The analogy fits the situation.
The observation that NYT and Bernie Sanders made slanderous accusations and still have not apologized for them to this day, fits the facts.
Maybe they are waiting for Trump to apologize to all and sundry first-it’s the polite thing to do.
I would prefer to stick to the topic at hand, as requested by moderators–Trump’s tax returns, lies spread about Trump’s taxes by New York Times and Bernie Sanders, and their subsequent refusal to apologize.
I am precisely on topic: Trump owes us an apology for lying about his inability to show us his tax returns.
That is not correct–it is New York Times and Bernie Sanders who owe us an apology.
It was speculation on their part…but a direct lie on his. I think that he should go to the head of the apology line.
Aha! I see some weakening and shift in your position!
But we discussed this already–me claiming that you were a child murderer, without providing any proof, would be, technically speaking, speculation.
Do you think Trump owes any apologies for lying about his tax returns?
BTW, The Twit-In-Chief just tweeted this gem:
What do you think? Should libel laws be changed to benefit one person(even if it is Trump), while he is claiming that people shouldn’t be able to sue him?
-
Indeed, it is possible that Trump might not have paid any income tax. We don’t know, because he won’t release his tax returns. If you can put the lie to this speculation, show us what you’ve got. (By the way, not releasing his returns due to an IRS audit was clearly a lie.)
-
You apparently have a limited understanding of what “legitimate polling data” is. The polls showed Clinton ahead by an aggregate of 2 - 3%, which is what her margin in the popular vote actually was.
If we’re going to count inaccurate predictions or broken promises as lies, Bernie Sanders has a lot of catching up to do with Donald Trump. I would speculate that the the ratio of Trump’s lies to Bernie’s lies are on par with the ratio of total taxes paid. If I’m wrong, are you going to call that a lie, as well?
And your analogy is hopelessly flawed, as you have no data to back up your speculation, whereas the polling data was sound. The difference appears to be that you are comfortable with speculation that has no supporting data (see “Breitbart” or “Fox News”), whereas Maddow bases her speculations on where the data, often gathered by other news organizations, leads. It might not always be correct, but it is sourced. And when she’s wrong, she corrects the record on her show.
The New York Times owes us an apology for what, now? Interpreting polling data, but being incorrect? How many apologies have you received from Fox News for their retraction-free errors?
Twitler just Tweetled:
“If @RepMarkMeadows, @Jim_Jordan and @Raul_Labrador would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform.”
I responded:
“Aren’t you going to need these guys’s support when the impeachment proceedings begin? This is a serious question, by the way. Please answer.”
Right, the first thing I learned at Trump U. is that speculating that someone may have used legal methods to reduce his income tax to zero is as bad as accusing someone of child murder.
That was not a “fake” news story and it did not claim what you attributed to it, so your accusation of “lying” is not supported by the evidence that you submitted. The story made no claim that Trump had not paid taxes, but noted only that the loss he claimed, under the laws in place at the time, made it possible for him to have avoided paying taxes for 18 years–which would have placed his 2005 taxes subsequent to a period that began in 1995.
So, you are declaring that we should pretty much dismiss nearly every post you have submitted to this thread?
I think Donald Trump should be held, at most, to lower standards, than New York Times, and at least, to significantly lower standards.
Allow me to go back to the (not yet beaten to death, if you pardon the pun), analogy we discussed earlier (with some slight modifications).
You go to NYC in 2016 and stay there for a week.
During that week, a child is murdered and kidnapped.
NYT publishes an article claiming that you “might” have committed that crime.
Sure, in the moment of weakness, your first reaction might be to promise to reveal documents, proving that you did not have means, opportunity, motive, or inclination to commit the crime. In fact, you have an iron-cast alibi. But then you think to yourself:“Do I really have to react to every loony conspiracy theory, published by New York Times”?? The answer is obvious. After all, you’re just a person, while NYT has dozens, if not hundreds reporters, that it could unleash on you, all striving to outdo each other with “speculation”, as you charitably put it and “might haves” and then you’ll just drown in the torrent of lies NYT publishes daily.
You tell NYT to go pound sand and keep having those private dinners with Clinton headquarters.
2017 rolls along…Documents surface (without you having to lift a finger), positively proving that you definitely have not commited the crime in question…The added irony is that the documents were revealed by yet another loony conspirator theoretist, Rachel Maddow, after she made, in essence, grand announcement, similar to “I have the documents related to Czarcazm and that child murder!”, only for it to backfire in her and NYT face.
Going back to our reality, Trump, of course, turned out to be a huge winner in this whole fiasco, proving, once again, the irresponsibility and fake reporting of New York Times, exposing Bernie Sanders as a hypocrite, and further undermining (if such a thing were possible) Rachel Maddow’s credibility. It’s a win-win, really.
Just as New York Times might have claimed that it was possible for Czarcasm (after he spent a week in NYC), to commit a murder.
They wouldn’t claim that he actually committed murder–no, sirree! They would just say that it was possible for him to do so.
I’m not going to respond to your very-off “analogy” for reasons already stated, so try another tack.
Rachel Maddow proved that it is not possible. Thanks to her, we know Donald Trump paid taxes in 2005. Please try to keep up.
You do know that without a time machine being readily available to those who studied the matter before Rachel Maddow released a small part of the 2005 filing, your argument is pure crap, right?
It’s a perfect analogy–I’m sorry you have no response to it, the discussion was getting interesting.