This has been my belief all along.

[Been Jammin]

Trump wants everyone to think he is much more successful than he really is. It is all about image and narcissism. That, and he doesn't want the world to know that he is a hyperbolic liar. This is why he refuses to release any tax returns.

By Eric Beech, Mohammad Zargham and Andy Sullivan | WASHINGTON
President Donald Trump had personal liabilities of at least $315.6 million to German, U.S. and other lenders as of mid-2017, according to a federal financial disclosure form released late on Friday by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

He had roughly $20 million in income from his new marquee Washington hotel, which opened just down the street from the White House last September. Revenues also increased at Mar-a-Lago, the Florida resort known as the "Winter White House."

Trump reported income of at least $594 million for 2016 and early 2017 and assets worth at least $1.4 billion. (bit.ly/2sah0ZM)

The 98-page disclosure document posted on the ethics office's website showed liabilities for Trump of at least $130 million to Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas [DBKGK.UL], a unit of German-based Deutsche Bank AG.

For example, Trump disclosed a liability to Deutsche exceeding $50 million for the Old Post Office, a historic Washington property where he has opened a hotel.

Trump reported liabilities of at least $110 million to Ladder Capital Corp , a commercial real estate lender with offices in New York, Los Angeles and Boca Raton, Florida.

The largest component of Trump's income was $115.9 million listed as golf-resort related revenues from Trump National Doral in Miami, down from $132 million he reported a year ago.

Income from many of his other hotels and resorts largely held steady. Revenue from Trump Corporation, his real-estate management company, nearly tripled, to $18 million, and revenue from Mar-a-Lago grew by 25 percent, to $37.25 million. The private club doubled its initiation fee to $200,000 after Trump's election.

He earned $11 million from the Miss Universe pageant, after selling the beauty contest back in 2015.

Revenue from television shows like "The Apprentice" fell to $1.1 million, down from $6 million a year earlier.

His assets probably exceeded $1.4 billion because the disclosure form provided ranges of values.

The document showed Trump held officer positions in 565 corporations or other entities before becoming U.S. president. His tenure in most of those posts ended on Jan. 19, the day before his inauguration, and in others in 2015 and 2016.

Most of the entities involved were based in the United States, with a handful in Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Brazil, Bermuda and elsewhere.

ALSO IN POLITICS

• Trump rolls back parts of what he calls 'terrible' Obama Cuba policy
• Trump acknowledges he is under investigation in Russia probe

Trump has refused to release his tax returns, which would give a much clearer indication of his wealth and business interests. But he has submitted federal forms disclosing his and his family's income, assets and liabilities.

"President Trump welcomed the opportunity to voluntarily file his personal financial disclosure form," the White House said in a statement, adding that the form was "certified by the Office of Government Ethics pursuant to its normal procedures."

An Office of Government Ethics spokesman declined to comment on the contents of the report, other than to say that it was certified by the office, which is an ethics watchdog for federal government employees.

Trump released a disclosure form in May 2016 that his campaign at the time said showed his net worth was $10 billion. Some critics disputed that figure as overblown.

Before taking office in January, Trump was a New York real estate developer and television celebrity.

 

[Been Jammin]

I know what some of you are going to say.

"He is still a billionaire and you only wish you were as successful as him"

"I think it is awesome that he refuses to release his tax returns and he is only doing it to troll the libs"

blah blah blah

 

[MegaPoke]

He just made you troll yourself.

 

[Been Jammin]

He just made you troll yourself.

Of course he did. He is playing 4 D chess and that was just part of his master plan.

 

[windriverrange]

Settled science then with that article. Trump is merely a millionaire, not a billionaire. Sucks to be him! Surely Been you know people who act like they are more important then they really are or wealthier than they are? The ex-rodent in chief can't even write his own books and won't realease his grades blah blah blah.

Again, not a huge fan of Trump, but as hard as I look don't see anywhere it states that a person running for president/is president needs to turn their tax returns over to the ignorant ass media or public. A lot about nothing IMHO. If the guy actually gives us normal working stiffs some tax relief, creates jobs and keeps us safe I don't care if he has a negative net worth. Nor do I care to ever see the ex-rodent in chiefs grades. Since it's common knowledge that there are 57 states and they speak Austrian in Austria.

 

[MegaPoke]

Of course he did. He is playing 4 D chess and that was just part of his master plan.

Just messing with you. You are probably right.

Off topic...

