The Swamp

Steve of phpBB wrote:Trump's unfitness for office is not because he has adopted Republican policies favoring the rich over the poor. I disagree with those, but I don't think my disagreement on policy justifies removing a legitimately-elected President. His unfitness is because of his reckless approach to governing, his incitement of hatred on racial and religious grounds, his intolerance for dissent, etc. The only way Trump is out before four years are up is if people who favor the rich over the poor start publicly opposing him on those issues.

This.
Steve, I'm shocked how much I agree with you lately, given that a few years ago we were quite apart.

The defenses of Flake and Corker would be more palatable had the Congressional GOP not just spent 8 years obstructing Obama from carrying out even the most basic Presidential functions. Based on actions -- and not media-savvy speeches -- is it Obama or Trump who Flake, Corker, McCain et al. treated as an illegitimate Presidnt who was unfit to govern?

wlu_lax6 wrote:wtf
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41752488

I saw this story this morning. I hate to have to take this position, but did this woman really need to bring this up? And "sexual assault?" An 89-year-old man in a wheel chair touched her butt in front of a bunch of other people, including his wife, where nothing more serious could possibly happen. Sure, that's a creepy and inappropriate thing to do, but does it really deserve the same label as a guy who physically attacks a woman but doesn't quite rape her? Compare this experience to the women who were chased around a hotel room by a naked Harvey Weinstein or who were frottaged by that other director. It sure seems like she's just trying get attention.

(that said, if he put her hand up her skirt or something, I take it back)

I mean I see what you're saying but is Harvey Weinstein as bad as Rae Carruth? You can say that about just about anybody. You still shouldn't do it.

Shirley wrote:

wlu_lax6 wrote:wtf
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41752488

I saw this story this morning. I hate to have to take this position, but did this woman really need to bring this up? And "sexual assault?" An 89-year-old man in a wheel chair touched her butt in front of a bunch of other people, including his wife, where nothing more serious could possibly happen. Sure, that's a creepy and inappropriate thing to do, but does it really deserve the same label as a guy who physically attacks a woman but doesn't quite rape her? Compare this experience to the women who were chased around a hotel room by a naked Harvey Weinstein or who were frottaged by that other director. It sure seems like she's just trying get attention.

(that said, if he put her hand up her skirt or something, I take it back)

and only brought it up when:

Ms Lind said she was spurred to make the claim after seeing a photo of Barack Obama shaking Mr Bush Senior's hand at a recent fundraiser for hurricane victims, which she said had "disturbed" her.

come on.

mister d wrote:Sure, but "I'll enact policy I like and quit at the end of my term while giving some solid quotes" isn't standing up for anything other than your own personal narrative and legacy. Trump is unfit, they seem to acknowledge he's unfit, but they don't want to put any policy changes at risk or just on hold to rectify things.

Correct. This. And one of the things they could do, now, is band together to force release of his tax returns. But they won't.

Rape Culture has no nuance. But it's a difficult topic to navigate.

Was a 'thing' done with sexual overtones that made someone feel awful? Note that this 'thing' can range from a glance to being fucked against your will.

Taken in context, it's a shitty thing to do. It's inappropriate touching. But when it's from an 89 year old wheelchair bound man with Parkinson's, it an overreaction - and specifically from what Degen noted.

Joe K wrote:The defenses of Flake and Corker would be more palatable had the Congressional GOP not just spent 8 years obstructing Obama from carrying out even the most basic Presidential functions. Based on actions -- and not media-savvy speeches -- is it Obama or Trump who Flake, Corker, McCain et al. treated as an illegitimate Presidnt who was unfit to govern?

Also this.

Johnnie wrote:

Joe K wrote:FWIW, Flake and Corker both voted with Trump on that CFPB bill. Which is further evidence that their criticisms are solely about his demeanor and not his policies.

Which makes the tweet Mister D shared the height of hypocrisy.

I remember thinking when I was a younger dude in history class "Man, how does someone like Hitler rise to power? Is literally no one caring?" I then think "I'm glad that wouldn't happen in America because of our government!" (Because naivete and because rights and laws and government protected by smart people.)

