Donald Trump Will Release His Tax Returns...when Hillary releases all her emails

originally posted by: buster2010
She deleted her emails has Donnie deleted his tax returns? Also the FBI is supposed to have the emails so they should be expecting Donnie's returns any day now huh?

Talk about a weak argument. Do you even understand why it is weak? Here's a hint: Trump's tax return isn't under any congressional demand unlike broken Hillary. I'll give you faux star for entertainment though.

a reply to: MayRenee

charitable giving, investments and the tax rate he pays'

To vote for a president NOTHING above means anything. It is a distraction.

What about those 3 would make you change your thoughts on voting. Do you tithe 10%? Do you invest? Claim things you should not? If you USE the law to pay less taxes there is no issue. It shows you know how to save money legally.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Yes, the guy who has said at the beginning that teleprompters should be "outlawed for anyone running for President" and ridiculed all of his opponents for using them right up until he used one for the first time in March, has been reading prepared speeches from a teleprompter with increasing frequency and it's helped him reduce the number of gaffes significantly.

On The Road Recently, Trump Sticks Mostly To Teleprompter's Message
Trump's latest re-boot relies on prepared speeches

a reply to: theantediluvian

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: the context in which your accusations are made render the accusations laughable.

Accusations of foreign entanglements, involvement with organized crime, financial indiscretions and other forms of dishonesty are argumentatively impotent when placed in context--that is, in comparison with those of Hillary Clinton.

You just said many of her own supporters tacitly acknowledge her treachery by not even bothering to defend her, instead choosing to deflect as you are doing now.

And that makes your own corruption completely transparent, rendering your deflections totally useless.

Time for a new strategy.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: buster2010
She deleted her emails has Donnie deleted his tax returns? Also the FBI is supposed to have the emails so they should be expecting Donnie's returns any day now huh?

Talk about a weak argument. Do you even understand why it is weak? Here's a hint: Trump's tax return isn't under any congressional demand unlike broken Hillary. I'll give you faux star for entertainment though.

So the glaring fact that the FBI has been investigating those emails and has had access to her servers escaped your notice like it has Donnie's?

a reply to: NthOther

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it: the context in which your accusations are made render the accusations laughable.

Accusations of foreign entanglements, involvement with organized crime, financial indiscretions and other forms of dishonesty are argumentatively impotent when placed in context--that is, in comparison with those of Hillary Clinton.

Sure thing. Follow me around saying Hillary is so much worse than Clinton that it doesn't matter what Trump does. I disagree. If you'd like to have an actual discussion instead of attacking my character, let's do that.

You just said many of her own supporters tacitly acknowledge her treachery by not even bothering to defend her, instead choosing to deflect as you are doing now.

What I actually said was:

"Not that Clinton isn't a liar too but you don't see a lot of people pretending otherwise, even among her supporters. That sort of willful ignorance is in my opinion far more prevalent among the Trumpeteers."

Obviously quoting me would make it difficult to mischaracterize my statements to fit your would be defamation.

And that makes your own corruption completely transparent, rendering your deflections totally useless.

My own corruption? Melodrama of that magnitude should be painful. Your posts to me regarding this issue are always just more sanctimonious mental masturbation on your part and utterly devoid of substance or informational content.

Feel smug all you want if that salves some aching deficit in your character or quiets whatever feelings of inadequacy that plague you — I simply couldn't care any less.

a reply to: theantediluvian

"Following you around"? You're making yourself a highly visible, in-the-tank, morals-be-damned Clinton supporter. Don't be surprised when people call you out on the fact that you knowingly support the most corrupt politician since... ever. So yes, I do call your character into question. That goes for all Clinton supporters who aren't totally ignorant of the scope of her misdeeds. At this point, I don't know how one could be, unless all they do is watch CNN and listen to NPR.

You guys are tripping over yourselves to defend a treasonous criminal through deflection, and are actively engaged in focused propaganda with the aim of getting her elected to the highest office in the land.

That, in principle, could (or should) be considered treasonous in and of itself.

But you're right, my hyperbole and melodrama can sometimes get the best of me, but I'm not going to ignore you and let you have your run of the place with deflection after deflection in defense of lie after lie.

I will call you on it when I see it. If you don't like being "followed around", maybe you shouldn't make yourself an easy target.

Again, you need a new strategy.

