Republican win

[Marty_d]

LOCP like Marty is quite happy to brand people as idiots for their voting choice and surprise, surprise you have no problem with that.

"LOCP"?

 

So as far as I can see, you must be a Yank and personally cast your vote for the Donald. Is that it? Did I call YOU an idiot?

 

Get over it Teckair. Yes if people vote in a leader so manifestly unfit for office, I will call them idiots. Misled or gullible at the very least. I also think Democrat voters who didn't vote are idiots too. Does that offend you, or is it only people on the right who mustn't be insulted?

 

I think that the point was missed.

I think the point was that an Australian journalist with a far-right viewpoint went to the USA and walked around wearing a hat with the somewhat pathetic slogan of the new president. (What would the Australian equivalent be? "Jobs'n'Growth"?)

 

Then she (probably selectively) reported on her discussions with people who are supposedly terrified of those sore losers who have the insolence to use their constitutional right to protest.

 

Mind you, I don't know why they're so frightened. Janet herself says "Later, walking around the Upper East and Upper West Side of NYC, not a single shout or snigger has been directed at the hat or its wearer. "

 

She can't have it both ways.

 

 

[Marty_d]

You couldn't make this stuff up.

 

I wonder if Trump and his supporters see the irony - if not downright hypocrisy - of the man who called Hillary "corrupt" and said "lock her up!" for using a personal email server, now using his taxpayer-funded Presidential twitter account to blast a company who dropped his daughter's line of clothing.

 

Trump's department store attack raises concerns over business ties

 

Not to mention that his wife thinks being First Lady will help line her pockets....

 

Melania Trump says being first lady could mean millions for her brand

 

And the interesting fact that he still refuses to release his tax returns.

 

As far as I can see, far from "draining the swamp", all they've done is to introduce a bigger and greedier alligator to it.

 

 

[M61A1]

Oh....you saw it on the ABC, got to be completely truthful:roflmao:

 

 

[old man emu]

Marty_d, would you release your tax returns to the public arena? I guess that you have nothing to hide in yours, but do I have any real right to know more about your financials than that you paid your fair share of tax? If you have not paid your fair share, then it is the ATO's job to extract the unpaid amount. What am I to do with the knowledge that you may or may not have done your bit? I don't think that knowledge would afect my situation. So, if it is OK for your tax information to remain unpublished, then the same conclusion must apply to every person of every country - Trump included.

 

Kerry Packer made the statement for the fabulously wealthy when he said:

 

I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Of course, I am minimising my tax. Anybody in this country who does not minimise his tax wants his head read. I can tell you as a government that you are not spending it so well that we should be donating extra.

 

 

OME

 

 

[Soleair]

Marty_d, would you release your tax returns to the public arena? I guess that you have nothing to hide in yours, but do I have any real right to know more about your financials than that you paid your fair share of tax? If you have not paid your fair share, then it is the ATO's job to extract the unpaid amount. What am I to do with the knowledge that you may or may not have done your bit? I don't think that knowledge would afect my situation. So, if it is OK for your tax information to remain unpublished, then the same conclusion must apply to every person of every country - Trump included.

OME

But Marty is not POTUS, & thus does not have to satisfy the voting public of his honesty, integrity, or public spirited fair-mindedness.

 

Trump coined the puerile moniker "crooked Hilary" for the opposition candidate in the elections. But when asked to publish his tax returns - as every other presidential candidate has done - he stated he would do so 'after they've been audited'.

 

It is now clear he has no intention of publishing his returns. From this, we must conclude that he is not paying his fair share of taxes, indeed, may not be paying ANY taxes. He publicly boasts of his wealth, so it can't be modesty preventing him from declaring his tax.

 

This can only imply dishonesty at best, or crooked criminality at worst.

 

I wish they would just hurry up & either shoot him or impeach him, before he discovers the real codes to operate the big red button.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I think the bookies have some crazy odds that Trump gets impeached for using the office to enrich himself. Poor old Jimmy Carter was forced to sell his peanut farm when he became POTUS.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Oh....you saw it on the ABC, got to be completely truthful:roflmao:

So you're denying both Trump's own twitter feed and court transcripts?

 

Marty_d, would you release your tax returns to the public arena? I guess that you have nothing to hide in yours, but do I have any real right to know more about your financials than that you paid your fair share of tax? If you have not paid your fair share, then it is the ATO's job to extract the unpaid amount. What am I to do with the knowledge that you may or may not have done your bit? I don't think that knowledge would afect my situation. So, if it is OK for your tax information to remain unpublished, then the same conclusion must apply to every person of every country - Trump included.

