In addition, at certain times in the debate, Holt interrupted to fact-check the candidates. Every single one of these fact-checks were directed toward Trump. Certainly Trump did himself no favors in that department by repeating obvious whoppers, but it’s not as though Clinton wasn’t making ... false claims herself....
September 27, 2016
"I don’t care how much you dislike Trump, that shouldn’t be happening in a supposedly balanced debate."
"Holt asked eight generic questions of both candidates.... But there was [sic] also five questions that were asked specifically of certain candidates. All but one were to Trump, and all of those were negative questions about varying Trump controversies...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
101 comments:
That he never asked about email, or her family foundation, or Syria --- it was not clear he was seeking any information on her.
But the Obama birth certificate thing, which is apparently a barn burner of an issue in 2016, was important to ask about.
Ham-handed partisanship by the moderator plays into Trump's hand.
Did anyone expect "registered Republican" Lester Holt to do anything less? I was expecting worse.
As I've said before here, do they really think we respect them? Or hold them in high regard as "journalists"?
Reading the transcript again, you see how often Trump is cornered and forced to answer things, while Clinton is left free to roam around and pick at him.
Trump's debate performance was the worst ever
~ Howard Fineman
With NBC moderator Lester Holt becoming more aggressive at the end after losing control of things early, the debate was for the most part an exercise in exposing Trump’s lack of knowledge and casual approach to the biggest moment of the campaign.
Trump had lame if not confusing and contradictory answers on a whole host of issues, including but not limited to: why he hadn’t released his income tax returns; the prospects and predicament of African Americans; his early business history as the son of wealth; whether he would benefit from the tax cuts he is proposing; and the role of Russia in hacking Americans.
Interesting that Holt missed checking Clinton about murders going down; that was much more recent than what Trump said to Howard Stern. You'd think he'd have that on hand.
They could either play ref--no fact checking, just leave fact checking to the opponent--or go for fact checking both of them. I'd be inclined to see the latter in a year like this, simply because the amount of BS and unreality between these candidates can otherwise make a debate a surreal and useless experience.
But you can't just do it with one candidate. Then you're not really moderating.
I'm still shocked that we wasted so much time on the birth certificate at the moderator's urging. We missed a chance for good questions there, and it isn't like Clinton didn't have the opportunity to bring it up.
In fact: Why didn't she bring it up? She had a statement clearly prepared for it -- why did she wait through the entire section on race to not hit him with it?
Boo Hoo!
Holt helped make Trump look bad, and Trump was inadequately prepared for obvious lines of attack like his tax return (seriously, how did he not come better prepared for that?). He also didn't re-direct adequately, he stayed on the defense.
But seriously, of the very limited questions Holt demanded the slant against Trump was obvious - in regards to Iraq especially. Clinton actually advocated for the toppling of a dictator and helped lead the charge accomplishing it, but let's talk about what Trump said flippantly in a random Howard Stern interview ~13 years ago.
In a blogging heads clip posted here a while back, Ann noted that the media bias against Trump is basically working in his favor because it is so heavy handed and obvious. Stay tuned. It's not going to change and it's unlikely to work.
But Trump was just awful on the substance of the debate. Lazy, unprepared, uninformed, narcissistic don't begin to describe his performance last night. He's been at this for over a year, and he still comes across as a buffoon. Hillary! is just awful, period. That will never change.
God save the United States of America.
Wow, I did recognize that this was happening but didn't realize the extent of it.
Holt also was one sided with the crowd control. He admonished the audience firmly when they reacted to Trump zinging Hillary (about the emails, I think it was) but when they started cheering some of her attacks on Trump he said nothing. I felt that was a pretty big deal because the temperament/demeanor was such an important factor and she clearly was getting pumped up with the crowd on her side.
And your point is?
Blogger Unknown said...
Boo Hoo!
Why are you quoting Carmen Lombardo?
God save the United States of America.
Because it's in such safe hands now...
Lester Crowely's manifest unfairness only helps Trump. It was obvious.
