I will make sure not to make the mistake of voting for him a third time. Thanks!!!
Of course you are assuming I voted for him at all.
I will make sure not to make the mistake of voting for him a third time. Thanks!!!No but I'm sure you'll make the same mistakes you did when you did vote for him, twice.
Obligated as in compelling for moral reasons.
But hey, thanks for the buckshat!
You're welcome for correcting your poor and misleading post.
I will make sure not to make the mistake of voting for him a third time. Thanks!!!
Of course you are assuming I voted for him at all.
I would love to have a bear!!!I just assumed you are an idiot and you have a habit of voting for unqualified presidential candidates because you vote based on your feeling of who you'd rather have a bear with.
Recognizing your mistakes is something I doubt you are familiar with.
Its not my fault you don't know the complete definition of words.
I'm not entirely sure that Clinton is as bad as they say she is.
Emails - big deal
Benghazi - ummmm wut?
All the other stuff the GOP have been trying to get her and her husband on.... meh.
Clinton Foundation - trumped up BS.
Her Character - she is an old white lady, just how much am I expected to have 'in common' with her?
From what I see, and from what millions of others see, it's all just trumped up BS.
Now Trump on the other hand. Simply put, he is a hot head. And he enjoys putting other people down. He has poor character, what more do I need to know about him? I don't want someone like him representing my country. period.
Clinton, she is a politician, she has probably done more good than bad (net positive) in her career, and she knows what working for the public is like.
Trump - he does not know what it is like to be a public servant, in fact, I'm sure he goes into this thinking the public ultimately serves him.
No, I just don't make up my own definition for them or misuse them like you. He's not "morally obligated" either. Most candidates for office release their tax information for reasons of self-interest and trust building, there's no 'moral obligation' in doing so whatsoever. Trump will just need to deal with whatever negative reactions or unflattering assumptions people will make after not releasing and accept that he might lose some votes.
verb (used with object), obligated, obligating.
1.
to bind or oblige morally or legally:
to obligate oneself to purchase a building.
2.
to pledge, commit, or bind (funds, property, etc.) to meet an obligation.
Are you done buckshatting now?
Okay, let me use small words for you. Why do you think Trump has a moral obligation to release his tax returns?
It's more the irony that our first female President got there riding the coat tails of a man who represents the worst aspects of the patriarchy, a womanizer, adulterer and depending on who you ask, also a sexual predator.
I am totally cool with a President Warren. The Democrats have such a deep bench of qualified women, and yet they managed to nominate the most divisive.
Yea, now they a got a candidate that is about as far right on foreign policy as GW Bush and who will sign TFF. TFF which will utterly destroy the ability of the elderly and those on fixed incomes to pay for their prescription medicine. TFF which will extend the lifetime of drug patents INTO THE DECADES. I would love to see drug research federalized.
The only real risk I see with Trump is a civilization ending nuclear inferno and the chances of that happening are probably less than 10%. That.... and the rest of the world laughing their asses off at us.
I return to the last sentence of my post. Any speculation about what Gore would have done or not done is a counterfactual argument. All we know is that he didn't definitively say we should invade Iraq and likewise didn't definitively say we should not invade Iraq. You can add all the qualifiers you want but they still don't rule out either course of action. And even if he had used definitive words he still might have taken the opposite action anyway, remember Bush and "read my lips, no new taxes."
And now let's get the thread back on topic and return to the argument at hand.
Because it's the right thing to do. All presidential candidates do it for the sake of transparency. The American people should be able to know that their presidents policies don't have an ulterior motive such as benefiting the president directly. In this particular case since trump hasn't held public office, his tax returns can be used to verify claims he has made in public. Again more transparency, you know, the shit the right has been harping on Hillary for for years now.
How many Clinton's scandals had included dead people?
Okay I think we're making progress. So to you "it's the right thing to do" is synonymous with "obligatory." Let's try it a different way - what's the penalty for not doing this "obligatory" thing?
Sorry, I'll not be engaging in your buckshatting any more. If a dictionary definition of what the word obligated means, isn't enough to help you then nothing will be.
I'm obligated by my principals to not feed a troll.
Because it's the right thing to do. All presidential candidates do it for the sake of transparency. The American people should be able to know that their presidents policies don't have an ulterior motive such as benefiting the president directly. In this particular case since trump hasn't held public office, his tax returns can be used to verify claims he has made in public. Again more transparency, you know, the shit the right has been harping on Hillary for for years now.
Does Hillary have the moral obligation to release the transcripts of the Goldman Sach's speeches she was paid handsomely for? Her policies regarding the financial industry might be impacted by her relationship with them, is it the right thing to do for her to disclose that for the sake of transparency?
Sorry, I'll not be engaging in your buckshatting any more. If a dictionary definition of what the word obligated means, isn't enough to help you then nothing will be.
I'm obligated by my principals to not feed a troll.
Pretty sure she lost last time. Let's put this in perspective. Said half of the country is willing to vote for a white nationalist candidate to spite a centrist, so frankly it's not as if it even matters unless you believe the democrats are going to put up a right winger of their own.
Nearly every president that has ever served is understood to have wanted to have been president at some point in their lives. They've never been criticized for having such ambition--in fact, it's a strong virtue.
But not Hillary: she's a narcissist illegitimately clinging to this "birthright" dream of hers that she deserves to be president.
Does Hillary have the moral obligation to release the transcripts of the Goldman Sach's speeches she was paid handsomely for? Her policies regarding the financial industry might be impacted by her relationship with them, is it the right thing to do for her to disclose that for the sake of transparency?
I don't think she has a moral obligation to do so but it certainly can be argued that she does. Who else has released their transcripts to private events they've given speeches to? No one? Then it sounds like we have one set of moral standards for one candidate then we have for another, or have you been calling for trump to also release the transcripts to the speeches he has given?