I actually listened to that interview posted by the OP, especially from 3:40 on:

The gist of what I got was this:

He has 22,000 classified cables that Hillary Clinton signed off on, or at least signed off on a significant amount and all were clearly marked (C) for CONFIDENTIAL... proving that Hillary lied when she said she thought the (C) was just what came after (B) and (A).

At least that's what I got out of it.

a reply to: buster2010

So what.

The IRS has Trump's returns and have not charged him with any fraud.

a reply to: matafuchs

Oh my, if he's been deliberately holding on to this all along anticipating this moment that's sheer genius. Of curse it was a gamble, but then again, he owns casino(s). Surely he knows the Art of the Game.

a reply to: NthOther

"Following you around"? You're making yourself a highly visible, in-the-tank, morals-be-damned Clinton supporter. Don't be surprised when people call you out on the fact that you knowingly support the most corrupt politician since... ever. So yes, I do call your character into question. That goes for all Clinton supporters who aren't totally ignorant of the scope of her misdeeds. At this point, I don't know how one could be, unless all they do is watch CNN and listen to NPR.

How much do you actually know about Trump? Honest question. Have you spent much time reading up on the man that you're confident that he's somehow less corrupt, less dishonest, less... anything than Clinton?

Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever? That's nothing but hyperbole.

How about oh I dunno, the original voice of the "silent majority" Spiro Agnew? Or somebody a bit more Trump's style right down to the bloviating, bad hair and support from David Duke — James Traficant? What about Johns Adams? His son John Quincy Adams? How about Eisenhower? He and the Dulles brothers invented the "banana republic." You want to talk about a corrupt Secretary of State? Hard to compare with John Foster Dulles and he's got an airport named after him.

That's a few off the top of my head.

You guys are tripping over yourselves to defend a treasonous criminal through deflection, and are actively engaged in focused propaganda with the aim of getting her elected to the highest office in the land.

That, in principle, could (or should) be considered treasonous in and of itself.

I'm not tripping over anything, maybe wading up to my neck in the self-delusion of those who think Trump is somehow better.

But you're right, my hyperbole and melodrama can sometimes get the best of me, but I'm not going to ignore you and let you have your run of the place with deflection after deflection in defense of lie after lie.

I never said to ignore me. Hell, being called a traitor certainly livens up the conversation a bit.

I will call you on it when I see it. If you don't like being "followed around", maybe you shouldn't make yourself an easy target. Again, you need a new strategy.

As I said, knock yourself out — it won't influence me one iota. If you want to make an argument for why Trump is the lesser of evils, I'll be willing to listen. In fact, I welcome it. I'm open to changing my mind if your argument is persuasive enough. Then again I do have to question what you could possibly use to persuade me when I'm pretty certain I saw you say yesterday or the maybe the day before that you would be voting for Hillary Clinton? Correct me if I'm wrong.

originally posted by: NthOther
You guys are tripping over yourselves to defend a treasonous criminal through deflection, and are actively engaged in focused propaganda with the aim of getting her elected to the highest office in the land.

That, in principle, could (or should) be considered treasonous in and of itself.

Yes. It should be.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I'm not tripping over anything, maybe wading up to my neck in the self-delusion of those who think Trump is somehow better.

Short of labeling him a racist / bigot /etc, and stuff related to him being a jerk, and his ego (which I can argue for pages is the result g his accomplishments), can you please articulate for us how he is worse COMPARED to HRC?

originally posted by: theantediluvian

As I said, knock yourself out it won't influence me one iota. If you want to make an argument for why Trump is the lesser of evils, I'll be willing to listen. In fact, I welcome it. I'm open to changing my mind if your argument is persuasive enough. Then again I do have to question what it is that you're going to tell me when if I'm not mistaken, I saw you say yesterday or the maybe the day before that you would be voting for Hillary Clinton? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't support Trump either. Or Gary Johnson. Or Jill Stein. If I had the choice, I would cast a vote of no confidence in the whole damn facade.

But I don't have that option. Therefore, I will vote for the candidate I see as having the highest potential for sparking mass insurrection, and that would be Hillary Clinton. I made a thread on the matter, but it was 404'd for what I can only assume was the perception by the staff that it was inciting violence. This post may be also deleted for that very reason, but I hope you get the chance to read it before that (and if it) happens.

My view on the matter is somewhat complex or, rather, chaotic, but it should not be construed as support for the witch. I can't bring myself to do that, exactly. So I suppose I'm a bit of a walking contradiction on the matter, and I acknowledge it.

Hell, maybe I'm the treasonous one. But it's my duty as a human being to be so when my government is evil. And to see people knowingly engage in cheerleading (or at the very least, running interference) for that evil, instead of hoping to see it overrun and defeated, gets under my skin.

I hope that clarifies my position somewhat, convoluted as it is.

Hillary wants to shame him for paying little to no tax and shame him if he did in fact inflate his net worth.

He already said he pays little tax which is par for the course for billionaires to include her buddy Warren Buffet and also herself with the Foundation which is actually a real scam. A scam that can't be investigated due to diplomatic immunity from the DOJ. FBI wanted to open that door and was told not happening.

If I were Trump I would say fine, I will release them if you voluntarily agree to let the FBI look into the Foundation like they requested but were denied. FBI never wanted to investigate Trump. Only her. She was also already in trouble with the IRS with the Foundation and had to go back and fix that mess. Then if you look at the financials of the Foundation it makes no sense. The ledgers I have seen have insane charges for things that is not believable. It's a pay to play scheme

Very similar scheme her brother was trying to pull off while she was in the White House but State Dept at the time denied them. Go look up her brother. Severe dirt bag. Same stuff going on with government contracts, conflict of interests and pay to play schemes. That's why she wanted the SD job. She knew she could fill her pockets with cash the easy way.

Why doesnt he just do the Honorable thing and do it anyway?

This schoolyard BS is getting old.....

Just yet another example of how much this man resembles more of a 13yr old than an actual adult.......

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Why doesnt he just do the Honorable thing and do it anyway?

This schoolyard BS is getting old.....

Just yet another example of how much this man resembles more of a 13yr old than an actual adult.......

Because she is trying to shame him. She wants to show everyone look, he paid almost no tax. And he is worth say 7.5 billion not 10. She really has nothing else on him. Everything else has failed. The sexism, the racism rants went nowhere. All those millions she spend on ads are doing nothing. If anything the ads are making him look stronger since he is spending next to nothing compared to her and can defend himself because the media covers him for free. Her campaign manager is not that bright because Jeb already tried this approach. They should have gone an entirely different route. Do a bunch of little venues, focus on healthcare, more open forums with real questions. And if things get tense let her handle it to show strength.

a reply to: NthOther

I can't say that I believe that mass insurrection is called for now any more than throughout most of American history — at least not violent mass insurrection — but I can appreciate your point of view even if I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.

That said, I'm also of the opinion that barring profound changes, the predictable effects of technological advance and globalization are bringing about the conditions anyway. So maybe I'm just selfish for wanting to forestall the inevitable because my own life is pretty comfortable or maybe I'm a self-deluded enough to believe that despite the corruption, the oligarchs will learn from the past. Maybe I'm just scared?

Then again maybe my instincts are right? None of us have a crystal ball. The best we can do is try to understand what is going on around us, apply the lessons of history and hopefully make better decisions.

Hell, maybe I'm the treasonous one. But it's my duty as a human being to be so when my government is evil. And to see people knowingly engage in cheerleading (or at the very least, running interference) for that evil, instead of hoping to see it overrun and defeated, gets under my skin.

I can certainly understand the latter sentiment even if I am as I said, unconvinced that our government is any more "evil" now than it has been throughout history so I'm not in agreement with the former. For me it's the pro-Trump crowd's denial of objective reality that rubs me the wrong way.

Maybe you have the same reaction to my posts?

That's a shame because I'm certainly not pro-Hillary, I've just done my own mental math and concluded that I'm more anti-Trump than anti-Hillary. I can't stress enough my absolute lack of enthusiasm.

What an option
Vote either of two criminals to run a country

a reply to: LifeMode

There is a load of ammo that can be used on Trump don't fool yourself

I know ATS is full of Tshirt and cap wearing trump supporters but that doesn't reflect the whole population

The biggest shot in his direction should be the ex wife divorce case with assault and rape mentioned

He is recently suing a blog site and the mail for slander against his current wife for false accusations of being an escort before she met him.

That's fair enough,but why on earth has a man who sues all the time not done so with the mail and Chanel 4 who this year again repeated the claims in the UK that he assaulted his ex wife pulling her hair out in a viscous attack and raped her?

Im sure the Chanel 4 legal experts were confident in their story and are happy to go to court to have those sealed documents explored but for some reason trump seems happy to allow that public slander to slip

If two big media companies implied you were a rapist I'm pretty certain you like many here would take them to court but trump remains silent on these issues and for a person who uses the courts like he has done that speaks volumes

That's the tip of the iceberg but the most damming against his character