Jump to content

If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)


rkbabang
 Share

If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)  

344 members have voted

  1. 1. If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Oct. Edition)

    • Hillary Clinton (D)
    • Gary Johnson (L)
    • Jill Stein (G)
    • Donald Trump ®
    • Other / None of the Above / Not Voting


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 504
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well, Giuliani says trump is "an absolute genius" for carrying a tax loss forward.  I guess I better vote for him.  ;D

 

I saw a couple of good comments on this that really made me chuckle.  One was something like, "Any popcorn stand operator with Turbotax can figure out how to carry a loss forward."  Another was something like, "Anyone who loses $1 billion is not a genius." 

 

This has been the most entertaining election cycle I have ever witnessed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Giuliani says trump is "an absolute genius" for carrying a tax loss forward.  I guess I better vote for him.  ;D

 

I saw a couple of good comments on this that really made me chuckle.  One was something like, "Any popcorn stand operator with Turbotax can figure out how to carry a loss forward."  Another was something like, "Anyone who loses $1 billion is not a genius." 

 

This has been the most entertaining election cycle I have ever witnessed. 

 

Carrying a tax loss forward is certainly not genius, but he'd be pretty stupid not to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Five Facts About the Trump Tax Return Disclosure

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/five-facts-about-trump-tax-return-disclosure

 

The documents indicate Trump had enormous business losses. The documents indicate Trump (and his then-wife Marla) earned wages and salaries of $6,108; interest income of $7,386,825; dividend income of $26,051; business gains of $3,427,092; real estate losses of negative $15,818,562; and “other income” of negative $915,729,293. This is almost certainly what is known as a net operating loss (NOL) carryforward, given the amount and the line of the form (although the document references an explanatory statement that remains undisclosed).

 

Why Trump had such a large net operating loss carryforward is not known from the documents made available. The documents are just the first pages so they are incomplete, and Trump’s campaign has not released any other information that can explain the $915.7 million business loss reported on the 1995 tax return. The Times notes that several Trump ventures had faltered in 1991-92 (the Trump Taj Mahal and Castle casinos in Atlantic City, the Trump Shuttle airline, and the Trump Plaza hotel), resulting in four of the six bankruptcies in Trump’s business record. As part of the bankruptcy settlements, Trump gave up stakes in these properties to creditors in return for debt write-downs. Generally cancellation of debt is taxed as income, except when discharged as part of a bankruptcy proceeding in which case any NOLs are reduced by the debt discharged. Without further documents or clarifications by the campaign, these are guesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd find it interesting if anyone has changed their vote (and wants to admit it) and why?

 

I'll go first.  On the September poll I voted Gary Johnson, because out of the choices given he was the closest to what I support.  But since I created this poll, I added my most favored choice: "Not Voting", so I voted thus.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to change my write-in of Bernie Sanders to a vote for the Clinton political machine. It's really a vote against Donald, though. And I just moved to Colorado where a vote actually counts. Another election, another vote for the "best of the worst".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=4

 

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."

 

 

This seems really dangerous to me, guys. If she is willing to sell Uranium to Russia for money into her own foundation, that's a very bad sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=4

 

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."

 

 

This seems really dangerous to me, guys. If she is willing to sell Uranium to Russia for money into her own foundation, that's a very bad sign.

 

Digging up 'news' from 2015.. That's desperate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=4

 

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation."

 

 

This seems really dangerous to me, guys. If she is willing to sell Uranium to Russia for money into her own foundation, that's a very bad sign.

 

Digging up 'news' from 2015.. That's desperate.

 

What matters more is whether this is true or false. NYT seems like a reliable source, no?

Selling 20% of US Uranium to Russia for personal gain seems like a very alarming thing, and you are saying 2015 is "old news" so we shouldn't even talk about it. Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".

 

Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tennesse Obamacare premium hikes:

   

Cigna asked for and received an average 46.3 percent increase.

Humana asked for and received an average 44.3 percent increase.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, which did not refile its request, asked for and received a 62 percent increase.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/industries/health-care/2016/08/23/insurers-get-approval-for-2017-obamacare-rates/89196762/

 

Minnesota Obamacare premium hikes:

 

Minnesota will let the health insurers in its Obamacare market raise rates by at least 50 percent next year, after the individual market there came to the brink of collapse, the state’s commerce commissioner said Friday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-30/near-collapse-minnesota-insurers-up-obamacare-rates-by-half

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".

 

Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r

 

How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tennesse Obamacare premium hikes:

   

Cigna asked for and received an average 46.3 percent increase.

