Jot Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Therefore there can be no difference in freedom between North Korea and North America. Wow, just wow. So stupid, sad. How does this follow? Assume for a second that there are only these 2 possibilities "you are either free or you are not". To be free means to not be governed at all. We are not free in America and we are not free in North Korea. What is inaccurate about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 How does this follow? Assume for a second that there are only these 2 possibilities "you are either free or you are not". To be free means to not be governed at all. We are not free in America and we are not free in North Korea. What is inaccurate about this? Nothing. He's conflating degrees of slavery with degrees of freedom. There are no degrees of freedom, only degrees to which we are not free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Nothing. He's conflating degrees of slavery with degrees of freedom. There are no degrees of freedom, only degrees to which we are not free. Look mate, I'm perfectly happy to not interact with you, if we had an ignore list we could just pop each other on it. In fact, I don't want to interact with anyone who isn't going to vote, in perpetuity. But you're making it harder for us both if you pick up a question for me and doubley so when you get the answer wrong. If you can define a state in which people are perfectly free and then, as you have, allow for people to be moved away from perfect freedom by degree then you have created, imaginary though it may be, a scale of freedom. So if you can measure down from perfect freedom to whatever state we are in now, I can certainly measure up from whatever state we are in now to perfect freedom. How does this follow? Assume for a second that there are only these 2 possibilities "you are either free or you are not". To be free means to not be governed at all. We are not free in America and we are not free in North Korea. What is inaccurate about this? If you are either free, or you are not, then there is no difference between being in jail and being not in jail because both states are states of "not free". Posting that and not accepting the difference in freedom within the catagory of "not free" is tantamount to stateing that no preference may exist between differing states within the catagory of "not free". It is easyer to understand in terms of "health", just swap the words out and it implies that there is not reason for you to prefer suffering from a common cold to suffering from cancer. If you assume death is "not health" then you have no reason to prefer stubbing your toe over having your head cut off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Look mate, I'm perfectly happy to not interact with you, if we had an ignore list we could just pop each other on it. If you click on your username in the upper left of your screen to bring up your user menu, and then you click on "manage ignore preferences," you should be able to type in any members name and chose whether to ignore their chats, posts, and private messages. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 If you click on your username in the upper left of your screen to bring up your user menu, and then you click on "manage ignore preferences," you should be able to type in any members name and chose whether to ignore their chats, posts, and private messages. Thank you, Matthew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 If you are either free, or you are not, then there is no difference between being in jail and being not in jail because both states are states of "not free". Posting that and not accepting the difference in freedom within the catagory of "not free" is tantamount to stateing that no preference may exist between differing states within the catagory of "not free". It is easyer to understand in terms of "health", just swap the words out and it implies that there is not reason for you to prefer suffering from a common cold to suffering from cancer. If you assume death is "not health" then you have no reason to prefer stubbing your toe over having your head cut off. It is important that we work under the same definition. I defined free as not being governed and not free as being governed. When you are talking about freedom as in literally being in captivity or not we are already not talking about the same thing. The definition you are using is much broader than mine. Also, even under your definition there would still differences between the state of being imprisoned or not. Did you mean that there is no difference only taking into account one single variable, that of being free? I think you are making a leap here "Posting that and not accepting the difference in freedom within the catagory of "not free" is tantamount to stateing that no preference may exist between differing states within the catagory of "not free". I do not see how the first part necessarily implies the second part of your statement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 You are either free or in some degree of slavery. You are either dead or in some degree of health. There are no degrees of death and there are no degrees of freedom. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 If you have a unchosen restriction or obligation on your actions, you are not free. However, some restrictions (like physical laws) and some obligations (you gotta eat or you die) are inherent to our reality. Therefore freedom is not a bichromatic concept. You can be more free and less free, based on the quantity and onerousness of restrictions and obligations. If you restrict the discussion to a category of freedoms, specifically unchosen restrictions and obligations relating to other people, you may be able to approach 100% freedom, but it's highly unlikely you can get to that without being on a desert island. Your freedom is often limited by their freedom, and vice versa. We have developed ethical and moral systems to deal with the fairness of these interactions, but not a single one of those systems allows someone to be 100% free. Even the tyrant must fear the coup. So, instead, philosophers explore ways to min/max the concept, especially as it applies to individuals. Philosophy gives people the tools and facts and negotiation gives them a way to balance it. Yes, voting most often imposes unchosen personal restrictions and obligations. There is no one I know that is not already subject to voting that has already happened from before they were born. We've all be subject to a variety of other systems in the past, but they all amount to unchosen restrictions and obligations on our freedom, if not unchosen gain or loss of accessible resources. We all muddle through as best we can, looking for the solution we feel the best about and helps us the most. Voting may be immoral, but one can easily get to the point of saying, "so what?" It is better to take an action that leads to less loss of life or freedoms--even if it is normally wrong--than if a greater loss of life or freedoms would come about if no action were taken. And we use empirical data for that, not some other yardstick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 You are either not being punished or are in some degree of punishment. These statements do not exclude a preference toward the degrees inside that spectrum. If you have a unchosen restriction or obligation on your actions, you are not free. However, some restrictions (like physical laws) and some obligations (you gotta eat or you die) are inherent to our reality. Therefore freedom is not a bichromatic concept. You can be more free and less free, based on the quantity and onerousness of restrictions and obligations. If you restrict the discussion to a category of freedoms, specifically unchosen restrictions and obligations relating to other people, you may be able to approach 100% freedom, but it's highly unlikely you can get to that without being on a desert island. Your freedom is often limited by their freedom, and vice versa. We have developed ethical and moral systems to deal with the fairness of these interactions, but not a single one of those systems allows someone to be 100% free. Even the tyrant must fear the coup. So, instead, philosophers explore ways to min/max the concept, especially as it applies to individuals. Philosophy gives people the tools and facts and negotiation gives them a way to balance it. Yes, voting most often imposes unchosen personal restrictions and obligations. There is no one I know that is not already subject to voting that has already happened from before they were born. We've all be subject to a variety of other systems in the past, but they all amount to unchosen restrictions and obligations on our freedom, if not unchosen gain or loss of accessible resources. We all muddle through as best we can, looking for the solution we feel the best about and helps us the most. Voting may be immoral, but one can easily get to the point of saying, "so what?" It is better to take an action that leads to less loss of life or freedoms--even if it is normally wrong--than if a greater loss of life or freedoms would come about if no action were taken. And we use empirical data for that, not some other yardstick. I was under the understanding we were talking about freedom from coercion. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 You are either not being punished or are in some degree of punishment. These statements do not exclude a preference toward the degrees inside that spectrum. I was under the understanding we were talking about freedom from coercion. Fair enough, but as I pointed out, even you defending yourself from me because I'm hungry and want to gnaw your arm off is a limitation of my freedom, via force... just like me gnawing your arm off is a significant limitation of your freedom. If I vote to make gnawing legal, that's probably coercion. If you vote to make self-defense legal, that's probably not. It's still a limitation of freedom in either direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 Fair enough, but as I pointed out, even you defending yourself from me because I'm hungry and want to gnaw your arm off is a limitation of my freedom, via force... just like me gnawing your arm off is a significant limitation of your freedom. If I vote to make gnawing legal, that's probably coercion. If you vote to make self-defense legal, that's probably not. It's still a limitation of freedom in either direction. I suppose it's reliant on the definition. I agree with much of what you said of course, I was just clarifying my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jot Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 You are either free or in some degree of slavery. You are either dead or in some degree of health. There are no degrees of death and there are no degrees of freedom. What would be wrong about saying that we have some degree of freedom instead of some degree of slavery? Are not those equivalent? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 It is important that we work under the same definition. I defined free as not being governed and not free as being governed. When you are talking about freedom as in literally being in captivity or not we are already not talking about the same thing. The definition you are using is much broader than mine. Also, even under your definition there would still differences between the state of being imprisoned or not. Did you mean that there is no difference only taking into account one single variable, that of being free? I think you are making a leap here "Posting that and not accepting the difference in freedom within the catagory of "not free" is tantamount to stateing that no preference may exist between differing states within the catagory of "not free". I do not see how the first part necessarily implies the second part of your statement. Yeah, we are singing from differnt sheets. I've gone with, only individuals act so when goverments limit freedom via governing (using force) it can't be different from the freedom limited by someone not from the goverment limiting freedom by using force (such as kidnapping). Same line of reasoning that gives you tax is theft. If you want a definition for perfect freedom, the absense of the use of force seems pretty spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted August 2, 2016 Author Share Posted August 2, 2016 What would be wrong about saying that we have some degree of freedom instead of some degree of slavery? Are not those equivalent?Good question. It may very well be just my opinion. If it is freedom from coercion we are talking about then the way I see it is that any amount of coercion transfers you from a state of freedom to a state of subjugation. Depending on how the master treats you while you are under his control would be the varying degrees of subjugation and with the degrees come preferences. So like there is no degree of death but degrees of health with preferences, there is no degree of freedom but degrees of subjugation with preferences; however, I concede that the term freedom isn't as well defined as the term death so it's certainly not an airtight case. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 I suppose it's reliant on the definition. I agree with much of what you said of course, I was just clarifying my position. Sure, I should add that the reason I think some action being forbidden or permitted is not coercive is the chances of obtaining unanimous consent, which begs the question: if there's unanimous consent why does there need to be a rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavitor Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 Haven't you guys ever heard the saying "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamynKing Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 A government election takes place. Two candidates are running. Candidate H says that all the problems will be solved by increasing the power of the bludgeons used to beat the people. (there is whispering that further bludgeon enhancement could irreparably damage the population's bone structures) Candidate T says that we need to go back to the time when the government was only allowed tiny pocket bludgeons. (this candidate reserves the right to switch to ultra-spike bludgeons if he deems it necessary) A philosophical citizen has realized that we don't even need governments to be happy, and more, that the very concept is evil. He vows to try and end it. But unfortunately, most of the population has been bludgeoned so much they are afraid to imagine another possibility. The philosophical citizen chooses to note vote at all. In this way, he is not condoning the evil, and maybe some people will see what he did and ask him why, which will give him a chance to explain the evil. Candidate H get's elected, and passes a law where little spike ball drones may fly around and try to crash into people's mouths who say wrong things. (As promised) The righteous philosophical citizen is about to explain the benefits of freedom to a curious peer when he is struck in the teeth by an exploding spike ball. The conversation is abruptly cut short. Eventually the remnant of philosophical citizens is systematically silenced by new smart bludgeons. A few elections later, the citizens get to choose between a super bludgeon the size of a star destroyer, or remote controlled auto-bludgeon implants that directly beat you from within your own body. A heated debate ensues. The citizens vote from their hospital beds. . . . (Sorry for worst allegory ever. It is definitely full of fallacious assumptions. But I felt like having a bit of fun here) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewV Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 I'll just summarise my views here since I've said them before in other threads. 1: Abstaining from voting is enabling the projected winner through non effective opposition. 1.1- This means that not voting is to say "I am perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton becoming the President of the USA since I did nothing to stop her". 2: The enemy of the anarchist is the left, not the right. The right is a necessary half step towards libertarianism, and then anarchism. 