Rachel Maddow tweets. BREAKING We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Everyone missed the point . This was all a ruse to boost MSNBC's failing ratings . And y'all damn well fell for it...

Ketsuko and I have been watching this thread, not MSNBC. Much more entertaining.

I kind of feel sorry for Maddow after tonight.

originally posted by: Grambler
Oh wow, Tucker just drops the mic!!!

Says these returns from 2005 show that Trump paid over 10% more in taxes in 2005 than Bernie Sanders paid in 2014!


Hahahaha! You mean mister "Everyone needs to pay their fare share!" paid less of a percentage than Trump!

Wow, this story just keeps getting better.

NICE!

That is going to make for some good humor in the next couple of days!

Thanks Rachael!


Obama paid 19% in 2014
Bernie Sanders paid 13% in 2014

Trump paid 25% in 2005

If this was their attempt at getting more ratings. They probably succeeded for today but I wouldn't be surprised to continue to drop to record lows after this..

a reply to: jhn7537

So this is a twofer explosion in these A-Holes Faces. One it shows he paid his taxes, and two they illegally obtained... then released his taxes. Which is a multi-felony suit against whichever media outlet(s) release his information. #burntsnowflake, #libtardfail

originally posted by: Grambler
Oh wow, Tucker just drops the mic!!!

Says these returns from 2005 show that Trump paid over 10% more in taxes in 2005 than Bernie Sanders paid in 2014!


Hahahaha! You mean mister "Everyone needs to pay their fare share!" paid less of a percentage than Trump!

Wow, this story just keeps getting better.

Hahahahahahahahaha. This is a very bad night for anti-Trumpers.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert
A bit disappointed in Maddow so far.

She seems to have overblown this issue without having more supporting documents to cast doubt on Trump's dealings.

I completely agree that Trump potentially has some conflicts of interest that need to be investigated and we should all be in favor of transparency in such an instance.

That holds true, whether it's Trump, Obama, Clinton...etc.

OMG! After reading about four pages of how stupid this whole setup was, then hitting your "speed bump" of a post trying to make it sound like it wasn't the most ridiculous thing from MSNBC in a while is...well...typical. You will do anything to make it look like the left has even an ounce of credibility left. Which it doesn't.

But your denial, your unrelenting support for the idiotic is truly the punchline of this thread.

What did I deny?

I even said Maddow is coming up short.

You are being nice. This is akin to 2 false starts in the 100m track and field Olympic final, with the world watching.

Again, should we not want to know what financial ties our leaders have?

Sure why not.

But if someone like just owns a hotel in Belarus and 3 or so in Russia it's hardly a cause for concern. Hotel chains open up all over the place. It's a legitimate business after all.

Now if someone runs an international "charity" organisation, which is basically a front for laundering money and bribery, now that's a cause for concern. Especially if that money is coming from the likes of the tyrannical Saud dynasty.

a reply to: UKTruth

the question should be.

"What financial ties are you looking for that would fit your agenda"

Is it possible for the left to spin paying too much taxes in a bad light?

a reply to: UKTruth

a reply to: UKTruth

If it was important he would not have been elected.

He was elected by a bunch of people swooned by chants of "build the wall" and how hot his wife is. I don't think his potential financial conflicts were a top priority.

What you are failing to admit is that the conflict of interests remains to be an issue for those that think beyond propaganda chants and the looks of his lady.

She is actually tearing up like she is going to cry when the next yahoo is telling her how amazing she is. OMG, the woman is insane!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert
A bit disappointed in Maddow so far.

She seems to have overblown this issue without having more supporting documents to cast doubt on Trump's dealings.

I completely agree that Trump potentially has some conflicts of interest that need to be investigated and we should all be in favor of transparency in such an instance.

That holds true, whether it's Trump, Obama, Clinton...etc.

OMG! After reading about four pages of how stupid this whole setup was, then hitting your "speed bump" of a post trying to make it sound like it wasn't the most ridiculous thing from MSNBC in a while is...well...typical. You will do anything to make it look like the left has even an ounce of credibility left. Which it doesn't.

But your denial, your unrelenting support for the idiotic is truly the punchline of this thread.

What did I deny?

I even said Maddow is coming up short.

"Coming up short" is far from the truth. But the truth typically eludes you. How about "Falling on her prejudiced face and looking like a jackass with a one-sided agenda".

Ok. She fell on her face. I do not disagree.

But I do agree that we should very well know what financial ties he may have that could compromise his decisions.

Well...I take it back and give you credit for saying that. Sorry for hammering you so, but after seeing everyone else, left and right calling her (basically) a moron for first not checking the facts, and second screaming theories to make up for it...then you saying "maybe", etc. just cracked me up.

Peace.

I can't believe what I just saw.
She just went full window licker.

I think she is legitimately going to be fired. This is a disgrace even by MSNBC's low, low standards. If not her then somebody behind the scenes.

a reply to: Grambler

But where was that attitude under Obama

Deflection.

a reply to: Ohanka

"Now if someone runs an international "charity" organisation, which is basically a front for laundering money and bribery, now that's a cause for concern. Especially if that money is coming from the likes of the tyrannical Saud dynast"

Somebody should look into that...

originally posted by: Grambler
Oh wow, Tucker just drops the mic!!!

Says these returns from 2005 show that Trump paid over 10% more in taxes in 2005 than Bernie Sanders paid in 2014!


Hahahaha! You mean mister "Everyone needs to pay their fare share!" paid less of a percentage than Trump!

Wow, this story just keeps getting better.

Haha! That made my day.

That's a very narrow view you have of his voters..

What if their isn't conflict of interest? You going to hope for it like this crazy woman right now on the TV?

a reply to: introvert

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert
A bit disappointed in Maddow so far.

She seems to have overblown this issue without having more supporting documents to cast doubt on Trump's dealings.

I completely agree that Trump potentially has some conflicts of interest that need to be investigated and we should all be in favor of transparency in such an instance.

That holds true, whether it's Trump, Obama, Clinton...etc.

OMG! After reading about four pages of how stupid this whole setup was, then hitting your "speed bump" of a post trying to make it sound like it wasn't the most ridiculous thing from MSNBC in a while is...well...typical. You will do anything to make it look like the left has even an ounce of credibility left. Which it doesn't.

But your denial, your unrelenting support for the idiotic is truly the punchline of this thread.

What did I deny?

I even said Maddow is coming up short.

You are being nice. This is akin to 2 false starts in the 100m track and field Olympic final, with the world watching.

Again, should we not want to know what financial ties our leaders have?

As long as they are legal, which can be checked with the IRS...it probably isn't anyone's business.

We will not know if he actions are president are completely constitutional if we do not know whom he may be obligated.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

But where was that attitude under Obama

Deflection.

Reflection.