U.S. Politics

[HanoiVillan]

12 hours ago, peterms said:

Some news on those tax returns.

 

This relates, both to your post above and to the points about UK electorate's engagement with Brexit:

 

[il_serpente]

Fox News spin on the $1.2B in business losses between '85- and '94:   It shows what a bold businessman he is that he was always looking to expand his business at great risk.  Most people can't even fathom having that amount of money, let alone be in a position to lose it and still be wealthy man.   It just shows how much he has achieved in life.

[Straggler]

His losses were so big in 1991 that they accounted for 1% of all business losses declared that year by individual American taxpayers.  How he didn't get investigated for this I can't fathom.

[villakram]

See Hollywood, the banks, oil industry, airlines etc. Write-downs and losses are the secret sauce of business. A declared loss and an actual nominal loss are not the same thing. Nothing too abnormal about this unfortunately 

Edited May 9, 2019 by villakram

[bickster]

2 hours ago, villakram said:

See Hollywood, the banks, oil industry, airlines etc. Write-downs and losses are the secret sauce of business. A declared loss and an actual nominal loss are not the same thing. Nothing too abnormal about this unfortunately 

You have a point, you do but the sheer scale of the losses takes it beyond that as does the number of times Trump businesses have been declared bankrupt (6 times!)

[villakram]

3 hours ago, bickster said:

You have a point, you do but the sheer scale of the losses takes it beyond that as does the number of times Trump businesses have been declared bankrupt (6 times!)

Sort of... that the sitting president has clearly taken such advantage of the tax laws should really make it clear how large a problem this is. However, a number of the largest corporations in the US have zero tax liability on a yearly basis and many even get refunds!

Bankruptcy is part of the law. Companies regularly take advantage of this, e.g., PG&E declaring bankruptcy to protect themselves from the incoming California wildfire lawsuits. 

Or see the standard vulture capital strategy of buying a corp and asset stripping it while loading its balance sheet with debt, then declare bankruptcy and buy the remaining useful assets for pennies on the dollar... I dream the Glazers are doing this to manure!

 

 

Edited May 9, 2019 by villakram

[bickster]

 

 

1

3 minutes ago, villakram said:

Sort of... that the sitting president has clearly taken such advantage of the tax laws should really make it clear how large a problem this is. However, a number of the largest corporations in the US have zero tax liability on a yearly basis and many even get refunds!

Bankruptcy is part of the law. Companies regularly take advantage of this, e.g., PG&E declaring bankruptcy to protect themselves from the incoming California wildfire lawsuits. 

Or see the standard vulture capital strategy of buying a corp and asset stripping it while loading its balance sheet with debt, then declare bankruptcy and buy the remaining useful assets for pennies on the dollar... I dream the Glazers are doing this to manure!

 

 

Yes, I agree with all that (huge) BUT that isn't the case with Trump, he genuinely is a very shit businessman. The Casinos filed for Bankruptcy because they literally could not pay their debts, these were no protectionist manoeuvres, he genuinely ran them into the ground

If he had cashed out when his dad left him the money, put all the money into a managed fund and lived the playboy lifestyle on half the interest reinvesting the rest back into the fund he'd be worth 3 times what he currently is. He's actually worth less than he inherited in real terms

It's not just the casinos, it's the wine, the airline, the University, the list of his failures is almost spectacular.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

He's actually worth less than he inherited in real terms 

He has also managed to demean the office of President,  create some constitutional issues that will have to be unpicked and set to rights in years to come, and reduce the standing of his country in the eyes of most of the world.

It's astonishing what a traumatised, inadequate buffoon can do, given enough rope.

[VILLAMARV]

36 minutes ago, peterms said:

reduce the standing of his country

[peterms]

 

 

[peterms]

Trump thinks that levying tariffs on Chinese goods means that China pays the tariff.

I think I see why he's managed to lose more money than any other US citizen, while thinking he's doing a great job.

 

[bickster]

5 hours ago, peterms said:

Trump thinks that levying tariffs on Chinese goods means that China pays the tariff.

I think I see why he's managed to lose more money than any other US citizen, while thinking he's doing a great job.

 

Its like he stuck his fingers in his ears shouting la la la la la last time he pulled this trick

[peterms]

There was a lot of discussion in this thread a year ago about chemical weapons attacks in Syria, the US response, and whether the attacks were carried out by the Syrian army, or staged by one or more of the jihadi groups.

Someone from the OPCW has now apparently leaked an internal report which has been suppressed, in which engineers examined the evidence and concluded that the cylinders which were said to have contained chlorine did not arrive in situ by being dropped from an aircraft as claimed, and that the only plausible explanation is that they were placed there.

In other words, the incidents were staged, as many people said at the time.  But the OPCW appears to have sought to conceal this information, presumably for political reasons.

The leaked report is discussed here, and that discussion paper also links to the leaked document.

Quote

In our Briefing note on the Final Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission on the Douma incident, we noted that the FFM had sought assessments in October 2018 from unidentified engineering experts on the “the trajectory and damage to the cylinders found at Locations 2 and 4”. The Final Report provided no explanation for why the FFM had not sought engineering assessments in April 2018, when the experts could have inspected the sites with cylinders in position, rather than six months later when inspection of the sites with cylinders in position was no longer possible and the assessments had to rely on images and measurements obtained by others. We raised this as an obvious anomaly.

OPCW staff members have communicated with the Working Group. We have learned that an investigation was undertaken by an engineering sub-team of the FFM, beginning with on-site inspections in April-May 2018, followed by a detailed engineering analysis including collaboration on computer modelling studies with two European universities. The report of this investigation was excluded from the published Final Report of the Fact-Finding Mission, which referred only to assessments sought from unidentified “engineering experts” commissioned in October 2018 and obtained in December 2018.

A copy of a 15-page Executive Summary of this report with the title “Engineering Assessment of two cylinders observed at the Douma incident” has been passed to us and we have posted it here. Please download and share this document via your own server if you link to it, so as not to overload our server...

The results from both locations are summarized in paragraph 32:

The dimensions, characteristics and appearance of the cylinders, and the surrounding scene of the incidents, were inconsistent with what would have been expected in the case of either cylinder being delivered from an aircraft. In each case the alternative hypothesis produced the only plausible explanation for observations at the scene.

 

[blandy]

57 minutes ago, peterms said:

Someone from the OPCW has now apparently leaked an internal report which has been suppressed, in which engineers examined the evidence and concluded that the cylinders which were said to have contained chlorine did not arrive in situ by being dropped from an aircraft as claimed, and that the only plausible explanation is that they were placed there.

In other words, the incidents were staged,

It's intriguing on many levels.

I read the OPCW report a while back. The one on the bed always looked dodgy to me (not that I know anything) and the other one, on the roof, much less so.

At the time, the Russians at the location said they had found absolutely no signs of any chemical weapons attack - despite having gone into the bedroom and onto the roof. This was (and is) baffling, as staged or not, there were 2 ruddy great chlorine gas cylinders in plain sight and traces of chlorine.

Quote

"Our military specialists have visited this place, along with representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent... and they did not find any trace of chlorine or any other chemical substance used against civilians," he said.

Moscow favoured an "honest investigation" of such incidents, he said, but opposed apportioning blame without any proof.

And now, the OPCW officially says "yep, Syria most likely dun an attack, there was chlorine" ( I paraphrase) and an alleged leaked paper from someone in the OPCW says the conclusion doesn't tally with the modelling they had done.

Why did the Russians lie? Why would the OPCW ignore or suppress their own investigators report? Did they do that, or is the leaked paper fake? Will we ever know the truth?

Why did Russia yonks ago, years before this latest incident, veto the OPCW being able (with them involved) to determine clear blame for CW attacks/fake attacks?

[villakram]

38 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's intriguing on many levels.

I read the OPCW report a while back. The one on the bed always looked dodgy to me (not that I know anything) and the other one, on the roof, much less so.

At the time, the Russians at the location said they had found absolutely no signs of any chemical weapons attack - despite having gone into the bedroom and onto the roof. This was (and is) baffling, as staged or not, there were 2 ruddy great chlorine gas cylinders in plain sight and traces of chlorine.

And now, the OPCW officially says "yep, Syria most likely dun an attack, there was chlorine" ( I paraphrase) and an alleged leaked paper from someone in the OPCW says the conclusion doesn't tally with the modelling they had done.

Why did the Russians lie? Why would the OPCW ignore or suppress their own investigators report? Did they do that, or is the leaked paper fake? Will we ever know the truth?

Why did Russia yonks ago, years before this latest incident, veto the OPCW being able (with them involved) to determine clear blame for CW attacks/fake attacks?

ya, it's those pesky Russians again... 

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, villakram said:

ya, it's those pesky Russians again... 

Is it?.... Isn't it?

You see I'm as sceptical of them as I am of the US. So while some may take the view that the US is the great Satan, therefore that's simply the end of the matter, I can't help but feel that all the evidence I've seen rather suggests that Russia isn't much if any different.

Support a dodgy, cruel, regime so you can set up bases somewhere? So you can gain "regional influence". Not give a stuff about civilian casualties, indulge in a reckless lack of precaution when bombing areas with "insurgents". Feather your own nest at the expense of others - and so on.

Am I talking about the US, or Russia, or both?

It seems to me there's no good guys. It seems to me that people with a view of the US, might, have something of a blind spot when it comes to what was once a sort of "model" for certain ideas and ideals, but which is now nothing more than a Kleptocracy dominated by a man who has swindled his people, ruthlessly disposes of political opponents and has a stranglehold on his position brought about through essentially murder and imprisoning of any credible opposition. A state controlled media, utterly at his beck and call.

Different methods, same outcome.

[HanoiVillan]

Some people say there's different justice systems for black people and white people:

 

[peterms]

14 hours ago, blandy said:

At the time, the Russians at the location said they had found absolutely no signs of any chemical weapons attack - despite having gone into the bedroom and onto the roof. This was (and is) baffling, as staged or not, there were 2 ruddy great chlorine gas cylinders in plain sight and traces of chlorine.

It's only baffling if you think that the presence of cylinders could only be explained by an attack (ie from the air, by Syrian forces).  If you accept the findings of the engineers' report, eg that the cylinder was bigger than the hole it was claimed to have come through and therefore could not have got there in the way claimed and must have been placed there, it's not at all baffling.

14 hours ago, blandy said:

Why would the OPCW ignore or suppress their own investigators report?

Because it doesn't support the conclusion that was required?  Can there be any other explanation?  I don't think they have offered one, which you would think they would be quick to do, since suppresssing evidence in a report on an incident which was the pretext for calls for significant escalation of US military action would be an incredibly unacceptable thing for such a body to do, and would undermine any claim to independence.  Any such report would acknowledge any evidence which didn't tally with other evidence, and either reach a conclusion or state that no conclusion could be drawn.  To leave it out and not acknowledge its existence is simply not what an independent and objective body would do, and if there is any explanation other than seeking to conceal material facts, I'd like to hear it.

14 hours ago, blandy said:

Why did Russia yonks ago, years before this latest incident, veto the OPCW being able (with them involved) to determine clear blame for CW attacks/fake attacks? 

I expect it's because they object to the way the US and the tag-along countries like UK and France have politicised the OPCW, going back to 2002 when they removed the then head of the organisation because he wouldn't play along in respect of Iraq.  It was conceived and initiated as a neutral body, but that didn't suit the US, and the aim is to change it still further, as with the attempt you mention.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

If you accept the findings of the engineers' report, eg that the cylinder was bigger than the hole it was claimed to have come through and therefore could not have got there in the way claimed and must have been placed there, it's not at all baffling.

Of course it’s baffling. Even for the cylinder in the room. And the cylinder on the roof rather invalidates that argument.

There they are, the Russians, in an area they have cordoned off as the suspected site of some sort of attack, real or staged, and there they are 2 chlorine cylinders, one on a roof, one in a room, but “no, nothing to see here”. not “looks like a faked attack” not “too early to say”. 

Edited May 14, 2019 by blandy
Bit more time to answer

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Of course it’s baffling. Even for the cylinder in the room. And the cylinder on the roof rather invalidates that argument. 

Did you read the engineers' report?  They say the only plausible explanation is that the cylinders were placed there by people, not delivered by aircraft.  What's baffling about that?