Do you think this helps conservatives?

[Aries]

I don't understand why tax returns are that big of a deal. If no one cared that Clinton had multiple extra-marital affairs before he was elected because character didn't matter, then I don't care how much money anyone made or how much they paid in taxes.

I do care about lying though. I said at the time if Clinton will lie to his wife, he won't have any problem at all with lying to the nation. Trump has been saying since 2015 he would reveal his tax returns, he has not, and I don't think ever did or does intend to.

Yes, I know. They all lie.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

So, the day after Trump's tax returns are made public, what do the dims then start demanding? I think if I were Trump, I'd keep delaying release until maybe a month before election, and then release them with a big "FU" on the top page.

 

[donner]

So, the day after Trump's tax returns are made public, what do the dims then start demanding? I think if I were Trump, I'd keep delaying release until maybe a month before election, and then release them with a big "FU" on the top page.

That could certainly work, but he might have missed out on the california primary. I don't know enough about california's system to know if you have to go through the primary to be on the november ballot. i'm guessing you do, even if you run unopposed, but could be wrong.

 

[ignerntbend]

The speculation about Trump's taxes will persist until Trump releases his taxes.
He doesn't want people to know how overleveraged he is? That he has a lot less money than he claims to have? (Simple vanity is no crime)
He doesn't want people to know that the only place he can borrow money is Eastern Europe, because he's burned down every western bank that he's done business with? That what he said before the election about his extensive business dealings in Russia was true, and what he said during the election was false? (Doing business in Russia is not a crime) People will just keep guessing that there are things in the returns that are damaging until he does the usual thing that candidates and presidents do.

Why doesn't he take a few arrows out of the Democrats' quiver and release the damn returns? He'd be doing himself a favor.

 

[Glock 40]

The speculation about Trump's taxes will persist until Trump releases his taxes.
He doesn't want people to know how overleveraged he is? That he has a lot less money than he claims to have? (Simple vanity is no crime)
He doesn't want people to know that the only place he can borrow money is Eastern Europe, because he's burned down every western bank that he's done business with? That what he said before the election about his extensive business dealings in Russia was true, and what he said during the election was false? (Doing business in Russia is not a crime) People will just keep guessing that there are things in the returns that are damaging until he does the usual thing that candidates and presidents do.

Why doesn't he take a few arrows out of the Democrats' quiver and release the damn returns? He'd be doing himself a favor.

I can't disagree with anything you said, its probably true on most counts. My guess why he doesn't release them? Its one more thing that keeps the dems chasing their tale and he likes that. If it ever does come out. He wont care but it kept them wasting cycles, their time and money for very little return if it ever does get released. People that are going to vote for him don't care about his returns or what it says about him.

 

[Glocktogo]

The CA law is intentional political targeting. California doesn't elect the president, the nation as a whole does. If CA thinks its important to know the tax and financial status of a candidate for president (which they control neither the office nor the individual's federal returns), then why did they not make it mandatory for all state level offices, including governor? What defense do they have for this overt omission?

They don't. This is 100% about denying ballot access, unless they can force Trump to give them potential political dirt against himself. That's not for the state to decide, it's for the voters. By the same token, they perpetually claim they can use Trump's words and actions against him in federal court (which happens just about every day now). Even when they aren't mentioned in the Trump Administration directives at all, they claim whatever he said during the '16 campaign or what he tweeted after eating a Big Mac are equal to canonized law. So they know they passed this one law to use against one person, we know it and Trump knows it. They've repeatedly stated as much when they've repeatedly singled Trump out over his tax returns. It's on record.

Every state sets certain thresholds to obtain ballot access. To date it invariably involves the viability of a campaign. They don't want to print a ballot with 10,000 candidates for POTUS. The Constitution explicitly lays out the minimum standards to become president.

• be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;

• be at least thirty-five years old;

• be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Notice you don't see anywhere in that list the public disclosure of sensitive financial information. That's on purpose. It's not an inadvertent omission. The State of California has no legitimate purpose to require this. It's morally, ethically and yes, legally indefensible. I mean if we're going to go down this warped rabbit hole, other states could use this CA law as the basis to deny ballot access to specific candidates or groups of candidates. Oklahoma could make it virtually impossible for any Democratic candidate to get on the ballot in Oklahoma. Hell, they could just flatly state that Oklahoma's electoral votes automatically go to the GOP candidate and no popular votes will be tallied, therefore denying some meaningless "moral" victory by saying the GOP candidate actually lost the election because more people voted for the Dem. Oh, and that "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" the Dems want so desperately? Well what happens when states just do away with popular votes altogether? States rights, right?

The only real question here, is just how stupid do we want to get on voting in service of partisan politics? California is currently in the lead on stupid. How far will it go?

 

[ignerntbend]

Back on topic: Do you think this helps conservatives?

You guys need to cut out the political B.S. and answer the question.

Does it help conservatives or not?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...

The only real question here, is just how stupid do we want to get on voting in service of partisan politics? California is currently in the lead on stupid. How far will it go?

I can't give a specific date, but it'll only go as far as the circumstances will allow. Those circumstances will blossom as soon as capitalists will no longer tolerate supporting the existence of socialists.

Socialists are on the march - and have been on the march for around a century - stealing from capitalists in the pursuit of the means to exist. It'll come to blows when socialist demagoguery fails and they have to turn to conquest. As long as We the Capitalist People remain an armed society, capitalism will prevail.

Socialists lack the will and therefore the means to produce. What they can't talk you out of, they have to steal from you or force you to produce for them. That can't be foisted upon an armed society. In the mean time, they escalate misery that is approaching the point of insufferability.

The socialist democracy they pursue - if they manage to achieve it - will not sustain the utopia they perceive. Once the spoils have been spread and spent, they will discover a new level of misery when they can't and/or wont face the consequences of their folly. They will have to turn to dictatorial tyranny. Meanwhile, those benefiting from what they have created will diminish to a mere handful of people with prices on their heads and numbered days of life left. The simple solution is to not let it happen.

Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment to restore and maintain your personal sovereignty. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to restore and maintain your state's sovereignty. Repeal Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment to restore and maintain the solvency of the Federal Government.

Woody

 

[inactive]

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to restore and maintain your state's sovereignty.

But take the power of electing senators away from We the Capitalist People? Why would we take a voting power the We the Capitalist People reclaimed and give it back to any government body (specifically in this case, state legislatures)?

 

[ignerntbend]

Woody, That's a lot of repealing you're talking about. What are the odds that you'll get that done?
Also, what's the problem with the people electing their senators directly? Aren't you robbing the people of an existing right to elect their own senators and giving that right to the STATE for political purposes? Doesn't that give more rights to the state?

States don't have rights. Only people have rights. States only have whatever powers the people allow.