Welcome to Lost in the Sauce, keeping you caught up on political and legal news that often gets buried in distractions and theater… or a global health crisis.
Housekeeping:

HOW TO SUPPORT: I know we are all facing unprecedented financial hardships right now. If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
NOTIFICATIONS: You can signup to receive notifications when these posts are done.

Election shenanigans

I put the latest info on Trump's phone call to Raffensperger in this comment.

According to experts, Trump’s conduct has potential criminal exposure:

A federal statute makes it a crime when one “knowingly and willfully … attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by … the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.”
A Georgia statute similarly provides that a “person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.”
…The hard part for prosecutors would be proving Trump’s state of mind, because the statutes require proof of knowledge and intent. Prosecutors would have to show that Trump knew that Biden fairly won the election, and Trump was asking for Georgia officials to commit election fraud. And it’s not clear prosecutors could make that case.

At least 12 Republican senators plan to challenge Biden’s Electoral College win on Jan. 6, when Congress is set to officially count the votes. The effort is being led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and includes Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), as well as new Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Separately, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) is pursuing a similar plan.

"Congress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed," the senators said in a joint statement. “Accordingly, we intend to vote on Jan. 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed."

Their plan is not going to succeed in preventing Biden from taking office, as majorities in both the House and the Senate would need to support a challenge against a state’s electoral votes. For an objection to be made, at least one member of both the House and Senate would need to submit it in writing. Then, the House and Senate separately convene to consider the issue. Debate is limited to two hours for each objection. After debate concludes, the House and Senate vote to uphold the objection and throw out the state’s votes. If the majority of the House AND the majority of the Senate does not uphold the objection, the state’s electoral votes are counted as cast.

Vice President Mike Pence’s role is simply to preside over the joint session, opening and presenting the certifications from each state. In his absence, the Senate pro-tempore Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) will lead the session. At the end of the process, the presiding officer announces who has won the majority of votes for president and vice president.

The most immediate danger from Trump and Cruz’s doomed election gambit is rightwing terrorism and general violence: Trump, in particular, is inciting his supporters to swarm D.C. on Jan. 6. “JANUARY SIXTH, SEE YOU IN DC!” Trump tweeted last week. Four rightwing rallies are scheduled, including one headlined by George Papadopoulos and Roger Stone.
The Proud Boys and other extremists are planning to attend the rallies and may set up an “armed encampment” on the National Mall, according to the Washington Post. On social media platform Parler, the leader of the Proud Boys said that members will be there “incognito” and may “dress in all black” to impersonate leftwing protestors.

Enrique Tarrio: "The ProudBoys will turn out in record numbers on Jan 6th but this time with a twist...We will not be wearing our traditional Black and Yellow. We will be incognito and we will spread across downtown DC in smaller teams."

Rep. Louie Gohmert has more explicitly tried to incite violence, saying the failure of his legal challenge to the election means “you gotta go the streets and be as violent as Antifa and BLM.” (clip)

At the same time, pro-Trump lawyer Lin Wood suggested that Pence could “face execution by firing squad” for “treason” if he doesn’t go along with the attempt to subvert the election.

Obstructing the transition

Biden’s transition director has accused the Office of Management and Budget of stonewalling the incoming administration’s team. OMB Director Russ Vought is not allowing key staff to meet with the transition team to help prepare the president-elect’s first annual spending plan, a move that could delay major proposals. Vought pushed back on the charges, saying that his agency needs to focus on finalizing the Trump administration’s regulations before the president leaves office.

“OMB leadership’s refusal to fully cooperate impairs our ability to identify opportunities to maximize the relief going out to Americans during the pandemic, and it leaves us in the dark as it relates to Covid-related expenditures and critical gaps,” [Biden transition Exec. Dir. Yohannes] Abraham said.

Earlier last week, Biden himself said Trump officials are not cooperating with his team, singling out the Defense Department for obstructing information on crucial national security issues. “Right now, we just aren’t getting all the information that we need from the outgoing administration in key national security areas. It’s nothing short, in my view, of irresponsibility,” Biden said. The Defense Dept. finally scheduled meetings with the incoming team this week, after not briefing the transition for weeks.

The timing of the resumption in meetings is notable because it comes after the one year anniversary of the U.S. assassination of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 3. NATO officials are reportedly worried about the lack of coordination from the Trump administration: "We need the incoming Biden administration to be fully briefed and ready to deal with these very dangerous issues facing NATO's security."

Sabotaging the Biden Administration

U.S. Agency for Global Media CEO Michael Pack is taking steps to keep control of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia during the Biden administration. As chairman of the boards of Radio Free Europe and Asia, Pack and his fellow members have added binding contractual agreements that will make it impossible to remove him or other pro-Trump allies from the board in the next two years.

In other words, although President-elect Joe Biden has already signaled he intends to replace Pack as CEO of the parent agency soon after taking office in January, Pack would maintain a significant degree of control over the networks.

The State Department is likely to designate Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism “as an 11th hour effort to create hurdles for the incoming Biden administration.” The label, which requires the approval of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, would undo a major accomplishment of the Obama administration. To take Cuba back off the list, the Biden team would need to conduct a formal review, a process that might take several months.

Such a designation would impose restrictions on US foreign assistance, a ban on defense exports and sales, certain controls over exports and various financial restrictions. It would also result in penalization against any persons and countries engaging in certain trade activities with Cuba.

The Trump administration has been rushing to finalize a myriad of rules before Biden’s inauguration. Since Election Day, the Trump administration has issued about three to four times as many new regulations as it did during other periods of Trump’s presidency. Rules that haven’t been finalized or taken effect can be suspended by an incoming president, which Biden has said he intends to do. By contrast, rules that are finalized can take months, or even years, to undo.

“As a general rule, it takes at least as much process to undo or modify a rule as it does to put the rule in place,” said Jonathan H. Adler, a professor and an administrative law expert at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. “The Trump administration is magnifying that challenge for the Biden administration.”

Trump loyalists are urging the president to stymie Biden’s efforts to rejoin the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal. Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham are working to get the agreements submitted to the Senate for ratification, requiring a two-thirds vote, with the goal of failure. While such an outcome wouldn’t prevent Biden from rejoining the accords, Cruz and Graham hope it would make their resurrection more problematic.

A vote against them would signal GOP opposition to the world and, they hope, undermine any unilateral action by Biden to rejoin the agreements. One senior congressional aide told RCP that sending them to die in the Senate “would be the final nail in the coffin.”

Further reading: “Biden To Be Saddled With Trump’s Payroll Tax Deferral Mess,” Forbes.
Further reading: Biden will inherit a backlog of tens of thousands of visa requests from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — and a bureaucratic tangle that refugee advocates say President Trump ignored or made worse.

Trump money and properties

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance is employing forensic accounting specialists to examine Trump’s finances and business operations. Vance is looking “for anomalies among a variety of property deals” and trying to determine “whether the president’s company manipulated the value of certain assets to obtain favorable interest rates and tax breaks”.

The analysts hired by Vance probably have already reviewed various bank and mortgage records obtained from Trump’s company as part of the ongoing grand jury investigation, and they could be called on to testify about their findings should the district attorney eventually bring criminal charges

In yet another shady business deal connected to Trump, the United States sold the ambassador’s residence in Israel for more than $67 million. The person who bought the residence is none other than Trump mega-donor Sheldon Adelson. The property only became available due to Trump's controversial decision to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to contested Jerusalem. Furthermore, State Dept. representatives reportedly lied to Congress about the sale, perhaps to hide that Adelson purposefully overbid.

For now, there is no alternative residence for the ambassador, David Friedman, Trump’s former lawyer, who currently uses a suite at Jerusalem’s King David Hotel or rooms at the former Jerusalem Consulate General when he spends nights in Jerusalem… As a result, the United States appears likely to end up leasing the residence it has owned since 1964 from the GOP-affiliated casino mogul.
“It is very strange that we are now paying Sheldon Adelson,” a congressional aide told The Daily Beast. “It is not above board. We have a number of questions. Did they get two independent appraisals? Was it a sweetheart deal? Was Adelson the highest donor? Was there a reason to sell it now?”

Trump’s businesses have taken in $10.5 million of donor money over the course of his presidency. $8.5 million came from the Trump campaign and related entities that Trump controls directly; $2 million came from other Republican candidates and committees. The biggest beneficiary was Trump’s NYC hotel, taking in $3,039,979 over the four years of his presidency, with $891,003 of that in just the final four months of the campaign.
Trump’s DC hotel is ramping up room prices and requiring a two-night minimum stay for two key events this month, as the president tries to squeeze more profit out of his office. On Jan. 6, when Congress is set to formally count the votes cast by the Electoral College, room rates are listed at over eight times the price of surrounding dates. Trump is encouraging his supporters to attend a protest of Biden’s win on the 6th. A room during the inauguration costs five times the normal rate, at $2,225 per night.
Trump’s Turnberry Resort in Scotland posted a £2.3 million ($3.1 million) loss in 2019, marking the sixth year in a row it has failed to turn a profit under his ownership. Since Trump took over the historic property in 2014, its losses now total nearly £45 million ($61.5 million).

The fact Turnberry remains in the red comes in spite of significant tranches of payments it has received from the US government during Mr Trump’s single term in office… the US Secret Service spent nearly £25,000 to accommodate its agents at the resort during business trips by Mr Trump’s son, Eric, an executive vice-president of the family firm. Since Mr Trump’s election, the property has received close to £300,000 from the Secret Service, US State Department, and US Defence Department

A Florida state lawmaker is calling for Mar-a-Lago to be penalized - and possibly shut down - for flouting coronavirus restrictions during a New Years Eve party. While Trump and the first lady did not attend, son Don Jr., attorney Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Fox News personality Jeanine Piro were captured on video among the maskless crowd. Guests paid as much as $1,000 for access to the ballroom to be entertained by Vanilla Ice.

State Rep. Omari Hardy: “My constituents are not snowbirds like @DonaldJTrumpJr & @kimguilfoyle. My constituents live here. This is their home, and they're going to have to deal w/ the consequences of a potential super-spreader party at Mar-a-Lago long after Junior & wife leave here on their private jet.”

Are you ready for a Donald J. Trump Airport? According to the Daily Beast, Trump has been asking aides about the process of naming airports after former U.S. presidents.
Further reading: “Jared Kushner’s family real estate business wants to raise at least $100 million in capital through Israel’s bond market… Kushner has helped spearhead a series of moves that have been applauded by the conservative pro-Israel community, including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and recognizing Israeli sovereignty in disputed areas such as the Golan Heights. Kushner also has close ties to Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.”

Miscellaneous

The Census Bureau missed it’s end-of-year deadline to produce numbers that determine representation in Congress and the Electoral College for the next decade. The agency is working toward Jan. 9 as an internal target date for completing the current stage of processing records. "If we miss Jan. 9, it's hard to envision that we would get apportionment done before inauguration," a Census employee told NPR.

The final timing of the 2020 census results' release could undermine President Trump's efforts to make an unprecedented change to who is counted in key census numbers before leaving office… If the first census results are not ready until after Trump's term ends on Jan. 20, it would be President-elect Joe Biden, not Trump, who would get control of the numbers, which are ultimately handed off to Congress for certification.

I can’t wrap my head around how this makes sense so posting here in case someone can help or other people may need help as this is getting more common.
Scenario:
Deposited $250 into a popular sportsbook/casino. Played for one night on and off for a few hours in casino and sports bets and after a few bad bets lost it all.
Looking at the win/loss statement it says:
Wins:$5K Losses: $5.25K
Googling and looking at how this impacts taxes I would have to claim the $5k as “Other Income” and itemize my losses as deductions but standard deduction is higher.
Do I really have to pay $1.2K (24% of winnings) in taxes on winnings I don’t even have?
If this is the case it seems VERY flawed to even use online casinos and honestly will never touch them again as a few hours on blackjack basically cost me $1200.

Welcome to Lost in the Sauce, keeping you caught up on political and legal news that often gets buried in distractions and theater… or a global health crisis.
Figuring out how to divide the COVID-19 content from the “regular” news has been difficult because the pandemic is influencing all aspects of life. Some of the stories below involve the virus, but I chose to include them when it fits into one of the pre-established categories (like congress or immigration). The coronavirus-central post will be made again this Thursday-Friday; the sign up form now has an option to choose to receive an email when the coronavirus-focused roundup is posted.
House-keeping:

How to support: If you enjoy my work, please consider becoming a patron. I do this to keep track and will never hide behind a paywall, but these projects take a lot of time and effort to create. Even a couple of dollars a month helps. Since someone asked a few weeks ago (thank you!), here's a PayPal option and Venmo.
How to get notifications: If you’d like to be added to my newsletter, use this SIGNUP FORM and you’ll get these recaps in your inbox!

Let’s dig in!

