Election 2016 Misogyny

Giuliani: The Presidency is a Man’s Job

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

It doesn't get any clearer than this.

Mister 9/11 himself former New York Mayor and failed presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani appeared ABC yesterday morning where he said the presidency is a man's job.

"Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman, and the only thing she’s ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails," the former New York City mayor said on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos.

The "economic genius" Rudy was referring to was Donald Trump's loss of nearly a billion dollars in 1995.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that Trump declared a loss of nearly a billion dollars which allowed him to avoid paying income taxes for nearly 20 years. This, according to campaign surrogates Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, makes Donald Trump a "genius."

If that represents the economic brilliance of men, we probably shouldn't elect a man ever again.

  • Christopher Foxx

    …and the only thing she’s ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails,” the former New York City mayor said on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

    Didn’t see the interview but I’ve no doubt Stephanopoulos utterly failed to challenge Giuliani on his obvious and blatant lie.

    Decades in public life. Terms as Senator and Secretary of State. And I doubt it even crossed George’s mind to bring even suggest to Giuliani that Clinton had done more than make work for the FBI.

  • David Greenberg

    Unfortunately, it seems that stuff that is continuously being turned up and the horseshit he spews out of his own mouth doesn’t make a dent with his moronic supporters. We have to find a way to make HRC stronger with her supporters and figure how to get logical HRC voters to the polls on Election Day.

    • Victor the Crab

      In other words, how do you smack some hard sense into those whinny bratty millennial types that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Donald Drumph?

  • Draxiar

    Rudy needs to be kicked in the throat by every woman in America. Line up single file and every one of them gets a good kick.

    • Username1016

      Or as someone recently put on a protest sign, “I cannot BELIEVE that I STILL have to protest this SHIT.”

  • ninjaf

    And he lost this almost billion dollars 20 years ago. According to saving.org:
    $916,000,000 in 1995 equals $1,447,273,881.10 in 2016.

  • Badgerite

    She, HRC, as Secretary of State “produced” a regime of sanctions on Iran that brought it to the table and brought about the destruction of its stockpiled enriched uranium. That is rather more significant than being the “King of Debt”. IIMO.
    And The Trump Monster really is the wet noodle of a person. Male or female. Cowardly, dishonest and cruel.

  • muselet

    Oh, good grief. Rudy Giuliani is talking again.

    Rudy, it’s not “economic genius” to lose skiploads of money. On a casino. In an expanding economy.

    And if you’re talking about finding ways to duck income tax liability, it’s Donald Trump’s tax advisers who figured that out, not the ferret wearing shitgibbon himself.

    TPM commenter “maxaroo”:

    When the terrorists attacked NY on 9-11, even they couldn’t imagine the torture they’d inflict upon us with the rise of Rudy Giuliani.


    • Christopher Foxx

      Rudy, it’s not “economic genius” to lose skiploads of money. On a casino. In an expanding economy.

      Something I expect Stephanopoulos didn’t bother to point out.

  • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

    loss of nearly a billion dollars in 1995.

    Yes – though to be fair, (A) he had a billion dollars to lose, which is more than I can say, (B) it doesn’t say what he won/lost in previous/subsequent years, and (C) it’s almost certain that he padded that number as much as humanly possible so that he could claim the largest subsequent tax exemption.

    which allowed him to avoid paying income taxes for nearly 20 years.

    That’s not what the NYT says.

    It says (correctly) that he’s allowed to earn income (federal income tax free) up to his loses before it becomes taxable again. The Times then posits that, if he made $50mm / yr, that would give him approx 20 years of tax avoidance.

    So, as the Times (misleadingly) puts it, his loses could have allowed him to avoid paying (federal income) taxes for 20 years. Which is true. And this is one possibility.

    If, however, he made $917 million in 1996, he would have to pay taxes on that extra million.

    Since we have no idea, again, what he’s made/lost, we have no idea how long (if at all) he’s been able to avoid paying any (federal income) taxes.

