Let's look at what you say. You say it is the lack of being able to access Trump's bank accounts that throws suspicion on the estimates of Trump's wealth.
No, that's not what I'm saying AT ALL. I'm saying that it limits Forbes's and other sources' abilities to accurately determine his net worth. There's nothing suspicious about that, in itself, but if you're going to reach conclusions based on his net worth, you need to keep that in mind.
Here's a thought: Maybe don't take the most ludicrous interpretation of what I say, and you won't be outraged by it so often.
You also keep on claiming corruption being a source of Trump's wealth. Where is the evidence?
http://time.com/donald-trumps-suite-of-power/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...lions-to-his-own-properties-fec-documents-say
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...bills-from-russia-probe-sources-idUSKCN1BU2OS
http://www.newsweek.com/government-paying-trump-tower-presidential-protection-638852
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...d-tens-of-thousands-to-trumps-mar-a-lago-club
If it was true the IRS would have busted him years ago.
Not necessarily. And even if they did, it's likely it wouldn't have come out publicly.
Or is it your determination that it's corruption on the part of a business owner to conduct his business in accordance with the laws that politicians create? In that case then every left wing businessman in existence is corrupt too. Your definitions are completely arbitrary in how you define them and who you apply them to.
Trump's connections to organized crime a well-documented.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/06/5623...w-trump-does-business-and-who-he-does-it-with
Obama's and the Clinton's money making is only "loosely" related to their political activities? Are you serious? Who would have ever heard of them if not for their years in politics and their political power?
Probably not. Nothing corrupt about that in itself though.
Bill Clinton gets $500,000 for a 20 minute speech to a bank involved in Uranium One and there's nothing suspicious to you at all. Trump runs his business according to US law and that is suspicious and corrupt. LOL.
There's not actually anything suspicious about it, because the only way you get to a corrupt narrative is by bending the facts quite a bit.
And what does the fact that Forbes and WAPO aren't, at least in your eyes, known for their internet presence have to do with anything? That's a major non sequitor. It's completely irrelevant to the topic. That's why I asked you to explain your typo. I wanted to see just exactly what you meant. And what you meant actually means nothing at all.
Look, it's simple. If you cite vague "online sources", I assume you're not talking about a reputable news outlet. That's all. You clarified what you were talking about, and I recognized the clarification. It happens when you make vague references, people don't know what you're talking about.
As to party politics, well, that's mainly what Republicans play too. They are just as bad as the Democrats. I'm sick of party politics. They are killing our nation and our form of government.
Our "form of government" has included party politics for two centuries. That's not new.
We were told this at the beginning of this nation.
By Washington. And, while he had a point, he was largely mistaken, and his cabinet fed the founding of the first two-party system after his time in office. The form of government that the Constitution lays out actually mandates not only political parties, but a two-party system. It just wasn't all that clear at the time.
And hardly anyone has listened yet even though the evidence is right out in the open and is accumulating every day. And because I point out the behavior of your side of the political sickness I'm willfully blind. LOL. No, it's you that's willfully blind. I'm seeing it on all sides. I'm the one who has my eyes open to what is going on.
You think I don't see party politics among the Democrats? Why do you think that?
Trump isn't playing the party politics game and that is why the established politicians in both parties oppose him. That's why the mockingbird media opposes him and slanders him at every turn. He's the first rogue presidential officeholder we've had in way more than a century. And I like him because of it.
I can understand that. But his rogue attributes are more reputation and mouth than they are reality. Look who he brought on to do it. Roger Stone, involved deeply in the dirtiest of Republican campaigns since Nixon, Paul Manafort, similar to Stone but with international corruption on his resume, Steve Bannon, now former beneficiary of Mercer largess, Mike Pence, a long-serving Republican politician, half of Goldman Sachs, the sister of the Blackwater founder. To say nothing of his toadies in Congress in the GOP. Drain the swamp? Trump is the swamp in concentrated form. If you took the worst, most racist, most hawkish parts of the George W. Bush administration, and stirred in a contingency of the industries that almost crashed the world economy in 2007-2008, it would look a lot like the Trump administration.
You want to learn something about "the Swamp", look up Black, Manafort, and Stone. And watch the video of Roger Stone chanting "lock her up" and "drain the swamp" with no apparent sense of irony.
He isn't being controlled by his minders.
Or anything.
I say, Yippee, to that. You see that as terrible. You see anything outside the status quo as something terrible. You ought to be rejoicing that we have someone in office who is rogue and cannot be subverted by the corruption in D.C and the mockingbird media.
Yeah, wonderful. He's bucking the trend to bring back the KKK and screw the poor. What a maverick!
BTW, did you know that David Cameron says Obama is a complete narcissist? It's true. Do a search for it.
I profoundly do not care. Why do you? I thought you were anti-establishment.
