Trump's Taxes

Granted it is a right wing source...

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...gns-elections/remember-clinton-cash-scandals/

 

Wrong thread? What does that have to do with Trump's taxes?

I know this is your favorite way to argue in political threads, "X isn't bad when you compare him to Z!" But no one was talking about Z. Politics has become this giant shit show of selecting between the lesser of two evils and for some reason you fall right into that.

Someone posts an article saying that a Republican is bad and you post 3 articles showing different Democrats that are worse. Really?!?

I agree, a lot of the Clinton's shit stinks. But that doesn't mean Trump's shit doesn't stink too. Instead of demanding more we're settling for less and thinking that is some great accomplishment.

 

And I'm not picking on Denny but here is a typical S2 argument when it comes to politics.

Denny: "I just got my wife a new Honda Accord."

Sly: "Really? I looked at the Accord but I think I'm going to get my wife a Toyota Camry."

Denny: "Kia is the worst car you can buy, here is an article, it's from a source you will disagree with but you should read it."

Sly: "Okay but why do you like the Accord?"

Denny: "Silly Sly, here is another article showing how terrible Kia is, this is from a liberal source."

Sly: "Why did you buy the Accord? I think the nav system on the Camry looks better."

Denny: "Why won't you just agree that the Kia is the worst car you can buy? You're a Kia lover!"

Sly: "Were you ever thinking about buying a Kia?"

Denny: "Why would I ever buy a Kia? Here is another article showing that they are the worst."

Sly: "If you weren't thinking about buying a Kia why do you keep talking about them?"

Denny: "I'm not the one who keeps talking about Kia, you keep trying to defend Kia so I'm posting articles showing you how bad they are. Why do you keep defending Kia? Why can't you admit Honda is better than Kia?"

 

\

Lots of posts about Hiliar's taxes and having her expenses paid by the charity. The tax returns don't tell the whole story. Same is true for Trump. SPD mentioned Hiliar first (5th post in this thread). Then threw a hissy fit for no good reason.

Whatever.

 

What does Hiliar's wall st speeches have to do with Trump's taxes?

Whatever.

 

Actually you mentioned Hillary first, you just quoted your post that mentioned her.

I didn't have a hissy fit.

Fine, Kia sucks.

 

You did.

All I said was Hiliar released her taxes, Nixon did too. That has EVERYTHING to do with Trump's taxes - he should release them.

Then you went into the weeds about Wall St. speeches.

 

I'd also point out that Nixon was the first candidate to release his taxes in '52. Hiliar is the most recent. Every one in between as well. Except Trump.

 

The first mention of Hillary Clinton was in post 4 of this thread. I'll let you figure out who made that post.

My first mention of her was in post 5.

 

So you're willing to settle for less because you think the candidate you support isn't as bad as the candidate you don't like?

And this makes sense to you?

 

Honestly, and I sincerely don't mean this as an insult, but for people like you and Marazul I would say that they are related. Any information you don't have about Hillary you assume is bad or negative. There is nothing wrong with that, I tend to make the same assumptions. Yet any information you don't have about Trump you go out of your way to explain away. Offering explanations that are made up and have no basis on facts provided.

All of this bitching and posting these what ifs about speeches and emails and such, if she were to disclose everything would it change your opinion of her? No. Then why demand it?

You demand full disclosure of a candidate you hate but not the candidate you support? It's like reading reviews on a product you won't buy but refusing to read them on the product you want to buy. Does that make sense to you?