And the people are willing to go along with things as long as they aren't inconvenienced.

"Well, the trains are finally running on time." So who cares if the enemies of the people are upset at certain policies?

I had the same thoughts as a kid - hell, I even had them as a cynical adult. I don't have them any more.

A second has come forward:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BasRTcphESB/

Catalonia's parliament declares independence. Shit's getting real.

It's hard to gauge the real level of support since the anti-independence bloc largely protested the referendum, and then walked out of the parliamentary vote.

I've always found the whole "refuse to vote, then say the result is invalid when the other side wins" kind of an alien thing when using US politics for reference. It would be like if half the country were Jill Stein voters.

Sad that I have to get real news from people like this on Reddit:

http://reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/7a9 ... an_reddit/

Tax plan couldn't have been written to better fuck this area.

mister d wrote:Tax plan couldn't have been written to better fuck this area.

property taxes?

Johnnie wrote:Sad that I have to get real news from people like this on Reddit:

http://reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/7a9 ... an_reddit/

If you want an incredible insight into Putin, the history behind the Magnitsky Act, and the meeting Jr and Manafort wook with the Russian attorney, listen to the latest podcast episode of Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara. Preet is the former US Attorney for the Southern District of NY (Manhattan), that Trump famously spoke to several times then fired, when Trump realized Preet put the Constitution before a wannabe dictator. He interviewed Bill Browder, the man who hired Sergei Magnitsky as his attorney, leading to Putin torturing and killing Magnitsky. As much as I've read about Putin over the years, and about this situation, it was mind blowing hearing the story from Browder.

Too Long, Won't Listen: Browder was founder and CEO of the the largest portfolio investor in Russia. Browder uncovered corruption in some of the largest Russian corporations, namely oligarchs and the highest level government officials stealing $100s of millions from the corps. Browder was smart enough to flee Russia and pull out all of his assets before Putin detained him and seized his assets. He was actually detained at the airport on his way out, and at the last minute, they "deported' him by soldiers placing him on his flight. He left his company open for some reason, and Russian officials forged documents and laundered huge amounts of money under his corps name, then issued a warrant for his arrest, and froze his US Visa through Interpol. Magnitsky was his lawyer, who uncovered the money laundering, so the detained him. In Russia, the govt can hold a suspect for 1 year without a trial. They tortured Magnitsky and tried to force him to sign false confessions. They refused to treat him when he developed gall stones, moving him to a horrendous prison with no medical care. When the prison feared he would die, they transferred him back to a prison with a medical facility, but that prison beat him to death with rubber hoses, as he was days away from the one year mark, and the right to a trial.

Browder lobbied Congress to pass the Magnitsky Act, which froze assets and prohibited travel to the US for some of the oligarchs and government officials Magnitsky and Browder exposed. Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer Jr and Manafort met with, was in the US defending a Russian Oligarch for money laundering charges in the Southern District of NY (Preet Bharara was prosecuting, before he was fired, and the government made a shocking plea deal returning most of the money without an admission of guilt). She was also actively lobbying Congress to rescind the Magnitsky Act. Remember Jr's excuse that Veselnitskaya only discussed Russian adoptions? Putin banned Americans from adopting Russian children as a response to the Magnitsky Act, so this is a colossally stupid excuse by Jr, as it makes it really obvious she was there to lobby Trump to work to rescind the Magnitsky Act.

The sheer stupidity of Trump and all of his closest advisors is absolutely astounding. He runs his business and government like an organized crime family, but they are too stupid and brazenly arrogant to cover up their money laundering, bribery, and inside dealing. All of the money laundering in Trump Soho has to be part of Mueller's investigation at this point. Felix Sater and his work as a conduit between Trump and Putin and Trump and Kazakhstani crime bosses will also come out. Sadly, I think Trump may genuinely be stupid enough to avoid criminal charges, because he didn't knowingly launder money, he just stupidly takes all money thrown at him. Much like his vetting practice for his campaign and cabinet, he blindly does what people tell him.

rass wrote:

mister d wrote:Tax plan couldn't have been written to better fuck this area.

property taxes?

