ADVERTISEMENT

Would Bill Having an Illegitimate Son Be the End of Hillary's Campaign?

UNC71-00

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Feb 25, 2003
26,842
13,223
113
It's the front page of Drudge this morning. I have no idea if it is true and I don't take anyone's word that Bill has an illegitimate son. That being said, I would not be surprised in the slightest if it were true.

So let's for the sake of argument assume this is true. Would this revelation sink Hillary's campaign to the point where she would struggle to win any state other than California and Maryland? I'm not sure that it would.
 
It's the front page of Drudge this morning. I have no idea if it is true and I don't take anyone's word that Bill has an illegitimate son. That being said, I would not be surprised in the slightest if it were true.

So let's for the sake of argument assume this is true. Would this revelation sink Hillary's campaign to the point where she would struggle to win any state other than California and Maryland? I'm not sure that it would.
I doubt it would. I think the vast majority of Americans probably already assume that he has at least one illegitimate child given his history. I've always put the odds at 2-1 myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
It's the front page of Drudge this morning. I have no idea if it is true and I don't take anyone's word that Bill has an illegitimate son. That being said, I would not be surprised in the slightest if it were true.

So let's for the sake of argument assume this is true. Would this revelation sink Hillary's campaign to the point where she would struggle to win any state other than California and Maryland? I'm not sure that it would.

I doubt it would hurt her. Liberals would find a way to spin it as a positive for Hill.
 
Unfortunately, probably would not matter to many people. It might actually do the opposite -- it "humanizes" her and people can relate. Hell, "she's one of us" at that point.

But yet -- every American with a brain tries to get as much back on their taxes as possible, and we're going to criticize Trump for doing the same. Hypocrite, anyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunslingerdick
The kid has his own "I'm Bill Clinton's Son" facebook page so it has to be legit

Yes he does. Which is why I poasted that I wasn't taking anyone's word.

Simple DNA test will prove it- wonder if there is any of Clinton's DNA still remaining on Monica's dress?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Yes he does. Which is why I poasted that I wasn't taking anyone's word.

Simple DNA test will prove it- wonder if there is any of Clinton's DNA still remaining on Monica's dress?
Wouldn't surprise me at all...
 
I wonder how much Trump is paying the kid to fabricate such lies. How can I get in on that action?
 
But yet -- every American with a brain tries to get as much back on their taxes as possible, and we're going to criticize Trump for doing the same. Hypocrite, anyone?

Well, not paying them and getting as much back as possible are a little different.

As to Bill's alleged son, who knows.
 
Well, not paying them and getting as much back as possible are a little different.

I assume you mean not paying them... if they are owed. And from what I've seen, no one is alleging Trump owed taxes that he didn't pay (if he did, then he should be charged with tax evasion - which would effectively end his campaign).

What they are alleging is that he has successfully studied the tax code and has found loopholes in the tax code that allow him to legally come to a $0 tax bill. Thus, he didn't pay taxes, but also didn't owe them either. I see nothing wrong with it if it's this scenario, and would actually recommend that everyone in the country use any write-offs/loopholes available to them to lower their tax burden - why pay unnecessary taxes if you legally don't have to?

It appears what Hillary and the Democrats are attempting to do is (truthfully) state that Trump hasn't paid taxes, but is a billionaire. Then they are banking on the American voters to be too stupid to realize that this is legally possible, and to then assume that Trump must be a bad man for not paying taxes. To Hillary's credit - banking on the stupidity of voters and their likelihood to jump to (incorrect) conclusions is a pretty solid play.
 
I assume you mean not paying them... if they are owed. And from what I've seen, no one is alleging Trump owed taxes that he didn't pay (if he did, then he should be charged with tax evasion - which would effectively end his campaign).

What they are alleging is that he has successfully studied the tax code and has found loopholes in the tax code that allow him to legally come to a $0 tax bill. Thus, he didn't pay taxes, but also didn't owe them either. I see nothing wrong with it if it's this scenario, and would actually recommend that everyone in the country use any write-offs/loopholes available to them to lower their tax burden - why pay unnecessary taxes if you legally don't have to?

It appears what Hillary and the Democrats are attempting to do is (truthfully) state that Trump hasn't paid taxes, but is a billionaire. Then they are banking on the American voters to be too stupid to realize that this is legally possible, and to then assume that Trump must be a bad man for not paying taxes. To Hillary's credit - banking on the stupidity of voters and their likelihood to jump to (incorrect) conclusions is a pretty solid play.

