If your answer to the question is “no”, then a few examples are unlikely to convince you otherwise. If your answer is “yes”, then the examples are unnecessary as we already agree on the matter.
I haven’t claimed it does specifically concern Republicans. I’m simply trying to help you to discover the answer to your question “Why, if not for being tax cheats.” It sounds like you already understand the answer though, so I guess my work here is done.
It is surprising that Republicans look back on McCarthyism with fondness. When you elect a President with such fondness for the likes of Cohn and Stone, I should have guessed that your side would fall in line with orders to resurrect such an embarrassing debacle. But I didn’t, which is my error.
I guess you think American citizens’ need to know whether their President is governing for their benefit or his own very personal benefit doesn’t supersede the President’s desire to keep his financial info out of the public eye.
Can’t say I’m surprised.
Wrong again.
I think you got lost somewhere along the way.
The “it” from the first quoted post is “the possibility that someone might have other motives for not wanting to publicize their tax returns”. That could be a concern for candidates from either party.
The efforts to kick one party’s candidate off the ballot do appear to be coming almost entirely from Dems and targeted at Republicans. Those efforts are, I’m fairly confident, more of a concern to Republicans than Democrats, unfortunately.
So you don’t have any. Gotcha.
I just want to say that no one on this board has responded to the wager I proposed in Post 56. Don’t we have any compulsive gamblers here?
I’m not looking to shame anyone publicly. If anyone wants to contact me by PM to discuss the details before they make a wager, I won’t mention it here. I also won’t mention any names here unless you agree to it.
Wow. Direct quote from you and you still deny it.
I didn’t “deny it”, I corrected your misunderstanding of the first “direct quote from [me]”. You think you’ve got a gotcha here, but you don’t, and it’s a little humorous and a little sad to watch.
Perhaps your wager is a bit too unlikely to come to pass for anyone to think it’s worth bothering with. If you had to guess, what are the odds that Condoleeza Rice even runs for president in 2024? 1%? More? Less?
This is why you have an 18 page pit thread. Buh bye.
Per that post:
First of all, there’s the ‘if.’ We’re talking about a bet that’s almost certain not to materialize.
And second, she’s the sort of potential GOP candidate that certain classes of pundit always like, but never get much of a following when they run. (And as much as I hate to say it, we Dopers have way more in common with pundits than we do with the average GOP voter.) If Condi were to run in 2024, she’d be lucky to get any delegates at all, and would most likely drop out well before Iowa.
Yeah dude, I’m not taking that bet.
~Max
How about just betting Condi Rice runs for President, then? Hint: She won’t.
Which is kind of a chicken-and-the-egg thing. Republicans won’t vote for Rice, so she will never run.
Or she won’t run for entirely different reasons such as her age or lack of presidential ambitions.
Hey HurricaneDitka, do you have any thoughts on how the Republican party will look like after Trump?
I doubt he’ll ever achieve a Reagan-like level of fame among Republicans, but if he wins again in 2020, I suspect Republicans will be more willing to follow a model that twice assembled a winning coalition. I see that as being more protectionist and less globalist than the Republicans have been in the past.
I’m sure you believe this to be the case, but your opinions aren’t fact-based. You proved this when you attempted to use Tucker Carlson as a scientific reference.
Are you not aware that the GOP has already been busted in court more than once for trying to implement laws with the goal of preventing people from voting? Well, they have. And you support them. Therefore you support their disenfranchisement efforts. That you deny they exist doesn’t change that, it just makes you someone who’s in denial about opposition to free and fair elections.
You once claimed to be patriotic. Perhaps you’ve forgotten, but I haven’t. I was just pointing out that your support of right-wing voter-suppression efforts contradicts that claim.