#45's Tax Returns

royalcrown89

@royalcrown89:

I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?

There are dozens of things far more important than one's tax returns. Such as.. producing a birth certificate BEFORE 1.5 years after they have been elected president (and even then.. a controversial one). Also far more important is where they were raised for the first 13 years of their life. Such as a muslim nation like Indonesia.

Well, if that's important then so is the possible corruption of a sitting president. How do we know he is not being blackmailed by Russia to behave erratically to weaken our position around the world? This is a serious problem and it's dangerous to blindly follow someone who is the current president and we have no idea if he's being controlled by a foreign government. You can't argue that the former president who has no power now is more of a danger to our democracy than the current one sitting in office who is going out of his way to hide financial statements that other presidents have provided easily. How come President Obama–-no longer in office---is still being subjected to conspiracy theorists and birthers such as yourself but it's crazy to want to see the sitting president's tax returns which is something every other president in modern history has provided to the American people to establish trust? :pleasant:

Frederick

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

I have another question: Would you all take the same stance with our next president, regardless of which party (or no party at all) he or she belongs to? Just for the sake of argument, would you support Gavin Newsom or Deval Patrick not releasing their tax returns or disclosing any financial information about which companies they are invested in or have divested themselves from upon becoming president or is this one president the exception?

There are dozens of things far more important than one's tax returns. Such as.. producing a birth certificate BEFORE 1.5 years after they have been elected president (and even then.. a controversial one). Also far more important is where they were raised for the first 13 years of their life. Such as a muslim nation like Indonesia.

Well, if that's important then so is the possible corruption of a sitting president. How do we know he is not being blackmailed by Russia to behave erratically to weaken our position around the world? This is a serious problem and it's dangerous to blindly follow someone who is the current president and we have no idea if he's being controlled by a foreign government. You can't argue that the former president who has no power now is more of a danger to our democracy than the current one sitting in office who is going out of his way to hide financial statements that other presidents have provided easily. How come President Obama–-no longer in office---is still being subjected to conspiracy theorists and birthers such as yourself but it's crazy to want to see the sitting president's tax returns which is something every other president in modern history has provided to the American people to establish trust? :pleasant:

I've been WAITING for someone to set up this argument so I could squash it.
You are suggesting that the Russians could blackmail a president. Really? Do you honestly think that anything the Russians could possibly do more damage than the relentless daily attacks made from WITHIN the USA by the "Fake News" of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC?

If you are so worried about blackmail… you must be terrified that Hillary got $145 million donated from Russia to her personal Clinton Foundation right after giving Russia 20% of the USA's uranium reserves. You must also be terrified that John Pedosta - who was Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff, Barack Obama's counselor, and Hillary Clinton's campaign manager was a board member of a Russian corporation - and lied about it?

Tax returns indeed...
Let me clue you in. In tax returns, the idea is to minimize one's net worth to lower their tax burden. EVERYBODY does that. That does not mean they lie, it means they invest and divest, and do whatever it is legally permitted to minimize their net worth.
Do you think Trump wants people to start saying that he is only worth $2 billion instead of $10 billion? That would devastate his power and influence in the real estate industry.
Here is one simple example: If someone purchased a building for $5 billion and sold it for $2 billion.. but also made $4 billion in other ventures.. should that person be taxed for $4 billion for that year? Or for $1 billion? (taking the $3 billion loss into account). Moonbats would say $4 billion. Trump would say $1 billion.
That is ironic, because you can bet that the moonbats would want to tax him for $6 billion if that $5 billion property INCREASED in value by $2 billion.

Again.. someone's taxes are between that person and the IRS. If they committed a crime, then let the IRS reveal the crime. Nobody has a right to do their own analysis of someone's records. Besides.. publishing tax returns would hurt a successful businessman, while doing no damage to some moonbat that never had a legitimate job in their entire life. Where do you suppose crooked Hillary got her hundreds of millions from? Baking cookies? or crooked political donations?

Frederick

@raphjd:

Where is my Congresswoman's (Sheila Jackson Lee) tax return?

How do I know she has no conflict of interest. She could be donating to BLM or Antifa for all we know.

I wonder if Auntie Maxine Waters tax returns would reveal where the money came from to buy her $4.3 million mansion. That's pretty good on a salary of $175,000 per year. She must have put away every penny she ever earned to buy that place.

cteavin

@royalcrown89:

@raphjd:

We're not discussing local or Congressional politicians' tax returns. We are talking about the current president who has broken with a noncontroversial precedent set by many of his predecessors, and we still do not have an honest answer for why he's breaking with that noncontroversial precedent. There are a lot of serious questions that could be answered by him releasing them. Should legislation be passed saying every president should release his tax returns and then have that legislation followed with Congressional action to override his potential veto?

