President Trump

His tax returns would have nothing to do with Obama and wire tapping anyway, so I don't see how they'd be included in that court action.

 

That's pretty stretchy. I think the only thing you'd find on his tax returns is that he makes less money than he claims and that he didn't pay the amount in taxes you'd think a guy of his wealth would make while the rest of us who make decent livings are paying through the teeth.

 

He's hiding that he paid less than he should have according to what we normal folks pay/expect him to pay. Simple as that. Everyone in his tax bracket avoids taxation like the plague and they have the most expensive attorneys and tax professionals to help them do it. Sure, the preposterously wealthy like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet might not worry too much about taxes because they can donate half a billion and not feel it. A half a billion is worth probably 13% of Trump's net value.

He's hiding this because he knows it'll be unpopular, but like Savory said what does he have to gain from releasing it? Nothing. What does he lose by not revealing them? Pissing off some people still hunting this information down because they're clinging to some dead hope that it'd mean his impeachment? It's really a red herring at this stage.

 

I don't know why Trump (or anyone else) trying to avoid paying taxes is a bad thing. We're taxed too much already. Let's assume you're in the 20% bracket. Tack on 8% state tax. Then what you have left over, you're taxed when you spend it. Then add on all the other "taxes" such as health insurance, hunting / fishing license, 1/3 of the price of gas is tax, car registration (at time of purchase and yearly), emission test, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Look at your cell phone bill and count up all the taxes and fees. That 20% bracket is now 45%. Working January to May for the government is flat out wrong, IMO. So when Trump says he's smart to avoid paying taxes, I applaud him. Some might take issue, but at least he's honest while paying a higher percentage than Obama or Bernie.

 

I have no problem with Trump trying to pay the lowest amount as you can in taxes.

I don't care about his professed reasoning for not releasing his taxes. His reasoning doesn't matter IMO. But the person we entrust to work tirelessly for the benefit of the US, can't have any conflicts of interest, and can't be beholden to foreign governments, so they have to be properly vetted, and that means we have to see where they get their money from. Do some of his business dealings have ties to Russia, of course some will. His businesses are international. To what degree is the important part.

To me, this is not a dead horse. This is absolutely important.

 

I agree with your point about business ties with foreign countries. But I think most people are more interested in the % he pays vs his dealings with Russia, "Chiiiiiiinnnnna", or the Middle East.

 

It's now coming out that intel was gathered on members of Trump's transition team after it being reported ad nauseam that this was not the case.

I'm a non-Trump fan conservative who wants to know what (if any) collusion went on between Trump & Russia over the past year. Getting pretty safe to say if there was something nefarious afoot, the waiting-to-pounce mainstream media would've been ALL over it by now. I think any real evidence of collusion coming out at this point is quite unlikely.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39358363

Post-election communications of Donald Trump's team were swept up in an "incidental collection" by intelligence agencies, a Republican lawmaker says.

House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes said individuals were named in "widely disseminated" reports, which he said was "totally inappropriate".

Mr Nunes said this did not back Mr Trump's claim Barack Obama had ordered Trump Tower wiretapped before the poll.

But when asked if he felt vindicated, Mr Trump said: "I somewhat do."

Mr Nunes also insisted the collected information was not linked to an FBI investigation into alleged links between the Trump team and Russian officials during the election campaign.

He said the incidental collection was legal but "I don't know if it's right", adding that some of the information he had seen "seems to be inappropriate".

Such gathering of intelligence is usually related to communications US individuals have with foreign powers.

But American citizens involved in such incidental information are usually unidentified.

Analysis: BBC North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher
US intelligence agencies regularly monitor foreign individuals of interest, so if a member of the Trump transition team - or Donald Trump himself - communicated with a person under surveillance, it's likely those interactions would be recorded.

That would constitute "incidental", legal surveillance as described by Devin Nunes in his press conference on Wednesday afternoon. What that means, however, is open to interpretation.

Trump supporters may point to this "startling revelation", in press secretary Sean Spicer's words, as evidence that the president correctly suspected his communications were being intercepted. They will also probably question who "unmasked" the names of Trump advisers, when the default is to avoid revealing the identities of US citizens communicating with monitored foreign nationals.

Mr Trump's critics are sure to wonder what kind of interactions the Trump team was having with individuals worthy of US intelligence surveillance. Were these communications authorised, and what topics did they cover? It was just such intelligence intercepts that revealed that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had been lying about the nature of his phone discussions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after all.

This story is like a spinning top, impossible to know which way it will next turn.

 

I expect all of them to spin it their way. That's why I like this BBC article. Gives both sides and ends with "it can go either way." I simply don't know how this will play out. I have ideas, but we'll see

 

I knew that f***er couldn't do anything noble

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...undoing-obama-era-internet-privacy-rules.html

I really hope Trump doesn't sign this, but I'm sure he is.

Trump expected to sign bill undoing Obama-era Internet privacy rules

A bill whose critics say could put people's private browser histories up for sale and hand Internet providers a lucrative victory awaits President Trump's signature after swift passage through the House and Senate.

The controversial resolution, which would overturn a host of Internet privacy protections enacted near the end of the Obama administration, would mean broadband providers can collect data on user’s online activities. But backers say the regulatory rollback of rules that had not yet taken effect merely puts Internet providers on the same level as search engines like Google.

“Congressional action to repeal the [Federal Communications Commission’s] misguided rules marks an important step toward restoring consumer privacy protections that apply consistently to all Internet companies,” the Internet and Television Association, a telecommunications trade group, said in a statement.

Republican lawmakers argue that the rules -- which were created under Obama’s appointee to the FCC, Tom Wheeler, and slated to go in effect later this year – unfairly targeted broadband providers and put them at a disadvantage when competing with internet companies like Google, Amazon and Netflix. Those web giants are not regulated by the FCC, but in recent years have begun competing with telecom companies’ consumers looking into online streaming services.


If (when) it goes into effect, I highly recommend all of you purchase a IP blocker, such as Trust.Zone. I think I paid $30 for a 3 year subscription. Your internet provider will have no idea where you are. They might still be able to see your history (I'm not sure on that one). Ugh. Bad news for our privacy!

 

I hope he doesn't sign it either, but it's expected he will. Can you imagine if everyone's browser history got released online? Sooooooo many divorces.

It's really not that big of a deal to be honest. Google has enough to end most marriages on everyone anyway.

 

Its another step in eroding our privacy and there's no going back once they do it.

 

Oh. I agree it's bad. I was just saying that in the end, if Google and to a lesser extent Yahoo or Microsoft decided to screw you over, they easily could. Our only hope is the mutually assured destruction that would follow whatever company started selling off people's unflattering secrets.

 

That's not going to stop this. Essentially the ISPs will be able allowed to track the sites you are visiting and make a database that they can sell off. They say the databases won't have names attached to the person, just the history of where this "user" went and it would be used for marketing purposes. That's all well and good until some d*** decides to get a job there and figures out how to unload it all to some hacking collective.