I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

(04-15-2019 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

The whole point is that if Sanders is using the word stupid to describe what y’all are saying, she too is too stupid to do her job.

(04-15-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

The whole point is that if Sanders is using the word stupid to describe what y’all are saying, she too is too stupid to do her job.

I guess the literal response is that your 'if' condition is actually fundamentally false.

Think about it.

Makes your attempted rhetorical zinger actually quite humorous albeit in a highly ironic manner.

Some might opine 'Not very smart.'

(04-15-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

The whole point is that if Sanders is using the word stupid to describe what y’all are saying, she too is too stupid to do her job.

If that is the whole point, why were you making all those other points?

(04-15-2019 09:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

The whole point is that if Sanders is using the word stupid to describe what y’all are saying, she too is too stupid to do her job.

If that is the whole point, why were you making all those other points?

Yet dont even use the same word used by Sanders in your last flourish.

Smart people sometimes do stupid things. I did a lot of stupid things as an undergraduate, and I still do some stupid things now and then. Do a lot less stupid things as I get older. Is that experience or maturity?

Smart people also know their limitations. A smart person will not try to do things for which they are unqualified and/or untrained. I am smart, but I will not try to do surgery on anybody. Nor will I tell farmers what to feed their cattle or artists what colors to use.

Stupid people think they know more than they do. that's why some of them try to repair the electrical systems in their house and end up electrocuting themselves. Some of them try to represent themselves in court and end up in prison. Some try to explain to the IRS why they owe no taxes and end up also in prison - Wesley Snipes, for one.

And some refuse to listen to people who know more than they do about tax returns, and insist that they need to see Trump's tax returns.

I don't need to see his returns. I can quite confidant that if there was any cheating on them, the IRS would find it, and I would not. I know there will be no entries saying "I colluded with Russia and all I got was this lousy teeshirt". Just common sense, something a lot of smart people lack. And I know I cannot estimate Trump's net worth from his tax return, and what's more, I don't care. I do know how difficult it is to reach a hard valuation on real estate, and whether Trump has outright lied about his net worth or mis-estimated it, so what? I don't care if he is worth 3 billion or 30 billion, and I don't see why anybody else does. It is unimportant. Irrelevant.

So,if it makes anybody feel better for me to say that the Congressmen asking for the returns are smart, fine, they are smart. Smart people doing something stupid and useless. It happens.

(04-15-2019 08:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

The whole point is that if Sanders is using the word stupid to describe what y’all are saying, she too is too stupid to do her job.

I guess the literal response is that your 'if' condition is actually fundamentally false.

Think about it.

Makes your attempted rhetorical zinger actually quite humorous albeit in a highly ironic manner.

Some might opine 'Not very smart.'

That's what I get for typing a quick response...

The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough." And that point was:

Quote:If we can’t trust our elected reps to review tax returns, how can they be trusted with the power to make war? To levy those taxes? To decide what is and isn’t law? These people have staffs and the ability to hire experts to review the data for them.

Sanders should be arguing over the relevance of his tax returns and the fact that they are unlikely to satisfy the desires of the Dems, as opposed to suggesting that anyone isn’t smart enough to do anything. Glass houses and all (regarding the admin she works for).

But y'all seem more than happy with the Trump Admin to continually do things that indicate they aren't "smart enough" for the job, and even defend those actions. Even if that means defending the idea that saying something about someone's intelligence is akin to commenting on their training/competency in a subject. Astounding.

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But then it's your interpretation of what she said, not what she said.

You have this somewhat annoying habit of restating what people say in your own words, rather than responding to what was actually said. She said, "not smart enough." You heard, "stupid." Others of us, based perhaps on different experiences, interpret it differently.

On the tax returns, I am smart enough to know that the things that people who demand to see the tax returns seem to believe they will show--"collusion" with Russians, tax fraud, lack of claimed net worth--will in fact not be shown by his tax returns, whether they exist or not. It would seem logical to me that anyone not smart enough to know that would not be smart enough to read and understand the returns. Of course, what would I know, I've only been a tax practitioner for 45 years?

I guess because thr truth of the matter is the one *you* refuse to talk about or consider.

Mueller was a fing fiasco, and they need a bone with even non-germane marrow in to grab onto to satisfy their followers.

So you seemingly overlook that massive venality to whine about being labeled 'not smart'.

Bluntly it is either amazingly ignorant to chase down the returns road, or a mark of obsession to find or even churn up the water around orange man. Rather venal in that regard.

Yet you focus not on the churning action, but get aggravated over a comment that, while blunt, is fairly accurate. Please flap your arms some more on this....

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 08:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 06:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess we have the word of a buncha lawyers and an engineer that anyone with a CPA is qualified to dig nuggets out of Trump's returns.

I guess by those lights, any MD can treat cancer. Or kidney disease. Or mental illness.

Any lawyer can defend in court.

Any engineer can build a skyscraper.

Any coach can win.

I wonder why any of these people develop specialties and spend years developing their expertise. Seems they can do anything one they get that degree/certification.

Stupid was perhaps a poor choice of words. A better choice would be incapable. Or incompetent. But the bottom line is, nobody in congress can find any(real) thing in the tax returns to hang their hat on. I doubt any CPA in the USA could.

But the lawyers can find things to be suspicious of. Payments to or from companies that may or may not have Russian officers, employees, customers, and/or stockholders. Mnn,that must prove something. No other reason to do business with people like that.

I know one company that did business with Russians - GPS Fusion. But Trump doesn't own them and did not hire them. Hillary's campaign did.

The whole point is that if Sanders is using the word stupid to describe what y’all are saying, she too is too stupid to do her job.

I guess the literal response is that your 'if' condition is actually fundamentally false.

Think about it.

Makes your attempted rhetorical zinger actually quite humorous albeit in a highly ironic manner.

Some might opine 'Not very smart.'

That's what I get for typing a quick response...

The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough." And that point was:

Quote:If we can’t trust our elected reps to review tax returns, how can they be trusted with the power to make war? To levy those taxes? To decide what is and isn’t law? These people have staffs and the ability to hire experts to review the data for them.

Sanders should be arguing over the relevance of his tax returns and the fact that they are unlikely to satisfy the desires of the Dems, as opposed to suggesting that anyone isn’t smart enough to do anything. Glass houses and all (regarding the admin she works for).

But y'all seem more than happy with the Trump Admin to continually do things that indicate they aren't "smart enough" for the job, and even defend those actions. Even if that means defending the idea that saying something about someone's intelligence is akin to commenting on their training/competency in a subject. Astounding.

What things are those? Has he signed an agreement with our worst enemy that will allow them nukes in 10 years?

(04-16-2019 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But then it's your interpretation of what she said, not what she said.

You have this somewhat annoying habit of restating what people say in your own words rather than responding to what was actually said. She said, "not smart enough." You heard, "stupid." Others of us, based perhaps on different experiences, interpret it differently.

On the tax returns, I am smart enough to know that the things that people who demand to see the tax returns seem to believe they will show--"collusion" with Russians, tax fraud, lack of claimed net worth--will in fact not be shown by his tax returns, whether they exist or not. It would seem logical to me that anyone not smart enough to know that would not be smart enough to read and understand the returns. Of course, what would I know, I've only been a tax practitioner for 45 years?

Wait, so you're chastising me for saying that Sanders is basically calling Congress stupid, while at the same time you're basically calling Congress stupid.

(04-16-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But then it's your interpretation of what she said, not what she said.

You have this somewhat annoying habit of restating what people say in your own words rather than responding to what was actually said. She said, "not smart enough." You heard, "stupid." Others of us, based perhaps on different experiences, interpret it differently.

On the tax returns, I am smart enough to know that the things that people who demand to see the tax returns seem to believe they will show--"collusion" with Russians, tax fraud, lack of claimed net worth--will in fact not be shown by his tax returns, whether they exist or not. It would seem logical to me that anyone not smart enough to know that would not be smart enough to read and understand the returns. Of course, what would I know, I've only been a tax practitioner for 45 years?

Wait, so you're chastising me for saying that Sanders is basically calling Congress stupid, while at the same time you're basically calling Congress stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does.

I guess you are saying the people pushing the GND and the witch hunt are NOT stupid. You are pro-Maxine Waters.

That would seem to be irrelevant to the question of Sanders' IQ.

Congress has lower approval ratings than anybody. Just think how low they would be if it was't run by smart people.

(04-16-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess because thr truth of the matter is the one *you* refuse to talk about or consider.

Mueller was a fing fiasco, and they need a bone with even non-germane marrow in to grab onto to satisfy their followers.

So you seemingly overlook that massive venality to whine about being labeled 'not smart'.

Bluntly it is either amazingly ignorant to chase down the returns road, or a mark of obsession to find or even churn up the water around orange man. Rather venal in that regard.

Yet you focus not on the churning action, but get aggravated over a comment that, while blunt, is fairly accurate. Please flap your arms some more on this....

I take a lot more umbrage with y'all suggesting that Sanders wasn't, in effect, calling Congress stupid, than her basically calling them stupid.

I understand why she was calling them stupid - I just disagree with it. I don't understand why it is seemingly so hard for y'all to agree with me that she was calling them stupid. Owl#s has argued with me that she wasn't calling them stupid, and then effectively called them stupid.

How hard would it have been to initially just said, "Yeah, she called them stupid, but they are because of X, Y, and Z."?

(04-16-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But then it's your interpretation of what she said, not what she said.

You have this somewhat annoying habit of restating what people say in your own words rather than responding to what was actually said. She said, "not smart enough." You heard, "stupid." Others of us, based perhaps on different experiences, interpret it differently.

On the tax returns, I am smart enough to know that the things that people who demand to see the tax returns seem to believe they will show--"collusion" with Russians, tax fraud, lack of claimed net worth--will in fact not be shown by his tax returns, whether they exist or not. It would seem logical to me that anyone not smart enough to know that would not be smart enough to read and understand the returns. Of course, what would I know, I've only been a tax practitioner for 45 years?

Wait, so you're chastising me for saying that Sanders is basically calling Congress stupid, while at the same time you're basically calling Congress stupid.

In lad-world 'not smart enough to read very complex returns' == 'stupid', then?

You are really fing hell-bent for making that equivalence, arent you?

I would hope that someone with a Rice degree can make that distinction between them. You overtly and explicitly made that equivalence once, got callled out on it, then said 'no difference', and continue to double, triple, and quadruple down on your interpretation of 'not smart enough.'

And no, no matter how many times you state it, Sanders did *not* call Congress 'stupid'. Use the correct language there lad, not your overly glossy interpretation of it. Repeating it ad infinitum doesnt make it so.

You are not 'smart enough' to fly a 747 sight unseen. That doesnt make you 'stupid'. I look forward to your quintupling down on *your* interpretation. Hate to tell you, you may not be 'stupid', but relentless arm flapping on ensuring that *your* interpretation of 'not smart enough means stupid' really doesnt help your cause.

(04-16-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess because thr truth of the matter is the one *you* refuse to talk about or consider.

Mueller was a fing fiasco, and they need a bone with even non-germane marrow in to grab onto to satisfy their followers.

So you seemingly overlook that massive venality to whine about being labeled 'not smart'.

Bluntly it is either amazingly ignorant to chase down the returns road, or a mark of obsession to find or even churn up the water around orange man. Rather venal in that regard.

Yet you focus not on the churning action, but get aggravated over a comment that, while blunt, is fairly accurate. Please flap your arms some more on this....

I take a lot more umbrage with y'all suggesting that Sanders wasn't, in effect, calling Congress stupid, than her basically calling them stupid.

I understand why she was calling them stupid - I just disagree with it. I don't understand why it is seemingly so hard for y'all to agree with me that she was calling them stupid. Owl#s has argued with me that she wasn't calling them stupid, and then effectively called them stupid.

How hard would it have been to initially just said, "Yeah, she called them stupid, but they are because of X, Y, and Z."?

I like the continued use of 'in effect' to ram home your false equivalence. flap flap flap flap.....

(04-16-2019 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But then it's your interpretation of what she said, not what she said.

You have this somewhat annoying habit of restating what people say in your own words rather than responding to what was actually said. She said, "not smart enough." You heard, "stupid." Others of us, based perhaps on different experiences, interpret it differently.

On the tax returns, I am smart enough to know that the things that people who demand to see the tax returns seem to believe they will show--"collusion" with Russians, tax fraud, lack of claimed net worth--will in fact not be shown by his tax returns, whether they exist or not. It would seem logical to me that anyone not smart enough to know that would not be smart enough to read and understand the returns. Of course, what would I know, I've only been a tax practitioner for 45 years?

Wait, so you're chastising me for saying that Sanders is basically calling Congress stupid, while at the same time you're basically calling Congress stupid.

In lad-world 'not smart enough to read very complex returns' == 'stupid', then?

You are really fing hell-bent for making that equivalence, arent you?

I would hope that someone with a Rice degree can make that distinction between them. You overtly and explicitly made that equivalence once, got callled out on it, then said 'no difference', and continue to double, triple, and quadruple down on your interpretation of 'not smart enough.'

And no, no matter how many times you state it, Sanders did *not* call Congress 'stupid'. Use the correct language there lad, not your overly glossy interpretation of it. Repeating it ad infinitum doesnt make it so.

You are not 'smart enough' to fly a 747 sight unseen. That doesnt make you 'stupid'. I look forward to your quintupling down on *your* interpretation. Hate to tell you, you may not be 'stupid', but relentless arm flapping on ensuring that *your* interpretation of 'not smart enough means stupid' really doesnt help your cause.

Tanq... you keep saying things like "not smart enough to fly a 747. Not smart enough to do perform surgery".

Most people don't use the term "smart" like that.

I'm sure everybody on this board has the basic intelligence to perform both of these tasks. Most of us lack the training.

(04-16-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:19 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess because thr truth of the matter is the one *you* refuse to talk about or consider.

Mueller was a fing fiasco, and they need a bone with even non-germane marrow in to grab onto to satisfy their followers.

So you seemingly overlook that massive venality to whine about being labeled 'not smart'.

Bluntly it is either amazingly ignorant to chase down the returns road, or a mark of obsession to find or even churn up the water around orange man. Rather venal in that regard.

Yet you focus not on the churning action, but get aggravated over a comment that, while blunt, is fairly accurate. Please flap your arms some more on this....

I take a lot more umbrage with y'all suggesting that Sanders wasn't, in effect, calling Congress stupid, than her basically calling them stupid.

I understand why she was calling them stupid - I just disagree with it. I don't understand why it is seemingly so hard for y'all to agree with me that she was calling them stupid. Owl#s has argued with me that she wasn't calling them stupid, and then effectively called them stupid.

How hard would it have been to initially just said, "Yeah, she called them stupid, but they are because of X, Y, and Z."?

I like the continued use of 'in effect' to ram home your false equivalence. flap flap flap flap.....

I'm 100% smart enough to be a doctor, fly a plane, etc. I just don't have the sufficient training to do those things.

The term smart refers to someone's intelligence, which refers to how well someone can learn and understand issues/topics.

If Sanders had wanted to talk about their training or knowledge of tax law, she should have said so. I'm calling her out for being, at best, flippant with her language.

Lolz.... the dude who keeps *directly replacing* 'not smart enough' with a supposed direct traslation of 'stupid' wants to lecture and chastise over "flippant" word use. Rich, oh so rich.

There really should be a 'head thwack' emoji....

And lad, hate to deflate your bubble but 'smart enough to do law' does not equate to 'smart enough to drill wells'; neither directly equate to 'smart enough to fly a 747' nor 'smart enough to understand compex tax returns'. I'll leave you to your naivete with a hint of 'young and smart' arrogance to think it is just a natural method of 'cross training' to be as master of each.

(04-16-2019 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 10:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 08:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The point still stands if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "smart enough."

But then it's your interpretation of what she said, not what she said.

You have this somewhat annoying habit of restating what people say in your own words rather than responding to what was actually said. She said, "not smart enough." You heard, "stupid." Others of us, based perhaps on different experiences, interpret it differently.

On the tax returns, I am smart enough to know that the things that people who demand to see the tax returns seem to believe they will show--"collusion" with Russians, tax fraud, lack of claimed net worth--will in fact not be shown by his tax returns, whether they exist or not. It would seem logical to me that anyone not smart enough to know that would not be smart enough to read and understand the returns. Of course, what would I know, I've only been a tax practitioner for 45 years?

Wait, so you're chastising me for saying that Sanders is basically calling Congress stupid, while at the same time you're basically calling Congress stupid.

In lad-world 'not smart enough to read very complex returns' == 'stupid', then?

You are really fing hell-bent for making that equivalence, arent you?

I would hope that someone with a Rice degree can make that distinction between them. You overtly and explicitly made that equivalence once, got callled out on it, then said 'no difference', and continue to double, triple, and quadruple down on your interpretation of 'not smart enough.'

And no, no matter how many times you state it, Sanders did *not* call Congress 'stupid'. Use the correct language there lad, not your overly glossy interpretation of it. Repeating it ad infinitum doesnt make it so.

You are not 'smart enough' to fly a 747 sight unseen. That doesnt make you 'stupid'. I look forward to your quintupling down on *your* interpretation. Hate to tell you, you may not be 'stupid', but relentless arm flapping on ensuring that *your* interpretation of 'not smart enough means stupid' really doesnt help your cause.

Tanq... you keep saying things like "not smart enough to fly a 747. Not smart enough to do perform surgery".

Most people don't use the term "smart" like that.

I'm sure everybody on this board has the basic intelligence to perform both of these tasks. Most of us lack the training.

And Congress lacks the training to analyse Trump's returns. They have been under continual audit for 17 years by people who have the training, but the ones who do not have the training are yelling "let me see".

Doing things for which you do not have the training and expertise is, by some people's definition, smart?