Slashdot Mirror


Online Journalists Launch An Onslaught Against Donald Trump (nytimes.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: Online journalists at Buzzfeed are publicizing two controversial videos featuring Donald Trump. First the site "filed court motions seeking the release" of Trump's under-oath testimony in a June trial, in which the real estate mogul "says he planned his caustic remarks on immigration delivered during the launch of his presidential bid," bragging that they'd "led to my nomination in a major party in the country." And Buzzfeed is also publicizing a video clip from the 2000 softcore porn movie Playboy Video Centerfold: Bernaola Twins, in which Trump makes a cameo appearance. Playboy has even said that years earlier Trump actually pressured his second wife to pose for Playboy. ("Trump himself was on the phone negotiating the fee," remembered a top Playboy editor. "He wanted her to do the nude layout. She didn't.")

But his biggest problem may be the mainstream media. According to the New York Times, Trump "declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years..."

24 of 843 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Change the laws enough and they all leave your country and take most of the wealth with them.

    Why didn't that happen when the top Federal rate was 90%?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Re:Legal maneuvers are ... legal! by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The point is, that if he's filing tax returns saying he's making massive massive losses, he's clearly not a successful businessman.

  3. The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember, Trump's >$900million loss came from running a fucking casino. And this was in the go-go 90's when people were actually making and spending money.

    You've got to be a special kind of businessman to lose almost a billion dollars running a casino.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is that supposed to be relevant?

      Now that is an interesting question. Remember, Donald Trump's only public record is as a businessman. He's never held any public office. So his record as a businessman is the only data we have to evaluate him.

      At very least, a businessman who loses almost a billion dollars running a fucking casino had better be prepared to answer other questions about his skill at business.

      Doesn't that sound relevant to you?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assuming he did, indeed, lose that money.

      Well, if he didn't lose the money and still claimed the loss on his income tax, we have a whole different discussion, involving lengthy prison sentences. One thing for sure: we now know why Trump has been so adamant about not releasing his tax returns.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:The house always wins by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One cannot record billion dollar loss without having a billion dollars worth of assets at one time.

      It is just like RIAA 'piracy damages' valuations, so yes you can record loss much larger than market valuation of assets at any time.

    4. Re:The house always wins by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd argue the opposite. His tax returns would prove he is NOT a successful self-made billionaire. For a guy who's built his candidacy on an ego trip this is important.

    5. Re: The house always wins by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it with you people about him not wanting to release his taxes while he is under an active audit? Don't give me that BS about there is no IRS restriction either. While there is no explicit IRS restriction, his tax lawyers are smart in advising him not to disclose until the audit is complete. No different than when your lawyer tells you not to discuss anything during an active investigation.

      When he decided to run for president, I guess there was no way he could have known he'd be expected to release his tax returns.

      http://www.mediaite.com/online...

      Nobody has to "smear" Donald Trump with BS. He does it himself so much it's made his skin orange.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Re:Meh. by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

    I would rather not see Establishment Hilary elected, but Trump really could burn the system down, and what replaces it is going to be much worse than what we have. Corporate Authoritarianism and Full Surveillance State where we have less rights, less freedoms and where system rigged much harder against regular people. Your think your analog guns will be any good against autonomous kill drones?

  5. Re:Whoopty Doo by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clinton would be a fucking weak candidate on any other occasion, no arguments there. But for Pete's sake, she's running against Trump. Trump. I can't even believe there's a choice to be made here for half the population of the US.

    The GOP will have no one but themselves to blame after loosing this election.

  6. Re:Meh. by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Totally agree. Anybody but Hillary.

    Anything is better than the corruption that is the Clintons.

    No, not anything. Economic devastation and deep recession followed by lots of multinational corporations becoming ex-US due to shattering of trade deals is not better. If you think US could survive couple bankruptcies like Trump's casinos, then you are sadly mistaken.

  7. Re:Meh. by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And when you really get to hate the color of your living room carpet, I assume you also set that one on fire to then watch it burn from the comfort of your sofa.

  8. Re:Whoopty Doo by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It scares the crap out of me that here on Slashdot, a site with presumably smart people like engineers and programmers, so many people are defending and rooting for Donald Trump.

    Either Slashdot is not as intelligent as I thought, or it is more right-wing than I thought, which of course is not exclusive.

  9. Re: Meh. by quax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't think the AC has to worry. The ones that swear fealty to the leader are usually safe in an authoritarian regime.

  10. Re:Meh. by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Burn the system down. Burn it all down.

    I'm guessing you're not a Muslim, Hispanic, black person, or resident of a Middle Eastern country.

    You won't get racially profiled, called the enemy, threatened with deportation, or have your country attacked on a whim.

    Much more likely you're white (and probably male), and as bad as Trump is the worst consequence you're likely to personally experience is a drop in your purchasing power due to the recession.

    In other words it's easy to say "burn it all down" when you're not the one in the house.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  11. Timely, too by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know if I've seen so many points expended to suppress both sides of an argument.

    What's interesting is looking at the moderation levels over time.

    For the first hour after the article was posted, there were a lot of pro-Trump comments.

    Now it's 2.5 hours later and all those articles have been modded down. What's left is pro-Hillary, in a roundabout way.