Whether a politician releases their tax returns is every bit relevant to this conversation. If you're so worried about transparency then every single politician across the US and it's territories ought to be made to disclose their tax returns – and you know what, you probably would find local politicians with conflicts of interest.

If your primary goal is true transparency and making sure that everyone is on a level playing field then that is the right way to go, so birth a movement to make a constitutional amendment. Or be honest: You're actively looking for -- hoping and praying -- there is something disqualifying in Trump's tax returns.

I really don't care one way or another. I could care less if any future presidential carries through with this kind of political stunt, either.

Why won't Trump release his tax returns? Because he made Obama release his birth certificate as a show of dominance and so Trump will not be made to show his to further assert his dominance over the left's insistence that he does. The answer is as simple as that. And the more you push the issue, the stronger, more defiant, and "maverick" his brand appears: You're unwittingly helping him by pushing the issue.

royalcrown89

@cteavin:

Why won't Trump release his tax returns? Because he made Obama release his birth certificate as a show of dominance and so Trump will not be made to show his to further assert his dominance over the left's insistence that he does.

Dominance of what? Being unfit to be president?

At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine and at least you understand that instead of calling me childish names like some of the others have done over and over again before I took a much-needed hiatus from this forum. Also, there's already someone looking into his taxes: the special counsel that has been appointed to investigate the possibility of collusion. We'll find out what's in the tax returns one way or another.

cteavin

@royalcrown89:

Dominance of what? Being unfit to be president?

At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine

When Trump was testing the waters by accusing Obama of not being a citizen (something I strongly opposed) the media put a spotlight on him. The relentlessness of this new birther movement eventually forced Obama to release his birth certificate. Once that happened Trump went on a victory tour saying again and again, "I made him release his birth certificate". That appealed to his base and everyone, for whatever reason, hated Obama. That's what I mean by dominance.

What has since become the Never Trumpers have continued to keep that spotlight on Trump while accusing him of everything from Pussy-Gate to throwing paper towels at Puerto Rico. Each time you throw an accusation, it bounces off him in the spotlight. Think about how that looks to his base, to the people who have grown to hate the members of the House and Senate. He's being attacked, standing up to it, and winning.

Every smear makes him appear stronger because he can withstand it.

I knew way back when that Trump wouldn't release his tax returns because not releasing them means, for his base, an F.U. to politics while simultaneously signaling that he's being unfairly targeted.

Every time the left demands and he says no, you make him stronger.

As for Fact vs Opinion, no, don't do that. The divide exists because people are using their feelings to judge. If you want a real working democracy, if you want to get rid of "fake news" and all these made up stories then you have to base your arguments on facts.

royalcrown89

@cteavin:

As for Fact vs Opinion, no, don't do that. The divide exists because people are using their feelings to judge. If you want a real working democracy, if you want to get rid of "fake news" and all these made up stories then you have to base your arguments on facts.

Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.

cteavin

@royalcrown89:

Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.

(clearing throat) Ahem.

@royalcrown89:

At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine…

Instead of taking criticism as an attack against you, stop and think about what the person is responding to. You clearly misread what I said about fake news and made up stories as referring to you. Go reread that paragraph, please.

Further, you dismissed my (valid) argument by chalking it up to opinion and without attempting to dismantle, provide a counter to it, or acknowledge it but move onto a different point my dismissing what I said as an opinion. When I explain how defaulting to opinions is the wrong approach you treat it as an attack on you then generalize that fictitious attack into a slippery slope whereby it now means theory.

And you didn't even state a theory.

You asked a question.

You asked whether DT should show his tax returns. Not only did I answer you but I told you why he won't and I theorized how the left (note how I did not, and have not, singled you out) only helps him. You have yet to answer that.

royalcrown89

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.

(clearing throat) Ahem.

@royalcrown89:

At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine…

Instead of taking criticism as an attack against you, stop and think about what the person is responding to. You clearly misread what I said about fake news and made up stories as referring to you. Go reread that paragraph, please.

Further, you dismissed my (valid) argument by chalking it up to opinion and without attempting to dismantle, provide a counter to it, or acknowledge it but move onto a different point my dismissing what I said as an opinion. When I explain how defaulting to opinions is the wrong approach you treat it as an attack on you then generalize that fictitious attack into a slippery slope whereby it now means theory.

And you didn't even state a theory.

You asked a question.

You asked whether DT should show his tax returns. Not only did I answer you but I told you why he won't and I theorized how the left (note how I did not, and have not, singled you out) only helps him. You have yet to answer that.

I'm pretty sure I stated in my first post under this topic that "there is a strong possibility that Mueller has the president's tax returns." Synonyms for theory include assumption, speculation, opinion, view, and belief. Is it not a theory to assume Mueller has the president's tax returns? Has it been proven that Mueller does or does not have the tax returns? Can you show me a report saying that he does or does not have the tax returns? I can provide some links to where I got my theory of him possibly having them.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-09-18/robert-mueller-likely-has-donald-trumps-tax-returns
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/346618-mueller-might-already-have-trumps-tax-returns
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/31/1667725/-Mueller-could-obtain-Trump-s-tax-returns-without-telling-Trump

After briefly theorizing that Mueller may have the tax returns, I made the argument that he should release them to the public after he decides what to recommend following the end of the investigation. I followed up that argument with a few reasons why it would be best for him to release them, including it would help the president with transparency if there has been no wrongdoing on the president's behalf. I asked the question in the poll if anyone believes the tax returns should be released (yes or no) and why they do or do not believe the tax returns should be released.

I apologize for calling your argument an opinion if that offended you. I did take your point about fake news and made up stories the wrong way and I do apologize for that also; however, I wholly disagree with you about him coming out stronger. The base that elected this president is an outright minority of voters total. They are some kind of hybrid of Republicans who held their noses and die hard loyalists who felt neglected in other elections. The die hard loyalists are only a tiny percentage of voters as a whole, very tiny; so tiny that only 77,000 of them spread across 3 different states got him the win. They have not proven themselves to be consistent in voting, especially in states he barely won that put him over the top. The president has no control over that base anymore; therefore, those of us outside of his base can see how weak he truly is at this point. He went out on a limb for Luther Strange and gave a speech at that infamous rally only to have Luther Strange lose in a near-landslide to Roy Moore, who will become more ammo for the left nationally given what he's said over the years and what he'll probably say as a U.S. Senator. The president is further digging himself into a different kind of mess by getting involved in Virginia and New Jersey, two states he not only lost but also have off-year elections next month that are arguably seen as referendums on the his actions. He is highly unpopular in those states and there is absolutely no evidence that he has created some unknown number of new voters in those states. Make no doubt about it, he has awaken millions of people who sat out 2016 because they may have not wanted Hillary, but they hate him and will turn out to vote in the midterms against anyone who appears weak on him in the states he did not win and anywhere where the vote was close. The last time something close to this happened was in 2006 when the left got fed up and turned out in huge numbers to flip the House and Senate. There's a possibility the country is on the verge of that happening again but time will tell.

So to make a long post short, asking for his tax returns will not make him stronger in the long run because there are many other factors at play that are weakening him month by month. If he were as strong as you claim and had so much power over his base, why didn't they listen to him and vote for Luther Strange? Why did many burn their MAGA hats over the summer? Why was he forced to let so many cabinet members go like Tom Price, Sean Spicer and Steve Bannon? He's so popular, right? Couldn't he have kept those people instead of getting rid of them when the pressure began to build against them? After all, he hired the "best and brightest," right? He chose to abandon the "best and brightest" the moment the pressure came instead of "asserting his dominance."

Frederick

@royalcrown89:

I pity anybody that took the time to read your dissertation of pure piffle.

I spent my time more productively - by taking a crap.

Seriously though… you keep ranting about "tax returns"... It must drive you nuts... well.. nuttier, that with Trump's new tax cuts, most people's tax returns will be as short as a postcard.

royalcrown89

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

I pity anybody that took the time to read your dissertation of pure piffle.

I spent my time more productively - by taking a crap.

Seriously though… you keep ranting about "tax returns"... It must drive you nuts... well.. nuttier, that with Trump's new tax cuts, most people's tax returns will be as short as a postcard.

It wasn't in response to you; therefore, you reading it or not reading it is irrelevant.

Frederick

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

I pity anybody that took the time to read your dissertation of pure piffle.

I spent my time more productively - by taking a crap.

Seriously though… you keep ranting about "tax returns"... It must drive you nuts... well.. nuttier, that with Trump's new tax cuts, most people's tax returns will be as short as a postcard.

It wasn't in response to you; therefore, you reading it or not reading it is irrelevant.

