Liberals who have the intellectual honesty to ascertain what Donald Trump has actually said on the issues, without the media’s spin, cannot help but support Trump especially on Taxes, Women, and Muslim issues.
Regarding taxes
Trump’s position on his taxes can be analyzed in a variety of ways, and he comes out as preferable for true and honest liberals, or at least comparable to the alternative.
First of all, a poor entrepreneur pays no taxes if he loses more money than he makes in any given year just as the richest entrepreneur pays no taxes in such circumstances. This is absolutely no indication of a bias on behalf of rich people, and to say so or to insinuate this is dishonest or disingenuous at best.
Furthermore, Trump and his businesses surely had to pay payroll taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, and all kinds of other taxes and fees to a variety of governmental entities, and on a huge scale, even when they lost money.
But even if Trump indeed managed to “beat the system” by paying no tax when he should have paid taxes, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE, this would be a concession that the tax code even under Obama, who controlled both Houses of Congress at some point, needs to be revised, and Obama and his people failed to do so. If they failed to do so, somebody else, other than his third-term stand-in, should be given a chance, and who better than Donald Trump knows how to work the system, and therefore how to fix it? Remember that it was the conservative Richard Nixon who as a conservative had demonized the Communist Chinese, but who was able to make the breakthrough into China during his presidency. In Israel it was the conservative “reactionary” freedom fighter Menachem Begin who invited President Sadat to Israel to make peace and whose initiative led to the peace treaty that began in Oslo. Sometimes, the people who had the opportunities and missed every one of them should be cast aside so that real breakthroughs can be made.
Again, those who believe that Trump beat the system by paying no taxes at some point should realize that doubling or even tripling zero taxes paid would not add a single penny to the coffers of the country, and certainly could not finance a free lunch for every American, much less goodies such as free tuition. But it would take a sophisticated businessman like Trump, with his creative and clever accountants, to figure out a way to really make sure that the tax code would be fixed in a meaningful way so that all the billionaires who are supporting Hillary (who seems to have the support of most of the multimillionaires and billionaires of the country) will pay their fair share in the future.
Those who favor just continuing to raise the taxes on the wealthy the way they have done so in the past will just drive the wealthy out of this country, taking their companies and the contents of their houses and their checkbooks with them, leaving the United States with fewer businesses to hire people who want to work, with the increased taxes to be imposed, by default (but just as devastatingly as by intent) on the people who would be left, mostly the middle class, and the middle class would be smaller because there would be fewer companies to work for, and fewer jobs in the economy.
The “liberal” Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York boasts of having lured businesses to upstate New York by allowing them to operate tax-free for the first ten years. What can be a clearer admission by a more liberal liberal that eliminating, let alone reducing, taxes creates incentives for businesses to move in? What can be more unfair, incidentally, than eliminating taxes in order to induce companies to come and then penalize them for demonstrating their loyalty? (But this is an example of what can happen when people advocate liberal policies for public consumption but actually adopt conservative policies for desirable results.)
In this vein, even Bill Clinton recently conceded that despite Obama’s assurances, when inducing the adoption of Obamacare, that Obamacare would LOWER health care costs, Obamacare has in fact RAISED health care costs for the working class, with half the services (Clinton’s words).
Those who actually have the intellectual honesty to think all of this through will realize that if Trump lost close to a billion dollars when a whole industry – the casino business in Atlantic City – was imploding, and/or other legitimate losses were taking place, he was not taxed because he lost money that year, and the loss could simply be carried over – but an 18-year carryover was a pure fiction based on the assumption that Trump would not earn back his losses for 18 years. Even the most pessimistic cynics do not think this was likely. Even the most naive liberals are not so generous with other people’s money that they would like people who LOSE money to be taxed on what they LOST, because by definition most people could not do so without going bankrupt and then having to make the middle class even smaller by going on welfare.
Sacrifice on Behalf of Muslims and Other Americans
Keep all of this in mind as we consider the comment Trump made upon being challenged by a Muslim at the Democratic Convention with the lie that Trump had not sacrificed anything for his country. As this writer observed in this publication earlier (see below), although the Donald gave a different answer spontaneously when caught off guard, Trump the business mogul has actually sacrificed more than most politicians; ever since descending that famous escalator and declaring his candidacy for the highest office in the land, he has been sacrificing the life of leisure he could have had if he had simply retired like most people with his money at his age, but instead he is working around the clock and around the country to try to save his country from the mismanagement that has led it into more debt under Obama than all prior presidents accumulated for the country combined, with the promise by Hillary of worse to come if she gives even more goods and services away for free with an ever smaller tax base that will provide less revenue than before, because, under the Democrats in Congress and even the Republicans who are beholden to the special interests, they have proven that they aren’t likely to realistically get anything substantial more from the rich than before. Because the pseudo-liberal media is distorting so many things that Trump says and is demonizing him in such an unprecedented underhanded way, together with the devastating Clinton and Obama machines, Trump and his businesses are sure to suffer from the bad publicity, and the Trump brand which was so important to the Donald and so lucrative in the past is sure to suffer. More significantly, by running for President in such a high profile and controversial way, Donald Trump is putting himself and his family in mortal danger of death threats. He knew he was doing this, and his family agreed to be subjected to this abuse and danger. The Muslim father at the Democratic convention was not in danger himself. One member of his family put himself in harm’s way. Trump has put himself and every member of his family in harm’s way, in addition to the economic investment he continues to put into this campaign and all the other factors discussed above. If he REALLY eliminates regulations, closes loopholes, and thereby in effect raises the REAL tax rate on the rich more effectively than the do-nothing liberal politicians in Congress backed by the top 1% of Hollywood movie stars and rich businessmen who don’t know what to do with their time or their money, then the elimination of excess regulations may still be another sacrifice Trump will have made for his country.
