Okay, we get it: the Times thinks Hillary is better. Still, this former First Lady who mercilessly trashed all the women her sexually deviant husband harassed and possibly raped, this former New York Senator who moved to a state where she had never lived to get herself elected, this former Secretary of State who ignored her own ambassador's repeated urgent requests for increased security with dire consequences, all the while overseeing a secret email server in her own home's basement, is not without her own long list of flaws, scandals and misdeeds.
What's a voter to do? I say forget about both of these miscreants and write in the person you wish could be president. I'm going with Governor John Kasich. (Sure he's boring, but couldn't we all do with a little boring right now?)
apparently
ReplyDelete1) the NYT cant fathom the concept of an individual actually losing 915 MM in business contraction. it is OBVIOUS that this would result in a carry forward of net losses . . . remember taxes would have been assessed on the 915 MM when it was made in the first place and now it is gone . . . so OF COURSE there are no taxes (within rule limits) til these net losses are recovered, yet the Times writers seem amazed and interpret this concept as a giveaway to the rich
and
2) they also can't imagine that businesses could go bust (especially in the notoriously cyclical real estate market) without the trickery or negligence of the leader. I quote from today's paper:
"The 1995 tax records ... reveal the extraordinary [sic] tax benefit Trump derived from the financial wreckage left behind in the early 1990's through mismanagement [sic] of three Atlantic City casinos, his ... foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan . . . "
This is all said in passing . . . we then hear about how much he was paid for hosting the apprentice, but the slander is done: the tax treatment is EXTRAORDINARY and his businesses collapsed because of HIS MISMANAGEMENT.