Property tax cap is the only one that affects me short-term but lowering the mortgage interest deduction could have some serious market effects too.

rass wrote:

mister d wrote:Tax plan couldn't have been written to better fuck this area.

property taxes?

Meh, with the stupid Alternative Minimum Tax, I can't take those deductions anyways. From what I've read, I will actually benefit from Trump's tax plan, but I still think they are horrible for the country. The current tax code fucks over this area as it is, because living on an average family income in this area, you get treated as though you are wealthy, without having the wealth to avail yourself of tax havens the truly wealthy use.

Fine, one more kid

DONT EVEN

mister d wrote:

rass wrote:

mister d wrote:Tax plan couldn't have been written to better fuck this area.

property taxes?

Property tax cap is the only one that affects me short-term but lowering the mortgage interest deduction could have some serious market effects too.

Ah yeah.

Given the cost of California housing, gawd forbid they limit my mortgage interest deduction. Luckily that is something that benefits rich folks so Trump likely won't fuck with it. The other one that has a big effect on me is the elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes. California income tax is not insignificant! And Trump and most of the R's hate California, so...

sancarlos wrote:Given the cost of California housing, gawd forbid they limit my mortgage interest deduction. Luckily that is something that benefits rich folks so Trump likely won't fuck with it. The other one that has a big effect on me is the elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes. California income tax is not insignificant! And Trump and most of the R's hate California, so...

Rich people don't have mortgages.

The Sybian wrote:

Johnnie wrote:Sad that I have to get real news from people like this on Reddit:

http://reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/7a9 ... an_reddit/

If you want an incredible insight into Putin, the history behind the Magnitsky Act, and the meeting Jr and Manafort wook with the Russian attorney, listen to the latest podcast episode of Stay Tuned with Preet Bharara. Preet is the former US Attorney for the Southern District of NY (Manhattan), that Trump famously spoke to several times then fired, when Trump realized Preet put the Constitution before a wannabe dictator. He interviewed Bill Browder, the man who hired Sergei Magnitsky as his attorney, leading to Putin torturing and killing Magnitsky. As much as I've read about Putin over the years, and about this situation, it was mind blowing hearing the story from Browder.

I've been meaning to post about Preet's podcast in the appropriately named thread. I've listened to all of them, including a recent one with the guy running NYC's counter-terrorism unit that you probably saw on camera this week. The one with Browder and the one with the guy who runs Lawfare are EXCELLENT. The others are good too, but those in particular provide some insight I hadn't seen before.

And I can't remember which episode, but Preet breaks down in highly specific detail the sequence of events leading to him getting tossed out with the district attorneys.

Johnnie wrote:Sad that I have to get real news from people like this on Reddit:

http://reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/7a9 ... an_reddit/

Here's a fascinating series of images from that link. They show a huge number of bot/troll accounts and then break down one of the most prominent ones, a fake Brit. What was particularly interesting was the time of the tweets - almost all exactly between 8AM and 8PM Moscow time.

https://imgur.com/gallery/6flYH

Nonlinear FC wrote:I've been meaning to post about Preet's podcast in the appropriately named thread. I've listened to all of them, including a recent one with the guy running NYC's counter-terrorism unit that you probably saw on camera this week. The one with Browder and the one with the guy who runs Lawfare are EXCELLENT. The others are good too, but those in particular provide some insight I hadn't seen before.

And I can't remember which episode, but Preet breaks down in highly specific detail the sequence of events leading to him getting tossed out with the district attorneys.

The Lawfare guy was outstanding. Preet broke down his firing in the first episode, paired with an interview with Leon Panetta. The NYC counter-terrorism guy is John Miller, whose career alternates between journalist and law enforcement. He famously got close to Gotti, which he tells an incredible story of how he got Gotti to talk to him. He also conducted the ABC News interview with bin Laden in 1998.

The Sybian wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Given the cost of California housing, gawd forbid they limit my mortgage interest deduction. Luckily that is something that benefits rich folks so Trump likely won't fuck with it. The other one that has a big effect on me is the elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes. California income tax is not insignificant! And Trump and most of the R's hate California, so...

Rich people don't have mortgages.

