I agree. I think he refuses to release them because he's not as loaded as his ego wants you to believe.

(09-28-2016 07:07 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 05:48 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 02:30 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 08:47 PM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  What I find interesting is most talking heads in the media (including FoxNews) score it as a Clinton win, however most post debate polls are scoring Trump as the winner. I think the only way we will see who won will be the polls in about a week. I personally watched it and was unimpressed with both so I'm not sure which way it will go.

Pundits are scoring this like a Harvard Yale debate. Looking at it from that lens Clinton crushed Trump. But the average American does not. They are looking for things like authenticity, passion, and adressing the issues important to them. Trump treating a beauty queen poorly means Jack to a family whose mother and father got laid off and had their jobs move to Mexico. Their opinion is that NAFTA sucks and Clinton does not care

No doubt Trump won the fair trade agreement argument but he also showed that he doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself. He's all about putting $$$ in his wallet & that's it & he doesn't care how he does it. Notice how he wants to give businesses (himself) a tax break while also eluding that he doesn't pay taxes now. He's not going to fix the system for us, he's going to fix it for himself & screw us more. He has a long history of using working people to get what he wants & stiffs them with the bill by declaring bankruptcy. He bragged about how he lets blacks, Muslims, etc into 1 club as if that's not supposed to be normal behavior. I'm with the Trump supporters who want a candidate that will bring much needed change & fix a broken DC but Trump ain't it, he's a wolf in sheep clothing. He's an elitist who only cares about himself. He's a spoiled little rich brat who never fully matured. The problem is HRC isn't much better. Trump only reinforced my opinion of him at the debate & won't get my vote. My vote will likely be an anti Trump vote.

And I think people are ready for a guy who doesn't give a damn about anyone but America. Someone who is all about and will put $$$ in Americas wallet. Trump, warts and all, has made the connection

bull**** he gives a damn about America. Someone who brags about avoiding paying his fair share of taxes doesn't give a damn about America.

you know what? the status of his taxes are between him and the IRS, and we all know what those bastards do to republicans (even if they are only republican in name) when they have the slightest (or even of they don't) excuse. the obamites weaponized the IRS years ago; if his taxes weren't in order, the IRS would leak the **** out of his returns.

but ultimately, the whole taxes argument has been a sideshow and a distraction from real issues for 50 years. hillary doesn't have to talk about dead ambassadors, the trail of raped women in her husband's wake, or her unbroken streak of abject failure as long as she can prattle mindlessly about some other guy's tax returns.

in reality, his taxes are none of our damned business.

(09-28-2016 09:44 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think we have gotten to the point now where essentially everyone knows (even those that don't actively follow politics or world events in general) that the media is left leaning, and in many cases far left leaning.

Indeed.

From a Johnson supporter point of view... Conventional wisdom typically says that a libertarian would pull old "Don't Tread on Me" conservatives from the Trump camp. So for months, the MSM and late night shows had a love affair with Johnson.

However, turns out Johnson was doing some damage to Hillary and gaining traction with normally-liberal Millennials. So roughly two months ago, the love affair came to a screeching halt. The glowing articles stopped.

Blanking on a Syrian city name that 90% of America never heard of was deemed the worst blunder ever and worthy of disqualification (high comedy given our Big Two candidates' dirty laundry). When attacking Johnson, they hammered on the purist Libertarian Party platform - oh noes, anarchy in the streets! - and ignored Johnson's own far more moderate platform. Johnson was essentially hording 8-9% that can be redistributed to Hillary in a close election.

I have no love for Trump. But yeah, I still scorn the twisted media and their agendas.

He's under constant audit. I'm sure I would be cheating on my taxes if I were furnishing office space to IRS agents at my business.

(09-28-2016 09:57 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 09:44 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think we have gotten to the point now where essentially everyone knows (even those that don't actively follow politics or world events in general) that the media is left leaning, and in many cases far left leaning.

Indeed.

From a Johnson supporter point of view... Conventional wisdom typically says that a libertarian would pull old "Don't Tread on Me" conservatives from the Trump camp. So for months, the MSM and late night shows had a love affair with Johnson.

However, turns out Johnson was doing some damage to Hillary and gaining traction with normally-liberal Millennials. So roughly two months ago, the love affair came to a screeching halt. The glowing articles stopped.

Blanking on a Syrian city name that 90% of America never heard of was deemed the worst blunder ever and worthy of disqualification (high comedy given our Big Two candidates' dirty laundry). When attacking Johnson, they hammered on the purist Libertarian Party platform - oh noes, anarchy in the streets! - and ignored Johnson's own far more moderate platform. Johnson was essentially hording 8-9% that can be redistributed to Hillary in a close election.

