seigneur wrote:

Praising oneself for not paying taxes is foolish in every way, including financially in the long run, because it gives a certain reputation to the business.

Due to the tax code, he doesn't owe them. The man was attacked for not paying something he doesn't owe in the first place. What's he supposed to say?

"Oh, gosh, you're right Hillary, I'm very sorry that I didn't pay something I don't owe."

The question is a debater's trick: frame something rightful but not well-known to the electorate as if it's wrong and then make your opponent justify his rightful actions. His normal responses are to agree with you and loose or to disagree but suddenly seem defensive. It's like a paranoid spouse who asks "Why have things been so good lately!?" If you agree that it's odd that things are going well, you loose. If you become defensive, you get accused of being suspicious. Trump's big sin is to deny the double bind he's been put in and not feign the usual hypocracies over this issue, and good for him.

Also, your claim simply isn't true either in general or in his case. I run a rental property business and because of depreciation and rightful tax deductions properly filed by myself I've never paid tax on that income. I would recommend every landlord do the same if they don't know any better. What of it? Every bourgeoise I know talks of these things all the time. Would you like me to pretend I'm a fool or tell everyone else to also be a fool? Does a wink and a nod recristen this dishonesty as virtue?

Are my tenants going to suddenly stop turning in rent? No and they wouldn't if I told them outright either. And I highly doubt that his investments are going to be hurt merely on the tax matter.

seigneur wrote:

Everybody uses tax deductions. Yes, it's a financially smart thing to do. However, everybody also knows it's smart to refrain from saying "I'm smart because I don't pay taxes." Except Trump. In a presidential debate.

It's not "smart" to act like right things are wrong and wrong things are right to appease raw pathetic class resentment founded on obvious sophistry and manipulation. It's lies.

There's plenty of good things to be said about the present tax code and the rightful duties of the wealthy, but that isn't among them.

Hillary has hidden her personal political advancement behind the auspices of a tax-protected "charitable" organization for years and her and her husband have made a fortune by selling promises and influence over things that are public possession. But she has been permitted to ride a fiscal moral high-horse because her opponent dares to say he does what he's got the right to do, good reason to do, and what most corporations and persons of moderate means in the country pay an accountant to do?

This is a narrative of such high absurdity, I can't believe it washes. Greg is indeed right that there are bad things to say about the man. I myself won't be voting this cycle. But I can't drink up gall.

seigneur wrote:

Trump is not competent to be a politician. He does not have the character (or "stamina" as he says). He is easily poked to fits of annoyed anger. It's not just unbecoming.

The idea we have of what's "becoming" politically is fundamentally dishonest and has been an international failure for 40 years. It is a lie about good character wrapped in a lie about good governance.

The two great political accomplishments of the age are economic globalism and scientific mass manipulation.

Morally hollow, hypocritical, and 40 years of cultural failure.

seigneur wrote:

In a position of political power, such as the president of US, it's a nuclear danger for the entire world. He also does not know that policy means something different than his personal whim.

I have heard about this "danger" for every major candidate for 8 cycles. It somehow loses its potency. A man with a memory can only hear "wolf!" so many decades.

Last edited by iwpoe (10/23/2016 11:07 pm)

The charge then (though he has also been directly questioned on his taxes and we didn't limit discussion to the first time the matter was mentioned so I don't see the point of being so pedantic about it).

If your whole issue is 'the man rubs me the wrong way' why bother trying to talk about particular issues? Not everyone cares for the highly polished fake veneer of the average politician, and given the results we've gotten from it both here and in Europe, I see no reason to prefer it.

We have had other approaches to the political demeanor both historically in national politics and currently in local politics. I see no reason to prefer the present one.