Thanks for replying on this one. Well said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
I assume you mean not paying them... if they are owed. And from what I've seen, no one is alleging Trump owed taxes that he didn't pay (if he did, then he should be charged with tax evasion - which would effectively end his campaign).

What they are alleging is that he has successfully studied the tax code and has found loopholes in the tax code that allow him to legally come to a $0 tax bill. Thus, he didn't pay taxes, but also didn't owe them either. I see nothing wrong with it if it's this scenario, and would actually recommend that everyone in the country use any write-offs/loopholes available to them to lower their tax burden - why pay unnecessary taxes if you legally don't have to?

It appears what Hillary and the Democrats are attempting to do is (truthfully) state that Trump hasn't paid taxes, but is a billionaire. Then they are banking on the American voters to be too stupid to realize that this is legally possible, and to then assume that Trump must be a bad man for not paying taxes. To Hillary's credit - banking on the stupidity of voters and their likelihood to jump to (incorrect) conclusions is a pretty solid play.
That's great. But... SOMEONE has to be paying them. If it were just about who is smart enough to figure-out ways to not pay them, then I guess no one would have to pay any taxes. Do you think it would be "fair" for multi-billionaires to pay some taxes? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with finding loopholes. People do it all the time.

In Trump's case, he's chosen to not reveal them. So, we don't know what he's paid or not paid.
 
I assume you mean not paying them... if they are owed. And from what I've seen, no one is alleging Trump owed taxes that he didn't pay (if he did, then he should be charged with tax evasion - which would effectively end his campaign).

What they are alleging is that he has successfully studied the tax code and has found loopholes in the tax code that allow him to legally come to a $0 tax bill. Thus, he didn't pay taxes, but also didn't owe them either. I see nothing wrong with it if it's this scenario, and would actually recommend that everyone in the country use any write-offs/loopholes available to them to lower their tax burden - why pay unnecessary taxes if you legally don't have to?

It appears what Hillary and the Democrats are attempting to do is (truthfully) state that Trump hasn't paid taxes, but is a billionaire. Then they are banking on the American voters to be too stupid to realize that this is legally possible, and to then assume that Trump must be a bad man for not paying taxes. To Hillary's credit - banking on the stupidity of voters and their likelihood to jump to (incorrect) conclusions is a pretty solid play.

I'd never pay a cent in taxes if I could figure out how not to. That's not criminal; its savvy.
 
That's great. But... SOMEONE has to be paying them. If it were just about who is smart enough to figure-out ways to not pay them, then I guess no one would have to pay any taxes. Do you think it would be "fair" for multi-billionaires to pay some taxes? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with finding loopholes. People do it all the time.

In Trump's case, he's chosen to not reveal them. So, we don't know what he's paid or not paid.

Again, the job of any-and-every accountant is to save your client or employer as much money as is legally allowed.

You simply cannot criticize someone for being savvy and taking full advantage of the existing laws. There is simply no intelligent basis to that argument.
 
I assume you mean not paying them... if they are owed. And from what I've seen, no one is alleging Trump owed taxes that he didn't pay (if he did, then he should be charged with tax evasion - which would effectively end his campaign).

What they are alleging is that he has successfully studied the tax code and has found loopholes in the tax code that allow him to legally come to a $0 tax bill. Thus, he didn't pay taxes, but also didn't owe them either. I see nothing wrong with it if it's this scenario, and would actually recommend that everyone in the country use any write-offs/loopholes available to them to lower their tax burden - why pay unnecessary taxes if you legally don't have to?
To call this a loophole is a stretch. The IRS has allowed this for years. It simply means if you lose money this year you can recoup a percentage of that loss in following years. Think about it, suppose you own a business and this year you lose 50,000 and next year you make 50,000. Is it fair for you to have to pay taxes on the whole 50,000 when you lost 50,000 the year before? People pay zero tax for one reason, they earned zero
 
That's great. But... SOMEONE has to be paying them.
Correct people who are legally required to pay taxes pay them.

Do you think it would be "fair" for multi-billionaires to pay some taxes?
What's your definition of fair?

The problem here is not Trump, it's the tax code. It needs to be simplified.
 
Correct people who are legally required to pay taxes pay them.


What's your definition of fair?

The problem here is not Trump, it's the tax code. It needs to be simplified.
I'm not implying that "Trump is the problem" here! Donald Trump has refused to submit his tax returns. SO, we don't know what he has or has not paid.