    And, by the way, even if he hasn’t paid federal income taxes in 20 years, he still has paid payroll, property, et cetera.

    And, by the way, he is/was a businessman and it is not the business of businessmen to pay more taxes than legally required. Do you pay extra taxes out of some sense of moral obligation? I sure as hell don’t.


    I hate this kind of garbage. We have no idea. We have just the tiniest flash of insight and there are 200 different scenarios. By leaping to such narrow (and unfounded) conclusions, we look like idiots.


    We, the left, look like idiots.

    We’re better than this.

    There are 916 million valid reasons to dislike Trump and recoil in horror at the idea of a President Trump. He’s a mysoginist, sociopathic, bigot who doesn’t pay his employees, lies more than anyone I’ve ever heard of, constant racist/bigotted dog whistles, etc. Lots of reasons. But this is not one of them.

    He’s been playing big business in America.

    We are better than this.

    We are better than the Red Shirts who pander in this kind of flimsy ad hominem attacks.

    That’s my two cents.

    • Username1016

      I don’t pretend to understand the nuances, but there are columns out there by various tax accountants throwing red flags. Either because he seems to have written off a business loss against his personal income taxes, or because it was his creditors who actually took the loss, or because it reeks of using a shell corporation to shelter the debt so he doesn’t have to pay taxes on the debt forgiveness. It definitely warrants more investigation.

      • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

        The tax code is absurdly complicated. And big business tax codes even more so.

        I don’t pretend, either, to know what he was doing and whether it was legal – I’ll leave that to experts.

        I wouldn’t be surprised – at all – to find that he plays fast and loose with the tax code (in fact, I’d be more surprised if he didn’t).

        And it absolutely – ABSOLUTELY – merits further scrutiny. I can say with near 100% certainty that anyone filing a $916mm loss is going to raise a few eyebrows at the IRS and get a little extra scrutiny.

        But what it doesn’t merit is Ashby’s brand of proclaiming malfeasance without sufficient evidence.

        I’m not saying there’s no “there” there. I’m saying that we have nothing to suggest anything other than that he had one (very) bad year in 1995.

        1994 and 1996 could have been spectacular for him. I don’t know. Do you?

        He could have paid a tremendous amount of (federal income) tax over the last 20 years. I doubt it. But I don’t know. Do you?

        Without the facts, we’re just speculating and dealing in conspiracy theories. We want to believe the worst in Trump because we dislike him on other grounds. And that’s reasonable. It’s human nature.

        But as Jack Webb would say: Just the facts.

    • Badgerite

      “Since we have no idea what he’s made or lost”? Oh. I think we do. Can you explain to me why it is that no western bank other than Deutsche Bank would lend money to trump anything after his 4 bankruptcies? I think we can guess what his finances are like. What’s more, you don’t go into “branding” unless you have no real business other than an image and you don’t go into infomercial scams like trump ‘university’ if you are actually a successful businessman.
      And, of course, if one is to complain about ‘speculation’ as unfair there is, of course, a remedy for the Trump Monster campaign and that would be to release his tax returns like HRC has and like all past presidential candidates have done. Problem solved. For the left at least. For the right, I doubt that it would do anything other than PROVE what an ffffffing fraud and, as Michael Bloomberg said, “con” this guy is.

    • Badgerite

      He can always release his full returns and prove us to be IDIOTS. Can’t he. Would you care to place a bet on that one? The word it HIDING. He is HIDING something. Probably many things, actually.

    • JMAshby


      Speak for yourself.

      Trump himself vaguely admitted during the first presidential debate that he doesn’t pay taxes. “That makes me smart” he said

      After the New York Times report surfaced, Trump’s top surrogates praised his “genius” for not paying taxes and some even claimed he had a duty to pay as little in tax as possible.

