The New American Politics thread

[FlamesAddiction]

I know this story was already posted, but if the details are true, then there were laws broken involving his charity:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...dc7_story.html

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by TheoFleury

Seems like it's yet another thing that is unethical, but not illegal. Par for the course with how most of the 1% operates. Push things as far as you can before breaking the law. Somehow I'm guessing Clinton isn't going to ever attack him over this.

This is as good of a reason as any to not want someone like Trump having unbalanced power in lawmaking. The 1% are already able to lobby and influence legislation in their favour. For Trump, the White House would be the ultimate tool for his scheming.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The charities should be under scrutiny for that as well. I mean, even though they are still making some money from it, they are paying a lot of the "donations" back to Trump. They are active participants in the Trump shell game.

It's definitely dishonest.

Don't Grocery stores do that too? Like when they ask for donations at the till?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Don't Grocery stores do that too? Like when they ask for donations at the till?

If you donate at the till you don't get a tax receipt for it. It only gets claimed once.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by photon

Also Trump visited Flint, goes to speak at a church and then starts to stump (the campaign had said that he was there to thank the people for their work in helping... Flintians?) and gets shut down by the pastor. "Mr. Trump, I invited you here to thank us for what we’ve done in Flint, not give a political speech,"

That visit, and particularly the "pastor," seemed awfully Trumpian as well: inviting someone to speak to you but only on the condition that they say nothing other than how great and wonderful you are.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This ####ing guy....

In a fact sheet Thursday, the campaign highlighted a number of "specific regulations to be eliminated" under the GOP nominee's economic plan, including what they called the "FDA Food Police."

“The FDA Food Police, which dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food,” it read.

“The rules govern the soil farmers use, farm and food production hygiene, food packaging, food temperatures and even what animals may roam which fields and when,” the statement continued. "It also greatly increased inspections of food 'facilities,' and levies new taxes to pay for this inspection overkill."

The FDA recently completed an overhaul of the food safety system with seven rules to better protect consumers from food-borne illnesses. Manufacturers of both animal and human food are now required to implement preventive controls to minimize the risk of contaminating food when it’s manufactured, processed, packed or held by a facility.

Trump’s economic policy plan also calls for “an immediate halt to new federal regulations and a very thorough agency-level review of previous regulations to see which need to be scrapped.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/health...ty-regulations

[octothorp]

It's absolutely incredible that he can go into Flint and talk to people their about the government failures that lead to serious contamination of the drinking supply, and then the very next day talk about massively rolling back the regulations that prevent contamination of the country's food supply.

[nik-]

The terror in that child's face. Also, please appreciate the colour coordination between the Secret Service guy's tie and Trump.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

He basically takes money from other people and donates it under his name, which in all likelihood means he is claiming the tax benefits from it as well. It's basically like using a charity to help pay your taxes.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I guess the questions are whether the Trump "charity" is actually a true charity where the people donating get tax credit for donating, and whether Trump is then claiming the same write off when he donates the same money in his name.

For example, if one of Trumps billionaire buddies gives money to the Trump charity and gets a tax write off, then Trump turns around and donates that same money and gets the same tax write-off, then the public is clearly being cheated out of the tax money they are entitled to.

If that is the case then it is clearly exploiting a charity and illegal.

Best case scenario is that it is dishonest and shady, which for Trump supporters meet the bar I guess.

You're making a lot of assumptions here with no proof. I highly doubt that Trump is somehow trying to claim other peoples donations to or from his foundation on his personal taxes, that wouldn't fly at all. If someone donates to a charity they get a tax reciept, the charity then moves that money down the line (minus operating costs), the person running the charity doesn't funnel the money though their personal accounts.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by octothorp

It's absolutely incredible that he can go into Flint and talk to people their about the government failures that lead to serious contamination of the drinking supply, and then the very next day talk about massively rolling back the regulations that prevent contamination of the country's food supply.

Obligatory "in any other election", but yeah this would pretty much disqualify anyone else. Media should absolutely go to town on him for this. Instead, we'll get 24 hours of Dr. Oz.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

That visit, and particularly the "pastor," seemed awfully Trumpian as well: inviting someone to speak to you but only on the condition that they say nothing other than how great and wonderful you are.

Political stumping at a church function can lead to their church (not for profit/taxation free) status being revoked.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Political stumping at a church function can lead to their church (not for profit/taxation free) status being revoked.

But does that ever happen?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Drak

But does that ever happen?

Pretty rarely.

http://www.wnd.com/2000/05/4497/

Only example I have found in some quick Googling.

Trump thinks it's a big enough issue to have a policy on it however:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...participation/

[photon]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I highly doubt that Trump is somehow trying to claim other peoples donations to or from his foundation on his personal taxes, that wouldn't fly at all.

He made an illegal political donation money from the charity; seems he's more on the beg forgiveness (or pay for forgiveness?) than the ask permission side of things.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by photon

He made an illegal political donation money from the charity; seems he's more on the beg forgiveness (or pay for forgiveness?) than the ask permission side of things.

Yeah, but taking on the IRS is a whole other ball game. That's just bad for business.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by photon

He made an illegal political donation money from the charity; seems he's more on the beg forgiveness (or pay for forgiveness?) than the ask permission side of things.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, are you talking about the painting thing?

I was referring to where the poster said "if one of Trumps billionaire buddies gives money to the Trump charity and gets a tax write off, then Trump turns around and donates that same money and gets the same tax write-off". That isn't the way it works.

Anyway, I don't want to spend a lot of time defending Trump, he's as bad as Hillary.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, but taking on the IRS is a whole other ball game. That's just bad for business.

The IRS gave him the penalty for the illegal donation, so he was taking on the IRS there too wasn't he? The IRS would also be the ones he'd be taking on by saying he didn't violate the rules by buying a 6 foot painting of himself for himself. I don't really see much of a difference between them all, other than maybe degree.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Not sure what you are trying to say here, are you talking about the painting thing?

Was talking about the illegal donation to the Florida AG, but it's the same either way. Just trying to say that I wouldn't be surprised if he was trying to do something else that wouldn't fly with the IRS.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Not sure what you are trying to say here, are you talking about the painting thing?

I was referring to where the poster said "if one of Trumps billionaire buddies gives money to the Trump charity and gets a tax write off, then Trump turns around and donates that same money and gets the same tax write-off". That isn't the way it works.

Anyway, I don't want to spend a lot of time defending Trump, he's as bad as Hillary.

Disingenuous statement.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by photon

The IRS gave him the penalty for the illegal donation, so he was taking on the IRS there too wasn't he? The IRS would also be the ones he'd be taking on by saying he didn't violate the rules by buying a 6 foot painting of himself for himself. I don't really see much of a difference between them all, other than maybe degree.

That's a fair point, but the IRS's purview over charities' operations is a bit different from their enforcement of peoples' actual tax obligations. Thinking about the CRA, they're just as bureaucratic and inflexible as you'd think when wearing their charities directorate hat, but are relatively laid back about it.
Things like leveraged donations or downright fraudulent donation receipts, on the other hand? They'll rake you over the coals for that stuff, that's when they put their "we're not screwing around" hat on.