Debate Not as Bad for Trump as First Thought

14 Responses to Debate Not as Bad for Trump as First Thought

1. Deplorable J Soden says:

   Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:02 pm

   The Moron Media presstitutes had their stories all written in advance of the debate, proclaiming $hrilLIARy the winner. All that was left for them is to read the copy. And $hrilLIARy had a lotta help from Lester Holt – who propped her up when she faltered and was wrong on several of his claims – a la Candy Crowley – that TheDonald corrected.
   But, surprise! For someone who is not a professional debater/politician, TheDonald did OK. I doubt that he will again fall into the same traps that $hrilLIARy laid for him this time.
   Now that we have the oh-so-important issues of birther stuff, his tax returns, and his lack of support for the Iraq war taken care of, he can move onto more important things – like Benghazi and the following cover-up, Bubba foundation pay-for-play, and other shenanigans found in Clinton Ca$h. It’s just beginning, folks………

   Reply
   • Max says:

     Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 8:08 pm

     “Now that we have the oh-so-important issues of birther stuff, his tax returns, and his lack of support for the Iraq war taken care of, he can move onto more important things – like Benghazi and the following cover-up, Bubba foundation pay-for-play, and other shenanigans found in Clinton Ca$h. It’s just beginning, folks”

     This is satire, right? Tell me you’re choosing to be a parody of a hysterical Clinton-basher, who thinks those scandals are real while ignoring Trump’s.

     Reply
2. Max says:

   Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 4:28 pm

   Well, what this means is that people who were supporting Trump before the debate still support him after. This is unsurprising; Trump had previously demonstrated low moral character, dishonesty, ignorance and immaturity unparalleled in modern politics, so why would those who overlooked those traits before start caring about them now? Irrational hatred of Clinton is driving Trump support, and that’s not something Clinton could have changed, regardless of how she did.

   Reply
3. Libby says:

   Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 6:28 pm

   “Much to my surprise and relief, it appears Donald Trump has seen very little fallout from his poor debate performance.”

   You are surprised? How could you be? The Trumpettes long ago proved themselves unmoved by anything so factual as fact, and completely oblivious to their responsibility as citizens. The Donald could have drooled and shat himself and they would still vote for him.

   Reply
4. Tina says:

   Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 7:12 pm

   What a choice…between what Chris imagines is a man of “low moral character, dishonesty, ignorance and immaturity” and a woman of low moral character, dishonesty and deceit, criminality, pay to play, phoniness, corruption, and, for all her so called intelligence, a miserable record of failure.”

   You can’t accuse such a woman of ignorance or immaturity but conniving, money hungry, self-interested, ambitious shrew will do.

   At the same time accusing Trump of ignorance is really stoopid. The man has a bachelor’s degree in business and has built hotels, golf courses, casinos and other projects in North and South America, Europe and Asia. He’s known for finishing projects in time and under budget. An ignorant person wouldn’t begin to know how to do that (even when given a building by his father).

   But to each his own.

   Reply
5. Jim says:

   Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 8:05 am

   Just suppose if a woman showed up for the presidential debate, unrepaired, stuttering like she was on drugs, unable to finish a sentence and interrupting her opponent 70 times. Lets further imagine that she had 5 kids by 3 different men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, refused to pay people who had worked for her, paid zero in federal income taxes, was close friends with the Russians and rooted for the housing crisis which cost many middle class families their homes.

   Would you vote for her?

   Reply
   • Tina says:

     Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:50 pm

     If she was a private sector candidate running against a seasoned politician with a record of corruption and lying a mile long who was married to an equally corrupt and sleazy former disgraced president….yes.

     Context matters.

     Do we actually know the man has “paid zero in federal income taxes?” Not to my knowledge. We do know that he has been audited in all of the last 10 years so if there was anything irregular about his taxes we would know about it. and we know that Hillary can brag all she wants about releasing her tax records but in the last ten years she did make egregious errors:

     Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors. … For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

     Forbes reports about the pay to play problems in the foundation:

     Charities are supposed to be operated exclusively for charitable purposes. In fact, the law is very clear that charitable organizations with public charity tax exemptions must benefit the public interest. The law requires the charity to operate exclusively for charitable purposes, and normally the IRS really means exclusively.

