sophie wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 1:22 pm
I searched a bit and found a list of black women in high profile executive positions. Rather interesting that all of you thought that "outside politics" meant entertainers. Turns out there are black women executives on Wall Street and in Forbes 500 companies.
If I were a moderate looking to vote Democratic, I'd be way happier with a Wall Street exec in the VP position than with someone like Kamala Harris. In fact, if the party went in that direction I'd give that vote some serious consideration.
What about the former Orlando police chief? Val Demings. Definitely "in politics", but maybe would give ol' Joe some anti-rioting cred?
She's been many times mentioned as a possibility.
VInny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Seriously, out of all the questions I have about Trump, his tax return is probably the one I'm least interested in. Besides it's pretty obvious why the Democrats want it: they'll search through it and try to find something along the lines of tax fraud/irregularities to nail him on. If he is re-elected I fully expect further impeachment attempts.
sophie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:44 am
Seriously, out of all the questions I have about Trump, his tax return is probably the one I'm least interested in. Besides it's pretty obvious why the Democrats want it: they'll search through it and try to find something along the lines of tax fraud/irregularities to nail him on. If he is re-elected I fully expect further impeachment attempts.
They know that they don’t need to find actual fraud or irregularities, they just need a little something to create the narrative that there is fraud and irregularities. If that narrative is later proven false, there will be no consequences.
It seriously bogles my mind that most people don't realize :
A) Tax returns don't tell you anything about net worth.
B) Rich people don't do their own taxes. They are filed by highly reputable firms.
C) Accountants are paid to find every legal loophole they can find, questionable or not. That is what they are paid for. And expensive accountants are good at it.
Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Aug 08, 2020 5:57 pm
It seriously bogles my mind that most people don't realize :
A) Tax returns don't tell you anything about net worth.
B) Rich people don't do their own taxes. They are filed by highly reputable firms.
C) Accountants are paid to find every legal loophole they can find, questionable or not. That is what they are paid for. And expensive accountants are good at it.
Seriously, does anyone expect anything different?
Yes, I'm sure many people (cough, CNN, cough) expect to find that he has been cheating... by taking legal deductions for depreciation.
Kbg wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 10:12 am
I think tax returns for important national office is entirely legit and a good thing. I also think it should be extended to all House and Senate Committee members or at least the committee chairs. Even if there is nothing technically illegal, I think exposure to potential conflicts of interest is in all of our best interests. Who cares if they came to office rich beforehand, irrelevant. Just because someone is rich does not mean they aren't willing to nudge things their way.
I could totally get behind that if it were mandatory across the board. I'd also like to see the politicians' protections against insider trading removed.
From what I can discern, the interest in Trump's taxes is not so much a suspicion that he is evading or not paying his fair share, or a clue as to his net worth for that matter. I have heard the main interest is to evaluate the extent of his business dealings abroad, particularly with Russia and Russian oligarchs.
Whether that's good or bad, I couldn't really say, but I think his Russian financial dealings are the main item of interest. Especially since he says he doesn't know anyone in Russia, doesn't have anything in Russia.
For people over a certain age, the idea of any US politician with financial connections to Russia (and the USSR before it), would've been heresy. Think of the McCarthy era.
But maybe these days no one cares. Just shows how much the world has changed.
glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:05 pm
From what I can discern, the interest in Trump's taxes is not so much a suspicion that he is evading or not paying his fair share, or a clue as to his net worth for that matter. I have heard the main interest is to evaluate the extent of his business dealings abroad, particularly with Russia and Russian oligarchs.
Whether that's good or bad, I couldn't really say, but I think his Russian financial dealings are the main item of interest. Especially since he says he doesn't know anyone in Russia, doesn't have anything in Russia.
For people over a certain age, the idea of any US politician with financial connections to Russia (and the USSR before it), would've been heresy. Think of the McCarthy era.
But maybe these days no one cares. Just shows how much the world has changed.
The interest in Trump's taxes is to find something, anything, with which he can be attacked.
That's it.
If his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pmIf his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.
But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".
glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pmIf his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.
But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".
Well I hear what you're saying. But there's a part of me that thinks if you're going to enter the arena of politics, it's a fairly obvious expectation that some high level of scrutiny is going to come with it. If keeping personal business totally private is important, then stay out of politics. One comes at the expense of the other, especially when we're talking the highest office and public vetting goes along with the grant of power.
glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pmIf his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.
But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".
Well I hear what you're saying. But there's a part of me that thinks if you're going to enter the arena of politics, it's a fairly obvious expectation that some high level of scrutiny is going to come with it. If keeping personal business totally private is important, then stay out of politics. One comes at the expense of the other, especially when we're talking the highest office and public vetting goes along with the grant of power.
It's up to the voters to decide whether tax returns are required or not.
glennds wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 5:54 pmIf his taxes have been done by professionals and he has nothing to hide, why not just release them and shut everyone up?
Maybe he'll even gain political capital and further discredit his critics in the process. Win-win.
