the two had nothing to do with eachother when the ruling occured.

Not my fault you jump around and can't stay on topic, which by the way is STILL Trumps tax returns while he was a private citizen.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
But you haven't offered how much Obama payed, so I kind of proved myself. Although not to you, as you had no interest in any of this, you just need some attention so you posted. Feel better now sport?

I never said I knew or cared. I was pointing out how you are probably not a mind reader (you are not are you?) and that you really didn't provide the proof you offered.

I sure didn't need the attention. I would have been cool if you had just ignored me.



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

But Bossie is still president of Citizen's United, he works for special interests and was a high ranking member of Trump's campaign. Yet Trump can't be controlled by special interests, even though he has the president of one of the most successful special interests groups in Washington on his side? You're a laugh riot dude! In fact you could say Citizen's United represents all special interest groups seeing as they fought on the behalf of all of them during that ruling. 🤣

But hey, keep ignoring reality. The media has created one for you.
edit on 11/18/2019 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Ah ok, so since he's not the only one to benefit that means it's cool? Hilarious logic you've got going on there.

It's obviously a case of the elite getting their way while at the same time benefiting Trump. It's a win win for those in power.


Also a win for me. My 401k is up 23%, I've gotten three raises in two years, and my bonuses have gotten bigger. And yeah, I care about me and mine over anything else.




top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join