- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,710
- Reaction score
- 35,488
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
There are legitimate ways that could have happened, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don’t know which if any of those legitimate reasons apply in Mr. Romney’s case — because he has refused to release any details about his finances. This refusal to come clean suggests that he and his advisers believe that voters would be less likely to support him if they knew the truth about his investments.
And that is precisely why voters have a right to know that truth. Elections are, after all, in part about the perceived character of the candidates — and what a man does with his money is surely a major clue to his character.
Jesus Christ. This entire logic line may as well come word for word out of the play book of the Birther's and the people who ignorantly drone on about his school records and such.
Step 1. Make accusation
Step 2. Demand things you have no real right to have
Step 3. If demands aren't met, insinuate and/or directly suggest something nefarious occuring
Step 4. Demand things again, suggest people have a "right" to the persons information
Step 5. If demands aren't met again, continue to claim victory for your hypothesis as if it's fact.
I've got no issue with the general notion of feeling like you want to see Romney's records. However it's the method it's largely being done, the method in which actions are occuring after the demands are made, the hypocritical nature of many of those making the demands, and the level of expectation taken as some kind of fact that I have an issue with.
Last edited: