Obamot wrote:If you had wanted to be "fair", you would have had to do the same with the other prominent candidates ...
If that reassures you I also have problems with the other candidates. But as we were talking about Mélanchon, I said that the argument advanced in his favor was shameless.
Obamot wrote:You could have posted the entire text block that related to his income when you posted the link.
It has already been said that his income miraculously passed through his high-wage filter.
Obamot wrote:Strangely, someone has since changed the text on Wikipedia!
Are you suggesting that I changed it?
Its heritage is still there.
Obamot wrote:If you had been perceptive, you would have seen that he had voluntarily renounced his retirement as a senator
He did not give up: he did not liquidate it.
It’s totally different. He will take it as soon as he is elected or when he abandons political life.
Obamot wrote: and reduced 25% of other resources for the benefit of the community (or something).
??
Obamot wrote:I am not a leftist, but I find it rather odious of such procedures which instrumentalize information supposed to bring credit to a candidate by using it in fact to lower him (am I not a model of fairness myself- even ).
He pretends to be a saint and you find it odious that someone denounces that it is a shark like the others ?
And Janic's calculations (which Christophe perfectly dismantled), are they honest?
I am not deceiving anyone: I state figures that are self-sufficient ... I do not pretend to make calculations to deceive the voter.