MAIN COURSE

Congress passes stimulus

Last week started out with a Republican-crafted stimulus bill that was twice-blocked by Senate Democrats, who objected to the lax conditions of aid to corporations, too little funding for hospitals, and a $500 billion “slush fund” for big companies to be doled out by Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin with no oversight.
Conservative-Democrat Joe Manchin (WV) even criticized the GOP bill:

“It fails our first responders, nurses, private physicians and all healthcare professionals. ... It fails our workers. It fails our small businesses… Instead, it is focused on providing billions of dollars to Wall Street and misses the mark on helping the West Virginians that have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

Through negotiations, Democrats shifted the bill in a more-worker friendly direction. The version that passed includes the following Democrat-added provisions: expanded unemployment benefits, $100 billion for hospitals, $150 billion for state and local governments, direct payments to Americans without a phase-in (ensuring low-income workers get the full amount), a ban on Trump and his children from receiving aid, and oversight on the “slush fund” (see next section for more info). Senate Democrats also managed to remove a provision that would have excluded nonprofits that receive Medicaid funding from the small-business grants.

Further reading: After Senate Democrats blocked the Republican-crafted bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led the House Democrats in releasing their own version, a best-case scenario of their dream coronavirus stimulus bill. It is interesting to contrast what the Democrats prioritized to what the Republicans focused on: “How the House Democrats' stimulus plan compares to the Senate's”

Echoing sentiments expressed during debate on the previous coronavirus bill (the second, for those keeping track), Republican senators derided the $600 a week increase in unemployment payments as “incentivizing” workers to quit their jobs. Sens. Ben Sasse (Neb.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) delayed passage of the bill in order to force a vote on an amendment removing the extra unemployment funding. "This bill pays you more not to work than if you were working," Graham said. Fortunately for American workers, the amendment failed and the improved bill passed the Senate and the House.

Note: In 2009 only three Republicans helped Obama pass his stimulus bill in his first month in office.

The giveaways in the bill

While Senate Democrats were able to add worker-friendly provisions, the bill still required bipartisan support to pass the chamber and some corporate giveaways remained in the final version.

NYT: “Senate Republicans inserted an easy-to-overlook provision on page 203 of the 880-page bill that would permit wealthy investors to use losses generated by real estate to minimize their taxes on profits from things like investments in the stock market. The estimated cost of the change over 10 years is $170 billion.”
NYT: “...if a company owns multiple hotels, even if the overall hotel or restaurant chain has more than 500 employees — the limit to qualify for treatment as a small business — it will still be able to take advantage of the small-business benefits offered in the rescue package. ...The provision could benefit the Trump Organization, which operates a relatively small chain, with six hotels in the United States in cities including New York, Washington and Chicago.”

Politico:

“A provision for the FDA to approve ‘innovative’ sunscreens—which would benefit L’Oreal, which has operations in Kentucky—appeared in the bill, which was steered in the Senate by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.”
“The $25 billion allocated in loans and loan guarantees for the airlines will also benefit eligible businesses "approved to perform inspection, repair, replace, or overhaul services, and ticket agents.” The last two words — ‘ticket agents’ — mean that travel agents who book flights will also be able to apply for a piece of the $25 billion.”
“The credit reporting industry got a win by defeating a total ban on negative credit reports during the crisis. Instead, a watered down version made it into the final bill: Consumers wouldn't get a negative credit report if they have an agreement with a lender to delay payments or make partial payments.”

Trump’s signing statement

While signing the latest coronavirus relief bill, the president also issued a signing statement undercutting the congressional oversight provision creating an inspector general to track how the administration distributes the $500 billion “slush fund” money.
The newly-created inspector general is legally required to audit loans and investments made through the fund and report to Congress his/her findings, including any refusal by the executive office to cooperate. In his signing statement, Trump wrote that his understanding of constitutional powers allows him to gag the special IG:

"I do not understand, and my Administration will not treat, this provision as permitting the [inspector general] to issue reports to the Congress without the presidential supervision required" by Article II of the Constitution.

The signing statement further suggests that Trump does not have to comply with a provision requiring that agencies consult with Congress before it spends or reallocates certain funds: "These provisions are impermissible forms of congressional aggrandizement with respect to the execution of the laws," the statement reads.
While some have said that Congress fell short in this instance, one Democratic Senate aide told Politico that Congress built in multiple layers of oversight, including “a review of other inspectors general and a congressional review committee charged with overseeing Treasury and the Federal Reserve's efforts to implement the law.”
Legal experts have pointed out that a signing statement is “without legal effect.” But that ignores the fact that oversight is not equal to enforcement. The problem, in my opinion, isn’t that Congress won’t be notified of any abuses of power by Trump. The problem is that congressional Republicans and the judiciary have largely failed to hold him accountable and enforce our laws even after learning of his abuses.

Concerns about the IG

Another potential weakness in the oversight structure is the inspector general position itself. The special inspector general for pandemic recovery, known by the acronym S.I.G.P.R., is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. As we’ve seen from Trump’s previous nominees, particularly judicial, many unqualified individuals have been confirmed. The Democrats will not have the power to stop the president and Mitch McConnell from jamming through a loyalist to fill the SIGPR role.

Former inspector general at the Justice Department Michael Bromwich: “The signing statement threatens to undermine the authority and independence of this new IG. The Senate should extract a commitment from the nominee that Congress will be promptly notified of any Presidential/Administration interference or obstruction.”

You may recall that Trump has already proven that he’s willing to interfere with the legally-mandated work of an inspector general. When the Ukraine whistleblower filed a complaint last year, the IG of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, investigated and determined the complaint to be “urgent” and “credible.” Atkinson wrote a report and gave it to Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to hand over to Congress. However, the White House and DOJ interfered and instructed Maguire not to transmit the report to the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Chairman Adam Schiff had to subpoena Maguire to turn over the report and testify before his committee.
Further, there are already five IG vacancies in agencies that have a critical role in responding to the pandemic. The Treasury itself has not had a permanent, Senate-confirmed IG for over eight months now, and Trump hasn’t nominated a replacement. The Treasury Dept. has taken a lead role in the coronavirus response, with Secretary Mnuchin handling most of the negotiating with Congress on Trump’s behalf. The fact that the lead agency doesn’t have IG oversight should be troublesome in itself; replicating the situation with a special IG doesn’t seem to be a promising solution.

The other four coronavirus-related agencies without a permanent IG: Department of Health and Human Services’ IG has been vacant for nine months, Department of Defense’s IG has been vacant for four years, Department of Education’s IG has been vacant for one year, and Office of Personnel Management’s IG has been vacant for four years. Overall, there are twelve IG vacancies in the 37) presidentially-appointed offices.

UPDATE: The nation's inspectors general have appointed Glenn Fine, the Pentagon's acting IG, to lead the committee of IGs overseeing the coronavirus relief effort.

This is one of several oversight mechanisms built into the new law. They include:
A committee of IGs (now led by Fine), a new special IG (to be nominated by Trump), a congressional review panel (to be appointed by House/Senate leaders)

Direct payments

Included in the stimulus bill is a $1200 one-time direct payment for all Americans who made less than $75,000 in 2019 (less than $150,000 if couples filed jointly). More details can be found here. I have read that the Treasury will use 2018 information for those who have not filed yet this year, but I am not 100% sure that’ll happen.
Mnuchin has said that Americans can expect to receive the money within three weeks, but many experts expect that timetable to be pushed into late April. Additionally, that only applies to Americans who included direct deposit information on their 2019 tax returns. Those who did not include their bank’s information will have to be sent a physical check in the mail… which could take anywhere from two to four months.
Other options are being discussed, including partnering the Treasury Dept. with MasterCard and Visa to deliver prepaid debit cards. Venmo and Paypal are reportedly lobbying the government to be considered as a disbursement option.
Future payments?
House Speaker Pelosi is already planning another wave of direct payments to Americans, saying that the $1,200 is not enough to mitigate the economic effects of the pandemic: “I don’t think we’ve seen the end of direct payments.” Republicans, meanwhile, are taking a ‘wait and see’ approach, using the next couple of weeks to measure the impact of the $2 trillion bill passed last week.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: “What concerns me is when I listen to Nancy Pelosi talk about a fourth package now, it’s because she did not get out of things that she really wanted...I’m not sure you need a fourth package...Let’s let this work ... We have now given the resources to make and solve this problem. We don’t need to be crafting another bill right now.”
For the fourth legislative package, Democrats have said they would like to see increased food stamp benefits; increased coverage for coronavirus testing, visits to the doctor and treatment; more money for state and local governments, including Washington, D.C.; expanded family and medical leave; pension fixes; and stronger workplace protections.

Trump’s signature
Normally, a civil servant signs federal checks, like the direct payments Americans are set to receive. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Trump has told people that he wants his signature to appear on the stimulus checks.

THE SIDES

War on the poor continues

Amid the coronavirus crisis, Trump has defended his continued support of a Republican-led lawsuit to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which would result in 20 million Americans losing health insurance if successful. The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case this fall. Contrasting with his position that the ACA is illegal, Trump is considering reopening enrollment on HealthCare.gov, allowing millions of uninsured individuals to get coverage before potentially incurring charges and fees related to COVID-19.
Joe Biden called on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the charge against the ACA, and President Trump to drop the lawsuit:

“At a time of national emergency, which is laying bare the existing vulnerabilities in our public health infrastructure, it is unconscionable that you are continuing to pursue a lawsuit designed to strip millions of Americans of their health insurance and protections under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums due to pre-existing conditions.”

The Trump administration is also pushing forward with its plan to kick 700,000 people off federal food stamp assistance, known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). The USDA announced two weeks ago that the department will appeal Judge Beryl Howell’s recent decision that the USDA’s work mandate rule is “arbitrary and capricious."
Additionally: The Social Security Administration has no plans to slow down a rule change set for June that will limit disability benefits, the Department of Health and Human Services still intends to reduce automatic enrollment in health coverage, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development will continue the process to enact a rule that would make it harder for renters to sue landlords for racial discrimination.

Lawmakers’ stock transactions

The Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission are beginning to investigate stock transactions made ahead of the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic. CNN reports that the inquiry has already reached out to Senator Richard Burr for information. “Under insider trading laws, prosecutors would need to prove the lawmakers traded based on material non-public information they received in violation of a duty to keep it confidential,” a task that won’t be easy.
Sen. Burr is facing another consequence of his trades: Alan Jacobson, a shareholder in Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, sued Burr for allegedly using private information to instruct a mass liquidation of his assets. Among the shares he sold were an up to $150,000 stake in Wyndham, whose stock suffered a market-value cut of more than two-thirds since mid-February.

Environmental rollbacks

Using the pandemic as cover, the Trump administration has begun to more aggressively roll back regulations meant to protect the environment. These are examples of what Naomi Klein dubbed “the shock doctrine”: the phenomenon wherein polluters and their government allies push through unpopular policy changes under the smokescreen of a public emergency.
On Thursday, the EPA announced (non-paywalled) an expansive relaxation of environmental laws and fines, exempting companies from consequences for pollution. Under the new rules, there are basically no rules. Companies are asked to “act responsibly” but are not required to report when their facilities discharge pollution into the air or water. Just five days before abandoning any pollution oversight, the oil industry’s largest trade group implored the administration for assistance, stating that social distancing measures caused a steep drop in demand for gasoline.

Monday morning update: In an interview with Fox News this morning, Trump said he was going to call Putin after the interview to discuss the Saudi-Russia oil fight. A consequence of this "battle" has been plummeting prices in the U.S. making it difficult for domestic companies (like shale extraction) to turn a profit. It's striking that the day after Dr. Fauci told Americans we can expect 100,000 to 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 (if we keep social distancing measures in place), Trump's first action is to talk to Fox News and his second action is to intervene in an international tiff on behalf of the oil and gas industry.

Gina McCarthy, who led the E.P.A. under the Obama administration, called the rollback “an open license to pollute.” Cynthia Giles, who headed the EPA enforcement division during the Obama administration, said “it is so far beyond any reasonable response I am just stunned.”
The EPA is also moving forward with a widely-opposed rule to limit the types of scientific studies used when crafting new regulations or revising current ones. Hidden behind claims of increased transparency, the rule would require disclosure of all raw data used in scientific studies. This would disqualify many fields of research that rely on personal health information from individuals that must be kept confidential. For example, studies that show air pollution causes premature deaths or a certain pesticide is linked to birth defects would be rejected under the proposed rule change.
Officials and scientists are calling upon the EPA to extend the time for comment on the regulatory changes, arguing that the public is unable to express their opinion while dealing with the pandemic.

