Trump's First 100 Days

[hollodero]

(03-14-2017, 09:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Rachel Maddow claims to have Trump's tax returns and will discuss them on air tonight at 9.

I'll be watching MTV's the Challenge, but if someone watches, let us know what happens.

Of course I didn't watch either, there are limits, but is the expression "storm in a glass of water" used in the US? If not, it's a pretty obvious metaphor.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-14-2017, 09:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Rachel Maddow claims to have Trump's tax returns and will discuss them on air tonight at 9.

I'll be watching MTV's the Challenge, but if someone watches, let us know what happens.

He paid $38 million on $150 million in 2005.  She may have over promised.

[Griever]

looks like trump indeed lied

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/14/politics/wiretapping-congressional-investigation/index.html

could obama sue if he felt petty enough?

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2017, 09:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: He paid $38 million on $150 million in 2005.  She may have over promised.

So underwhelming. I heard Morning Joe was floating around this question: did Trump leak these for a positive distraction? Pick a relatively good year (paid a 25%) and let that be the distraction as health care and the wire tapping shit is a bust.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-15-2017, 01:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So underwhelming. I heard Morning Joe was floating around this question: did Trump leak these for a positive distraction? Pick a relatively good year (paid a 25%) and let that be the distraction as health care and the wire tapping shit is a bust.

I would say 100% he did.

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2017, 01:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So underwhelming. I heard Morning Joe was floating around this question: did Trump leak these for a positive distraction? Pick a relatively good year (paid a 25%) and let that be the distraction as health care and the wire tapping shit is a bust.

(03-15-2017, 02:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would say 100% he did.

Absolutely this is what happened. The stamp on the form was client copy, all I'm saying.

[*bfine32*]

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2017, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely this is what happened. The stamp on the form was client copy, all I'm saying.

Plus did you notice the size of the paper they were on?

[Dill]

(03-15-2017, 01:34 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So underwhelming. I heard Morning Joe was floating around this question: did Trump leak these for a positive distraction? Pick a relatively good year (paid a 25%) and let that be the distraction as health care and the wire tapping shit is a bust.

I would say she made a number of good points, in her report, including the fact that Trump only paid 25% while in a 34% bracket at the time, and that he and his cronies will be pushing tax policies which benefited them. And I am very curious about the business dealings in Tajikstan now.

The point, I think was to increase pressure on Trump to release his taxes.

I do wish she had not hyped the show saying she had "Trump's Tax Returns", implying that she had the ones that really count--the recent, complete forms which show his foreign holdings/transactions/obligations. That riled up all the other journalists.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-16-2017, 02:54 AM)Dill Wrote: I would say she made a number of good points, in her report, including the fact that Trump only paid 25% while in a 34% bracket at the time, and that he and his cronies will be pushing tax policies which benefited them. And I am very curious about the business dealings in Tajikstan now.

The point, I think was to increase pressure on Trump to release his taxes.

I do wish she had not hyped the show saying she had "Trump's Tax Returns", implying that she had the ones that really count--the recent, complete forms which show his foreign holdings/transactions/obligations. That riled up all the other journalists.

25% on his gross, not his adjusted right?  I think I read Obama paid 19% on his last one.  

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/324202-fox-news-poll-trump-approval-rating-drops-5-points

Quote:President Trump's job approval rating has dropped 5 points in Fox News surveys since last month.

According to a poll released Wednesday, 43 percent of voters approve of the job the president is doing and 51 percent disapprove.

In February, 48 percent approved and 47 percent disapproved of the president's performance.
The poll also finds that 48 percent of voters feel the economy is getting better, up from 37 percent in an October 2016 poll. Another 29 percent feel like the economy is getting worse, and 19 percent think it's staying the same.


Forty-seven percent of voters approve of Trump's handling of the economy and 45 percent approve of his handling of terrorism.

On immigration, 41 percent approve of how the president is dealing with the issue. Only 35 percent approve of the president's handling of healthcare, and just 33 percent approve of how he is dealing with U.S.-Russian affairs.
A majority of voters, 54 percent, disapprove of the president's revised travel ban, and just 34 percent think the executive order makes the country safer.

When asked about Trump's tweeting habits, just 16 percent of voters said they approved. Half of voters disapprove of the president's tweeting and 32 percent "wish he'd be more careful" with what he tweets.
The poll was conducted from March 12 to 14 among 1,008 registered voters. Its margin of error is 3 percentage points.

Heck of a job so far when even FOX News polls show him sinking.

[Dill]

(03-16-2017, 08:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 25% on his gross, not his adjusted right?  I think I read Obama paid 19% on his last one.  

His last one?

Well we can see that Tax form right here, including things like donations to charity.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Blog/Obamas%202015%20Taxes.pdf

Where is Trump's 2015 form?

[GMDino]

Quote:Trump’s defense of his wiretap conspiracy theory goes horribly awry


I’ve tried to keep an open mind about Donald Trump’s wiretap conspiracy theory. The idea that President Obama ordered illegal surveillance of the then-Republican candidate obviously seems ridiculous, but it’s plausible to me that some members of Team Trump had communications that were caught up in a legitimate, proper investigation.

But every time I try to take at least part of the story seriously, Trump shares some thoughts on the matter, which make his allegations sound crazy all over again. Last night, for example, Fox News aired a new interview between Tucker Carlson and the president.

Quote:CARLSON: On March 4th, 6:45 in the morning, you are down in Florida, and you tweet, “The former administration wiretapped me, surveilled me at Trump Tower during the last election.” How did you find out? You said “I just found out,” how did you learn that?

TRUMP: I had been reading about things. I read in – I think it was January 20th, a New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping. There was an article, I think they used that exact term. I read other things. I watched your friend Bret Baier the day previous, where he was talking about certain, very complex sets of things happening, and wiretapping. I said “Wait a minute, there’s a lot of wiretapping being talked about.” I have been seeing a lot of things.

Let’s pause here for a moment. To hear the president tell it, when he told the world that he’d “just found out” about an illegal surveillance operation launched against him by Barack Obama, that was apparently a lie. The New York Times mentioned wiretapping in January, and Fox’s Bret Baier mentioned it again more recently, but neither report made any mention of Obama targeting Trump.

Also note Trump’s vague references to “things”: he’s read some “things,” he’s read “other things,” and he’s “seeing a lot of things.” This wouldn’t work for a child delivering a book report about a book he hasn’t read, and it sounds even worse when a president is defending accusations of an illegal espionage operation.

The interview continued:

Quote:CARLSON: Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it? Don’t you devalue your words when you can’t provide evidence?

TRUMP: Well, because the New York Times wrote about it. Not that I respect the New York Times. I call it the failing New York Times. But they did write on January 20 using the word “wiretap.”

This isn’t coherent. Why did Trump share a conspiracy theory he couldn’t prove? Because two months ago, a newspaper he doesn’t trust published a piece that offered literally no proof to substantiate his conspiracy theory. Maybe the president didn’t understand the question.

This, however, was probably the most striking exchange:

Quote:CARLSON: Right, but you are the president. You have the ability to gather all the evidence you want.

TRUMP: I do, I do, but I think that frankly, we have a lot right now, and I think if you watch – if you watched the Bret Baier and what he was saying, and what he was talking about and how he mentioned the word wiretap, you would feel very confident that you could mention the name. He mentioned it, and other people mentioned it.

This is alarmingly nutty. For months, Trump has looked past the official information available to the president through his own administration, preferring instead to rely on reports from news outlets he doesn’t seem to fully understand. In this case, Tucker Carlson tried to remind him that he has access to real evidence that could tell him whether his conspiracy theories are true or not, and Trump immediately responded by pointing to a Fox News report – which once again, did not in any way bolster his conspiracy theory.

The president went on to say that in his conspiracy-theory tweets, he put the word “wiretap” in quotes. “Nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that’s a very important thing,” Trump said.

A Slate report added, “It is hard to fully describe how clownish the president of the United States looks during this portion of the interview.”

If the goal of the appearance was to renew fears about Trump’s stability, he succeeded beautifully.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-defense-his-wiretap-conspiracy-theory-goes-horribly-awry?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[Griever]

(03-16-2017, 03:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-defense-his-wiretap-conspiracy-theory-goes-horribly-awry?cid=sm_fb_maddow

what a nutjob

not much else can be said, really

[*michaelsean*]

(03-16-2017, 02:52 PM)Dill Wrote: His last one?

Well we can see that Tax form right here, including things like donations to charity.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/Blog/Obamas%202015%20Taxes.pdf

Where is Trump's 2015 form?

I don't know what that has to do with anything.  I'm just pointing out that it's 25% of his gross, not his adjusted.

[Dill]

(03-16-2017, 04:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know what that has to do with anything.  I'm just pointing out that it's 25% of his gross, not his adjusted.

Hard to understand what is being pointed out at all, when one president makes his tax returns available, and the other, with millions of dollars in foreign transactions and loans,  refuses to.

[GMDino]

"Apology Tour 2.0"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/us-makes-formal-apology-britain-white-house-accuses-gchq-wiretapping/

Quote:US makes formal apology to Britain after White House accuses GCHQ of wiretapping Trump Tower


17 MARCH 2017 • 12:48PM
The US has made a formal apology to Britain after the White House accused GCHQ of helping Barack Obama spy on Donald Trump in the White House.

Sean Spicer, Mr Trump's press secretary, repeated a claim on Thursday evening – initially made by an analyst on Fox News - that GCHQ was used by Mr Obama to spy on Trump Tower in the lead-up to last November's election.

The comments prompted a furious response from GCHQ, which in a break from normal practice issued a public statement: "Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitanoabout GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wiretapping' against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored."
 

Intelligence sources told The Telegraph that both Mr Spicer and General McMaster, the US National Security Adviser, have apologised over the claims. "The apology came direct from them," a source said. 

General McMaster contacted Sir Mark Lyall Grant, the Prime Minister's National Security adviser, to apologise for the comments. Mr Spicer conveyed his apology through Sir Kim Darroch, Britain's US ambassador.

Mr Spicer had earlier repeated claims that Barack Obama used GCHQ to spy on Mr Trump before he became president.

"He’s able to get it and there’s no American fingerprints on it," Mr Spicer said of the intelligence supposedly provided to Mr Obama by Britain.

"Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command - he didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice - he used GCHQ."


Mrs May's official spokesman said the White House has assured the Government that allegations that British intelligence services spied on Donald Trump will not be repeated.

The Government "made clear" to the US that the "ridiculous" claims should be ignored and received assurances in return that they will not be repeated, showing that the administration does not give them any credence, Mrs May's spokesman said.

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, described Mr Spicer's comments as "shameful".
"Trump is compromising the vital UK-US security relationship to try to cover his own embarrassment," he said. "This harms our and US security."

Susan Rice, National Security Adviser for former president Barack Obama, tweeted:

Quote:[/url] Follow
Susan Rice 

@AmbassadorRice
The cost of falsely blaming our closest ally for something this consequential cannot be overstated. And from the PODIUM. https://twitter.com/andrewbeatty/status/842492580038430720 …
10:29 PM - 16 Mar 2017

The president is under increasing pressure [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/06/donald-trump-wiretapping-row-did-obama-order-surveillance-facts/]to justify his claims, which his opponents charge calls the whole integrity of his administration into question. 

In an attempt to provide credibility to the claims, Mr Spicer quoted from a series of articles which discussed surveillance.

He referenced comments made earlier this week on Fox News TV by former judge Andrew Napolitano in relation to Mr Trump's controversial claim that wiretaps had been installed at his New York residence:

Last on Fox News, on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement:

Quote:Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI and he didn't use the Department of Justice.

He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British intelligence-finding agency. So, simply by having two people saying to them president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump's conversations, involving president-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on this. Putting the published accounts and common-sense together, this leads to a lot.

British officials were quick to rubbish Mr Napolitano's claims earlier this week. A government source reportedly said the claim was "totally untrue and quite frankly absurd".

The British official told Reuters that under British law, GCHQ "can only gather intelligence for national security purposes" and noted that a US election "clearly doesn't meet that criteria".

Mr Spicer’s press conference on Thursday was held shortly after the senate intelligence committee published a statement saying they had no evidence for Mr Trump's claim, made on March 4, that Mr Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-16-2017, 04:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Hard to understand what is being pointed out at all, when one president makes his tax returns available, and the other, with millions of dollars in foreign transactions and loans,  refuses to.

You mentioned he only paid 25%.  That's all we were talking about.

[Belsnickel]

I'm just shoving this here, but we haven't heard much about this from Trump in a while: The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Repealing DACA

[Dill]

(03-17-2017, 10:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You mentioned he only paid 25%.  That's all we were talking about.

Then you brought up Obama, who is no longer president. The issue is what we know or don't know of Trump's finances.

No point in comparing Obama's 2015 taxes to Trump's 2005, which we only partially have.

While we can look Obama's up online for any relevant year, we don't have any from Trump since 1995. We cannot assess how the tax policies that Trump is pushing affect his own bottom line. We always could with Obama.

In Trump's case there is a further issue of how much he owes foreign countries, how any foreign policy he supports affects his own business.