This here:
40 years.
The voters who voted for Trump don’t give a fuck about his taxes.
You already know the answer, but “Screamingly obvious” is not sufficient for the new Republican Party and without some people in that party putting country first “screamingly obvious” will not be enough evidence to take action. Their standard will be “so undeniably obvious, to even my constituents, that my personal political future is in jeopardy” and this standard requires more evidence.
This evidence is certainly in existence, hence the obstruction (for whichever there is also screamingly obvious evidence).
Might be a moot point. Some of his tax info leaked. TLDR is that he lost a lot of money. I guess, he can brag that he lost more money than any other individual taxpayer?
Your link is broken.
Thanks. Fixed.
Huh, I was about to fix that link, but I can’t see anything wrong with it. It looks like it should work.
EDIT: Ah, I guess I was seeing the version that was already fixed.
Prediction: this won’t cost him vote one. Nor would have the content of his tax returns if he had just turned them over. But what *would *have been a source of stress would have been the notion that he has to do something contrary to his interest without there being any actual law requiring it and any actual authority that can force him to. That would have been perceived as showing weakness.
The whole thing with the release of the tax returns post-Nixon was basically a “have you got something to hide” signal that every candidate “had” to make because otherwise it would look bad. But it was never an actual law because the whole point was premised someone who acted like they had something to hide would not even be in contention. Which even before Trump, was a weak safeguard to count upon.
You want to run an election where some states would forbid people from voting for Trump?
You could not give him a better excuse on a silver platter, to declare such an election null and void, and disregard the results.
I certainly don’t. I’m fine with forcing him to release his tax returns, but I have no interest in keeping him off the ballot.
So do it the right way: get a Constitutional amendment ratified. This gimmicky state law business where you threaten to keep him off the ballot is the wrong way to go about this.
Or, do it the Republican way: get control of the White House and Senate and cram a bunch of unqualified judges down the Nation’s throat who will do what party leaders tell them to do.
What kind of unfair hardship is imposed by requiring tax returns from our most important elected position?
Not that they’re stupid but may have voted for a candidate not knowing all the facts. How many people voted for him because they were convinced “he’s a smart guy because he’s a millionaire business man”? What if his tax returns showed he was a business buffoon and was one step ahead of being in the poor house? Would those same people vote for him then?
If people believe Trump is smart after listening to him speak, you think his tax returns are going to make a whit of difference?
I’ll agree to this and work tirelessly in regards to tax returns, if you can convince Republicans to do the same with abortion. Deal?
ETA: Roe v Wade is actually an even longer-standing precedent.
Were there Republicans trying to keep a candidate off the ballot because he or she supports abortion?
Or are you just talking about a litmus test for a candidate? Because both sides have plenty of those.
No deal. This got brought up in another thread, and here was my response:
Every candidate other than Trump in the last 40 years has released tax returns, except for Ford who released summaries. This is not a partisan measure, it’s an anti-corruption measure. Are you telling us corruption is a Republican thing?
So states don’t require a candidate to be an NBC to be on the ballot even though it’s a requirement to be President but they’ll require them (possibly in violation of Federal Law) to show their tax return. That makes sense.