I have a prediction about you. You are a classic liberal, which is a good thing to be. I think Dave Rubin prototypically represents your woke future at some point. Minus being gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Medic007]

Just messing with you. You are probably right.

Off topic...

I have a prediction about you. You are a classic liberal, which is a good thing to be. I think Dave Rubin prototypically represents your woke future at some point. Minus being gay, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I think Been is almost my twin. Not a knock on him as he previously stated he didn't closely follow politics until recently, but I was the same way until the 2008 election until Clinton and Obama woke me up.

There was a definite turn from what I believed and what those two candidates messaged. I think most Democrats just went with it on party lines, not really digging into the actual message. I think that status quo existed for classical liberals through most of Obama's presidency.

Come 2016, I think folks like Been saw plenty they didn't like in Clinton and Sanders and their race to be the most progressive candidate, but have stayed true to the Party because they see Trump as just awful. Been definitely doesn't drink the koolaid.

 

[Been Jammin]

Come 2016, I think folks like Been saw plenty they didn't like in Clinton and Sanders and their race to be the most progressive candidate, but have stayed true to the Party because they see Trump as just awful. Been definitely doesn't drink the koolaid.

You are pretty much right on target. I did vote for Hillary, but don't like her and think she was an awful candidate. Really just voted for her because she isn't Trump. I like a lot of things about Bernie, but don't think his form of government would be good for the country.

As you say, I just think Trump is awful, for multiple reasons. That doesn't preclude him from doing positive things for this country, and I am perfectly willing to give him a chance and will praise him for it when it happens. I don't care if he is a terrible human if he does his job and does it well. Oh, and I don't want him to quit, be impeached or be assassinated. I like Pence even less than Trump. At least I like him less as POTUS. If I had to sit next to one on an overseas flight, I would probably pick Pence. He seems like a decent enough guy.

 

[CowboyJD]

I think Been is almost my twin. Not a knock on him as he previously stated he didn't closely follow politics until recently, but I was the same way until the 2008 election until Clinton and Obama woke me up.

There was a definite turn from what I believed and what those two candidates messaged. I think most Democrats just went with it on party lines, not really digging into the actual message. I think that status quo existed for classical liberals through most of Obama's presidency.

Come 2016, I think folks like Been saw plenty they didn't like in Clinton and Sanders and their race to be the most progressive candidate, but have stayed true to the Party because they see Trump as just awful. Been definitely doesn't drink the koolaid.

As you see Been as an earlier version of you....I see Ponca Dan as an earlier version of me with his idealistic libertarian views. I became more pragmatic and less absolutist. He would probably consider that me "selling out".

 

[CBradSmith]

You are pretty much right on target. I did vote for Hillary, but don't like her and think she was an awful candidate. Really just voted for her because she isn't Trump. I like a lot of things about Bernie, but don't think his form of government would be good for the country.

As you say, I just think Trump is awful, for multiple reasons. That doesn't preclude him from doing positive things for this country, and I am perfectly willing to give him a chance and will praise him for it when it happens. I don't care if he is a terrible human if he does his job and does it well. Oh, and I don't want him to quit, be impeached or be assassinated. I like Pence even less than Trump. At least I like him less as POTUS. If I had to sit next to one on an overseas flight, I would probably pick Pence. He seems like a decent enough guy.

What do you think of the Democratic party's extensive use of identity and race politics as primary methods of "segmenting," messaging, and generally seeing the world?

 

[CowboyJD]

What do you think of the Democratic party's extensive use of identity and race politics as primary methods of "segmenting," messaging, and generally seeing the world?

Do you think appeals to "America First", build the wall and make Mexico pay for it, and the alleged existential threat of globalism are other examples of use of identity politics used as a method of "segmenting", messaging, and generally seeing the world?

 

[CBradSmith]

Do you think appeals to "America First", build the wall and make Mexico pay for it, and the alleged existential threat of globalism are other examples of use of identity politics used as a method of "segmenting", messaging, and generally seeing the world?

I personally do not.

I interpret America First as primarily a pledge to work to stabilize job prospects for the middle class. I see a backseat message being a reversal of the self administered beatdown we gave ourselves for striving and sometimes achieving exceptional results as a nation. As if to say "Good job in striving for the exceptional, it propels you to reach farther and harder."