As I said, if it's just about who's clever enough to find ways out of paying any taxes, then no one "should be" paying them. Yes, the tax code is royally fvcked. No doubt about it. But, we're talking about choosing a person to be our president. A guy that refuses to show what he has or hasn't paid looks suspicious to me.

This is just more evidence of how people who have made their decisions will choose to see anything that comes out that is potentially scathing or calls their character into question as being just fine. Like... an illegitimate child. Or, not showing your tax returns. Or, having a record of stiffing people who you hired. Or, covering-up emails that may have been a threat to national security.
 
Again, the job of any-and-every accountant is to save your client or employer as much money as is legally allowed.

You simply cannot criticize someone for being savvy and taking full advantage of the existing laws. There is simply no intelligent basis to that argument.
Sure there is an intelligent basis. The accountant is not running for president. Is this going to be where we have to consult the accountant, like we were supposed to consult Sean Hannity about his position on the Iraq War? Show your returns and there's no problem. And, don't play that audit BS.
 
I'm not that concerned with how much tax DT has paid, but, more of who he owes money to, who he has business deals with and if he is as charitable as he claims he has been.

We all know how much of a snake and a scumbag he is . . and HC isn't any better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heels Noir
Sure there is an intelligent basis. The accountant is not running for president. Is this going to be where we have to consult the accountant, like we were supposed to consult Sean Hannity about his position on the Iraq War? Show your returns and there's no problem. And, don't play that audit BS.

Good businesspersons tend to hire experts in any given field and allow them to do their job, correct? Would you dispute this?

No harm intended, but you're proving Hark's point about HRC's campaign pandering to folks who don't get it.
 
If it were just about who is smart enough to figure-out ways to not pay them, then I guess no one would have to pay any taxes.

As I said, if it's just about who's clever enough to find ways out of paying any taxes, then no one "should be" paying them.

From these two statements - you're making it seem like you think that it's possible for anyone to pay 0 taxes. As in - everybody who is smart enough can get a 0 tax bill if they just know how to work it. That's not the case. If you make money, and don't have carried forward losses from previous years, or several other types of "write-offs" then you're paying taxes on the money you earn - there's no way out of that.

Do you think it would be "fair" for multi-billionaires to pay some taxes?

If they earned money that they weren't able to write-off legally, then yes - I would say it's fair for them to have to pay taxes. If they have successfully maneuvered the tax code to have a $0 tax burden - then no I don't think it's fair to force them to pay taxes.

If you're asking me if billionaires who make no money should have to pay taxes on the wealth they're sitting on - I would say no, that's not fair.
 
To call this a loophole is a stretch. The IRS has allowed this for years. It simply means if you lose money this year you can recoup a percentage of that loss in following years. Think about it, suppose you own a business and this year you lose 50,000 and next year you make 50,000. Is it fair for you to have to pay taxes on the whole 50,000 when you lost 50,000 the year before? People pay zero tax for one reason, they earned zero

Yes I agree with all of this. Which is why I'm saying what Trump has done is not illegal (and I'd argue it's not even immoral - but as Strum says, morals are all relative).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910
From these two statements - you're making it seem like you think that it's possible for anyone to pay 0 taxes. As in - everybody who is smart enough can get a 0 tax bill if they just know how to work it. That's not the case. If you make money, and don't have carried forward losses from previous years, or several other types of "write-offs" then you're paying taxes on the money you earn - there's no way out of that.



If they earned money that they weren't able to write-off legally, then yes - I would say it's fair for them to have to pay taxes. If they have successfully maneuvered the tax code to have a $0 tax burden - then no I don't think it's fair to force them to pay taxes.

If you're asking me if billionaires who make no money should have to pay taxes on the wealth they're sitting on - I would say no, that's not fair.
Have you seen Trump's tax returns?
 
I assume you mean not paying them... if they are owed. And from what I've seen, no one is alleging Trump owed taxes that he didn't pay (if he did, then he should be charged with tax evasion - which would effectively end his campaign).

What they are alleging is that he has successfully studied the tax code and has found loopholes in the tax code that allow him to legally come to a $0 tax bill. Thus, he didn't pay taxes, but also didn't owe them either. I see nothing wrong with it if it's this scenario, and would actually recommend that everyone in the country use any write-offs/loopholes available to them to lower their tax burden - why pay unnecessary taxes if you legally don't have to?

