Question for leftists: How do you feel about being lied to about Trump's taxes?

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: face23785

If there was something illegal in the tax returns, there would certainly be an ATS thread on the subject by now.

I've observed the trend around hot Trump topics here. Anything negative takes up to 12 hours to be posted. Anything positive within minutes, it's easy to check just find a Trump topic with 2-3 threads.

The time stamps will be rather close together.

This buys TPTB more time to fulfill their agenda while we all bicker amongst ourselves over some guys toupee.

I don't wear a hairpiece!

I'd also like to point out, we have no way of knowing if this report is even true. The NYTimes' excuse for not releasing the actual documents is that they're "protecting their sources."

Most of you here have filed a tax return. If the IRS leaked your 1040 to the media and they published it, is your 1040 gonna show anywhere on there who leaked it?

NO. That's preposterous. So that's a dishonest and lame excuse for why they can't release the documents. It makes me wonder if anyone at the TImes has even seen them, or if they just have a source who told them what they show.

They've done this before. I think it was on the Ukraine call. They had an anonymous source that called and pinky swore they would read what the transcripts said over the phone. The Times ran with the story without having seen the actual transcript, just trusting that the person who called them was being truthful. That is pathetic journalistic standards, and it turned out the person had misrepresented the call.

I wouldn't be surprised if they've done the same thing here.

I read from news here in Finland that Trump has deducted $ 70,000 in barber fees from taxation.
My thoughts....wait a minute... is it a april fools day !

a reply to: StallionDuck

Tax evasion is illegal. The Times story indicates he paid the taxes he was legally required to pay.

a reply to: chr0naut

Wow, even more uninformed than usual. It's obvious from this you didn't even read the Times article. You read some headlines and talking points about the story so you could be told what to think. You're incapable of thinking for yourself, as usual.

For example, you claim it didn't show he hasn't been profiting off the presidency, because you've seen the headline that he didn't pay taxes "10 of the 15 years before he became president" and you thought those were the only years covered. If you actually read the story, you'd have seen those weren't the only years covered. Uninformed and simply wrong, as you always are.

And yes you are a coward. You still haven't responded to the OP, because you're not man enough to admit you got fooled by the media, AGAIN.

Another one dishonestly pretending that the media and left-wing members here NEVER said these returns would show connections to Russia. Dishonest and pathetic, as well as predictable. The only time I've ever seen posts from you that weren't full of lies is when you're just being a bafoon, wasting space and derailing threads with your sophomoric "humor." It's sad that the only time you're not dishonest is when you're acting like a high school girl.

I know better than to keep wasting time on you. You're too closed-minded to have a rational discussion with, and that's not what you come here for. We all know that.

Uninformed.

Coward.

Dishonest.

Pathetic.

Closed-minded.

These qualities define you.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: face23785

Well, I did not know I had a fan club. You simply could have emailed me I would have come here to give you a response. I believe in other threads i already made it clear this was nothing. Corporate taxes are complicated and seeing Trumps personal taxes means nothing.And i have severe doubts abiout this seeing that the NY Times refuses to release them for us to look at.

But putting that aside bottom line this means nothing we would need to see what the 500 or so corporations he owns paid in taxes.

That's a cute way to not respond to what I said.

The Times was obviously trying to influence the election, holding this until 2 days before the debates, was it not?

originally posted by: jamespond

originally posted by: face23785

ETA: Oh, full disclosure, the Times is refusing to release the source documents behind their claims. They're pretending that would endanger their sources. Trump is also disputing the story, saying a lot of it is false. So stay tuned. The media either lied about the aforementioned conspiracy theories, or they lied about what's in this story. In all probability, they lied about both.

Hmmm, if he hadn't spent so much money on lawyers to try and stop this getting out your last statement might hold more weight.

That actually has no bearing on whether my statement holds weight. Nice try though. 9 on the dishonesty, only a 5 on originality though.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
What I do not understand:

* Are these documents true or fake?

* Trump said, its "fake news". Did he lie?

* How many times would you estimated did he lie to you all?

* How many of those lies were of important matters, nationwide or international?

I could go on, but I guess you can see where I am leading you to - Trump denies everything, routinely, even with hard evidence in front of him.

Why would you believe him another word?

Another one who can't face facts.

No connections to Russia. No profiting off the presidency. The media lied. And Trump was truthful, he was under audit. All of that is confirmed in this story.

