Bingo. You even see the truth unconciously, but your mental filters keep you from actually recognizing what you're saying. Since his wealth would have declined anyway he isn't the one manipulating events to stop it.
It doesn't actually mean that, and you're deliberately missing the point. It's akin to saying "see officer, I couldn't have robbed that bank, here's my bank statement." Even if he lost money overall, that doesn't mean he isn't enriching himself off of his office. According to Forbes, the biggest drop was due to his real estate holdings losing value, and at $600 million, it's likely to overwhelm any unearned gains from graft. Also, Forbes wouldn't even have had access to things like his bank accounts, which could tell a very different story.
He's not playing the politics for wealth game both Obama and the Clinton's have played. Their net worth was mainly accumulated due to their political activities. They cashed in big time.
Obama's wealth largely comes from his work as a writer. He's done well, and yes he gets paid for it. And both he and Clinton pull huge speaking fees, because people want to know what they have to say. You could loosely say that's connected to their political activities, but it's not directly the result of their performance of official duties, and there's nothing scandalous about it apart from your resentment.
And your image of Trump as some above-all-that-noise saint, uninterested in money is ludicrous. This is a man who ran a fake university to bilk poor people.
What was that first sentence? You've got a major typo in it so that it doesn't make sense. It looks to me like you're saying Forbes and WAPO don't have sites on the internet.
"I'd". It's missing the word "I'd". And no, I'm clearly not saying they don't have websites. But that's not what they're known for.
I could care less if Trump releases his tax returns.
Of course. You consider him exempt from scrutiny, even the basic level of it that all others have subjected themselves to in recent decades.
He has been in the public eye for decades so everyone has a pretty good idea of who he is and that he is wealthy.
Could you miss the point any more deliberately? None of that is the relevant question. We want to know where he got his money. His tax returns would give a huge indication of that.
Does his wealth disqualify him from office?
No. But his corruption does.
If so you've going to have a really hard time supporting Oprah. You Democrats are going to have to find someone poor to run for office, if you're going to be consistent anyway. But I long ago gave up on that hope.
I won't be supporting Oprah regardless, unless she wins the primary, but I have no problem supporting a rich candidate, as long as they come by their wealth honestly.
All I've ever seen from Democrats is party poltics.
That's because that's all you're looking for. Your deliberate blindness not my problem.