    You can tell when something's gone up and down because of the tags., If something has "Score: 2 insightful" it means someone modded it up (to gain the "insightful") and someone else modded it down.

    When Whiplash took over I mentioned that this site goes to pot around 6 weeks before a presidential election, and becomes unbearable starting around 2 weeks before an election. This year I think it'll be worse than previous election years.

    I can't *wait* until the election is over, so we can go back to having insightful posts.

  12. Re:poor sod by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trump doesn't see these as negatives. Many of his supporters on here don't either, and even think these stories might help him. These guys know essentially zero about politics.

  13. So that's how Trump's spinning it by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was wondering how he was going to try to recover from his recent string of bad news. Looks like his method is to pretend it's a conspiracy by the left-wing media to ruin him with an "onslaught" of bad press. Which implies that the stories are false or exaggerated, without actually making that claim. Clever, in case he ever needs to admit that the reports are true.

    Truth has no sides. Reality has no bias. If these things are true, and I have seen no indications that they are not, then the news is making Donald Trump look bad because Donald Trump is actually bad. If he steals money from charity to bribe investigators to turn a blind eye to his fraudulent businesses, the blame for the bad press afterward lies purely at the hands of Trump, not on the media and press.

  14. Re:Whoopty Doo by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You are so bassackward that you are more then 100% wrong.

    Here is real research by real academics who have actual PhD degrees and study the media. They are at one of the best universities on the planet: Harvard. This is the definitive definition of a qualified professional. They don't make shit up like Fox not-really-News.

    The report shows that during the year 2015, major news outlets covered Donald Trump in a way that was unusual given his low initial polling numbers—a high volume of media coverage preceded Trump’s rise in the polls. Trump’s coverage was positive in tone—he received far more “good press” than “bad press.” The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls.

    The Democratic race in 2015 received less than half the coverage of the Republican race. Bernie Sanders’ campaign was largely ignored in the early months but, as it began to get coverage, it was overwhelmingly positive in tone. Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic. For her part, Hillary Clinton had by far the most negative coverage of any candidate. In 11 of the 12 months, her “bad news” outpaced her “good news,” usually by a wide margin, contributing to the increase in her unfavorable poll ratings in 2015.

    This research covers 2015, but things didn't change much up to the national political party conventions. The most explosive material wasn't reported until after the first debate, and much of it is coming from online upstarts like Buzzfeed.

    The mainstream news organizations have been completely missing until very recently. The information about Trump's income tax claim could have been uncovered by the NY Times at any time in the last two years, but it wasn't. He was getting a free ride from the entire mainstream press until a few weeks ago.

    I know that Republicans have an extreme aversion to facts and departed reality many years ago, but the real world doesn't care what you think. It has a nasty habit of showing up when least expected and wreaking havoc on fools who ignore it. With any luck real world facts will finally catch up with Trump and pound him into dust. If that doesn't happen then the whole world is going on an extremely terrible ride.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  15. Re:Whoopty Doo by OpenSourced · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't vote candidates, in general. They vote if they are happy about how things are, or if they are not. Usually, is the incumbent (I'm happy about how things are in MY life), or the challenger (I'm not happy, let's change something).

    In this particular case the incumbent cannot run, so the proxy is the candidate of the same party. Also, people suspect that the usual challengers are not really a change at all. But in this case it is, or at least it appears to be. So the excitement about it.

    Voting or defending Trump has nothing to do with Trump, really, and all to do with a desire for profound change. The people express that desire in the only way that the election game allows them, and that's not a good way, that's for sure, but it's the only one.

    You are surprised of intelligent people defending Trump, and I am surprised of how this blatant fact, the desire, of so many people, for many current politics to change or reverse course, is completely bypassed by the media, that chooses to center in the, admittedly rather pathetic, personification of that desire. That's an ad-hominem fallacy if I ever saw one, and you fall into that trap and try to keep the discussion there (the person), instead of on the politics.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
  16. Re:Whoopty Doo by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because Trump is a "friend" of Big Media. He knows all the stakeholders by first name. They've all been to his "resorts" for free, they are all bought and paid for by Trump, Inc. Trump is no Republican. He's a White National fascist who used popularity to force the Republican party into a nomination. He's using the same playbook the Communists did after the death of Lenin...fear, confusion, obfuscation of reality to the point the only thing people know to be "real" is Trump himself.

  17. Re:Whoopty Doo by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You need to look at the media coverage of all Republican candidates together to understand what happened. The candidates thought to be the strongest opponents against Hillary received the harshest treatment (Christy, Romney, Rubio, and Cruz).

    Trump was considered a non-threat, him getting the nomination was supposed to ensure an easy victory for Clinton. The long knives didn't really come out until poll numbers showed Trump actually having a chance to win. Now that he's ahead you see the hysteria.

    .

  18. Re:Just like Citizens United by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We were told it was wrong, not that it was "against the rules". Where's the outrage about Buzzfeed intentionally doing wrong?

    If the rules change back and Buzzfeed does this again, you want people at Buzzfeed arrested for it, right?

  19. Re: Whoopty Doo by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where were you the last decade? The US has been quite good at destabilizing itself without outside help. Increasing inequality between the 0.01% and everyone else, jobs that become more precarious with time, hyper-partisan media, deteriorating value of an education, etc. Trump vs Hillary is just a symptom.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.