(04-20-2019 12:04 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 07:27 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 if you substitute "stupid" for the verbatim "not smart enough," then you are substituting your interpretation of what she said for her words. You are restating what she said to what you heard, and the two are not necessarily the same. Not smart can mean stupid or it can mean ignorant.

Anybody who thinks that Trump's tax returns will show 1) collusion with "the Russians", or 2) some kind of tax fraud that has gone undetected by the IRS, or 3) some indication of his net worth, is quite frankly not smart enough to understand and analyze those returns. Anyone who knows enough about tax returns to make any sense of them at all will know that tax returns will not reveal any such things.

Now, I would suspect that the truth of what is going on here is not that they aren't smart enough, but that they know better but are deliberately and intentionally misleading. They know there is nothing there, but they just want to harass and obfuscate. They're not intelligence challenged, they're honesty challenged.

Really? You are criticizing people as "honesty challenged" while defending Trump? Wow.

Really number 2: Really, you guys are still arguing about the "smart enough" quote? Wow.

Question #1: What do you think of his second paragraph? Do you disagree with anything there? What do YOU think the value is in asking for his returns?

I don’t know what will be found. I don’t think anyone is thinking just his 1040 will reveal some deep dark secret. What we do know is that from Nixon on all nominees have disclosed their taxes, except Trump. (Ford, I believe, only released a summary.) Trump knew this when he decided to run for President. He could have said he refused on some principle. He didn’t, he said he couldn’t because he was being audited. A lie. (That he can’t release because of an audit.) Then he promised to release them after the election. Another lie. Now he is willing to go to court to avoid releasing them.

None of this is the behavior of someone who thinks his taxes will reveal nothing. Otherwise he would have revealed them before the election like everyone else. I’m assuming Trump knows something I don’t.

Quote:Question #2. Other than the propaganda from the anti-Trump networks, what makes you think Trump is that much different than any other politician? They all lie, just some more publicly than others. Is there any reason to prefer the the ones who lie privately, out of the spotlight on important things?

Trump lies constantly. To pretend he’s just like other politicians is absurd. This idea that somehow he’s so dishonest that it makes him more honest is even more absurd. Just as a comparison, Politifact has Obama at 70 Mostly False, 71 False and 9 Pants on Fire statements after 8 years, while in 2 years Trump is at 139, 227, and 99 respectively. At that rate Trump is on track to be an order of magnitude higher on those and is *already* there with the Pants on Fire ratings. Some of the other trackers have him saying over 20 false or misleading things per day. There is no way, shape or form that is acceptable. And I don't understand why so many people who should no better are rationalizing it.

Some of his lies more important than others: he flat out lied to the NATO Secretary General about where his father was born. Why? I have no idea. That lie itself is not that important, but it does reinforce the Europeans’ belief that he is a dishonest nut job. Maybe some are a joke like you can’t watch TV if the wind stops blowing and you use wind power. Or laughably stupid, like “windmill noise causes cancer”. But plenty are substantive and important, like about Puerto Rico aid, the child separation policy, millions of illegal votes for Hilary, and on and on. These sorts of lies are not defensible and are further poisoning our civic and political culture.

And that just gets in to his dishonesty, not even touching on the misogyny, racism, mocking the disabled, etc.

Quote:Question #3. Isn't "wow" a bit condescending? Sounds to me like you are saying "How stupid can you be"?

The first “wow” was more along the lines of “Wow, that takes some cojones!” and the second was an expression of bemusement.

So you are maddy poo about substantive lies. Got it.

Where did your vaunted ethics land you when the 'Romney will kill the old people' and 'Romney is racist' tropes kicked in?

Bet you were right on the fing front line fighting the good fight against those, huh? Yeah..... that's a bet I probably won't take, no matter what odds might be given.

Wouldnt take that bet with you and the subject were swapped out with McCain, or even Shrub for that matter.

Do I like Trump's problems with the truth? God no. But to act petulant that he is the sole source of the problem and issue is really sticking your head in the fing sand.

To act crusading against it with your record of doing the 'Democratic way' and framing as much as possible every single issue in a racist/sexist shroud that you do from time to time is really enough to make one laugh, tbh.

By the way, looking forward to your answers to your Cohn questions. Or is that just another rhetorical drive by snark ala At Ease?