Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

There's a reason tax returns are released normally. It ensures there is no ulterior motives for tax legislation and discloses any issues a candidate may have in terms of debt which might make them susceptible to blackmail etc.

All members of the intelligence agencies do it and all presidents do it.

So, in general, it is a very good idea.

Two further points
1) when Cohen testified that Trump's dealings when it comes to his finances are dodgy at best, the public have a right to know what they may be electing in 2020.
2) releasing government emails? I think i know what you are getting at (but her emails). That being so, Ivanka and others would be on the hook. I'd be 100% okay with that. Would you?

I'd be ok with everything. I want to see his tax returns just like everyone else.

I just don't support majorities in state senates passing legislation that forces the other party's nominee do something lest millions of people lose their vote.


How would you have felt about a Red state stating that no candidate under FBI investigation is allowed on the ballot? I think that's pretty fair. Why should a country risk voting for a criminal?

But I wouldn't have supported that because it's an affront to democracy, and you'd agree I'm sure.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Gentle reminder of the charter:

NEVER attack a poster. Attack the content of their post. (You can tell someone that their opinion is based on incomplete or incorrect information, but do not call them an idiot.)

And also of this:

nesf wrote: »

What's acceptable: The top 3 levels.
What's not acceptable/discouraged: The bottom 4 levels.


The bottom two levels can get people banned, please don't resort to these.


Further reading:
Further explanation of the above
A list of fallacious arguments and how to spot them


Thanks go to Darragh one of our Community Managers for finding these.

Debate the topic at hand please rather than taking potshots of other posters. If your post involves stuff like "it's typical of you" or "people like you", it doesn't belong here.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Illinois Senate passes legislation demanding tax information to qualify for state’s 2020 presidential ballot

The Democrats seem to be planning on disenfranchising an entire state's Republicans by demanding tax records.

Of course I will be admonished by the usuals for pointing out what would have happened if a red state had passed legislation requiring all government emails from candidates from the past five years be presented. It would been insane for a state to target a candidate from the other party over something not illegal, yet here we are. You guys will absolutely love it and of course, you will call it a win for democracy etc.

The vast majority of Republican candidates have had no issue turning over tax returns before? It is not targeting one side. Trump's main reason was the audit which should be over by 2020 anyway so it isn't like it specifically hurts Trump (unless one believes Trump was lying to try and hide something in which case we should absolutely look at his tax returns).

The email thing would be hilarious but Republicans would never do it as they would also have to turn over their own emails as part of this (and let's not forget that Trump would also hate it, likely far more than a Democrat would). Showing tax returns has been a tradition for decades.

As for not illegal, well maybe it should be illegal yo not turn over tax returns before running for a major office. That seems to be what is discussed.

Fine, it's legitimate, it's not about Trump, and it's totally democratic.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be ok with everything. I want to see his tax returns just like everyone else.

I just don't support majorities in state senates passing legislation that forces the other party's nominee do something lest millions of people lose their vote.


How would you have felt about a Red state stating that no candidate under FBI investigation is allowed on the ballot? I think that's pretty fair. Why should a country risk voting for a criminal?

But I wouldn't have supported that because it's an affront to democracy, and you'd agree I'm sure.

But once it is fair to all I really don't see the issue here. you seem to be suggesting that there should be no rules lest it compromises one or other candidates and thus robs people of the chance to vote for that candidate.

No proper political party should be selecting a person that cannot vouch for their tax returns, where there money comes from or to whom they are indebted to.

Being under investigation shouldn't rule anyone out, but maybe having been convicted of certain crimes should (it might possibly already).

Arnold Schwarzenegger was excluded from running for POTUS on the basis of where he was born, did that not disenfranchise millions of Californians? Yes it did, but those are the rules and the rules are the same for everyone and seem reasonable to me. (you can argue either way on it of course but I understand the logic at least).

When you claim it is aimed at Trump, I would say that they have learned a lesson from Trump. Prior to Trump, candidates released their tax returns, and you may recall Trump promised that he would (so it is clear he doesn't disagree with the fundamental issue). The country then saw that it had little it could do when faced with a candidate and POTUS that simply lied and left voters with little real choice.

So they seemingly have legislated to try to stop such blatant lies in the future. That it happens to impact directly on Trump says more about Trump then the legislation. It also impacts directly on each and every democrat that wants to run. Biden, Harris, Sanders et al will each have to produce tax returns. How is that treating any voter or candidate any different than any other?

