The Former Trump Presidency Thread

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:57 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
Chaz wrote:then writes the donation off on his taxes, lowering his tax burden by some amount.
He lowers his tax burden by the amount that he would have had to pay on that $400k. In other words, like for every other citizen (including me), if you donate your income to charity, we don't treat it as your income anymore. Because you donated it to charity.

The idea that someone should pay income tax on income they are giving to charity is contrary to how we operate.

I mean, I dislike Trump as much as the next one, but some of these claims are getting to be a bit much. OF COURSE he's going to write off (to the extent that he is able, which may not be much if he has other sources of income still) income that he's giving away to charity. I don't consider that "costing the tax payer money" any more than it costs the taxpayer money when I deduct my own charitable contributions.

And the taxpayer pays my salary too, so it's effectively the exact same situation.

The thing is that it DOES cost the taxpayer more money than if he did not take it at all - which is what he had said he was going to do. Sure, by donating it to charity he does not pay tax on that money and that part is fine by me. The part that sucks is where the tax shrank by the $400K paid to him that he was going to "not take". While in the general scheme of things that amount is a drop in the federal bucket it still matters. If he truly allows the press to choose where it goes AND lets them let us know where it goes I might be fine with that. I don't want Brietbart choosing where he donates though.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:44 pm

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:50 pm

Remus West wrote:The thing is that it DOES cost the taxpayer more money than if he did not take it at all - which is what he had said he was going to do.

I'm not sure that he can legally do that.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:02 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Remus West wrote:The thing is that it DOES cost the taxpayer more money than if he did not take it at all - which is what he had said he was going to do.
I'm not sure that he can legally do that.

I'm not sure this President cares about what he can legally do.

coopasonic · Post by **coopasonic** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:03 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Remus West wrote:The thing is that it DOES cost the taxpayer more money than if he did not take it at all - which is what he had said he was going to do.
I'm not sure that he can legally do that.

Sure he can. You just don't cash the check. He goes down to payroll to pick up his check every Friday just like the rest of us, right?

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:11 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
Remus West wrote:The thing is that it DOES cost the taxpayer more money than if he did not take it at all - which is what he had said he was going to do.
I'm not sure that he can legally do that.

So why would that not be the announcement? Come out and say "I discovered it is not legal for the President to not take his pay so I will have to take it but to stay as close as possible to my campaign promise I will be donating it to the charity of the press corps choice." Instead he just quietly collected his pay and did not bring it up until it was noticed.

Honestly, of all the shit he is doing this one thing I care nearly not at all about. Dude got elected he can collect his pay or not without putting my panties in a bunch. Its the way he goes about everything that makes it feel so slimy. Like he was trying to get away with something. I think its the "intends to donate" part that bothers me. It sounds too much like my daughter when she gets caught doing something wrong. "I was just going to do this nice thing. Really." Difference is that she is not yet 5 years old and he is the POTUS. Also, it happens less and less with her as she gets older and it happens more and more with him as he continues to ruin the nation.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:14 pm

The one thing that IS legal is for him not to take the tax deduction for his donation.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:49 pm

But does anyone here actually believe that he has any intention of donating it? He knows that either everyone will have forgotten by then or won't care. And should it come up, he'll just ramble out some lies excuses reasons that his supporters will lap up and happily regurgitate. Oh, and probably throw around a bunch of misdirection.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:59 pm

stessier wrote:The one thing that IS legal is for him not to take the tax deduction for his donation.

But that's ridiculous. Why would we ask any public servant to donate their salary to charity, and then also pay income tax on that salary?

When I way that I don't know that it's legal, I mean that I know that I cannot come to work here and not get paid. I cannot volunteer my time here (which is what that would amount to do), working on stuff for the federal govt.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:03 pm

https://gop.com/president-trump-first-50-survey/

President Trump’s First 50 Days Approval Survey

Please let the President know your opinions on the following policy decisions:

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:19 pm

LordMortis wrote:https://gop.com/president-trump-first-50-survey/

President Trump’s First 50 Days Approval Survey

Please let the President know your opinions on the following policy decisions:

(Optional) Please specify anything you want to see President Trump address in the next 50 days that was not mentioned above.

His chronic inability to be truthful.

Now, it wants my name and email address. I think that will invite death squads at some future date. Rip, can I get your email address?

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:20 pm

TheMix wrote:But does anyone here actually believe that he has any intention of donating it? He knows that either everyone will have forgotten by then or won't care. And should it come up, he'll just ramble out some lies excuses reasons that his supporters will lap up and happily regurgitate. Oh, and probably throw around a bunch of misdirection.

I'm sure he read on a Sovereign Citizen blog that taking a salary as President exposes his finances to a FOIA request.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:44 pm

Trump is the Energizer Bunny of wiretapping claims:

President Donald Trump finally addressed his claim that his White House predecessor wiretapped him Friday, joking that he and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had "something in common, perhaps."

The President was asked by a German reporter why his White House had cited a Fox News report that claimed that the British surveillance agency GCHQ had been used to wiretap Trump Tower during the election campaign.

He did not apologize to the British government after it said that the report of UK surveillance was "ridiculous."

Turning to Merkel, who was angry to find out after leaks by Edward Snowden that the US National Security Agency had tapped her phone, Trump said "at least we have something in common".

Trump appeared to be irritated to be asked the question by the German reporter, in the latest twist of a two-week controversy ignited by early morning tweets by the President that claimed that President Barack Obama had ordered wiretaps against him last year.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:01 pm

msteelers wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote:Right... But that's exactly what I'm saying.
No. This all started because you claimed CNN and the media are biased against Trump, and then pointed to an opinion piece to back up your claim.

I do think they're biased against trump. And I gave many more examples than an opinion piece. If you think that opinion piece was there only one then you didn't read what I wrote. And that's fine, I also don't have time to peruse every comment here.

I single out CNN because I used to use their website more frequently for news (less and less over the years now) so I actually have watched this play out with them. I occasionally peruse the nyt but I haven't seen the same problem there. I singled CNN out because they have seemed to love this tiff with trump. And they love themselves and love self promoting (for instance once claiming only four of the five major networks were allowed into something the white House did... Yes that's right they put themselves up there with cbs, abc, fox, and NBC... Wow... Not really related but still wow). From my perspective they have been discredited quite a bit the last couple years and that's a shame. We need more solid reporting not less. I can single them out because I'm not sitting from the hip with them. I've watched it.

For the media in general I think rm9 hit it more on the head than I did. It's about sensationalism. I don't think they inherently hate trump as a whole (although some clearly have a liberal angle on purpose just like fox news has a conservative angle) I think they inherently want clicks and views. So they sensationalize things. Like his taxes and putting in his own appointments. I think they are anti trump right now because it's feeding right into more views. Same reason Maddow pulled her stunt. Same reason they ran with the Clinton stories. They're in the entertainment business not the news business. And in that regard... They are actually at risk of becoming fake news... Playing right into Trump's game.

I had no intention of defending trump. The guy's unfit to be our president. But... Some criticisms of him just really are not based in reality. And the media has been running with them.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:45 pm

Chrisoc13 wrote: I had no intention of defending trump. The guy's unfit to be our president. But... Some criticisms of him just really are not based in reality. And the media has been running with them.

Criticism of media standards is important. FWIW, I wrote off cable news long ago, and I rely on a mixture of long-form magazine journalism and a wide variety of immediate internet updates.

But mainstream media could be 3x or 4x or 25x as bad as it is, and Trump would still be an extinction-level risk for everything that makes America great.

Chrisoc13 · Post by **Chrisoc13** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:48 pm

Holman wrote:
Chrisoc13 wrote: I had no intention of defending trump. The guy's unfit to be our president. But... Some criticisms of him just really are not based in reality. And the media has been running with them.
But mainstream media could be 3x or 4x or 25x as bad as it is, and Trump would still be an extinction-level risk for everything that makes America great.

I don't disagree with this.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:10 pm

https://twitter.com/brentgofftv/status/ ... 1928032256

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:38 pm

Holman wrote:
https://twitter.com/brentgofftv/status/ ... 1928032256

US Media: "Wait...we can do that? This changes everything!"

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:56 am

On some level, I almost admire the Trump administration's ability to motivate people to say what they really think about things.

The claim that GCHQ carried out surveillance on Donald Trump during the election campaign is "arrant nonsense", Rick Ledgett, the number two at the US National Security Agency (NSA) has told the BBC in an exclusive interview.

A commentator on Fox News had claimed that GCHQ had carried out the activity on America's behalf, but Mr Ledgett said the claim showed "a complete lack of understanding in how the relationship works".

Each side, he said, was prohibited from asking the other partner to carry out acts that they were prohibited from doing.

He also said the huge risks to the UK in carrying out such an act would completely outweigh any benefits.

"Of course they wouldn't do it. It would be epically stupid," he told me.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:11 am

If anyone's curious, here's the official RFP (request for proposal) for Trump's wall. (click on "Solicitation 1" and you can download the actual PDF).

The parts that I found amusing:

2) The wall design shall be physically imposing in height. The Government's nominal concept is for a 30-foot high wall. Offerors should consider this height, but designs with heights of at least 18 feet may be acceptable. Designs with heights of less than 18 feet are not acceptable.

7) The north side of wall (i.e. U.S. facing side) shall be aesthetically pleasing in color, anti-climb texture, etc., to be consistent with general surrounding environment. The manufacturing/construction process should facilitate changes in color and texture pursuant to site specific requirements.

So it needs to be scary...but good looking on the US side.

Oh, and the RFP was posted yesterday, and has a response date of March 29. So we can be sure that either a) we get a completely rushed proposal, or b) Trump already has someone in mind. Although it's more likely that we see a modification come sometime next week that either extends the due date, or (more likely) cancels the RFP.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:19 am

The bidding will probably come down to BarronBarriers, Eric Border Construction, or DJTjrScaryFence, all good companies with the right connections to build really an amazing multi-billion dollar wall, just the greatest multi-billion dollar wall.

Aesthetics by IvankaWall.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:57 am

I assumed it would come from Wallmart......

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:25 am

Depends on whether or not Walmart will give Donald Jr. a kickback. The Trumps have 4 years to milk this cash cow, and you've better be damn sure they're getting up early each morning and looking for the biggest pail they can find.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:25 am

I'm fairly confident they bypass the pail and go straight to the teet.

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:46 pm

Skinypupy wrote:
Holman wrote:
https://twitter.com/brentgofftv/status/ ... 1928032256
US Media: "Wait...we can do that? This changes everything!"

At work right now... does anyone know what the response was?

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:12 pm

Freyland wrote:
Skinypupy wrote:
Holman wrote:
https://twitter.com/brentgofftv/status/ ... 1928032256
US Media: "Wait...we can do that? This changes everything!"
At work right now... does anyone know what the response was?

I read that she asked several questions, including this one at the same time, he tried answering the others, but just ignored this one. She should have focused on this one, couldn't dodge it then.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 5:46 pm

Rip wrote:I assumed it would come from Wallmart......

OK, that's pretty good.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:28 pm

I didn't even catch that.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:49 pm

But who watches the watchers?

The political appointee charged with keeping watch over Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides has offered unsolicited advice so often that after just four weeks on the job, Pruitt has shut him out of many staff meetings, according to two senior administration officials.

At the Pentagon, they’re privately calling the former Marine officer and fighter pilot who’s supposed to keep his eye on Defense Secretary Jim Mattis “the commissar,” according to a high-ranking defense official with knowledge of the situation. It’s a reference to Soviet-era Communist Party officials who were assigned to military units to ensure their commanders remained loyal.

Most members of President Trump’s Cabinet do not yet have leadership teams in place or even nominees for top deputies. But they do have an influential coterie of senior aides installed by the White House who are charged — above all — with monitoring the secretaries’ loyalty, according to eight officials in and outside the administration.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:28 am

Apparently a week of complete crazy can drive the idiot index down to 37%. New WAG - the Gallup will hit a hard bottom somewhere near 30% and will go sideways. For the first time we will get a true sense of the true deplorable level.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:31 am

I have to say, the dollar signs were clever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ant ... 9d29dcb8c6

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:48 am

LordMortis wrote:I have to say, the dollar signs were clever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ant ... 9d29dcb8c6

I dunno, I think they could've squeezed in a photoshop of Steve Bannon beating a puppy.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:25 am

I don't think people help their cause when they whip out the Nazi Germany comparison though. I've probably brought it up myself in the past, but I do think it is a bit over the top.

Now, if you put up billboards calling him a mentally unstable child, I will readily agree.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:31 am

LordMortis wrote:I have to say, the dollar signs were clever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ant ... 9d29dcb8c6

Apparently the Jews have taken a break from vandalizing cemeteries in order to send death threats to the artist.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:17 am

tgb wrote:
LordMortis wrote:I have to say, the dollar signs were clever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ant ... 9d29dcb8c6

Apparently the Jews have taken a break from vandalizing cemeteries in order to send death threats to the artist.

If they did I could understand. Diminishing just what a monster Hitler was by comparing Trump to him is more unsettling than anything Trump has actually done. I don't think people realize that they are teaching young people not so much how bad Trump is as making Hitler seem like an everyday bad guy.

In reality Trump, Putin, Castro, Kim Jong-Un, and all the Iranian mullahs combined couldn't hold a candle to the evil of Hitler. But you wouldn't know it by the way everything is godwinized these days.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:48 am

Rip wrote:
If they did I could understand. Diminishing just what a monster Hitler was by comparing Trump to him is more unsettling than anything Trump has actually done.

We're less than a quarter of the way through his first year and you're already writing passive admissions that Trump is a screw up.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:51 am

Rip wrote:In reality Trump, Putin, Castro, Kim Jong-Un, and all the Iranian mullahs combined couldn't hold a candle to the evil of Hitler. But you wouldn't know it by the way everything is godwinized these days.

Bannon, on the other hand...

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:53 am

I'm pretty sure the Kim Jong dynasty is close to Hitler status. They've been mass murdering their own people for decades. They have the numbers.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:56 am

So the fair thing is to maintain a distinction between the merely opportunistic hatemongers in the administration and those who are fully committed racist ideologues. Got it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Mar 20, 2017 11:08 am

hepcat wrote:I'm pretty sure the Kim Jong dynasty is close to Hitler status. They've been mass murdering their own people for decades. They have the numbers.

They're currently Pol Pot level at best. And remember, Hitler comes in third to Stalin and Mao Zedong.

And to paraphrase Eddie Izzard, most of the others murdered 'their own' people.