https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/trump-organization-entities-found-guilty-all-counts-tax-fraud.amp

It undoubtedly has not escaped the attention of certain members of this forum that there were 17 guilty verdicts and Q is the 17th letter of the alphabet. Coincidence?

Still waiting for that investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

Lots of suspicious things happening there, and billions of dollars flowing between the Foundation and both US and foreign donors.

Once she was no longer in office, the foundation's donor money all but dried up.  But, of course, they weren't selling access or favoritism to her presumed presidency or as Secretary of State.  The timing of donations was just .... coincidence.




As for the story posted, Trump's brand owns a bunch of companies and investment organizations.  if 2 of the many entities had a couple of bad actors, then they got what they deserved.  There's been no evidence Trump knew anything about the tax fraud, but it doesn't seem to slow the roll of the government attorney's claiming he "had to know."

A phrase the left likes to attach to Trump's comments all the time is, "without evidence."    The same should apply to the comments from the attorneys, just for consistency.

At least the Clintons have the courage to sit down in front of congress and answer questions under oath. Why didn't the Trump DOJ investigate if they had a reason?

Anyway, lets get back to the indictments and the numerology related to "Q". Is this where the chosen one rises to power after destroying the constitution?

You don't need courage when you know the fix is in.

If the actions were for self enrichment and didn't benefit the company, is it your belief that Trump was knowingly an accomplice because he just wanted to help the guy cheat on his taxes?

Yeah, that makes more sense than Trump knew nothing about an employee's, even a top exec's, individual personal tax returns and "irregularities."

Does YOUR boss help you file your taxes?

"Mr. Weisselberg testified under oath that he 'betrayed' the trust the company had
placed in him and that he, at all times, acted 'solely' for his 'own personal gain' and
out of his ‘own personal greed,’" a spokesperson for the Trump Organization told
FOX Business. "The notion that a company could be held responsible for an employee’s
actions, to benefit themselves, on their own personal tax returns is simply preposterous."

At least the Clintons have the courage to sit down in front of congress and answer questions under oath. Why didn't the Trump DOJ investigate if they had a reason?

Anyway, lets get back to the indictments and the numerology related to "Q". Is this where the chosen one rises to power after destroying the constitution?

Spectrum is having a end of year sale.

I think most,  but not all taxes are fraudulent so if you can cheat the government, more power to you.
The main problem I have with most taxes is this;
Those that have nothing and produce nothing have the same vote as those that produce.
There are more non-producers than there are producers.
Sort of like your 4 year old kids deciding how you will spend your money.
However that is how Democrats work. Children spending money other people make.
 
Elections don't matter anymore so Y'all better batten down your hatches.
Stormy seas ahead.
 

Wouldn't it just be simpler to ignore all deductions and stuff, and just charge everyone like 15% regardless of income level.

Do you feel the same way that I do, that it is a sad state of affairs that your condemnation of Trump is  he is worse than Clinton? Just having her email server is a crime that should have had her in prison. But also lying to congress , orchestrating the whole Russian collusion hoax, that we spent 33 million trying to convict Trump of, Only to find out it was the Democrats that made it all up.

I have very little faith in either party, but for real, when all we can do is try to defend our position saying our mobster is better than your mobster? How sad is that ?

Wouldn't it just be simpler to ignore all deductions and stuff, and just charge everyone like 15% regardless of income level.

We can't do that! That would mean everyone would pay their "fair share". We only use that as a tag line. If we were serious about taxes being fair, we would eliminate income tax and make just a consumption tax.

Do you feel the same way that I do, that it is a sad state of affairs that your condemnation of Trump is  he is worse than Clinton? Just having her email server is a crime that should have had her in prison. But also lying to congress , orchestrating the whole Russian collusion hoax, that we spent 33 million trying to convict Trump of, Only to find out it was the Democrats that made it all up.

I have very little faith in either party, but for real, when all we can do is try to defend our position saying our mobster is better than your mobster? How sad is that ?

Bingo!  Our "freedoms" have been reduced to choosing the one you hate the least.  I despise Biden.  I despise Trump quite a bit too.

Bingo!  Our "freedoms" have been reduced to choosing the one you hate the least.  I despise Biden.  I despise Trump quite a bit too.

I'm slightly different.
I despise Biden, I only dislike Trump.
 

Bingo!  Our "freedoms" have been reduced to choosing the one you hate the least.  I despise Biden.  I despise Trump quite a bit too.

IMO, it's more about whose team you're on.  Liking your team's mobster or hating the other's isn't a requirement.

I find it appalling that so many people don't take 5 minutes to research their party's nominees.  They take what's fed to them via MSM opinions, political ads union statements, etc, etc as gospel.

Few have enough info to make a personal opinion.  Why make the effort when you can just adopt other's opinions.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to ignore all deductions and stuff, and just charge everyone like 15% regardless of income level.

That only works in a society were all social classes make an inflation adjusted living wage or better and provided everybody especially the ultrawealthy are strictly monitored to pay their portion, which they will sidestep entirely by purchasing what they need in bulk from other countries like China and directly shipping it back for themselves at a much lower rate.

If those who can't even afford rent are expected to pay 15% of their income that does not even allow them to survive is begging for a societal revolution.  But perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing, if that happens to be the current situation of that society.

That only works in a society were all social classes make an inflation adjusted living wage or better and provided everybody especially the ultrawealthy are strictly monitored to pay their portion, which they will sidestep entirely by purchasing what they need in bulk from other countries like China and directly shipping it back for themselves at a much lower rate.

