201–210 of 280 posts
Great thread here that covers his loans https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/131034616181606400... EDIT: I accidentally a 'that'
For example the one beginning with "7/ Then we'll consider 555 California St..." shows that it has 17 replies. Where are they? How can one read them?
Great thread here that covers his loans https://twitter.com/DanAlexander21/status/131034616181606400... EDIT: I accidentally a 'that'
How does this twitter thread view work? Every tweet in this thread shows a different number of replies. But how do you see them? For example the one beginning with "7/ Then we'll consider 555 California St..." shows that it has 17 replies. Where are they? How can one read them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those that don't want to click through: He is on the hook personally for hundreds of millions of dollars in debt that will come due next few years during his potential second term with no obvious way of paying it off. There's no way of knowing who has control of it. Edit: and also from the thread, he owes > $1 Billion in total to lenders.
Commercial real estate loans are often non recourse. You lend to the holding company who owns the property. If it fails you don’t necessarily have a claim on the owners of that company. And I would expect covid to have decimated the value of commercial real estate, particularly hotels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question moves to whether such crudities win or lose elections. A substantial chunk of voters appear disdainful of meticulously courteous but otherwise objectionable leaders. I didn't care for Bush43's speeches, but Trump makes W seem a rhetorical genius.
Especially on the topic of privacy, meticulously courteous didn't work, people just lied to your face. So this is at least another tactic. Doesn't seem like much though.
Past law and facts, it all appears innuendo.
I want to see the actual documents before I believe this. I’m fine with the NYT refusing to make their source but I can’t think of any reason to keep the documents secret.
There are likely certain security features in the documents themselves that would identify whoever leaked them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tasteless joke, or substantive call for a privacy invasion? One must to keep in mind that cognitive bias has us parsing those we dislike quite literally, while giving those we fancy a pass. And that's true in all 57 states.
In my opinion people in high visibility, high power jobs are not allowed to make tasteless jokes towards the people they have power over. It avoids such misunderstandings.
How can HN not call BS on this? HN cries BS if someone makes a COVID claim and doesn't provide links to valid studies. Shame on you all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article says "What the tax records for Mr. Trump’s businesses show, however, is that he has lost chunks of his fortune even before depreciation is figured in. The three European golf courses, the Washington hotel, Doral and Trump Corporation reported losing a total of $150.3 million from 2010 through 2018, without including depreciation as an expense." So this is negative cashflow, not counting depreciation.
Thanks! I was reading a different article before that was more of a visualization that didn’t have these details. Unless those had some type of synergy that made his other properties and brand more valuable overall, those sound like poor investments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one of the issues is that he has simultaneously told the opposite story to his lenders, making himself look wealthier than he is in order to score loans. This, is fraud.
When I bought my house (borrowing roughly 200K) the bank wanted several years of tax returns and basically put my finances under a microscope. Pretty much everything except the anal probe. So, you think a bank that's going to lend Trump 100 Million isn't going to examine his finances in greater detail?
Trump specifically has a long record of lying to commercial lenders and then daring them to foreclose. This was covered in his ghost-written book. It did not make Chase Bank look wise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Warren Buffett is in an entirely dissimilar boat, because Warren Buffett does not have enormous losses to carry forward, and therefore actually pays significant personal income tax ($1.8 million on personal income of $11.5 million in 2015). https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161010005859/en/Tax...
I meant that he pays well below what you or I pay. He's in a lower tax bracket than his secretary. $1.8M on $11.5M is what? Something in the ballpark of 15%? He should be in the highest tax bracket. That's my point. The tax laws favor the wealthy, and they shouldn't.
Trump paid $750 total, which is not 15% of anything. He could have easily paid $0, as he did before becoming POTUS. His team picked a tiny number above zero starting in 2016 when he was elected. This is completely and totally unrelated to the capital gains tax rate.