Neo

Improving job skills makes everyone more employable. If you're collecting unemployment while doing it, hooray (not really, I feel the pain). Follow the law. We can debate the law and policy effectiveness anytime. Same with tax code.

I think I said same for both. In fact, I know I did. When did I say using freebies under the law isn't legal? Which post number? Trump's ineloquent and self impressed nature is another issue. BagBoy called it during the debate. "Im good at business" might play at the bar, but it doesn't at the podium. I'll never say "I'm so cool I figure out how to pay lower taxes". Trump will. He paid his taxes OR the IRS will let him know he didn't.

Great post? I tried! I couldn't target your flailing arms! In short, I have no response. You asked me about following the law. I'm for it. Not all posts inspire a response. Oh, and this - Saddlebags over the transmission confuse spinach salad laxatives! This is an example of why HRC's debate strategy was effective. "There are certainly dark secrets in his return ....." Nod, nod, mmhhmm, mmhhmm ... And, out ... you've all had enough of me!

When's the dark secret coming? You know, your accusation? That's the swallow that induced the vomit. I think you're lost in space.

Give me a harder one. Follow the law. I'm not sure what the law says, fortunately for me, with regard to the earnest effort and rigor you have to apply when looking. Probably something like "good faith". I'm guessing. Regardless, follow the law. Not sure what you "love" about that. What say you about paying taxes?

Oh, you owe it to us. A public accusation! Share the darker secret! Unless, of course, the accusation is ... well, something less than "certainly". Maybe deductions under the code are darker secrets. I, too, have them. What delicious language! I am getting nervous. What rules apply to me? The rule of law, or the rule of the forming extrajudicial mob? Am I rich? Is that a crime? Who decides and can they decide AFTER the fact? I retire and renounce all my possessions. I stand naked before you and have no dark secrets. Have I saved my head? In the spirit of yesterday's Hitler reference, I resurrect this less well known, but just as applicable, historic reference to great slaughter and fanaticism.

Blasphemy... my dresser bobbleheads are falling over like dominos. Fair and balanced, Trump has bobbleheads, too. Fair and Balanced Part Deux ... I've been a bobblehead. Today's narrow exercise, for me .... the pandering of tax returns and the destructive institutionalization of envy.

Excellent ... so you didn't nod and smirk during the "what's he hiding" portion of the debate. I hope it bothered you as much as it bothered me.

I have no illusions that his charitable endeavors will catapult him to some lofty status. Personally, this matters not to me. You all get a vote. Regarding release ... I generally don't need this of any candidate. It's because I don't resent, fear, or loathe those who legally pay whatever's legally required. Accordingly, the payment is a non-issue, as long as it's legal. How could it be any other way? Candidates have chosen to release them. Good for them. There's no way I'd release mine while under audit, allowed or not, while I'm answering IRS questions. That applies to anyone ... Donald Trump, HRC and Mother Theresa.

I don't blame Clinton for the point I'm making. At all. Not a little bit. I said I was willing to debate who was more responsible for the reprehensible code, a separate issue for anyone paying attention. I said it clearly. I said it was a worthy, but separate conversation. I said I had my views. Focus: Trump paid the taxes he's required to. Debate points that see something wrong with that won a debate, but it's because politicians pander and voters nod without any fair and critical analysis of the very narrow point. Complicity. I'm happy to move on to Trump v Clinton in the context of what the code looks like now (less relevant), and what it should look like tomorrow (more relevant). Oh, and I'll not absolve myself. Oh, and I'll not say laws apply to some, and not to others. Just to give you fuel for the fire that doesn't exist, and in anticipation of that fire, I do have a general view that HRC is closer to representing whatever government is, today, than Trump is. HRC did not write IRS statutes or regs, directly, to my knowledge. She used the code as much as Trump did, I suspect. Fair! Trump paid his tax obligation. So did we all. Bad Trump. BRB, I'm tapping the bobbleheads on my dresser. ******* Have you given my threshold question any thought?

The confluence of events, probability, and context makes that tourny the most memorable and powerful sporting event of my lifetime. I can tell you where I was and who I was with for both the USSR and Finland games. Chills ...

Awesome self absolution and articulation of two standards ... with that approach, he's an evil scum. Tell me, at what income level is one required to honor the code AND send more? You must have some idea. Your indictment demands it. Is HRC below your threshold? I am an evil scum, too, because I didn't pay more than required and somewhere, somebody paid less than me. ******* Self absolution and the articulation of two standards ... I am seeing the outline of a Fear and Loathing Party. Wait, that franchise is spoken for .. nevermind.

Oh, the EFFORT is huge. Agreed. Takes me a weekend. Takes Trump a team of advisors working year long. Same moral conclusion for me and Trump.

Amend to: this is the code. Who wrote it is interesting, I agree.

I missed this post. You're missing my point. I am upset with the code. I am not upset with anyone who followed it. You know, like you and me and HRC and Bob and .... It's in the books. It is fair game. Do you suggest we all follow the law as we each see fit? *********** We wrote the code. A billionaire followed the code. The billionaire is vilified for following the code by the candidate of the party "of the little guy". There is no fear and loathing of billionaires.

If paying what's required is a hand in the cookie jar, we're all grounded without allowance. So are those who earned and paid little.

Sincere ... what secret? I agree with the cover up comment.

We can debate her culpability. Can we agree his returns aren't sinister indictments of him? If not, isn't the same indictment applicable to her, you, me, Bob and everyone? I paid not one penny more than the law required.

I DO hate an unfair code. I'm interested in how he'll change it tomorrow, not how he legally conformed to it yesterday. For the record, any candidate advocating simplifying the code, reducing tax revenue, reducing government spending, and reducing deficits gets my support. I'm not 100% pro Trump tax policy. My posts this morning are solely directed toward criticism of legitimate returns of yesterday under the absurd code in place yesterday. There are a couple of things going on in our posts. Separate, but equal. If we can agree on yesterday's returns and their irrelevance, I'll gladly pivot to policy for tomorrow. I think you'll be satisfied with conservative consistency.

Two small points - email you and I send and email under FOIA aren't the same. I did mix issues, in one sense. In another, I didn't. HER point was the "what are you hiding" point, not mine. I offered a debate strategy. Nothing conclusive in my suggestion. I agree with you. Re: Sex tape ... a vile yawner and loser for DT.

More worried. Fair, fair, fair. I'm with you on "telling and should". However, a candidate has to articulate the policy they'll advocate for all of us. Telling me what should be done is more or less interesting to me depending on whether you're at my BBQ (less) or behind a podium (more). Ding, ding, ding. Neither candidate "is" the code that Trump and HRC, and me, and Bob paid under in 2015. HRC is at LEAST as much of the code's problem as he is. I say more, you know, with all her involvement, experience and time. The last sentence is my view. Big deal. Is it a debate point with merit? I say you can't think about it and say "yes".

She scored points with those who conflate tax code and individual returns. I acknowledge the debate win. I take issue with those who don't recognize the separate issues. She relies on this inability or unwillingness.

See, this is the issue. HRC smirks about the results on DT's individual return. Let's say this. You, me, HRC and DT all paid what was required. We obeyed the law. Do we agree? If you want to get to a code and policy debate, that's fine. But it's different. Tell me what DT did wrong if he, say, got a $878 REFUND. I say not one thing. I'm happy to remove the pandering smirks and pivot to policy. Harry Reid and Romney, HRC and Trump. Criticism of individuals for legally conforming to a terrible code and pandering to nodding heads. Separate issue from taxes, but fair question. I'm worried about any counter party meeting its obligations to me, Trump included. Smirking head nod toward beautiful Bob and his Trump like approach to income taxes.

Who rigged it? Did you pay more than you had to? I did not.

Question about political strategy ... if your opponent paid his or her taxes in accordance with the law, whether the taxes were $.01, $1 million, or $732 gazzilion, what's the smirkying innuendo that draws cheers from the chorus? Actually, as I think, the question isn't about political strategy. That's easy. The question is, why would you cheer the smirking innuendo? If I were Trump, I'd say "I paid everything the law required, just like you and everyone else ... and not a nickel more than the law required, just like you and everyone else". "Further, the IRS is auditing my claim right now. If I'm lying, they'll let us all know". Does anyone here think Trump paying some "small" amount, as you define it, is a mark against Trump? Who pays MORE than the law requires? If your problem is the code, I'd ask which candidate is closer to the monster that wrote the code. My debate response? "If you want to speculate about what's in documents I've not yet released, let's have at it both ways. I'll start. My taxes were as small as they legally could be so I could keep as much of my money as I could. Now, on to your yoga emails ... and how you came to be worth $100 million on government salaries ... and bleachbit. My turn to smirk and speculate?" The issues, well, we've rehashed them. I'd simply not tolerate her smirking innuendo. The beauty of HRC is you have to be comfortable with her methods to support her. She strips supporters of moral authority. Confession: I paid as little in taxes as I had to. I didn't write the code. "Duh", HRC and anyone who nods their head up and down as she says dumb things.