Posted by Guest (Post 1263090)

Oh the flaming hypocrisy. :1rotfl:

A lot of those same people saying that Chump doesn't need to show his tax returns (in spite of his calling for Romney's and that every other POTUS candidate has done it for decades).....are also some of the same ones who criticize Hillary for what she wears. :oops:

This place, and the right-wingnuts who are such huge, flaming hypocrites...crack me the heck up. :D




:wave:

CNM

Posted by Guest (Post 1263121)

Yes, I can definitely see the correlation between taxes and Hillary's attire. :shrug:

Posted by Guest (Post 1263087)

You claim an OPENED MIND yet you would never vote REPUBLICAN.
RE: TRUMPS TAXES
You seem to think YOU are more qualified to review his taxes than is the TOP PEOPLE at the IRS. Surely they have their top people exploring his file.
RE: FAIR TAXES
History as well as now, PEOPLE believe they should get and someone else should pay.
I do not know YOUR position BUT, if you had a 40k, 403b,retirement plan, medical benefits, a mortgage ETC ETC ETC. THEY ARE ALL TAX DEDUCTIONS. YOU TOOK THEM ALL AND YET THEY WERE ACCORDING TO YOU FAIR. People such as ME who were self employed PAID 13% TO SOCIAL SECURITY. Few people WITH YOUR VIEW know or care that your employer pays HALF of what you paid to social security.
I EXPECT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW that the TEN TRILLION DOLLAR OVERDRAFT BY OBAMA-WHO YOU SURELY VOTED FOR is 42% held by SOCIAL SECURITY. YOU SAY FAIR-I did not vote for OBAMA yet he SPENT the money that I paid into the ponzi scheme called social security for 45 years.

Posted by Guest (Post 1263138)

You mean like your own post? :oops:

Since about 1/2 of the posts have strayed from the thread title anyway (predominately by right-wingnuts)....that makes your comment yet even more proof of what I said. ;)

Thanx for that. :thumbup:



:wave:

CNM

Posted by Guest (Post 1263167)

Oh, did I hurt your feelings for laughing at your comparing taxes with attire? I'm sorry for pointing out how lame your comment was. Hope you will forgive me.....not....ha,ha.

Posted by Guest (Post 1263080)

Who get's to throw stones at Trump?

Posted by Guest (Post 1263179)

Those without sin?

Posted by Guest (Post 1263069)

There is no law requiring pubic disclosure of his tax return, period. So, you have no argument. What someone else does is what they wished to do and not something required of you. Your "past precedent" is hardly a valid argument. The past precedent would dictate NO WOMEN in the presidency. The past precedent would dictate NO BLACKS in the presidency.

Did I explain it in simple enough terms for your understanding?

Posted by Guest (Post 1263069)

There is no law requiring pubic disclosure of his tax return, period. So, you have no argument. What someone else does is what they wished to do and not something required of you. Your "past precedent" is hardly a valid argument. The past precedent would dictate NO WOMEN in the presidency. The past precedent would dictate NO BLACKS in the presidency.

Did I explain it in simple enough terms for your understanding?

Posted by Guest (Post 1262828)

Yep, that's why there is a 60% increase in the Republican voter turnout and 20% decrease in Dem voter turnout. What happened to all those libtards that wanted change? Hillary is not change.
Sure Republican politicians are turning speaking out against him. They are afraid of losing their jobs. But, they will still vote for him once the enter the voting booth.

Posted by Guest (Post 1263069)

There is no law requiring pubic disclosure of his tax return, period. So, you have no argument. What someone else does is what they wished to do and not something required of you. Your "past precedent" is hardly a valid argument. The past precedent would dictate NO WOMEN in the presidency. The past precedent would dictate NO BLACKS in the presidency.

Did I explain it in simple enough terms for your understanding?