The Don

weso1 said:
The NYT just broke the law by illegally publishing Trump's past income return. It shows what most everyone already expected. Trump took a big loss at one point and has used that to pay little tax since that point. Trump could win the election on this if he handled this right. Spoiler alert, he won't.
Click to expand...
How?
 
Runnin said:
How?
Click to expand...

"Like the New York Times, I took advantage of tax laws at the time to do what was best for my business. I know these laws better than anyone and will fix them. But now it's my time to give back to you the american public and change the laws that allow business people like me to avoid paying taxes.

But most importantly, this shows just how rigged the system is. The NYT is willing to face a major lawsuit and even go to jail to support the Clinton machine. Time and time again we've seen just how corrupt the media is. We now know for a fact that the media is corrupt, the DOJ is corrupt and the FBI is corrupt and will do anything to protect the Clinton machine. The only way to fix this is to elect an outsider candidate" - I would start with something along those lines.

Now here's what I think he'll say:

"I'm a very good business man. We took a loss at the time because I'm a genius when it comes taxes. The failing nytimes is terrible. I've created thousands of jobs and created great hotels and golf courses. Nobody is as good as I am at business. Miss USA is a terrible person. Women are fat."
 
the tax returns are a yawn. If he is simply using the code to his advantage, more power to him.

What's much more damning imo is the way he operates his so called charity - using contributions meant for charity to buy luxury items for himself and pay lawyers.
 
Also, wouldn't hurt to bring up the fact that the Clinton's were in office when he took advantage of the tax laws.
 
weso1 said:
"Like the New York Times, I took advantage of tax laws at the time to do what was best for my business. I know these laws better than anyone and will fix them. But now it's my time to give back to you the american public and change the laws that allow business people like me to avoid paying taxes.

But most importantly, this shows just how rigged the system is. The NYT is willing to face a major lawsuit and even go to jail to support the Clinton machine. Time and time again we've seen just how corrupt the media is. We now know for a fact that the media is corrupt, the DOJ is corrupt and the FBI is corrupt and will do anything to protect the Clinton machine. The only way to fix this is to elect an outsider candidate" - I would start with something along those lines.

Now here's what I think he'll say:

"I'm a very good business man. We took a loss at the time because I'm a genius when it comes taxes. The failing nytimes is terrible. I've created thousands of jobs and created great hotels and golf courses. Nobody is as good as I am at business. Miss USA is a terrible person. Women are fat."
Click to expand...

He'll say all of those things and it will work with some folks, but those folks have pretty much already made up their minds to support him. I think it will hurt him with independent voters. I don't think beating up on The New York Times helps him much. He'll get some anti-establishment cred, but I think a lot of folks will be ticked off that--legally or not--he escaped paying a ton of taxes.

What I find rich is that the statement he released talks about all the other taxes he paid while not paying income taxes--property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc.--but that's the same argument used to dispel the assertion that Dick Cheney's "lucky duckies" who are exempt from federal tax don't pay any tax at all. Curious times.

The charity will likely be a horse of a different color when more of the misappropriation of funds that took place under its auspices is revealed, but the big picture here is that it blunts the transparency issue he's been using against Hillary.
 
weso1 said:
"Like the New York Times, I took advantage of tax laws at the time to do what was best for my business. I know these laws better than anyone and will fix them. But now it's my time to give back to you the american public and change the laws that allow business people like me to avoid paying taxes.

But most importantly, this shows just how rigged the system is. The NYT is willing to face a major lawsuit and even go to jail to support the Clinton machine. Time and time again we've seen just how corrupt the media is. We now know for a fact that the media is corrupt, the DOJ is corrupt and the FBI is corrupt and will do anything to protect the Clinton machine. The only way to fix this is to elect an outsider candidate" - I would start with something along those lines.

Now here's what I think he'll say:

"I'm a very good business man. We took a loss at the time because I'm a genius when it comes taxes. The failing nytimes is terrible. I've created thousands of jobs and created great hotels and golf courses. Nobody is as good as I am at business. Miss USA is a terrible person. Women are fat."
Click to expand...

More like he hired a really good accountant.
 
50PoundHead said:
He'll say all of those things and it will work with some folks, but those folks have pretty much already made up their minds to support him. I think it will hurt him with independent voters. I don't think beating up on The New York Times helps him much. He'll get some anti-establishment cred, but I think a lot of folks will be ticked off that--legally or not--he escaped paying a ton of taxes.

What I find rich is that the statement he released talks about all the other taxes he paid while not paying income taxes--property taxes, sales and excise taxes, etc.--but that's the same argument used to dispel the assertion that Dick Cheney's "lucky duckies" who are exempt from federal tax don't pay any tax at all. Curious times.

The charity will likely be a horse of a different color when more of the misappropriation of funds that took place under its auspices is revealed, but the big picture here is that it blunts the transparency issue he's been using against Hillary.
Click to expand...