News flash to Holt. Trump is running against Clinton; not Obama. Obsma's birth certificate is a red herring.
Five Lester Holt questions versus 28 rude interruptions and Gore-like groans from the Donald. And when you add up the time used by each candidate, Trump clearly exceeded his allotted time limits by ignoring Holt's halts. Everyone knows I dislike both candidates but fair is fair is fair.
Are Trump's tax returns really an issue to any voters? Seems that the people who are demanding to see them simply want to use whatever material is in there to smear Trump. He is not obligated under any law that I'm aware to disclose them to the public simply because he's running for president. Just because he's keeping them secret doesn't mean he's hiding something, but if there was something illegal in there, I'm sure the weaponized IRS certainly would be pursuing that. It simply sounds like he's undergoing routine audits, probably because his returns are on the complicated side. I could be wrong, but it's not like Donald Trump uses TurboTax to do his taxes. He may have been born wealthy, but he's certainly expanded on that.
On the other hand, Clinton broke a whole host of laws regarding maintaining and handling classified information, setting up and keeping an illegal and unsecured private server, failing to turn over documents to the State Dept. when she left, obstructing justice by destroying information (and devices) sought by subpoena and then repeatedly lying about it to the public and again to the FBI. She clearly has stuff to hide, particularly based on the evidence that has been made public - i.e., her using the State Department as cash cow. She's been on the verge of indictment more than once during her public career, but the powers that be have given her a pass because of her public standing and probably because they're afraid of the Clintons' smear machine. There is no reason to believe a thing she says or that she hasn't profited from being a public figure. The Clintons didn't get rich being lawyers. They got rich selling access to power.
Just to be clear, at the level trump is operating at some of Holt's wounds are practically self-inflicted. His had a horrible response to Iraq, and he comes across as unprepared on why he won't release his audits. He could have worded something better like, "I'll release my tax returns as soon as Hillary releases a full back-up of her private e-mail server."
Or he could have said, I'm not going to release a tax return in the process of being revised due to an ongoing audit. Obviously there may be aspects the IRS disagrees with - but here's what I can tell you. I made $674 million last year and paid XYZ in federal taxes. I took advantage of every possible law to reduce my tax burden, as every wealthy person should. And you know what else? I didn't "donate" 99% of my charitable givings to my own foundation which my family heads up and distributes funds to close friends - as Clinton did.
These are things he easily could have prepared to do - but he didn't. So as much as Holt was bad, Trump allowed it.
I didn't watch very much of the debate because the sound of Hillary's voice annoys me. Trump did miss a early opportunity when Hillary described her economic plans. In a nutshell, she's advocating much higher taxes, higher minimum wages, and bigger government to help business. Her economic illiteracy was on bold display and Trump could've easy pointed out how each of her proposals would actually hurt job creation. Everything she advocated is a continuation and growth of the same failed policies Democrats have been advocating for years. Here's a clue - if you want to grow private sector jobs, you need to get off of the necks of the job creators. Government can't be a net creator of private sector jobs.
The premise of opening question could've also been challenged. The "six years of economic growth" was also the lowest post recession growth in over 60 years. The job growth has been anemic as well while the true unemployment rate is around 15% and the workforce participation rate is low and getting worse.
Trump said the debate would be rigged. It was rigged. He is correct again!
"Trump said the debate would be rigged. It was rigged. He is correct again!"
FACT CHECK: An aide to Hillary Clinton, via e-mail, replied that she did not believe the debate was rigged.
The claim is therefore obviously false and we award it FOUR PINOCCHIOS.
I thought Lauer was much more overt in his hostility towards Trump than Holt. On deep analysis you can see how the questions and follow ups were tilted in Hillary's favor, but, while watching the show, you didn't get that impression. I don't know if Holt should be praised for his subtlety or damned for his bias. To be fair, he didn't try to upstage either of th candidates. In any event Holt was sufficiently distanced for the candidates make their views known. My own bias is towards Trump, and I thought he won, although not in a decisive way........Some claim Holt is a Republican. Maybe so, but he belongs to the Colin Powell wing of the Republican Party. That's not so much of a wing as a tail feather. Does anyone have any doubts who he voted for last time and who he will vote for this time?
