The Future President, Donald Trump Part 2

Sure, the $900 million-plus of losses reported by the New York Times — losses that could be used to offset income for a total of 18 years — are totally shocking. Legal, yes. But shocking.

But there’s something I consider even more shocking — although it involves a much smaller number.

By my read of the Trump tax return published by the New York Times, he would have been tax-free because of a $15,818,562 loss reported on Line 11 of the return under “Rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, trusts, etc.” It looks to me that this loss reflects the outrageous, special tax break that real estate developers that people like Trump can get, but that the rest of us can’t.
To give you the brief version, people who qualify as real estate developers or managers can use depreciation deductions to offset non-real-estate income. But people who don’t qualify for this special treatment can’t do that. (For full details, ask a tax expert about Section 469 of the tax code.)

What we can tell, though, is that what I wrote recently about Trump’s “That makes me smart” boast when Hillary Clinton prodded him about not paying taxes was right.

If Trump were truly smart — and wanted to lead by example — he would have disclosed his tax returns, showed the loopholes he used, and vowed to close them.

I have plenty of problems with the Clintons’ financial behavior, as I wrote. But at least Hillary Clinton is proposing tax code changes that would cost her and her family money. Trump, by contrast, is proposing tax changes that would greatly benefit the commercial real estate business, which is his primary field, and would greatly benefit his own family. And when I asked his campaign last week whether he was proposing any tax changes that would cost him and/or his family any money, I got no reply.

At Monday night’s debate, Donald Trump was called out for stiffing the people who work for him. Trump has been accused of failing to pay hundreds of contractors. And so far, he hasn’t seemed very sorry. When asked about failing to pay someone by Hillary Clinton this week, Trump replied, “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”

I take that attack personally. I’m one of the many small business owners who’ve been used by Trump, exploited and forced to suffer a loss because of his corporation’s shady practices.

My relationship with Trump began in 1989, when he asked me to supply several grand and upright pianos to his then-new Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City. I’d been running a music store for more than 30 years at that point, selling instruments to local schools and residents. My business was very much a family affair (my grandsons still run the store). And I had a great relationship with my customers — no one had ever failed to pay.

I was thrilled to get a $100,000 contract from Trump. It was one of the biggest sales I’d ever made. I was supposed to deliver and tune the pianos; the Trump corporation would pay me within 90 days. I asked my lawyer if I should ask for payment upfront, and he laughed. “It’s Donald Trump!” he told me. “He’s got lots of money.”

But when I requested payment, the Trump corporation hemmed and hawed. Its executives avoided my calls and crafted excuses. After a couple of months, I got a letter telling me that the casino was short on funds. They would pay 70 percent of what they owed me. There was no negotiating. I didn’t know what to do — I couldn’t afford to sue the Trump corporation, and I needed money to pay my piano suppliers. So I took the $70,000.

Losing $30,000 was a big hit to me and my family. The profit from Trump was meant to be a big part of my salary for the year. So I made much less. There was no money to help grow my business. I had fewer pianos in the showroom and a smaller advertising budget. Because of Trump, my store stagnated for a couple of years. It made me feel really bad, like I’d been taken advantage of. I was embarrassed.

Today, when I hear Trump brag about paying small business owners less than he agreed, I get angry. He’s always suggesting that the people who worked for him didn’t do the right job, didn’t complete their work on time, that something was wrong. But I delivered quality pianos, tuned and ready to go. I did everything right. And then Trump cheated me. It’s a callous way to do business.

Trump keeps saying that it’s time we got a businessman to run the country. Of course, I think it’s important to find someone who can bolster the economy. But I also think we need a president who cares about small business owners, and about honoring his commitments. That’s not Trump.

By all accounts, Mike Pence is running for the vice presidency on a ticket with Donald Trump. Viewers might be forgiven if they went to bed with the wrong impression after tuning into Pence’s one and only appearance on a debate stage Tuesday night, though.