      Furthermore, Trump has released absolutely no evidence that he has paid income taxes and, notably, he hasn’t even claimed that he pays taxes. He hasn’t and he won’t. He could release his tax returns and prove that we’re all wrong, but he hasn’t. He won’t because we’re not wrong.

      At this point, it’s not even clear if Trump’s billion dollar loss was actually his. There’s been some speculation that he may have parked the debt and claimed the loss without it actually hitting him. We don’t know because he won’t release his returns.

      It’s you who looks like a useful idiot. You’re making arguments to defend Trump that Trump and his campaign have not made.

      • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

        It’s you who looks like a useful idiot. You’re making arguments to defend Trump that Trump and his campaign have not made.

        Let’s be clear.

        I’m not “defending Trump.”

        I’m defending the left.

        WE. DON’T. KNOW.

        We are speculating.

        We are speculating and presenting it as facts in evidence.

        And it makes us look bad.

        We’re supposed to be better than that.

        We’re supposed to be better than them.

        Reality – empirical factual reality – is on our side. Why do we need to “reach” to come up with more reasons that we can’t substantiate? And why do we attack him for avoiding taxes when we all avoid taxes as best we can? Do you go out of your way to pay extra? We should be screaming at the tops of our lungs about how unfair the tax code is. But it’s not like he’s special for not wanting to pay, or for playing the game.

        And, yes, I saw the debate when he alluded to be “smart” for for not paying taxes.

        And, yes, I’ve seen what his surrogates are saying.

        But WE. DON’T. KNOW.

        Without sufficient evidence, we’re a bunch of Trump Tax Return Truthers.

        Show me something that doesn’t feel like it belongs on Glen Beck’s chalkboard, and I’ll jump on the bandwagon.

        • JMAshby

          After this vaguely Freudian hand-wringing, I think you belong on Glenn Beck’s chalkboard.

          I’m not “defending Trump.”


          And why do we attack him for avoiding taxes when we all avoid taxes as best we can? Do you go out of your way to pay extra? We should be screaming at the tops of our lungs about how unfair the tax code is. But it’s not like he’s special for not wanting to pay, or for playing the game.

          You were saying?

          • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

            Trump is not defensible.

            But that does not mean that everything he does that’s even remotely questionable merits us speculating wildly and pouncing on it like starving animals.

            The point isn’t that he should be “defended” from such speculative accusations. The point is that WE should be better than to resort to such tactics.

            We are better than that. We aren’t wackaloon-righties speculating about Obama’s birth certificate or whether Clinton had Vince Foster killed. We are on the right side here. You are on the right side. I am on the side of right. We have plenty of ammunition – there’s no need to “reach.” It makes us look bad. It makes us sounds stupid. It makes us sound desperate.

            Attack away re his Muslim ban, or his preposterous wall, or his comments on women, or his dangerous rhetoric that would cause trade wars, or his ah hell, you name it.

            But you don’t know and I don’t know what’s in those tax returns. We have one tiny (and 20 year old) piece of the puzzle, and, unless you have something to suggest otherwise, I’m going to assume the rest are business as usual (for big business in America, anyway) and the real story is that our system is so fucked up it lets people operate in this manner: The real story isn’t that he’s playing a rigged game – but that the game is rigged in the first place.

          • JMAshby

            About 30 minutes before you wrote this, Trump himself spoke in Colorado where he bragged about using the laws to his advantage to avoid paying taxes.

            His surrogates called him a genius for not paying taxes. Trump called himself “brilliant” for not paying taxes.

            If there’s any “reach” here, it’s you comparing this to Vince Foster. You are ridiculous.

    • ninjaf

      Not to pile on here, but the duty to his investors and businesses to pay as little in taxes as possible do not extend to his personal taxes. That should be separate from his business taxes.

  • Aynwrong

    A noun, a verb and 9/11 complete bullshit!

  • I believe I speak on behalf of all intelligent, enlightened people of the United States when I say, F*ck you, Giuliani. Jebus H. Christ.