I think his "anti-establishment" bit is insane. "Establishment", to me, is money. Money is the establishment. He was born part of that. He's bragged about buying politicians in the past. He is absolutely establishment, he just has no idea how politics, or the world, work.
 
Metaphysicist said:
Your own article doesn't really support your point. Reminds me of people getting upset about "niggardly."

I don't doubt that some people have called black kids "tar babies," but that's not the common usage (I looked in a couple of online dictionaries and none of them referenced the racial angle). I would liken it to calling folks "monkeys;" calling a person either one is wildly offensive, but the use of the word in it's proper context has no implied racial overtones.
Click to expand...

It's the second definition listed on wiktionary, which is usually quite reliable; that site doesn't list its second definition as obscure, archaic, or obsolete; OED agrees that the derogatory connotation is secondary but operational/current (with the surprising addition that it's also used pejoratively in New Zealand against Maori). Personally—and maybe I've just read too much Toni Morrison, alongside none of the Br'er Rabbit stories—I was actually unaware until now that "tar baby" had any connotations that weren't overtly racist; I've always seen (or heard) it used, essentially, synonymously with the term "pickaninny".

I think it's somewhat of a different species than "niggardly", which has absolutely zero connection to that other word outside of slant homophony: not only is the meaning of a substantially different sphere, but the etymology (likely, ultimately, Old Norse) is world's away from our nation's history of chattel slavery and racial subjugation. The phrase "tar baby", though—even with a separate, standardized meaning, which was/is perhaps not meant to be racially-charged—nonetheless derives from stories about the American South and subjugated African-Americans. (Hell, Uncle Remus is even a controversial figure in modern re-readings of Harris' work.)
 
jpx7 said:
It's the second definition listed on wiktionary, which is usually quite reliable; that site doesn't list its second definition as obscure, archaic, or obsolete; OED agrees that the derogatory connotation is secondary but operational/current
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that people out in the world have used the term derisively; the point is that such usage is waaay less common, to the point that it is almost unknown to most people who use the original meaning. And it's not that it doesn't exist in any dictionary anywhere, but that it is uncommon enough that many do not include it.

The secondary meaning almost certainly comes from the fact that it sounds like a racial slur, which becomes somewhat self-fulfilling (this is what AA's quote ended up saying).

Personally—and maybe I've just read too much Toni Morrison, alongside none of the Br'er Rabbit stories—I was actually unaware until now that "tar baby" had any connotations that weren't overtly racist; I've always seen (or heard) it used, essentially, synonymously with the term "pickaninny".
Click to expand...

I don't know how you could have read Toni Morrison's Tar Baby and not gotten the "sticky problem" meaning. Morrison is hardly known for the subtleties of her metaphors, especially the ones in the dang title. I haven't read that one, but I just can't imagine she doesn't explain the story and the moral.

I have ask, just how often are you hearing people call black kids "tar babies"? I've literally never heard that in my own personal life (though I accept that it surely happens and believe AA when he says it happened to him). Seems weird to me that you would have heard this so often as to have a strong memory of it, but never heard the original meaning. In contemporary news, it mostly just comes up when old white politicians get yelled at for using it in the non-racial way.

I think it's somewhat of a different species than "niggardly", which has absolutely zero connection to that other word outside of slant homophony: not only is the meaning of a substantially different sphere, but the etymology (likely, ultimately, Old Norse) is world's away from our nation's history of chattel slavery and racial subjugation.
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree here; I think your own anecdote shows how it mirrors niggardly, even if not perfectly exact. You said were personally unaware of the original completely non-racist meaning of the term until just now, and have been assuming it is an insult (I am guessing based on how it sounded combined with scant personal exposure; anyone with a full familiarity with the term would know the original meaning). I also think my comparison to the word "monkey" still holds, perhaps more accurately. The main meaning is non-racial, but calling a person such a thing is an obvious racial slur.

The phrase "tar baby", though—even with a separate, standardized meaning, which was/is perhaps not meant to be racially-charged—nonetheless derives from stories about the American South and subjugated African-Americans.
Click to expand...

I not sure how this makes the origin of the term "racist" in any facet. It's not like calling the Big Dipper the Drinking Gourd is somehow a racial epithet.
 
LOLGOP ‏@LOLGOP 2m2 minutes ago

Trump was told that his Foundation can no longer raise money and that was only the fourth worst news story for him of yesterday afternoon.
 
yeezus said:
I think his "anti-establishment" bit is insane. "Establishment", to me, is money. Money is the establishment. He was born part of that. He's bragged about buying politicians in the past. He is absolutely establishment, he just has no idea how politics, or the world, work.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. I think Trump has always viewed himself as somewhat of an outsider (or at least as much as one can be an outsider and be part of high society). But here's a guy who has really done nothing for the people who are now following him. If not insane, Cloud Cuckoo Land is clearly in view.

Curious to see if the PTSD remarks dig a deeper hole for him. There are days I think he wants to lose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top