And again, surely you can see the value and reasoning behind insuring that candidates are transparent when it comes to finances?

Quin_Dub

Just as an aside , Whilst the Democrats looking for Trumps Tax returns are absolutely a political matter , the GOP have no moral high ground here.

They've used exactly the same law that the Dems are now using to publically release the tax returns of people and organisations they didn't like..

They Say It’s Bad Now But Republicans Disclosed Private Tax Returns In 2014

Back in 2013, Republicans thought the Internal Revenue Service under President Barack Obama was mistreating conservative groups that wanted to be recognized as tax-exempt nonprofits. So they asked the IRS to hand over tax information for conservative groups such as Crossroads GPS as well as a few liberal groups such as Priorities USA.

Congress has the power to ask for copies of anyone’s tax return thanks to a 1924 law enacted as a check on corruption in the executive branch.

In 2014, after getting the documents on the groups they requested, plus tax info relating to several dozen other organizations, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee made it all public. They believed it showed that an IRS official named Lois Lerner had unfairly plotted to deny tax-exempt status to Crossroads GPS and other conservative groups. The committee included the documents as an attachment to a letter asking the Justice Department to prosecute Lerner. During a closed-door hearing, the committee’s Republicans voted to make the letter public.

The Justice Department declined to prosecute Lerner, and it ultimately turned out that the IRS had improperly picked on both conservative and liberal organizations.

Midlife

Deleted User wrote: »

Illinois Senate passes legislation demanding tax information to qualify for state’s 2020 presidential ballot

The Democrats seem to be planning on disenfranchising an entire state's Republicans by demanding tax records.

Of course I will be admonished by the usuals for pointing out what would have happened if a red state had passed legislation requiring all government emails from candidates from the past five years be presented. It would been insane for a state to target a candidate from the other party over something not illegal, yet here we are. You guys will absolutely love it and of course, you will call it a win for democracy etc.

It's more a win for transparency.

Hillary wasn't transparent regarding the mails and ultimatley it cost her the election.

Besides illinois republicians couldn't be more disenfranchised when it comes to persideential elections anyway. My opinion carries the same weight as theirs.

derb12

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Here we go! It's finally Mueller Time!

This is the week when those pieces of the Mueller team report that have not been blacked out, are finally released.
...

So, put on the laser focus goggles and concentrate on the collusion and obstruction questions that Mueller was asked to investigate, and just ignore the noise.

I hope you’re right but I just fear that such large swathes are going to be blacked out (though I hear it’ll be colour coded redacting) that there won’t be much news to report.
And of course that the continued absence of a bombshell revelation will perpetuate the righteous vindication mentality of trump supporters.
It could be another disheartening week.

aloyisious

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

Except Trump wasn't the choice of party hacks, the GOP favorites for 2016 were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker in that order, with Kasich as a long shot. Trump at first was an unwelcome addition to the field, and regarded with suspicion as he was a registered Democrat from 2001 to 2009, and even himself said he only switched parties when he first thought about running for president and realized Democrats would never select him (2012). In reality it demonstrates how weak the GOP field were in 2016, as he demolished the other 16 candidates one by one. But it was Republican voters who selected him in the primaries.

I'm hoping (probably without much luck) that with Pelosi recognizing that impeachment is a no-hoper and getting the important Dems (mostly) to back away from pushing for it that the senior people on the opposite Rep side recognize and act on the fact that Don is and was never intent on draining the swamp, just peopling it with his own kind, and ditch him for one of their own. Lead from the front and pull the Rep voters with them. I'm hoping that the average Rep voter will see Trump and his cronies for what they are, the exact same type of creature that he told the voter he was going to Washington to get rid of and refuse to vote for him.

Pelosi seems to have taken the first step (handing the job of getting rid of Trump to the voter and the prosecutors and not the house) giving the Rep party seniors the chance to take the 2nd step and back away from the Trump plan of having both parties at each others throats. If the Reps follow her lead and meet her half way, peace may break out in the US. There can still be differences, should be so in any house of parleyment, between both sides for them to talk through and quit the warfare that Trump and his present backroom cronies want for their aims to be put into law.

Your post points out that Don is neither Rep nor Dem, just a chancer with his new cronies riding on his back intent of changing the US into something that will benefit neither party nor voter. They are just promoting their own pet projects through Trump. They are dependent on him to be their base for laws that suit them, now's the time and chance to drain the swamp they've restocked. The Dems have shown that they are capable (as needed) to step past the Clinton era. It's now time for the Reps to do the same and pick a new candidate to replace Trump. Feck it, they MUST have some-one within the Rep party who'll be better than Trump on any day.

batgoat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fine, it's legitimate, it's not about Trump, and it's totally democratic.

I actually think it's reasonable for the public to be aware of if their president is open to being leveraged as a result of debts or fiscal status. The public should be able to vet their president to some degree and traditionally taxes etc do allow for that. Generally there's nothing of note in the returns which does not seem to be the case in Trump's scenario.

So entirely democratic and if they negatively impact a candidate that's more likely to be the fault of the candidate than anything else.

Christy42

batgoat wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fine, it's legitimate, it's not about Trump, and it's totally democratic.

I actually think it's reasonable for the public to be aware of if their president is open to being leveraged as a result of debts or fiscal status. The public should be able to vet their president to some degree and traditionally taxes etc do allow for that. Generally there's nothing of note in the returns which does not seem to be the case in Trump's scenario.

So entirely democratic and if they negatively impact a candidate that's more likely to be the fault of the candidate than anything else.

Indeed. And to reenfranchise voters as it were Trump could just release his tax returns.

He has made promises to do so and mentioned they would have been released except for the audit. Therefore it is clear that, unless you wish to call Trump a liar who is hiding something, they would be released for 2020 anyway and he will be on the ballot.

Didn't Rhodes Island already do something similar in recent months? Wonder if more will follow suit.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Fine, it's legitimate, it's not about Trump, and it's totally democratic.

Glad to see the turn around


This means you believe that transparency for all candidates, as it has been in the past is a good thing to have.


Excellent. I think most everyone would agree.

aloyisious

Back again. I closed down thinking I was done with Don for the day, intent on coming back this evening to check the thread but ran across a facebook post with a lift from a USA Today interview with Don in 2016 in which he suggested that maybe the IRS was auditing him because he's such a strong Chrisitian. The facebook post was from some 17 hours ago some-one identifying as Matthew 1.7. The biblical quote from Matthew 1.7 is an advisory not to make a judgement in case it rebounds on you.

Eric Cartman

Christy42 wrote: »

The vast majority of Republican candidates have had no issue turning over tax returns before? It is not targeting one side. Trump's main reason was the audit which should be over by 2020 anyway so it isn't like it specifically hurts Trump (unless one believes Trump was lying to try and hide something in which case we should absolutely look at his tax returns).

The email thing would be hilarious but Republicans would never do it as they would also have to turn over their own emails as part of this (and let's not forget that Trump would also hate it, likely far more than a Democrat would). Showing tax returns has been a tradition for decades.

As for not illegal, well maybe it should be illegal yo not turn over tax returns before running for a major office. That seems to be what is discussed.

i think the tax returns thing is a question a lot of dems would want to not put in their 'squeeze him' book. I would imagine since turning things over to trust and becoming president that he's had to clean up a lot, gets down to a tv debate and somebody thinks theyre smart and asks for the returns, he'll submit 2017, 18 and 19 and go 'heres my super clean tax returns that show im an amazing guy' and own the news cycle. Another bullet point of 'and he's completely tax clean too'
Watch this space but he's had years now to come out smelling of roses on this issue , making it a big deal would land a load more egg on democratic faces.

kilns

He has just come out with a classic telling Boeing how to run their business and deal with the 737 Max. This coming from a guy who bankrupted an airline due to safety issues. You cant make it up

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Watch this space but he's had years now to come out smelling of roses on this issue , making it a big deal would land a load more egg on democratic faces.

If by that you mean he answers a very legitimate question which shouldn't even have to be asked and for that answer to prove that in relation to his taxes he is, despite the perception being to the contrary, a law abiding citizen... then yes - it will be egg on their faces.

Midlife

Eric Cartman wrote: »

i think the tax returns thing is a question a lot of dems would want to not put in their 'squeeze him' book. I would imagine since turning things over to trust and becoming president that he's had to clean up a lot, gets down to a tv debate and somebody thinks theyre smart and asks for the returns, he'll submit 2017, 18 and 19 and go 'heres my super clean tax returns that show im an amazing guy' and own the news cycle. Another bullet point of 'and he's completely tax clean too'
Watch this space but he's had years now to come out smelling of roses on this issue , making it a big deal would land a load more egg on democratic faces.

I'm assuming there's a reason he hasn't released them but agree that you probably won't get much from his personal tax returns.

It's so polarised that it probably wouldn't make a difference anyway.

IMO the democratic strategy should be pick the right candidate and then hammer Trump on not being true to American core values. 'Does this person represent the best of our country' is the question democrats need to put to the few swing voters remaining.

However if they just tackle the symptoms rather than the disease, then it won't make a difference long term.

kilns

They are playing a dangerous game with these tax returns, what if Trump is playing a bluf and there is nothing in them, thats another thing for the election campaign he can use to say they are totally against him

Dems should get the right person to take him on that will win. Biden + AN other.

Gbear

Midlife wrote: »

Read an interesting point on this the other day.

There are something like 20 vacancies at the top of homeland security. Yes, that's the department who are currently responding to what Trump is trying desparately to label a crisis.

Anyway, filling one of them means conformation by the Senate and it becomes more or less a political appointee answerable to the Senate.

Not filling them leaves Trump slotting in temporary appointees answerable only to him and with no other form of oversight really.

Trump much prefers it this way as he gets to run the braches of government like his traditional fifedom.

Obviously it's dictatorial in it's nature and wil terrify a lot of people because oversight is usually there for a reason.

But this way, Trump has a much easier time. His temporary appointees do exactly as he says or he fires them and puts someone else in who will.

Just another one of the holes in legislation that will need to be filled in after Trump. If the US manage to dig their way out of this hole, bin Trump and reinstitute functional democratic government again, they will have a golden opportunity to fix the range of inherent weaknesses in the rule of law, oversight and democratic institutional integrity that have been shown to be woefully lacking in the face of brazen totalitarianism.



The idea that the government shouldn't perform basic oversight on the basis that Trump might not be corrupt is utterly insane.

As was pointed out, the only reason this is a thing is because he, unlike everyone else, including Nixon, has withheld his tax returns.

The House Oversight Committee have not only subpoenaed his tax returns but those of a series of his companies.

Anyone taken in by the idea that this basic transparency and oversight that was de rigeur for all other candidates, of their own volition, amounts to "harassment" is either incredibly stupid or lying.

duploelabs

Gbear wrote: »

Just another one of the holes in legislation that will need to be filled in after Trump. If the US manage to dig their way out of this hole, bin Trump and reinstitute functional democratic government again, they will have a golden opportunity to fix the range of inherent weaknesses in the rule of law, oversight and democratic institutional integrity that have been shown to be woefully lacking in the face of brazen totalitarianism.



The idea that the government shouldn't perform basic oversight on the basis that Trump might not be corrupt is utterly insane.

As was pointed out, the only reason this is a thing is because he, unlike everyone else, including Nixon, has withheld his tax returns.

The House Oversight Committee have not only subpoenaed his tax returns but those of a series of his companies.

Anyone taken in by the idea that this basic transparency and oversight that was de rigeur for all other candidates, of their own volition, amounts to "harassment" is either incredibly stupid or lying.

On the oversight committees, I think it's imperative that they are made Bi-partisan i.e made up of equal numbers of both parties.
Just given what happened with the senate intelligence/Devon Nunes fiasco who, Despite the reports by the intelligence agencies, didn't find any Russian interference in the 2016 election and captain Blackadder definitely did not eat this delicious plump breasted pigeon

Leroy42

Doesn't really matter, someone has to be chairman and thus they get to direct the investigation/committee.

What needs to change is that voters start demanding that representatives start doing what is best for the country, rather than best them them, the party of the POTUS. Of course I am not naive enough to think that spin, running defence etc doesn't happen everywhere, but the Nunes example is one of the most blatant that I can remember. He was clearly working off a desired conclusion and did everything to try to reach that or divert attention from anything that wasn't that. Apparently with little regard to getting to the actual truth are looking to provide better defences against possible Russian interference in the future.

Midlife

Gbear wrote: »

Just another one of the holes in legislation that will need to be filled in after Trump. If the US manage to dig their way out of this hole, bin Trump and reinstitute functional democratic government again, they will have a golden opportunity to fix the range of inherent weaknesses in the rule of law, oversight and democratic institutional integrity that have been shown to be woefully lacking in the face of brazen totalitarianism.



The idea that the government shouldn't perform basic oversight on the basis that Trump might not be corrupt is utterly insane.

As was pointed out, the only reason this is a thing is because he, unlike everyone else, including Nixon, has withheld his tax returns.

The House Oversight Committee have not only subpoenaed his tax returns but those of a series of his companies.