It appears what Hillary and the Democrats are attempting to do is (truthfully) state that Trump hasn't paid taxes, but is a billionaire. Then they are banking on the American voters to be too stupid to realize that this is legally possible, and to then assume that Trump must be a bad man for not paying taxes. To Hillary's credit - banking on the stupidity of voters and their likelihood to jump to (incorrect) conclusions is a pretty solid play.

It's not even a loophole. Everyone who has losses writes off gains against those losses.

And as usual for Hillary, documentation quickly surface that she had filed her taxes using the same method as recently as 2014.

This is a complete non- issue.
 
This is just more evidence of how people who have made their decisions will choose to see anything that comes out that is potentially scathing or calls their character into question as being just fine. Like... an illegitimate child. Or, not showing your tax returns. Or, having a record of stiffing people who you hired. Or, covering-up emails that may have been a threat to national security.

This is pretty much true.

The problem is that you can't get anyone worth a damn to run for office. Trump however offers us the best shot at actually getting someone decent- no one knows how he will do as an elected politician because he has never been one. But we all know exactly how Hillary will behave.
 
Have you seen Trump's tax returns?

Clearly not - I'm just trying to find out what the huge deal is. I'm explaining that it's entirely possible for Trump to have legally paid no taxes in recent years. It seems everyone who is demanding his tax return is looking for it to show he paid no taxes, as if that's some sort of damning evidence against him - and I don't understand why they think that.

It's not even a loophole. Everyone who has losses writes off gains against those losses.

Yes, definitely. I shouldn't call it a loophole, I guess I just don't really know what else to call it. It should be called "obeying the tax code" but it appears some people are just dumbfounded that a rich person can legally pay no taxes.
 
I'm not that concerned with how much tax DT has paid, but, more of who he owes money to, who he has business deals with and if he is as charitable as he claims he has been.

We all know how much of a snake and a scumbag he is . . and HC isn't any better.

I agree that it's more important to know who he's doing business with. But I don't understand the part about charitable giving. Why would you care about his charitable giving? I mean, I guess I understand why you'd care but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on his candidacy or are you saying it should?
 
This is pretty much true.

The problem is that you can't get anyone worth a damn to run for office. Trump however offers us the best shot at actually getting someone decent- no one knows how he will do as an elected politician because he has never been one. But we all know exactly how Hillary will behave.
Well, when you get down to it, "worth a damn" is even more relative. The American political system has evolved into just what you see. It's self-perpetuating. The real casualty is; People still support it and they still draw their lines and defend them, in spite of it not being worth a damn. That part, I do not understand.

I also do NOT don't see Trump's total lack of experience as being a good thing. As I told a friend of mine; If he were running for mayor of NYC? That would be different. Get some on-the-job training in familiar waters. Do what you think you do best and see how it goes. But, to get your sea legs as the President of The United States, at this point in time? No fvcking way, dude. And, certainly not with what this guy is touting as things to be proud of or admired for.

He comes-off, to me, as a sleazy, arrogant prick who has risen to massive financial wealth off-the-backs of others (and having come from wealth) and gloats about how he has exploited and worked this political system that is not "worth a damn." I have no doubt that he does possess a grand marketing knowledge and can see a business opportunity when it arises. Great for him and those he has favor with. But, for average Americans? No, thanks. Someone who has learned to flourish in that system, and milk it and make it even worse by buying both sides, is not going to change it... at all. That's all they know. That's all he wants to know. I think the guy did this on a lark, pretty much, with a dash of revenge thrown-in from Obama's comments about him at the dinner. He took it personal. And, to his credit, he got even. Now, he's in too deep, and he knows it, but his ego isn't about to let go. And, the following that has built around him makes him believe he's "right."
 
The problem here is not Trump, it's the tax code. It needs to be simplified.

Truer words have never been spoken.

It's analogous to what Belichick was doing to the Ravens in the 2015 playoffs when he had Shane Vereen lining up in the slot as an ineligible receiver. It wasn't against the rules when Belichick exploited it. Harbaugh got mad and yelled at the refs but there was nothing they could do. Belichick is just smarter than everybody else.

Two words - Fair. Tax.
 
It appears likely that Trump avoided paying taxes on millions in income by directing payments to his foundation. The dodge is he allegedly didn't explicitly tell them to give the money to his foundation. They just decided that, out of all the legitimate charities out there, they wanted to give their money to the crappy foundation of the guy to whom they owed money.

Now imagine you're Comedy Central and you owe Trump $400,000. He tells you he doesn't want the money, just give it to charity. In what world would they come up with the Trump Foundation as the charity of choice?

