Jump to content

Donald Trump 2020


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

i find it hilarious that , probably , trump was MORE embarassed about exposing the fact that he's heavily indebted, than the fact that he paid out little taxes. 

Probably?  100% certainty that he will brag of his tax avoidance as the hallmark of a savvy businessman.....very legal, very cool. 50% certainty he will complain that he hasn't  been awarded the Noble Prize in economics for it.

Edited by Blotto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

If you take on a 700k mortgage at 10% you'll offset your 70k income too. 

 

God knows im not defending Trump.  And I said explicitly I dont support the US tax code.  But why fix your crosshair only on the playa instead of the game?

Well that’s kind of the thing, his lone policy accomplishment was to further exacerbate the ridiculous tax policy that so overwhelmingly favors the ultra wealthy. who is in charge of the henhouse? That, along with serving Mitch up with Mitch’s judges was his entire role here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

But see, Rick Gates is fake news.  Hardly knew the guy.  Just a coffee boy, nothing more. Looking to make a buck.  And who are you going to believe?  Some felon, or CNN, or me?

 

 

Yokels in Georgia reacting on CNN this morning.  Waitress went full on fake news about it.  "Well it's the New York Times."  Yeah, one of the longest running and most reputable news sources in US history.  These are the dumbest people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sidis said:

Well that’s kind of the thing, his lone policy accomplishment was to further exacerbate the ridiculous tax policy that so overwhelmingly favors the ultra wealthy. who is in charge of the henhouse? That, along with serving Mitch up with Mitch’s judges was his entire role here. 

all these tax policies predate him.  and is a much bigger issue than any individual or political party.  blow the whole thing up and start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I can see why he is a former accountant. You probably shouldn't get your advice from that guy. 

Everyone should have a CPA who seems to struggle with the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  I doubt we see @MillerEP again though.  He probably thought his article from monsterhunterinsider or whatever was some kind of mic drop even though it boils down to "HURRRRR DURRRR FAKE NEWWWS!!!!!!!!" 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Probably?  100% certainty that he will brag of his tax avoidance as the hallmark of a savvy businessman.....very legal, very cool. 50% certainty he will complain that he hasn't  been awarded the Noble Prize in economics for it.

Well, duh. He said in the 2016 debates that it made him smart. We already knew he was a tax cheat. He never tried to deny it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sidis said:

Well that’s kind of the thing, his lone policy accomplishment was to further exacerbate the ridiculous tax policy that so overwhelmingly favors the ultra wealthy. who is in charge of the henhouse? That, along with serving Mitch up with Mitch’s judges was his entire role here. 

 

3 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

all these tax policies predate him.  and is a much bigger issue than any individual or political party.  blow the whole thing up and start over.

If I had to pick someone's taxes to go over with a fine tooth comb, I'd love to get a look at Steve Mnuchin's. As one wag put it, he puts the 'douche' in fiduciary. It's been reported that he's very transactional, similar to the President's view of the world. Very keen on preserving the old order of things or adapting it to tilt the advantage even more to his use. I imagine that he didn't go the fraudulent route that Trump did with respect to dodgy deductions, but even though the tax code has become so unwieldy, he's not going to budge for the average American. He's never had to deal with any. At least Warren and Co were willing to talk about income inequality in that respect, but I agree, the structure and policies are a large issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably?  100% certainty that he will brag of his tax avoidance as the hallmark of a savvy businessman.....very legal, very cool. 50% certainty he will complain that he hasn't  been awarded the Noble Prize in economics for it.

Not going to dig up the exact quote, but at one of his early rallies he boasted that he didn’t pay taxes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I would bet my life savings that at some point Trump tries to reenact the "because you'd be in jail" moment from the Hillary debates.  

Except it doesn't work this time because he IS in charge and Biden is NOT in jail.  It's wild how he is still acting like he's not the president and is running as a first time candidate again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Continental Op said:

Everyone should have a CPA who seems to struggle with the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.  I doubt we see @MillerEP again though.  He probably thought his article from monsterhunterinsider or whatever was some kind of mic drop even though it boils down to "HURRRRR DURRRR FAKE NEWWWS!!!!!!!!" 

No, I agree with the guy's blog. I'm assuming you didn't read it, so here's his recap:

You pay what you legally owe, and not a penny more, there isn't a real mechanism for paying it back if you do. If he did anything wrong we'd be hearing about it a long time ago. Does it seem low? Yes, but that's actually the norm. CPA's jobs are to protect their client's money, and "loopholes" exist for that reason. "Loopholes" were put there by congress over many decades to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. So his team of accountants are paid to find whose and save him money. Also, the NY Times never actually released any documents, so nobody has any way to verify if what they said is true or not, or if we're looking at only some claims or all of them. They claim they did it to "protect their source," because as the accountant who wrote the blog says, it's a Felony for them to release them. So we only have their word over Trump's in a classic he said she said. Which "conveniently" comes out a month away from election day, so you can imagine why many would be skeptical. 

 

I encourage you to read his blog post though. It's classic Shaggy.

Edited by MillerEP
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

No, I agree with the guy's blog. I'm assuming you didn't read it, so here's his recap:

You pay what you legally owe, and not a penny more, there isn't a real mechanism for paying it back if you do. If he did anything wrong we'd be hearing about it a long time ago. Does it seem low? Yes, but that's actually the norm. CPA's jobs are to protect their client's money, and "loopholes" exist for that reason. "Loopholes" were put there by congress over many decades to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. Also, the NY Times never actually released any documents, so nobody has any way to verify if what they said is true or not, or if we're looking at only some claims or all of them. They claim they did it to "protect their source," because as the accountant who wrote the blog says, it's a Felony for them to release them. So we only have their word over Trump's in a classic he said she said.

This is fucking embarrassing.

Are you for real?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

No, I agree with the guy's blog. I'm assuming you didn't read it, so here's his recap:

You pay what you legally owe, and not a penny more, there isn't a real mechanism for paying it back if you do. If he did anything wrong we'd be hearing about it a long time ago. Does it seem low? Yes, but that's actually the norm. CPA's jobs are to protect their client's money, and "loopholes" exist for that reason. "Loopholes" were put there by congress over many decades to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. So his team of accountants are paid to find whose and save him money. Also, the NY Times never actually released any documents, so nobody has any way to verify if what they said is true or not, or if we're looking at only some claims or all of them. They claim they did it to "protect their source," because as the accountant who wrote the blog says, it's a Felony for them to release them. So we only have their word over Trump's in a classic he said she said. Which "conveniently" comes out a month away from election day, so you can imagine why many would be skeptical. 

 

I encourage you to read his blog post though. It's classic Shaggy.

You're adorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MillerEP said:

No, I agree with the guy's blog. I'm assuming you didn't read it, so here's his recap:

You pay what you legally owe, and not a penny more, there isn't a real mechanism for paying it back if you do. If he did anything wrong we'd be hearing about it a long time ago. Does it seem low? Yes, but that's actually the norm. CPA's jobs are to protect their client's money, and "loopholes" exist for that reason. "Loopholes" were put there by congress over many decades to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. Also, the NY Times never actually released any documents, so nobody has any way to verify if what they said is true or not, or if we're looking at only some claims or all of them. They claim they did it to "protect their source," because as the accountant who wrote the blog says, it's a Felony for them to release them.

This isn't entirely correct. There is case law where aggressive use of structuring "loopholes" crossed the line from tax avoidance to tax evasion. A CPA that tries to get hyper technical to save his client every penny on taxes very well may be aiding tax evasion.

That guy doesn't seem to realize this, which is probably why is he isn't an accountant any longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This isn't entirely correct. There is case law where aggressive use of structuring "loopholes" crossed the line from tax avoidance to tax evasion. A CPA that tries to get hyper technical to save his client every penny on taxes very well may be aiding tax evasion.

That guy doesn't seem to realize this, which is probably why is he isn't an accountant any longer. 