“These rollbacks need and deserve the input of our public health community, but right now, they are rightfully focused on responding to the coronavirus,” said Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Other controversial decisions being made:

A former EPA official who worked on controversial policies returned as Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s chief of staff. Mandy Gunasekara helped write regulations to ease pollution controls for coal-fired power plants and vehicle emissions in her previous role as chief of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. In a recent interview, Gunasekara, who played a role in the decision to exit the Paris Climate Accord, pushed back on the more dire predictions of climate change, saying, “I don't think it is catastrophic.”
NYT: The plastic bag industry, battered by a wave of bans nationwide, is using the coronavirus crisis to try to block laws prohibiting single-use plastic. “We simply don’t want millions of Americans bringing germ-filled reusable bags into retail establishments putting the public and workers at risk,” an industry campaign that goes by the name Bag the Ban warned on Tuesday. (Also see The Guardian)
Kentucky, South Dakota, and West Virginia passed laws putting new criminal penalties on protests against fossil fuel infrastructure in just the past two weeks.
The Hill: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said Friday that it will extend the amount of time that winter gasoline can be sold this year as producers have been facing lower demand due to the coronavirus. It will allow companies to sell the winter-grade gasoline through May 20, whereas companies would have previously been required to stop selling it by May 1 to protect air quality. “In responding to an international health crisis, the last thing the EPA should do is take steps that will worsen air quality and undermine the public’s health,” biofuels expert David DeGennaro said.
NYT: At the Interior Department, employees at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been under strict orders to complete the rule eliminating some protections for migratory birds within 30 days, according to two people with direct knowledge of the orders. The 45-day comment period on that rule ended on March 19.
WaPo: The Interior Department has received over 230 nominations for oil and gas leases covering more than 150,000 acres across southern Utah, a push that would bring drilling as close as a half-mile from some of the nation’s most famous protected sites, including Arches and Canyonlands National Parks… if all the fossil fuels buried in those sites was extracted and burned, it would translate into between 1 billion and 5.95 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide being released into the air. That upward measure is equal to half the annual carbon output of China

Court updates

Press freedom case
Southern District of New York District Judge Lorna Schofield ruled that a literary advocacy group’s lawsuit against Trump for allegedly violating the First Amendment can move forward. The group, PEN America, is pursuing claims that Trump “has used government power to retaliate against media coverage and reporters he dislikes.”
Schofield determined that PEN’s allegation that Trump made threats to chill free speech was valid, providing as an example the White House’s revocation of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s press press corps credentials:

”The threats are lent credence by the fact that Defendant has acted on them before, by revoking Mr. Acosta’s credentials and barring reporters from particular press conferences. The Press Secretary indeed e-mailed the entire press corps to inform them of new rules of conduct and to warn of further consequences, citing the incident involving Mr. Acosta… These facts plausibly allege that a motivation for defendant’s actions is controlling and punishing speech he dislikes.”

Twitter case
The president suffered another First Amendment defeat last week when the full 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review a previous ruling that prevents Trump from blocking users on the Twitter account he uses to communicate with the public. Judge Barrington D. Parker, a Nixon-appointee, wrote: “Excluding people from an otherwise public forum such as this by blocking those who express views critical of a public official is, we concluded, unconstitutional.”
Trump-appointees Michael Parker and Richard Sullivan authored a dissent, arguing the free speech “does not include a right to post on other people’s personal social media accounts, even if those other people happen to be public officials.” Park warned that the ruling will allow the social media pages of public officials to be “overrun with harassment, trolling, and hate speech, which officials will be powerless to filter.”
Florida’s felon voting
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ripped into Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s administration for failing to come up with a process to determine which felons are genuinely unable to pay court-ordered fees and fines, which are otherwise required to be paid before having their voting rights restored.
“If the state is not going to fix it, I will,” Hinkle warned. He had given the state five months to come up with an administrative process for felons to prove they’re unable to pay financial obligations, but Florida officials did not do so. The case is set to be heard on April 28 (notwithstanding any coronavirus-related delays).

ICE, Jails, and COVID-19

ICE
One of the most overlooked populations with an increased risk of death from coronavirus are those in detention facilities, which keep people in close quarters with little sanitation or protective measures (including for staff).
Last week, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ordered the federal government to “make continuous efforts” to release migrant children from detention centers across the country. Numerous advocacy groups asked for the release after reports that four children being held in New York had tested positive for the virus:

“The threat of irreparable injury to their health and safety is palpable,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers said in their petition… both of the agencies operating migrant children detention facilities must by April 6 provide an accounting of their efforts to release those in custody… “Her order will undoubtedly speed up releases,” said Peter Schey, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the court case.

On Tuesday, 13 immigrants held at ICE facilities in California filed a lawsuit demanding to be released because their health conditions make them particularly vulnerable to dying if infected by the coronavirus. An ACLU statement says the detainees are “confined in crowded and unsanitary conditions where social distancing is not possible.” The 13 individuals are all over the age of 50 and/or suffering from serious underlying medical issues like high blood pressure.

“From all the evidence we have seen, ICE is failing to fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect the health and safety of individuals in its custody. ICE should exercise its existing discretion to release people with serious medical conditions from detention for humanitarian reasons,” said William Freeman, senior counsel at the ACLU of Northern California.

Meanwhile, ICE is under fire for continuing to shuttle detainees across the country, with one even being forced to take nine different flights bouncing from Louisiana to Texas to New Jersey less than two weeks ago. That man is Dr. Sirous Asgari, a materials science and engineering professor from Iran, who was acquitted last year on federal charges of stealing trade secrets. The government lost its case against him, yet ICE has had him in indefinite detention since November.

Asgari, 59, told the Guardian that his Ice holding facility in Alexandria, Louisiana, had no basic cleaning practices in place and continued to bring in new detainees from across the country with no strategy to minimize the threat of Covid-19...Detainees have no hand sanitizer, and the facility is not regularly cleaning bathrooms or sleeping areas…Detainees lack access to masks… Detainees struggle to stay clean, and the facility has an awful stench.

Jails
State jails are making a better effort to release detained individuals, as both New York and New Jersey ordered a thousand people in each state be let out of jail. The order applied only to low-level offenders sentenced to less than a year in jail and those held on technical probation violations. In Los Angeles County, officials released over 1,700 people from its jails.
A judge in Alabama took similar steps last week, ordering roughly 500 people jailed for minor offenses to be released to lessen crowding in facilities. Unlike in New York and New Jersey, however, local officials reacted in an uproar, led in part by the state executive committee for the Alabama Republican Party and Assistant District Attorney C.J. Robinson. Using angry Facebook messages as the barometer of the community’s feelings, Robinson worked “frantically” to block inmates from being released.

Reuters: As of Saturday, at least 132 inmates and 104 staff at jails across New York City had tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus… Since March 22, jails have reported 226 inmates and 131 staff with confirmed cases of COVID-19, according to a Reuters survey of cities and counties that run America’s 20 largest jails. The numbers are almost certainly an undercount given the fast spread of the virus.

Tribe opposed by Trump loses land

On Wednesday, The Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs announced the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe’s reservation would be "disestablished" and its land trust status removed. Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell called the move "cruel" and "unnecessary,” particularly coming in the midst of a pandemic crisis. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who last year introduced legislation to protect the tribe's reservation as trust land in Massachusetts, said the order “is one of the most cruel and nonsensical acts I have seen since coming to Congress.”
The administration’s decision is especially suspicious as just last year Trump attacked the tribe’s plan to build a casino on its land, tweeting that allowing the construction would be “unfair” and treat Native Americans unequally. As a former casino owner, Trump has spent decades attacking Native American casinos as unfair competition. At a 1993 congressional hearing Trump said that tribal owners “don’t look like Indians to me” and claimed: “I might have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians that are trying to open up the reservations” to gambling.
More than his past history, however, Trump has current interests at play in the Mashpee Wampanoag’s planned casino: it would have competed for business with nearby Rhode Island casinos owned by Twin River Worldwide Holdings, whose president, George Papanier, was a finance executive at the Trump Plaza casino hotel in Atlantic City.

In the Mashpee case, Twin River, the operator of the two Rhode Island casinos, has hired Matthew Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and a vocal Trump supporter, to lobby for it on the land issue. Schlapp’s wife, Mercedes, is director of strategic communications at the White House.

I'd like to take a moment to address those of you considering switching their support from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. I've seen this sentiment around, and I think it's one that deserves further discussion.
America isn't in the best place right now. Far from the country our parents remember, our America has rampant income inequality, unemployment, citizens who cannot afford to pay their medical bills or their student loans. We've just come out of a hard recession, with a recovery that saw 95% of income gains going to the top 1%, and new stock market bubbles being inflated even as I type. There is a lot of very justified anger in this nation, and amongst it's people, and we're all fighting to protect ourselves from an insecure future.
The institutions that were created to protect us have failed us, our leaders have failed us, the establishment has failed us, and it's time for a change. This is the backdrop for the 2016 Presidential elections. The Democratic and Republican National committees have presented us with candidates that are part of the same establishment that has so wronged Americans on both sides of the political asile. The DNC gave Democrats Secretary Clinton, the RNC gave Republicans Governor Bush, and Senator Rubio, but none have been appealing to those of us looking for change. Out of this populist frustration we received two outsider candidates, candidates who want to change the political system in this country: Senator Bernie Sanders, and Mr. Donald Trump.
Both Trump and Sanders are outsiders of politics, one trying to change the government from within, the other from without. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders reflect our frustrations, our pains, and our struggles. Indeed, we see the establishment of both parties fighting against either candidate being nominated. On the Democratic side we're forced to fight against a mute media, derisive commentary, and a DNC that only has eyes for Secretary Clinton. On the Republican side Trump supporters are faced with outright hostility from media on both the left and the right, fighting against an RNC that wants to nominate "anyone but Trump," and even commentary from international sources that have little or no place in American politics.
From the outside, both candidates have equal appeal to those voters who are frustrated with Washington business as usual, both promise reform, both promise change. It's easy to understand why someone who supports Senator Sanders could see Donald Trump as an alternative. When looking solely at the issue of governmental reform, the two seem like different sides of the same coin.
However, past anger at the establishment, the two candidates could not be more at odds with eachother. While both want to take this country in a new direction, they also want to take the country in opposite directions. I feel that these different directions are not being well articulated in the media, much less on Reddit, and I would like to address some of the subjects on which the two candidates differ.
I will try to contrast a variety of topics, but this list will be by no means exhaustive, I am choosing to reference those subjects that I think the Reddit community is primarily concerned about. Please also note that I do have a personal bias, I believe that Senator Sanders is the best choice that we have for our next President, that said, I have made a point to include direct quotations as well as source links whereever possible, in hopes of facilitating both your own research, and so you can fact check my statements.

Net Neutrality and Privacy:

Sanders:

"Bernie Sanders believes that increasingly omnipresent mass surveillance and attempts to undermine net neutrality are corrosive to democracy in America. He has voted against the Patriot Act and opposes warrantless wiretapping. In regards to net neutrality, he has co-sponsored and introduced legislation in favor of an open Internet."
Senator Sanders has voted against The Patriot Act, and it's reauthorization. He has voted against the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and introduced the Restore Our Privacy Act to fight against overboard surveillance requests.
On why he opposed PIPA and SOPA, Senator Sanders had this to say:

“While I believe that online piracy is a serious issue, it is absolutely essential that the Internet remain open and free of censorship or the chilling effects that result in self-censorship. I will not support legislation that results in censorship or self censorship on the Internet."

Ultimately Senator Sanders came to the conclusion that both SOPA and PIPA were "too deeply flawed to continue [working on]"

Trump:

"Obama's attack on the internet [Net Neutrality] is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target the conservative media."

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.(Source)

It is unclear in what way Donald Trump believes that Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are similar.
The phrase "Net neutrality" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website, and the Positions page of his website has no mention of either net neutrality, or the internet. At the moment our only point of reference is the above Tweet.
This quote from the December 15th debate may offer further insights: “I would certainly be open to closing areas [of the internet] where we are at war with somebody, I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet. Yes, sir. I am." He later clarified that he didn't mean closing down American parts of the internet, just Iraq and Syria. [As an editorial note: For better or for worse, the internet was a crucial tool in the success of the Arab Spring. Shutting down the internet in Iraq and Syria wouldn't just hurt ISIS, but also groups trying to organize against them.]
There was no mention of internet privacy on Donald Trump's official website, save their Privacy Policy.
On encryption, specifically regarding the unlocking of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone, Donald Trump had this to say: "I agree 100% with the courts, in that case, we should open it [iPhone encryption] up. I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense." Going so far as to encourage his supporters to boycott Apple until they comply with the FBI: "First of all, Apple ought to give the security for that phone, OK. What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such time as they give that security number."
The only mention on encryption on the official DonaldJTrump.com website is from the blog post A little touch of Trump, in which he describes the safety measures put on campaign related harddrives. There is no mention of policy regarding encryption.
Senator Sanders supports privacy rights and has fought against SOPA, PIPA, The Patriot Act, and the renewal of the Patriot act. Due to the lack of specific information on Donald Trump's website, we have to look at his statments, which would seem to indicate that he is opposed to encryption, opposed to net neutrality, and that he is willing to shut down portions of the internet in the name of national security.

On Freedom of Speech:

Sanders:

"American's right to free speech should not be proportional to their bank accounts."
Senator Sanders supports the separation of Church & State, but also strongly supports religious freedom and free expression. By the same token, Senator Sanders believes that “Bosses should not be able to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”
Senator Sanders has been a long outspoken proponent of free speech, participating in frequent protests, and once even being arrested for it.

Trump:

"The editors at Charlie Hebdo liked poking Muslims in the eye with constant blasphemous depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. For doing so they paid an incredible and unfortunate price. But it’s important to remember that before the massacre, there was little outcry from the media establishment that such free speech was racist, insensitive or inflammatory.
Donald Trump often holds himself up as a beacon of Freedom of Speech, and is widely lauded for his willingness to say and do politically incorrect things. However, his actions may tell a different story. From The Daily Beast:

Trump sued his ex-wife, Ivana Trump, for $25 million in 1992–because she talked too much.

