Again, ask the silicon valley left backing Hillary to pay their share then
Double Irish Deception: How Google—Apple—Facebook Avoid Paying Taxes
https://visualeconomics.creditloan....how-google-apple-facebook-avoid-paying-taxes/
The hypocrisy is as always..expected
The New York Times Paid No Taxes in 2014
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/02/new-york-times-paid-no-taxes-2014/
New York Times Publishes Donald Trump's Tax Records | True News
Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMiRZ3L_hMU
And no, I'm not impressed by people paying taxes on bribes.
And to bring up the real question, if the left is always bleeting about taxes...
Why does Big Business back the Left?
Freedom Alternative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wj8SDS75RU
I have not followed the links you provided, not because I simply discredit them but because most of your rebuttals are answerable without references.
1) I have nothing nice to say about any silicon valley corporation that evades taxation. I welcome journalists exposing their tax evasion game. We are in agreement.
2) It is not a secret that print newspapers have lost their once strong readership due to the emergence of Internet-based media. Many newspapers and magazines went out of business. If you follow the U.S. politics you probably read NYT in one way or another, and have first-hand knowledge of how they went through trials-and-errors to balance between profit and readership management. It is entirely understandable that newspapers were unable to produce profits at one point during/before their transition to the Internet. But here, again, I would welcome any revelation of systemic tax abuse by any major news corporation. Another factor to keep in mind is that is NYT's owners are not running to be president, and there is a wall between business mangement and editorial writers (however infirm that wall may be), and finally the NYT is "the Press" with guaranteed right (and obligation) to speak out for and against whatever issue they see fit. Thus that NYT had an unclean hand, even if it does, would have no bearings on Trump's merit on taxes.
3) You are presumably insinuating Clinton's speech fees as bribes? I was not impressed by those, either, but at least she did not hide it. Her earnings and tax payments throughout her public life are transparent as an open book.
4) You are repeating the points you made in 1). I do not know why some big businesses support leftist causes (do you know why?), but let me remind you that there are a lot more big businesses on the right. See Chamber of Commerce. See also the Koch's. Leftist businesses are downright tiny in comparison to them. Their reason for the supporting the GOP is rather easy to understand, but I do not think they want to advertise it this year. Their relative public silence is telling.
Ultimately, the Donald Duck can release his returns since then and make all this go away. Or not. If it is the latter I see no reason why anyone should give him a benefit of doubt at this point. Would you trust him with your retirement savings?
P.S. Keep an eye on those who defend the Duck because they think he "merely took advantage of " what the law offered. I think it is a matter of time before the Duck's illegal - criminal - dealings are exposed. I want to see their faces when that happens.