No, really people do not... People who care are people who do not understand tax returns in the first place. Her quip about Trumps tax returns being the panacea for America's problems was ridiculous at best. Liberals should really be more concerned about the DNC, and where Clinton's "charity" money is going, or ya know those emails?
I have flown into many of the airports in the USA, and about a dozen countries. Our airports are fine. We do not need our airports to be art galleries. They need to be functional, clean, and safe, which they are. My point is. It would cost billions to upgrade the airports. That money is better spent elsewhere. Put people back to work in our National Parks and Forrest that are falling apart, save them for our kids. Put people to work guarding our borders, more police in high crime areas, to make us all safer. Put people to work helping the mentally ill. Put people to work helping inner city kids to stay out of trouble. There is a ton a ways to spend billions and create jobs. Polishing brass at our airports is way down on the priority list.
I won't disagree that the money could be used elsewhere over an airport. I think that was his point. He was using the airport example of our aging infrastructure. He wants to resolve that by spurring business here, creating more jobs here, and bolstering the economy. Two key points he made to assist in us saving money as a nation; Making NATO allies pay us for the protection we afford them and stop being the world police.
I'm pretty sure Trump isn't releasing his tax returns for the obvious reason. They're complicated and the Clinton camp would spend whatever money it takes to hire a team of accountants to scrutinize every minutia looking for any heat to generate.
Of course I don't care about the dudes tax returns. But I also don't care about Hillary's either. Again, I despise taxes and everything about them. I don't want you or anyone to have to pay. So what if it showed he did not pay taxes? It means he successfully used tax laws to avoid it. GOOD JOB. I and many other Americans would do the same damn thing. He was following the law. Clinton, not so much. People should be more concerned that she broke the law blatantly, and then lied to the FBI about it. Yet some people are more concerned about his tax returns? The logic is just not there.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/28/gary-johnson-gets-angry-you-will-too When asked by reporters at Twitter's New York headquarters how he would talk about foreign policy, the former two-term New Mexico governor raged: I want to stop with these military interventions! In my heart, I don't want to send our men and servicewomen to lose their lives, and I don't want to them to be responsible for what are ultimately thousands of innocent people being killed in these countries. So Hillary Clinton dots the i's and crosses the t's on all the names and everything associated with this, but as a result of that, we have the foreign policy that we have now, that I have to tell you I think is horrible. Horrible! And that's how I would answer it tonight. I would be mad. I would be angry. i would be angry that people would people would be calling me out on the names, geographic locations, names of foreign leaders, when the underlying policy has thousands of people dying. And that is unacceptable. +1
Why should people be concerned about that? Do you really think you know more about the law and about her interview with the FBI than the FBI does? Sure it is. His tax returns will probably show that he's been lying about his charitable contributions, and will probably help reporters uncover more illegal/unethical activities. Those things are worth knowing about. barfo
If getting angry was all it took to bring about world peace, we'd have gotten there thousands of years ago. Not impressed. barfo
Sure. That's absolutely correct. Of course, if he was clean, that would be a huge waste of Clinton's time and money, so he'd come out a winner. But he's not, so he won't. barfo
You in barfoland™ again? You do realize people have been prosecuted for doing the same thing she did? Her staff received immunity from charges as well for spilling their guts and she walks? And you point to hearsay?
Actually, no. I don't realize that. I suppose the closest analogy would be, say, Colin Powell. Was he prosecuted? If there is a better analogy, please present it. And don't say Petraeus - he intentionally handed classified information to someone without clearance. That's a very different case. Not every case where immunity is granted results in charges. Immunity is granted to find out the facts - sometimes those facts don't lead anywhere. I'm pointing to the fact that there are a lot of rocks yet to be turned over in Trumpville. We know he lies constantly, so chances are pretty darn good that if we get a chance to turn over some more rocks that we'll find more creepy things. barfo
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/ Here are some examples that are very similar and people have had their security clearance revoked (As she should) and other fines. Now granted there is one example in there where they were selling information which is not the same so I would never relate those two.
It doesn't matter if he's legit or not. The narrative would somehow be negative about his taxes. The narrative should be about how Clinton is a lying crook. Which is true.
lol -- agree. ... and if your sole job is too look like a knockout bombshell and you end up not playing the part, then yes, step the fuck off and go lose some weight. I have no sympathy for this chick. It's about as savage as casting is in LA.
Those examples aren't 'very similar'. Several of them involve people stealing classified information. I can't dismiss all of them out of hand, would have to do a little research, but it's pretty clear at a glance that many of those should not be on the list at all. barfo