     You can’t say this too many times. From a strict tax viewpoint, there do seem to be some Clinton lapses here. They are arguably not of the tax-exemption crushing variety, but they don’t look good. Take the Clinton Foundation having arranged a $2 million pledge to a firm owned by Bill’s ‘friend.’ Some observers say that the Clinton Foundation helped Hillary and Bill’s friends. And a more personal front, it is hard not to notice that the Clintons became wealthy. Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash” argues that the many public and private deals the Clintons brokered put staggering sums in their pockets.

     After being “dead broke” on leaving the White House, their finances exploded. Now, with well over $100 million in earnings they have a vast net worth. Some of it comes from the many speeches no one is talking about. Many charities get tripped up on these kinds of private inurement issues. Often–if not most of the time–the problem is the founders themselves who end up getting enriched. And it may not be the bulk of they money. The IRS notes that:

     Robert W. Wood ,

     Contributor

     I focus on taxes and litigation.

     Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

     The Clinton Foundation has surely done good works. Yet like Steinbeck’s ‘The Pearl,’ it plagues Hillary Clinton. So do her unending email controversies, and the shifting explanations that seem to make any alleged cover-up worse than any alleged crime. Recently, the Foundation and the emails have become considerably more interconnected in a kind of toxic smoothie. Yet, when it comes to the Foundation, there appear to be two main points to evaluate when all the evidence is in.

     If nothing else, both are worthy of some raised eyebrows. But they are quite different in scope and import. One is the alleged influence peddling that suggests that the Clinton Foundation may have been a well-worn avenue for some donors to travel to get access to the Secretary of State. The facts are still coming out, and there are many differing views on just how much of this occurred or should be allowed. But the appearance does seem striking. For example, it is hard to explain the report that the Foundation gathered $100 million from Gulf sheikhs and billionaires, and for what promises.

     Clinton Foundation

     The second main issue with the Foundation is pure tax issue, that of private inurement or private benefit. This one may be considerably less serious for a political candidate, but might look somehow even more unseemly. Charities are supposed to be operated exclusively for charitable purposes. In fact, the law is very clear that charitable organizations with public charity tax exemptions must benefit the public interest. The law requires the charity to operate exclusively for charitable purposes, and normally the IRS really means exclusively.

     You can’t say this too many times. From a strict tax viewpoint, there do seem to be some Clinton lapses here. They are arguably not of the tax-exemption crushing variety, but they don’t look good. Take the Clinton Foundation having arranged a $2 million pledge to a firm owned by Bill’s ‘friend.’ Some observers say that the Clinton Foundation helped Hillary and Bill’s friends. And a more personal front, it is hard not to notice that the Clintons became wealthy. Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash” argues that the many public and private deals the Clintons brokered put staggering sums in their pockets.

     After being “dead broke” on leaving the White House, their finances exploded. Now, with well over $100 million in earnings they have a vast net worth. Some of it comes from the many speeches no one is talking about. Many charities get tripped up on these kinds of private inurement issues. Often–if not most of the time–the problem is the founders themselves who end up getting enriched. And it may not be the bulk of they money. The IRS notes that:
     Recommended by Forbes

     any transaction between an organization and a private individual in which the individual appears to receive a disproportionate share of the benefits of the exchange relative to the charity served presents an inurement issue. Such transactions may include assignments of income, compensation arrangements, sales or exchanges of property, commissions, rental arrangements, gifts with retained interests, and contracts to provide goods or services to the organization.”

     Even a small amount of private inurement can be fatal to a tax exemption. In Spokane Motorcycle Club v. U.S., refreshments, goods and services amounting to $825 (representing some 8% of gross revenues) were furnished to members. That was too much for the IRS. The IRS adds that “a common factual thread running through the cases where inurement has been found is that the individual stands in a relationship with the organization which offers him the opportunity to make use of the organization’s income or assets for personal gain.”

     NY Post:

     The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.

     The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

     The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

     On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

     In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

     Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

     But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission.

     Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

     This is the real reason Trumps taxes are being made an issue. Nobody can out do the Clintons when it comes to corruption. And it is absolutely true that the wealthy do not usually work for a salary which is why they often do not pay federal tax. The tax code is what it is.

     A simplified tax code would change how taxes are collected and payed.

     Reply
6. Libby says:

   Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 9:19 am

   “He’s known for finishing projects in time and under budget.”

   By stiffing his contractors. Further, it is my understanding that there is no longer a bank in this country that will lend to the man. He’s a huckster, who gleefully makes use of the nation’s bankruptcy law to keep his personal self wealth … and you want to put him in charge of the nation’s finances?

   You do know that any hint of our reneging on our sizeable global debt will savage the planetary economy. Donald is the sort of meglomaniacal moron who believes that, as this is unlikely to bother him personally, it is ok to do.

   Hillary may be pleased to over-charge for a speaking engagement, but she’s not gonna do that.

   Reply
7. Tina says:

   Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 10:30 pm

   “By stiffing his contractors.”

   NAME THEM!

   The man Hillary put in the audience during the debate may very well have done a bad job as Trump said. It may be that he actually stiffed Trump by not delivering on what he promised forcing Trump to hire AND PAY someone else to finish or rework the job.

   ” gleefully makes use of the nation’s bankruptcy law ”

   Gleefully? You are such a nasty piece of work. The law is there for a reason. AND in the filing everyone gets paid BEFORE Trump…it’s the law. S%*# happens Libby…like the casino business failing…it wasn’t just Trump who lost in that deal. At least he was wise enough to see what was happening and file for bankruptcy early to get some money to his people. Besides when have you ever taken a risk like that?

   “…and you want to put him in charge of the nation’s finances?”

   Da*% straight. He’ll do a much better job than the man he’s replacing who knows NOTHING about finances…or the woman whose favorite charity is herself.

   “You do know that any hint of our reneging on our sizeable global debt will savage the planetary economy. ”

   Oh please. It’s very likely that the global economy will crash BECAUSE of our horrendous debt and the fact that this administration has kept the interest rates at zero ARTIFICIALLY…its already a house of cards!

   Zero hedge:

   In a looping debate rant, Mr. Trump argued that an increasingly “political” Fed is holding interest rates low to help Democrats in November, driving up a “big, fat, ugly bubble” that will pop when the central bank raises rates. This riff has some truth to it.

   Leave the conspiracy theory aside and look at the facts: Since the Fed began aggressive monetary easing in 2008, my calculations show that nearly 60% of stock market gains have come on those days, once every six weeks, that the Federal Open Market Committee announces its policy decisions.

   Put another way, the S&P 500 index has gained 699 points since January 2008, and 422 of those points came on the 70 Fed announcement days. The average gain on announcement days was 0.49%, or roughly 50 times higher than the average gain of 0.01% on other days.

   This is a sign of dysfunction. The stock market should be a barometer of the economy, but in practice it has become a barometer of Fed policy. … Stock prices have held steady even though corporate earnings have been falling since 2014. Valuations—the ratio of price to earnings—continue to rise. With investors searching for yield in the low interest-rate world created by the Fed, the valuations of stocks that pay high dividends are particularly stretched. The markets are as dependent on the Fed as ever.

   Last week the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that “financial instability risks are rising,” in part because easy money is driving up asset prices. At least two regional Fed presidents, Eric Rosengren in Boston and Esther George in Kansas City, have warned recently of a potential asset bubble in commercial real estate.

   Their language falls well short of the alarmism of Mr. Trump, who in Monday’s debate predicted that the stock market will “come crashing down” if the Fed raises rates “even a little bit.” But it is fair to say that many serious people share his basic concern.

   Whether this is a “big, fat, ugly bubble” depends on how one defines a bubble. But a composite index for stocks, bonds and homes shows that their combined valuations have never been higher in 50 years. Housing prices have been rising faster than incomes, putting a first home out of reach for many Americans. … Mr. Trump was also right that despite the Fed’s efforts, the U.S. has experienced “the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression.” The economy’s growth rate is well below its precrisis norm, and the benefits have been slow to reach the middle class and Main Street. Much of the Fed’s easy money has gone into financial engineering, as companies borrow billions of dollars to buy back their own stock. Corporate debt as a share of GDP has risen to match the highs hit before the 2008 crisis.

   That kind of finance does more to increase asset prices than to help the middle class. Since the rich own more assets, they gain the most. In this way the Fed’s policies have fueled a sharp rise in wealth inequality world-wide—and a boom in the global population of billionaires. Ironically, rising resentment against such inequality is lifting the electoral prospects of angry populists like Mr. Trump, a billionaire promising to fight for the little guy. His rants may often be inaccurate, but regarding the ripple effects of the Fed’s easy money, Mr. Trump is directly on point.