Support Canada Free Press
On Muslims and Women
While on the subject of the family of the Muslim soldier who died for our country, it would behoove every intellectually honest person to examine what Trump actually said in response to the Muslim father at the Democratic convention. The Donald never “attacked” the soldier or his parents. All he did was make a remark about the fact that the soldier’s mother didn’t speak at the convention, which was a casual post-convention informal “dig” at the role of women in the Muslim community, not at this particular woman, and certainly not at her husband or her son. Trump was highlighting that Muslims who follow Sharia law treat their women as second class citizens who stay in the shadow, if they can even get THAT close to the action. The Saudis don’t give their women basic rights that are taken for granted in our country and in most other Western countries, though they sure gave the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary indirectly, plenty of attention – and MONEY -- and not without expecting something in return. Trump was simply contrasting the Sharia approach to women with his own approach to women, where they are given more executive positions in his construction company than most women in virtually all other construction companies, and, of course, Trump’s daughter Ivanka, a role model for working women, has made it her business to highlight the enlightened policies toward women that Trump has incorporated into his own businesses, and has pledged for the future to benefit all American women. The accusations against Trump are mostly for the WORDS he used when referring informally to women, which are far less offensive than the misogynist POLICIES of the Saudis toward their women, indirectly endorsed and promoted by Hillary. Incidentally, all but one of Trump’s opponents in the primaries were men, so he certainly proved he can exchange insults with men as much as, if not more than, with women.
By contrast, although Bill Clinton’s acts of infidelity are irrelevant to Hillary’s character, what IS relevant is Hillary’s reputed harassment – and more – of the women who accused Bill of harassment and more, including rape.
As for the Miss Universe brouhaha, it should be obvious to everyone that a beauty pageant winner and representative is presumed to be required to maintain her appearance, and a failure to maintain her appearance by means within her control is a breach of an understood condition of employment in such an industry. Nevertheless, Trump made it clear that in real life, generally, unlike perhaps sometimes in his “reality show,” he is a considerate person, and instead of firing the reigning Miss Universe (in connection with the pageant he owned) for not reining in her appetite, he figured out a way to keep her employed by having her become a spokesperson on behalf of some diet food or program. It was she who betrayed him by then turning around and joining Hillary’s campaign to complain that he had insulted her, and it was Hillary who failed to vet her as to her questionable other activities and connections which allegedly are far more nefarious than putting on some extra pounds. If Hillary can’t even vet Miss Universe, who was the most famous woman in the world at one point, how can she oversee the vetting of the thousands of often anonymous people she wants to let in from Syria, who are likely to include killers from ISIS ?
Trump has always said he has nothing against legal immigrants, and has long since refined his immigration plan which is designed to save ALL Americans including Muslims from ISIS terrorists, so that Muslims in America, along with people of other faiths and people without any faith, will be safer during a temporary ban of people from terrorist-saturated countries until the government will figure out how to vet the potential immigrants properly. Yet Hillary and the press continue to perpetuate the lie that Trump hates all Muslims and wants to ban all Muslims from coming to this country because of their religion.
Collusion of Media with Hillary
The collusion of the media with Hillary was of course dramatized in the first Trump-Hillary debate, where the clearly biased and immoderate “moderator” asked follow-up questions exclusively of Trump, to repeatedly try to pin him down, and claiming to “fact check” only Trump even where there are no clear cut facts on one side or another. Only Trump’s microphone was defective, which may not have been apparent to the television audience directly, but which influenced the audience reactions of the people present in person, and even though they are committed not to react publicly, and applause can be restricted, sometimes laughter and other reactions can’t be suppressed, and they can affect the dynamics of the debate. Plus, the defective microphone could have been a distraction for Trump, affecting his concentration. History cannot be undone, but at the very least, at the next debate, the moderator must convey an apology from the Debate Commission, and Hillary must issue an apology for her now-discredited wise crack about a tradesman who blames his tools.
Just one more observation about the media, typified by CNN – which some have dubbed “the Clinton News Network” – CNN actually conceded up front that it skewed the results of its first post-debate poll between Trump and Clinton by interviewing many more Democrats than Republicans. One poll, of course, influences another, and especially the first “scientific” post-debate poll.
It should not take a superhuman effort to restore “truth, justice, and the American way” to the political forum.
For more on why Trump is NOT anti-Muslim, see this writer’s piece in Canada Free Press, “Khan Owes Apologies to Trump, the Military, and the Country” (Aug. 9, 2016)
“The Press and the Dems Covering Up Trump’s Being for and Not against Peace-Loving Muslims” (July 30, 2016)
“Trump Proposal on Muslims More Liberal than that of FDR and the other Liberals of His Time” (Dec. 9, 2015)
For more on how Trump favors ALL Black Lives more than merely the tiny number of unarmed blacks.... killed by white police officers without provocation, see this writer’s piece “Black Lives Matter MORE If All Lives Matter” (Oct. 14, 2015).
Liberals who have the intellectual honesty to ascertain what Donald Trump has actually said on the issues, without the media’s spin, cannot help but support Trump especially on Taxes, Women, and Muslim issues.
Regarding taxes
Trump’s position on his taxes can be analyzed in a variety of ways, and he comes out as preferable for true and honest liberals, or at least comparable to the alternative.
First of all, a poor entrepreneur pays no taxes if he loses more money than he makes in any given year just as the richest entrepreneur pays no taxes in such circumstances. This is absolutely no indication of a bias on behalf of rich people, and to say so or to insinuate this is dishonest or disingenuous at best.
