It's high time that Trump releases his taxes

[vampirefo]

Explain how *IF* he had been diving into corruption for personal gain the IRS has not already found out about it? Do you know how many times he's been audited?

Democrats are uneducated and don't understand the IRS has looked at his taxes many times, had there been anything illegal in them, Trump would be in jail.

 

[Blackjack200]

That's dangerous ground to tread on, and I think you'd feel the same if the situation were reversed. If you want it to be a law, you have a voice, use it. I suspect it hasn't been a law until now because we didn't realize it would need to be a law.

No, it's not dangerous ground. He's talking about a principal here, and he's not claiming to be a lawyer.

 

[bshole]

Explain how *IF* he had been diving into corruption for personal gain the IRS has not already found out about it? Do you know how many times he's been audited?

I am conflating two issues. I am more worried about his "blind trust" which is anything but. I believe this man is going into full on loot mode. He apparently thinks he can get away with it.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/us-e...t-as-failing-to-meet-acceptable-standard.html

The transition plan announced by President-elect Donald Trump falls short of the standards met by every President since the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, according to the Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

Walter M. Shaub Jr. said that he wished that he did not have to address the public with his concerns but that there had been a lot of recent commentary surrounding ethics so he hoped by speaking up on Wednesday afternoon, Trump may see fit to reconsider some of his plans.

"I need to talk about ethics today because the plan the President-elect has announced doesn't meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting and that every President in the past four decades has met," Shaub stated.

"My hope is that, if the Office of Government Ethics can provide some constructive feedback on his plan, he may choose to make adjustments that will resolve his conflicts of interest," he continued.

Trump's proposed blind trust – within which his sons would run his business operations and he would step back from a full-time operational role – was criticized by Shaub as reflective of a structure that is "not even halfway blind."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ok I will walk that statement back...

If you said it you had a reason. I'd prefer an honest answer. You might note if you haven't that at no point in this discussion have I excused anyone but I have weighed in on law and rights, even of those I detest.

 

[Blackjack200]

Explain how *IF* he had been diving into corruption for personal gain the IRS has not already found out about it? Do you know how many times he's been audited?

He has not been president before. How could he use the office of the presidency to enrich himself before he was elected?

 

[blackangst1]

Democrats are uneducated and don't understand the IRS has looked at his taxes many times, had there been anything illegal in them, Trump would be in jail.

Well, as nakedfrog said, it doesn't have to be illegal to be compromising. I suppose that's true, but having candidates in...uh...compromising positions isn't anything new in politics so I don't get the uproar now, other than its Trump. In fact, one is not disqualified from running for and becoming president if convicted of a crime. I guess I just don't give a rats ass and have never understood the passion in which some people express the need for him to release his returns.

*shrug*

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, it's not dangerous ground. He's talking about a principal here, and he's not claiming to be a lawyer.

I don't see "I don't care about the law" as being a harmless sentiment even if it is a statement of principle. Otherwise no one has any complaint about the DNC being hacked if it reveals the truth of things. We should cheer in fact.

Well maybe not.

 

[bshole]

He has not been president before. How could he use the office of the presidency to enrich himself before he was elected?

Well played.....

 

[vampirefo]

Well, as nakedfrog said, it doesn't have to be illegal to be compromising. I suppose that's true, but having candidates in...uh...compromising positions isn't anything new in politics so I don't get the uproar now, other than its Trump. In fact, one is not disqualified from running for and becoming president if convicted of a crime. I guess I just don't give a rats ass and have never understood the passion in which some people express the need for him to release his returns.

*shrug*

You never will, you are an adult, the Democrats aren't.

I have never looked or asked for anyone's taxes, and never will, as I don't care, people's taxes are between them and the government.

 

[blackangst1]

He has not been president before. How could he use the office of the presidency to enrich himself before he was elected?

You tell me. How could ANYONE use the office of presidency to enrich themselves prior to getting elected? (Rhetorical question).

edit: I doubt he'll suddenly become "not auditable" as POTUS, and if the IRS finds he's breaking the law, well then good riddance. Prosecute him. I think its safe to say EVERY POTUS has used the office to their own personal advantage in one way or another so meh.

 

[Blackjack200]

I don't see "I don't care about the law" as being a harmless sentiment even if it is a statement of principle. Otherwise no one has any complaint about the DNC being hacked if it reveals the truth of things. We should cheer in fact.

Well maybe not.

I read "I don't care about the law" as "I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about the principal", but bshole can speak for himself on that.

So lets carry that analogy over to the DNC hack. In principal I believe that political parties should be allowed to communicate privately without being hacked. That said, if they are hacked, and the hacks reveal illegal activity or bad behavior, I believe those revelations should inform our voting decisions. I just disagree that anything revealed in the DNC hacks rose to anywhere near that level.

 

[PokerGuy]

Explain how *IF* he had been diving into corruption for personal gain the IRS has not already found out about it? Do you know how many times he's been audited?

I think a lot of people conflate tax filings with releasing all financial information. Tax filings can contain a lot of information that would give the public insight into where exactly Trump makes his money, how, how much, with whom etc. For it to actually be useful though, you need a lot more than tax filings, you'd need full financial disclosure, which is 10000000% not going to happen.

 

[Blackjack200]

You tell me. How could ANYONE use the office of presidency to enrich themselves prior to getting elected? (Rhetorical question).

Let's say they can't. Don't you understand how an existing tax return showing sources of income could be useful in discovering which of his actions may be enriching? e.g. he takes an action, you see he had a financial interest in the action, and you can check if he still does.

 

[blackangst1]

I am conflating two issues. I am more worried about his "blind trust" which is anything but. I believe this man is going into full on loot mode. He apparently thinks he can get away with it.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/us-e...t-as-failing-to-meet-acceptable-standard.html

Ah yes. The "blind trust" issue. Which, AFAIK, is tradition, you know, like disclosing tax returns. But not law.

Got it.

 

[Thebobo]

Only crybabies want it, and cause they want it, I want Trump to never release them simply cause the Democrats want them.

Notice I never used the word right cause neither I nor the crybaby Democrats have any rights over Trump's taxes.

You think acting like trump throwing around insults makes you cool? Makes you look like a tool.

 

[blackangst1]

Let's say they can't. Don't you understand how an existing tax return showing sources of income could be useful in discovering which of his actions may be enriching? e.g. he takes an action, you see he had a financial interest in the action, and you can check if he still does.

I guess since POTUS is exempt from most conflict of interest rules that apply to the rest of government officials, I don't see why it matters.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think a lot of people conflate tax filings with releasing all financial information. Tax filings can contain a lot of information that would give the public insight into where exactly Trump makes his money, how, how much, with whom etc. For it to actually be useful though, you need a lot more than tax filings, you'd need full financial disclosure, which is 10000000% not going to happen.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that tax returns are the extent of the disclosure we need from Trump. What's interesting to me is that tax returns have become such a focus that if Trump released them it could actually be difficult to ask for more.

"Tax Returns! Tax Returns! Tax Returns!"
"Okay, here's my tax returns"
"Oh, but we want more than that too."

See how easy it becomes for Trump to paint them as impossible to satisfy? So normally, I'd say Trump's reticence suggests he has a lot to hide. But actually, he's so combative about everything, I wouldn't be surprised if his tax return is actually not that damning, and he's just fighting because that's what he does.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I read "I don't care about the law" as "I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about the principal", but bshole can speak for himself on that.

So lets carry that analogy over to the DNC hack. In principal I believe that political parties should be allowed to communicate privately without being hacked. That said, if they are hacked, and the hacks reveal illegal activity or bad behavior, I believe those revelations should inform our voting decisions. I just disagree that anything revealed in the DNC hacks rose to anywhere near that level.

One is obligated to care about the law if someone claims absolute rights. Absolute in the context of discussion means taking the highest priority and I have a problem with the logical consequences.

As far as the DNC hack there isn't an either/or situation. We have a case of what I believe two wrongs. One if the hack itself. The other is that the information contained was hardly flattering but informative of the principles and policies underlying the DNC machine.

In legal terms the first is unacceptable, but if we are counting on people doing the illegal to give us an absolute right of knowledge then there is no protection or even moral argument against invasion of privacy. Indeed there is an obligation to violate the rule of law and our rights. Someone may have something worth knowing, something of benefit to the Greater Good, and consequently the person in private possession of it must be stripped of protection. Extreme some may say, but as a principle to be followed? I don't care for that at all.

Another problem is that people with this mindset want everyone ELSE to be subject but because of their obvious superior nature they should be immune. Perhaps they don't say this out loud but try to turn the tables and see what happens.

 

[blackangst1]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that tax returns are the extent of the disclosure we need from Trump. What's interesting to me is that tax returns have become such a focus that if Trump released them it could actually be difficult to ask for more.

"Tax Returns! Tax Returns! Tax Returns!"
"Okay, here's my tax returns"
"Oh, but we want more than that too."

See how easy it becomes for Trump to paint them as impossible to satisfy? So normally, I'd say Trump's reticence suggests he has a lot to hide. But actually, he's so combative about everything, I wouldn't be surprised if his tax return is actually not that damning, and he's just fighting because that's what he does.

You very well may be right. But nevertheless, even if he DID release them, as I mentioned in an above post, POTUS is exempt from most conflict of interest/blind trust requirements so....it...doesn't...matter.

Well, I take that back. It matters to the frothing left who want to point fingers.

 

[Blackjack200]

I guess since POTUS is exempt from most conflict of interest rules that apply to the rest of government officials, I don't see why it matters.

I mean, you just moved the goalposts, but fine; if the POTUS is exempt from a law, there's not much the courts can do. I don't understand why you wouldn't criticize Trump for not being more transparent though. Whatever the law is, do you think, in principal, he should be transparent or not?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think Trump should have the same Constitutional protections as all Americans. Should he violate the law, he should be held accountable.

 

[Blackjack200]

I think Trump should have the same Constitutional protections as all Americans. Should he violate the law, he should be held accountable.

I also think he should obey the laws of physics, which is an equally vapid thing to say.

 

[Blackjack200]

You very well may be right. But nevertheless, even if he DID release them, as I mentioned in an above post, POTUS is exempt from most conflict of interest/blind trust requirements so....it...doesn't...matter.

Well, I take that back. It matters to the frothing left who want to point fingers.

Yeah, I mean, clearly it does matter. Because even if a conflict of interest is completely legal because of legal statutes or precedence that neither one of us is really an expert on, it might inform our opinion on a particular policy idea of his, and because he doesn't rule by absolute fiat, the other branches of government can check him.

So I really have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[PokerGuy]

I am conflating two issues. I am more worried about his "blind trust" which is anything but. I believe this man is going into full on loot mode. He apparently thinks he can get away with it.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/12/us-e...t-as-failing-to-meet-acceptable-standard.html

Shaub (the "ethics chief") is a charlatan himself as well. He claims he wants to sit down with the president and / or his team to provide feedback on how to make his plans better, but he also keeps saying that nothing short of a full divestiture of the business and placing the proceeds into a blind trust will do. Well, if that's his opinion, there really is nothing to talk about is there? Trump isn't required by law to do that, and he's not going to do that. Pure and simple. A real "blind Trust" is not going to happen, because short of divesting the business there's no way to make it "blind".

 

[Blackjack200]

How does that make Shaub a "charlatan"?