It's ironic that you said that.. because my response was not to YOU either! It was to anybody who wasted their time reading your extremely wordy filibuster of bullshit.

royalcrown89

@Frederick:

filibuster of bullshit.

I tried to report this but couldn't because of the "hacking attempt" error message, but this is a tad bit too extreme to label a post you disagree with, Frederick.

Frederick

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

filibuster of bullshit.

I tried to report this but couldn't because of the "hacking attempt" error message, but this is a tad bit too extreme to label a post you disagree with, Frederick.

Now I am curious..
why would you report me saying "filibuster of bullshit"?
Also, I just posted that within the last hour. You were also trying to report me yesterday about something and were bitching about that.
Are you aware that some people's accounts have been disabled for making too many nonsensical reports?
You people never learn. when you get muted, take the hint and behave!
If I was muted, I would stop posting even when unmuted.

Youtube Video

royalcrown89

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

filibuster of bullshit.

I tried to report this but couldn't because of the "hacking attempt" error message, but this is a tad bit too extreme to label a post you disagree with, Frederick.

Now I am curious..
why would you report me saying "filibuster of bullshit"?
Also, I just posted that within the last hour. You were also trying to report me yesterday about something and were bitching about that.
Are you aware that some people's accounts have been disabled for making too many nonsensical reports?
You people never learn. when you get muted, take the hint and behave!
If I was muted, I would stop posting even when unmuted.

Youtube Video

It's flaming. You've already stated you didn't read what I posted, so why continue to dwell on about it if you didn't read it and then proceed to call it a "filibuster of bullshit?"

Frederick

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

filibuster of bullshit.

I tried to report this but couldn't because of the "hacking attempt" error message, but this is a tad bit too extreme to label a post you disagree with, Frederick.

Now I am curious..
why would you report me saying "filibuster of bullshit"?
Also, I just posted that within the last hour. You were also trying to report me yesterday about something and were bitching about that.
Are you aware that some people's accounts have been disabled for making too many nonsensical reports?
You people never learn. when you get muted, take the hint and behave!
If I was muted, I would stop posting even when unmuted.

Youtube Video

It's flaming. You've already stated you didn't read what I posted, so why continue to dwell on about it if you didn't read it and then proceed to call it a "filibuster of bullshit?"

If you think that is flaming, I would suggest that your skin is a bit thin for a "Politics & Debate" group.

It's also quite a coincidence… because just yesterday I was watching a new video clip of Don SourGrapes Lemon telling his guest that his comment was bullshit.

This is from 2015.. and Don Lemon said he would NEEEEEVER say it again...
Youtube Video

this is from YESTERDAY. when Don Lemon said the "B" word again!
Youtube Video

and then there is CNN's official resident terrorist - Fareed Zakaria WITH Don Lemon…
Youtube Video

… and her goes Farted again! (#deportfareedzakaria)
Youtube Video – [00:02..]

cteavin

@Frederick:

I pity anybody that took the time to read your dissertation of pure piffle.

I spent my time more productively - by taking a crap.

Seriously though… you keep ranting about "tax returns"... It must drive you nuts... well.. nuttier, that with Trump's new tax cuts, most people's tax returns will be as short as a postcard.

Fredrick, this is rude. :spank2:

RC, you should have ignored it. :spank:

Honesty! I work with 15-year olds to whom English is a second or third language and they can argue better that what you two did here. Furthermore, these children come from all over the planet, from different religions, different races, historically waring counties and they get along just fine but you two, you're from the same country and the same (sexual) minority and you're acting no better than two tranny queens fighting for a hit off a crack pipe.

You don't have to like one another but you should hope for a better future and that starts with how we each treat one another.

(quietly scowling at my computer screen atm)

Back to the main topic, what I meant, RC, by your parties attacks strengthening Trump….

Let me start again, I live outside the US. I don't live inside any of the many bubbles within the US. I am unaffected the 24/7 hum in the background. From where I sit, that omnipresent sound that is lulling the Never Trumpers into thinking they're on the right side of history is only alienating people.

I have liberal black friends here in Japan who support Trump. The more he's attacked in the media the more people like them and me go looking for the original source of the news; we've grown to mistrust the media, which leads back to this Russian investigation and the tax returns.

Over here, the Japanese media has mentioned the tax thing (and Russia) a couple of times in passing, as an example of angst against Trump but never as a credible news story. They approached the birther issue with the same disbelief. That feeling isn't unique to Japan but also one half the US that I don't think you and your party are paying attention to. So what I mean when I say that Trump gets stronger with each attack is this:

The media loses credibility and Trump looks like he's fighting off the corruption.

If you're a pro-Trumper (which I'm not), then you see the God Emperor in a valiant fight against tyranny.

Let me ask you, would you, personally, be as adamant to see the tax returns if you didn't believe there was something incriminating in them which could lead to him being impeached?

I don't know about the law but I don't believe the special prosecutor has any obligation to release the tax returns should he ever acquire them. Personally, they mean nothing to me.

royalcrown89

@cteavin:

@Frederick:

I pity anybody that took the time to read your dissertation of pure piffle.

I spent my time more productively - by taking a crap.

Seriously though… you keep ranting about "tax returns"... It must drive you nuts... well.. nuttier, that with Trump's new tax cuts, most people's tax returns will be as short as a postcard.

Fredrick, this is rude. :spank2:

RC, you should have ignored it. :spank:

Honesty! I work with 15-year olds to whom English is a second or third language and they can argue better that what you two did here. Furthermore, these children come from all over the planet, from different religions, different races, historically waring counties and they get along just fine but you two, you're from the same country and the same (sexual) minority and you're acting no better than two tranny queens fighting for a hit off a crack pipe.

You don't have to like one another but you should hope for a better future and that starts with how we each treat one another.

(quietly scowling at my computer screen atm)

Back to the main topic, what I meant, RC, by your parties attacks strengthening Trump….

Let me start again, I live outside the US. I don't live inside any of the many bubbles within the US. I am unaffected the 24/7 hum in the background. From where I sit, that omnipresent sound that is lulling the Never Trumpers into thinking they're on the right side of history is only alienating people.

I have liberal black friends here in Japan who support Trump. The more he's attacked in the media the more people like them and me go looking for the original source of the news; we've grown to mistrust the media, which leads back to this Russian investigation and the tax returns.

Over here, the Japanese media has mentioned the tax thing (and Russia) a couple of times in passing, as an example of angst against Trump but never as a credible news story. They approached the birther issue with the same disbelief. That feeling isn't unique to Japan but also one half the US that I don't think you and your party are paying attention to. So what I mean when I say that Trump gets stronger with each attack is this:

The media loses credibility and Trump looks like he's fighting off the corruption.

If you're a pro-Trumper (which I'm not), then you see the God Emperor in a valiant fight against tyranny.

Let me ask you, would you, personally, be as adamant to see the tax returns if you didn't believe there was something incriminating in them which could lead to him being impeached?

I don't know about the law but I don't believe the special prosecutor has any obligation to release the tax returns should he ever acquire them. Personally, they mean nothing to me.

I know a few black people who voted for #45, but that doesn't change the very real fact that his supporters represent a very small percentage of this country. They are a small minority of voters. I refuse to overstate his win because with the data I've been seeing (real data not predictions of the electoral college system) shows a strong possibility that without having one person to zero in on with attacks, the president is in deep trouble because he is motivating a movement on the left. Voters on the left sat out 2010 and 2014 because they weren't motivated to turn out. We know from 2006 what happens when people on the left are angered and the enthusiasm fades on the right. That's the point I was making to counter you saying he's coming out stronger. How can he be stronger when he has been forced to let go of his "best and brightest" month after month? How can he be stronger when he motivates millions of people to protest around the country against him and his ideals?

To answer your question, yes, I would be this adamant to see them if there weren't anything incriminating in them. Did you not read my first few posts where I clearly stated, "Releasing them could also take away a major argument the left has on this president, especially if the returns going back a certain number of years show no wrongdoing of any kind. It could potentially make the president's approval ratings go up, even higher than the 45% he came into office with." The public has no trust in this president and he has zero credibility with anyone outside of his base. His base is a minority of the population; therefore, he should be trying to bring in people who are not a part of that base in states he lost and in states where his wins were very small. One way he can do that is by being more transparent and honest. Remember, statewide off-year, special and midterm elections are based solely on popular vote. There isn't an electoral college this time around.

Icc

@cteavin:

Fredrick, this is rude. :spank2:

RC, you should have ignored it. :spank:

you're acting no better than two tranny queens fighting for a hit off a crack pipe.

:rotfl: :clap2:

For realze!!!! I lurk but don't post cuz you queens just bitch, bitch, bitch.

Frederick

@Icc:

@cteavin:

Fredrick, this is rude. :spank2:

RC, you should have ignored it. :spank:

you're acting no better than two tranny queens fighting for a hit off a crack pipe.

:rotfl: :clap2:

For realze!!!! I lurk but don't post cuz you queens just bitch, bitch, bitch.

WhatEVERRR!