In 2006, Trump threatened to sue Rosie O’Donnell, then a co-host on The View, after she said he was bankrupt.

In 2011, rapper Mac Miller released a song called “Donald Trump,” which included the lyrics, “Take over the world when I’m on my Donald Trump shit; Look at all this money, ain’t that some shit?” Trump Tweeted at Miller to threaten a lawsuit: “Now I’m going to teach you a big boy lesson about lawsuits and finance.”

That same year [2011], Trump threatened to sue MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell for suggesting he was worth less than $1 billion.

In 2012, Trump sued Miss USA contestant Sheena Monnin after she claimed in a Facebook post that the pageant was “rigged,” because the five finalists were chosen before the pageant took place.

In 2013, after Trump said he would donate $5 million to charity if President Obama would release his long form birth certificate to the public, Bill Maher joked that he would give Trump $5 million if he could prove that his father was not an orangutan. Trump sent Maher a copy of his birth certificate. When Maher didn’t pay up, Trump sued him for the $5 million.

The same year [2013], Trump threatened legal action against Angelo Carusone, who had organized a petition to force Macy’s to stop selling Trump-branded products.

In 1984, Trump sued the Chicago Tribune for $500 million after the publication’s architecture critic wrote an item suggesting Chicago’s Sears Tower, then the world’s tallest building, would remain as such, despite Trump’s plan to build a taller structure in downtown Manhattan.

Trump threatened to sue ABC in 2005, after he learned the network was planning to produce a two-hour biopic about him and his family.

In 2006, Trump sued New York Times reporter Timothy L. O’Brien for saying Trump is worth $150 million to $250 million when Trump claimed, at the time, he was worth $2.7 billion.

In 2014, Trump sued Trump Entertainment Resorts, which he holds a 10 percent stake in, to remove his name from the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City, which he said did not live up to his standard of quality.

Donald Trump has filed lawsuits against authors, journalists, newspapers, cities, individuals, and even a company that he partially owns, for saying things that he didn't like, or didn't approve of. He routinely uses the threat of legal action to silence his critics.
As President: "One of the things I'm going to do if I win ... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected, we're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
It should be noted that the "protections" Donald Trump speaks of are part of Freedom of the Press as defined by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Also of note is the fact that that a private citizen can already sue a publisher for libel, so long as they can prove that the news organization knowingly published false information with malicious intent, this was decided in the 1964 Supreme Court Case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Donald Trump does not need to add, remove, amend, or abridge any law to be able to sue a publisher, that is already the legal right of all American citizens.
Also, Donald Trump's campaign contract restricts the free speech of his volunteers and their employees:

No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

No Competitive Services. Until the Non-Compete Cutoff Date you promise and agree not to assist or counsel, directly or indirectly, for compensation or as a volunteer, any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump and to prevent your employees from doing so.

Theoretically these restrictions could be in place until 2024, or the end of Donald Trump's Presidency.
Senator Sanders has fought for freedom of speech his entire career, even going so far as being arrested during demonstrations and protests. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has filed numerous lawsuits attempting to silence his critics, and as President plans to make it easier to sue the press for unflattering commentary.

On climate change:

Sanders:

"Climate change is real, caused by human activity and already devastating our nation and planet. The United States must lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainability."
Senator Sanders has long fought against climate change, as well a climate denial, which has earned him a high ranking from Climate Hawks Vote, consistently scoring within the top ten percent of Senators. Senator Sanders is also one of only three presidential candidates who agreed to refuse donations from greenhouse-gas emitters. He co-sponsored the Super Pollutants Act of 2014, the Climate Protection act of 2013, the End Polluter Welfare Act, and has fought against the Keystone XL pipeline.
In terms of energy policy: Senator Sanders wants to further promote the use of renewable energy sources, improve energy efficency standards, as well as taxing habitual greenhouse gas producers.

Trump:

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

"I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems." Source

From the DonaldJTrump.com official site:

"It is a hoax. Trump does not believe climate change is real, tweeting out his skepticism with strong language and calling it a hoax on Fox News in 2014. In a 2012 Twitter post which is no longer accessible, Trump charged that the concept of climate change was created by the Chinese to suppress the U.S. economy. In addition, Trump has expressed firm opposition to wind turbines, which he sees as an environmental and aesthetic problem." Source

In regards to energy policy, Donald Trump supports nuclear energy production, opposes Cap-And-Trade, believes that job creation is dependent on cheap, readily available oil, believes we need to increase oil production, and supports natural gas Fraking.
Unfortunately Donald Trump's Position page did not mention either climate change, or energy policy.
Senator Sanders believes that climate change is the greatest threat our nation, and our world, faces. It drives up energy costs, destroys valuable resources, and promotes terrorism. Donald Trump believes that climate change is a hoax, and the century long upward trend in global temperatures is "just weather."

The minimum wage and economic inequality:

Sanders:

"Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years."
The main goal of Senator Sanders career, and indeed his Presidential bid, has been to combat income inequality. Senator Sanders supports a progressive tax system, which would ask a little more of the very wealthy individuals in this country, included among them Donald Trump. Senator Sanders is outspoken about preventing corporations from skiping out on their tax bills, or even recieving unearned benefits, and has sponsored the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act, and co-sponsored the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2015.
Unlike the millionaires and billionaires, the lobbests and SuperPACs, the special interests and the seven digit donors, Senator Sanders economic plan is centered around directly benefiting the American people. Far from the trickle down voodoo economics of the past thirty years, Bernie Sanders wants to help the poor, rather than cut taxes for the rich.

Trump:

"But, taxes too high, wages too high, ... I hate to say it, but we have to leave it [the minimum wage] the way it is," Donald Trump has said that he would not raise the minimum wage if elected as President.
The term "Minimum wage" is not found on DonaldJTrump.com.
Donald Trump's tax plan is to cut taxes and simplify the tax code, while remaining revenue neutral. [Revenue neutral means that his reforms will not result in an increase in tax revenue for the Federal Government.]
From his site:

No family will have to pay the death tax. [The Death Tax, more commonly known as the estate tax, currently only applies to estates worth $5,000,000.00 or more, and as such only effects the wealthiest of Americans.]

Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. [Currently Donald Trump has only singled out one loophole that he would close, the Carried Interest Deduction for hedgefund managers. How he will finance the remainder of his tax cuts is unclear.]

Analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan shows that: "In its second decade, Trump's plan would lead to revenue losses of $15 trillion. Taking into account additional interest costs, the proposal would add $11.2 trillion to the national debt by 2026 and $34.1 trillion by 2036, according to the report." "The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017, or almost 19 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $2,700, or 4.9 percent of their after-tax income, according to the report."
The analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan was performed by the nonpartisan Tax Policy center.
Until what time as Donald Trump tells the nation what loopholes he would close, what tax deductions he would end, and which federal programs he would cut, the above analysis is the best information we have available. Far from Senator Sanders plan, Donald Trump's tax policy would significantly cut federal revenue, increase deficits, and grow the national debt. As far as the minimum wage is concerned, Senator Sanders wants to raise it to $15/hour over the next several years, Donald Trump is content with allowing it to remain at the same rate it has been since 2009, $7.25/hour.

Foreign Policy and War:

Sanders:

“I will vote for this resolution because I believe that the use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of terrorism and mass murder. One tool but it is not our only tool, and it is something that must be used wisely… and with great discretion.“
Senator Sanders opposed the Gulf War and Desert Storm, supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan, voted against the Invasion of Iraq, opposed the 2009 troop surge, and ultimately, in 2008, voted against continued spending of the war in Afghanistan.
On ending the war in Afghanistan he had this to say: "This year alone [2011], we will spend about $100 billion on that war. In my view, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for waging the war against the Taliban. While we cannot withdraw all of our troops immediately, we must bring them home as soon as possible. I appreciate the president’s announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope."
From Senator Sanders official campaign website we have these four guiding principles for foreign policy:

Move away from a policy of unilateral military action, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy, and ensuring the decision to go to war is a last resort.

Ensure that any military action we do engage in has clear goals, is limited in scope, and whenever possible provides support to our allies in the region.

Close Guantanamo Bay, rein in the National Security Agency, abolish the use of torture, and remember what truly makes America exceptional: our values.

Expand our global influence by promoting fair trade, addressing global climate change, providing humanitarian relief and economic assistance, defending the rule of law, and promoting human rights.

Senator Sanders wants to end America's role as "policemen of the world," prefering diplomacy and influence over regieme change and warfare.

Trump:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
[Killing innocent men, women, and children, is a violation of the Hague Conventions, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and as such is considered an international war crime, and a crime against humanity.]
On Iraq: When asked by Howard Stern in 2002 if he supported the proposed invasion of Iraq, Donald Trump had this to say “Yeah I guess so." This year his opinion on the Iraq war was "By the time the war started, I was against the war, and there are articles—I mean, there are headlines in 2003 and 2004—that I was totally against the war." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump did support the Iraq war, as he stated in 2002, or if he opposed the Iraq war, as he stated fourteen years later in 2016.
On WMDs in Iraq: On February 13th, 2016 Donald Trump believed "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew there were none." On February 19th, 2016 he expanded that "I don't know if he lied or not. He could have lied. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I guess you'd have to ask him." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs, as he stated on February 13th, or if he believes that the Administration could have been speaking truthfully, as he stated on February 19th.
On Afghanistan: On October 6th, 2015, Donald Trump had this to say about Afghanistan: "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there [Afghanistan] in the first place. At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? At some point what's going on? It's going to be a long time." However on October 20th of that year, his opinion was that "We made a mistake going into Iraq. I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, as he stated on October 6th, or if he never said it was a mistake, as he stated on October 20th.
On refugees from the Syrian civil war: September 9th, 2015 "but on a humanitarian basis, you have to [accept them] ... There's no question about it. They're living in hell, and something has to be done.", September 10th, 2015 "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems. We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart.", and on October 3rd, 2015 "If they come in, and if I win, they're going back. They're going back,". Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that we should allow Syrian refugees into this country, as he stated on September 9th, if they aren't a cause for concern, as he stated on September 10th, or if he'll deport them back to the warzone in Syria, as he stated on October 3rd.
In terms of foreign policy positions: Donald Trump's official website focuses primarily on slowing legal and illegal immigration. Stating that he will build a wall, deport all undocumented workers, end birthright citizenship, and make legal immigration and refugee status harder to obtain.
Currently little is known about how Donald Trump would deal with problems like ISIS beyond the fact that "I would bomb the shit out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow up the pipes. ... I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."
Senator Sanders supports less military intervention in wars that don't directly involve us, preferring instead to support our allies, and work within military coalitions, as compared to Donald Trump, who may or may not agree with Senator Sanders depending on when you ask him. Currently all we know about Donald Trump's foreign policy for certain is that he wants to build a wall, limit legal and illegal immigration, bomb ISIS, and bomb their families.

Electoral reform:

Sanders:

“We are moving rapidly away from our democratic heritage into an oligarchic form of society where today we are experiencing a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires.”
Senator Sanders wants to overturn Citizens United, which allows unlimited money to be funneled into electoral politics, both from sources domestic, and abroad. Pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would require political candidates to make public all their controbutions, and their source. Make election day a federal holiday, so that voters may have the day off from work to vote. End gerrymandering, which allows political parties to draw "safe districts" where their candidate cannot lose, and fight against voter suppression. Move towards publically funded elections, to allow everyone running for office an even playing field. And he wants to introduce Instant Runoff Voting, allowing third party candidates a better chance at winning elected office.
Senator Sanders' goal is to give every candidate a balanced playing field, from pushing foreign money out of election, to ending safe districts and rampant Gerrymandering, to instituting Instant Runoff Voting so that voting third party won't be tantamount to a wasted ballot.

Trump:

The phrase "electoral reform" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "campaign finance reform" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "DISCLOSE act" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The word "gerrymandering" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "citizens united" is mentioned four times on DonaldJTrump.com, stating that it was "Disasterous." [It should be noted that Donald Trump is friends with the President of Citizens United, David Bossie, and that in 2014 he donated $100,000.00 to the Citizens United Foundation.]
On the current campaign finance system, Donald Trump had this to say: "Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them... And that's a broken system."
On the topic of campaign finace reform, Donald Trump explained: “I love the idea of campaign finance reform,” Unfortunately, beyond loving campaign finance reform, he hasn't explained his plan to achieve reform, nor has he cited any specific policy positions on the matter.
On disclosure of campaign finances, he has said: “One of the things you should do is everybody should be known. If somebody gives a million or two million or five million it should be known,” Unfortunately it is unknown whether or not Donald Trump supports the DISCLOSE act, as he has not commented on the matter.
On voter fraud: “This voting system is out of control. You have people, in my opinion, that are voting many, many times. They don’t want security, they don’t want cards.” [It should be noted that there is no statistical evidence to support the theory that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem in the United States.]
I was unable to find any specific policy positions in the matter of election reform, beyond Trump's willingness to overturn the Citizens United Decision. There is no information regarding Trump's position on gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, electoral reform, voting reform, or the DISCLOSE Act. This is in stark contrast to Senator Sanders, who not only has the same desire for reform that Donald Trump does, but also has specific policy positions that he supports, in addition to a plan for their implementation.
While both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump speak to the anger that many of us feel at modern institutions and established politics, one candidate has a very clear and concise plan for the direction of this country, the other does not. One candidate wants to raise the minimum wage, protect net neutrality, and combat climate change, the other does not. One candidate wants to replace unilateral war with diplomacy, the other wants to commit war crimes. One candidate respects your freedom of speech, the other might sue you if you suggest he's a millionaire and not a billionaire. One candidate has a fully funded tax plan, the other has a tax plan that would increase the budget deficit and grow the debt. One candidate wants to reform the financial system and make it fairer for 99% of Americans, the other was made a billionaire by the same financial system he claims that he wants to reform.
Before you decide to join our opposition, you should know what they believe.

My father in law had some of his casino winnings withheld by the casino for federal taxes (Vegas vacation). We are Canadian residents. The casino has issued him form 1042-S, and an annual gaming statement. The losses are much higher than the income amounts on the 1042-s form.
Is it possible to file a 1040NR US Non-resident Income Tax Return ourselves using software or an online service? Do you have any recommendations? We would much prefer this instead of going to a CPA.
I understand we first need to submit a form W7 for an Individual Tax Identification Number.
Can anyone offer any advice? We're confident we can get this done, but just want to make sure we're in the right direction.

I intend to write a far more detailed guide to match betting without using an odds matching tool like P.A. over the next couple of weeks, this guide will be better suited to those who have zero knowledge of match betting

What is Match Betting?

Match betting is a LEGAL, RISK FREE & TAX FREE way of earning Money. You earn by taking advantage of the various sign up and "reload" offers that bookies provide new and existing customers. For example, when you sign up to William Hill they have an offer of "Deposit £10, get a £20 free bet" You can use this bet and then lay against it at a betting exchange
For example:
Bookie: Bet Chelsea to WIN
Exchange: Bet Chelsea to NOT WIN (It should be noted than when you make a lay at a betting exchange you're covering all other options, so by saying you think Chelsea will NOT win you're saying they will either lose or draw, anything except win)
So now that you've placed them, these two bets will cancel each other out, resulting in you breaking even (or losing a little bit of cash) after this initial bet you will be credited with your free bet. Now, repeat this process again - except this time it's not your own money being used to place the bet! So you get to keep the profits.

How to get started

The best way (I believe) to get started is to sign up for the free trial on Profit Accumulator | Non and follow their step by step instructions. Using their site you can claim two of the offers and earn £45. During the trial you will have the basics of match betting explained to you and once you have earned from your free trial you can use the profit to upgrade to a Platinum account(£22.99/month or £150/year). If you become a platinum member you will have access to hundreds of offers and dozens of extra guides to help you on your journey. When I started doing this a few years back I only used £50 (That I earned doing surveys) as my starting float, however a bigger pot of £100 is advised to help you work through offers quicker.
If you're going to get started with match betting, I recommend you take a photo of the following: Passport or Driving License, bank card used to deposit money, and a recent utility bill - As the bookies fraud prevention teams occasionally ask for these (I've only had it happen once, but it does happen)

Review of the best Match Betting Sites

Profit Accumulator | Non
Profit Accumulator is the oldest and largest match betting community out there, with over 20,000 members on its private forum. Their guides are very simple to follow, with text guides, video guides and a list of offers for first time match betters to sign up to. The Profit Accumulator team are also the only match betting site which has a dedicated customer support line.
Profit Accumulator have also developed a lot of tools over the past year or so, including Oddsmatching, which find you the right games to maximise your profit, the match catcher which is used betting on the horses, The Acca catcher which is for people who’ve been doing this for years and now use accumulators to make most of their profit, a profit tracker. More recently they’ve created the Early Pay out calculator the Offers Calendar and the Match Betting Diary
Cost: FREE TRIAL! which will earn you £45 and then £17.99 after that

Odds Monkey | Non
OddsMonkey used to be my favourite sites until Profit Accumulator pulled slightly ahead of them. They’re very user friendly & focus more on newbies to the game. They’re the original creator of the oddsmatcher, which finds the perfect bets for you to make maximum profit.
Once again they offer written & video tutorials for people of all abilities and experience. As well as a huge community to offer you support. Odds Monkey is the only site where you can get 1 on 1 training by one of their seasoned professionals, simply pick your time slow and you can talk to someone who’s been match betting for years.
OddsMonkey probably offer more tools than any other sites, including: OddsMatcher, Racing Matcher, Each way matcher, Acca matcher, Acca finder, dutch search, tennis matcher and more.

Heads&Heads | Non
Head&Heads is relative new comer to the game, founded in 2016 it is run by one man, however that one man is some type of match betting machine sent from the future to help us get back at the bookies, it seems to update with reloads and new offers quicker than the two sites above who have large teams.
Their dashboard is clean, cut and simple making it very clear how much you’ve earned and where. They also have the oddchecker, a tracking table of every bet you’ve made, which is directly linked to their bet form. In my opinion heads&heads is the best site for more experienced match betting users.
Cost: FREE TRIAL! which will earn you £45 and then £17.99 after that HeadandHeads has kindly provided the following code BMUK01 which will give you 30 days of premium membership for £1

Being gubbed & mug bets

Mug bets - Ok, so match betting is completely legal, however, Most bookies aren't too keen on you only using them for offers. So it's highly recommended to place occasional "mug bets" - What's a mug bet? It's basically a normal (small) bet which is nothing to do with your match betting. A mug bet is simply a small bet to make you look like a regular customer, once again Profit Accumulator | Non has got you covered on the best ways to place mug bets. They advise following a cycle: Qualifying bet, free bet, mug bet, withdraw profits.
Being gubbed - This is when a bookie has figured out that you're only match betting and using their offers, the bookie can limit your account to only making small bets, or not getting any offers. You can get back in good stead with them by placing non-offer bets but this could take time and still never amount to anything.

Slot Offers

These offers aren't required to make a healthy profit, but they can be a good earner for you. Slot offers come in many different flavours, and you have to take each one for its merits, some are simply a few free spins and sometimes you have large wagers involved for your free spins. People are often put off by slots because a lot of the time they’re not completely risk-free. It is up to you to weigh up the value of doing them as you have the chance to win big from doing these, you have the potential to make upwards of £100 from a single offer, but like I said... not for everyone. Profit Accumulator | Non will advise you about the risk factor for each slot offer. It will either be no risk (so for examples and offers where the bookies will give you your money back – wager £5 and be credited £5 if you lose it all) or a low risk offer (which is what most slot offers are) where you have to wager a larger amount but the potential earnings are a lot higher. They will also tell you which slots you are best using, unless the offer is for a selected slot only

Jargon Buster

When you start your Match betting journey you'll notice lots of terms thrown around, if you're unsure of them ask me and I’ll try to explain. Here are some of the common terms:
Lay Bet: This is the bet you lay in the exchange against your bookie bet. This bet covers you for all options that are not what the bet is backing – e.g. Bet is to WIN; the lay bet will cover LOSS and DRAW.
Qualifying Bet: This is when you place a bet to qualify for an offer, for example if the offer was "bet £10 get a £20 free bet" then £10 is your qualifying bet.
Mug Bet: This is a small bet placed to convince the bookie you're a regular punter
Gubbed: When a bookie bans or limits your account, this usually happens due to a lack of mug bets.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is Matched Betting a scam?
A: NO! Everything is tried & tested, supported by various forums all over the internet and has been features on the BBC, The Guardian and various other news outlets... it's legit!

Q: Is Matched Betting Gambling
A: NO! With Gambling you have a risk, Match betting has no risks because you cover every outcome - the only risk is human error.

Q: Is Matched Betting really risk free?
A: Yes and No, If you just follow the instructions for the offers then you will face no risk. However if you decide to use slot offers then there is a slight risk associated with it, but that's your choice you aren't required to do the slot offers.

Q: How is Matched Betting tax-free?
A: As it's considered gambling you don't pay any tax on your winnings.

Q: Will Matched Betting affect my credit rating?
A: NO! But bookies will leave an imprint on your credit file. This is just an identity check to make sure that you are genuine.

Q: Do I need a separate bank account for Matched Betting?
A: NO, But it is recommended, simply because seeing lots of deposits and withdrawals to casinos can look unappealing on your bank account. Most mortgage companies want to see 3 months worth of bank statements - but if you have 10 bookmakers on them every week it might look like you have a problem.
TLDR: Use the free trial from Profit Accumulator | Non to make your first £45 from the bookies (Risk Free).

I'd like to take a moment to address those of you considering switching their support from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. I've seen this sentiment around, and I think it's one that deserves further discussion.
America isn't in the best place right now. Far from the country our parents remember, our America has rampant income inequality, unemployment, citizens who cannot afford to pay their medical bills or their student loans. We've just come out of a hard recession, with a recovery that saw 95% of income gains going to the top 1%, and new stock market bubbles being inflated even as I type. There is a lot of very justified anger in this nation, and amongst it's people, and we're all fighting to protect ourselves from an insecure future.
The institutions that were created to protect us have failed us, our leaders have failed us, the establishment has failed us, and it's time for a change. This is the backdrop for the 2016 Presidential elections. The Democratic and Republican National committees have presented us with candidates that are part of the same establishment that has so wronged Americans on both sides of the political asile. The DNC gave Democrats Secretary Clinton, the RNC gave Republicans Governor Bush, and Senator Rubio, but none have been appealing to those of us looking for change. Out of this populist frustration we received two outsider candidates, candidates who want to change the political system in this country: Senator Bernie Sanders, and Mr. Donald Trump.
Both Trump and Sanders are outsiders of politics, one trying to change the government from within, the other from without. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders reflect our frustrations, our pains, and our struggles. Indeed, we see the establishment of both parties fighting against either candidate being nominated. On the Democratic side we're forced to fight against a mute media, derisive commentary, and a DNC that only has eyes for Secretary Clinton. On the Republican side Trump supporters are faced with outright hostility from media on both the left and the right, fighting against an RNC that wants to nominate "anyone but Trump," and even commentary from international sources that have little or no place in American politics.
From the outside, both candidates have equal appeal to those voters who are frustrated with Washington business as usual, both promise reform, both promise change. It's easy to understand why someone who supports Senator Sanders could see Donald Trump as an alternative. When looking solely at the issue of governmental reform, the two seem like different sides of the same coin.
However, past anger at the establishment, the two candidates could not be more at odds with eachother. While both want to take this country in a new direction, they also want to take the country in opposite directions. I feel that these different directions are not being well articulated in the media, much less on Reddit, and I would like to address some of the subjects on which the two candidates differ.
I will try to contrast a variety of topics, but this list will be by no means exhaustive, I am choosing to reference those subjects that I think the Reddit community is primarily concerned about. Please also note that I do have a personal bias, I believe that Senator Sanders is the best choice that we have for our next President, that said, I have made a point to include direct quotations as well as source links whereever possible, in hopes of facilitating both your own research, and so you can fact check my statements.

Net Neutrality and Privacy:

Sanders:

"Bernie Sanders believes that increasingly omnipresent mass surveillance and attempts to undermine net neutrality are corrosive to democracy in America. He has voted against the Patriot Act and opposes warrantless wiretapping. In regards to net neutrality, he has co-sponsored and introduced legislation in favor of an open Internet."
Senator Sanders has voted against The Patriot Act, and it's reauthorization. He has voted against the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and introduced the Restore Our Privacy Act to fight against overboard surveillance requests.
On why he opposed PIPA and SOPA, Senator Sanders had this to say:

“While I believe that online piracy is a serious issue, it is absolutely essential that the Internet remain open and free of censorship or the chilling effects that result in self-censorship. I will not support legislation that results in censorship or self censorship on the Internet."

Ultimately Senator Sanders came to the conclusion that both SOPA and PIPA were "too deeply flawed to continue [working on]"

Trump:

"Obama's attack on the internet [Net Neutrality] is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target the conservative media."

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.(Source)

It is unclear in what way Donald Trump believes that Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are similar.
The phrase "Net neutrality" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website, and the Positions page of his website has no mention of either net neutrality, or the internet. At the moment our only point of reference is the above Tweet.
This quote from the December 15th debate may offer further insights: “I would certainly be open to closing areas [of the internet] where we are at war with somebody, I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet. Yes, sir. I am." He later clarified that he didn't mean closing down American parts of the internet, just Iraq and Syria. [As an editorial note: For better or for worse, the internet was a crucial tool in the success of the Arab Spring. Shutting down the internet in Iraq and Syria wouldn't just hurt ISIS, but also groups trying to organize against them.]
There was no mention of internet privacy on Donald Trump's official website, save their Privacy Policy.
On encryption, specifically regarding the unlocking of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone, Donald Trump had this to say: "I agree 100% with the courts, in that case, we should open it [iPhone encryption] up. I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense." Going so far as to encourage his supporters to boycott Apple until they comply with the FBI: "First of all, Apple ought to give the security for that phone, OK. What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such time as they give that security number."
The only mention on encryption on the official DonaldJTrump.com website is from the blog post A little touch of Trump, in which he describes the safety measures put on campaign related harddrives. There is no mention of policy regarding encryption.
Senator Sanders supports privacy rights and has fought against SOPA, PIPA, The Patriot Act, and the renewal of the Patriot act. Due to the lack of specific information on Donald Trump's website, we have to look at his statments, which would seem to indicate that he is opposed to encryption, opposed to net neutrality, and that he is willing to shut down portions of the internet in the name of national security.

On Freedom of Speech:

Sanders:

"American's right to free speech should not be proportional to their bank accounts."
Senator Sanders supports the separation of Church & State, but also strongly supports religious freedom and free expression. By the same token, Senator Sanders believes that “Bosses should not be able to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”
Senator Sanders has been a long outspoken proponent of free speech, participating in frequent protests, and once even being arrested for it.

Trump:

"The editors at Charlie Hebdo liked poking Muslims in the eye with constant blasphemous depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. For doing so they paid an incredible and unfortunate price. But it’s important to remember that before the massacre, there was little outcry from the media establishment that such free speech was racist, insensitive or inflammatory.
Donald Trump often holds himself up as a beacon of Freedom of Speech, and is widely lauded for his willingness to say and do politically incorrect things. However, his actions may tell a different story. From The Daily Beast:

Trump sued his ex-wife, Ivana Trump, for $25 million in 1992–because she talked too much.

In 2006, Trump threatened to sue Rosie O’Donnell, then a co-host on The View, after she said he was bankrupt.

In 2011, rapper Mac Miller released a song called “Donald Trump,” which included the lyrics, “Take over the world when I’m on my Donald Trump shit; Look at all this money, ain’t that some shit?” Trump Tweeted at Miller to threaten a lawsuit: “Now I’m going to teach you a big boy lesson about lawsuits and finance.”

That same year [2011], Trump threatened to sue MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell for suggesting he was worth less than $1 billion.

In 2012, Trump sued Miss USA contestant Sheena Monnin after she claimed in a Facebook post that the pageant was “rigged,” because the five finalists were chosen before the pageant took place.

In 2013, after Trump said he would donate $5 million to charity if President Obama would release his long form birth certificate to the public, Bill Maher joked that he would give Trump $5 million if he could prove that his father was not an orangutan. Trump sent Maher a copy of his birth certificate. When Maher didn’t pay up, Trump sued him for the $5 million.

The same year [2013], Trump threatened legal action against Angelo Carusone, who had organized a petition to force Macy’s to stop selling Trump-branded products.

In 1984, Trump sued the Chicago Tribune for $500 million after the publication’s architecture critic wrote an item suggesting Chicago’s Sears Tower, then the world’s tallest building, would remain as such, despite Trump’s plan to build a taller structure in downtown Manhattan.

Trump threatened to sue ABC in 2005, after he learned the network was planning to produce a two-hour biopic about him and his family.

In 2006, Trump sued New York Times reporter Timothy L. O’Brien for saying Trump is worth $150 million to $250 million when Trump claimed, at the time, he was worth $2.7 billion.

In 2014, Trump sued Trump Entertainment Resorts, which he holds a 10 percent stake in, to remove his name from the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City, which he said did not live up to his standard of quality.

Donald Trump has filed lawsuits against authors, journalists, newspapers, cities, individuals, and even a company that he partially owns, for saying things that he didn't like, or didn't approve of. He routinely uses the threat of legal action to silence his critics.
As President: "One of the things I'm going to do if I win ... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected, we're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
It should be noted that the "protections" Donald Trump speaks of are part of Freedom of the Press as defined by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Also of note is the fact that that a private citizen can already sue a publisher for libel, so long as they can prove that the news organization knowingly published false information with malicious intent, this was decided in the 1964 Supreme Court Case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Donald Trump does not need to add, remove, amend, or abridge any law to be able to sue a publisher, that is already the legal right of all American citizens.
Also, Donald Trump's campaign contract restricts the free speech of his volunteers and their employees:

No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

No Competitive Services. Until the Non-Compete Cutoff Date you promise and agree not to assist or counsel, directly or indirectly, for compensation or as a volunteer, any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump and to prevent your employees from doing so.

Theoretically these restrictions could be in place until 2024, or the end of Donald Trump's Presidency.
Senator Sanders has fought for freedom of speech his entire career, even going so far as being arrested during demonstrations and protests. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has filed numerous lawsuits attempting to silence his critics, and as President plans to make it easier to sue the press for unflattering commentary.

On climate change:

Sanders:

"Climate change is real, caused by human activity and already devastating our nation and planet. The United States must lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainability."
Senator Sanders has long fought against climate change, as well a climate denial, which has earned him a high ranking from Climate Hawks Vote, consistently scoring within the top ten percent of Senators. Senator Sanders is also one of only three presidential candidates who agreed to refuse donations from greenhouse-gas emitters. He co-sponsored the Super Pollutants Act of 2014, the Climate Protection act of 2013, the End Polluter Welfare Act, and has fought against the Keystone XL pipeline.
In terms of energy policy: Senator Sanders wants to further promote the use of renewable energy sources, improve energy efficency standards, as well as taxing habitual greenhouse gas producers.

Trump:

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

"I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems." Source

From the DonaldJTrump.com official site:

"It is a hoax. Trump does not believe climate change is real, tweeting out his skepticism with strong language and calling it a hoax on Fox News in 2014. In a 2012 Twitter post which is no longer accessible, Trump charged that the concept of climate change was created by the Chinese to suppress the U.S. economy. In addition, Trump has expressed firm opposition to wind turbines, which he sees as an environmental and aesthetic problem." Source

In regards to energy policy, Donald Trump supports nuclear energy production, opposes Cap-And-Trade, believes that job creation is dependent on cheap, readily available oil, believes we need to increase oil production, and supports natural gas Fraking.
Unfortunately Donald Trump's Position page did not mention either climate change, or energy policy.
Senator Sanders believes that climate change is the greatest threat our nation, and our world, faces. It drives up energy costs, destroys valuable resources, and promotes terrorism. Donald Trump believes that climate change is a hoax, and the century long upward trend in global temperatures is "just weather."

The minimum wage and economic inequality:

Sanders:

"Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years."
The main goal of Senator Sanders career, and indeed his Presidential bid, has been to combat income inequality. Senator Sanders supports a progressive tax system, which would ask a little more of the very wealthy individuals in this country, included among them Donald Trump. Senator Sanders is outspoken about preventing corporations from skiping out on their tax bills, or even recieving unearned benefits, and has sponsored the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act, and co-sponsored the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2015.
Unlike the millionaires and billionaires, the lobbests and SuperPACs, the special interests and the seven digit donors, Senator Sanders economic plan is centered around directly benefiting the American people. Far from the trickle down voodoo economics of the past thirty years, Bernie Sanders wants to help the poor, rather than cut taxes for the rich.

Trump:

"But, taxes too high, wages too high, ... I hate to say it, but we have to leave it [the minimum wage] the way it is," Donald Trump has said that he would not raise the minimum wage if elected as President.
The term "Minimum wage" is not found on DonaldJTrump.com.
Donald Trump's tax plan is to cut taxes and simplify the tax code, while remaining revenue neutral. [Revenue neutral means that his reforms will not result in an increase in tax revenue for the Federal Government.]
From his site:

No family will have to pay the death tax. [The Death Tax, more commonly known as the estate tax, currently only applies to estates worth $5,000,000.00 or more, and as such only effects the wealthiest of Americans.]

Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. [Currently Donald Trump has only singled out one loophole that he would close, the Carried Interest Deduction for hedgefund managers. How he will finance the remainder of his tax cuts is unclear.]

Analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan shows that: "In its second decade, Trump's plan would lead to revenue losses of $15 trillion. Taking into account additional interest costs, the proposal would add $11.2 trillion to the national debt by 2026 and $34.1 trillion by 2036, according to the report." "The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017, or almost 19 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $2,700, or 4.9 percent of their after-tax income, according to the report."
The analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan was performed by the nonpartisan Tax Policy center.
Until what time as Donald Trump tells the nation what loopholes he would close, what tax deductions he would end, and which federal programs he would cut, the above analysis is the best information we have available. Far from Senator Sanders plan, Donald Trump's tax policy would significantly cut federal revenue, increase deficits, and grow the national debt. As far as the minimum wage is concerned, Senator Sanders wants to raise it to $15/hour over the next several years, Donald Trump is content with allowing it to remain at the same rate it has been since 2009, $7.25/hour.

Foreign Policy and War:

Sanders:

“I will vote for this resolution because I believe that the use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of terrorism and mass murder. One tool but it is not our only tool, and it is something that must be used wisely… and with great discretion.“
Senator Sanders opposed the Gulf War and Desert Storm, supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan, voted against the Invasion of Iraq, opposed the 2009 troop surge, and ultimately, in 2008, voted against continued spending of the war in Afghanistan.
On ending the war in Afghanistan he had this to say: "This year alone [2011], we will spend about $100 billion on that war. In my view, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for waging the war against the Taliban. While we cannot withdraw all of our troops immediately, we must bring them home as soon as possible. I appreciate the president’s announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope."
From Senator Sanders official campaign website we have these four guiding principles for foreign policy:

Move away from a policy of unilateral military action, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy, and ensuring the decision to go to war is a last resort.

Ensure that any military action we do engage in has clear goals, is limited in scope, and whenever possible provides support to our allies in the region.

Close Guantanamo Bay, rein in the National Security Agency, abolish the use of torture, and remember what truly makes America exceptional: our values.

Expand our global influence by promoting fair trade, addressing global climate change, providing humanitarian relief and economic assistance, defending the rule of law, and promoting human rights.

Senator Sanders wants to end America's role as "policemen of the world," prefering diplomacy and influence over regieme change and warfare.

Trump:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
[Killing innocent men, women, and children, is a violation of the Hague Conventions, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and as such is considered an international war crime, and a crime against humanity.]
On Iraq: When asked by Howard Stern in 2002 if he supported the proposed invasion of Iraq, Donald Trump had this to say “Yeah I guess so." This year his opinion on the Iraq war was "By the time the war started, I was against the war, and there are articles—I mean, there are headlines in 2003 and 2004—that I was totally against the war." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump did support the Iraq war, as he stated in 2002, or if he opposed the Iraq war, as he stated fourteen years later in 2016.
On WMDs in Iraq: On February 13th, 2016 Donald Trump believed "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew there were none." On February 19th, 2016 he expanded that "I don't know if he lied or not. He could have lied. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I guess you'd have to ask him." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs, as he stated on February 13th, or if he believes that the Administration could have been speaking truthfully, as he stated on February 19th.
On Afghanistan: On October 6th, 2015, Donald Trump had this to say about Afghanistan: "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there [Afghanistan] in the first place. At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? At some point what's going on? It's going to be a long time." However on October 20th of that year, his opinion was that "We made a mistake going into Iraq. I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, as he stated on October 6th, or if he never said it was a mistake, as he stated on October 20th.
On refugees from the Syrian civil war: September 9th, 2015 "but on a humanitarian basis, you have to [accept them] ... There's no question about it. They're living in hell, and something has to be done.", September 10th, 2015 "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems. We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart.", and on October 3rd, 2015 "If they come in, and if I win, they're going back. They're going back,". Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that we should allow Syrian refugees into this country, as he stated on September 9th, if they aren't a cause for concern, as he stated on September 10th, or if he'll deport them back to the warzone in Syria, as he stated on October 3rd.
In terms of foreign policy positions: Donald Trump's official website focuses primarily on slowing legal and illegal immigration. Stating that he will build a wall, deport all undocumented workers, end birthright citizenship, and make legal immigration and refugee status harder to obtain.
Currently little is known about how Donald Trump would deal with problems like ISIS beyond the fact that "I would bomb the shit out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow up the pipes. ... I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."
Senator Sanders supports less military intervention in wars that don't directly involve us, preferring instead to support our allies, and work within military coalitions, as compared to Donald Trump, who may or may not agree with Senator Sanders depending on when you ask him. Currently all we know about Donald Trump's foreign policy for certain is that he wants to build a wall, limit legal and illegal immigration, bomb ISIS, and bomb their families.

Electoral reform:

Sanders:

“We are moving rapidly away from our democratic heritage into an oligarchic form of society where today we are experiencing a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires.”
Senator Sanders wants to overturn Citizens United, which allows unlimited money to be funneled into electoral politics, both from sources domestic, and abroad. Pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would require political candidates to make public all their controbutions, and their source. Make election day a federal holiday, so that voters may have the day off from work to vote. End gerrymandering, which allows political parties to draw "safe districts" where their candidate cannot lose, and fight against voter suppression. Move towards publically funded elections, to allow everyone running for office an even playing field. And he wants to introduce Instant Runoff Voting, allowing third party candidates a better chance at winning elected office.
Senator Sanders' goal is to give every candidate a balanced playing field, from pushing foreign money out of election, to ending safe districts and rampant Gerrymandering, to instituting Instant Runoff Voting so that voting third party won't be tantamount to a wasted ballot.

Trump:

The phrase "electoral reform" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "campaign finance reform" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "DISCLOSE act" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The word "gerrymandering" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "citizens united" is mentioned four times on DonaldJTrump.com, stating that it was "Disasterous." [It should be noted that Donald Trump is friends with the President of Citizens United, David Bossie, and that in 2014 he donated $100,000.00 to the Citizens United Foundation.]
On the current campaign finance system, Donald Trump had this to say: "Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them... And that's a broken system."
On the topic of campaign finace reform, Donald Trump explained: “I love the idea of campaign finance reform,” Unfortunately, beyond loving campaign finance reform, he hasn't explained his plan to achieve reform, nor has he cited any specific policy positions on the matter.
On disclosure of campaign finances, he has said: “One of the things you should do is everybody should be known. If somebody gives a million or two million or five million it should be known,” Unfortunately it is unknown whether or not Donald Trump supports the DISCLOSE act, as he has not commented on the matter.
On voter fraud: “This voting system is out of control. You have people, in my opinion, that are voting many, many times. They don’t want security, they don’t want cards.” [It should be noted that there is no statistical evidence to support the theory that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem in the United States.]
I was unable to find any specific policy positions in the matter of election reform, beyond Trump's willingness to overturn the Citizens United Decision. There is no information regarding Trump's position on gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, electoral reform, voting reform, or the DISCLOSE Act. This is in stark contrast to Senator Sanders, who not only has the same desire for reform that Donald Trump does, but also has specific policy positions that he supports, in addition to a plan for their implementation.
While both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump speak to the anger that many of us feel at modern institutions and established politics, one candidate has a very clear and concise plan for the direction of this country, the other does not. One candidate wants to raise the minimum wage, protect net neutrality, and combat climate change, the other does not. One candidate wants to replace unilateral war with diplomacy, the other wants to commit war crimes. One candidate respects your freedom of speech, the other might sue you if you suggest he's a millionaire and not a billionaire. One candidate has a fully funded tax plan, the other has a tax plan that would increase the budget deficit and grow the debt. One candidate wants to reform the financial system and make it fairer for 99% of Americans, the other was made a billionaire by the same financial system he claims that he wants to reform.
Before you decide to join our opposition, you should know what they believe.

Client decided to spend 2018 in the casino. Received over 100 W-2Gs which summed to $150,000 in gross winnings. I have a net win/loss statement from casino of -$70,000.
W-2Gs only report winnings over $1,200. Obviously, client had tons of winnings that were not reported on W-2Gs.
Client owns a business and has AGI before gambling winnings of $400,000. He did not track or log his wins or losses. Has no idea what his winnings were that were not reported on W-2Gs.
Client always uses his player card when gambling. I contacted the casino and asked if they could provide me with a log or report of his gross winnings and losses so I can report them appropriately on the tax return. Casino replied they are only required to report W-2Gs for winnings over $1,200 and they fulfilled their obligation, and that it is the client's responsibility to log their transactions.
(This annoys me because the casino knows his winnings and losses with his player card, but refuse to give the client this information).
So how do other tax pros handle this scenario? Don't give me an IRS publication, I already know what the IRS says. I want to know how you would practically report this on the tax return.

I'd like to take a moment to address those of you considering switching their support from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. I've seen this sentiment around, and I think it's one that deserves further discussion.
America isn't in the best place right now. Far from the country our parents remember, our America has rampant income inequality, unemployment, citizens who cannot afford to pay their medical bills or their student loans. We've just come out of a hard recession, with a recovery that saw 95% of income gains going to the top 1%, and new stock market bubbles being inflated even as I type. There is a lot of very justified anger in this nation, and amongst it's people, and we're all fighting to protect ourselves from an insecure future.
The institutions that were created to protect us have failed us, our leaders have failed us, the establishment has failed us, and it's time for a change. This is the backdrop for the 2016 Presidential elections. The Democratic and Republican National committees have presented us with candidates that are part of the same establishment that has so wronged Americans on both sides of the political asile. The DNC gave Democrats Secretary Clinton, the RNC gave Republicans Governor Bush, and Senator Rubio, but none have been appealing to those of us looking for change. Out of this populist frustration we received two outsider candidates, candidates who want to change the political system in this country: Senator Bernie Sanders, and Mr. Donald Trump.
Both Trump and Sanders are outsiders of politics, one trying to change the government from within, the other from without. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders reflect our frustrations, our pains, and our struggles. Indeed, we see the establishment of both parties fighting against either candidate being nominated. On the Democratic side we're forced to fight against a mute media, derisive commentary, and a DNC that only has eyes for Secretary Clinton. On the Republican side Trump supporters are faced with outright hostility from media on both the left and the right, fighting against an RNC that wants to nominate "anyone but Trump," and even commentary from international sources that have little or no place in American politics.
From the outside, both candidates have equal appeal to those voters who are frustrated with Washington business as usual, both promise reform, both promise change. It's easy to understand why someone who supports Senator Sanders could see Donald Trump as an alternative. When looking solely at the issue of governmental reform, the two seem like different sides of the same coin.
However, past anger at the establishment, the two candidates could not be more at odds with eachother. While both want to take this country in a new direction, they also want to take the country in opposite directions. I feel that these different directions are not being well articulated in the media, much less on Reddit, and I would like to address some of the subjects on which the two candidates differ.
I will try to contrast a variety of topics, but this list will be by no means exhaustive, I am choosing to reference those subjects that I think the Reddit community is primarily concerned about. Please also note that I do have a personal bias, I believe that Senator Sanders is the best choice that we have for our next President, that said, I have made a point to include direct quotations as well as source links whereever possible, in hopes of facilitating both your own research, and so you can fact check my statements.

Net Neutrality and Privacy:

Sanders:

"Bernie Sanders believes that increasingly omnipresent mass surveillance and attempts to undermine net neutrality are corrosive to democracy in America. He has voted against the Patriot Act and opposes warrantless wiretapping. In regards to net neutrality, he has co-sponsored and introduced legislation in favor of an open Internet."
Senator Sanders has voted against The Patriot Act, and it's reauthorization. He has voted against the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, and introduced the Restore Our Privacy Act to fight against overboard surveillance requests.
On why he opposed PIPA and SOPA, Senator Sanders had this to say:

“While I believe that online piracy is a serious issue, it is absolutely essential that the Internet remain open and free of censorship or the chilling effects that result in self-censorship. I will not support legislation that results in censorship or self censorship on the Internet."

Ultimately Senator Sanders came to the conclusion that both SOPA and PIPA were "too deeply flawed to continue [working on]"

Trump:

"Obama's attack on the internet [Net Neutrality] is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target the conservative media."

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.(Source)

It is unclear in what way Donald Trump believes that Net Neutrality and the Fairness Doctrine are similar.
The phrase "Net neutrality" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website, and the Positions page of his website has no mention of either net neutrality, or the internet. At the moment our only point of reference is the above Tweet.
This quote from the December 15th debate may offer further insights: “I would certainly be open to closing areas [of the internet] where we are at war with somebody, I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet. Yes, sir. I am." He later clarified that he didn't mean closing down American parts of the internet, just Iraq and Syria. [As an editorial note: For better or for worse, the internet was a crucial tool in the success of the Arab Spring. Shutting down the internet in Iraq and Syria wouldn't just hurt ISIS, but also groups trying to organize against them.]
There was no mention of internet privacy on Donald Trump's official website, save their Privacy Policy.
On encryption, specifically regarding the unlocking of the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone, Donald Trump had this to say: "I agree 100% with the courts, in that case, we should open it [iPhone encryption] up. I think security over all -- we have to open it up, and we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense." Going so far as to encourage his supporters to boycott Apple until they comply with the FBI: "First of all, Apple ought to give the security for that phone, OK. What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such time as they give that security number."
The only mention on encryption on the official DonaldJTrump.com website is from the blog post A little touch of Trump, in which he describes the safety measures put on campaign related harddrives. There is no mention of policy regarding encryption.
Senator Sanders supports privacy rights and has fought against SOPA, PIPA, The Patriot Act, and the renewal of the Patriot act. Due to the lack of specific information on Donald Trump's website, we have to look at his statments, which would seem to indicate that he is opposed to encryption, opposed to net neutrality, and that he is willing to shut down portions of the internet in the name of national security.

On Freedom of Speech:

Sanders:

"American's right to free speech should not be proportional to their bank accounts."
Senator Sanders supports the separation of Church & State, but also strongly supports religious freedom and free expression. By the same token, Senator Sanders believes that “Bosses should not be able to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.”
Senator Sanders has been a long outspoken proponent of free speech, participating in frequent protests, and once even being arrested for it.

Trump:

"The editors at Charlie Hebdo liked poking Muslims in the eye with constant blasphemous depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. For doing so they paid an incredible and unfortunate price. But it’s important to remember that before the massacre, there was little outcry from the media establishment that such free speech was racist, insensitive or inflammatory.
Donald Trump often holds himself up as a beacon of Freedom of Speech, and is widely lauded for his willingness to say and do politically incorrect things. However, his actions may tell a different story. From The Daily Beast:

Trump sued his ex-wife, Ivana Trump, for $25 million in 1992–because she talked too much.

In 2006, Trump threatened to sue Rosie O’Donnell, then a co-host on The View, after she said he was bankrupt.

In 2011, rapper Mac Miller released a song called “Donald Trump,” which included the lyrics, “Take over the world when I’m on my Donald Trump shit; Look at all this money, ain’t that some shit?” Trump Tweeted at Miller to threaten a lawsuit: “Now I’m going to teach you a big boy lesson about lawsuits and finance.”

That same year [2011], Trump threatened to sue MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell for suggesting he was worth less than $1 billion.

In 2012, Trump sued Miss USA contestant Sheena Monnin after she claimed in a Facebook post that the pageant was “rigged,” because the five finalists were chosen before the pageant took place.

In 2013, after Trump said he would donate $5 million to charity if President Obama would release his long form birth certificate to the public, Bill Maher joked that he would give Trump $5 million if he could prove that his father was not an orangutan. Trump sent Maher a copy of his birth certificate. When Maher didn’t pay up, Trump sued him for the $5 million.

The same year [2013], Trump threatened legal action against Angelo Carusone, who had organized a petition to force Macy’s to stop selling Trump-branded products.

In 1984, Trump sued the Chicago Tribune for $500 million after the publication’s architecture critic wrote an item suggesting Chicago’s Sears Tower, then the world’s tallest building, would remain as such, despite Trump’s plan to build a taller structure in downtown Manhattan.

Trump threatened to sue ABC in 2005, after he learned the network was planning to produce a two-hour biopic about him and his family.

In 2006, Trump sued New York Times reporter Timothy L. O’Brien for saying Trump is worth $150 million to $250 million when Trump claimed, at the time, he was worth $2.7 billion.

In 2014, Trump sued Trump Entertainment Resorts, which he holds a 10 percent stake in, to remove his name from the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Plaza casinos in Atlantic City, which he said did not live up to his standard of quality.

Donald Trump has filed lawsuits against authors, journalists, newspapers, cities, individuals, and even a company that he partially owns, for saying things that he didn't like, or didn't approve of. He routinely uses the threat of legal action to silence his critics.
As President: "One of the things I'm going to do if I win ... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected, we're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."
It should be noted that the "protections" Donald Trump speaks of are part of Freedom of the Press as defined by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Also of note is the fact that that a private citizen can already sue a publisher for libel, so long as they can prove that the news organization knowingly published false information with malicious intent, this was decided in the 1964 Supreme Court Case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Donald Trump does not need to add, remove, amend, or abridge any law to be able to sue a publisher, that is already the legal right of all American citizens.
Also, Donald Trump's campaign contract restricts the free speech of his volunteers and their employees:

No Disparagement. During the term of your service and at all times thereafter you hereby promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly the Company, Mr. Trump, any Trump Company, any Family Member, or any Family Member Company or any asset any of the foregoing own, or product or service any of the foregoing offer, in each case by or in any of the Restricted Means and Contexts and to prevent your employees from doing so.

No Competitive Services. Until the Non-Compete Cutoff Date you promise and agree not to assist or counsel, directly or indirectly, for compensation or as a volunteer, any person that is a candidate or exploring candidacy for President of the United States other than Mr. Trump and to prevent your employees from doing so.

Theoretically these restrictions could be in place until 2024, or the end of Donald Trump's Presidency.
Senator Sanders has fought for freedom of speech his entire career, even going so far as being arrested during demonstrations and protests. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has filed numerous lawsuits attempting to silence his critics, and as President plans to make it easier to sue the press for unflattering commentary.

On climate change:

Sanders:

"Climate change is real, caused by human activity and already devastating our nation and planet. The United States must lead the world in combating climate change and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainability."
Senator Sanders has long fought against climate change, as well a climate denial, which has earned him a high ranking from Climate Hawks Vote, consistently scoring within the top ten percent of Senators. Senator Sanders is also one of only three presidential candidates who agreed to refuse donations from greenhouse-gas emitters. He co-sponsored the Super Pollutants Act of 2014, the Climate Protection act of 2013, the End Polluter Welfare Act, and has fought against the Keystone XL pipeline.
In terms of energy policy: Senator Sanders wants to further promote the use of renewable energy sources, improve energy efficency standards, as well as taxing habitual greenhouse gas producers.

Trump:

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

"I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems." Source

From the DonaldJTrump.com official site:

"It is a hoax. Trump does not believe climate change is real, tweeting out his skepticism with strong language and calling it a hoax on Fox News in 2014. In a 2012 Twitter post which is no longer accessible, Trump charged that the concept of climate change was created by the Chinese to suppress the U.S. economy. In addition, Trump has expressed firm opposition to wind turbines, which he sees as an environmental and aesthetic problem." Source

In regards to energy policy, Donald Trump supports nuclear energy production, opposes Cap-And-Trade, believes that job creation is dependent on cheap, readily available oil, believes we need to increase oil production, and supports natural gas Fraking.
Unfortunately Donald Trump's Position page did not mention either climate change, or energy policy.
Senator Sanders believes that climate change is the greatest threat our nation, and our world, faces. It drives up energy costs, destroys valuable resources, and promotes terrorism. Donald Trump believes that climate change is a hoax, and the century long upward trend in global temperatures is "just weather."

The minimum wage and economic inequality:

Sanders:

"Millions of Americans are working for totally inadequate wages. We must ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. The current federal minimum wage is starvation pay and must become a living wage. We must increase it to $15 an hour over the next several years."
The main goal of Senator Sanders career, and indeed his Presidential bid, has been to combat income inequality. Senator Sanders supports a progressive tax system, which would ask a little more of the very wealthy individuals in this country, included among them Donald Trump. Senator Sanders is outspoken about preventing corporations from skiping out on their tax bills, or even recieving unearned benefits, and has sponsored the Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act, and co-sponsored the Stop Corporate Inversions Act of 2015.
Unlike the millionaires and billionaires, the lobbests and SuperPACs, the special interests and the seven digit donors, Senator Sanders economic plan is centered around directly benefiting the American people. Far from the trickle down voodoo economics of the past thirty years, Bernie Sanders wants to help the poor, rather than cut taxes for the rich.

Trump:

"But, taxes too high, wages too high, ... I hate to say it, but we have to leave it [the minimum wage] the way it is," Donald Trump has said that he would not raise the minimum wage if elected as President.
The term "Minimum wage" is not found on DonaldJTrump.com.
Donald Trump's tax plan is to cut taxes and simplify the tax code, while remaining revenue neutral. [Revenue neutral means that his reforms will not result in an increase in tax revenue for the Federal Government.]
From his site:

No family will have to pay the death tax. [The Death Tax, more commonly known as the estate tax, currently only applies to estates worth $5,000,000.00 or more, and as such only effects the wealthiest of Americans.]

Reducing or eliminating corporate loopholes that cater to special interests, as well as deductions made unnecessary or redundant by the new lower tax rate on corporations and business income. [Currently Donald Trump has only singled out one loophole that he would close, the Carried Interest Deduction for hedgefund managers. How he will finance the remainder of his tax cuts is unclear.]

Analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan shows that: "In its second decade, Trump's plan would lead to revenue losses of $15 trillion. Taking into account additional interest costs, the proposal would add $11.2 trillion to the national debt by 2026 and $34.1 trillion by 2036, according to the report." "The top 0.1 percent of taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017, or almost 19 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $2,700, or 4.9 percent of their after-tax income, according to the report."
The analysis of Donald Trump's tax plan was performed by the nonpartisan Tax Policy center.
Until what time as Donald Trump tells the nation what loopholes he would close, what tax deductions he would end, and which federal programs he would cut, the above analysis is the best information we have available. Far from Senator Sanders plan, Donald Trump's tax policy would significantly cut federal revenue, increase deficits, and grow the national debt. As far as the minimum wage is concerned, Senator Sanders wants to raise it to $15/hour over the next several years, Donald Trump is content with allowing it to remain at the same rate it has been since 2009, $7.25/hour.

Foreign Policy and War:

Sanders:

“I will vote for this resolution because I believe that the use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of terrorism and mass murder. One tool but it is not our only tool, and it is something that must be used wisely… and with great discretion.“
Senator Sanders opposed the Gulf War and Desert Storm, supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan, voted against the Invasion of Iraq, opposed the 2009 troop surge, and ultimately, in 2008, voted against continued spending of the war in Afghanistan.
On ending the war in Afghanistan he had this to say: "This year alone [2011], we will spend about $100 billion on that war. In my view, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for waging the war against the Taliban. While we cannot withdraw all of our troops immediately, we must bring them home as soon as possible. I appreciate the president’s announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope."
From Senator Sanders official campaign website we have these four guiding principles for foreign policy:

Move away from a policy of unilateral military action, and toward a policy of emphasizing diplomacy, and ensuring the decision to go to war is a last resort.

Ensure that any military action we do engage in has clear goals, is limited in scope, and whenever possible provides support to our allies in the region.

Close Guantanamo Bay, rein in the National Security Agency, abolish the use of torture, and remember what truly makes America exceptional: our values.

Expand our global influence by promoting fair trade, addressing global climate change, providing humanitarian relief and economic assistance, defending the rule of law, and promoting human rights.

Senator Sanders wants to end America's role as "policemen of the world," prefering diplomacy and influence over regieme change and warfare.

Trump:

"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"
[Killing innocent men, women, and children, is a violation of the Hague Conventions, and the Fourth Geneva Convention, and as such is considered an international war crime, and a crime against humanity.]
On Iraq: When asked by Howard Stern in 2002 if he supported the proposed invasion of Iraq, Donald Trump had this to say “Yeah I guess so." This year his opinion on the Iraq war was "By the time the war started, I was against the war, and there are articles—I mean, there are headlines in 2003 and 2004—that I was totally against the war." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump did support the Iraq war, as he stated in 2002, or if he opposed the Iraq war, as he stated fourteen years later in 2016.
On WMDs in Iraq: On February 13th, 2016 Donald Trump believed "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew there were none." On February 19th, 2016 he expanded that "I don't know if he lied or not. He could have lied. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I guess you'd have to ask him." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that the Bush Administration lied about WMDs, as he stated on February 13th, or if he believes that the Administration could have been speaking truthfully, as he stated on February 19th.
On Afghanistan: On October 6th, 2015, Donald Trump had this to say about Afghanistan: "We made a terrible mistake getting involved there [Afghanistan] in the first place. At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? At some point what's going on? It's going to be a long time." However on October 20th of that year, his opinion was that "We made a mistake going into Iraq. I've never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan." Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that the war in Afghanistan was a mistake, as he stated on October 6th, or if he never said it was a mistake, as he stated on October 20th.
On refugees from the Syrian civil war: September 9th, 2015 "but on a humanitarian basis, you have to [accept them] ... There's no question about it. They're living in hell, and something has to be done.", September 10th, 2015 "I think we should help, but I think we should be very careful because frankly, we have very big problems. We're not gonna have a country if we don't start getting smart.", and on October 3rd, 2015 "If they come in, and if I win, they're going back. They're going back,". Due to the conflicting nature of his comments it is unclear whether Donald Trump believes that we should allow Syrian refugees into this country, as he stated on September 9th, if they aren't a cause for concern, as he stated on September 10th, or if he'll deport them back to the warzone in Syria, as he stated on October 3rd.
In terms of foreign policy positions: Donald Trump's official website focuses primarily on slowing legal and illegal immigration. Stating that he will build a wall, deport all undocumented workers, end birthright citizenship, and make legal immigration and refugee status harder to obtain.
Currently little is known about how Donald Trump would deal with problems like ISIS beyond the fact that "I would bomb the shit out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. That's right. I'd blow up the pipes. ... I'd blow up every single inch. There would be nothing left."
Senator Sanders supports less military intervention in wars that don't directly involve us, preferring instead to support our allies, and work within military coalitions, as compared to Donald Trump, who may or may not agree with Senator Sanders depending on when you ask him. Currently all we know about Donald Trump's foreign policy for certain is that he wants to build a wall, limit legal and illegal immigration, bomb ISIS, and bomb their families.

Electoral reform:

Sanders:

“We are moving rapidly away from our democratic heritage into an oligarchic form of society where today we are experiencing a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires.”
Senator Sanders wants to overturn Citizens United, which allows unlimited money to be funneled into electoral politics, both from sources domestic, and abroad. Pass the DISCLOSE Act, which would require political candidates to make public all their controbutions, and their source. Make election day a federal holiday, so that voters may have the day off from work to vote. End gerrymandering, which allows political parties to draw "safe districts" where their candidate cannot lose, and fight against voter suppression. Move towards publically funded elections, to allow everyone running for office an even playing field. And he wants to introduce Instant Runoff Voting, allowing third party candidates a better chance at winning elected office.
Senator Sanders' goal is to give every candidate a balanced playing field, from pushing foreign money out of election, to ending safe districts and rampant Gerrymandering, to instituting Instant Runoff Voting so that voting third party won't be tantamount to a wasted ballot.

Trump:

The phrase "electoral reform" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "campaign finance reform" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "DISCLOSE act" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The word "gerrymandering" does not appear on Donald Trump's official website.
The phrase "citizens united" is mentioned four times on DonaldJTrump.com, stating that it was "Disasterous." [It should be noted that Donald Trump is friends with the President of Citizens United, David Bossie, and that in 2014 he donated $100,000.00 to the Citizens United Foundation.]
On the current campaign finance system, Donald Trump had this to say: "Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them... And that's a broken system."
On the topic of campaign finace reform, Donald Trump explained: “I love the idea of campaign finance reform,” Unfortunately, beyond loving campaign finance reform, he hasn't explained his plan to achieve reform, nor has he cited any specific policy positions on the matter.
On disclosure of campaign finances, he has said: “One of the things you should do is everybody should be known. If somebody gives a million or two million or five million it should be known,” Unfortunately it is unknown whether or not Donald Trump supports the DISCLOSE act, as he has not commented on the matter.
On voter fraud: “This voting system is out of control. You have people, in my opinion, that are voting many, many times. They don’t want security, they don’t want cards.” [It should be noted that there is no statistical evidence to support the theory that in-person voter fraud is a significant problem in the United States.]
I was unable to find any specific policy positions in the matter of election reform, beyond Trump's willingness to overturn the Citizens United Decision. There is no information regarding Trump's position on gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, electoral reform, voting reform, or the DISCLOSE Act. This is in stark contrast to Senator Sanders, who not only has the same desire for reform that Donald Trump does, but also has specific policy positions that he supports, in addition to a plan for their implementation.
While both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump speak to the anger that many of us feel at modern institutions and established politics, one candidate has a very clear and concise plan for the direction of this country, the other does not. One candidate wants to raise the minimum wage, protect net neutrality, and combat climate change, the other does not. One candidate wants to replace unilateral war with diplomacy, the other wants to commit war crimes. One candidate respects your freedom of speech, the other might sue you if you suggest he's a millionaire and not a billionaire. One candidate has a fully funded tax plan, the other has a tax plan that would increase the budget deficit and grow the debt. One candidate wants to reform the financial system and make it fairer for 99% of Americans, the other was made a billionaire by the same financial system he claims that he wants to reform.
Before you decide to join our opposition, you should know what they believe.

How to read a Win-Loss statement from Cleveland Horseshoe

can i use a casino win/loss statement for taxes

can i use a casino win/loss statement for taxes - win

Lost in the Sauce: Trump, Cruz, and Gohmert team up to incite election-related violence

Election shenanigans

Obstructing the transition

Sabotaging the Biden Administration

Trump money and properties

Miscellaneous

Online Gambling Tax Question

Lost in the Sauce: March 22 - 28

MAIN COURSE

Congress passes stimulus

The giveaways in the bill

Trump’s signing statement

Concerns about the IG

Direct payments

THE SIDES

War on the poor continues

Lawmakers’ stock transactions

Environmental rollbacks

Court updates

ICE, Jails, and COVID-19

Tribe opposed by Trump loses land

Donald Trump is not the alternative to Senator Sanders, and you need to know why.

Net Neutrality and Privacy:

Sanders:

Trump:

On Freedom of Speech:

Sanders:

Trump:

On climate change:

Sanders:

Trump:

The minimum wage and economic inequality:

Sanders:

Trump:

Foreign Policy and War:

Sanders:

Trump:

Electoral reform:

Sanders:

Trump:

Non-resident tax return for Canadian

Guide to earning £200+ with match betting

What is Match Betting?

How to get started

Review of the best Match Betting Sites

Being gubbed & mug bets

Slot Offers

Jargon Buster

Frequently Asked Questions

Donald Trump is not the alternative to Senator Sanders, and you need to know why. [Effort] [Banned from /r/SandersForPresident, so CB gets the benefits of my labor.]

Net Neutrality and Privacy:

Sanders:

Trump:

On Freedom of Speech:

Sanders:

Trump:

On climate change:

Sanders:

Trump:

The minimum wage and economic inequality:

Sanders:

Trump:

Foreign Policy and War:

Sanders:

Trump:

Electoral reform:

Sanders:

Trump:

Gambling - How do actually really report it

I seem to have been banned from /r/SandersForPresident, and my thread was deleted from /r/PoliticalDiscussion, which means you guys get the trickle down post! Donald Trump is not the alternative to Senator Sanders, and you need to know why.

Net Neutrality and Privacy:

Sanders:

Trump:

On Freedom of Speech:

Sanders:

Trump:

On climate change: