Wow, the nutjobs are out in force this afternoon.

No and you should know he never will, there's no upside

He is exempt on #2

Originally Posted by Guest

So what you are saying is that Hillary should be impeached, right? After all, as SecState her foundation accepted millions from foreigners wishing an audience with her. Or, is this considered another right wing conspiracy to you, to go along with all those obvious felonies she committed by purposely mishandling classified information?

Show me in the Constitution where accepting a gift from a foreign country is an impeachable offense. And is it a "gift" if it is business? A gift is accepting something with nothing in return expected. So, quit your whining and worry about something serious instead of your imagination. If this is the best you can do, then perhaps you should sit back and let others discuss politics.

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Originally Posted by Guest

Like what you said...

I'll just add...the house is already burning...they started the fire in the 60s with civil rights laws that began the slow destruction of the nation. There's isn't much time before the point of no return...

Unfortunately you are correct and the would be Abby Hoffman's migrated to our educational institutes entertainment ,etc where they have greater voice . And this craziness has gone on so long that people think its normal. We see the incarnation of Abby Hoffman in the Michael Moore's of this nation.

If Trump's only accomplishment is succeeding in breaking this nation free of the politically correct hold liberal elitist have then we have a chance of returning our nation from one run by their chosen/designated collectives to one run by individual thought and freedoms

Personal Best Regards:

[QUOTE=Guest]So what you are saying is that Hillary should be impeached, right? After all, as SecState her foundation accepted millions from foreigners wishing an audience with her. Or, is this considered another right wing conspiracy to you, to go along with all those obvious felonies she committed by purposely mishandling classified information?

I wasn't saying anything. I just wanted your opinion. Wow, a little defensive huh? FYI; Hillary has a charitable foundation. The Clintons didn't take a dime (unless you can prove they did).

I just wanted to see how you Trump/Putin supporters were going to spin this. It's called "Cognitive dissonance". Look it up.

Originally Posted by Guest

1) Will it bother you if Trump does not show his tax returns and does not divest himself from his business interest to protect himself of any appearance of a conflict of interest?

2) Would you feel the same if Clinton had been elected and she didn't show her tax returns or divest herself from her business interests?

I'm just curious of your thought process. Thanks in advance for your response. If possible please keep your response civil. I am not attacking you or Trump.

Good question. The answer is No and Yes.
The financial disclosures filed were sufficient. The reason for the tax return was to say since he followed the law and got tax breaks he should not be elected. The tax returns does not provide most of the information people said was missing. But it would show that he probably did not pay taxes due to depreciation on his real estate.
Divesture is harder. You are taking a successful person and saying you have to sell all your assets (in his case in a fire sale) and pay millions in taxes. Not particle.
For Hillary I would expect her tax return not to use a lot of tax saving ideas but it does show sources of income that should make you wonder how she could generate that type and amount. But the real reason I would want to see it is her and her husbands history of bending the law.
I know I ran for a local office and some people want to see my tax return. Did not see why I had to tell all my neighbors how much I earned etc to take an unpaid elected office. However I did say I did not own any of the business that dealt with the office. My tax return would not have shown if I owned any of these companies as the interest would have be consolidated on a brokers 1099 on my tax return.

Originally Posted by Guest

I just wanted to see how you Trump/Putin supporters were going to spin this. It's called "Cognitive dissonance". Look it up.

It's darned decent of you to spell it for them...or they would have otherwise been totally clueless.

Originally Posted by Guest

It was my post and I'm curious why the attitude? I didn't make a statement I just wanted to hear your view point.

Now my next question is were you concerned with Hillary's supposed "Pay to play" when it came to her charity? Lets see if you can answer the question without being so defensive.

I am concerned about a lot of things. That does not mean if I don't like something I have a right to lynch someone. It is either against the law or it isn't. And even if the law is ridiculous thankfully the system is change the law and then enforce it forward not backwards to fit a situation someone did not like.

I am all for enforcement of the law. I am against anyone who did not like the outcome or the media trying to prolong an audience by trying to sidestep the law even under the disguise of moral ethics etc. I totally despise anyone especially lawyers gaining financial reward for giving false hope to an obvious situation. I am all for changing the law the proper way if it is the will of the people not a political party. To even consider making a law retroactive would fly directly in the face of democracy in my book. Following up with another question illustrating if the shoe were on the other foot won't change my position.

Originally Posted by Guest

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

So, Hillary should be impeached for accepting "donations" (gifts) from foreign countries. OK, that works for me.

Trump is not sworn in yet and payment for service (ie. hotel accommodations) is not considered a gift. I would suggest that you go ahead with impeachment of Obama and CLinton before worrying about predicting offenses that MIGHT be perpetrated in the future.

Originally Posted by Guest

It's darned decent of you to spell it for them...or they would have otherwise been totally clueless.

Naw, to be clueless would be lowering our standard to CNMs.

Hey.........pull my finger.............

Originally Posted by Guest

Good question. The answer is No and Yes.
The financial disclosures filed were sufficient. The reason for the tax return was to say since he followed the law and got tax breaks he should not be elected. The tax returns does not provide most of the information people said was missing. But it would show that he probably did not pay taxes due to depreciation on his real estate.
Divesture is harder. You are taking a successful person and saying you have to sell all your assets (in his case in a fire sale) and pay millions in taxes. Not particle.
For Hillary I would expect her tax return not to use a lot of tax saving ideas but it does show sources of income that should make you wonder how she could generate that type and amount. But the real reason I would want to see it is her and her husbands history of bending the law.
I know I ran for a local office and some people want to see my tax return. Did not see why I had to tell all my neighbors how much I earned etc to take an unpaid elected office. However I did say I did not own any of the business that dealt with the office. My tax return would not have shown if I owned any of these companies as the interest would have be consolidated on a brokers 1099 on my tax return.

I can see where you are/were a politician. You can justify anything that fits with your agenda/double standard. Not sure why you are not interested in seeing his tax returns? We already know he didn't pay taxes because someone leaked that. I want to see what his dealings are with Russia. There has to be a reason he is sucking up to Putin.

Originally Posted by Guest

I can see where you are/were a politician. You can justify anything that fits with your agenda/double standard. Not sure why you are not interested in seeing his tax returns? We already know he didn't pay taxes because someone leaked that. I want to see what his dealings are with Russia. There has to be a reason he is sucking up to Putin.

EXACTLY...how much he paid, etc means nothing.

He IS in debt in Russia, and Turkey. He is an associate of some Russians. We do not know WHO, HOW MUCH he owes. He HAS associated with Russian criminals..he HAS associated with countries who support terrorism, and fringe terrorist ground.

Does he still owe them..how much.....

Originally Posted by Guest

EXACTLY...how much he paid, etc means nothing.

He IS in debt in Russia, and Turkey. He is an associate of some Russians. We do not know WHO, HOW MUCH he owes. He HAS associated with Russian criminals..he HAS associated with countries who support terrorism, and fringe terrorist ground.

Does he still owe them..how much.....

First of all most non business owners don't understand how he didn't pay taxes or why it exists under the IRS NOL rule.

He only didn't pay tax until the NOL was used up, that doesn't mean he didn't pay for 20 years he could have used it up in 5 or 8 what ever it's 100% on the up & up

The Russian BS is really getting tied, MSM don't even talk about anymore.

So stop regurgitating that crap

Trump is our candidate because of the ignorant, dumb and blind racists that occupy the right.

Originally Posted by jimbo2012

First of all most non business owners don't understand how he didn't pay taxes or why it exists under the IRS NOL rule.

He only didn't pay tax until the NOL was used up, that doesn't mean he didn't pay for 20 years he could have used it up in 5 or 8 what ever it's 100% on the up & up

The Russian BS is really getting tied, MSM don't even talk about anymore.

So stop regurgitating that crap

J-Bo, if you stopped regurgitating crap you would be a mute.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk