The Dems are idiots for not being able to take advantage of Trump’s constant unforced errors.
Let’s get back to foreign wars and selling the country out to Chyna.
It’s close enough, and this is not at all of his making: if I understand correctly, it’s of the NYT’s making.
1 Like
This outcome is the wages of refusing to take Trump seriously, of refusing to discuss Trump in anything but personal terms.
For example, if you’ve been accusing him of treason, criminal activity, and stoopididity above the fold for almost four years now, don’t be surprised if “news” about his tax returns seems somehow anticlimactic and something less than newsworthy.
Of course, the problem the Dems would have with a nonpersonal approach is that Trump is actually doing very well for the nation. 
2 Likes
Lot of people protesting for a nation doing very well.
Not unusual, though, in the US. There are lots of protestors every prez election.
More than usual at stake in this election, coming as it does in a census year.
What’s striking is the number of riots, all in Dem cities. If there were more protesting and riots in GOP cities, you might have a point.
What ever happened to ‘don’t shit where you eat’?
1 Like
I think that rioting has been going on so long in places like Seattle and Portland, always followed by the city rebuilding and rumors of insurance payouts, that they simply have no experience with long-term consequences to their shenanigans.
And it seems that riots in places like Chicago, Kenosha, Louisville, maybe even NYC were extreme because the “tourists” (i.e., rich white antifa types) left Portland to fly out and burn shit down elsewhere. That’s why the riots, arsons, and murders that accompany protests in the Pacific NW have not been a more permanent feature in cities like Chicago and NYC.
No it doesn’t. Not in the way the report is making it out
Lol. It shows that I can understand finance. You’re the only one jumping to conclusions because of your own biases against trump as a life long liberal in your liberal bubble your parents have brought you up in. You can only see this from that perspective. I see clever accounting, I see he has a lot of cash flow, and I know he has enough properties to be fine. 300m isn’t that much of you understand a bit of finance for his position, which I’m guessing you don’t have a background in.
1 Like
Yes it does. The man loses more money than he makes. This does not take an MBA from Wharton to figure out.
Ok.
Wrong, I’m merely explaining the evidence. I have not jumped to any conclusions. I’m saying “this is what it says in his tax returns” now that we finally know what it says in his tax returns.
You got me! Me and most of America. Hopefully ole Donnie can squeak through with another EC victory this time around, maybe he’ll lose by 5 or 10 million votes this time, and we can have another four years of minority rule! Sounds great! And y’all have surprised pikachu face when you see angry liberals marching in the streets.
I bow to your ways, Oh Wise One. Teach me from your endless reservoir of Corporate Finance Knowledge. My degree in economics and long career in corporate America has taught me nothing of these dark arts. As soon as I hear the word “million” my brain explodes. What’s your hourly rate for tutoring?
You do get that for tax purposes, not making a profit or even better making a loss, is the goal.
It can be. It all depends on how much you actually have left at the end of the day in assets.
I love how much you all just have no interest in the fact that our president is $430m in debt and his greatest accomplishment in his life is pushing the boundaries of tax dodges 
You’re like, nah, that’s fine, he’s just smart. Yikes. GOP leadership, America!
There are three distinct values we need to look at when it comes to his businesses, the value, the cash flow, and the net income. A company can be very valuable and have a strong cash flow while taking a net loss. This is extremely common in real estate.
I see a lot of cash flow and I see a lot of value in his properties. If Donald came to me for a loan to build a need puttIng green, I would be interested in his cash flow and couldn’t care less about net losses.
In real estate, it’s pretty easy to show you’re making net loss while being perfectly fine through depreciation and reinvesting.
It’s not as dire as you’re making it out to be.
Are you accusing the police of gross incompetence in that they were unable to arrest or even find these outside agitators? I for one object to these vile slanders against these fine men and women in blue.
Where are you getting 430? The report said 300. Which as I’ve explained isn’t that much considered how much cash flow his multiple properties generate.
And his supporters don’t like taxes…they want lower taxes. You think this hurts him? They’re going to love his clever accounting. Only tax loving liberals that wants to tax the shit out of everything and regulate everything in California would be upset while they’re packing up to go to Texas 
1 Like
It’s easier for large corporations with bases all over the world to play this shell game with money. But from an accountants point of view, if you show zero profits for a year you pay zero taxes, which is better than paying tax on whatever number is non zero.
I think I said right from the beginning the emoluments clause was probably the biggest thing that could get him in trouble.
Is he 430 million in debt, or has loans of 430 million? Because not quite the same when you have a great deal more in assets, this Forbes piece sums up about 1.9 Billion he raked in over the first years. Trump tower is worth something like 500 million by itself, not sure how much he still owns but Forbes is showing he pulled in 100 million from that property in the last 3 years.
1 Like
Cash flow, value, and net losses or gains.
I see a lot of cash flow. I see he has some of the most valuable properties in the world. And I see clever accounting he spreads out to show net losses.
No dark magic. Just the real estate game with great accountants.
Unlike Trump, his Republican supporters and posters here that use only policy-laden adjectives to describe the Democrats.
Where are you seeing these things?