Why are you trying to explain anything to JW...it doesn't work.

---

Have you seen my baseball?

Why are you trying to explain anything to JW...it doesn't work.

 

She's completely unwilling to listen to any reason that doesn't validate what she already believes to be "true."  Especially when disproven.

 

Among other things...

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

This is probably one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen, and it shows just how willing you are to be spoon fed your "thoughts" about Trump and his taxes. 

 

Tell us how what he did was illegal.  You call it a "tax avoidance strategy" as if this is somehow illegal, so tell us how that's the case.  And when you say "nobody likes that" when referring to this "tax avoidance strategy", who are you talking about?  I know I do everything I can to avoid paying the government any more than they're absolutely entitled to, and I take advantage of EVERY write off and deduction that is available to me.  So, I can tell you that not everyone dislikes avoiding paying taxes.  The vast majority who DO pay taxes (something you apparently know nothing about) look for every possible way to utilize the tax code to minimize their obligation as much as is legally possible.  You'd know this if you actually paid income taxes.

 

I never implied Donald Trump committed a crime by using a tax avoidance strategy. The problems with it are the nitty gritty details. There was a huge outcry over the "dubious" law Trump used and how he did it. He "stretched the law" to extremes. Voters know it was legal, but his refusal to turn over any federal income tax returns at the advice of his lawyer tells everyone there is something to hide.

---

She's completely unwilling to listen to any reason that doesn't validate what she already believes to be "true."  Especially when disproven.

 

Among other things...

 

Trump avoiding taxes for 18 years has been proven.

---

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

---

Have you seen my baseball?

I never implied Donald Trump committed a crime by using a tax avoidance strategy. The problems with it are the nitty gritty details. There was a huge outcry over the "dubious" law Trump used and how he did it. He "stretched the law" to extremes. Voters know it was legal, but his refusal to turn over any federal income tax returns at the advice of his lawyer tells everyone there is something to hide.

What SPECIFIC nitty gritty details are you referring to? 

 

Funny that you're using the same terminology that was use by the NY Times when you call the law dubious.  You're a good little parrot. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I chuckle everytime I hear the words "Repeal and Replace". How does he figure that will happen in aSenate with majority?

 

 

The current Senate majority is Republican. He ignores the fact that a red Senate may turn blue in January.

 

I bet Trump does not know a 60% majority is required to get enough votes for a repeal.

 

Polling is starting to indicate Trump will have a republican majority in both houses.  You two will need to find a quiet safe space to huddle up in when that happens. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

What SPECIFIC nitty gritty details are you referring to? 

 

Funny that you're using the same terminology that was used by the NY Times when you call the law dubious.  You're a good little parrot. 

 

I got that word from an AOL article about the NYT report. But you are being silly to call me a good little parrot LOL.

 

The nitty gritty details are $915+ million in one year; "stretching" the "dubious" law Trump used to avoid taxes, and his refusal to release tax returns for those 18 years on a lawyer's advice.

---

If you don't know about www.factcheck.org and similar websites showing clear evidence Donald Trump lied about his stance on the Iraq war, you are a misinformed voter.

 

If you think I was talking about the ACA itself, you need to reread my post. All I said was Trump wants to kill it.

 

Again, I was just telling you what Trump's political views on issues are without giving any hints about mine. Regarding abortion, I do not support after the baby's survival point.

 

 

There's definitely one misinformed voter here, and it's not the one who actually pays taxes and spends more than $20k a year on health insurance for family coverage.  BTW, feel free to find an unbiased fact checking source.  Regardless, what Trump thought about the Iraq war is irrelevant.  That pantsuited hag you're dreamy over VOTED FOR IT.  That's more important than what someone who was NOT in politics thought about it. 

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out your political views.  You're not hiding anything.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

There's definitely one misinformed voter here, and it's not the one who actually pays taxes and spends more than $20k a year on health insurance for family coverage.  BTW, feel free to find an unbiased fact checking source.  Regardless, what Trump thought about the Iraq war is irrelevant.  That pantsuited hag you're dreamy over VOTED FOR IT.  That's more important than what someone who was NOT in politics thought about it. 

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out your political views.  You're not hiding anything.

 

Hillary Clinton said during debates against both Barack Obama and Donald Trump she "would not vote that way again" if given a second chance to vote on the Iraq war. So that argument means nothing.

---

Hillary Clinton said during debates against both Barack Obama and Donald Trump she "would not vote that way again" if given a second chance to vote on the Iraq war. So that argument means nothing.

And Hillary Clinton is a DOCUMENTED habitual liar. The bottom line is that of the two presidential candidates, only ONE voted for the war. You are willing to buy the lies. Not surprising.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

that's funny since she's co-signed the arming of jihadists in Syria to overthrow Assad, and now this election season has threatened military force against Russia

---

Polling is starting to indicate Trump will have a republican majority in both houses. You two will need to find a quiet safe space to huddle up in when that happens.

Polling doesn't show a Trump win. And Senate will be D majority. But say your right, R is not getting 60 it needs to repeal.

---

that's funny since she's co-signed the arming of jihadists in Syria to overthrow Assad, and now this election season has threatened military force against Russia

But she says if she could do it again she wouldn't vote for the war.


Deeds, not words.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I got that word from an AOL article about the NYT report. But you are being silly to call me a good little parrot LOL.

 

The nitty gritty details are $915+ million in one year; "stretching" the "dubious" law Trump used to avoid taxes, and his refusal to release tax returns for those 18 years on a lawyer's advice.

There is no stretching or anything dubious going on. If it's written in the tax code that he's allowed to do that, how is it dubious?

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

Polling doesn't show a Trump win. And Senate will be D majority. But say your right, R is not getting 60 it needs to repeal.

You're really going to be hurting next week.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I got that word from an AOL article about the NYT report. But you are being silly to call me a good little parrot LOL.


The nitty gritty details are $915+ million in one year; "stretching" the "dubious" law Trump used to avoid taxes, and his refusal to release tax returns for those 18 years on a lawyer's advice.

You're parroting an article. Thanks for admitting it.


Nothing was stretched. It's the tax code at the time. Nothing dubious about it unless you're a democrat desperate to find anything you can use to avoid scrutinizing your own candidate.


I'm curious. What exactly did Trump do? I'd like specifics. Not the slanted rhetoric from an admittedly bias NYT.


BTW, was this law dubious when the Clintons used it?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

And Hillary Clinton is a DOCUMENTED habitual liar. The bottom line is that of the two presidential candidates, only ONE voted for the war. You are willing to buy the lies. Not surprising.

 

Only one voted for the war because the other was not in Congress. There is a lot of evidence Donald Trump was for the war.

---

There is no stretching or anything dubious going on. If it's written in the tax code that he's allowed to do that, how is it dubious?

Because the NYT, which has used the same loophole, says so.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

There is no stretching or anything dubious going on. If it's written in the tax code that he's allowed to do that, how is it dubious?

 

The law is what they call dubious.

---