Maybe he just wants his personal business to remain his personal business. Releasing tax forms has always been voluntary. I'm not commenting on whether or not it's a good idea, or even right or wrong.
But there are probably 100 things in there which are perfectly legal but which would be spun as something nefarious. He has every right (as do we all) to organize his affairs in such a way as to reduce his tax burden. But there are plenty of low-information people who would point to these things and say "what a scumbag".
Well I hear what you're saying. But there's a part of me that thinks if you're going to enter the arena of politics, it's a fairly obvious expectation that some high level of scrutiny is going to come with it. If keeping personal business totally private is important, then stay out of politics. One comes at the expense of the other, especially when we're talking the highest office and public vetting goes along with the grant of power.
It's up to the voters to decide whether tax returns are required or not.
Yes you're probably right. Up until now, many practices that have been norms of convention and tradition are not necessarily legally required. So maybe more and more of these controversial issues will need to be voted upon.
I think the pre and post election period is going to be very interesting partly because things we've come to expect that are not specifically written into law or regulatory code, might now all be optional. One example is that there are really no specific rules or laws requiring the peaceful transition of power. Generally it has followed a code of conduct that the outgoing incumbent generally chooses to follow, but not a specific legal obligation requiring he or she to do so.
Polls from the last seven days sorted alphabetically with newest on top. In cases where the same polling agency posted two polls within the last 7 days for the general election or the same state, I am only posting the most recent.
General Election: Trump vs. Biden DFP Biden 52, Trump 40 Biden +12
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Global Strategy Biden 52, Trump 42 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden NPR/PBS/Marist Biden 53, Trump 42 Biden +11
General Election: Trump vs. Biden FOX News Biden 49, Trump 42 Biden +7
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Economist/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 39 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D)* Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6
General Election: Trump vs. Biden IPSOS Biden 58, Trump 42 Biden +16
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Morning Consult Biden 49, Trump 40 Biden +9
General Election: Trump vs. Biden Monmouth* Biden 51, Trump 41 Biden +10
General Election: Trump vs. Biden GU Politics/Battleground Biden 53, Trump 40 Biden +13
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4
Arizona: Trump vs. Biden OH Predictive Insights Biden 49, Trump 45 Biden +4
California: Trump vs. Biden Survey USA Trump 56, Biden 28 Biden +28
Florida: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 50, Trump 44 Biden +6
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden WXIA-TV/SurveyUSA Trump 44, Biden 46 Biden +2
Georgia: Trump vs. Biden HIT Strategies Trump 40, Biden 44 Biden +4
Kansas: Trump vs. Biden SurveyUSA Trump 48, Biden 41 Trump +7
Massachusetts: Trump vs. Biden WCVB/UMass Amherst Biden 61, Trump 28 Biden +33
Massachusetts: Trump vs. Biden WBUR/MassINC Biden 63, Trump 27 Biden +36
Maine: Trump vs. Biden Critical Insight Biden 45, Trump 38 Biden +7
Maine: Trump vs. Biden Bangor Daily News Biden 44, Trump 36 Biden +8
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 43 Biden +5
Michigan: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Wis/YouGov Biden 47, Trump 43 Biden +4
Minnesota: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 50, Trump 47 Biden +3
Mississippi: Trump vs. Biden Garen Hart Yang Trump 53, Biden 43 Trump +10
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Civitas/Harper (R) Trump 44, Biden 45 Biden +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Trump 48, Biden 47 Trump +1
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden Morning Consult Trump 43, Biden 50 Biden +7
North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden HIT Strategies Trump 37, Biden 47 Biden +10
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Emerson Biden 52, Trump 43 Biden +9
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 48, Trump 44 Biden +4
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Wis/YouGov Biden 50, Trump 41 Biden +9
Pennsylvania: Trump vs. Biden CBS News/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 43 Biden +6
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Rasmussen Reports Biden 55, Trump 43 Biden +12
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden CNBC/Change Research (D) Biden 47, Trump 43 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Marquette Biden 50, Trump 46 Biden +4
Wisconsin: Trump vs. Biden Univ. of Wis/YouGov Biden 49, Trump 43 Biden +6
# = Biden # = Trump # = Within generally accepted margin of error
I don't see that anything from that Big Bad Media involved in this ad! Is this not unprecedented for so many chosen by a president to be so critical of that president?
Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Reed Galen Why former Republicans back Biden over Trump — and attack Senate Republicans
If this is to be an argument about ideology and party fealty, I submit that none of these endangered senators can any longer legitimately claim the label of Republican or conservative.
For the Trump fans among us.....you'll be hard pressed to hear anyone giving more praise to Trump than what you will hear here. Plus, as a bonus you will actually get to hear the C-Span host in action who was in the article that Tech posted in which Tech questioned why the host did not challenge a caller. For me, it was yet another dose of being brainwashed by the Marxist media....
Vinny
AUGUST 15, 2020 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 08/15/2020
Cheryl Chumley on Campaign 2020
Cheryl Chumley, Washington Times online opinion editor, discussed Campaign 2020 as the political parties head into their national conventions.