2.1- This means that not supporting the right, in this case Trump, is to say "I do not wish to contribute to the gradual turning of policy towards capitalism and liberty". 3: The sudden and non gradual elimination of the state creates chaos, violence, and death. 3.1- Which means that opposing all gradient change, and wishing only a sudden end is to say "I am ok with real violence in the world as long as I don't engage in what perceive and assume as political violence through voting". End: If you agree with all 1, 2, and 3 - my opinion of you is that you are delusional, dangerous, and divorced from any end towards liberty in the real world. May your principles embrace you warmly in your grave. Love it. Just wish lefty Anarchists understood this like they do the abolition of the war on drugs. This is the only election I can think of that the system as a whole is fighting one person; sitting out on this one is completely stupid if you want less aggression. Not that Trump is a great on everything esp. protectionism, but Clinton is so bad it almost makes him look like Lysander Spooner in comparison. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 If you have a unchosen restriction or obligation on your actions, you are not free. However, some restrictions (like physical laws) and some obligations (you gotta eat or you die) are inherent to our reality. Therefore freedom is not a bichromatic concept. You can be more free and less free, based on the quantity and onerousness of restrictions and obligations. If you restrict the discussion to a category of freedoms, specifically unchosen restrictions and obligations relating to other people, you may be able to approach 100% freedom, but it's highly unlikely you can get to that without being on a desert island. Your freedom is often limited by their freedom, and vice versa. We have developed ethical and moral systems to deal with the fairness of these interactions, but not a single one of those systems allows someone to be 100% free. Even the tyrant must fear the coup. So, instead, philosophers explore ways to min/max the concept, especially as it applies to individuals. Philosophy gives people the tools and facts and negotiation gives them a way to balance it. Yes, voting most often imposes unchosen personal restrictions and obligations. There is no one I know that is not already subject to voting that has already happened from before they were born. We've all be subject to a variety of other systems in the past, but they all amount to unchosen restrictions and obligations on our freedom, if not unchosen gain or loss of accessible resources. We all muddle through as best we can, looking for the solution we feel the best about and helps us the most. Voting may be immoral, but one can easily get to the point of saying, "so what?" It is better to take an action that leads to less loss of life or freedoms--even if it is normally wrong--than if a greater loss of life or freedoms would come about if no action were taken. And we use empirical data for that, not some other yardstick. Shirgall, how is this relevant? You must get that we are talking about coercion here. Not "I don't have the freedom to do anything I want whenever I like because of its impact on others." The essence of voluntaryism is that all interactions with other humans are voluntary and consensual. I get to walk away or say "no thanks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powder Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Yeah, we are singing from differnt sheets. I've gone with, only individuals act so when goverments limit freedom via governing (using force) it can't be different from the freedom limited by someone not from the goverment limiting freedom by using force (such as kidnapping). Same line of reasoning that gives you tax is theft. If you want a definition for perfect freedom, the absense of the use of force seems pretty spot on. Why are we talking about kidnapping and gnawing people's arms off. This discussion is not about dealing with people that may use force to limit our freedoms, its about delegating authority to a group of people to violate property rights of other humans, putting them in a separate moral category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamynKing Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Anuojat, on 19 Jul 2016 - 10:41 AM, said: If voting in the circumstance of coersion is indeed immoral then me holding a gun to your wife and saking which part should i shoot: The head of the toe? Yuo wouldnt be called immoral for saying the toe. And when the state threatens with its existing structure ideas of freedom itsels being spoke in society and pouring in massive amounths of people that have significantly no change in hell of changing to peaceful parenting or lisening to reason... id call that dire situation IF you want a free society or ideas of freedom and reason to be spread around you. I care what works too. And defensively voting to me is legitimate course and NOT an immoral one. I know politics will not se us free, but when state threatens that option that will set us free we must lisen and pay attention if our comittement to freedom and reason means anything at all. Lifeboat scenario that isn't exactly analogous, but I'll bite. I doubt someone in the position of the gunman is so noble as to abide by your decision. You can tell the psycho "shoot her toe" and he could