The notion of a wall is at first the creation of a formal acknowledgment of a problem. Debates can be had at nauseam about the specifics and extent of that problem, but by definition, in the minds of many, a problem exists. It may be correct that the executive branch retains the ability to not enforce written law, but the law exists. The process of immigration is defined a certain way. To many the problem may simply be a lack of enforcement. To them, if a law is in place, it is intuitive that the executive branch is tasked with enforcing it. To some the problem has economic manifestations, to others it may have criminal manifestations. All can be wrapped up in the notion (symbol) of the wall and the implication that the myriad of problems are being taken seriously. It may have only been in word only, lip service, but that is a different conversation.

Globalism dovetails in with America First in an economic sense. From the perspective of those who believe there are active forces who seek to push us to absolving a degree of our sovereignty (the globalists), the push back against globalism can be the desire to see American society, as we know it, not change drastically. This can be simply to retain the ideal of American exceptionalism versus the perception of many countries in Western Europe, who can be argued to fit the description being in a state of managed decline.

 

[GoPokes43]

Pretty hard to tell from that disclosure what his net worth is. The top limit on the disclosures are "over $50,000,000" and there are 15-20 different assets with that disclosure. Looks like Trump Tower in NYC alone is worth around $500-$600 million, and Mar A Lago if it is generating $37 million per year probably means its value is in the $100-200+ million range. (On the debt side, the same is the case on a handful of loans). Forbes estimated his net worth around $4 billion.

 

[CowboyJD]

I personally do not.

I interpret America First as primarily an pledge to work to stabilize job prospects of the middle class. I see a backseat message being a reversal of the self administered beatdown we gave ourselves for striving and and sometimes achieving exceptional results as a nation. As if to say "Good job in striving for the exceptional, it propels you to reach farther and harder."

The notion of a wall is at first the creation have a formal acknowledgment of a problem. Debates can be had at nauseam about the specifics and extent of that problem, but by definition, in the minds of many, a problem exists. It may be correct that the executive branch retains the ability to not enforce written law, but the law exists. The process of immigration is defined a certain way. Too many the problem May simply be a lack of enforcement period to them if a law is in place it is intuitive that the executive branch is tasked with enforcing it. To some the problem has economic manifestations or Criminal manifestations. All can be wrapped up in the notion of the wall and the implication that the myriad of problems are being taken seriously. It may have only been in word only, lip service, but that is a different conversation.

Globalism dovetails in with America First in an economic sense. From the perspective of those who believe there are active forces who seek to push us to absolving a degree of our sovereignty (the globalists), the push back against globalism can be the desire to see American society, as we know it, not changed drastically. This can be simply to retain the ideal of American exceptionalism versus the perception of many countries in Western Europe, who can be argued to fit the description being in a state of managed decline.

Fair enough. Rational response.

Another way of looking at all three could be "us against them" though. Which is also identity politics. Hell, American exceptionalism itself is arguably a great example of identity politics.

 

[CBradSmith]

Fair enough. Rational response.

Another way of looking at all three could be "us against them" though. Which is also identity politics. Hell, American exceptionalism itself is arguably a great example of identity politics.

I edited my initial post for easier reading (voice to text).

You're correct that another perception is as you described, but I'd contend that's already apparent. To a swath of the Democratic Party all those people who voted Trump where doing so from an underlying passive racist desire to perpetuate white society or domination.

I'd contend that most of the people asserting that are either not truly listening or are willfully misrepresenting voter intention in order to create/perpetuate victimized groups of people. Dividing is good for business.

Is the notion of American exceptionalism divisive to anybody who doesn't partake freely of our American community? Or better said, does it actively seek to alienate anybody? I think it is more of a philosophy on outlook and self actualization than identity.

 

[CowboyJD]

I edited my initial post for easier reading (voice to text).

You're correct that another perception is as you described, but I'd contend that's already apparent. To a swath of the Democratic Party all those people who voted Trump where doing so from an underlying passive racist desire to perpetuate white society or domination.

I'd contend that most of the people asserting that are either not truly listening or are willfully misrepresenting voter intention in order to create/perpetuate victimized groups of people. Dividing is good for business.

Is the notion of American exceptionalism divisive to anybody who doesn't partake freely of our American community? Or better said, does it actively seek to alienate anybody? I think it is more of a philosophy on outlook and self actualization than identity.

Thanks.

Another completely fair response.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what everybody means when they start throwing the term "identity politics" around.

It seems to me that when YOU use the term you are primarily focused on divisiveness and targeting of particular identitifiers within the American society for political gain. I agree with you that there is a swath of the left that attempt to paint any vote for Trump as at its core nothing but a racist vote.

At the same time, I believe there is an aspect of America first, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it, Muslim, and anti-globalism, and American exceptionalism etc. that is also identity politics in action. It is essentially, a characterization that if you aren't a Trump voter it's because you hate/don't believe in America and want see America fail or give up sovereignty to some type of global governing body a'la' the EC.

One I didn't mention earlier was NZ's favorite shadowy (paraphrasing) " why do Jews....who control the media...want multi-cultualism so badly here in the US when they don't practice it in Israel" and if you don't subscribe to nationalism you are a dupe of the globalists narrative. That is nothing but identity politics IMO.

I guess I'm trying to get a handle on whether or not all (or at least a big majority) of politics in America (and maybe the world) boils down to "identity politics"....attempting to divide the country into enough discrete groups you know will vote for you no matter what instead of focusing on actual issues and policy discussion. I fear that they may be the case. Maybe I'm just a policy wonk that prefers discussing hard proposals rather than demographics. So much of the political discussion from everyone today boils down to little more than demographics. When that happens we are moving from issue oriented politics to identity politics...almost as a matter of definition.

Anyway, I'm probably rambling somewhat nonsensically. Thanks for your response.

 

[CBradSmith]

Thanks.

Another completely fair response.

I'm just trying to get a handle on what everybody means when they start throwing the term "identity politics" around.

It seems to me that when YOU use the term you are primarily focused on divisiveness and targeting of particular identitifiers within the American society for political gain. I agree with you that there is a swath of the left that attempt to paint any vote for Trump as at its core nothing but a racist vote.

At the same time, I believe there is an aspect of America first, build the wall and make Mexico pay for it, Muslim, and anti-globalism, and American exceptionalism etc. that is also identity politics in action. It is essentially, a characterization that if you aren't a Trump voter it's because you hate/don't believe in America and want see America fail or give up sovereignty to some type of global governing body a'la' the EC.

One I didn't mention earlier was NZ's favorite shadowy (paraphrasing) " why do Jews....who control the media...want multi-cultualism so badly here in the US when they don't practice it in Israel" and if you don't subscribe to nationalism you are a dupe of the globalists narrative. That is nothing but identity politics IMO.

I guess I'm trying to get a handle on whether or not all (or at least a big majority) of politics in America (and maybe the world) boils down to "identity politics"....attempting to divide the country into enough discrete groups you know will vote for you no matter what instead of focusing on actual issues and policy discussion. I fear that they may be the case. Maybe I'm just a policy wonk that prefers discussing hard proposals rather than demographics. So much of the political discussion from everyone today boils down to little more than demographics. When that happens we are moving from issue oriented politics to identity politics...almost as a matter of definition.

Anyway, I'm probably rambling somewhat nonsensically. Thanks for your response.

I believe there is a trait on the right, Jordan Peterson called it dutifulness, that prompts that characteristic holder to value integrity more highly than average. I don't mean Integrity like truthfulness, I mean for example, that if a law is in place it is supposed to be followed and enforced.

For myself when engaging in political thought and discourse I prefer to focus on processes. Processes are what drive results. You are undoubtedly correct there are some on the right who see America First as a tribe. But I also believe from having interacted with many who lean right or libertarian, reading extensively the philosophy, and just applying pragmatic thought to the nature of the interaction between the individual and government and all those exogenous forces that the government attempts to steer on behalf of the individual.

I believe there are or a lot on the right like me. We care almost singularly with getting the process right, because the process is what serves the individual. Most of us are skin color agnostic, don't care if someone is a Muslim/Hindu/Protestant, whatever, don't care if you're from America, South America, Africa...who gives a shit.

As long as the processes, as best as possible, create an environment of equal opportunity (equality of outcome is not a requirement, although some baseline safety are welcome) for the citizens of the country, and as long as the individuals within the country respect the Integrity of the processes...then dude, you just described our utopian framework.

 

[Marshal Jim Duncan]

I didn't read the piece all the way through. But, I think the basic premise: that he isn't as wealthy as he seeks to portray, is correct. He was shown to be a exaggerating/lying about his wealth at least as far back as the mid 1980's.

 

[JimmyBob]

I didn't read the piece all the way through. But, I think the basic premise: that he isn't as wealthy as he seeks to portray, is correct. He was shown to be a exaggerating/lying about his wealth at least as far back as the mid 1980's.

As Cankles said it best: