Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

And called him the comeback kid and crowed him for his recovery in October of 1995.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/25/nyregion/crowning-the-comeback-king.html]New York Times

Very interesting.

this would be a valid contradiction if the new york times had access to trump's 1995 tax return months before he even filed it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And called him the comeback kid and crowed him for his recovery in October of 1995.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/25/nyregion/crowning-the-comeback-king.html]New York Times

How is this relevant?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
this would be a valid contradiction if the new york times had access to trump's 1995 tax return months before he even filed it.

They knew he lost a billion dollars when they wrote it. Nice try.

the controversy is over the fact that he was not paying taxes. this was not known until days ago, when his 1995 tax return was released.

Its called Bankruptcy. You don't pay taxes when you are bankrupt in some cases.

He guaranteed his loses, unlike Hillary who lost 1.5 billion a year of the tax payers money while SOS.

I think it's just pathetic there is a controversy over someone taking advantage of a legal thing. How sad, fight the system, not the people that use it. Because these same people complaining would not hesitate to not pay taxes if they could do it legally.

It's just silly. Is there nothing else about Trump people can go after, so they go after him doing something a lot of businessmen probably would do?

It's hilarious if people want to make this about morals, look at the shit about the Clinton foundation. Look at Hilary's lies.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think it's just pathetic there is a controversy over someone taking advantage of a legal thing. How sad, fight the system, not the people that use it. Because these same people complaining would not hesitate to not pay taxes if they could do it legally.

It's just silly. Is there nothing else about Trump people can go after, so they go after him doing something a lot of businessmen probably would do?

It's hilarious if people want to make this about morals, look at the shit about the Clinton foundation. Look at Hilary's lies.

The problem is that Trump has made it a point to mock people who don't pay income taxes, including poor people who don't pay because they literally don't have the money to. Doesn't this strike you as slightly hypocritical?

And you really need to STFU about the Clinton foundation. It's one of the most successful charitable organizations in history, yet here you are misinterpreting basic financial statements to suggest some grand conspiracy or something. Compare it with the Trump foundation, which just received a cease and desist order from NY's attorney general and literal was a laundering scheme - there's really no comparison. There's a reason why the Gates have noted Trump for "not being known for his philanthropy".

Originally posted by Surtur
I think it's just pathetic there is a controversy over someone taking advantage of a legal thing. How sad, fight the system, not the people that use it. Because these same people complaining would not hesitate to not pay taxes if they could do it legally.

It's just silly. Is there nothing else about Trump people can go after, so they go after him doing something a lot of businessmen probably would do?

It's hilarious if people want to make this about morals, look at the shit about the Clinton foundation. Look at Hilary's lies.

Clinton foundation uses 5-6% of its income for humanitarian purposes.

The rest goes to money laundering for the Clintons.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the controversy is over the fact that he was not paying taxes. this was not known until days ago, when his 1995 tax return was released.

Yeah, except nope, nope, and one more Nope. The controversy was also about his business prowess.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
The problem is that Trump has made it a point to mock people who don't pay income taxes, including poor people who don't pay because they literally don't have the money to. Doesn't this strike you as slightly hypocritical?

And you really need to STFU about the Clinton foundation. It's one of the most successful charitable organizations in history, yet here you are misinterpreting basic financial statements to suggest some grand conspiracy or something. Compare it with the Trump foundation, which just received a cease and desist order from NY's attorney general and literal was a laundering scheme - there's really no comparison. There's a reason why the Gates have noted Trump for "not being known for his philanthropy".

But the Clintons are *just* as hypocritical, so you need to shut the f*ck up about that as well, deal?

Nobody suggested a conspiracy lol. It's corruption. It's pay to play.

Also lol @ the notion that the NYT is a homogeneous entity whose journalists all need to have uniform, unchanging opinions.

Originally posted by Surtur
But the Clintons are *just* as hypocritical, so you need to shut the f*ck up about that as well, deal?

You're welcome to elaborate.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
You're welcome to elaborate.

So just to be clear: you think there is zero hypocrisy, zero corruption, etc. with the Clintons?

I just want to be clear on the shit you believe. Are they squeaky clean, or not?

Since if you believe that, I don't think there is anything I could say or show you to change your mind, so I want to know if this is even worth bothering with. If you think there is nothing shady about them then I can't help you out.

You know what? It just doesn't matter, nothing matters. This is a lost cause. Who cares what the Clintons do? They will just keep on keeping on. No consequences, just more and more power.

They could sacrifice a baby on live TV and people would find a way to spin that.

I've given up. To quote Castiel from Supernatural: let's consume copious amounts of alcohol and wait for the inevitable blast wave.

Originally posted by Surtur
So just to be clear: you think there is zero hypocrisy, zero corruption, etc. with the Clintons?

