[Link]

Meltdown mode all week for Trump. Pleasing to watch.

This week starting out worse for the Trumpster. Someone in Trump Tower emailed out excerpts from his tax returns from the mid-90s, showing him taking a 6 million loss in 1995. Using the tax code that allows him to carry forward losses, it's been projected that he could have used this loss to write off federal taxes for maybe 20 years.

A couple of issues here:

(1) This adds weight to the claim that he hasn't been paying federal taxes; and

(2) He's on record for berating the 50% of Americans who don't pay federal taxes for not paying federal taxes. They don't pay because they don't earn enough.

In reaction, the Trump campaign hasn't denied the validity of the documents, they have simply reiterated that this is "smart" business. Yes, it is, but losing a billion dollars isn't, so that takes a lot of the shine of that nugget.

Lastly, it's notable that he is still refusing to release his full returns. What does this mean? Maybe the full returns contain even more horrors than this! Otherwise, if this was the worst of it, you'd put them out to distract and soften opinion on what we have seen.

Edited by Ray in Houston (03 Oct 2016 3.30pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

I agree, but he has tried to make political capital in the past of those (including Obama and Clinton) who he says haven't paid enough in tax - so it would make him appear massively hypocritical.

And he has based much of his campaign on the idea he is a successful businessman. Massive losses wouldn't support that stance.

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Think it was Nixon and his "I am not a crook" claim (he was) that started the whole ball rolling with all future Presidents and nominees declaring their tax so as not to be tarred.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

I think it might be arguable that someone who evades taxation for personal gain, is necessarily someone who should employed at the cost of the taxpayer, with authority over making budgetary decisions, such as setting taxation rates. Its does seem a bit hypocritical to object to contributing to a country, but to then want to be paid by that country.

Whilst not illegal, a country and its infrastructure are entirely dependent on tax revenue.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Oddly, most of the presidents since Nixon have committed far worse actions and not had to resign. What really signed his 'cards' wasn't Watergate, but the taped recordings of him in the Oval office.

I'd imagine he felt somewhat 'unfairly treated' compared to Regan (state sponsor of terrorism, broke the US own embargos), Bush Jnr (stolen election / illegal war) and Clinton (lied under oath used missile strikes to divert attention).

Nixon managed to get the ball started on nuclear proliferation (SALT and ABM), end the draft, start relations with China, introduced a lot of equality legislation, lowered the voting age, oversaw every moon landing, ended the forced assimilation of native Americans establishing self determination, ended the Vietnam war among other things.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]