After his campaign initially said he never directed donations to any group, including his own, the tune changed when they were shown evidence that he directed the CC payment to his foundation. Now he claims he did pay taxes on THAT donation but still won't speak to a $1.9M donation from NY ticket broker Richard Ebers.

In the meantime, he used $258,000 of charitable (*cough* slush) funds to settle lawsuits, and also bought portraits of himself and a signed Tim Tebow football helmet with charitable funds. Not savvy - kinda illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heels Noir
Well, when you get down to it, "worth a damn" is even more relative. The American political system has evolved into just what you see. It's self-perpetuating. The real casualty is; People still support it and they still draw their lines and defend them, in spite of it not being worth a damn. That part, I do not understand.

I also do NOT don't see Trump's total lack of experience as being a good thing. As I told a friend of mine; If he were running for mayor of NYC? That would be different. Get some on-the-job training in familiar waters. Do what you think you do best and see how it goes. But, to get your sea legs as the President of The United States, at this point in time? No fvcking way, dude. And, certainly not with what this guy is touting as things to be proud of or admired for.

He comes-off, to me, as a sleazy, arrogant prick who has risen to massive financial wealth off-the-backs of others (and having come from wealth) and gloats about how he has exploited and worked this political system that is not "worth a damn." I have no doubt that he does possess a grand marketing knowledge and can see a business opportunity when it arises. Great for him and those he has favor with. But, for average Americans? No, thanks. Someone who has learned to flourish in that system, and milk it and make it even worse by buying both sides, is not going to change it... at all. That's all they know. That's all he wants to know. I think the guy did this on a lark, pretty much, with a dash of revenge thrown-in from Obama's comments about him at the dinner. He took it personal. And, to his credit, he got even. Now, he's in too deep, and he knows it, but his ego isn't about to let go. And, the following that has built around him makes him believe he's "right."

You just proved your own point. And I'm not going to argue with you about your perceptions or feelings.

Bottom line is that we have no idea how Trump will do when he is president. However we have plenty to draw on to determine how Hillary would have handled it, and it's about as bad as it gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
It appears likely that Trump avoided paying taxes on millions in income by directing payments to his foundation. The dodge is he allegedly didn't explicitly tell them to give the money to his foundation. They just decided that, out of all the legitimate charities out there, they wanted to give their money to the crappy foundation of the guy to whom they owed money.

Now imagine you're Comedy Central and you owe Trump $400,000. He tells you he doesn't want the money, just give it to charity. In what world would they come up with the Trump Foundation as the charity of choice?

After his campaign initially said he never directed donations to any group, including his own, the tune changed when they were shown evidence that he directed the CC payment to his foundation. Now he claims he did pay taxes on THAT donation but still won't speak to a $1.9M donation from NY ticket broker Richard Ebers.

In the meantime, he used $258,000 of charitable (*cough* slush) funds to settle lawsuits, and also bought portraits of himself and a signed Tim Tebow football helmet with charitable funds. Not savvy - kinda illegal.


Cool. I'd like to see that Tebow helmet.
 
Now imagine you're Comedy Central and you owe Trump $400,000. He tells you he doesn't want the money, just give it to charity. In what world would they come up with the Trump Foundation as the charity of choice?
.

In the world where Comedy Central wants to do business with Trump again.

Contrast that with the donors to the Clinton charity, who owed the Clintons nothing. Those donors were making an investment by buying favors in advance and by all accounts, the Clintons provided an excellent ROI.
 
It appears likely that Trump avoided paying taxes on millions in income by directing payments to his foundation. The dodge is he allegedly didn't explicitly tell them to give the money to his foundation. They just decided that, out of all the legitimate charities out there, they wanted to give their money to the crappy foundation of the guy to whom they owed money.

Now imagine you're Comedy Central and you owe Trump $400,000. He tells you he doesn't want the money, just give it to charity. In what world would they come up with the Trump Foundation as the charity of choice?

After his campaign initially said he never directed donations to any group, including his own, the tune changed when they were shown evidence that he directed the CC payment to his foundation. Now he claims he did pay taxes on THAT donation but still won't speak to a $1.9M donation from NY ticket broker Richard Ebers.

In the meantime, he used $258,000 of charitable (*cough* slush) funds to settle lawsuits, and also bought portraits of himself and a signed Tim Tebow football helmet with charitable funds. Not savvy - kinda illegal.

If it's illegal - then charge him with a crime. If it's not illegal - then stop crying about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UNC71-00
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT