US Elections 2020

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Thank you for these insights. I have looked up the 1869 Act, and wonder, if a new Administration seeks to expand the Supreme Court, say, to 13, would it also have to increase the number of Circuit Courts across the USA? And why are there only 9 for the whole country anyway?

One other thing: why put up a statue to RBG? Have we not leared how problematic statues are becoming? My view on this, for what it's worth, is that in Ancient Egypt and Greece, Statues were either exclusively of Gods or unknown 'types' -eg, warrior, young girl, boy etc- or in the case of Egypt the Pharoahs, such as Ramses II who were Gods in Human Form, or humans who became Gods. This is crucial in Ancient Rome which has multiple statues of the Gods and Goddessees, and later of humans such as Julius Caesar-who wanted to be seen and remembered as Divine. I believe this concept of sanctity has been part of the Statue Culture in Europe with the regrettable fact that a large number of people in the UK have been 'immortallised' in Statue form who would be best forgotten.

One curious fact here, is that in all of France, there are only two Statues of Napoleon Bonaparte -one is in the Invalides, the other in the Louvre- there are none in public.

It might be better to re-name a street after RBG, rather than build a statue. That's my two-cents worth.

Agree that it might better to re-name a street after Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=
And why would such a morally decent woman want to be nominated by a tax cheat? There is a crook in the White House who could also be a traitor- does she want to be known hereafter as ‘the Traitor’s Judge”?[/QUOTE]

i should concede that in many cases cited by the NYT tax law was not broken, that the areas of interest may be the mansion in upstate New York, and the ‘fees’ paid to his daughter Ivana. Also, the immorality of a system that appears to excuse colossal debt and the fact that his lawyers have got him out of paying tax will bring a smile to those opposed to taxation. But it stinks.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

i should concede that in many cases cited by the NYT tax law was not broken, that the areas of interest may be the mansion in upstate New York, and the ‘fees’ paid to his daughter Ivana. Also, the immorality of a system that appears to excuse colossal debt and the fact that his lawyers have got him out of paying tax will bring a smile to those opposed to taxation. But it stinks.

Completely agree 1000%. It does stink.

[broncofan]

In addition to paying almost nothing in taxes, and claiming losses on his tax returns while likely claiming income in loan documents, Trump owes more than 400 million dollars, most of which is due in less than 4 years. In commercial real estate, it is not uncommon to refinance, though most investors have collateral that is worth far more than their outstanding loans by the time their balloon payment is due. They are able to refinance because they have built up equity in their properties over five or ten years and the banks can see that lending to them is not a huge credit risk.

Trump, on the other hand, does not make money. It is possible to have losses on paper with real gains, but the more plausible explanation is that he's very good at getting loans and very bad at investing in and managing real estate. What if Deutschebank or whoever doesn't want to refinance? Why should they? Does he actually build equity in these properties? Does the man do anything well except lie and commit fraud?

[filghy2]

Trump, on the other hand, does not make money. It is possible to have losses on paper with real gains, but the more plausible explanation is that he's very good at getting loans and very bad at investing in and managing real estate. What if Deutschebank or whoever doesn't want to refinance? Why should they? Does he actually build equity in these properties? Does the man do anything well except lie and commit fraud?

That also suggests that the people lending to him after unlikely to have been doing so on normal commercial grounds, but because they expect it will buy them influence (which will cease if he loses in November). Anyone applying for a regular government job would be unlikely to get the required security clearance with these financial exposures, yet the man who runs the show can apparently do it with no questions asked.

You do have to wonder how much his behaviour in running for President and apparently wanting to hold onto the job by any means possible is actually being motivated by financial considerations.

[filghy2]

I wonder whether the revelation of Trump's tax-dodging will have any effect on the election. People who care about these things will likely have already assumed he was doing it. I think his working class supporters tend to excuse this kind of behaviour because it's what they would do if there could get away with it. Many people don't seem able to draw the logical connection that if rich people don't pay their share of tax then others will end up paying for it in one way or another.

[Stavros]

You do have to wonder how much his behaviour in running for President and apparently wanting to hold onto the job by any means possible is actually being motivated by financial considerations.

