usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Understand. TY.You engaged the member more politely and gave more opportunity for substantive response than a lot would have.You've already done more than most.Sadly, this is about as clear as it's going to get. I've been down that road.
Yes, that member's unwillingness to make unambiguous remarks is plain to me as well.
What is there to say? I tried, as you can see, to encourage him to be clear. He responded to my request by merely removing part of his earlier comment, so I replied to what he said only to see him respond, in essence, that Trump's advocacy for lower tax rates is the conflict of interest. For as vehemently as I detest Trump and his being President, even I can't and won't go that far. More to the point here, however, the heart of his response is still unclear to me; I have no idea what it means.
I have no idea what that means, but I don't care to work that hard to make sense of one sentence that is complemented by nothing other than an even more ambiguously phrased question, one that he reiterated and that I explained why I wouldn't answer it. What is one to do? Taxation discussions between strangers aren't well suited to soundbite-style discussions.Does our Commander in Chief believe we should lower taxes during any alleged need for the exigencies, he alleges to believe are necessary and proper and executed via executive order, for any alleged exigency of "national security" and the necessity and propriety of national security Tax Rates, now?
Excuse me?