Comments by "Triple 9" (@Betta66) on "Democrats Prepare to Waste More Time on Trump Tax Returns" video.

@gabrielboorom9778 I'm . . . not sure I get any of your point. You could be a sentient cantaloupe for all I care. So let's see. Your counter is: - A guy who touches women improperly, which also describes Trump - A guy who's not even registered as a Democrat - A woman whose worst transgression, as far as I understand, was lying about her heritage - this while Trump just recently lied about his father's birthplace - A guy who was "caught" by Project Veritas, which is to journalism what Joel Schumacher is to Batman movies - A political party who committed the sin of suspecting that a documented liar, con man, and tax fraud might be up to no good
2
Wasting time? I figured Styx for someone who valued transparency. Not to suggest Trump is hiding criminal activity in his tax returns, but his excuse for not releasing them is "I'm under audit," which is a weak excuse because previous presidents have released their tax returns while under audit.
1
@OriginalBongoliath I never made any such claim about Mueller. If I ever said anything even remotely resembling that, the point would have been that Trump should let Mueller conduct the investigation without attacks if he's so sure that he did nothing wrong. But more importantly, Mueller didn't say there was no collusion. That was Barr's conclusion. Whatever the case may be, Russians still conspired to interfere in the election to help Trump win. Man, for a guy who thinks I'm being a baby about this, you sure are acting very childish.
1
@WombRaider7878 There are a few cities in Maryland that already do that.
1
@WombRaider7878 I gave the bill another look. The way it's worded, it does seem a little confusing, but it's more likely saying 16 year olds should be allowed to register to vote (but not actually vote until they're 18).
1
@maxa5479 Aside from maybe abolishing the electoral college, every word of what you just said was wrong. 1. Our taxes already pay for stuff we used for free. How do you think the government pays for paved roads? 2. You can't abort a baby after it's born and literally no one in Washington wants to kill a baby after it's born anyway. 3. Name three Democratic presidential candidates who think open borders are a good idea. 4. Do you honestly think Democrats are so stupid that they think they can get away with abolishing the First Amendment? 5. Abolishing the Second Amendment is equally nonsensical because (see above).
1
@maxa5479 2. Where did you get that 95% statistic? 3. Personally, I have no problem with border security, but a wall will cause more problems than it will solve. There's no way a border wall is the only solution. 5. Speaking as someone who was blocked on Twitter by Styx for the sin of not agreeing with him, I find it hard to agree with you. 6. Are all guns semi-automatic?
1
@maxa5479 I messaged him after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting saying that I disagreed with his assertions that A) the shooter was a communist, and B) the Nazis were leftists.
1
@maxa5479 3. Perhaps, but even then a wall won't stop people from wanting to come here. If the fear is that drug cartels will sneak across an unprotected border, why do you think drug cartels would want to come to a country facing a drug epidemic in the first place? There's business here for them. You'd probably counter with "So just put up a wall while we fix the drug problem," but what's the saying? There is nothing as permanent as a temporary solution? Yeah, that. 5. I imagine that would suck, yes, but judging by the tone some of the people in this comments section have used, I'd be lying if I said social media sites never have a good reason for doing that. 6. From what I've read, the New Zealand ban applies to military-style semi-automatic weapons, assault rifles, and high-capacity magazines. I suspect hand guns probably don't apply.
1
@maxa5479 3. If people can just cross over, why bother? That's kind of the point. Is a border wall honestly the only feasible solution available? A border wall doesn't get rid of whatever makes people come here. If the wall is supposed to be a temporary solution while we figure out a permanent one, then fine, but can we please stop pretending that the immigration debate has to be either I support the wall or else I hate America? 5. Yeah, that's the excuse everyone gives. "They're just being trolls. Don't take them seriously." In my experience, if they're being trolls, that doesn't mean they're not still being assholes. If I went to England and told everyone Princess Diana deserved to die, it wouldn't matter whether I actually believed that because I would still be an asshole for saying it.
1
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text
1
@maxa5479 Yeah, this is a bit refreshing. "Undocumented immigrants costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year. It could stop 60% of crossings and save us 70B each year, that's a nice chunk of money." We spend $442 billion a year dealing with drug and alcohol abuse and I guarantee that is a bigger contributor to crime than undocumented immigrants. In fact, why do you think cartels try to come here? A big chunk of the U.S. population is addicted to something. Get rid of the demand and drug trafficking will follow suit. "Let's say you have a bowl full of your favorite candy." Can't you think of a better analogy than one Skittles explicitly asked people to stop using? "I don't know where you got that from our conversation." Again, I didn't get that from you, but from other people who comment on Styx's videos. "We don't know who is coming in which means we do not know their intent. But can we at least figure out what their background is? They are a burden on our social services and we don't know the background of the people crossing over. Without knowing if someone is a risk is entering the country unnoticed, people are upset that illegals are circumventing the rules." Gee, it's too bad we literally have no way of knowing any of that. I mean, it's not like we can use translators to ask them questions about where they're from and why they're here. And it's certainly not like we have ways of knowing whether they're lying. And we assuredly couldn't make them leave if they were found to be lying. Seriously, though, how is this difficult? Question them for five or ten minutes and deal with them accordingly. Best of all, hiring translators means creating jobs.
1
She should've read the 1995 tax returns instead, the one that showed he avoided paying taxes for two decades.
1
MEGA 2020 I have the first two pages. https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0226/7001/files/LEAKED--Donald-Trump_s-Tax-Records-Obtained-By-New-York-Times-Page-1_1024x1024.jpg?v=1475373493 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0226/7001/files/LEAKED--Donald-Trump_s-Tax-Records-Obtained-By-New-York-Times-Page-2_1024x1024.jpg?v=1475373529
1
Rich S The fantasy that Trump is a documented con man?
1
@KAV SOLO I was asked to post the documents. I posted what I could find. Jesus Christ, it feels like I'm debating with creationists. "Show us proof of X." "Here it is." "That doesn't count for some arbitrary reason. SHUT UP"
1
MEGA 2020 In the filings, Trump claimed about $6,000 in wages and over $7 million in interest income, but he also deducted almost $16 million from real estate losses and another $909 million in net operating losses from his other businesses. What isn't revealed is how he earned that income. On an unrelated note, years ago, Trump set up a sham corporation to disguise millions of dollars in gifts from his parents, helped his father take improper tax deductions worth millions more, and undervalued his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions of dollars on tax returns, which resulted in a lower tax bill when those properties were transferred to him and his siblings. Not to suggest those are all connected, but if Trump was so sure he never did anything wrong, none of his tax returns would have to be leaked.
1
MEGA 2020 1. New York state law provides three exceptions where the statute of limitations does not apply to civil tax penalties: when someone failed to report a return, failed to notify the state of changes made to their federal return by the IRS, or filed a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade tax. So if it was legal at the time, there's probably a good reason why it isn't legal anymore. 2. I'm all for holding politicians to something resembling a uniform standard of accountability, but saying "if we do that for everyone, the whole world will collapse" is arguably as much an indictment of voters' standards as is it of politics.
1
MEGA 2020 Did you know bestiality is legal in four states? Not everything that's legal should be legal.
1
MEGA 2020 We're talking about a guy who was sued by the Justice Department in the 70s for housing discrimination, sued for not paying employees and contractors, and sued for Trump University, among other things. And you think liberals are wasting their time trying to paint Trump as unethical?
1
"No collusion" was Barr's conclusion, not Mueller's.
1
 @gabrielboorom9778 Yeah, because if anyone should be getting into trouble, it's not the guy who commits tax evasion.
1
MEGA 2020 Yes. Yes, I do. He straight up said in one of the 2016 debates that not paying taxes made him smart. He said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any of his base. Yes, I seriously think he would be so brazen as to do that because when you're a star, they let you do it.
1
MEGA 2020 I think of it like this. Imagine you enter a talent show. Your dad bribes the judges without any involvement on your part. You can technically claim to be innocent, but someone still helped you win through unethical means.
1
@gabrielboorom9778 What makes Trump the lesser of two evils?
1
Marco Polo1 They're not mutually exclusive? So transparency is a waste of time? Wow, that's dumb. If Trump wants people to stop obsessing over him not releasing his tax returns, and he's so sure he isn't hiding anything, there's a simple solution: release his tax returns. If he truly isn't hiding anything, releasing his tax returns would do a lot to make the Democrats look bad.
1
@Unclejake Sorry, but I'm a little confused by the wording of your question. According to the indictment of the 12 Russians: The Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, discussed the release of the stolen documents and the timing of those releases with Organization 1 to heighten their impact on the 2016 U.S. presidential election. a. On or about June 22, 2016, Organization I sent a private message to Guccifer 2.0 to "send any new material stolen here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what you are doing." On or about July 6, 2016, Organization 1 added, "if you have anything Hillary related we want it in the next two days preferable because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify Bernie supporters behind her after." The Conspirators responded, "Ok . . . i see." Organization 1 explained, "We think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against Hillary . . . so conflict between Bernie and Hillary is interesting." It's been established that the Russians conspired to commit election interference to help Trump win. Barr's summary even acknowledged that. But Barr's summary frustrated Mueller's team for two reasons. Barr had already ruled out obstruction of justice before he was even confirmed as Attorney General. And Mueller's team had their own summaries written, but Barr didn't refer to them when making his own summary.