He retired and started writing books, which is why his blog has that crazy name. I'm willing to listen if you can point out to me in his tax records where he did something illegal or incorrectly. I've been pretty clear on the board, I'm a super individual rights guy, not a Trumper or republican (I vote L most, and sometimes D, like I'll probably vote for Donna Imam). So I'm not blindly posting it as a supporter. I rarely dip my toe in the Cloak Room aside for the satire and memes page. I just happen to think it's convenient some supposed documents were leaked right before the election that none of us can see or point to, we have to take NYT's word on it, and yet it's supposed to be evidence of some malfeasance, but nobody can say what it is, other than "He's a bad man, or bad at business." I think the account brings up good points in his blog post. I'm not a big fan of taxes personally, so I'm a fan of paying as little as I can get away with legally. 

Alrighty, I'll see myself out.

Edited by MillerEP
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

18 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I thought "suckers" were the people that died in the military defending our country.  Now they are the people that cheat on their taxes also?  This is really confusing.

I think he meant the suckers are also the ones who don't cheat at their taxes.

11 hours ago, MidTexHorn said:

Because the Russian oligarchs/mob (same thing) recognize and know how to exploit an easy Mark when they find him 60,000,000 of them?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

He retired and started writing books, which is why his blog has that crazy name. I'm willing to listen if you can point out to me in his tax records where he did something illegal or incorrectly. I've been pretty clear on the board, I'm a super individual rights guy, not a Trumper or republican. So I'm not blindly posting it as a supporter. I rarely dip my toe in the Cloak Room aside for the satire and memes page. I just happen to think it's convenient some supposed documents were leaked right before the election that none of us can see or point to, we have to take NYT's word on it, and yet it's supposed to be evidence of some malfeasance, but nobody can say what it is, other than "He's a bad man, or bad at business."

Uh huh.

He is a bad human  being and he is bad at business. Him managing to both commit tax fraud and also lose gobs of money, an impressive feat, would not be surprising given those facts. But you're right, he could, you know, just release his taxes like every other presidential candidate since the 70's and prove the NYT wrong. Huh, wonder why he hasn't done that? 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

He retired and started writing books, which is why his blog has that crazy name. I'm willing to listen if you can point out to me in his tax records where he did something illegal or incorrectly. I've been pretty clear on the board, I'm a super individual rights guy, not a Trumper or republican (I vote L most, and sometimes D, like I'll probably vote for Donna Imam). So I'm not blindly posting it as a supporter. I rarely dip my toe in the Cloak Room aside for the satire and memes page. I just happen to think it's convenient some supposed documents were leaked right before the election that none of us can see or point to, we have to take NYT's word on it, and yet it's supposed to be evidence of some malfeasance, but nobody can say what it is, other than "He's a bad man, or bad at business." I think the account brings up good points in his blog post. I'm not a big fan of taxes personally, so I'm a fan of paying as little as I can get away with legally. 

I'm pretty sure paying your daughter, that you employ, a separate $700K consulting fee is decent evidence of some malfeasance.  that's just my opinion tho 

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Uh huh.

He is a bad human  being and he is bad at business. Him managing to both commit tax fraud and also lose gobs of money, which is an impressive feat, would not be surprising given those facts. But you're right, he could, you know, just release his taxes like every other presidential candidate since the 70's and prove the NYT wrong. Huh, wonder why he hasn't done that? 

1234.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

He retired and started writing books, which is why his blog has that crazy name. I'm willing to listen if you can point out to me in his tax records where he did something illegal or incorrectly. I've been pretty clear on the board, I'm a super individual rights guy, not a Trumper or republican. So I'm not blindly posting it as a supporter. I rarely dip my toe in the Cloak Room aside for the satire and memes page. I just happen to think it's convenient some supposed documents were leaked right before the election that none of us can see or point to, we have to take NYT's word on it, and yet it's supposed to be evidence of some malfeasance, but nobody can say what it is, other than "He's a bad man, or bad at business."

Quote
"Ms. Trump had been an executive officer of the Trump companies that received profits from and paid the consulting fees for both projects — meaning she appears to have been treated as a consultant on the same hotel deals that she helped manage as part of her job at her father's business."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/ivanka-trump-donald-trump-tacves/index.html

That allowed his company to employ her as an executive officer and then write off her consulting fees at the same time. That isn't CPA kung fu. That's double dipping tax fraud.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I can see why he is a former accountant. You probably shouldn't get your advice from that guy. 