Time and again, Pence was asked to defend some of his running mate’s most controversial statements and positions. And with virtually every opportunity, he instead deflected, changed the subject, or outright denied that Trump’s words were Trump’s words.

Take this exchange on nuclear weapons. This past spring, Trump raised eyebrows when he suggested it was in America’s interest if more countries—like Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea—began developing nuclear weapons. He also suggested that as president, he wouldn’t be opposed to using nuclear weapons in Europe.

To national security experts at the time and still today, Trump’s comments were as alarming as they were outlandish. And on Tuesday, Mike Pence sounded incredulous when Trump’s own words were essentially repeated

“He never said that,” Pence insisted. Naturally, there is ample video evidence of Trump saying it, repeatedly.

Pence also couldn’t believe a presidential nominee would forget the fact that Russia invaded Crimea just two years ago. “Trump…didn’t know that Russia had invaded Crimea,” Kaine reminded viewers.

He knew that,” was Pence’s chortled retort.

“He’s not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand,” were Donald Trump’s exact words in August, two years after Putin went into Ukraine. “He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want.”

On immigration, on foreign policy, on national security, on taxes, on insults leveled against women, Mexicans, and Muslims; every time Kaine resurfaced one of Donald Trump’s offensive, false or incoherent quotes, Pence refused to defend his running mate.

And that may have been by design.

As many commentators noted post-debate, while Kaine gave a full-throated defense of Hillary Clinton’s record at the State Department and in Congress, Pence’s primary concern on the debate stage seemed to be himself. If his aim was to lend support for Donald Trump’s policy proposals and sway undecided voters, Pence failed spectacularly.

If, however, his goal was to insulate his own political career from his highly combustable running mate, well, mission accomplished.

The truth is that vice-presidential nominees seldom have a significant impact on the outcome of the election, and their one debate is almost guaranteed not to change much. The most memorable moment in a VP debate happened in 1988, when Lloyd Bentsen zinged Dan Quayle with "You're no Jack Kennedy" — but you may recall which one of them became vice president afterward. So consider what we'll be talking about for the next couple of days as we run this debate around in our heads. We'll certainly talk about Russia, which was the topic of an unusual amount of discussion — but much of that will concern what the extent of Donald Trump's business interests are there, not to mention replays of both Trump and Pence's words of praise for Vladimir Putin.

Even more so, we'll talk about the pattern that repeated over and over again between Kaine and Pence, in which Kaine would bring up something offensive or bizarre or idiotic that Trump had said, whereupon Pence would shake his head and with a "What the heck is he talking about?" expression on his face deny that Trump had ever said any such thing. Unfortunately for Pence, the fact-checkers are armed and ready, and they'll be noting that in almost every case, Kaine was right and Pence was wrong. Here are some of the things that Kaine noted Trump had said, and Pence either explicitly denied or shook his head at:

— That Trump called Putin a great leader


— That Trump said more nations should get nuclear weapons

— That Trump said about nuclear war between other countries, "Good luck, enjoy yourself"

— That Trump said he wants a deportation force to round up undocumented immigrants


— That Trump said women who have abortions should be punished.

— That Trump wanted to ban Muslims from entering the United States

— That Trump said NATO was obsolete

— That Trump was unaware that Russia invaded Ukraine

— That Trump said the military is a disaster

There's more, but the point is that there will be article after article in the next few days explaining that Trump did in fact say these things. Then the Clinton campaign will put together some online videos showing Pence denying that Trump said these things, along with video of Trump saying these things. Cable news will show those videos many times over the next few days — at least until the next time Trump says something appalling at a rally or in an interview.

And Trump will say many more appalling things, as sure as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Who knows, he may have already done so by the time you're reading this.

However there is ample evidence that Trump has indeed created strong support and excitement in a large and perhaps growing segment of voters

In any event the unease among Hillary supporters here is very evident.

— That Trump said women who have abortions should be punished.

Trump quote " women who seek abortions should be subject to some form of punishment"

How is that?

con·text
ˈkäntekst/
noun
noun: context; plural noun: contexts

the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.