I have no love for Trump. But yeah, I still scorn the twisted media and their agendas.

The youngins were liking Johnson too much. Johnson was supposed to be the home for neverTrumpers. Instead neverTrump fizzled and the antiTrump vote was splitting

I don't think Trump cheats on his taxes. I just think that he isn't as rich as he says he is, he doesn't give as much to charity as he says he does, and he doesn't pay as much taxes as most might think.

But hey Hillary is the liar.

(09-28-2016 09:30 AM)Memphis Blazer Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 09:23 AM)MonarchManiac Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 07:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 07:07 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Someone who brags about avoiding paying his fair share of taxes doesn't give a damn about America.

Who has bragged about not paying his fair share?
What did he say that indicated he had not paid his fair share?
What is his fair share and why?
How do you determine fair share?
Why is that the appropriate way to determine it?
Should the fair share for an individual be different in the US from what it is in other developed countries?
If so, how and why?
As long as he is paying the taxes that he is legally obligated to pay, how is that not giving a damn about America?
How and why is his fair share different from the amount that he is legally obligated to pay?
Do you send the government extra money above and beyond what you are legally obligated to pay?
If not, is that because you don't give a damn about America?

EXACTLY. They simply cannot answer these questions. Everything sounds good in theory until you get down to details.

The reason those questions can't be answered is because no one knows whether it is tax avoidance or tax evasion, since he hasn't released his returns. He said he would release them when the "audit" is over, but why is an audit holding up the release of them. Who is auditing them, since the IRS has said they aren't.

Those questions really dont have anything to do with Donald Trump. They are fundamental questions about taxation. Questions that the left cannot answer.

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think Trump cheats on his taxes. I just think that he isn't as rich as he says he is, he doesn't give as much to charity as he says he does, and he doesn't pay as much taxes as most might think.

But hey Hillary is the liar.

Understood. But I'd rather they pound Trump on walls, bans and his thin skinned temperament.

I just don't think anyone cares if Trump is worth $2 billion or $6 billion. Of if he "only" gave a few million bucks to charities. Or what he pays in taxes. When speaking in those sky-high numbers, it just becomes a blur.

There are just better issues to go with moving forward.

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think Trump cheats on his taxes. I just think that he isn't as rich as he says he is, he doesn't give as much to charity as he says he does, and he doesn't pay as much taxes as most might think.

But hey Hillary is the liar.

And one of those matters.

Took the liberty of highlighting which one so as not to hurt some of the more brittle minds.

(09-28-2016 10:22 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think Trump cheats on his taxes. I just think that he isn't as rich as he says he is, he doesn't give as much to charity as he says he does, and he doesn't pay as much taxes as most might think.

But hey Hillary is the liar.

Understood. But I'd rather they pound Trump on walls, bans and his thin skinned temperament.

I just don't think anyone cares if Trump is worth $2 billion or $6 billion. Of if he "only" gave a few million bucks to charities. Or what he pays in taxes. When speaking in those sky-high numbers, it just becomes a blur.

There are just better issues to go with moving forward.

I was disappointed that Hillary went after Trump the way that she did. I wanted to hear about his plans and her plans to better this nation. It just went downhill after the first segment.

One interesting thing however that a female supporter of Trump told me however was that Hillary got under his skin and that the way she reacted troubled her. If a little old lady can do that to him, what will world leaders do?

I hadn't really thought about the significance of his thin skin. I guess it's important.

(09-28-2016 10:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I wanted to hear about his plans and her plans to better this nation.

Her plans, his plans?

They both want big government entitled liberal nanny state forced family leave and child care.

Jeez, you wanted to be more bored than they already were?

(09-28-2016 10:22 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think Trump cheats on his taxes. I just think that he isn't as rich as he says he is, he doesn't give as much to charity as he says he does, and he doesn't pay as much taxes as most might think.

But hey Hillary is the liar.

Understood. But I'd rather they pound Trump on walls, bans and his thin skinned temperament.

I just don't think anyone cares if Trump is worth $2 billion or $6 billion. Of if he "only" gave a few million bucks to charities. Or what he pays in taxes. When speaking in those sky-high numbers, it just becomes a blur.

There are just better issues to go with moving forward.

Your right about that, I don't care how much he's worth but I do care who he owes money to & who he gets money from. How bad does he cheat on his taxes, does he just take advantage of loopholes or does he make fraudulent claims. This goes to character issues as well as others. These are questions that can be at least partially answered by tax returns, we can see HRC. If you have nothing to hide then why not release them? This raises suspicion.

(09-28-2016 10:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:22 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think Trump cheats on his taxes. I just think that he isn't as rich as he says he is, he doesn't give as much to charity as he says he does, and he doesn't pay as much taxes as most might think.