Well once he mentioned he was retired I thought ‘angry old white guy’, kept reading and wasn’t disappointed.  Target demographic.  He also said ‘I’ll keep this simple’ before rambling on.  

Edited by Homercles
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The problem is that if the reality is as reported, the president is at least either terrible at business and in dire financial condition and therefore subject to outside influence by creditors, or cheating on his taxes and very likely both. 
 

This, for the 1000th time.  Those are your choices.  He's either a criminal, or totally inept at the one thing he is supposed to be good at.  Pick. And yes, "both" is an option.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

No shit.

 

We did. 

 

But what this post pre-supposes is that's bad. And more importantly - that's not really the problem. The problem is that if the reality is as reported, the president is at least either terrible at business and in dire financial condition and therefore subject to outside influence by creditors, or cheating on his taxes and very likely both. 
 

A classic "he said she said" is a situation where two people with equal credibility maintain opposite accounts of an event and no mechanism exists to determine which is true. None of those conditions hold here. 
First, the mechanism does exist - the president can release the returns as all others have, and despite his insistence to the contrary no law prevents him from doing so, assuming that he's actually under audit. He actually promised to release them repeatedly, but of course he didn't
Second - They aren't actually opposite stories - the president has had multiple and inconsistent reactions.
Third - The credibility of the two aren't the same. Do you maintain they are? I grant that it's possible the NYT was fed bad information and that fact checking failed or they ran with an irresponsible story, But if they had, don't you think the Trump team would be producing verifiable information that refute the story (see #1)? Do you think that the NYT creating the biggest story of the year out of whole cloth is equally likely as this president lying?

Look - it goes without saying that this was a hit and timed to be a hit. If not planned by the times it was planned by someone somewhere. But that doesn't bear on the factuality of the story.

Can’t wait to see how the totally-not-a-Trumper  logics and reasons himself out of this.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After everything we have had to watch this guy do, there is no way in hell you could convince me Trump didn't regularly cheat (and cheat hard) on his taxes.   I'd go further to bet that 400 of those 500 companies are shells with no other purpose than to hide tax fraud.  He sees himself as some sort of genius.  It's not genius. The only game he has is breaking the law and doing it so much, so frequently that no one can keep score.   He's a cat with a diarrhea, crapping and covering as fast as he can.

 

 

Or he thinks he's covering.   New York is about to show him otherwise.  He and his whole little family of grifters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the same thing he's done throughout his presidency.  So much of our system relies on people acting on the up and up.  If you literally don't care about those things, invariably some of your bad acts will slip through previously unexploited cracks.  

 

So he makes a joke of the taxes he pays, says it's the god's honest truth, and sees what flies.  He gets sued *all the time* for unpaid taxes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/05/19/trumps-tax-troubles/84543538/

Sometimes he just doesn't get sued. His whole gamble is that his wrongs are bigger plusses for him than attorneys fees and fines are bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

His claimed abandonment loss on his casino business which resulted in his NOL carryback and $70 MM tax refund appears highly questionable. To take that loss, he had to really abandon his interests, but in the bankruptcy, he ended up receiving shares in the restructured business after he abandoned his interest. That's a problem and why the Joint Committee on Taxation hasn't officially approved his refund. That amount could come due at any time plus interest.

This, but unfortunately, you try and explain this to his rubes (and also most people in general) their eyes glaze over.  Taxes are fucking complicated and getting into the weeds isn't going to convince anyone.  I agree that the best way to play this is to point to how bad of a business man he is in reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This, but unfortunately, you try and explain this to his rubes (and also most people in general) their eyes glaze over.  Taxes are fucking complicated and getting into the weeds isn't going to convince anyone.  I agree that the best way to play this is to point to how bad of a business man he is in reality.

Totally agree with you on the politics of this. Biden's focus should be that the report shows Trump doesn't pay any taxes and its because he's a horrible business person. He turns millions into bankruptcy.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

No, I agree with the guy's blog. I'm assuming you didn't read it, so here's his recap:

You pay what you legally owe, and not a penny more, there isn't a real mechanism for paying it back if you do. If he did anything wrong we'd be hearing about it a long time ago. Does it seem low? Yes, but that's actually the norm. CPA's jobs are to protect their client's money, and "loopholes" exist for that reason. "Loopholes" were put there by congress over many decades to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. So his team of accountants are paid to find whose and save him money. Also, the NY Times never actually released any documents, so nobody has any way to verify if what they said is true or not, or if we're looking at only some claims or all of them. They claim they did it to "protect their source," because as the accountant who wrote the blog says, it's a Felony for them to release them. So we only have their word over Trump's in a classic he said she said. Which "conveniently" comes out a month away from election day, so you can imagine why many would be skeptical. 

 

I encourage you to read his blog post though. It's classic Shaggy.

I did read the blog post.  I'm sure the IRS has been auditing Trump nonstop, even prior to his entry in the political world, because he did nothing wrong.  I'm sure Trump refuses to release his tax returns like presidents have been doing for quite some time because he's done nothing wrong.  I've forgotten more about the Internal Revenue Code than you'll ever know so any discussion with you on the topic is probably a waste of my time and yours.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This, but unfortunately, you try and explain this to his rubes (and also most people in general) their eyes glaze over.  Taxes are fucking complicated and getting into the weeds isn't going to convince anyone.  I agree that the best way to play this is to point to how bad of a business man he is in reality.

His entire base buys into his bullshit about how China is paying bigly due to all his tough tariffs, nevermind that  US importers and consumers actually absorb the tax. Again, none of this shit matters and it really isn't going to change the way anybody feels about Trump (pro or con). If Trumps base was interested in the truth he would have never been elected. This is all largely theatre for the media. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

On a more serious note, I think it's a valid question.

Clearly, Russia is a kleptocracy.  There are a number of such kleptocracies in the world.

But I think because Russia/The Soviet Union was a superpower not that long ago, the kleptocracy is of a more "legitimate" character and the kleptocrats more socially and internationally acceptable than in other cases.  Part of that is that the Russian economy is huge and the criminal activities that create the kleptocrats are more obscure than in a small kleptocracy, like say Venezuela or maybe some of the African countries where the criminal activity is centered around one thing, like oil.

Add in that the Russian leader is a kleptocrat and closely associated with kleptocrats so that they carry out his policies and vice versa and you have kind of an internationally insidious criminal influence.  Add in that Russia and Putin have reasons for wanting to accrue power at the expense of the US and it's pretty toxic.

Also, their main international criminal activity is money laundering and providing money to illegitimate ventures.  Their home country doesn't care about the criminal source of their money, but other countries care about its destination, at least.  Still it's hard to prosecute when the home country doesn't care.

Trump has an affinity for them because of their money.  We all know that he thinks anyone that's rich is smart and good.  He also admires Putin's autocratic tendencies. So it's just perfect for him in so many ways.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mind truly boggles that people (a) crow about his tax return not detailing Russian involvement and (b) believe that his ability to net out income with massive losses is not only perfectly common but couldn't possibly be illegal.

Any competent CPA willing to work for Trump is not going to list "Boris Natashakov" as a source of funds when a more complicated and seemingly innocuous path is available.  Beyond that, these people are supporting the most egregious regressive tax structure possible and essentially saying "cool, cool, I send 20% of $100K to the IRS and Trump sends 0% of $1B, man I wish I were that smart".

He actually could murder someone on 5th Avenue and 35%-40% of the country would not care.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Never understand calling weak men pussies. Pussies can take all kinds of pounding, crank out babies reline themselves monthly etc x100.

Flick me in the nuts and I'm in serious pain. Nutsacks are not so durable at all.

The notion is not that you use your balls as a weapon. A bull has large balls and is terrifying in contrast to the cow. 

It's a sexist metaphor to be sure. The answer about the vagina addresses that just by pointing to the formidable women of the world. I know plenty of women smarter and/or tougher than me whom I am merely stronger than.

But the metaphor of balls is not a litteral anatomical argument. Accept the metaphor and then ask, what has balls gotten us other than a poorly run carnage fest?

Forgive the pedantic post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8782463/Brad-Parscale-investigation-stealing-40M-Trumps-2020-campaign.html

 

Quote

Donald Trump's demoted campaign boss Brad Parscale is under investigation for 'stealing' between $25-$40 million from Trump's 2020 presidential campaign, well-placed sources exclusively told DailyMail.com.

The 44-year-old is also being investigated for 'pocketing' nearly another $10 million from the Republican National Committee, the insiders added.   

The revelation comes as Parscale was involuntarily committed to a hospital by Fort Lauderdale police on Sunday following a concerning episode at his $2.4 million Florida home. 

 

Quote

DailyMail.com revealed on Monday that his wife Candice Parscale was seen screaming and fleeing the home in just her bikini, telling a passerby: 'I think my husband just killed himself'. 

As many as 20 police cars and boats swarmed the waterfront property after the distraught wife told cops she heard a revolver being cocked and a 'loud boom' after Parscale began 'ranting and raving'.

Candice told police that Parscale had been 'stressed out for the past two weeks and has made suicidal comments throughout the week to shoot himself', according to an officer's report.  

A Trump insider explained to DailyMail.com that Parscale went into a tailspin after he was demoted in July and replaced by his former number two, Bill Stepien, as he's worried about the 'gravy train' ending and keeping up with his lavish lifestyle. 

 

Spoiler

Steve Guest, the RNC Rapid Response Director, said in a statement to DailyMail.com: 'This report is categorically false. There is no audit or investigation of Brad at the RNC.'  

It was widely reported that the President lost faith in Parscale after a much-trumpeted campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma drew a dismal crowd, relegating him to his previous role in digital and data strategy.

The well-placed source said just days later, Trump ordered an audit of the spending of the Republican National Committee.

The probe appeared to be geared towards examining Parscale's handling of the campaign's money, the source said, putting the 6ft 8in aide under 'tremendous pressure'. 

The source explained: 'The thing about what Parscale did with the finances of the campaign could actually be totally legal. 

'But Brad has tons of bills since his lifestyle picked up, and he sees the gravy train coming to an end.'    

Parscale seemed to try to put it out of his mind, as DailyMail.com published exclusive images of Parscale, his wife and several friends drinking beer and liquor by their pool days after his demotion.

Our source said such scenes were becoming routine for Parscale who was spotted stumbling out of bars in Fort Lauderdale, where he and his wife own three swish condos worth a combined $5 million.

The couple have at least $300,000 worth of cars - including a 2017 Ferrari, a Range Rover and a BMW X6 - while public records suggest Parscale has owned as many as eight boats. 

Their spending spree represents a remarkable turnaround for the college basketball standout who lost his family's company to bankruptcy in the mid-2000s but rebuilt his finances after working for Trump in various digital guises since 2011.

Campaign records show Parscale was making $15,000 a month as Trump's electioneering guru.

Gee, imagine that.  

Edited by Francisco 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The notion is not that you use your balls as a weapon. A bull has large balls and is terrifying in contrast to the cow. 

It's a sexist metaphor to be sure. The answer about the vagina addresses that just by pointing to the formidable women of the world. I know plenty of women smarter and/or tougher than me whom I am merely stronger than.

But the metaphor of balls is not a litteral anatomical argument. Accept the metaphor and then ask, what has balls gotten us other than a poorly run carnage fest?

Forgive the pedantic post.

Continuing the OT pedantry, it seems much of the world's sex/gender and sexual orthodoxy/pathology flows from the male penetrates/female is penetrated concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Can’t wait to see how the totally-not-a-Trumper  logics and reasons himself out of this.

Well you see, Trump is totally innocent and a great business man because.....what about Hunter Biden and Hillary?   How come none of you libtards want to talk about their taxes?  Did Hillary or Hunter take any deductions?  Yes?  Well checkmate motherfucker !  Checkmate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Trump has an affinity for them because of their money.  We all know that he thinks anyone that's rich is smart and good.  He also admires Putin's autocratic tendencies. So it's just perfect for him in so many ways.



"We have all the funding we need out of Russia."  ---- Eric Trump to a golf writer, 2014

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

So we only have their word over Trump's in a classic he said she said.


True. But one of the actors in this he said/she said scenario could end all of this by releasing the tax returns that he, himself, said on nine different occasions before the 2016 election he would do. That would be the end of the story and really ramp up the "New York Times is fake news" meme that he keeps returning to.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...