Bull. Rich people love deductions and that is a big one. If you can get a mortgage at 3.75% and get the government to pay for 30% of it, you'd be a fool to use your money to pay off a huge mortgage. You can do better by investing it elsewhere.

sancarlos wrote:

The Sybian wrote:

sancarlos wrote:Given the cost of California housing, gawd forbid they limit my mortgage interest deduction. Luckily that is something that benefits rich folks so Trump likely won't fuck with it. The other one that has a big effect on me is the elimination of the deduction for state and local taxes. California income tax is not insignificant! And Trump and most of the R's hate California, so...

Rich people don't have mortgages.

Bull. Rich people love deductions and that is a big one. If you can get a mortgage at 3.75% and get the government to pay for 30% of it, you'd be a fool to use your money to pay off a huge mortgage. You can do better by investing it elsewhere.

Yep. I know a rich guy who took a loan out on a Ferrari that he could easily afford, because he thought he could get much returns in the market that were higher than the interest rate on the loan. Not the same thing but similar idea.

It bears repeating...the truly rich don't really pay taxes. At least not what they are "supposed" to pay. And then that money trickles down into....their estates. The economy would probably be a lot better if Warren Buffet spent $40 billion tomorrow instead of keeping his place on the Forbes list.

The Sybian wrote:

Nonlinear FC wrote:I've been meaning to post about Preet's podcast in the appropriately named thread. I've listened to all of them, including a recent one with the guy running NYC's counter-terrorism unit that you probably saw on camera this week. The one with Browder and the one with the guy who runs Lawfare are EXCELLENT. The others are good too, but those in particular provide some insight I hadn't seen before.

And I can't remember which episode, but Preet breaks down in highly specific detail the sequence of events leading to him getting tossed out with the district attorneys.

The Lawfare guy was outstanding. Preet broke down his firing in the first episode, paired with an interview with Leon Panetta. The NYC counter-terrorism guy is John Miller, whose career alternates between journalist and law enforcement. He famously got close to Gotti, which he tells an incredible story of how he got Gotti to talk to him. He also conducted the ABC News interview with bin Laden in 1998.

Preet's podcast is outstanding. I agree with the recommendation. Every one has been fascinating. The one this morning on the indictments with the US Attorney from NJ was very enlightening

Former Public Defender, associate at my firm, walked in my office to recommend it to me today. I'd already downloaded, but not listened to it, at the time. Listened to the most recent one about the indictments. It's really good.

Between the reviews here and elsewhere on the web, I've subscribed and will listen to them all.

I've been caught out of town the past few days and all NPR has wanted to talk about is truck-guy. Any links to a dummy's guide to the new tax plan? I'm guessing I'm getting fucked but I'd like to know how hard.

BSF21 wrote:I've been caught out of town the past few days and all NPR has wanted to talk about is truck-guy. Any links to a dummy's guide to the new tax plan? I'm guessing I'm getting fucked but I'd like to know how hard.

https://www.vox.com/2017/11/2/16596896/ ... -explained

Vox is my goto on stuff like this.

I still haven't seen the specifics but I've read the gambling losses deduction is either capped or repealed. I've been Googling furiously but curiously can't find anything. If it were completely repealed for the 2017 tax year (which I don't think is possible -- I'm assuming even if passed this would apply to the 2018 tax year?) it would cost me something like $80,000. Which obviously I don't have.

Pretty sure this is 2018 year at the earliest.

A_B wrote:Pretty sure this is 2018 year at the earliest.

It'll become a story here one way or another, but if the deduction is completely repealed the gaming industry will have an absolute shitfit, which means Heller (R-NV) will either have to try to get it changed or will be forced to not support the bill. Gambling draws a lot of water in LA, MS and other states with all GOP senators as well. If it's capped at something like $100K or so I could probably live with it, but I would have to go back to never playing higher than dollar VP for fear of hitting too many jackpots.

brian wrote:I still haven't seen the specifics but I've read the gambling losses deduction is either capped or repealed. I've been Googling furiously but curiously can't find anything. If it were completely repealed for the 2017 tax year (which I don't think is possible -- I'm assuming even if passed this would apply to the 2018 tax year?) it would cost me something like $80,000. Which obviously I don't have.