Humana asked for and received an average 44.3 percent increase.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, which did not refile its request, asked for and received a 62 percent increase.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/industries/health-care/2016/08/23/insurers-get-approval-for-2017-obamacare-rates/89196762/

 

Minnesota Obamacare premium hikes:

 

Minnesota will let the health insurers in its Obamacare market raise rates by at least 50 percent next year, after the individual market there came to the brink of collapse, the state’s commerce commissioner said Friday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-30/near-collapse-minnesota-insurers-up-obamacare-rates-by-half

 

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/3/bill-clinton-bashes-obamacare-as-crazy-system-whil/

 

"Bill Clinton bashes Obamacare as ‘crazy system’ on campaign trail"

 

I don't know why Hillary and Bill disagreed strongly on this. Hillary wanted to bring illegal immigrants to ObamaCare as well. The premium increase right now probably hasn't taken that into account yet.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".

 

Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r

 

How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"?

 

It takes 5 seconds to google a fact check from an independent source.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".

 

Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r

 

How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"?

I know I'm gonna regret getting involved in this because i have a feeling that facts don't matter in this case. But statements like this make it sound like Hillary was there with a shovel loading uranium on a freigher bound for Russia. Please explain to me how Hillary sold US's Uranium to Russia given the facts:

 

The sale in question refers to the sale of Uranium One - an uranium miner to a Russian company controlled by the government. Uranium One was(is) a Canadian uranium miner with operations on 4 continents. Some are in the US. The US operations are a small fraction of the total production of Uranium one. Uranium one does not have now nor did it have at the time a license to export Uranium out of United States. The US is not a large producer of Uranium and actually imports a lot of the stuff.

 

Given that Uranium One had operations in the US the state department had to approve the merger. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State. In addition to State the sale was approved by 8 other US government agencies. In addition the sale was approved by a whole bunch of other governments around the world where the bulk of Uranium operations are including Canada and Australia and a shitload of those governments' agencies.

 

So how did Hillary sell US uranium to Russia given the facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".

 

Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r

 

How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"?

I know I'm gonna regret getting involved in this because i have a feeling that facts don't matter in this case. But statements like this make it sound like Hillary was there with a shovel loading uranium on a freigher bound for Russia. Please explain to me how Hillary sold US's Uranium to Russia given the facts:

 

The sale in question refers to the sale of Uranium One - an uranium miner to a Russian company controlled by the government. Uranium One was(is) a Canadian uranium miner with operations on 4 continents. Some are in the US. The US operations are a small fraction of the total production of Uranium one. Uranium one does not have now nor did it have at the time a license to export Uranium out of United States. The US is not a large producer of Uranium and actually imports a lot of the stuff.

 

Given that Uranium One had operations in the US the state department had to approve the merger. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State. In addition to State the sale was approved by 8 other US government agencies. In addition the sale was approved by a whole bunch of other governments around the world where the bulk of Uranium operations are including Canada and Australia and a shitload of those governments' agencies.

 

So how did Hillary sell US uranium to Russia given the facts?

 

The fact check that I linked makes basically the same points but goes into more detail.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".

 

Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r

 

How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"?

I know I'm gonna regret getting involved in this because i have a feeling that facts don't matter in this case. But statements like this make it sound like Hillary was there with a shovel loading uranium on a freigher bound for Russia. Please explain to me how Hillary sold US's Uranium to Russia given the facts:

 

The sale in question refers to the sale of Uranium One - an uranium miner to a Russian company controlled by the government. Uranium One was(is) a Canadian uranium miner with operations on 4 continents. Some are in the US. The US operations are a small fraction of the total production of Uranium one. Uranium one does not have now nor did it have at the time a license to export Uranium out of United States. The US is not a large producer of Uranium and actually imports a lot of the stuff.

 

Given that Uranium One had operations in the US the state department had to approve the merger. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State. In addition to State the sale was approved by 8 other US government agencies. In addition the sale was approved by a whole bunch of other governments around the world where the bulk of Uranium operations are including Canada and Australia and a shitload of those governments' agencies.

 

So how did Hillary sell US uranium to Russia given the facts?

 

Thanks for the detailed facts. I already knew that the US was not a major producer and Russia would have little problem getting uranium from many producers of nuclear fuel. Further, they don't even really need any more uranium or plutonium for their nuclear weapons - like the US, they have them vastly in excess of any reasonable requirements since the original number of missiles was calculated for what would be needed for a retaliatory strike after most of the initial ones were destroyed. If push came to shove, they could also just manufacture more nuclear fuel from breeder reactors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Benghzai happened in 2012 which is even further and even older news and we should also not talking about it right?

