Classic ad hominem. They write an article, list their sources and you dismiss it out of hand because of which entity wrote the article. Surely you can do better than that?
> but a Times investigation found that he received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it through tax dodges in the 1990s
Donald Trump had already taken over the business in 1971.
Seriously disingenuous to call it "his father's real estate empire" 30 years later.
Even more disingenuous to claim he received $413 million in today's dollars through tax dodges - it's not like you get paid by paying less taxes; that was money earned regardless. Not to mention the framing of "tax dodging" vs "paying the minimum amount the government required by law". (Taxes are due tomorrow - did you decide to pay more than you were required just out of generosity? I'd bet not.) It's also unclear what "records" the article is citing, since Trump's tax returns famously have never been released. I'd like to think, by now, if something nefarious was up with the Trump tax returns, the IRS would have taken notice...
Clearly the NYT has an axe to grind. Their word choice, and decision to lump a decade into one monetary number, and represent earnings earned while serving as company president as some sort of fatherly gift is clearly a misrepresentation of reality.
> Trump started out with 100's of millions
Flatly, this is wrong. Ran the company for 30 years before earning that money. That's not "starting out" no matter what way you want to frame it.