Kerry Packer made the statement for the fabulously wealthy when he said:

 

I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Of course, I am minimising my tax. Anybody in this country who does not minimise his tax wants his head read. I can tell you as a government that you are not spending it so well that we should be donating extra.

 

 

OME

As Soleair quite rightly said, I'm not running for President, and if the President is under no legal OR moral obligation to show his tax returns, why is it that every President since Nixon... up to now... has done so?

 

Not to mention that during his campaign he consistently said he'd release them when the IRS audit was complete (even though the IRS said he didn't need to wait...) but now, apparently, he's not going to do it at all. Mustn't have been a "core" promise I guess.

 

President Donald Trump Will Not Release His Tax Returns

 

(There you go M61... not an ABC article...)

 

 

[octave]

Marty_d, would you release your tax returns to the public arena? I guess that you have nothing to hide in yours, but do I have any real right to know more about your financials than that you paid your fair share of tax? If you have not paid your fair share, then it is the ATO's job to extract the unpaid amount. What am I to do with the knowledge that you may or may not have done your bit? I don't think that knowledge would afect my situation. So, if it is OK for your tax information to remain unpublished, then the same conclusion must apply to every person of every country - Trump included.

Kerry Packer made the statement for the fabulously wealthy when he said:

 

I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Of course, I am minimising my tax. Anybody in this country who does not minimise his tax wants his head read. I can tell you as a government that you are not spending it so well that we should be donating extra.

 

 

OME

As far as I understand it the president is no legally required to release their tax returns HOWEVER it is my understanding that most presidents have chosen to release their tax returns (you can see them here - Tax History Project -- Presidential Tax Returns The fact that Mr T claimed that he was all about "draining the swamp" - ridding Washington of corruption, getting rid of the "elites" (what does this mean?? Perhaps I am misguided but to me having billions in the bank does make you elite in some sense - surely???) Surely it what be a smart move to remove any suspicion that Mr T has any vested interests.

 

One of the many things that does concern me is Mr T tweeting an angry tirade at a PRIVATE business (Nordstrom) for declining to continue carrying his Daughters fashion label. Firstly this is totally a business to decision. Secondly it will make people buy these products and will not change this businesses decision.

 

So just to summarise:

 

Mr T claims he is for the American people and NOT his own business interests.

 

Mt T is annoyed because his daughters business has had a setback.

 

Mr T (the most powerful man in the world feels the need to make a 3AM tweet saying "it's so unfair") - perhaps it is BUT why is he so dumb that he thinks his tweet will change the decision? But more importantly why does he not think that he will be accused of using his position to further his and his families business interests????.

 

Further to that I am totally confused as to why so many people think that Mr T, a billionaire, is not in any sense an elite. I have always avoided calling those who have voted negative names but to be honest I do feel that they are being quite naive. I do hope I am wrong and that Mr T does make changes that make life better for the people who are not befitting from the global economy but I am not convinced he will do anything that will endanger his personal fortune or business interests. But perhaps I am wrong, in which case I will happily apologise.

 

 

[octave]

Not to mention that during his campaign he consistently said he'd release them when the IRS audit was complete (even though the IRS said he didn't need to wait...) but now, apparently, he's not going to do it at all. Mustn't have been a "core" promise I guess.

Indeed at the very least Mr T lied during the campaign, yes I know someone is going to say that all pollies tell lies, true BUT you must now admit that at the very least HE IS NO BETTER THAN ANY OTHER POLLITICIAN

 

 

[Marty_d]

Indeed at the very least Mr T lied during the campaign

Very least indeed. If only the only lies he told were campaign promises.

 

The cynical decision to cut entry from 7 countries chosen, apparently, at random (hey, this isn't about stopping muslims, but keeping America safe...)

 

I'm sorry, where did 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 attackers come from??? The reason you didn't include Saudi Arabia couldn't have anything to do with your business interests, could it Donny boy?

 

Not to mention old Rudi spilling the beans and admitting quite openly that Trump asked them to find a way to implement a muslim ban.

 

 

[octave]

Very least indeed. If only the only lies he told were campaign promises.

The cynical decision to cut entry from 7 countries chosen, apparently, at random (hey, this isn't about stopping muslims, but keeping America safe...)

 

I'm sorry, where did 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 attackers come from??? The reason you didn't include Saudi Arabia couldn't have anything to do with your business interests, could it Donny boy?

 

Not to mention old Rudi spilling the beans and admitting quite openly that Trump asked them to find a way to implement a muslim ban.

 

Spot on Marty_d This is confusing to me. Why specifically were these 7 countries chosen, why not Saudi Arabia and Indonesia???? Can any Mr T supporter help me with this???

 

 

[M61A1]

So you're denying both Trump's own twitter feed and court transcripts?

 

 

..)

All I was saying is that given the ABC's history of "factual" reporting, particularly about political or environmental issues, One should check various sources and make sure that there is some consistency.

 

I think that Octave has a point though, I don't see why people from Indonesia and Saudi shouldn't be subject to extreme vetting as well.

 

Perhaps the counties listed are where the majority of asylum seekers are coming from.

 

 

[octave]

All I was saying is that given the ABC's history of "factual" reporting, particularly about political or environmental issues, One should check various sources and make sure that there is some consistency.I think that Octave has a point though, I don't see why people from Indonesia and Saudi shouldn't be subject to extreme vetting as well.

 

Perhaps the counties listed are where the majority of asylum seekers are coming from.

 

Can you give examples of the ABCs "history" of false "political and environmental reporting"?

 

My point is not that people from Indonesia or Saudi SHOULD be banned but rather it is an illustration of the lack of logic and hysteria of these particular restrictions. I would of thought restrictions that were based on country of origin would reflect where the perpetrators of past terrorist acts have originated from (9 11????) I would suggest that Mr T would like to appear tough without actually doing anything to endanger his business interests.

 

I have no problem with the US or any other country examining those who seek entry but to cast the net so wide is just ridiculous and probably counterproductive. In terms of those particular countries the restrictions at airports are not purely aimed at asylum seekers, business people tourists and even people who have been interpreters for the US military have been caught up in it. In terms of asylum seekers I would imagine that they are not entering the country unannounced and those who have been granted asylum have probably already received "extreme vetting"

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Spot on Marty_d This is confusing to me. Why specifically were these 7 countries chosen, why not Saudi Arabia and Indonesia?

These countries were listed specifically by the Department of Homeland Security - during the Obama administration - as countries of concern; see the executive order. So one could say it is Obama's list he is applying.

 

Your confusion is understandable; this sort of information is carefully filtered by the leftmedia so you wouldn't hear it there.

 

 

[M61A1]

Can you give examples of the ABCs "history" of false "political and environmental reporting"?

How about the Navy and asylum seeker story, the live export story and the coverage of almost anything on Nauru, just off the top of my head.

 

 

[storchy neil]

stolen gen neil

 

 

[fly_tornado]

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role to act as a check on the president.

 

The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said, for instance, that the administration had pointed to “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations had committed terrorism in the United States.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/politics/appeals-court-trump-travel-ban.html?_r=0

 

 

[Marty_d]

These countries were listed specifically by the Department of Homeland Security - during the Obama administration - as countries of concern; see the executive order. So one could say it is Obama's list he is applying.

Your confusion is understandable; this sort of information is carefully filtered by the leftmedia so you wouldn't hear it there.

The difference being, Obama had the brains not to slap an indiscriminate ban on entry from anyone from those countries - including US residents that happened to be overseas - causing havoc at airports, bad will to the muslim community, worldwide condemnation, embarrassment for the US as a whole and achieving absolutely nothing but high blood pressure for the Trumpster when a judge AND the appeal court put a stay on his ill-thought order.

 

Not to mention, everyone in the US security services thinks it's a dumb move and the effects will be to lessen security rather than increase it.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Nah, Marty. That's just a load of twisted ABC propaganda funded by communists......

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

The difference being, Obama had the brains not to slap an indiscriminate ban on entry from anyone from those countries.

So what do you call brainy Obama's six month ban on Iraqi refugees?

 

And why is the USA obliged to accept people from these - or any countries - if its citizens vote not to (which they did)?

 

Your views are in the minority of course, you must be already aware of that.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Trump: "Airports are very important when you travel. Very important."

 

Remarks by President Trump in Meeting with the Aviation Industry

 

 

[Marty_d]

Your views are in the minority of course, you must be already aware of that.

I'm not a European Gnu, did you even read the title of your quoted article?

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Yes polls in the US show similar results. No answer to my two simple questions...?

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I love how GNu uses polling to imply that's he's got the higher moral ground here

 

 

[storchy neil]

am I

 

mental yes

 

racist yes

 

sceptic yes

 

radical yes

 

all yeses

 

why

 

neil