I just want to be clear on the shit you believe. Are they squeaky clean, or not?

Since if you believe that, I don't think there is anything I could say or show you to change your mind, so I want to know if this is even worth bothering with. If you think there is nothing shady about them then I can't help you out.

I think that they're vastly less bad than Trump, and have far more good elements to counterbalance.

Seriously; they may do shady things every once in a while, but Trump basically pathologically lies and cheats on a daily basis, to a greater extent than any other public figure I've ever seen.

Yay, the lesser of two motherf*cking evils!!! Our country is saved!

Oh please, in Real Life (tm) we do that all the time, from taking medication with side effects to putting your arms down when you fall to protect your head. It's just cost benefit analysis. Not that I think Clinton is an "evil".

Like, what do you think she'll even do that's sooooo awful?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Oh please, in Real Life (tm) we do that all the time, from taking medication with side effects to putting your arms down when you fall to protect your head. It's just cost benefit analysis. Not that I think Clinton is an "evil".

Like, what do you think she'll even do that's sooooo awful?

I think the general argument is that they're both "corrupt"...people just tend to favor one side over the other if they just so happen to coincide with their beliefs.

Trump is significantly more corrupt than Hillary.

So again: yay! The lesser of two pieces of shit. Our country will thrive.

You yourself said they are both bad, but Trump is worse.

So again: yay for shitty people in power who are corrupt and manipulative liars. Yay for incompetence, yay for people who were in politics 30 years and are still too stupid to know protocol.

Oh and yay for people who get called incompetent by the FBI.

You know what guys just don't mind me or the things I say. I'm just burnt out. This is one of the first elections I really paid a lot of attention to, really cared about it and I'm realizing it's all irrelevant, I am irrelevant, we all are.

We lack power, so we're irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when it comes to politics. There isn't even a point in arguing about it anymore.

This has shown me it's not worth it to care, because I can't change a damn thing. I'm just going to go back to what I did before and just not care at all about it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Clinton foundation uses 5-6% of its income for humanitarian purposes.

The rest goes to money laundering for the Clintons.

The Clinton Foundation is a 4 out of 4 star-rated charity, with 86.9% of its total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers.

The State Department already investigated the Clinton Foundation and found no evidence of self-dealing or pay-for-play, unlike the Trump Foundation which is actually guilty of both.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Clinton Foundation is a 4 out of 4 star-rated charity, with 86.9% of its total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers.

The State Department already investigated the Clinton Foundation and found no evidence of self-dealing or pay-for-play, unlike the Trump Foundation which is actually guilty of both.

The Clinton foundation passes out watered down aids drugs.
Nuff said

Originally posted by Surtur
So again: yay! The lesser of two pieces of shit. Our country will thrive.

You yourself said they are both bad, but Trump is worse.

So again: yay for shitty people in power who are corrupt and manipulative liars. Yay for incompetence, yay for people who were in politics 30 years and are still too stupid to know protocol.

Lol, at this point you're just repeating yourself rather than responding to anything I'm saying. The lesser of two evils is a perfectly reasonable settlement to take when there are no superior alternatives. We do this in Real Life all the time, as has been explained to you before. I'm sure you've done this when you've chosen to pay a parking ticket over refusing to and going to jail.

And no, I don't think Hillary is evil.

Nyt did a complete reversal, shows how dumb and hypocritical they are.

Why didn't they care when Soros and Buffet lost a billion dollars and used it as a loss.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Lol, at this point you're just repeating yourself rather than responding to anything I'm saying. The lesser of two evils is a perfectly reasonable settlement to take when there are no superior alternatives. We do this in Real Life all the time, as has been explained to you before. I'm sure you've done this when you've chosen to pay a parking ticket over refusing to and going to jail.

And no, I don't think Hillary is evil.

Who said we don't do shit like this in real life? I never did. I'm just saying it's f*cked up beyond belief that we're using it when it comes to a president though.

I mean think about this, we've been debating about WHO IS SHITTIER. Not about who will do the best job, but on who is the least corrupt, the least prone to lies.

That is our reality, that is our president: the person who was shitty, but just not AS shitty, as Trump.

Does not matte what anyone says, the NYT did a full reversal on his losses in 1995.

They praised him for making a comeback.

This nation is so backwards now, that making a comeback is considered a a failure now, and being a career political failure like Clinton is a success.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Trump is significantly more corrupt than Hillary.

Its not shocking really. Its just a direct correlation to how we are as a society. Its basically showing us our mirror image.

Complete reversal

Of course he NYT would praise Trump back then. He was still a Democrat back then

Originally posted by jaden101
Of course he NYT would praise Trump back then. He was still a Democrat back then