   Deutsche Bank is in serious trouble. See more here Will they get a bail?

   Those you put so much trust in are financial morons.

   And…incredible frustration is behind Trumps rantings…frustration that all of his supporters also feel…the situation is just that bad… and he wants to fix it. That he must try to explain what has happened, how wrong choices have made it so, and as he faces a smarmy, sleazy candidate like Hillary has to be more than anyone can bear…it is for me and all I do is type and throw it out there.

   Hillary will continue with the same stoopid policies of the last eight years. Our nation hasn’t been in such bad shape since the depression and he and Hillary are both responsible.

   Reply
8. Libby says:

   Friday, September 30, 2016 at 9:17 am

   “The law is there for a reason.”

   It certainly is, and it keeps this economy from tanking, as unforeseen business reversals can be very damaging. Alas, one of the many troubles with “the law” is, while there are people in genuine distress who are genuinely helped, there are also the predators, who abuse the law, who are profligate, reckless, greedy, and who use the law to damage other people.

   Guess which category Trump falls into?

   Reply
9. Tina says:

   Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:01 am

   Trump makes good business decisions. You act as if it’s possible to live in a risk free society. That’s because you’ve never walked in Trumps shoes and you think like a victim.

   Subcontractors KNOW they work in a risky business. The law protects them first and Trump last but nobody in a bankruptcy gets paid in full when an enterprise breaks down. Atlantic City looked like a good proposition but it turned out the timing was bad for all of risk taker that built casinos. Losses are part of doing business.

   May 2016 Reuters:

   WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a union’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that allowed Atlantic City’s Trump Taj Mahal casino, founded by Donald Trump but now owned by billionaire investor Carl Icahn, to break its contract with union workers to secure a bankruptcy rescue deal.

   The high court’s decision not to hear the appeal by Unite Here Local 54 leaves in place a January decision by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that cleared the way for the casino to exit Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

   The struggling casino has since emerged from bankruptcy and is now owned by Icahn Enterprises LP. It was the New Jersey city’s largest casino when Trump opened it in 1990 but it later fell on hard times along with other Atlantic City casinos.

   But let’s look at corruption at the highest possible levels. Hillary and Obama have used the power of government to PUT PEOPLE OUT OF BUSINESS (coal) to further an agenda based on computer models proven to be wrong and “science” that’s been proven to be bogus! Obama used the power of government to bully and harass citizens and businesses through the IRS and the Justice department! Justice is a joke under this administration. Look at the way Obamacare was pushed through Congress behind closed doors using bribery and intimidation…and look at the mess it’s made of healthcare insurance. The Democrat Party is corrupt to it’s very core and economically stoopid!

   Democrats may yet rue the day they decided to burn the Bern. He’s a socialist and a bit of a hypocrite but he isn’t corrupt (to my knowledge).

   The sooner we are rid of the radical slimy people in power and in control of the Democrat Party the better!

   Reply
10. Tina says:

    Friday, September 30, 2016 at 10:13 am

    “…and it keeps this economy from tanking”

    A single bankruptcy, or even many, would not “tank” the economy.

    The law ensures the losses aren’t severe for the subcontractors and vendors while giving the contractor time to reorganize. The contractor does not direct the funds…the courts do. The courts decide who will get paid and how much. Justice is served.

    Democrat Party radicals like Hillary and Obama deceive people with disingenuous rhetoric like this. The fact that they are lawyers, and know better, makes it even more disgusting.

    Reply
    • Libby says:

      Friday, September 30, 2016 at 8:50 pm

      “Trump makes good business decisions.”

      Trump is a serial bankrupt … a predator.

      Reply
11. Tina says:

    Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:34 pm

    Trumps four bankruptcies are nothing compared to destroying the American healthcare insurance market, driving an entire industry into closure putting 280,000 workers out of a job, or blowing up the Middle East.

    It’s also nothing compared to presiding over an economy that can’t do better than 2% growth in eight years!

    Give it up. Your party has blown it big time. You can’t run on Obama’s record and you can’t run on Hillary’s record. All you have is trying to discredit a man who learns fast, is practiced at making hard decisions and making them expeditiously, and who actually loves America!

    Reply