What??? How much do you have to gamble to get an $80,000 deduction??? If you can't afford to lose the tax deduction for your gambling losses, you may need to look at your gambling as less of a hobby and more as a problem. Not trying to be preachy or joke, but that is an astounding sum. OTOH, why the hell should the tax code encourage gambling by offering a deduction on gambling losses? I realize people can't claim a gambling loss deduction without claiming winnings, but this is just bizarre to me. But, I imagine the gaming industry has some lobbying power in Washington, so of course we have a gambling losses deduction.

Wait... you can deduct gambling losses?

The Sybian wrote:

brian wrote:I still haven't seen the specifics but I've read the gambling losses deduction is either capped or repealed. I've been Googling furiously but curiously can't find anything. If it were completely repealed for the 2017 tax year (which I don't think is possible -- I'm assuming even if passed this would apply to the 2018 tax year?) it would cost me something like $80,000. Which obviously I don't have.

What??? How much do you have to gamble to get an $80,000 deduction??? If you can't afford to lose the tax deduction for your gambling losses, you may need to look at your gambling as less of a hobby and more as a problem. Not trying to be preachy or joke, but that is an astounding sum. OTOH, why the hell should the tax code encourage gambling by offering a deduction on gambling losses? I realize people can't claim a gambling loss deduction without claiming winnings, but this is just bizarre to me. But, I imagine the gaming industry has some lobbying power in Washington, so of course we have a gambling losses deduction.

As with anything in tax law/code there are myriad issues here. The biggest one is that the IRS forces casinos to report any jackpot of more than $1200 as "income". At a lot of machines, $1200 is frankly not that much (the law began in 1977 and has never been raised for inflation).

So in a given year like last year and probably this year, I had about $250K in "income" from hand-paid jackpots that generated forms for the IRS. If I can't deduct my losses the IRS thinks I "won" $250K which of course didn't happen. So that's why the gambling losses deduction exists in the first place. If the IRS thinks I won $250K then my taxes on that amount would be about $80K. As it is my "income" costs me a couple thousand extra on taxes even with being able to deduct because the original income boosts my tax bracket on all my income.

brian wrote:

The Sybian wrote:

brian wrote:I still haven't seen the specifics but I've read the gambling losses deduction is either capped or repealed. I've been Googling furiously but curiously can't find anything. If it were completely repealed for the 2017 tax year (which I don't think is possible -- I'm assuming even if passed this would apply to the 2018 tax year?) it would cost me something like $80,000. Which obviously I don't have.

What??? How much do you have to gamble to get an $80,000 deduction??? If you can't afford to lose the tax deduction for your gambling losses, you may need to look at your gambling as less of a hobby and more as a problem. Not trying to be preachy or joke, but that is an astounding sum. OTOH, why the hell should the tax code encourage gambling by offering a deduction on gambling losses? I realize people can't claim a gambling loss deduction without claiming winnings, but this is just bizarre to me. But, I imagine the gaming industry has some lobbying power in Washington, so of course we have a gambling losses deduction.

As with anything in tax law/code there are myriad issues here. The biggest one is that the IRS forces casinos to report any jackpot of more than $1200 as "income". At a lot of machines, $1200 is frankly not that much (the law began in 1977 and has never been raised for inflation).

So in a given year like last year and probably this year, I had about $250K in "income" from hand-paid jackpots that generated forms for the IRS. If I can't deduct my losses the IRS thinks I "won" $250K which of course didn't happen. So that's why the gambling losses deduction exists in the first place. If the IRS thinks I won $250K then my taxes on that amount would be about $80K. As it is my "income" costs me a couple thousand extra on taxes even with being able to deduct because the original income boosts my tax bracket on all my income.

Yeah, think about how people were talking about the Vegas shooter and how he was a high roller because of how much he won. Nobody mentioned all of the losses that he may have had. Brian, I'm curious how you (anyone) substantiates your gambling losses? It's not like you get a 1099-G, that would counter your W-2G.

it is like capital gains and losses?

we don't have a gaming tax here.