But hey Hillary is the liar.

Understood. But I'd rather they pound Trump on walls, bans and his thin skinned temperament.

I just don't think anyone cares if Trump is worth $2 billion or $6 billion. Of if he "only" gave a few million bucks to charities. Or what he pays in taxes. When speaking in those sky-high numbers, it just becomes a blur.

There are just better issues to go with moving forward.

I was disappointed that Hillary went after Trump the way that she did. I wanted to hear about his plans and her plans to better this nation. It just went downhill after the first segment.

One interesting thing however that a female supporter of Trump told me however was that Hillary got under his skin and that the way she reacted troubled her. If a little old lady can do that to him, what will world leaders do?

I hadn't really thought about the significance of his thin skin. I guess it's important.

He'll send off a nasty tweet ending with "Sad!", maybe make a comment about the world leader's spouse's looks or weight, and tell reporters "there's something going on with him/her" in a press conference.

All kidding aside, temperament in the Oval Office and world stage is hugely significant. He can privately be a pr!ck to his internal staffers if he wants, but I fear his public tantrums in a world where the wrong words can really matter. It'll no longer be a cozy stage with "Lyin Cruz" and "Little Marco".

(09-28-2016 09:57 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 09:44 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think we have gotten to the point now where essentially everyone knows (even those that don't actively follow politics or world events in general) that the media is left leaning, and in many cases far left leaning.

Indeed.

From a Johnson supporter point of view... Conventional wisdom typically says that a libertarian would pull old "Don't Tread on Me" conservatives from the Trump camp. So for months, the MSM and late night shows had a love affair with Johnson.

However, turns out Johnson was doing some damage to Hillary and gaining traction with normally-liberal Millennials. So roughly two months ago, the love affair came to a screeching halt. The glowing articles stopped.

Blanking on a Syrian city name that 90% of America never heard of was deemed the worst blunder ever and worthy of disqualification (high comedy given our Big Two candidates' dirty laundry). When attacking Johnson, they hammered on the purist Libertarian Party platform - oh noes, anarchy in the streets! - and ignored Johnson's own far more moderate platform. Johnson was essentially hording 8-9% that can be redistributed to Hillary in a close election.

I have no love for Trump. But yeah, I still scorn the twisted media and their agendas.

That city had been front page news for a year including the week before he said that. to say "90% never heard of" is an absolute joke and something only braindead libertarians believe.

his comment also verified a stereotype that libertarians are clueless on foreign policy.

it was a pretty big fuckup regardless. but it was made much worse when he single handedly verified the biggest talking point against libertarians.

(09-28-2016 10:38 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:22 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't think Trump cheats on his taxes. I just think that he isn't as rich as he says he is, he doesn't give as much to charity as he says he does, and he doesn't pay as much taxes as most might think.

But hey Hillary is the liar.

Understood. But I'd rather they pound Trump on walls, bans and his thin skinned temperament.

I just don't think anyone cares if Trump is worth $2 billion or $6 billion. Of if he "only" gave a few million bucks to charities. Or what he pays in taxes. When speaking in those sky-high numbers, it just becomes a blur.

There are just better issues to go with moving forward.

I was disappointed that Hillary went after Trump the way that she did. I wanted to hear about his plans and her plans to better this nation. It just went downhill after the first segment.

One interesting thing however that a female supporter of Trump told me however was that Hillary got under his skin and that the way she reacted troubled her. If a little old lady can do that to him, what will world leaders do?

I hadn't really thought about the significance of his thin skin. I guess it's important.

He'll send off a nasty tweet ending with "Sad!", maybe make a comment about the world leader's spouse's looks or weight, and tell reporters "there's something going on with him/her" in a press conference.

All kidding aside, temperament in the Oval Office and world stage is hugely significant. He can privately be a pr!ck to his internal staffers if he wants, but I fear his public tantrums in a world where the wrong words can really matter. It'll no longer be a cozy stage with "Lyin Cruz" and "Little Marco".

I can't help but notice that he comes off as a spoiled brat. I mean is this guy in 7th grade or something.

Every time Hillary would say something he would huff and puff and say "wrong" .

(09-28-2016 10:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 09:57 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 09:44 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think we have gotten to the point now where essentially everyone knows (even those that don't actively follow politics or world events in general) that the media is left leaning, and in many cases far left leaning.

Indeed.

From a Johnson supporter point of view... Conventional wisdom typically says that a libertarian would pull old "Don't Tread on Me" conservatives from the Trump camp. So for months, the MSM and late night shows had a love affair with Johnson.

However, turns out Johnson was doing some damage to Hillary and gaining traction with normally-liberal Millennials. So roughly two months ago, the love affair came to a screeching halt. The glowing articles stopped.

Blanking on a Syrian city name that 90% of America never heard of was deemed the worst blunder ever and worthy of disqualification (high comedy given our Big Two candidates' dirty laundry). When attacking Johnson, they hammered on the purist Libertarian Party platform - oh noes, anarchy in the streets! - and ignored Johnson's own far more moderate platform. Johnson was essentially hording 8-9% that can be redistributed to Hillary in a close election.

I have no love for Trump. But yeah, I still scorn the twisted media and their agendas.

That city had been front page news for a year including the week before he said that. to say "90% never heard of" is an absolute joke and something only braindead libertarians believe.

his comment also verified a stereotype that libertarians are clueless on foreign policy.

it was a pretty big fuckup regardless. but it was made much worse when he single handedly verified the biggest talking point against libertarians.

You have a strong over-confidence in the American Average Joe's sense of geography and knowledge.

And the New York Times should feel really foolish, having to make two corrections for getting Aleppo wrong the day after Johnson's comment (first calling it the de facto capital of ISIS, then calling it the capital of Syria).

Most people have a blanket knowledge of "Syria," which was often conversed as a whole during those months. Aleppo wasn't on the tip of tongues as much as Baghdad and Kabul were in previous wars.

I agree, a presidential candidate should know that. It wasn't a good look for him at all. But if that's a "pretty big F-up"... wow, what do you make of the things Trump and Clinton have said and done?

(09-28-2016 11:16 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 10:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 09:57 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 09:44 AM)k-vegasbuc Wrote:  I think we have gotten to the point now where essentially everyone knows (even those that don't actively follow politics or world events in general) that the media is left leaning, and in many cases far left leaning.

Indeed.

From a Johnson supporter point of view... Conventional wisdom typically says that a libertarian would pull old "Don't Tread on Me" conservatives from the Trump camp. So for months, the MSM and late night shows had a love affair with Johnson.

However, turns out Johnson was doing some damage to Hillary and gaining traction with normally-liberal Millennials. So roughly two months ago, the love affair came to a screeching halt. The glowing articles stopped.

Blanking on a Syrian city name that 90% of America never heard of was deemed the worst blunder ever and worthy of disqualification (high comedy given our Big Two candidates' dirty laundry). When attacking Johnson, they hammered on the purist Libertarian Party platform - oh noes, anarchy in the streets! - and ignored Johnson's own far more moderate platform. Johnson was essentially hording 8-9% that can be redistributed to Hillary in a close election.

I have no love for Trump. But yeah, I still scorn the twisted media and their agendas.

That city had been front page news for a year including the week before he said that. to say "90% never heard of" is an absolute joke and something only braindead libertarians believe.

his comment also verified a stereotype that libertarians are clueless on foreign policy.

it was a pretty big fuckup regardless. but it was made much worse when he single handedly verified the biggest talking point against libertarians.

You have a strong over-confidence in the American Average Joe's sense of geography and knowledge.

And the New York Times should feel really foolish, having to make two corrections for getting Aleppo wrong the day after Johnson's comment (first calling it the de facto capital of ISIS, then calling it the capital of Syria).

Most people have a blanket knowledge of "Syria," which was often conversed as a whole during those months. Aleppo wasn't on the tip of tongues as much as Baghdad and Kabul were in previous wars.

I agree, a presidential candidate should know that. It wasn't a good look for him at all. But if that's a "pretty big F-up"... wow, what do you make of the things Trump and Clinton have said and done?

Aleppo was absolutely on the tips of peoples tongues. it was the center of the human tragedy sob stories being covered by the news. IIRC wasn't there a chemical weapons report about that very city a week before?

if you are news literate, it is inexcusable to not know aleppo = main cause of the refugee crisis. now how many americans you would classify as news literate is beyond me, but I would say if you are news literate...you would absolutely know it.

also it is right next to iraq and the whole talking point behind the rise of isis has to do with destabilizing Iraq. also a year ago the news was freaking out over Iraq falling to Isis so by basic common sense, any news literate person had to have known where syria was on a map. it's not like major news channels don't show maps on a regular basis either.

What about when Trump said he didn't agree with "first strike" in regards to Nuclear arms but then said he would take anything off the table.


Was that not a contradiction?

(09-28-2016 11:16 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  You have a strong over-confidence in the American Average Joe's sense of geography and knowledge.

I know. I'm baffled that some on this forum think they have the right to talk about european policy but don't even know what the difference is between the baltics and the balkins. while others supporting these same candidates try to defend being ignorant on the biggest international news story of the last couple years as not a big deal.