DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on October 24, 2012, 05:54:17 PM
-
That is all
-
This isn't much to debate.
Could you say something that could be argued with?
-
He means well?
-
However much business sense he might have, he seems to be sadly lacking any common sense.He reminds me of Sirs, rooting around and trying to stir up trouble for his opponents, and making these grand, yet empty, gestures.
Obama is not a US citizen / Why wasn't this the lead story? Wah wah wah...
I did love one of the tweets in response to his offer to give 5 million if Obama would produce his school records, etc. It was something to the effect that the other person would give 3 dollars to a crackhead for snatchingf the dead squirrel off Trump's head.
-
However much business sense he might have, he seems to be sadly lacking any common sense.He reminds me of Sirs, rooting around and trying to stir up trouble for his opponents, and making these grand, yet empty, gestures.
Wow.....so this is the 'style" of debate you're bringing to the table. Minus of course any examples to back up such "interesting" claims. But hey, have at it. Open season on making wreckless proclaimations? Well, team Obama/Biden will welcome the assist. Hoooraaaaa
-
He means well?
I am not sure he does.
He might .
But it seems more like he enjoys the limelight.
-
5 million dollars would really help some people....
why wouldnt Obama do it?
what could it hurt to produce such "unimportant" documents?
hell i wish he'd ask for mine....i love to help kids in 5 million ways!
-
I'll defend Trump here with this comment that I saw on another site: "Don't know if anybody's said this yet, but what you're missing is that this was Trump's preemptive strike against Gloria Alred. That's what this is about. Make her share the headlines with him. Bring her fully down to his level: P. T. Barnum."
If true, this might have been a brilliant move by Trump. Allred has impacted several elections with her last minute October Surprises. She torpedoed Meg Whitman's campaign in California. And she did meet personally with Obama two weeks ago which is the main lead on Drudge right now.
-
(http://www.drudgereport.com/ga.jpg)
ALLRED MET OBAMA TWO WEEKS BEFORE 'OCTOBER SURPRISE'
http://nation.foxnews.com/gloria-allred/2012/10/24/exclusive-gloria-allred-met-obama-two-weeks-october-surprise (http://nation.foxnews.com/gloria-allred/2012/10/24/exclusive-gloria-allred-met-obama-two-weeks-october-surprise)
-
Problem is, as I mentioned in the other thread, that while the MSM has been playing up the Trump Oct fizzle, not a peep has been mentioned of the Allred Oct fizzle. Shocking, isn't it
-
That's a good point. I thought the Trump announcement was going to be something about Obama wanting to get a divorce, and perhaps Trump was prepared to go nuclear if this Allred thing had any legs. But it fizzled out so he went with this instead? It's interesting that Trump's announcement was scheduled on the same day as Allred was supposed to go to court.
-
Trump ought to offer the same amount for Romney to produce the last 12 years or so of his tax forms. Romney's taxes are far less well known, and far more important to the voters.
-
He already did it:
Romney turned over a notarized letter from his tax preparer that gives a "summary of tax rates from the Romneys' tax returns" since 1990.
That note affirms that the Romneys have paid state and federal income taxes in each of the past 20 years, with his lowest annual effective federal tax rate never dipping below 13.66 percent.
------------
So, Romney's taxes are far more known than Obama's grades. I could care less about his grades, but I bet they weren't that great. And if I were Obama, I would get that money for my charities.
-
Summary of tax rates. Bullshit.
What we need to see is what exactly was he messing around with in the Cayman Islands.
Of course you think Obama's grades "were not that great", because you automatically think Blacks are stupid, especially if they are Democrats.
-
And Obama's investment in a Cayman trust, when is he going to release information about that?
-
I have no idea. I would like to see everyone release all their financial information. I question that Obama has any Cayman Islands investments. Romney is not above making crap up.
In any case, Romney has a greater chance of skullduggery.
-
I have no idea.
Instead of making crap up, this is the answer you should be giving in a lot of your posts. You wouldn't take so much crap for being wrong all the time.
I question that Obama has any Cayman Islands investments.
Well he does. It's in his pension from when he was a Illinois legislator. Somehow I doubt that you will be using that against Obama. You are already denying it.
-
Of course you think Obama's grades "were not that great", because you automatically think Blacks are stupid, especially if they are Democrats.
Wow, yet again another knee-jerk racist remark. You indeed fit well within the hard left of the Democrat party
-
Summary of tax rates. Bullshit.
What we need to see is what exactly was he messing around with in the Cayman Islands.
Of course you think Obama's grades "were not that great", because you automatically think Blacks are stupid, especially if they are Democrats.
I think BHO's grades are not bragworthy , the evidence being that he is not bragging of them.
-
I am not sure why 12 years of Romney tax returns are important. Other than for the opposition to wage class warfare against the successful and to confuse low information voters ( often minorities, often democrat voters) as to why he pays a different rate than wage earners.
-
For the record, Allred was shut down hard this morning in court. So, her October Surprise was a complete flop. Nice try. I predict that Trump will now go away, as it were, as well.
-
Well he does. It's in his pension from when he was a Illinois legislator. Somehow I doubt that you will be using that against Obama. You are already denying it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah sure,. The State of Illinois gives legislators the option of stuffing their money in the Caymans. Romney says it RR says it, therefore it is true. Prove it or shut up about it.
At any rate, this would be a pittance compared to Romney. When Romney turns over his records, then Obama should do the same.
-
When Romney turns over his records, then Obama should do the same.
Well, you have flip flopped in just a matter of hours. You previously said that all candidates should release financial information and now you have changed your mind. Anybody can scroll back and read your previous comments. What a joke.
Obama should release 20 years of tax returns to show what he's been doing with his finances, because nobody knows. He made a shady land deal with Rezco and has money invested in a Cayman trust. His friends in Chicago are a shady group of characters.
-
When I say that everyone should produce their records, and then say that Obama should produce his when Romney produces his, that is NOT any sort of flip flop. In both cases, both candidates produce everything.
Feeble. feeble reasoning.
-
Yeah, you did flip flop.
Obama should lead the way and produce 20 years of his tax returns. He was never properly vetted and we barley know anything about his background. He's associated with Rev. Wright, Tony Rezco, Bill Ayers, Rahm Emanual, and many other shady characters in Chicago. He participated in a shady land deal with Rezco. And he is invested in a Cayman trust. Put up or shut up.
-
Well he does. It's in his pension from when he was a Illinois legislator. Somehow I doubt that you will be using that against Obama. You are already denying it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah sure,. The State of Illinois gives legislators the option of stuffing their money in the Caymans. Romney says it RR says it, therefore it is true. Prove it or shut up about it.
WOW.......you really want to go there?? The undisputed king of refusing to prove anything, it just is, because I say so??
-
Of course XO could just google Obama Cayman trust investment for himself. It is definitely true. But I guess demanding proof is just his way to stall time.
I will close out this thread with this. I saw this comment yesterday. Allred's "Surprise" was a huge, huge bust. Still this is a great quote: "This would be a fitting cap to Obama's political career -- going out the same way he got in. Unsealing divorce records."
-
There are many things that the American people are angry about. But not seeing Obama's transcripts probably is not even on the top fifty.
The Trump Coat of Arms should be a blond varmint some kind on a field of money, with the motto,in Latin tat means "Look at Meeee! Look at Meeeee!
If he really wants to give away the money, he should extend the deadline to 2017.
-
When someone places most of his finances into a blind trust is he still responsible for how ethicly it is invested?
I have heard that a good way to make a small fortune is to place a large fortune into a blind trust.
-
Everything depends on who runs the trust, of course.
-
Everything depends on who runs the trust, of course.
No .
The point is that the owner is not running the trust himself.
-
The investor can put a large number of restrictions on what the trust can invest in. That is perfectly understandable. But that means that it is not really a "blind" trust. If I say invest only in NYSE stocks, munis, bonds, or restrict investments in specific fields, then it is really NOT a "blind " trust at all. And of course, I am sure that the owner of any "blind" trust can check and see how his investments are doing as well.
It is hardly "blind" to say that my money can be in either Merck or Pfizer or perhaps both, but some administrator will decide rather than me.
-
For the elected , "blind "is the point.
-
Well, as I said, it really isn't all that blind, is it?
-
Well, as I said, it really isn't all that blind, is it?
That is why Romney asked Obama this question in the debates.
President Obama's own retirement account is and should ber hard for the president to look at and guide, it is probly just as invested in China and sheltered in the CAymans as anyone eleses.
-
it is probly just as invested in China and sheltered in the Caymans as anyone else's.
----------------------------------------------------
It is stupid to assume that Cayman Islands investments are commonplace.
As for investments in China, they have not done well for three years now.
-
But Obama does not know whether they are or not, neither does Romney, that is the point of a trust being blind.
Romney was just pointing out the odvious.
-
I imagine that the person who owns a blind trust knows exactly what is in it.
The blind part simpley means that he cannot decide what or when to buy or sell.
-
I imagine that the person who owns a blind trust knows exactly what is in it.
The blind part simpley means that he cannot decide what or when to buy or sell.
Congressmen really should not know what their investments are in , lest their decisions be based on shelfishness.
Govenors and presidents also.
A cupple of months ago we learned that a lot of Congressmen know exactly how they are invested and are both guiding their accounts to take advantage of upcoming votes and probly also voting to takew advantage of their investments.
This is leagal ,barely, and should be discouraged somehow, it is too close a cousin to insider trading.
All of the Congressmen involved owe Martha Stewart an abject apology, for not taking their medicine when they deserve it.
-
It is not illegal, but it should be.
If you want to be an investor in stocks and bonds, don't run for office. There are l;ots pof things you could invest in besides stocks and bonds.
-
It is not illegal, but it should be.
If you want to be an investor in stocks and bonds, don't run for office. There are l;ots pof things you could invest in besides stocks and bonds.
There is nothing you can invest in that can't benifit or be harmed by Congressional legislation.
-
That is hardly true.
Rental property is almost entirely governed by local laws.
There are many other businesses that are barely affected by Congress.
-
That is hardly true.
Rental property is almost entirely governed by local laws.
There are many other businesses that are barely affected by Congress.
Real Estate can gain value greatly if you know ahead of time where the new roads will be routed, or can loose value quickly if new laws change environmental requirements for its use.
There isno such thing as an investment that is unaffected by congressional legislation , whether positively or negatively .
It would be best if the congressmen involved were entirely seaparated from knoledge of their investments and their trust managers were entirely seaparated from knoledge of the congressmans voteing.
Govenors and Presidents also.
This seems to be the situation for only a minority of them, and there seems little disadvantage to those who flagrantly use insider knoledge , this situation could be better.
If president Barak Obama and govenor Mitt Romney have been ignoring their investments , then I am pleased with the both of them.
I do not know how to verify this as fact , but they both seemed pleasingly ignorant in the debate.
-
There isno such thing as an investment that is unaffected by congressional legislation , whether positively or negatively .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true.
There may be no TYPE that can be entirely unaffected by legislation, but most real estate and farmland is unaffected by Congress.
My father bought 33 acres of horse pasture in 1965 and held it until he died in 1986. He served 12 years as a Country Recorder of Deeds. I sold it in 1990. The sale price amounted to a yearly return of 2.5% for the time we owned it. There were no Congressional laws regarding pasture or horses so far as I know. The guy who I sold it to said he wanted to build a house on it, but so far, there has been nothing built. Sometimes there are horses and sometimes there are a few cows there.
-
No , the value of that land can change a lot due to legislation.
If there was wetland , pond, creek or swamp on or near that land , it would have become very difficult to develop it during this period , many land owners have lost a lot as such land lost value due to wetland preservation.
The land bank came and went , roadways have to be chosen, regulations on land use happen sporadicly. If a Congressman were heavily invested in real estate he would very likely be often presented with the temptation to legislate in benefit of his own type of real estate.
I don't think it would be hard to find an example.
-
You claim that ALL transactions are affected by Congress.This is simply untrue.
-
You claim that ALL transactions are affected by Congress.This is simply untrue.
You will have to work hard to find an example of a financhal dealing that is immune to congressional act.
I am interested to see if you realy can.
-
There is probably no action that is totally immune from all types of congressional conflict. However, that is beside the point: there are hundreds of thousands of investments that are NOT affected by Congress.
Until we know the actual investments that Romney and Obama have in the Cayman Islands, there is absolutely no way to consider them equal in size or purpose.
It is rather unlikely that the Illinois legislature has a program involving investments in the Caymans.
There are a few mutual funds that are open to European investors,but not to American citizens (because they do not comply with the reporting regulations for mutual funds) that I have heard are available from Cayman Islands brokers.
Somehow I got on this stupid email list that touted overseas investments, was always warning about a total global collapse, and nonetheless, had a US flag on nearly every page. They were always talking about some magnificent opportunity to
make money, and never said a word about avoiding taxes.
-
There is probably no action that is totally immune from all types of congressional conflict. However, that is beside the point: there are hundreds of thousands of investments that are NOT affected by Congress.
": there are hundreds of thousands of investments that are NOT affected by Congress".
How is this possible if;
"There is probably no action that is totally immune from all types of congressional conflict"
-
It is easy to see how this works.
There is no way that you can drive down the highway without being subject to traffic laws.
But that hardly means that everyone who drives down the street violates a traffic law and is therefore arrested.
Not even a majority of people who violate traffic laws is arrested.
The fact that Congress MAY affect almost everything does not mean that Congress DOES affect everything.
If a political candidate put all their assets in a broad index mutual fund, like the S&P 500 or the Wilshire 5000 and similar foreign funds, then he would be invested in almost everything, and therefore could not be accused of favoritism except by dolts who do not understand mutual funds.
-
Are you calling President Obama a Dolt?
Hey! I like that.
You seem also to be saying that most finantial transactions are not lawfull, I hope that most of them are lawfull.
And the Congress has made law reguarding every investrment there is.
-
Romney does NOT have his blind trust money invested in typical index funds. Neither the President nor Romney has made any statement that this is true.
I was simply explaining how a specific investment could be made that would NOT be subject to accusations of favoritism. Surely you are not so dense that you cannot understand this.
Most investments are not affected by the government, they are only regulated. It is like the state putting up speed limit signs and traffic lights.