blow her brains out anyways. He's the one with the gun, he's the one willing to use force against peaceful people, he's the one that doesn't really give a wet fart what you want. He just wants to show everyone his power by making you play the game. Trump can't solve these problems. The state can't solve these problems. Violence never solves problems. You can demand compliance with your boot on someone's neck, but you have to keep it there forever. The moment you lift it up and look away you've got a larger problem. Tyler H, on 18 Jul 2016 - 6:06 PM, said: I agree, I mentioned it in the original thread (post #45) but I'll reiterate here for those who haven't read through it. The problem with this trolley is that we don't know what the lever will do: it could kill the one, it could kill the five, or it could blow up the trolley killing everyone on board. I think the best we can do in this situation is call attention to the danger those on the tracks are in and make clear that the blame lies on the negligent people responsible for the trolley and the criminal who tied up people and put them on the tracks in order to lure people into killing the one man. I believe the best course of action is abstention. ... All of this energy wasted on Trump and Hillary when, as far as I know, there has never been such a distaste for both candidates in the history of the country. Such fertile ground for showing people a new way and the opportunity is squandered on steering them right back towards the state. . Some really good points here. I definitely agree with your solutions to the scenarios. They're almost like that movie saW, yea? The purely immoral person holding you hostage has removed all non-violent options, and expects you to choose one of his psychotic ones. He is betting that your life-preservation instincts, lack of advanced moral training, or just fear, will compel you to choose the perceived lesser of two evils. He knows that all of his options are equally bad for you in the end. The trick is that he makes some seem less bad. When you choose one of his, it has a legitimizing effect on his brain, and possibly to onlookers. He gets positive reinforcement. And the onlookers' sense of helplessness increases. They see no example of an alternate solution, or at least no reason to start being brave. Terrorists lose their power when regular people are brave together, but the masses have been castrated in this regard. It seems to me, the optimal way to deal with a sAw situation would be to reject his options along with completely losing your mind in protest. You have to effectively lift yourself out of the situation mentally and send obvious signals to onlookers. If you lose your mind in righteous anger, you strip him of positive reinforcement. He might try to cut your hand off or threaten to kill you in order to regain his ground, in which case you have to be strong enough to keep up your protest. I'm thinking a way to relate this all to the election is to combine both views in this thread. •We have a TON of smart people who agree that voting for Trump is a step in the direction of freedom. I think it would be silly to say we know better than all of them simply because most of them are statists. So, using the input of all these smart people, it might be reasonable to bet that Trump won't be a world-exploding wildcard, and that voting still has some effectiveness, at least in the case of Trump, who seems to be able to break existing systems. •On the other hand, while ticking the Trump box, we should not campaign for him, but rather pour maximum energy into spreading Ancap ideas. I think it's a great argument that right now we have extremely fertile ground to sow those seeds. We know that ultimately the state will prove a failure no matter who is elected, and we want to be there to say we told you so when the people clamor for the next step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Why are we talking about kidnapping and gnawing people's arms off. This discussion is not about dealing with people that may use force to limit our freedoms, its about delegating authority to a group of people to violate property rights of other humans, putting them in a separate moral category. It might seem conceptually different but the thing is we end up in the same place. Imagine I want to take a few steps forward. Say I could of my own steam take 10 steps. Someone limiting my freedom makes it such that I can only go 8 steps forward. Someone violating my rights lets me go 10 steps forward and then pushs me back 2 steps, back to 8. To me, measuring my distance from where I started, what is the difference? There is a difference in how I got to 8, but not in the fact that I am at 8 when I could be at 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Shirgall, how is this relevant? You must get that we are talking about coercion here. Not "I don't have the freedom to do anything I want whenever I like because of its impact on others." The essence of voluntaryism is that all interactions with other humans are voluntary and consensual. I get to walk away or say "no thanks." Fine, I won't gnaw off your arm, I'm coming over to take a loaf of bread from your pantry. How do you stop me? Physical restrictions, perhaps, but those can be defeated. Assume I can bypass locks and doors (there are certainly ways to do that), what's left to interfere with my freedom to eat the bread in your pantry? If I don't