Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ethereal, Nov 6, 2018.
I am sure he will be comforted by those words.
And what are they going to find that the IRS has never found?
This question inherently assumes that the only thing worth finding in Trump's tax returns is whether he is violating tax law.
I don't know. You always ask questions like this. Maybe find a fortune teller? Or, maybe ask the guy who calculated that releasing his tax returns would do more harm to himself than not releasing them. Of course, he is a pathological liar and will not answer your question honestly. So I guess you're back to fortune tellers...
What are they going to find that the IRS has not found that is not criminal and warrants a Congressional investigation into a persons protected tax documents?
So another witch hunt. Don't you think that if Congress is going to subpoena a persons protected tax documents they should he able to express a clear concise reason to do so and not just cause they want to?
Because Clinton was not worthy of those votes any more than Trump was worthy.
People who "sat it out" in 2016 were (effectively) voting for Trump.
Massive Conflicts of Interests come to mind off the top of my head
Those who nominated Clinton ensured Trump's victory, so they were voting for Trump.
Clinton was probably the only candidate with enough baggage to lose to Trump.
A horrible mistake (that sadly didn't become apparent until after 2 AM on election night).
Those who picked Clinton were effectively voting for Trump.
In the General Election anybody who DIDN'T expressly vote for Clinton was voting for Trump.
That group included:
1) Anyone who voted for Trump
2) Anybody who voted 3rd Party (Stein, Johnson, Etc.) effectively voted for Trump.
3) Anybody who "sat it out" for various reasons (disgruntled Bernie People, etc.) effectively voted for Trump.
^ALL 3 of the Above Groups facilitated Trump's Election (and they are equally responsible for the current Trump Trainwreck).
That is simply an undeniable FACT.
Period. Case closed. End of story.
. . . and anyone who voted for Clinton.
Period. Case close. End of story.
The Dems deserved what happened to them.
But why wasn't it an effective vote for Clinton instead of Trump? Especially if your state ended up going for Clinton anyway?
Because Trump's voters were going to show up no matter what.
My statement was (obviously) borne out in PA, MI, and WI.
Any other Dem candidate for President would have won in PA, MI, and WI.
Arguably, so were Clinton's.
Nope, I'm not obligated to vote for any candidate I don't want to. The spoiler mentality is why the two-party system exists. Vote your conscience, vote for what you want.
Only a mindless partisan would believe such a thing.
I deny it.
Comma. Case re-opened. Story to be continued.
She had moved much more to the left and would have compromised with the progressives to get part of the agenda. Also the supreme court would have not been in Republican control.
Lets face it, she only got that much hate because she was a woman. No way in hell a male democrat loses to Trump
Let's face it: being a woman had nothing to do with it. She was a Hillary Clinton. That is why she lost.
All people had was her emails. Trump showed time and time again he was America's worst human being, everyone knew he was a con artist, that he was only out for himself. Yet some how "her emails" was enough to conflate the "lesser of 2 evils" nonsense?
Your kidding yourself if you think sex had nothing to do with it.
But enough voters approved Trump.
Her sex is immaterial, and saying it is a reason she lost is a whiny cop out.
Another Dem female (Warren, e.g.) would have beat him like a drum.
What does that do to the far left's "but Hillary won the popular vote" meme??
Separate names with a comma.