Anyone taken in by the idea that this basic transparency and oversight that was de rigeur for all other candidates, of their own volition, amounts to "harassment" is either incredibly stupid or lying.

In fairness, while I appreciate your point I think there's a lot to admire about the way the system is functioning under Trump.

If he doesn't get re-elected then judges and a tax break are all that can't be undone in the new president's first week in charge.

I think his rhetoric and attitude are extremly damaging long term but that's not legislation. He'lll achieve nothing in terms of legslative accomplishments that Mitch McConnell wouldn't have with any republician president. in fact probably far less than any other republician who would have been elected.

If he does get reelected, he'll probably still lose the senate and then nothing lasting will be added in the final four years of his term.

Penn

Redacted Mueller report likely to be released to both Congress and the public on Thursday.

I'm guessing a lot of the pages will just be pure black, but at the very least we're likely to get some greater idea of whether Barr was shielding Trump with his own summary or not, which could possibly give rise to subpoenas for Mueller's team to testify before House Committees.

DreamsBurnDown

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm hoping (probably without much luck) that with Pelosi recognizing that impeachment is a no-hoper and getting the important Dems (mostly) to back away from pushing for it that the senior people on the opposite Rep side recognize and act on the fact that Don is and was never intent on draining the swamp, just peopling it with his own kind, and ditch him for one of their own. Lead from the front and pull the Rep voters with them. I'm hoping that the average Rep voter will see Trump and his cronies for what they are, the exact same type of creature that he told the voter he was going to Washington to get rid of and refuse to vote for him.

Sadly that's in the realm of wishful thinking, as unless something major changes Trump will be the Republican candidate in 2020. His approval rating among Republicans is 90%, same as it was the day he was inaugurated. In fact his approval ratings overall haven't changed much, 90% among Republicans, and roughly 40% among Independents and 10% among Democrats. That suggests if the election were held today, he would get roughly the same number of votes as 2016. So the task for Democrats is to come up with a likable candidate that will unite the party around a platform that appeals to Democrats and Independents alike, and get the vote out across all demographics unlike in 2016.

This is why I keep saying relentlessly attacking Trump and his supporters won't work, as after almost 2.5 years of bombardment it hasn't moved Trump's approval rating in the slightest. The country is simply too polarized, and it will take a unifying candidate, someone who appeals to Independents (40% of the electorate) to change that. Hopefully that person will emerge from the Democratic field.

I realize it's hard for people outside the US to understand how the hell Trump can maintain his level of popularity among Republicans, but the simple reality is he has focused on what he promised and in many cases delivered on the variety of issues that matter to the various segments of Republicans (fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Tea Party, Evangelicals, etc.). Whether it's being tough on illegal immigration, lowering taxes, wiping out ISIS, trade deals, etc., these are all issues that are important to Republican voters and the reason he remains popular with them. In all honesty talking to them about Russia and Trump's personal failings and rhetoric is about as relevant as talking to them about the recent images of a black hole 55 million light years away, most of them don't give a toss.

The other mistake being made is the rhetoric about white people being the problem in America. 72% of the electorate are white (including Hispanics who identify as white) and are more likely to vote than any other demographic. The great majority of these people obviously do not see themselves as the problem in America (who does?), so telling them they are isn't really a winning strategy. In short the Democratic candidate needs to be a unifier, not a divider. Simply put if you can't appeal to a wide spectrum of white voters, you haven't a hope of winning.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Illinois Senate passes legislation demanding tax information to qualify for state’s 2020 presidential ballot

The Democrats seem to be planning on disenfranchising an entire state's Republicans by demanding tax records.

Of course I will be admonished by the usuals for pointing out what would have happened if a red state had passed legislation requiring all government emails from candidates from the past five years be presented. It would been insane for a state to target a candidate from the other party over something not illegal, yet here we are. You guys will absolutely love it and of course, you will call it a win for democracy etc.

The attachment was not available to me (and presumably anyone else in Ireland) so I could not try and figure this out for myself. Can anyone - preferably AbG - explain to me how either party demanding tax returns from prospective candidates for the presidency disenfranchises anyone? Maybe there is a basis for this that I am just not seeing, but I cannot understand the argument.

Christy42

DreamsBurnDown wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm hoping (probably without much luck) that with Pelosi recognizing that impeachment is a no-hoper and getting the important Dems (mostly) to back away from pushing for it that the senior people on the opposite Rep side recognize and act on the fact that Don is and was never intent on draining the swamp, just peopling it with his own kind, and ditch him for one of their own. Lead from the front and pull the Rep voters with them. I'm hoping that the average Rep voter will see Trump and his cronies for what they are, the exact same type of creature that he told the voter he was going to Washington to get rid of and refuse to vote for him.

Sadly that's in the realm of wishful thinking, as unless something major changes Trump will be the Republican candidate in 2020. His approval rating among Republicans is 90%, same as it was the day he was inaugurated. In fact his approval ratings overall haven't changed much, 90% among Republicans, and roughly 40% among Independents and 10% among Democrats. That suggests if the election were held today, he would get roughly the same number of votes as 2016. So the task for Democrats is to come up with a likable candidate that will unite the party around a platform that appeals to Democrats and Independents alike, and get the vote out across all demographics unlike in 2016.

This is why I keep saying relentlessly attacking Trump and his supporters won't work, as after almost 2.5 years of bombardment it hasn't moved Trump's approval rating in the slightest. The country is simply too polarized, and it will take a unifying candidate, someone who appeals to Independents (40% of the electorate) to change that. Hopefully that person will emerge from the Democratic field.

I realize it's hard for people outside the US to understand how the hell Trump can maintain his level of popularity among Republicans, but the simple reality is he has focused on what he promised and in many cases delivered on the variety of issues that matter to the various segments of Republicans (fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Tea Party, Evangelicals, etc.). Whether it's being tough on illegal immigration, lowering taxes, wiping out ISIS, trade deals, etc., these are all issues that are important to Republican voters and the reason he remains popular with them. In all honesty talking to them about Russia and Trump's personal failings and rhetoric is about as relevant as talking to them about the recent images of a black hole 55 million light years away, most of them don't give a toss.

The other mistake being made is the rhetoric about white people being the problem in America. 72% of the electorate are white (including Hispanics who identify as white) and are more likely to vote than any other demographic. The great majority of these people obviously do not see themselves as the problem in America (who does?), so telling them they are isn't really a winning strategy. In short the Democratic candidate needs to be a unifier, not a divider. Simply put if you can't appeal to a wide spectrum of white voters, you haven't a hope of winning.

Has he really followed through for fiscal conservatives? Spending has gone up and intake has gone down so it doesn't make sense.

Russia has as much impact on their lives, if not more of an impact, than emails.

Obama was the one who crippled ISIS.

As for the evangelists, his time in office has had his cheating on his wife as a major story (though he has attempted to refund abortion clinics, even their non abortion services which they like).

You are right that America is too divided. Unifying it is such a long shot at this point that it seems like a bad strategy. It would take someone incredible. The Dems are attempting to get their vote out by attacking Trump (as opposed to reducing his popularity which I agree seems like a terrible strategy). It seemed to work in the mid terms. We will find out in 2020.

Trump's support is unlikely to decrease or increase. Unifying message from the dems or not. They just need to motivate their base (preferably in several particular states).

looksee

looksee wrote: »

The attachment was not available to me (and presumably anyone else in Ireland) so I could not try and figure this out for myself. Can anyone - preferably AbG - explain to me how either party demanding tax returns from prospective candidates for the presidency disenfranchises anyone? Maybe there is a basis for this that I am just not seeing, but I cannot understand the argument.

I explained it a couple of posts under what you quoted.

I guess the part that you're not seeing is the fact that your party's candidate not being on the ballot means your vote has been taken away from you.


Not that it matters. It has nothing to do with Trump.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

looksee wrote: »

The attachment was not available to me (and presumably anyone else in Ireland) so I could not try and figure this out for myself. Can anyone - preferably AbG - explain to me how either party demanding tax returns from prospective candidates for the presidency disenfranchises anyone? Maybe there is a basis for this that I am just not seeing, but I cannot understand the argument.

I explained it a couple of posts under what you quoted.

I guess the part that you're not seeing is the fact that your party's candidate not being on the ballot means your vote has been taken away from you.


Not that it matters. It has nothing to do with Trump.

It takes no one from the ballot. They just have to show their returns. They may choose not to run because of it but it is most certainly the candidates own choice. Illinois can't be blamed for someone else's choice.

looksee

But surely if presidential candidate were required to show their tax returns then neither party would put forward someone who refused to do so? Then no-one would be disenfranchised?

Alternatively, are you suggesting that only Republicans might have dodgy tax situations?

For Forks Sake

There is so much wrong in this tweet I actually don't know where to start with it.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1117844987293487104?s=19