How many lies has he told? We have no idea, because our media lies so much we can't trust them. We have no idea if these "documents" are real, because the Times won't release them, dishonestly claiming that would reveal their sources--it wouldn't. The only people who are gonna fall for that excuse are losers who have never filed tax returns.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Very impressive.

a reply to: face23785

Yuppa made an interesting point in that the NY AG subpoena Trumps tax records to look for anything illegal and an Obama era Judge granted access. We haven’t heard anything since. This is probably that. Their office leaked it to the press.

originally posted by: jamespond

He's hiding something or else he wouldn't need lawyers involved at all.

Lawyers are used for myriad reasons besides defense for crimes. Do you really have this little knowledge of the real world or are you lying?

I realise this is hard for Trump's die hard fan base to swallow but there comes a time when you just have to accept that he's not the saviour that FOX news wants you to believe he is.

Lol omg there's still leftists who think Fox is the big bogeyman?

There's a couple die-hard Trump nuts out there who think he's the Second Coming, just like there were clowns like that who worshiped Obama. Most of us are voting based on his record. The economy was doing well before Covid, foreign policy was better, we've been getting judges who actually respect the Constitution.

As much as the Left tries to make this election about everything else, it's about policy and performance. Biden's policies are garbage, and no amount of childish, desperate smears will change that.

LOL !
I bet Trump is the Leak !

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: face23785

Yuppa made an interesting point in that the NY AG subpoena Trumps tax records to look for anything illegal and an Obama era Judge granted access. We haven’t heard anything since. This is probably that. Their office leaked it to the press.

Wouldn't surprise me at all. SDNY and the NY AG office is almost as crooked as Chicago. They've been trying to help the Democrats Trump's entire presidency.

a reply to: face23785

but I thought the MSM said he was an 'inflated billionaire' who was broke so he would not be paying any taxes...ROFL...it is a #eshow...

a reply to: jamespond

Does it matter exactly how much he spent or whether he has a retainer with a law firm? 

Well you brought it up so obviously you think it's relevant. Your talking point, not mine.

He's hiding something or else he wouldn't need lawyers involved at all. I've been saying exactly that on here for months. If you have nothing to hide why go to court to stop something being revealed? It just doesn't make sense. 

It makes perfect sense.

If I had some slanderous "news" organisations poking their nose into my personal affairs, I would be talking to lawyers too.

I realise this is hard for Trump's die hard fan base to swallow but there comes a time when you just have to accept that he's not the saviour that FOX news wants you to believe he is. 

I don't watch MSM so I have no idea what FOX wants me or you to believe. I look at actions and form my own opinions.

He's perhaps even more crooked than the established politicians who Trump supporters constantly deride. 

Not likely. If he is then he's doing it wrong because he's one of the few to come out poorer than he was when he was elected.

Did those idiot democrats really just run the same play they tried in 2015? Didn't this exact same scenario happen then?

No one was dumb enough to buy it then and I doubt anyone is dumb enough to buy it now.

Edit: Cancel that. I got a few posts down and we have some "winners" already. It's funny they can be tricked the same way twice. Hilarious actually.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Kurokage

Where exactly is the potential fraud?

From the Guardian article....

ven as congressional and criminal investigators look into how he’s profited off the presidency and his decades of fraudulent tax schemes.

a reply to: Kurokage

First, show me the fraud.

Secondly, I have no issue with businesses utilizing the tax code to their advantage, regardless of what business they are. I would expect individuals to do the same, provided they have an accountant.

I would like to see a change to the tax code to a flat tax across the board, that's just my personal take on it. I also know that regardless of how you would write it up, there would be a loophole somewhere to get around paying that tax. It's not a perfect system by any means, but I don't see anything that was fraudulently done here.

Edit: I see you've replied since I posted this, I'll address what you said about the Guardian saying it was fraudulent. Do they have any proof at all or is this all hearsay?

a reply to: jamespond

I don't break the law and I have an attorney on retainer. Why? Because it's a prudent thing to do if you have the means to do so. The right to legal representation does not imply guilt in this country.

originally posted by: Analbumcover
Did those idiot democrats really just run the same play they tried in 2015? Didn't this exact same scenario happen then?

No one was dumb enough to buy it then and I doubt anyone is dumb enough to buy it now.

Edit: Cancel that. I got a few posts down and we have some "winners" already. It's funny they can be tricked the same way twice. Hilarious actually.

twice? these people believe literally anything the media tells them to believe.

They can not and do not have the ability to think for themselves.

They are complete cowards. They are what they condemn others of every single time. It's mind blowing