Look in more detail at the nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia and the people involved- Flynn, Barrack, and of course Jared Kushner with his investments in Israel and Saudi Arabia, which one assumes he relinquished control of when he became Under-President to make decisions while daddykins is tweeting, watching tv or playing golf.

Consider the speed with which Tony Blair in 2006 shut down the investigation into allegations of bribery in relation to BAE Systems and the al-Yamama arms deal. Then ask if it is possible to conclude a major deal in the Middle East without the passing from A to B of ‘Bonus Payments’ neither the tax authorities nor ‘We, the People’ are aware of. One wonders if men called David Dennison and John Barron have bank accounts in the US Virgin Islands?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ng-them-get-it

[broncofan]

I wonder whether the revelation of Trump's tax-dodging will have any effect on the election. People who care about these things will likely have already assumed he was doing it. I think his working class supporters tend to excuse this kind of behaviour because it's what they would do if there could get away with it. Many people don't seem able to draw the logical connection that if rich people don't pay their share of tax then others will end up paying for it in one way or another.

The interesting thing is that his base might care more than he's not a good businessman than that he's a cheat. Yet of course there is nothing morally wrong with being bad at business and Trump's history of cheating people has left a trail of wreckage.

I'm not sure the degree to which his supporters can be reached at all at this point but I think it's better to point out that this is a guy who cannot make money with tens of millions in inheritance and with hundreds of millions in credit at low interest rates.

As you said, the loans do not seem like they're on normal commercial grounds and I am curious what claims he made in his loan documents. You expect that whatever he claimed people lending hundreds of millions of dollars knew he was a solvency risk and wanted leverage over him.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

I wonder whether the revelation of Trump's tax-dodging will have any effect on the election. People who care about these things will likely have already assumed he was doing it. I think his working class supporters tend to excuse this kind of behaviour because it's what they would do if there could get away with it. Many people don't seem able to draw the logical connection that if rich people don't pay their share of tax then others will end up paying for it in one way or another.

It might have alittle effect on the election and with undecided voters,but not with his base of delusional supporters who will think it's fake news by the media and the Democrats to take down their so-called president. and agree his working class supporters will excuse this kind of behavior,because it's what they would do if they could get away with it. and they view him as a successful business mogul,which he really isn't.

[Stavros]

I watched the whole of the tv debates which began just after 2am here. It was a mess, and I hope they won’t repeat it. Biden is not a great public speaker, and I am not really sure what he is proposing with regard to the immediate management if COVID 19, and was not impressed with his proposals on the environment which sounded ok but lacked detail. He was strong on voting, but could have made more on the voter suppression tactics of the QAnon-Republican Party, and could have made a better presentation on community rather than confrontational policing, giving examples of where it appears to work, such as Boston.

Other than his outrageous remark on the Proud Boys, the President was just noise, slogans, and could easily have been challenged either by Biden or Wallace. Thus,

1) if the Obama era is characterised by slow economic growth, the record shows that the last four years have not shown economic growth exceeding the previous eight. Historically, economic growth under Obama is low by comparison with previous decades, but allowance must be made for the recession inherited in 2009, while by comparison, the successor administration inherited economic stability and growth but has failed to exceed previous levels, pre-COVID, and has obviously suffered since. And since when does the ‘greatest economy in the history of our country’ mean staggering levels of household debt with chronic failures to pay off monthly credit card bills; a colossal and growing national debt he is increasing by a minimum $1 trillion a year, not to mention the existence of food banks, voucher schemes and reality on the ground in states like Mississippi?

2) If the President is claiming widespread fraud and a rigged election, does that mean if he wins his victory will have been rigged?

3) As I pointed out before, it is simply ignorance and silly to say Biden did nothing for 40 years when there is a published record from his years in the Senate and as Vice-President.

I think voters would be better served with one-on-one examinations of policy by a seasoned but tough interviewer, in which more detail would need to be presented. But it may be, as Knighthawk says in the previous post, that decisions have been made, though if it is true 14% of voters have not made up their minds, that is a significant number- but will the tv debate inspire them to even vote?