Kamala is no joke; will vote for her again

You’ve spent so much time shilling for Joey B who seemed to be confused about the Salvation Army guy being the Secret Service!

 

This is an odd argument. So someone that has gamed the tax code and exploited it in ways that many might like shouldn't be expected to have financial transparency when they run for office. But we shouldn't credit those who didn't do such things for financial transparency?

 

Pretty sure you ignored the headline their language was referencing

 

there's a third cache.

 

see, a good response would be:

"That's a misleading headline."

a better response would be:

"That's a misleading headline because . . . x, y, z."

A bad, ad hominem response is:

"you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills."

piling more bad, ad hominem response on previous bad ad hominem response would be:

"you ignored the headline their language was concerning."

 

So is it true or not? You seem to know more? Do you have a link?

 

Nope. The headline wasn't misleading or concerning. Did you read the article? It was specifically stating Biden had accomplished very little on VOTING RIGHTS. Your comment was the misleading comment. So either you are acting in bad faith or you are just trying to be a gaslighting douchebag. If you want to be honest about what the Times was referring to you would have posted the actual article. Anyone with a tiny grasp of reading comprehension would realize the Times was specifically talking about about getting voting rights legislation passed. Nothing else.

 

You could have found the information quicker than it took you type your comment.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...e-biden-has-released-22-years-tax-returns-on/

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ice-president-release-their-2021-tax-returns/

 

the reason I posted the screenshot rather than the text of the article (like I normally do) is because the headline was misleading. If you have to explain the joke it isn't funny

 

by the way, this response is even MORE piling more bad, ad hominem response on previous bad ad hominem responses

 

How does that answer the question whether his son paid him 50k a month in rent, which is being reported?

 

How is the headline misleading when the entire article is about voting rights?

 

well clearly you took exception to it

 

Hunter didn't live there in 2017. He started living there in 2018. Now go take a look at Biden's 2018 taxes where he claimed over 3.5 million in real estate income, etc.

 

No I took exception to you framing it as otherwise. Gaslighting like you always do.

 

and even MORE piling more bad, ad hominem response on previous bad ad hominem responses. Keep up the good work