Well put. Apparently they believe that the audience does not notice the slant, or perhaps they believe that the audience does not care. A large number of people do care, which is why the debate may not be the massive triumph for Hillary that many commentators are trumpeting.
Jaltcoh is an honest and honorable liberal. Does he know he is an endangered species?
gadfly said...
Five Lester Holt questions versus 28
Drudge had up that Holt interrupted Trump 48 times. Went at Hillary 0 times.
Everyone knows I dislike both candidates but fair is fair is fair.
9/27/16, 1:16 PM
I don't know that and neither do you. I can't recall anything you said against Hillary and I think you prefer her. You're entitled, this is a free country, but own it!
It was Smug vs. Angry last night. Smug thinks it won, but doesn't it always? Angry was and still is angry.
Though Trump had a weak performance on many levels, he captured the spirit of angry as well as Hillary captured the spirit of smug. I say it resonates on an archetypal level and he wins.
The democrat media will become more overt and more unfair as the election nears. The best thing trump can do is to work the refs just like the democrats do.
As Glenn Reynolds often remarks, it helps to think of the current crop of "journalists" as DNC operatives with press passes.
I agree that Trump was weak in many respects, but unlike Hillary he spoke plainly and directly to battleground state voters. While Hillary got off her scripted zingers and talking points, Trump emoted about manufacturing jobs, DC incompetence and bad trade deals. Certain voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio knew exactly what he was saying.
If not for his extreme defensiveness while under attack, it would have been a lopsided win for him. Viewers can tell when a candidate is being treated unfairly, and Holt was ridiculously biased. Trump should have more faith in the people. He should have been more casually dismissive and guided the conversation to topics that would help him.
"Lester Crowley"! Stealing that one, David Begley.
Hear, Hear!! This is the best response I have read all day....
Blogger Real American said...Are Trump's tax returns really an issue to any voters? Seems that the people who are demanding to see them simply want to use whatever material is in there to smear Trump. He is not obligated under any law that I'm aware to disclose them to the public simply because he's running for president. Just because he's keeping them secret doesn't mean he's hiding something, but if there was something illegal in there, I'm sure the weaponized IRS certainly would be pursuing that. It simply sounds like he's undergoing routine audits, probably because his returns are on the complicated side. I could be wrong, but it's not like Donald Trump uses TurboTax to do his taxes. He may have been born wealthy, but he's certainly expanded on that.
On the other hand, Clinton broke a whole host of laws regarding maintaining and handling classified information, setting up and keeping an illegal and unsecured private server, failing to turn over documents to the State Dept. when she left, obstructing justice by destroying information (and devices) sought by subpoena and then repeatedly lying about it to the public and again to the FBI. She clearly has stuff to hide, particularly based on the evidence that has been made public - i.e., her using the State Department as cash cow. She's been on the verge of indictment more than once during her public career, but the powers that be have given her a pass because of her public standing and probably because they're afraid of the Clintons' smear machine. There is no reason to believe a thing she says or that she hasn't profited from being a public figure. The Clintons didn't get rich being lawyers. They got rich selling access to power.
RE Taxes. Trump should ad up all the pages of tax forms from all his companies and keep stating the number. Must be thousands. Contrast that with Clinton itemizing underwear donations in the '90's.
Of course, as stated numerous times, it is amazing he has no definitive rebuttal to tax question. Even lif like me know his taxes would be cherry picked to make him look bad.
Another thing, she mentioned discrimination in the '70's, then said he has a "history" of discrimination. He blew the answeron that, mentioning his club that allowed blacks and Latinos while failing to mention most clubs in the area excluded black and Latino.
Really, though possibly interesting and prurient at a superficial level, Trump's or anyone's tax returns are private property and really none of our business as they don't affect us. The government revealing them is a crime.
Hillary's emails, travel logs, contents of electronic devices (you don't wipe them with a cloth, Hils, you smash them with a hammer), are public property and all kinds of our business, affecting us greatly. The government's not revealing them (via FOIA), and in this case, Hillary's not revealing them to the government, is a crime.
Sorry, Wendybar +1
Interesting that Holt missed checking Clinton about murders going down
Because she was right. She was talking about murders going down in NYC even without stop and frisk.
Really, though possibly interesting and prurient at a superficial level, Trump's or anyone's tax returns are private property and really none of our business as they don't affect us.
Every candidate over the last 40 years has released their tax returns. Trump has promised to release his but just keeps coming up with bullshit excuses.
Trump might have been baiting the whole thing since he was absolutely being singled out. I wouldn't put it past him.
"What about your Tax returns, Mr. Trump?"
"I e-mailed them to Hillary."
ITT: So very much brown-note whistling past a big dark ooky-spooky graveyard.
Among the legion of candidates in both primaries, only Sanders had a lower BS ratio than Clinton ... & Trump "wins" at BS - by a country mile, to be semi-exact.
Opinions you can make out of thin air.
Facts, not so much - as in, not at all.
Only saw the closing minutes because neither candidate was going to say anything in the way of original content, & those minutes told the real story. Clinton looked like she could go for two more hours & Trump looked like hell on wheels. One was coherent & one was a defective Chatty Cathy Doll reverse-translated from the original Esperanto. Just like 2012, the winner worked the crowd & the loser ran away pouting. Not at all like 2012, the level of pure unabashed political kitsch from Trump was equal parts slapstick & nauseating.
Wow!
You mean when you troll & smear the media 24/7 - the same industry you yourself got rich working in for years - they might actually make you pay for being a deceitful hypocritical goon?
Wonder how that mentality works once you get elected on pay-to-not-die Mafioso geopolitics?
How about pretending away climate change?
Anyone wanna try it & see?
Anyone wanna ask their kids &/or grandkids what THEY think?
Freder
You are conflating a drop in overall crime with a drop in homicides. Homicides were up 5.6% in NYC in 2015
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nyc-officials-tout-new-low-in-crime-but-homicide-rape-robbery-rose-1451959203
Reason 1,486 why I've not choice but to vote Republican.
If I wanted our media to be cheerleaders, sure, I'd vote Dem. But no. I want our media to hold their feet to the fire.
I think for the next debate Trump should bring an additional podium and place it next to Clinton inviting the moderator to work from there. It would bring down the house.
jim said...
How about pretending away climate change?
9/27/16, 3:25 PM
Really? Is that still a "thing" with "you kids? Thought that liberal lie finally died. Of course climate changes, that is why they changed the name of their "shtick" to that from "global warming" and before that from "global cooling".
What most sane folks don't buy into is the canard that "it is all man's fault" that climate changes.
If you are so worried about climate change, what are you doing on the internet? It uses electricity you know. So does the computer you type on and the lights you see by and unless you walk everywhere fossil fuels likely power your transportation. CARBON everywhere! CO2 everywhere! Walk to the Himalayas and become a monk before you kill the planet!
Michael Good catch. I have noticed that Freder only sees the statistics as he wants to interpret them.
Many women say Trump showed too much testosterone in debate
"The sad thing," said Christina Emery, an author from Swansea, Illinois, "is that I'm so used to men interrupting women — especially when they want to change the subject — that I didn't pay much attention to Trump's behavior. I was focused on Clinton and how she handled herself."
In the course of the debate, Trump interrupted Clinton 51 times, while she interrupted him 17 times.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communication who is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said Trump's frequent interruptions of Clinton conformed with research concluding that men in group meetings interrupt women more than vice versa.
Michael said...9/27/16, 3:31 PM to Freder
You are conflating a drop in overall crime with a drop in homicides. Homicides were up 5.6% in NYC in 2015
http://www.wsj.com/articles/nyc-officials-tout-new-low-in-crime-but-homicide-rape-robbery-rose-1451959203
The New York Times says, though, that murders are down 4.3% fr 2016 to date - over - I suppose 2015.
Now what's going in maybe is an anti-gang and anti-career criminal initiative, where police precincts try to keep track of the bad guys (usually people let out of prison) There is an attempt to compensate for the loss of stop and frisk.
@ Sunsong Should I cry or feel bad about this? Women have been feeling sorry for themselves for 50 years while they have been making well-deserved progress in every facet of business and social life. If Clinton can't stand up for herself in this situation how the hell is she going to manage with the likes of Putin? (Oops we already know, don't we.) Stop crying and moaning, fight back for Christ's sake!
The only voters who will be affected by this debate are low-information voters, many of whom did not watch the debate, but who will invest the time and effort to determine who "won". As the analysis proceeds it is clear that the moderator was ham-handed (as good a description of the bias as any) and that is enough information to bolster the claim that Trump "won" the debate.
As scary as "Monster Trump" might be, continuing the media/Democratic axis of power is more frightening (see IRS, FBI, Sanctuary Cities, etc.). The debate showcased what is wrong with our country.
That's a pretty false equivalence between Donald's and Hillary's untruths. Hillary Clinton prevaricates and talks like a lawyer and it's annoying and sometimes infuriating and absolutely not inspiring in the leadership sense. However, the advantage of her untruths is that they're complex and require parsing and she is not easily cornered on them. She pays a price politically, because her lies sound like lies, and people don't like that crap, but it's hardly surprising the lies don't formulate well as a debate question.
Donald Trump says simple things that are demonstrably, provably untrue, that are easy to summarize in a couple-sentence question. Things like: "I never said global warming was a hoax", when it's literally still up on his twitter feed. He pays less of a political price for this, because his statements sound true if you don't look at the record, but they get him killed in a debate because anyone who is paying attention can understand the lie easily.
It should not surprise that Holt zinged more questions at Trump--Trump has been setting him up to do so for months.
Actually on the tax returns, Trump has a valid, if un-obvious, point. If he is under audit, his current tax returns may be subject to change as the audit goes forward. Is it valid to release tax returns that are not correct? Is it valid to make conclusions from such returns? Certainly a question to be thought out.
Donald Trump says simple things that are demonstrably, provably untrue, that are easy to summarize in a couple-sentence question.
You mean like "I turned over ALL work related emails."
How many tons of CO2 did Hillary put into the atmosphere flying all of those miles as Secretary of State accomplishing little more than getting us involved in more wars?
Its intriguing to see that Trump has won the day with the polls even though the experts contend Hillary won handily on points. I could only stand watching 15 minutes of it. It reminded me of the nadir days of Crossfire on CNN when people would just talk over each other. Why bother? I think we are past the point where people can be persuaded to change their vote or that there is a great body of undecideds to tap into.
" Everyone knows I dislike both candidates but fair is fair is fair."
But cheer for Hillary.
Fair is fair.
I think we are past the point where people can be persuaded to change their vote or that there is a great body of undecideds to tap into.
No but the job for Trump was to appear plausible and not a madman as HuffPo still thinks.
He did that.
Not much more counts.
Issues next time but few are concerned with that,
Is Althouse trying to implement some sort of nepotistic torch passing? Trial balloons?
First, ditch the law gig. Next, let the kid take over the blog.
IMHO, the kid isn't going to work out any better than the Meadster did when he was fluttering about the front page.
Super-Duper Tough-Negotiator Trump agreed to Holt as the moderator and to the debate rules.
"sunsong said...
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communication who is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said Trump's frequent interruptions of Clinton conformed with research concluding that men in group meetings interrupt women more than vice versa."
Well that's only if you count the "Can you get me so more coffee sweeties."
Sammy Finkelman
Don't know the source of the NYT ytd 2016 stats are but the ones in the WSJ I linked are from the NYPD.
Also, we should note that downward crime stats that follow a cease in stop-and-frisk can well result from fewer arrests. Presto less crime.
Trump knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
glenn said...
Trump knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
************
And Hillary knew that the job was *not* dangerous when she took it, because the refs and the press were going to be in her corner for all 15 rounds.
Why didnt Holt question Hillary on the birther issue? Her campaign started it and pushed it. The whole issue went away when Trump brought up Blumenfield.
"Super-Duper Tough-Negotiator Trump agreed to Holt as the moderator and to the debate rules."
I suspect he (Holt) was the best of a bad bunch. Maybe you could enlighten us as to who the choices were.
Ham-handed partisanship by the moderator plays into Trump's hand.
How so? It reminded people about Hillary bias in the media? Who needed reminding?
Which one was lying about using secret government lists to deprive folks of constitutionally-recognized human rights and access to the tools to exercise them?
I went back to thinking Trump doesn't care about winning (and is in it for her) when he agreed to all these Candy Crowley dnc demo-hacks as moderators.
Nonsense. Holt handed Trump openings; Trump didn't take them. Holt asked Trump about cybersecurity, which was an invite to go after Clinton on her e-mails. Trump didn't because he was too busy defending his sleaze.
Why didnt Holt question Hillary on the birther issue? Her campaign started it and pushed it.""
CNN's post-debate fact checker told me that this was FALSE!
Trump should use fact-checking to his advantage. The "three killed at Benghazi on Hillary's watch", "the 22 phones Hillary destroyed with a hammer", "the 80,000 emails she deleted" - let the "fact checkers" remind the readers of the real numbers.
PBandJ_Ombudsman said...
Is Althouse trying to implement some sort of nepotistic torch passing? Trial balloons?
First, ditch the law gig. Next, let the kid take over the blog.
IMHO, the kid isn't going to work out any better than the Meadster did when he was fluttering about the front page.
9/27/16, 5:20 PM"
Althouse needs a better class of troll.
I sat through the whole ghastly thing, and I didn't hear a single Sieg Heil! from Tromp, no mention of the Ubermensch, no threat of anschluss. I'm beginning to wonder if he's really the reincarnation of Hitler after all.
Althouse needs a better class of troll.
Yes, indeedy she does.
I think prayer is appropriate.
Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy
Lord have mercy
Christ have mercy
etc.
Good thing she's asleep: otherwise, I'd have my ass handed to me.
It's been somewhat fun, but due to my "persona non gratis" status or treatment here, I hope to see you all on the flipside!
Astro-lube is the cat's pyjamas.
Why can't you haters see this simple fact.
The debates are a three act play.You don't bring on the big finale when the curtain rises on the first act. Trump needed to establish he's not Hitler and there for short circuit her multi million dollar TV campaign and also survive Hillary's best mud lobs ; Mission accomplished.
Huh. Anne brings thinking to this dumpster fire.
There's hope yet.
Maybe Meade didn't get a fair shot at it. Maybe he did have a lot of brilliance. Presumably the dark cloud of money grubbing that he splattered all about the blog was hiding his greatness.
I don't know if you can have one w/o the other. Can Meade contribute w/o all the requests for contributions?
What was up w/ his near-begging for dough? Is it possible that he thought having his hand out on his wife's blog made him some sort of a provider for the Meadhousehold?
I dunno.
At least the kid doesn't seem so hard up for dough.
I take that back.
Good thinking Anne, DJT's debate plan is unfolding perfectly.
Unlike DJT, HRC and her folks forgot that there are two more debates (if DJT doesn't bail). They couldn't possibly have any more material. DJT is a master debat.....
Comedy Gold! and she still thinks this is a serious blog!
"Don't be here when the morning comes"
Got it.
Hey, Babe.
Wade thru.
XOXOXO
Where have all the suck-ups gone?
Long time passing.
Anne, please post some more!
What can they do? Delete you?
(not you Ann)
So Many....
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor of communication who is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said Trump's frequent interruptions of Clinton conformed with research concluding that men in group meetings interrupt women more than vice versa.
Wonder who actually talks more. From my experience, women hold the floor and talk far longer than men.
~ Howard Fineman
HuffPost guy thinks Trump did poorly. Truly, a stunning and unexpected assumption from anybody involved with that site. I wonder if the political late night "comics" will think he did poorly also. Can't imagine their conclusion in advance.
In fact: Why didn't she bring it up? She had a statement clearly prepared for it -- why did she wait through the entire section on race to not hit him with it?
Given the media's proclivity to run stories et al past the DNC, I would not be stunned if she got all of the questions in advance.
The Washington Post is extending their $0.99 for three months sale due to popular demand. They promised me it was expiring just yesterday.
Meanwhile Yahoo mail is putting all NYT promotions into spam folders.
I sense a division on the left.
On the tax returns:
I keep wondering why the IRS audits Trump every year. Audits are usually an occasional irritation, not an annual event. And the audit has been going on for months and it’s getting close to tax time again. Whatever is going on it is not normal. If and when the IRS decides to finish Trump’s annual audit and Trump releases his tax return I would be a bit disappointed if he paid any taxes to speak of.
He’s in real estate, an endeavor that has more tax deductions than leaves on a tree. He can afford the best tax accountants in America. If he is paying much in taxes he’s not being a good billionaire real estate mogul.
About the bankruptcies:
What they tell me about Trump is that in a very risky business, high stakes real estate where every project is a gamble, he protected his company from losses. For me that is a plus, not a minus. It tells me he is smart and cautious with his money. Maybe he will be as smart and cautious with the taxpayers’ money.
Since owed wages are first priority in a bankruptcy, I would be interested in hearing from this dishwasher, because that sounds like a real scandal.
Meanwhile Yahoo mail is putting all NYT promotions into spam folders.
Yahoo search puts pro-Hillary and anti-Trump results in the first four places no matter what you search for, it seems. I only started using it because it defaults from Firefox, which I recently switched to. I just ignore it and look for what I want.
Does anyone know of somebody who tries to pay as much taxes as they can? I don't.
"I only started using it because it defaults from Firefox"
-- Should be able to change the default by clicking the magnifying glass on the search window.
"Holt asked Trump about cybersecurity, which was an invite to go after Clinton on her e-mails."
-- First, actually, Holt gave Hillary a chance to apologize and accept full responsibility for her mistake by letting her talk first on that question. He de-fanged the attack before opening the floor to Trump.
Meanwhile, Holt basically asked Trump: "Hey, are you still super racist?"
"Is it valid to release tax returns that are not correct?"
-- I'm sure if he releases them, then revised them, they'd paint it as nefarious.
My guess is that Trump probably gets audited by the IRS most years, and the reason is similar to why Willie Sutton robbed banks - that is where the money is. Auditing most Americans won't pay for the auditors it takes to ferret any missed taxes out. Which is why most Americans only really need to fear, at least initially, computer matching of different forms and arithmetic errors. You forgot to apply the AMT? They will likely catch it. Ditto for forgetting some W-2 income. But, a 1% error on a $50k salary is $500, and maybe a 10% penalty there is $50. Maybe a week's coffee for the IRS branch. But with a $500m income, a 1% error is $5 million, and a 10% penalty will get them $500k. Except that with the reams of paper that a Trump files yearly in tax forms, the error rate is likely higher, and, esp. since some of his deductions, etc. are likely somewhat problematic - on the edge, but very arguably not over it (which is completely legal and moral).
My guess is that Trump probably gets audited by the IRS most years, and the reason is similar to why Willie Sutton robbed banks - that is where the money is.
Yeah, but I’m wondering why Willie Sutton robs this one bank over and over. And takes so long to perform the robbery.
It’s almost like robbing banks has gotten so complicated that Willie Sutton wants to crowd-source the robbery to thousands of other bank robbers.
The other bank robbers are clamoring for the bank to release the combination to the bank’s money vaults. But the bank would be foolish to do so, right? It’s unrealistic to expect a bank to cooperate with such a demand, no?
A morality standard for deductions within the most corrupt, predatory, global, citizen-based not source-based, income taxation system ever devised? Which was promised at initial sale to never be greater than 3%? Count me informed. I would never have thought a victim of such a system had a moral obligation within or to it.
Post a Comment