listen to your words of shame or ability to influence others via denouncement, you have to rely on force. Is it coercive? While it has been debated that the use of force to defend property is not justified, the delegation of police powers to prevent theft or recover property is not questioned by very many. Voting is, most of the time, the use of force to redistribute other people's property. That's got less support than police power to prevent and rectify theft. However, it is a tool that has been used against me since before I was born, and if I can eke out some succor or improvement at times, I may use it. just like I will take whatever Social Security and Medicare benefits I qualify for since I have been maxing out the damn things every year since the 1990s. We're all in this thing together. And while it's fruitless to hope we can fundamentally change the system from within, especially using supporting the usual suspects that drive the engine of subjugation, but from time to time we can at least make it not hurt so badly. If there's a libertarian to be truly damned, it's Milton Friedman for giving the government the mechanism to prevent taxation from being protested effectively: withholding. Like Reagan, when he realized his error, it was far too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted August 4, 2016 Author Share Posted August 4, 2016 Lol, Milton god damned Friedman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavitor Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 If there's a libertarian to be truly damned, it's Milton Friedman for giving the government the mechanism to prevent taxation from being protested effectively: withholding. Like Reagan, when he realized his error, it was far too late. A lil off topic but I'm curious, what would happen if everyone just put down exempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted August 5, 2016 Share Posted August 5, 2016 A lil off topic but I'm curious, what would happen if everyone just put down exempt? You cannot make yourself 100% exempt, but you can take personal exemptions based on the amount of deductions you expect to make on your annual return. I've not been able to greatly reduce my withholding since the 1980s except a bump when I got married. https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/withholding-exemptions-personal-exemptions-form-w-4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeardslastcall Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 In some states using "exempt" is illegal for state W-4 tax forms, but they may still allow for federal taxes, but if you use this you may expose yourself to an audit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted September 1, 2016 Share Posted September 1, 2016 http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/07/13/this-architect-says-trump-almost-destroyed-his-business-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-cant-get-coffee/2/#615ae3dac650 https://www.truthorfiction.com/architect-andrew-tesoro-conned-donald-trump/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4rv01j/hillarys_attack_ad_w_andrew_tesoro/ Was this done for tax reasons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted September 3, 2016 Author Share Posted September 3, 2016 Was what done for tax reasons? Accepting the 25k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Was what done for tax reasons? Accepting the 25k? For Trump, I'd imagine setting Tesoro up in his tower at Mar-a-Lago could be claimed as a business expense. For Tesoro, it's unclear if he would also benefit from the exchange other than in monetary form (advertising, prestige, etc.), and if we're missing a part of the story that would lead to this kind of deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hofmann Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 With one vote, I will be voting against Hillary Clinton and casting one For Trump. I haven't voted FOR a President since 1988. but cast votes against the winning candidate in every election since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Hofmann Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestreptalks/2016/07/13/this-architect-says-trump-almost-destroyed-his-business-but-that-doesnt-mean-they-cant-get-coffee/2/#615ae3dac650 https://www.truthorfiction.com/architect-andrew-tesoro-conned-donald-trump/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4rv01j/hillarys_attack_ad_w_andrew_tesoro/ Was this done for tax reasons? Trump's rebuttal: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-bills-specialrepor-idUSKCN0T214Q20151113 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Trump's rebuttal: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-bills-specialrepor-idUSKCN0T214Q20151113 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler H Posted September 4, 2016 Author Share Posted September 4, 2016 For Trump, I'd imagine setting Tesoro up in his tower at Mar-a-Lago could be claimed as a business expense. For Tesoro, it's unclear if he would also benefit from the exchange other than in monetary form (advertising, prestige, etc.), and if we're missing a part of the story that would lead to this kind of deal. Like the hookers and blow they left out? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 Like the hookers and blow they left out? Lol Sure, you know how architects like to party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts