Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

[Greta]

You can believe what you like, -1-. Feel free to pronounce me a hypocrite or whatever you like based on your imaginings. You fantasies, however, are not relevant.

If Clinton tried on what Trump had done of course I would have been just as offput. Tyrannical behaviour is ideally not to be tolerated, no matter who the perpetrator. Whatever happens now, the seeds of tyranny have been planted with the effective removal of standards regarding presidential financial transparency and conflicts of interest.

[uwot]

Your intent makes you a moron, moron.

I got to write it twice!

Fill yer boots!

Am I living up to your intent, for me, in your thread?

Wassat? You think I have some intent for you?

Are you living up to the intent of Van Jones, that you perceive?

Well yeah. I think the intent is obvious from the opening frame where it says "Disagreement without the disrespect." Having treated you with respect initially, you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't deserve it. If you think like a f****** idiot and write like a f****** idiot, people will conclude that you are a f****** idiot.
Who knows? If you care as little for my opinion of you as I care for your opinion of me, perhaps we can at least respect that in each other.

[henry quirk]

"Because they're in charge of collecting your taxes and will send you to jail for dodging them?"

Here's the thing: I'm under no obligation to make public my returns. If you, for example, wanna see my returns, take me to court, demonstrate good cause why you should be privy to my finanical guts cuz I ain't showin' you diddly otherwise.

If Greta (or folks like her) believe it's so important to know the ins and outs of Trump's finances, take him to court, show good cause.

As it stands now: no law compels a presidential candidate to splay open his books.

Also: if anyone believes any wealthy person hasn't play fast and loose with their finances, up to and including hidin' wealth and sources of wealth off shore and in shells, well that's naivete, so Trump's returns probably won't reveal shit about shit.

And: no, that's not me bein' an apologist, that's me bein' realistic.

'So, if he's covered his tracks, why doesn't Trump just comply and pony up the returns? and end all the (nonexistent) clamor?'

Cuz he ain't the f*** YOU Prez for nuthin'.

[henry quirk]

"Yet I believe, that you , Greta, would have brought up NONE of the points of safeguards on Hillary Clinton."

Hole in one.

#

"If Clinton tried on what Trump had done of course I would have been just as offput."

Then get your dander up, Greta, cuz Clinton, as Sec of State, didn't try, she did.

Large conflicts of interests and significant profiteering.

Go on: rail against her.

I'll wait till you finish.

[Arising_uk]

Of course, you're above the rabble.

You think them a rabble but still link them? Me I just don't do boobtube links as I prefer people to state their point on a philosophy forum.

There's actually a guy trolling his own thread, right now.

I know that much.

You know not much really. Just another Yank political troll on the wrong forum.

Uwot is certainly acting out of character, I guess his MA is getting to him or maybe it's because he posted a fairly reasonable link from a democrat aimed at other democrats making the point that the divisiveness and flatout sectarian aspect of current US politics is a big mistake and then got exactly that from you?

Me, I just wish you'd all f*** off to a US poltical forum or try a little philosophy for once.

[Arising_uk]

...
Cuz he ain't the f*** YOU Prez for nuthin'.

Or more than likely he either doesn't want the banks to find out he's over-leveraged to the hilt or let his voters know that he'll imprison them whilst committing the same offence. Or maybe he and his mates don't want Joe public to know how little they pay compared to them and keep the ripoff going.

Personally the more I listen to you guys opinions of your politicians the more I appreciate mine as apparently they are saints in comparison.

[henry quirk]

"Or more than likely he either doesn't want the banks to find out he's over-leveraged to the hilt or let his voters know that he'll imprison them whilst committing the same offence. Or maybe he and his mates don't want Joe public to know how little they pay compared to them and keep the ripoff going."

Mebbe.

As I (keep) say(ing): as long as he keeps doin' what I hired him to do, I don't give a shit.

#

"Personally the more I listen to you guys opinions of your politicians the more I appreciate mine as apparently they are saints in comparison."

I'm thinkin' Tommy Robinson might disagree.

[Arising_uk]

Mebbe.

As I (keep) say(ing): as long as he keeps doin' what I hired him to do, I don't give a shit.

Fair enuff. Do us a favour and get the rest of your mob to stop whinging about Obama et al as they were only doing what others hired them to do.
#

I'm thinkin' Tommy Robinson might disagree.

I'm wondering what Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has got to do with it.

[Greta]

"Because they're in charge of collecting your taxes and will send you to jail for dodging them?"

Here's the thing: I'm under no obligation to make public my returns. If you, for example, wanna see my returns, take me to court, demonstrate good cause why you should be privy to my finanical guts cuz I ain't showin' you diddly otherwise.

If Greta (or folks like her) believe it's so important to know the ins and outs of Trump's finances, take him to court, show good cause.

As it stands now: no law compels a presidential candidate to splay open his books.

Also: if anyone believes any wealthy person hasn't play fast and loose with their finances, up to and including hidin' wealth and sources of wealth off shore and in shells, well that's naivete, so Trump's returns probably won't reveal shit about shit.

And: no, that's not me bein' an apologist, that's me bein' realistic.

'So, if he's covered his tracks, why doesn't Trump just comply and pony up the returns? and end all the (nonexistent) clamor?'

Cuz he ain't the f*** YOU Prez for nuthin'.

Who gives a damn about your finances? You are a nobody, and not a very bright one at that. Nobody cares about you except the tax dept. It's probably best that you sit out and leave this debate to grownups. You clearly lack the experience to understand what's going on.

We are talking about checks and balances regarding IMPORTANT people in an ostensible DEMOCRACY who want payment from TAXES and to access to state secrets. If his finances wouldn't have "revealed shit" then he would have had no problems presenting the information. Q.E.D.

[henry quirk]

"Who gives a damn about your finances?"

And bright girl misses the point...again.

#

"We are talking about checks and balances regarding IMPORTANT people in an ostensible DEMOCRACY"

That's what you're talkin' about...me, I'm talkin' about not givin' a f*** what my EMPLOYEES in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC have on their tax returns.

[henry quirk]

"Fair enuff. Do us a favour and get the rest of your mob to stop whinging about Obama et al as they were only doing what others hired them to do."

I wouldn't stop 'em even if I could.

#

"I'm wondering what Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has got to do with it."

Yeah, he's a regular Sacha Baron Cohen, ain't he.

[Arising_uk]

I wouldn't stop 'em even if I could.

Ah well with a bit of luck the mods will get bored with all this Yank sectarian political bollocks and have done with the lot of you. As you should be fighting your fights on a politics forum.

Yeah, he's a regular Sacha Baron Cohen, ain't he.

If you mean he's a complete comedian I'd agree with you although he's not as funny.

[uwot]

I dunno: "He owns a sunbed shop in Luton." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

[-1-]

You can believe what you like, -1-. Feel free to pronounce me a hypocrite or whatever you like based on your imaginings. You fantasies, however, are not relevant.

If Clinton tried on what Trump had done of course I would have been just as offput. Tyrannical behaviour is ideally not to be tolerated, no matter who the perpetrator. Whatever happens now, the seeds of tyranny have been planted with the effective removal of standards regarding presidential financial transparency and conflicts of interest.

"If Clinton tried on what Trump had done of course I would have been just as offput. " This is precisely where my opinion is elevated from "belief" to "truth". if you base your principles on specific issues, and you think conflict of interest is tied to a behaviour but not to a position, then you just proved how hypocritical you are.

Your demands ought to be universal, and you ought to apply to all, not at all only to selected ones, who YOU think ought to be applied to.

Yet you clearly indicated that your demands be applied based on behaviour.

This makes my opinion that you are hypocritical, into a fact.

"You can believe what you like, -1-. Feel free to pronounce me a hypocrite or whatever you like based on your imaginings" my belief you have proved to be a fact... my imaginings you have solidified to be true by your clarifying your position.

[-1-]

The constitution clearly states the requirements to be a POTUS.

Precisely.

Why Greta can't accept that is beyond me. If it's good for the goose, why is she demanding a different code of behaviour for the gander?