1
@UCdDglKx-WN7xWwZpR0vsjrg It's generally considered unethical for attorneys to make financial arrangements offering clients money because it creates the perception that a witness has been paid off to testify. I haven't found a single woman behind any of the Trump accusations who netted any personal gain since making the accusations public. There was the article from The Hill, but the article didn’t say women were asked to “make up stories” about Trump in exchange for money. The two accusers stressed that their attorney "never asked them to make any statements or allegations except what they believed to be true.” Oh, and one of the women in question filed a harassment lawsuit against Trump in 1997.
1
@OriginalBongoliath 1. The 12 Russians weren't acting on their own accord. In December 2016, intelligence officials said the operation to interfere in the 2016 presidential election was personally directed by Vladimir Putin. So if I'm a hypocrite for ignoring efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, what does that make you for doing the exact same thing? 2. Ah, the uranium deal. I believe this story stemmed from a book by an editor for Breitbart, which is to journalism what Taco Bell is to food. The uranium deal had to be approved by multiple U.S. agencies first, including the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, on which the Secretary of State sits. But Hillary wasn't the deciding vote on the deal. The Clinton Foundation did receive $145 million from parties involved in the transaction, but the dates of a large share of the donations and the deal itself don’t add up to suggest a quid pro quo. Mueller was the FBI director at the time, and the FBI was investigating corruption by the Russian company involved in the deal before the transfer was approved. But he played no role in delivering anything from what I could find. 3. Please calm down. You're not going to change any minds with that tone of voice.
1
Vinnie Provolone Did Mueller say that or was that just Barr’s interpretation of the findings? If the reports are true, Mueller’s team was frustrated by Barr’s summary because they had their own summaries of the findings that Barr didn’t even look at. But let’s say the full report does indeed clear Trump of collusion charges. Why wouldn’t Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to release the full unredacted report to the public and make the Democrats look like morons? This would be the biggest win of Trump’s term and yet his enabler keeps blocking efforts to release it (even though I guarantee McConnell would have blown a fuse if that happened with, say, the Ken Starr report).
1
@UCdDglKx-WN7xWwZpR0vsjrg To a degree, yes, but then what kind of explanation is there for him and Ivanka?
1
@gabrielboorom9778 Understandable
1
MEGA 2020 "If she weren't my daughter, I would be dating her." Those are his words, not mine.
1
MEGA 2020 How does any of that address what he said? What you're saying is "No, YOU'RE wrong for obsessing over the President of the United States, a title currently occupied by a man who wants to bang his daughter." Not to suggest it's wrong for a man to say his daughter is beautiful, but usually it's understood that a man who says his daughter is beautiful doesn't want to fuck her. However, does saying that make him a bad president? No. Does it make him come off like a creep? Yes.
1
@boofert.washington2499 I looked up the source of the claim. It dates back to a debate she had during her 2012 Senate bid against Scott Brown. But evidence of her having gained her Harvard position through claims of Native American heritage is lacking. Charles Fried, the head of the Harvard appointing committee that recommended Warren for her position in 1995, said her heritage didn’t come up during the course of her hiring. And for the most part, Warren's record did not indicate any identification as part of a minority group. In the portion of her Rutgers application that asked prospective students whether they wanted to apply for admission under the school’s Program for Minority Group Students, Warren answered "no." For her employment documents at the University of Texas, Warren indicated that she was “white.”
1
Jake I use the analogy of entering a talent show while your dad bribes the judges without your involvement. You can claim to be innocent and be technically right, but someone still helped you win through unethical means. And regarding the dozen Russians who were indicted, did you even read the indictments? https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/07/Muellerindictment.pdf
1
@maxa5479 I wasn't making up the tone. It wasn't based on anything you specifically said so much as based on what I've generally been told from the people in this comments section. What exactly is our issue supposed to be with illegal immigrants? That the mere act of them being here illegally makes them criminals? Okay, but why do we feel the need to go the extra mile and talk like they're all drug dealers who will murder every white person they see? People like that exist, yes, but is it really necessary to treat all undocumented immigrants like that? We don't have to let them all stay here, but we ought to at least act like some of them might not be violent criminals. As for the border wall, I'm not convinced that the benefits will outweigh the negative consequences because, if we're being honest, the wall can't solve everything. A wall can't stop undocumented immigrants if they're already here, a wall can't keep cartels from outsmarting checkpoints, a wall won't change the fact that the vast majority of people who were charged with or died while engaging in religious fundamentalist acts since 9/11 have been U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and a wall won't make the immigration courts any less overwhelmed. You brought up the economic factor. Border communities on the Mexican side suffered disruption since the first walls started appearing in 2006 including the environmental damage caused by its construction and the increased costs of doing business due to prolonged crossing times. There's also the matter of Trump renegotiating NAFTA and launching a trade war against Mexico, which increases the possibility of a borderland recession and massive unemployment. And if people in Mexican border communities can't find work, where do you think they'll go?
1