The premise of the lead post you've spent several pages contesting is sunlight striking Trump's taxes will show him to be 1) a crook or 2) lying about his business.   Your long winded pitch amounts to nothing more than to affirm the record would damage Trump on those points, which could only be true were he lying.   You've blown some thin smoke about how unfair it would be to hold Trump to account for his deeds.

He is hiding something.

Only 2 possible explanations.

1 - he's a crook
2 - he's a worse businessman than anyone thought

pg wrote on 11/17/19 at 16:36:56:



No.  Which is why I give 2 options.

Have you seen them?

Mavigogun wrote on 11/17/19 at 22:03:51:



The left had years, 30M +, and unlimited resources to execute a fraud invensigation and couldn't find anything.  Evidently that is not good enough for you....

If the left is confident in their impeachment position, he will be gone.  If the left is so confident in their candidates and the will of the people, he will be gone.  So what is the issue?

Best regards,

And PG is right. To say there is only two possible possibilities is too narrow of a view. Like I said, I'm positive if you examined his taxes, you would find entries that are open to debate. However, if you examined the taxes of a 100 others in Trump's category, you would find the same. (Now that Obama is a multi-millionaire with book deals, speeches etc... I'm sure a conservative discerning eye could make an argument with his taxes as well. His accountant will take whatever deductions he can find)

My guess is there's nothing other than small technical violations on his taxes, not more than anyone else. I do suspect there's deductions that the left would play up as avoiding taxes like the example PG pointed out. I also suspect there's information that would show business dealings that the left would turn into something they're not.

Regardless, you can't make public taxes a prerequisite for the Office. You can make it a campaign topic and maybe the public will demand to see everyone's taxes, but it can't be a legal requirement unless you amend the Constitution.

WebsterMark wrote on 11/18/19 at 07:59:55:


Nope - never said they should be.

But what if a guy like Bloomberg somehow won the nomination and then the presidency?  The repubs would go ape if he refused to release his taxes.

This is about precedent, and the fact that he's bucking it is more than suspicious.

Mavigogun wrote on 11/18/19 at 09:32:32:



Someone who believes in the free-market, 2A, private property, self-determination, and rugged individualism.

I have not compromised my integrity.  I do not support altruism & collectivism or any values that may be associated with them.

Best regards,