(03-13-2017 02:34 PM)john01992 Wrote: Quote:Except that the topic of the thread that YOU started implies that because he won't release proof, that he is a con man, and 'a bad guy'.
well your "implication" is dead wrong. trump made a statement. a statement that he alone can prove/disprove by releasing the information on it. and he refuses to do that even when we are talking about the most basic level of transparency.
MY implication?
Is English your first language? I ask because I'll understand if it isn't. If it is, I'm completely at a loss
You actually SAID that conservatives deny he's a con man, which certainly implies that someone else thinks he IS. That would be you.
You then said that conservatives say he donates his salary so he isn't a 'bad guy', which certainly implies that someone else things he IS. That ALSO would be you.
Quote:he has a well documented history of being shady with finances and a well documented history of making promises in regards to his finances to ease up ethical concerns only to break said promises.
and yet you are still pulling this crap with me about how all that prior history should be disregarded. this is why I don't like dealing with you. 
your very first comment is utterly ridiculous.
It's also not something I ever said (that we should ignore history)... For it to be history, there would have to be proof. Proof requires something more than one side of a story and an opinion.
Yes, I understand that you prefer to deal with people who just nod in approval at things you can't prove... (your entire premise is presumption and assumption and opinion).
Perhaps if you argued with 'what I say' and not the stupid things you THINK I say, we might get along better.
FTR, I used most of the same words you used to make my point... so your claim that my comment is ridiculous is demonstrably untrue. You absolutely implied that Trump IS a 'bad guy' and 'con man'... and by calling him 'shady' and 'breaks promises'.... you've proven it.
My point is that the 'promise' you're claiming he broke isn't a promise he made. HIS history of breaking promises is not different from 'the left's' history of claiming he made promises he didn't in order to claim he's broken them. This is proof of that. You are demonstrating what is called confirmation bias. You think he's shady and a liar so when he doesn't do what he said he would IN THE MANNER YOU THINK HE SHOULD... it 'proves' to you that he's shady and a liar. res ipsa loquitur
Quote:Quote:I'm quite confident that Trump isn't allowed to simply 'decline' his salary. His salary is a piece of legislation and obligation of the government and not something that can just be set aside. The rules for interns aren't the same as everyone else.... In other words while he is free to donate it back, he can't simply decline it or work for $1 as you can in a business where each executive employment contract is unique. I suspect his CPAs will tell him at the end of the year whom/how to send the money back.
and I never contested this point. hell the OP source doesn't even contest this point. yet that doesn't stop you from implying that I did. is there any part of your post that isn't bull?
Where did I imply that you DID contest this. You inferred that I did. I'm not responsible for what the voices in your head tell you I'm saying. I merely stated what I knew to be a fact... that he can't decline it. The fact that 'what I said' without reading the article and 'what your article says' agrees only shows that I obviously understand the issues without having to be told them. If you infer something about your OWN ability to understand the issues, that's your problem.
(03-13-2017 02:37 PM)john01992 Wrote: that was the issue from the start of this thread. don't fault me for your own shortcomings.
Well yeah, when it comes to 'stupid thoughts', I am admittedly lacking.
The linked article admits what i said.. that Trump can't turn down his salary. When you show me a quote where he says 'each month when I get my check, I will donate it', THEN you have an argument.
He said he would donate it. When he reports it on his income taxes (which he is required by law to do by 4/15/18, whether or not you see his taxes) and there is no offsetting deduction, OR simply a receipt for a donation of an equivalent amount... THEN you can say he didn't donate it. If you don't see his taxes at all and he refuses to show the receipt or no charity admits (which they also have to do by law) that he donated an equivalent amount to them, THEN you can claim he didn't PROVE that he fulfilled his promise. Instead you've set your own terms of compliance (actually the article, but you obviously agree) and fault him for not living up to a promise he never gave you (to do it 'as it comes in').
Until then, you're just 'sum(ming) up in a nutshell (why) I consider (people who make such claims) to be such morons.......... so your argument is baloney on top of being blatantly one-sided'
while TRYING DESPERATELY to attribute such things to others.
/
Another dumb conservative argument put to bed.