If those who can't even afford rent are expected to pay 15% of their income that does not even allow them to survive is begging for a societal revolution.  But perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing, if that happens to be the current situation of that society.

Interesting. . .

Expanding on the above, what are your thoughts on the "social classes"?  Specifically countries with a distinct upper and lower class?  Vice say countries with a middle class. 

IExpanding on the above, what are your thoughts on the "social classes"?  Specifically countries with a distinct upper and lower class?  Vice say countries with a middle class.

Social classes are a reality of all societies regardless of the economic ideology adopted.

The term upper, middle, and lower class are essentially theoretical constructs whose income boundaries are defined by those in-power namely the ultrawealthy.  In practice, there are no standard income levels that are used to define social classes from country to country, which reinforces that such distinctions are more politically determined by the ultrawealthy in-power versus calculating that figure mathematically using a nation's GDP as its starting point.

What is interesting in America's case is how it is often suggested that the poor in that country is way better off than the poor of another country like Saipan, for example.  Such apologists give the illusion of America's economic system being the best in the World, which may be somewhat true for those Americans who at least have a roof over their head.  However, given the innate trials and tribulations of homelessness, I fail to see the advantages of being poor and homeless in America versus another nation.

I find it appalling that so many people don't take 5 minutes to research their party's nominees.  They take what's fed to them via MSM opinions, political ads union statements, etc, etc as gospel.

Few have enough info to make a personal opinion.  Why make the effort when you can just adopt other's opinions.

Precisely why they are labeled "low-information" voters.   It is more like their precious TV shows and celebrity.

However, given the innate trials and tribulations of homelessness, I fail to see the advantages of being poor and homeless in America versus another nation.

1 advantage over another country is the rights that a homeless person has. They still have the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc...  But this is nit picking because other countries do not have these rights.

Also I've been to Taipei, Taiwan and only seen 1 bum.  So IDK what they do with them.  I can imagine there's more than 1 bum there.  We went all over the city too, so it's not like we were confined to a few blocks worth of area.  I have not seen any bum camps either in Taipei (tents on the sidewalk, card board boxes, etc...).

Even though homeless, in the USA, an older person can still collect social security. IDK what income set ups other countries have for their old people.  So they may not have enough for a home, but they can buy some stuff.

These are just some advantages over another country.

1 advantage over another country is the rights that a homeless person has. They still have the 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc...  But this is nit picking because other countries do not have these rights.

Those God-Given rights are inalienable; but I don't think poor, cold, starving, homeless people care about those rights given their day-to-day situation.  It's all about survival with them.

Also I've been to Taipei, Taiwan and only seen 1 bum.  So IDK what they do with them.  I can imagine there's more than 1 bum there.  We went all over the city too, so it's not like we were confined to a few blocks worth of area.  I have not seen any bum camps either in Taipei (tents on the sidewalk, card board boxes, etc...).

From my many visits to China, there are poor people there, but rarely any homeless on the streets.  The destitute either live with family in some sort of arrangement, while many others live on CCP provided dwellings providing (mandated) work for the community.

Even though homeless, in the USA, an older person can still collect social security. IDK what income set ups other countries have for their old people.  So they may not have enough for a home, but they can buy some stuff.

Being old, poor, and homeless may appear living easier in developed nations, but you can't put lipstick on the pig and call it beautiful.  Being old, poor, and homeless anywhere even in America sucks.

Those God-Given rights are inalienable; but I don't think poor, cold, starving, homeless people care about those rights given their day-to-day situation.  It's all about survival with them.


Being old, poor, and homeless may appear living easier in developed nations, but you can't put lipstick on the pig and call it beautiful.  Being old, poor, and homeless anywhere even in America sucks.

They may not care about  their rights for their day to day, but it does still protect them. Like 4th amendment. HPD cannot just cease their tent set up immediately.  Nor will HPD just arrest them cause they look homeless.  Also I've seen crazy lady yelling at HPD calling them names and she wasn't arrested (1st amendment, free speech).  Also HPD cannot just give them a beat down if they see them hanging out on the sidewalk ("I better not see u hanging here again, or else).

For your 2nd part, being a bum isn't beautiful, but all in the eye of the holder.  I know a guy who chooses to be homeless and loves it. But, being homeless does suck for majority of the people, but it does have "advantages compared to any other nation".  Other nations, youre a bum and get no lipstick.

Social classes are a reality of all societies regardless of the economic ideology adopted.

The term upper, middle, and lower class are essentially theoretical constructs whose income boundaries are defined by those in-power namely the ultrawealthy.  1) In practice, there are no standard income levels that are used to define social classes from country to country, which reinforces that such distinctions are more politically determined by the ultrawealthy in-power versus calculating that figure mathematically using a nation's GDP as its starting point.

2) What is interesting in America's case is how it is often suggested that the poor in that country is way better off than the poor of another country like Saipan, for example.  Such apologists give the illusion of America's economic system being the best in the World, which may be somewhat true for those Americans who at least have a roof over their head.  3) However, given the innate trials and tribulations of homelessness, I fail to see the advantages of being poor and homeless in America versus another nation.

1) I don't think of an income level, let alone a standard.  From friends I grew up with, it's relative.  A few that I felt were definitely upper class viewed their families as "middle class" because they didn't keep up with the Joneses. 

2) I have never heard that suggested.  Doesn't make it so (or not so). 

3) I have visted some quite poor areas.  Parts of the PI is probably some of the poorest I've been to.  I have really good friends that did an EMBA trip that included to the slums of India.  Damn, the stories they told about that place. . . I haven't been to India, but from what I saw in parts of the PI, I can't see how it's an advantage. . .