 

Yep, time to put it to rest. Colin Powell called Benghazi "a stupid witch hunt". Condoleezza Rice said that she "completely agreed".

 

Powell and Rice are former Republican Secretary of States.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/colin-powell-called-benghazi-a-stupid-witch-hunt-and-condi-r

 

How about Hillary selling 20% of Uranium to Russia? Is that also "a stupid witch hunt"?

I know I'm gonna regret getting involved in this because i have a feeling that facts don't matter in this case. But statements like this make it sound like Hillary was there with a shovel loading uranium on a freigher bound for Russia. Please explain to me how Hillary sold US's Uranium to Russia given the facts:

 

The sale in question refers to the sale of Uranium One - an uranium miner to a Russian company controlled by the government. Uranium One was(is) a Canadian uranium miner with operations on 4 continents. Some are in the US. The US operations are a small fraction of the total production of Uranium one. Uranium one does not have now nor did it have at the time a license to export Uranium out of United States. The US is not a large producer of Uranium and actually imports a lot of the stuff.

 

Given that Uranium One had operations in the US the state department had to approve the merger. There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State. In addition to State the sale was approved by 8 other US government agencies. In addition the sale was approved by a whole bunch of other governments around the world where the bulk of Uranium operations are including Canada and Australia and a shitload of those governments' agencies.

 

So how did Hillary sell US uranium to Russia given the facts?

 

"There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State."

 

Of course there would be no evidence. If there would be any, the most likely place to be is in her 33000 deleted emails.

But $140 million+ donations into Clinton Foundations later came from these related parties.

 

This is an investing board. Usually we are not short sellers. We look for things that don't smell well and avoid taking long positions on these stocks.

But in terms of Clinton, most people here don't apply this mentality. Instead people defend them just like company's IR department defending against a short seller. I don't understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well muscleman, you didn't answer my question as to how Hillary sold US Uranium as opposed to say a board of directors in Toronto. Never mind to say that it was US's uranium to begin with. I would think that it belonged to said Canadian company.

 

But since you bring up investment thinking and employing our Jedi sense of smell let's look into that. See when I do investment analysis I also use facts and figures and valuations. So let's assume that Uranium one shouldn't have gotten the approval and had to bribe Hillary $140 mil to get state approval. I would think then that they would have to also bribe the other 8 US agencies as well. But let's say they didn't have to because Hillary is an all powerful force that forced them to approve the deal - a stretch but ok.

 

Ok, so now my US approval costs me $140 mil. Why the hell would I do that? Those assets aren't worth very much. Why would I pay a huge bribe for US approval when instead I could just divest my US mine which is not significant to my operations and then I don't need US approval anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking about the smell test, you can say Hillary's actions smell fishy- OK fine.

 

Trump's actions on the other hand definitely ARE fishy, but are we ignoring that? Because everyone seems to equate the two.

 

My stance is both don't pass the smell test, but Trump doesn't pass the ears mouth and eyes test either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is no evidence that Hillary was involved with the approval process however State did approve it while she was Secretary of State."

 

Of course there would be no evidence. If there would be any, the most likely place to be is in her 33000 deleted emails.

But $140 million+ donations into Clinton Foundations later came from these related parties.

 

This is an investing board. Usually we are not short sellers. We look for things that don't smell well and avoid taking long positions on these stocks.

But in terms of Clinton, most people here don't apply this mentality. Instead people defend them just like company's IR department defending against a short seller. I don't understand.

 

The genesis of this story comes from Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash, and president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). GAI is funded by the Mercer Foundation which donated $1 million to GAI in 2013. Rebekah Mercer sat on the Board of GAI and has been a top donor to Ted Cruz in the primary campaign and later Donald Trump (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/09/07/rebekah-mercer-takes-helm-of-pro-trump-pac-extending-familys-influence-in-campaign/). The other large contributors to the GAI include the Franklin Center, a Koch brother funded organization and Donors' Trust, headed by current Chief Executive of Donald Trump's campaign Stephen Bannon. Those two organizations donated $3.5 million to GAI in 2012/2013. GAI's total revenues were  $2.2 million in 2012 and $2.6 million in 2013, so of the $4.8 million received for those years, $4.5 million came from three right wing funding sources.

 

Your investigation of the Uranium One donations isn't like a critical examination by a short seller, it's analogous to someone touting research from a stock promoter that's been paid by the company to write a favorable analysis.

 

If you think that Hillary Clinton exerted inappropriate influence in the approval of the transaction, then presumably she would be e-mailing her colleagues at the State Department, Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security, etc. Yet, somehow, there is no evidence that any person on the receiving end of such an e-mail had any such conversation with Secretary Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...